shannonsays.com

Would you fly NASA?

If you were given the chance to jump aboard a Space Shuttle and hurtle off into Space, would you?

If NASA was responsible for preparing and maintaining the Shuttle, I'd be saying "thanks, but no thanks..." 

NASA officials always remind us that space travel is inherently dangerous. They clearly are right, but it seems that the danger is due to the crap build quality and maintenance standards of the machines they spend billions putting together.  Not to mention that they buy some parts on eBay.

Just imagine if passenger aircraft blew up (twice in 113 missions) or had components falling off them as often as space shuttles have.  There would be hundreds of crashes every day.  Maybe that's not really a relevant or sensible comparison, but you get my point.

And after two and a half years and US$1billion dollars spent on safety since the Challenger crashed, killing all seven crew on board, how could NASA have got it so wrong and sent the aging old Discovery (it is 21) with the same problems? 

And now they expect their astronauts to venture out and do some "running repairs" and remove a piece of foam using such precision tools like a pair of scissors, a hacksaw fashioned out of a blade and a little duct tape.  Just the tools you need when you are working on the fragile thermal underbelly of an orbiting shuttle.

Hopefully, once the small piece of foam has been removed from its side , the shuttle should be able to land without incident.  And when it does, NASA should just give up, and ground its Death Trap Space Shuttles for good.

Anyway, why do we go to Space?  What good things, useful things, have ever come from these missions?  Can someone tell me one major scientific breakthrough that has resulted from a manned mission.  And that Space Station?  What does that do?  All it is is a fancy labratory with great view out of the window.

The bottom line is that going into Space is not all that useful. We can accomplish more science by sending unmanned probes.

"Hello, it's Russell Crowe, here..."

Poor Rusty Crowe.  He's been coping it a bit after engaging in a bit of a fracas with a hotel staff member on Tuesday.

I mean what's a bloke expected to do in the wee hours of the morning in a hotel a long way from home when the concierge is giving him the sort of attitude a celebrity shouldn't have to take? If you're a gladiator and you're holding a telephone, the solution is obvious.... you turf it at their head....

And whilst the UK Sun gave the tale the full tabloid treatment, complete with hilarious graphic recreations you can see here, the front of today's Daily Telegraph had a completely different angle thanks to reporter Matt Frilingos:

"Stretched on the couch watching TV, on the verge of drifting off to sleep, the last thing I expected late on Tuesday night was a call from Russell Crowe," is how Frilingos starts this backgrounder today.

That phone call, which proves that some hotel phones do work,  led to this front-page story in today's Tele, (and you've gotta love the headline!):

HOW MY BRAIN SNAPPED

EXCLUSIVE by MATT FRILINGOS

Shattered actor Russell Crowe has bared his soul to The Daily Telegraph, saying the violent incident that could see him jailed was entirely his fault.

In an exclusive interview, Crowe spoke of his shame over the altercation, but insisted he was "not aiming at" concierge Nestor Estrada when he threw a telephone in the lobby of an exclusive New York hotel. He conceded that the incident may not only see him locked away in a New York jail, but could prevent him from ever working in the US again.

He blamed his state of mind on "the combination of jet lag, loneliness and adrenalin," having just returned to the US after a flying visit to London for the Kostya Tsyzu fight, without wife Danielle. "I'm at the bottom of a well. I can't communicate how dark my life is right now," Crowe said. "I'm in a lot of trouble. I'll do my best to solve the situation in an honourable way. I'm very sorry for my actions."

You can check the full story here.  And some very funny letters in today's Australian

Virgin Blue: Snookered

So Virgin Blue has been judged to be the "Best Low Cost Airline"  whizzing around the worlds' skies, hey?  Better than Ryanair, Southwest and Easyjet.  Obviously Virgin Blue's staff are are much better looking than anyone elses.

Ironically though, the news comes as Virgin is trying to shed the low-cost moniker and portray itself as a value-based or "new world" carrier in an attempt to boost its appeal to high-yield, business like travellers.

