We're having this discussion on a Facebook group, but let's put on our Bourke Road hats and spew some management jargon, based on the assumptions that a) the decision to de-scope the intermediate cabin was taken early in the project and that b) inbound and outbound flights are treated as identical from a value proposition perspective:
Will it optimise the client value stream? It is doubtless imperative that if a new cabin higer than economy is offered to customers the new cabin must deliver appropriate additional value and utility to the customer for the additional fare they pay. If there is no value-add, then the customer will not see a need for the intermediate cabin and the investment will be wasted.
Does it align with business need? Cabins on an aircraft exist in a state of dynamic interdependence; the new cabin must deliver significant additional value but equally must not cannibalise forward cabins. If it cannibalises the forward cabin, the business suffers.
How would the proposed change affect the project? The current project is well underway and in full swing; to revamp the project entirely with the insertion of the intermediate cabin, it would be necessary to undertake significant change management. The risks and ramifications of this must be considered at this late stage.
I am strongly inclined to believe the top hats in Mascot came to the conclusion early in the project that for relatively short flights to Asia, there was insufficient optimisation of the client value stream and weak alignment with business need leading to the decision to de-scope the intermediate cabin.
Because of PE does not worth money asked. For what they provide price should be 20-50% over economy or from other hand for price they asked they should provide flat bed without business perks (like lounge, service, extra baggage etc), basically J-. Airlines trying to make something that bring more revenue, but at the same time will not destroy their holly cow known as business class. PE is compromise that combines worst part of both classes – uncomfortable seats from economy and sky prices from business. In return they offer some unwanted perks. IMHO does not make any sense from pax point of view.
And what does? Ideally they should remove first class leaving only say two super-luxury private cabins with separate chairs and beds and private lavatory. Priced them accordingly and make it impossible to upgrade or purchase by points – strictly money. Thus nose high VIPs would be happy. Strip say 30% of space from economy and divide existing business, PE and new space into two chunks – J and new PE. Install in J full flat beds like CX, SQ or new AY in 1-2-1 configuration – close enough to some existing First, like BA. Then install old sloped seats from J in PE in tight 2-3-2 layout. Keep all existing perks in J, and may be even add some more while in new PE provide strictly economy service. Price Y below 2K for SYD-LHR, PE for 4k, J for 8K and F for 25K and suddenly 4 class configuration start to make perfect sense. Currently PE with almost Y seats and few J perks for price little below J does not make any sense whatsoever and not only on Asia routes
Good Point! I guess CX has less demand as they have removed a row from their PY Cabin, Im currently booking CX PY seats for June/July, September and December and the seat maps for the A333 are different in premium economy, some only have 2 rows of PY
For CX and SQ the business case for PY on Australia to Asia flights is supported by the connections offered to Europe and the US. For Perh residents CX is very attractive for US travel and their PY seems to be very competitive to QF. Not to mention that a QF PY ticket to LAX comes with a Y domestic sector.
Hi Guest, join in the discussion on
Premium Economy on Qantas' refurbished A330's?
jet_setter
jet_setter
Cathay Pacific - Asia Miles
Member since 01 Feb 2015
Total posts 125
Premium Economy on the Refurbished A330's.... About time??? Thoughts?
watson374
watson374
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 17 Aug 2012
Total posts 1,285
We're having this discussion on a Facebook group, but let's put on our Bourke Road hats and spew some management jargon, based on the assumptions that a) the decision to de-scope the intermediate cabin was taken early in the project and that b) inbound and outbound flights are treated as identical from a value proposition perspective:
I am strongly inclined to believe the top hats in Mascot came to the conclusion early in the project that for relatively short flights to Asia, there was insufficient optimisation of the client value stream and weak alignment with business need leading to the decision to de-scope the intermediate cabin.
watson374
watson374
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 17 Aug 2012
Total posts 1,285
Oh, this is related to QF PY; SQ PY and CX PY would need a separate meeting.
David
David
Member since 24 Oct 2010
Total posts 1,016
See also: Qantas sees little demand for premium economy to Asia. The airline simply doesn't consider there's sufficient demand for the product.
Serg
Serg
QFF
Member since 12 Apr 2013
Total posts 923
Because of PE does not worth money asked. For what they provide price should be 20-50% over economy or from other hand for price they asked they should provide flat bed without business perks (like lounge, service, extra baggage etc), basically J-. Airlines trying to make something that bring more revenue, but at the same time will not destroy their holly cow known as business class. PE is compromise that combines worst part of both classes – uncomfortable seats from economy and sky prices from business. In return they offer some unwanted perks. IMHO does not make any sense from pax point of view.
And what does? Ideally they should remove first class leaving only say two super-luxury private cabins with separate chairs and beds and private lavatory. Priced them accordingly and make it impossible to upgrade or purchase by points – strictly money. Thus nose high VIPs would be happy. Strip say 30% of space from economy and divide existing business, PE and new space into two chunks – J and new PE. Install in J full flat beds like CX, SQ or new AY in 1-2-1 configuration – close enough to some existing First, like BA. Then install old sloped seats from J in PE in tight 2-3-2 layout. Keep all existing perks in J, and may be even add some more while in new PE provide strictly economy service. Price Y below 2K for SYD-LHR, PE for 4k, J for 8K and F for 25K and suddenly 4 class configuration start to make perfect sense. Currently PE with almost Y seats and few J perks for price little below J does not make any sense whatsoever and not only on Asia routes
jet_setter
jet_setter
Cathay Pacific - Asia Miles
Member since 01 Feb 2015
Total posts 125
Good Point! I guess CX has less demand as they have removed a row from their PY Cabin, Im currently booking CX PY seats for June/July, September and December and the seat maps for the A333 are different in premium economy, some only have 2 rows of PY
GregXL
GregXL
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 26 May 2014
Total posts 320
For CX and SQ the business case for PY on Australia to Asia flights is supported by the connections offered to Europe and the US. For Perh residents CX is very attractive for US travel and their PY seems to be very competitive to QF. Not to mention that a QF PY ticket to LAX comes with a Y domestic sector.