Monday

Tag Archives: Qantas

Qantas: ‘You’re the reason we fly’???

This is a misleading advertisement; ‘You’re the reason we fly, BUT ONLY IF YOU COMPLY WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR RULES’ would be more accurate!

If you move away from Qantas’ relatively expensive full fare bookings you can expect to be treated like a number, not a valued customer. If you have not carefully read and fully understood every piece of information and complied with every restriction and limitation don’t expect any common sense of customer service from the Qantas staff.

We booked a discount international business fare without looking too closely at the domestic connections. Big mistake!!! The Qantas system somehow considered it reasonable to book the Melbourne – Sydney connection with a 13 hour overnight stay in Sydney! There are 12 other flights departing after the one the system selected.

Certainly if we had noticed the flight stuff up, we could have done a dozen different things to drive some common sense into the travel arrangements. The simple fact was we did not see the error, our mistake, and Qantas are refusing to provide any sensible assistance. As far as Qantas is concerned, ‘The rules are the rules and we can get stuffed’.

It looks like Qantas will become yet another Australian business heading for the scrap heap driven by the accounting logic of ‘rule based cost cutting’.

Despite over 20 years of flying Qantas (most as a Gold Card holder), this last episode has moved us to the point where customer loyalty will be replaced by our own cost efficiencies – there are plenty of other options out there. Net cost to Qantas from ‘applying the rules’? Probably in excess of $50,000 this financial year as we book alternative flights with other airlines – their service is likely to be bad, but Qantas is demonstrably no better so why pay more??

What ever has happened to the idea of charging a premium (already built into every Qantas fare) in return for sensible customer service and providing a great experience? If Qantas had provided a little bit of help sorting out our mistake, instead of this negative blog, Qantas would be receiving praise and on-going customer loyalty. Fixing the problem sensibly would have cost Qantas virtually nothing. As it is, Qantas ‘applied the rules’, destroyed customer loyalty, damaged its brand and has potentially lost tens of thousands of dollars in future business.

A stupid outcome from a stupid system, driven by a stupid philosophy. When will bean counters learn the key to business success in the 21st century is exemplary customer service? If you don’t have loyal customers you are in a price driven commodity market and there is always someone who can undercut your price.

Resilience v Risks

A common fallacy is the assumption that effective risk management systems will remove or eliminate all risk from a project or a business. $millions are spent by organisations trying to avoid risk and they fail. It is not possible to predict the future with certainty, if it was possible, casinos and bookmakers would be bankrupt.

What is possible is to proactively manage known risks in a way that maximises opportunity and minimises the damage caused by threats that eventuate. It is also possible to refine and improve systems to minimise variability and therefore increase predictability.

Sensible management balances the gains from improvements in the risk exposure against the costs and optimises the outcome. But this leave three areas of risk unaccounted. The first is the known risks that it is simply too expensive or too difficult to reduce any further. The second is the known risks that simply cannot be managed or transferred. The third category is the unknown unknowns, the risks we simply don’t know we don’t know about.

All three of these risks can be offset by the creation of contingency allowances but this is expensive and potentially wasteful. Because we cannot know what we don’t know it is impossible to calculate appropriate contingencies. Another approach is needed.

Resilience is the ability to recover quickly from an unforseen event or ‘the ability of a system to return to its original state after being disturbed’. Build resilience into you business unit or project team and you have the capacity to deal with the consequences of unforseen risks.

I have been rather aware of the recent problems experience by Qantas given I’m flying on one of their aircraft from Sydney to Argentina on Monday! The major issue was the uncontained explosion of a Roles Royce Trent 900 jet engine after take off from Singapore on November 4th. Commercial airline engines are not supposed to explode! Whilst they break reasonably frequently, all of the debris are supposed to be contained within the engine. The Qantas A380 suffered shrapnel damage to wiring, its fire systems and wing fuel tanks (the plane was extremely lucky to avoid a catastrophic fire).

One of the factors that saved the situation was the flight deck crew. By chance there were four highly experienced pilots and a second officer on-board. Qantas routinely use two experienced pilots as captain and First Officer, in addition there was a senior ‘check captain’ undertaking a ‘route check’ on the pilots and another senior officer checking the checker. Between them the crew had over 60,000 hours of flying experience and they still had to work flat out for over an hour to understand and control the situation before making a safe landing.