Like most pundits, Brett Godfrey (Virgin Blue boss) and the Virgin Blue mob underestimated the impact of the Jetstar (Qantas' low frills offshoot) launch and despite what they might like to believe, this new airline has succeeding in nicking a fair whack of Virgin Blue's passengers as well as downgrading the perception of what "low cost" is all about.  And despite it's problems, Jetstar is successful and making money.

And now Virgin Blue is stuck.  The gravy-train years of post-Ansett and the simpler challenge of attacking the higher-cost, full-service Qantas are over. The launch of Jetstar has locked Virgin Blue firmly into the middle ground, and has given the Qantas group the ability to match Virgin Blue in price-sensitive segments, as well as continuing its dominance in the premium business segment.

And now they have the impending arrival of business carrier Ozjet, which will further cement Virgin Blue into the middle ground.  But the problem seems to be that Virgin Blue doesn't want to accept the middle ground, and as a result are now looking a bit confused.

"Are we a low cost airline (the best in the world, even)? or are we an airline that can cater for business travellers as well?"

The truth is, they don't appear to know.  And how do you continue to promote the image of Virgin as a value airline while pushing it as an upmarket carrier that appeals to the business market?  It is difficult to do without completely confusing the market and risk in isolating both ends of the spectrum.

The things that business folks expect like frequent flier programs, lounges, more flexible fares, priority boarding, fancy meals and other "frilly" offerings cost bucks.  And Virgin Blue doesn't have much bucks to spare if this weeks profit warning is anything to go by.  No doubt they'll figure out how to do it though.  But at what cost?

Further adding to Virgin Blue's dilemma is this weeks announcement from Jetstar of the sale of a million seats at $29, including taxes and charges, to celebrate the anniversary of their first flights on May 25 last year.

If they don't want to lose more passengers, Virgin Blue will have to respond.  Again reaffirming them as a low cost carrier.

The reality is that Qantas's Geoff Dixon has Godfrey and Virgin snookered between Jetstar and  Qantas.  And there appears no way out.  Why not just stay there?  Why not try to dominate the middle ground?

The business graveyard is full of businesses that were successful in one segment, but the persued growth in another segment, only to fail in winning new business whilst isolating the loyal customers they once had.  It's a risky game.

Cashing in on the Shapelle Corby Circus

The Shapelle Corby circus continues to roll on here in Australia tonight with the screening of a prime time TV special on Channel Nine.  (If you have no idea who Shapelle Corby is, check here).  The program will apparently tell the "untold story" and  a live audience that will offer their verdit at the completion of the show. Like lots of people at the moment, Nine will cash in tonight by pulling a big audience.  What'll it do with the advertising revenue?  How much did it pay the people who will appear in the show?

Who knows, but it is all getting a bit.  Whether Shapelle is some sort of Marijuana Queen or not, I dunno, but  between the swarming mass of reporters, dozing judiciary members, colourful lawyers and the ever expanding number of assorted hangers-on basking in the limelight and baking in the Balinese sun, it's often forgotten that in the middle of all of this is a girl who's life is at stake. It's bloody crazy, and I don't get it.

Let's just imagine the outcry in Australia if the Indonesian government, president and media interests took a such a massive interest in a case of an Indonesian citizen on trial in this country. There'd be a huge outcry of "bugger off" if  was taken up at the highest levels of our Government and our legal systems and processes, with TV crews and the media nosing about, day after day.

I don't think that we are a racist country- far from it, but the fact that many Australians think they can comment on Indonesian justice and legal system without real understanding or concern does smack of racism.

And whilst I have no real personal concern for any of them , I reckon some people would do well to remember that our government wrongly jailed an Australian resident, Cornelia Rau, and wrongly deported another, Vivian Alvarez Solon. But where's the outpouring of concern for the horrible experiences of these women?  Or what if the person on trial  was not a, young, slim, firm bodied, Australian girl, but was some short, fat, plain faced immigrant with an Asian name?

Would we care as much? Would the Nine Network run a prime time special on their experiences?

Doubt it.

At the end of the day, Shapelle Corby strikes me as being quite intelligent, confident and in control of herself.  She knows that she won't spend the rest of her lif in jail.  One way or another whe will come home, and she will be rich and famous for the rest of her life.

