And on the reasons for personal behaviour, you then add the "comfort" factor which is directly proportional to the length of the flight and is demonstrated by a greater desire for more space (ie upgrade to J or F).

Next factor is tolerance to discomfort - demonstrated by age (the older you get, the more quickly the "comfort factor" kicks in). Solved by avoiding kids, avoiding Y, avoiding Virgin, paying for better seat pitch and so on.

I'm sure a maths genius could make an equation out of this, but they are probably already working in "yield management".

Not sure I follow. A "response to competitive pressure from DJ"? You mean that DJ does it, so QF can also get away with doing it (because there's no real competition in the Australian domestic market)? Not sure I understand how this qualifies as "competitive pressure" ...

Another way to look at this is to consider the low fare paid for the Red e-deal as the change fee. You don't have to travel on the ticket purchased. You can always purchase another ticket on the day of travel in the lowest fare class available and just consider the cheap, inflexible fare already paid as the "fee".

I think Globaliser articulated the situation very well. I don't buy these fares for business travel since I like tyhe flexibility of change on the day of travel. But for a family holiday, I would have no hessitation buying these cheap inflexible fares.

You've have to look at the history ... the red e deals were "use it or lose it" (ie non refundable, non-changeable, no credit etc), nothing! In response to pressure from DJ, Qantas introduced the change/cancel/credit provisions up to the day prior to departure - which surely an improvement on before. As Globaliser clearly articulates QF charges a premium for those travellers who desire day of departure flexibility.

it's price discrimination in action.

i think the other reason they might be strict on cancelling is precisely that if they get into the habit of waiving the fare conditions, then people will learn that and not bother to buy the more expensive ones. if, otoh, they stick to their guns, then ppl tend to get the message they have to pay for the extra flexibility.

(kind of like why the argument "but if there's a free seat in F/J, an elite FF in Y should get it" -- if those people know they can get into J paying Y fares, no-one will want to pay for F/J)

the only time it's worth waiving is if the earlier flight is empty and the booked flight is full. then, the airline should take the money, put the pax on the earlier flight and sell the later seat to someone else. i think thadocta trumpets this strongly. i don't think this undercuts the rationale too much, provided it doesn't happen too routinely, as no-one who really wants/needs the flexibility will want to chance not getting it.

i think the new domestic fare brackets are well thought out, convenient for passengers (ie you only get for sure what you pay for, even if you might get lucky sometimes and get a bit more, but you can choose what you get) and sensible for QF.

i too prefer to buy K's, as i need that extra flexibility, but not so much as you get in Y (ie refund).

[This message has been edited by aura (edited 10-21-2003).]

Sort of.

Except at peak periods - Christmas Eve, etc. - the chances of reselling the seat at a couple of hours notice are negligible.

Where I argue - and it was our policy at the time that I worked for QF - is that it is better to have a body in the air rather than on the ground, particularly towards the end of the day.

Sure, someone showing up at 0530 for their 0900 flight should not be put on the 0600 flight just for convenience sake.

BUT towards the end of the day there is ALWAYS a chance that an aircraft will go U/S and there will be either no aircraft to replace it with OR the replacement will be smaller - Murphys Law at work.

So if someone booked on the full 2200 flight shows up in time for the less than full 2100 flight, it is in the interests of the carrier to get them out of there ASAP, since it is one less body to accommodate if you can't get them out that night.

Dave

Moderator, please close this link.
Regards,
Robert

huh? an interesting and almost consistently on topic discussion on the QF board,a nd you want it closed?

Mark

Why close it? we are having a very interesting discussion on the pros and cons of the way QF handle last minute changes. Sure, your original query might have been well and truely answered, but that is no reason to close the thread, as other issues have been raised, and they are still up in the air for discussion.

I quite like this thread, it has been able to articulate (via Globaliser) my thoughts on why QF do what they do. I think it should remain open.

Dave

------------------
Moderator of the decidedly off-topic Qantas forum ...

that must be why!

seriously, it's the original poster's prerogative; we should honour it & just start a new thread.

What a faux pas, keeping a thread on topic here at QF!

From reading the follow up to a similar request a while ago on TravelBuzz, I think that the reason may be that the OP signed up for an e-mail alert for every new reply added to this thread. On FT's software, you can't cencel the request. I can understand how the alerts can get annoying if your question has been answered and a more general discussion has developed around other FT'ers' contributions.

But I suppose I have now just contributed to his problem. Sorry.

My hunch is I-flybynight chose to receive email notifications and is growing tired of all the emails when their query has been answered.

Personally I am against the policy of closing threads unless there is a legitimate reason such as duplicates, abuse or way-way-way off topic in which case it is moved. Leaving a thread open allows it to be continued down the track if someone does a search and wants to check that the info is still valid or generally people have an experience that they wish to post against a topic that was mentioned in a thread.