The flight crew had an abundance of resilience created by the experience of the flight crew. This was partly good luck and partly Qantas policy. There was enough brain power, experience and wisdom to stay on top of the situation. Whilst every airline trains its crews in flight simulators to deal with all sorts of emergencies, you can virtually guarantee Qantas had not trained its crews specifically for the circumstances that occurred on the 4th November. They were never supposed to occur; the situation was probably closer to what happens when a large aircraft is hit by a missile then any normal emergency.

So how do you build resiliency into a work team? There seems to be three elements.

  • The first is to have practiced dealing with a range of emergency issues needing responses. This helps develop systems and procedures.
  • The second is to have spare capacity available to the team. It’s unlikely you can afford the Qantas solution of two qualified captains ‘on deck’ but it should be possible to develop flexibility within the larger organisation to make resources quickly available and to have those people familiar and friendly with the core team so they ‘fit in’ quickly.
  • The third element is trust. Everyone needs to be able to trust their team mates and understand their capabilities. The value of trust is discussed in our WP1030 – this is even more important when dealing with an unexpected risk event.

Resilience is not an accident; it is created by implementing strong processes, procedures and systems. These are far better value drivers than contingencies. Contingencies add no value; they are simply drawn down in emergencies. Resilient systems are also effective systems and therefore value creators.

However, there is a risk associated with resilience. Resilient system that can absorb issues and catch risks before they become significant appears to be a ‘comfortable system’. Unwise cost cutting can remove resilience and in the short term there appears to be no disadvantage. However, this is a very dangerous illusion. As the system is rendered less effective issues get picked up later and require more resources to correct. This further destabilises the system and the ‘tipping point’ into dangerous disfunctionality can easily be passed without anyone realising there’s a problem until the next risk event occurs and the system fails.

Resilience is a valuable asset. Management need to make sure it’s cultivated and nurtured to support the other aspects of effective risk management.

Risk & Issue Management – First Hand

I was a passenger on Qantas flight QF10 Singapore – Melbourne on 17th Dec. that experienced an engine failure after take off and had to return to Singapore.

From a risk and issues management perspective, overall the Qantas response was very good. In flight the information provided to passengers was timely, accurate and relevant.

By the time the aircraft landed some 40 minutes after the incident, busses and hotel rooms were organised, the hotel had found additional staff so check-in was quick and an evening meal provided (not bad for a problem that occurred close to midnight Singapore time).

The pre-organised emergency response plans even included bright orange stickers to ware so people directing us to the busses, etc could identify the 350 odd people from the flight. Overall, from the flight crews response to the initial problem through to the ground crews management of 350 disoriented passengers the initial response was great an clearly demonstrated a well thought out response plan.

However, once the initial issues were managed, the following 12 to 18 hours were not so good – perhaps the accountants started to worry about costs?? There was no local contact point provided, no ability to deal with individual issues such as my need to access the Mosaic business systems (I had to pay for the connection) and only limited communication. The communications were OK as a basis but lacked individuality.

What I find really strange is the time one would have expected problems immediately after the engine failure the Qantas service was exemplary, later when one would have expected the situation to be under control the Qantas service collapsed to a fairly low level of customer care.

The lessons to be learned from this experience are twofold. Firstly, good response plans really do make a difference, and there may be a place for generic plans at the organisational/PMO level for issues likely to occur across a range of projects rather than each individual project inventing their own. These generic response plans could also identify corporate resources that can be called in to help resolve an issue.

The second, more important lesson is the effectiveness of the initial response can be seriously damaged if the caring diminishes before the people inconvenienced by the issue are fully over the problem. The Qantas response was technically efficient, through to flying a replacement aircraft into Singapore for our journey to continue some 23 hours later; there are only a limited number of aircraft sitting around with nothing to do…..

Where Qantas failed was in personalising the follow through to help people such as myself who lost a days business minimise the inconvenience. Just a little extra care and I would have been praising Qantas 100%, as it is I feel rather disappointed in the final outcome: a C+ response rather than an A+ and all of the grades were lost at a time when the organisation had had time to think about its reaction, rather than when the problem first occurred. Risk response plans need to deal with more than just the technical issues. Managing people’s expectations and disappointments is at least as important if the overall damage caused by a risk event or issue is to be minimised.