(UPDATE:  My take on the whinging following the Corby verdict here)

Branson in Stabbing

A couple of weeks ago I wondered what the irrepressable Dickie Branson might get up to now that his Aussie Airline Virgin Blue is firmly under the control of Chris Corrigan and his Patrick Corp.  And there have been all sorts of conspiracy theories flying around about Corrigan's plans for Virgin Blue and Richard Branson's plans for Australia.  What will he do next?

And it all started to become clear last week; Branson plans to launch an Australian-owned airline to challenge Qantas on the highly lucrative Sydney to LA Route.  So what you say?  Big deal, it's about time someone took on Qantas' dominance.

Hmm maybe, but like with most things Branson does, nothing is ever "plain and simple."  Let's look at a few things here.

Singapore Airlines, more than any other, have been busting thier gut trying to get in on the Sydney-LA action for some time, but have been halted by our Governments stubborn unwillingness to give the rights to a carrier that has less than 51% Australian ownership. 

So in strolls Branson, stating that his airline will be majority owned by Australians, and as such the Australian Government should give his new airline the rights over Singapore Airlines.

But this is where is gets interesting.  Singapore Airlines just happen to be a shareholder (49%) in another of Bransons airlines, Virgin Pacific.

Of course such a public shirt-front ruffled some feathers with Branson's "partners" at Singapore Airlines, and are understandably absolutely furious with this announcement and assertion.

I know that Branson can be a little bit odd at times, but I don't understand why he would want to pick a fight with an important, and until now cooperative business partner?  Wouldn't it be simpler to declare that Virgin Blue is now controlled by Australian interests through Patrick Corp and should therefore be allowed to compete with Qantas on the Australian flights to LA?

But no, Dickie comes out at announces that he is going to stomp over the top of Singapore to get his airline off the ground.  Given their long and hard lobbying for the rights to the Pacific route, you would think that Branson would be supportive of his business partners efforts.

But with Branson, it always pays to "think again"

Another Jetstar Horror Story

 

Another Jetstar horror story has come my way (via email):

"Jetstar, the airline setting new standards in passenger unfriendliness, has just lost some more customers. They were the folks who thought they were flying JQ629 from Sunshine Coast to Sydney on Saturday night - scheduled departure 7.35pm.

Jetstar rang their former customers on Saturday afternoon to tell them the flight had been cancelled for "operational reasons". (What does that mean, not enough bums to put on seats?) The punters were being punted to an 11.35am flight on Sunday instead.

Too bad about people who would have already booked out of their accommodation - they would just have to find somewhere else to stay and, of course, pay. Another dinner to buy, another breakfast. For some, too bad about another 24-hours’ costs of car parking at the Sydney airport. And what if someone was desperately trying to get to Sydney for a bit of Mardi Gras? Too bad!

Was there any offer of assistance from Jetstar? No! What was Jetstar's response to an inquiry about compensation for extra costs? There's none! This is the airline that won't let you on their plane if you reach the check-in counter 29 minutes before scheduled departure - even if the plane is running half an hour late."

Jetstar really seem to be working hard at making Virgin Blue look good. You'd think that Chris Corrigan would wake up an see the opportunity Qantas is presenting Virgin. On present indications there's none, he merely wants to be a duopolist where he can join Geoff Dixon and his Flying Kangaroo in treating customers with the sort of complete indifference detailed above. Bring on Singapore Airlines.

Virgin's Blues (updated)

It will be interesting to see how Dickie Branson's Aussie offshot Virgin Blue responds to their current state of crisis.  A crisis that they have made worse through their arrogant attitude towards their customers.

The whole thing started yesterday morning, at about 10am when a mystery leak caused the closure its Melbourne Airport terminal.  Ambulance crews treated 57 people for vomiting, nausea and shortness of breath caused by the still unidentified leak (yes, still unidentified almost 48 hours later!).  The terminal remained shut until 8pm, throwing the travel plans of 13,000 Virgin Blue commuters into chaos with 102 canceled flights.

So what did Virgin Blue do to try and look after its frustrated passengers?  They shrugged their shoulders, passed the buck onto the Airport Authorities and served their passengers some water:

"It was out of our control what was happening, so we felt it was a bit unfair to offer food free of charge."

