Avoiding the Qantas 787

[Happy Trails]

The most remarkable feature of the J seat is how they've suckered everyone into calling it a suite.

 

[Berlin]

The most remarkable feature of the J seat is how they've suckered everyone into calling it a suite.

Good point, they're even less a "suite" than Qantas' First seats on the A380 and I find the latter misleading already. I expect something with a closing door when I hear this terms so SQ or EK First would qualify.

 

[RichardMEL]

Specially the seats that are more open to the aisle... they're not really that private

 

[offshore171]

A good definition of what constitutes a ‘suite’ on an aircraft is whether you have enough space and privacy to change into your PJ’s.

 

[RichardMEL]

A good definition of what constitutes a ‘suite’ on an aircraft is whether you have enough space and privacy to change into your PJ’s.

Maybe but I wouldn't change in the EK F suite with doors closed, given people can easily look in while wandering past. Similar but a bit more private on SQ Suites IMHO but I've still always gone to the lav.

that opinion aside I definitely understand the point and yes, QF J and F fail whichever way you look at it on the "PJ change" pub test, though some have done it I'm sure.

 

[hb13]

Assuming that the 789 J seat is the same as the A330 seat (but with a sliding partition), I cannot see how any reasonable 'independent' person could make that assessment.

I would argue the wording 'one of the best' would have been pushing the truth. I hope the QF cash was worth it...

I would agree here. How can this be rated as the best business class seat? With all due respect to AusBT, I don't think the seat (and again we are only talking hard product, not anything else) is the best. It doesn't even come close to SQ's newest business class on their 77W's for example. I would also rate EY's (B787, A380) and QR's (B787, A350, A380) business class seats as better.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I really like both the QF F suites and new J seats (or mini-suites, or whatever you call them).

I obviously differ from many here, in that I find the concept of doors on suites on aircraft quite ridiculous, except perhaps if the walls and door go all the way up to the ceiling. Sitting in a box with walls that extend up only about 150cm or so makes it look like people are in some sort of baby playpen, with everyone looking over the side as they walk past!

I've travelled in EK F a few times, and never closed the doors. I much prefer the spacious, open feel of the QF F suite.

 

[kpc]

Paul Barry is right on the money, pardon the pun Media Watch: Junketing journalists (23/10/2017)

 

[levelnine]

Paul Barry is right on the money, pardon the pun Media Watch: Junketing journalists (23/10/2017)

Now that's a fantastic piece of actual journalism.

When you think about it, Qantas gets a bargain. Pay for a few flights to Seattle (the return leg is cheap as they had to fly the plane home anyway), a few nights accommodation in Seattle, a few dinners and champagne brunches, and in return you get a bunch of puff piece articles touting your product as the world's best. Such favourable publicity comes so cheap!

 

[eminere]

Paul Barry is right on the money, pardon the pun Media Watch: Junketing journalists (23/10/2017)

Brilliant piece.

 

[Happy Trails]

Paul Barry is right on the money, pardon the pun Media Watch: Junketing journalists (23/10/2017)

I hadn't previously seen any of the TV coverage, but I thought the "Qantas Kool Aid" line was actually quite funny.

 

[moa999]

Yep. The commerical value of all those minutes of 'advertising' would be massive.

But networks like interesting content and viewers seem to lap any news about Qantas, whether positive or negative

 

[hb13]

Paul Barry is right on the money, pardon the pun Media Watch: Junketing journalists (23/10/2017)

Wow - great piece by Paul Barry.

 

[Pleb Status]

Paul Barry is right on the money, pardon the pun Media Watch: Junketing journalists (23/10/2017)

A very interesting piece by Media Watch... I do note that they appear to indicate that as along as Mr/Ms X mumble they are 'a guest of QF' (and nothing more whatsoever) then paid advertising which is thinly disguised as commentary is completely acceptable.

Therefore, 'Guest of X' = Paid advertisement. I was a little naive believing some could not be purchased so easily...

 

[Himeno]

While changing hotels last night to be closer to SFO for this mornings flight, I met a Thomas Cook crew that had just arrived from MAN on the hotel shuttle. I mentioned the new QF 787 and told them about the PER-LHR flight.
After hearing that the flight was 17-18 hours, they went "nope. 16 hours duty on MAN-SFO is already long enough"

 

[davidj]

A very interesting piece by Media Watch

Nothing new. I highlighted this in my post on page one of this thread. Its likened to kickbacks.

The fact that most responses here seemed suprised even more shows the general public, and even some FF's follow these 'reviews' as gospel.

Apparently we all love fake news.

 

[justinbrett]

You guys are acting like Qantas is the first company to provide free goods & services to the media in order to get coverage. It's been happening since the birth of capitalism and happens in all industries.

I don't think there's been any suggestion that Qantas is censoring the content produced - and if you are suggesting that, that's a big call to question someone's professional integrity.

 

[RooFlyer]

You guys are acting like Qantas is the first company to provide free goods & services to the media in order to get coverage. It's been happening since the birth of capitalism and happens in all industries.

Seems to me the thread in the Qantas forum is reacting to a recently posted news article mainly about Qantas offering hospitality to journalists. Just because its happened forever doesn't mean that the story gets ignored if its raised again.

the topic in general has been raised and discussed on AFF a number of times.

 

[andyhui01]

Paul Barry is right on the money, pardon the pun Media Watch: Junketing journalists (23/10/2017)

Thanks for posting. Great read and exactly what I was thinking. I do give a thumbs up to the QF PR team for doing their job though, executed perfectly. Generated interest and awareness of the new plane and route. Plenty of people would have bought into it and bought tickets for their next trip to Europe.

As for the journalists, they just fell right into QF hands. Give it a few months and after the first PER-LHR flight, I am sure we will see articles along with passenger comments about how hard this flight is. Comparison between other airlines/aircraft doing this route... etc It will be many many years before QF gets another shiny new toy, so nothing for them to worry about.

 

[levelnine]

I don't think there's been any suggestion that Qantas is censoring the content produced - and if you are suggesting that, that's a big call to question someone's professional integrity.

You misunderstand the way corrupting forms of influence work. In particular, you misunderstand the difference between the quid pro quo and clientelist varieties.

Quid pro quo is where you give something of value in exchange for a particular favour in return (eg Qantas gives you a free business class ticket in return for a good review on a website). No one has suggested that Qantas does this.

Clientelism is where you give something of value with no expectation of a particular favour in return (eg Qantas gives you a free business class ticket, but never says anything about what it expects in return).

The important point to note is that clientelism is just as corrupting as quid pro quo because clientelism creates a system of patronage. In other words, the person who receives the gift knows what is expected of them and thus they do not need to be told what to do in exchange for the gift. They know, in particular, that the gifts will stop if they write a bad review.

For example, AusBT knows that if they write a scathing review of Qantas' product, their source of inside knowledge about forthcoming announcements and future invites to product launches will dry up. Qantas does not have to censor the content produced because they know the reviewer will self-censor.

If you'd like to learn more, the High Court of Australia talked about the distinction between the different types of corruption and the corrupting effects of clientelism in the political arena here: McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34 (7 October 2015) (see paragraphs 36 to 38).