Lamest QF promotion ever

[goldy]

No it isn't 2 for 1 anymore...

Fair enough.

any type of sale a company puts on could be given the discrimination angle.

I suppose it could be........and all it'd take, is for one person to challenge it.

 

[straitman]

goldy,

If this is discrimination then it is discrimination for companies to do:

1. Facebook promos as not everyone uses Facebook,
2. Twitter promos
3. Any other promo that restricts in any way who can take up the offer.

It is not discrimination IMHO.

 

[goldy]

It is not discrimination IMHO.

The caveat here is that its IYHO..... Others opinions may very well be different.
I dont want this to turn into a slinging match, but in the examples you used, you are able to meet the conditions of the sale by joining FB or twitter etc... but with companion sales, you have NO WAY to meet them if you are a solo traveller. Would it be discrimination if they limited a sale to males only? using the logic above, it wouldnt be, because not everyone is male.

Im not saying it is or isn't discrimination from a legal or any other perspective. I really don't have an opinion on it to be honest. But what I can say is that I understand why solo travellers wanting to take advantage of these very reasonable fares and are unable to, would be peeved.

Each to their own and can we please agree to disagree rather than trying to ram our opinions and thoughts down others throats who obviously disagree. cheers.

 

[medhead]

The caveat here is that its IYHO..... Others opinions may very well be different.
I dont want this to turn into a slinging match, but in the examples you used, you are able to meet the conditions of the sale by joining FB or twitter etc... but with companion sales, you have NO WAY to meet them if you are a solo traveller. Would it be discrimination if they limited a sale to males only? using the logic above, it wouldnt be, because not everyone is male.

False analogy. It would be discrimination if the sale was to males only on the basis of gender. It would selectively prevent a readily identifiable, discreet group of people, females, from accessing the sale solely on the basis of them being female. That is specifically prohibited by legislation. So the "logic above" doesn't come into it.

Unlike a solo traveller who is not part of a readily identifiable group; they can be of all races, colours and creeds. Hence it is not discrimination because you cannot specify which group is being disadvantaged.

 

[straitman]

Each to their own and can we please agree to disagree rather than trying to ram our opinions and thoughts down others throats who obviously disagree. cheers.

It works for me. I've only made two unrelated posts on the thread versus six from you.

 

[nickykim]

With my HR hat on:

Yes it is discrimination.

No it is not illegal because it is not discrimination on the grounds on any of the characteristics described in the various pieces of state and fed legislation.

Come across this all the time - discrimination is not illegal per se.

NickyKim

 

[rechoboam]

I have a family, many friends and lots of business colleagues too. But I don't take any of these groups on flights long enough to IMHO require business seats. I only fly to Europe or the US on business if I really need to, then I buy a single J fare.

I really don't feel that I am being discriminated against as a result!

 

[goldy]

Unlike a solo traveller who is not part of a readily identifiable group; they can be of all races, colours and creeds. Hence it is not discrimination because you cannot specify which group is being disadvantaged.

Am I missing something here? all i'm reading is contradiction.

You claim that a solo traveller is not part of a readily identifiable group? How about the "solo traveller" group.
As has been subsequently posted by nickykim, discrimination does not in its own right, necessarily involve an element of illegality, but there are certain elements (like gender, race and the ones you've described) that do.

To say that it is "simply not" discrimination because you cannot specify which group is being disadvantaged, is not only factually incorrect, because in this case, it is solo travellers that are disadvantaged, but more so because discrimination is "not simply" anything. It is very rarely, if ever, as black and white as your comment would have us believe.

 

[medhead]

Am I missing something here? all i'm reading is contradiction.

You claim that a solo traveller is not part of a readily identifiable group? How about the "solo traveller" group.
As has been subsequently posted by nickykim, discrimination does not in its own right, necessarily involve an element of illegality, but there are certain elements (like gender, race and the ones you've described) that do.

To say that it is "simply not" discrimination because you cannot specify which group is being disadvantaged, is not only factually incorrect, because in this case, it is solo travellers that are disadvantaged, but more so because discrimination is "not simply" anything. It is very rarely, if ever, as black and white as your comment would have us believe.

Try thinking carefully and then define a unique, readily identifiable, exclusive group as solo travellers. You can not do that because sometimes people travel alone and sometimes they travel with others. Your business person, like myself, might travel alone during the year. But at the time of this sale that person is probably on holidays and hence can travel with family. Are they are solo traveller or not. Simply put there is no clear basis of claiming discrimination against any one unique group. The only contradiction is trying pretend people's travel requirements are fixed and unvarying.

 

[straitman]

To say that it is "simply not" discrimination because you cannot specify which group is being disadvantaged, is not only factually incorrect, because in this case, it is solo travellers that are disadvantaged, but more so because discrimination is "not simply" anything. It is very rarely, if ever, as black and white as your comment would have us believe.

I'll agree with you that you are disadvantaged but I will not agree that you are discriminated against.