That was Guest Relations Manager Matt Dixon, who obviously has no idea how to look after "guest relationships." (when it hits the fan, he calls it "unfair").   He added that Virgin crews offered to sell  sandwiches ($5.00) and drinks ($3.00) from the in-flight canteen.  There is only one thing worse than an angry passenger, and that's an angry passenger is hungry...

Oh yeah, because they were stuck in Melbourne for the night, they were told they could organise and pay for their own accommodation in Melbourne – or spend the night in the international terminal. How good of them! And as for organising another flight, they were told to do that themselves as well, with many waiting on hold to Virgin Blue for more than half an hour on mobile phones.

Is that fair, Mr. Dixon?
This whole episode will come back to haunt Virgin Blue.  Big Time.  They reckon that the incident has already cost them $2million.  But that will be small fry to the damage to their reputation and brand.

The answer was so simple Mr. Dixon, even if the closure was not Virgin Blues fault.  You had a choice to either take the hit, re-read your "Guest Relations Handbook" and look after the passengers, or look the other way.

All it would have taken was for you to feed your passengers, help them to organise accommodation and to reschedule their flights.  Easy.  Just lend them a hand.  Sure it wasn't your fault, but it sure as hell wasn't your passengers either.  All it would have taken was some sort of demonstration of compassion and understanding.

Then the news would have been dominated by the "mystery leak" instead it is all about the shitful, couldn't care less attitude of you and your airline.

And the irony in all of this?  Paul Stoddart announced the launch of his new Aussie airline OzJet today....

*UPDATE:  23/02/05*

• Virgin Blue has caved to mounting pressure (almost 30 hours after the whole debacle started to unfold) and agreed to compensate travellers affected by the terminal closure. Anyone who was delayed for more than four hours will be offered a free flight of equal value.  Why not just do this in the first place? Instead it entered into a public relations fire.
  
• We still don't know what it was that caused all the fuss, beyond the fact that it was a "leak"  I find that amazing.  The reality is that more than 50 people were taken to hospital after toxic fumes made them ill and they still don't know what it was they inhaled.  Nor has it been discovered where the fumes came from and whether their presence was accidental or deliberate.   So just how secure is Melbourne Airport?  The relevent authorities  should have a good hard look at themselves.

Sydney: Australia's Krispy Kreme Export Hub

Sydney seems to have become the Australian Export hub for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts.

I was in Sydney this week, and I noticed that two of the seven Sydney stores are at the airport!  And given that they don't have any stores anywhere else in Australia, that means that two of the seven stores, or about 28% of Australian Krispy Kreme Stores are at Sydney Airport....one right at the Virgin Blue departures gate.  Now that's clever.

Why?

Well, for interstate travellers like me, there is an aura of mystique about Krispy Kreme, their stores and their doughnuts.   Most of us have heard of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, but have probably never visited a store, let alone wrapped our mouth around one of their famous super-sweet glazed doughnuts.  Thus travellers are drawn, out of curiosity if nothing else, to the store at the airport to watch the doughnuts being made, to taste some samples, and to buy a box (or two) to take home with us (if the straw poll on my flight is anything to go by, about one in three passenegers will do just that).  The guys at KK put them all in a box, and then into a carry bag that you can take onto the plane with you. It's great fun, and you can't wait to get home to tell others about it.  It's all about the experience.  Of course when back home, we'll either gorge on the doughnuts ourselves or share them with others; relating the experience (which given the scarcity of locations is both unique and exclusive), furthering the buzz and continuing the mystique that exists around Krispy Kreme.  Peter Davidson noted recently:

"The key is for Krispy Kreme to understand that they are selling more than just doughnuts. They need to understand that they are selling experiences. The excitement in the eyes of a child when told they're going to go get Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. The experience of presenting a box of KK Doughnuts to someone who loves them. The experience of a warm sweet doughnut on the tongue. Savoring the last bight of the last one in the box. These are the moments they are selling. Not just another box of doughnuts on the shelf."

