While this is off-topic (and debated at length elsewhere on AFF), I beg to differ. Though, if you aim to pay peanuts, you can expect to get very suboptimal results. But if a company decided to use a contact centre in Canada, Sweden, South Korea, [you name it], and equip them well (with skills/training, process, tools and access) the only difference you'd notice would be the potential accent. In fact, the Fijian centre could also be good under the same conditions.
The Canadian companies would equally face calls to bring call centres to Canada, Swedish companies the same, etc. Which simply means that it's the 'cheapest eligible provider' outsourcing model that's broken, not the location. Related to the case at hand in this forum, lifting the call centre competency may lower the QAN shareholder dividends and stock price growth, at least in the short term (and the exec bonuses / STIP's). If the shareholders are willing to pay for it, many things can happen. But the previous leadership preferred their bonuses and short(er) term shareholder value over improving the service & value and appeal of the company.
It's unfortunate that DrGear & wife dropped right through the cracks into a black hole because of the service model used. The most disappointing part was the lack of a sensible escalation path or any sense of ownership on QF's side. The word 'stonewalling' could perhaps describe it and that's a cultural issue - which is also a friendly problem in the sense that it could be fixed by the leadership if they had the humility and aptitude for it.