Qantas and the political perks rort.
Discuss Qantas and the political perks rort, on the Open Discussion forum of FrequentFlyer.com.au, the home of frequent flyers.
Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyers resource! We hope you find the information useful and decide to join our online community. Its free to join, simply click on the register link. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Travel Insurance
Business class fares, seats cut as finance crisis hits
Interesting story on crikey. Some of the related links to the story are quite good as well!
Quote:
Originally Posted by crikey
Qantas and the political perks rort
It looks like we're onto something big with our examination of Qantas, the Chairman's Lounge and the allocation of perks and upgrades more generally by the national airline.
First, to the facts. There is no government payment for the Chairman's Lounge memberships offered to all Federal MPs as this is something which Qantas believes should be paid for by its shareholders voluntarily. It is worth noting that when Ministers travel, whatever entourage they have with them is also ushered into the Chairman's Lounge – something which Ministers exploit to the full as a source of glad-handing and patronage.
In my humble opinion, it is, and has always been, an absolute croc.
Frankly, it makes me really, really mad.
why would it make you mad? it makes perfect sense. if i was running qantas, i would do exactly the same thing. it is always smart to have the government on your side, no matter what type of economy you live in.
The perks may costs Qantas $1 million, but I am sure they benefit more than that from providing them. If I was a qantas shareholder, i would be pleased.
why would it make you mad? it makes perfect sense. if i was running qantas, i would do exactly the same thing. it is always smart to have the government
More relevently, I do not think that politicians should be allowed to accept such offers from companies. Nothing wrong with Qantas ( or any company ) offering inducements to them , but there is something wrong with them being accepted
Member of: AA Exec Plat; QF LTG; PC Plat; HHonors Gold
Posts: 10,055
I give Crikey less credibility in investigative journalism than I give Today Tonight or A Current Affair. And this current attack has not altered my opinion of Crikey, Qantas or Politicians.
why would it make you mad? it makes perfect sense. if i was running qantas, i would do exactly the same thing. it is always smart to have the government
More relevently, I do not think that politicians should be allowed to accept such offers from companies. Nothing wrong with Qantas ( or any company ) offering inducements to them , but there is something wrong with them being accepted
Member of: AA Exec Plat; QF LTG; PC Plat; HHonors Gold
Posts: 10,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
More relevantly, I do not think that politicians should be allowed to accept such offers from companies. Nothing wrong with Qantas ( or any company ) offering inducements to them , but there is something wrong with them being accepted
Dave
I am happy to be offered such inducements. And I am also happy to accept them. I see nothing wrong with me being offered or with me accepting their offer.
Also note that I am the sole decision maker when it comes to how my family's travel budget is spent and which airline all the members of my family will fly. And I also have the ability to influence government policy through my democratic right to vote for whichever political candidate I choose, and I can base my decision on the candidate's stated support or opposition for current and proposed government policy.
More relevently, I do not think that politicians should be allowed to accept such offers from companies. Nothing wrong with Qantas ( or any company ) offering inducements to them , but there is something wrong with them being accepted
It is only corrupt if it is hidden. The fact that it is common knowledge (well, common knowledge amongst those of us who travel frequently, and also amongst the meeja) means that it is not corrupt, since the decision makers would have fire and brimstone brought down upon them if they made decisions in QF's favour because of CL membership.
FWIW, I think the decision re: SQ flying SYD-LAX was the correct decision, if I was the Minister concerned I would have come down the same way, CL or no CL.
Linear Mode