Far from the dilution of the branch that appears to be happening in the US (where you can buy them in Supermarkets), in Australia, the folks at Krispy Kreme seem to understand what Peter suggests, and deliver an "experience" to many Australians, via two key locations at our busiest airport.

Virgin Blue: Next on Chris Corrigan's duopoly shopping list

I reckon Australia owes a fair bit to Chris Corrigan.  For generations our waterfront was home to the worst workplace rorts and inefficiencies in the country.  For many years (decades), management and unions conspired to line their own pockets at the expense of exporter and importers.

But in 1998 along came Chris Corrigan.  He bought a stake in Patrick Stevedoring, buckled down, took huge risks, overcame great odds and succeeded where many had failed; he broke the backs of union power and reformed the Australian waterfront.  He made a fortune, but Australian industry was a great beneficiary as well.

Since then Corrigan has turned his attention elsewhere; road (through Toll), rail (through National Rail and Freight), sea (Holyman Shipping) and air (through part ownership of Virgin Blue).   He (via Patrick's) is slowly changing  our transport system, and if his recent bid for control of Virgin Blue succeeds, he will soon sit atop an integrated rail, road, sea and air transport system.  And all duopoly businesses.

Is this a good thing?  No doubt it is good for Corrigan, but is it really about reform and efficiency, or is it about another cosy little duopoly business for Corrigan?

For all his talk of competition, Corrigan is now leading the pleasant life of a waterfront duopolist. He is a rail freight monopolist.  He has some truck freight that is a little more competitive. But in the high margin vehicle import and handling business, it’s a duopoly, or near enough to one.  So should he be allowed to enter into the Australian airline industry, creating and controlling another duopoly business for himself?  Will it benefit the Australian people?

He has already signaled his intent on airfares-  Virgin fares must change says Corrigan

Basically he is saying that "we are going to shove prices up once we get control, ignoring the trend around the world to low cost, value travel."

And if Brett Godfrey and his Virgin Blue people don't go along, things will change is the message from this SMH story - Corrigan signals end of cheap airfares

Maybe we shouldn't care too much, after all, there are many great duopolies of Australian business. In newspapers, News Limited and Fairfax; beer, Fosters and Lion Nathan; packaging, Amcor and Richard Pratt's Visy group. Banking is a comfortable cartel dominated by five banks that constantly eye each other and do little to stimulate price competition.....

I just get the feeling that Corrigan wants to control another duopoly, and to rebuild the glory days of Qantas vs. Ansett.... when it cost $300 to fly to Sydney rather than $100.  And airline proprietors were making big fat profits...

Sneaky Jetstar

Johnnie Moore asked about site stats, and one of the biggest lures to my website are my frequent jabs at Aussie would-be-if-it-could-be no frills airline (and Qantas offshoot) Jetstar.  So it makes sense for me to point this out (from Saturdays smh):

"Qantas's budget offshoot, Jetstar, has quietly increased the fees, surcharges and taxes on more than half its domestic flights after opening its much-hyped $9 one-way seat sale.

"After advertising 300,000 bargain tickets on its website last month, Jetstar has cut its one-way base fares from Sydney to the Gold and Sunshine coasts from $19 to $9. But the one-way fares to both destinations have risen by $4 to $53, because the airline has lifted its surcharges, fees and taxes from $30 to $44. (One-way fees in the other direction are slightly lower.)

"Deducting the $12 fuel surcharge introduced in October, the extra fees on Jetstar flights to both destinations have nearly doubled."

Gee, who would have thought. ...

Sneaky little Jetstar has quietly, without any warning, lifted its fees and charges on some routes, in addition to the fuel levy and government imposts.  All the while boosting its bottom line, whilst shouting about its cut prce fares.

Once airlines start to deviate away from "all inclusive" rates, it is only a matter of time before they start fiddling with taxes/surcharges/levies/fees.  But now that all three airlines are doing it, Simon Westaway (Jetstar talking head) and his mates know we have no choice

"At the end of the day you have to observe what the final fare is."

That we do.  And pretty soon we are going to need fancy calculators to follow the mathematics behind what airlines charge.  Maybe then the Australian Competition and Consumer and Comission will step in.