Family pooling - same sex partner

[harvyk]

Do we know why Qantas persists in having a list of eligible people to assign awards? (as opposed to other carriers where you can just give them to anyone you want?)

So that points can't be sold on ebay. QF wants to be the only people who can control the allocation of points (since they also sell them and they make huge profits on them), and allowing points transfers to anyone could in theory open up a gray market so to speak.

 

[bismarck]

I don't think "daughter in law" necessarily means there needs to be a marriage involved.

I would read it as (if I were the father in question) "the female domestic partner/de facto of my child" which the OP perfectly fits into.

Just my view.

 

[nlagalle]

No way! Qantas shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on who she decides to be in a relationship.

The question isn't about gifting points - it's about a father using point to upgrade - this is something they crack down on. They are two totally different things.

She shouldn't have to lie.

She shouldn't have to disguise it under cousin or auntie.

This is 2014.

Get with the program Qantas.

Red Roo - please help and talk some sense into the program!!!

They don't so I am not sure why you are jumping up and down.. using points to upgrade and gifting have the same requirements for a "family" member. Qantas haven't said no, just people here making conjecture.

 

[Simsy85]

They don't so I am not sure why you are jumping up and down.. using points to upgrade and gifting have the same requirements for a "family" member. Qantas haven't said no, just people here making conjecture.

Sometimes there isn't principle at stake, and in those cases you should let it go through to the keeper.

This is different.

The OP isn't at fault. Qantas's terms and conditions are outdated and need an update.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sometimes there isn't principle at stake, and in those cases you should let it go through to the keeper.

This is different.

The OP isn't at fault. Qantas's terms and conditions are outdated and need an update.

to be fair, they have domestic partner. Adding 'domestic-partner-in law' and 'domestic-niece-in-law' (etc) might be going a step too far

 

[Madz]

Perhaps a note at the top or bottom that indicates that same sex couples are eligible for all relationships reference above/below.

Just a thought =)

 

[nlagalle]

Sometimes there isn't principle at stake, and in those cases you should let it go through to the keeper.

This is different.

The OP isn't at fault. Qantas's terms and conditions are outdated and need an update.

No they aren't out of date.. explain where it is as it has "domestic partner" and defacto as well. covers everything. there is nowhere it says you can't gift points to a same sex couple/partner.

 

[medhead]

Perhaps a note at the top or bottom that indicates that same sex couples are eligible for all relationships reference above/below.

Just a thought =)

I understand this might venture into sensitive territory with respect to recognition and the word marriage. But...

Same sex partner is cover by partner and I expect it would be illegal to exclude such a relationship. I think such a note is not required.

The same sex note would only apply to partner/marriage anyway.

 

[dajop]

Perhaps a note at the top or bottom that indicates that same sex couples are eligible for all relationships reference above/below.

Just a thought =)

Not necessary to indicate that as "domestic partner" covers same sex relationships, years ago when I achieved partner gold, I simply added my (same sex) partner no questions asked. I am sure Paul Hogan and Michael Caton (Strange Bedfellows movie for those not familiar) would also have no issue.

If any clarification is required (and I don't think it is, given the level of proof that QF usually requires.... i.e. none) it would be simply to state that "in-law" relationships apply to lawfully married and common law spouses. End of story. Unmarried male/female couples are in the same situation with respect to "in-law's" (or out-laws?) as same sex couples.

 

[fersea]

Perhaps a note at the top or bottom that indicates that same sex couples are eligible for all relationships reference above/below.

Just a thought =)

and then someone will complain that why are same sex relationships required to fall under the asterix, that there is no need to specify that heterosexual relationships need to be noted.

Seriously, this thread is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. After all, this is a company that has an openly gay CEO.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

to be fair, they have domestic partner. Adding 'domestic-partner-in law' and 'domestic-niece-in-law' (etc) might be going a step too far

Totally agree! There is a difference between "just" rights and pandering to idiocy. I'm a firm believer in the rights of all, to choose their own partner regardless of sex and also to marry their chosen partner regardless of sex but there is no problem here and it's perfectly well written by QF and adequately covered by Australian law. Time to stop playing the "downtrodden" minority martyr and just get on with life!