In any case the discussion topic is 'Lamest QF promotion ever' so surely there is more to discuss than the definition of discrimination :!:

 

[anat0l]

In any case the discussion topic is 'Lamest QF promotion ever' so surely there is more to discuss than the definition of discrimination :!:

The crux of the argument appears to be that QF are actively discriminating against single / solo travelers with this promotion, hence why it is "lame", or more precisely from the OP, the "lamest promotion ever".

In reality the technical debate at hand actually does something for the argument from a technical point-of-view but not from a moral one (certainly for those who believe there is discrimination or not, they will not be convinced otherwise anyway, and the realisation doesn't affect their utility of the sale or lack thereof).

[/meta discussion]




----------
This anat0l content, if it must be known,
Was sent via Aust Freq Fly app, but not from an iPhone.

 

[goldy]

The crux of the argument appears to be that QF are actively discriminating against single / solo travelers with this promotion, hence why it is "lame", or more precisely from the OP, the "lamest promotion ever".

In reality the technical debate at hand actually does something for the argument from a technical point-of-view but not from a moral one

I introduced the possibility that this "sale" was discriminatory, but lets drop it, insofar as it doesnt relate to the topic.

IMO, the sale is lame because the notion of a sale is to boost... well.. sales and by restricting the sale to dual travellers at the expense of those most likely to book the fares (the solo traveller) you rae limiting the number of fares you could sell. And lets not bring in the concept of supply and demand because we all know that the availability of these I fares is heavily restricted. QF should be happy to sell 2 of these fares to 2 separate people, if only because it puts bums on seats and helps with immediate cash flow. Qantas at its finest......alienating the customers it should be fighting tooth and nail to keep. Whats the saying? A bird in the hand.......is worth 2 at SQ (I know, its in the bush)

 

[juddles]

I cannot believe that anyone can call this sale "discrimination". That is ludicrous! If I want to fly to Bali and Qantas has a special to Fiji, is that discrimination too? Because it discriminates against anyone who actually wishes to go to a different destination???? I understand the envy one could feel when you are travelling solo and can't get a flight as cheap as for each of two people who can take advantage of a companion deal. But it is sheer envy. It is NOT discrimination. Absolutely ludicrous that debate.

 

[Dalescott]

This is aimed at the Mums and Dads with money, who want to travel in comfort. This is a growing market and Qantas needs to increase it's market share in this area.

 

[goldy]

I cannot believe that anyone can call this sale "discrimination". That is ludicrous! If I want to fly to Bali and Qantas has a special to Fiji, is that discrimination too? Because it discriminates against anyone who actually wishes to go to a different destination???? I understand the envy one could feel when you are travelling solo and can't get a flight as cheap as for each of two people who can take advantage of a companion deal. But it is sheer envy. It is NOT discrimination. Absolutely ludicrous that debate.

And as Straitman and I have both asked.... please keep the thread on topic. it is NOT about discrimination, no one said it is or isnt discriminatory so just get that out of your head.

why do you still feel the need to push the proverbial uphill.... geez.....

This is aimed at the Mums and Dads with money, who want to travel in comfort. This si a growing market and Qantas needs to increase it's market share in this area.

to the detriment of all the singles out there , who probably outnumber your demographic by 5 to 1 and would IMO, be more likely to purchase these fares, if they were able to??

I dont know about you, but if I saw an offer like this and knew the p/p price for these fares, as a single, i would not book and pay QF 2.5 times the p/p price as a matter of principle.
So good luck to them if they wish to target the demographic you suggest, but to do so to the detriment of cashed up singles is IMO very short sighted.

 

[serfty]

I don't get the grief here ... there was a similar 2 PAX promotion for premium cabins for the same time of year two or five years ago.

It's op-upgrade season for most with status ...

 

[Stuser]

Well I'm glad that we've all had fun with this topic.....

It's great that we have so many varying opinions on the subject....

Personally, as the OP, I am satisfied that some people also think that this promo is lame, while others do not. I understand all perspectives. Thanks for your ideas. Now go do something more productive than arguing the fine points! :shock:

But what I'm really thankful of is that because of this thread that I started I "remembered" that LAN are actually excellent value for money across the Tasman, AND that I even started a thread on that very topic last October, did a return journey in J, AND wrote a bloody trip report about it. Damn advancing age, receding hairlines and receded brain power....!

 

[Robert K]

So any promotion that you don't personally benefit from is lame?


Do you get mad when tampons are on sale?

And when I say you, I mean people that are up In arms about this and not the OP

 

[goldy]

So any promotion that you don't personally benefit from is lame?


Do you get mad when tampons are on sale?

And when I say you, I mean ppl that are up In arms about this and not th OP

I do when they arent on sale because I find them useful for my blood nose!!

 

[oz_mark]

The crux of the argument appears to be that QF are actively discriminating against single / solo travelers with this promotion, hence why it is "lame", or more precisely from the OP, the "lamest promotion ever".

In reality the technical debate at hand actually does something for the argument from a technical point-of-view but not from a moral one (certainly for those who believe there is discrimination or not, they will not be convinced otherwise anyway, and the realisation doesn't affect their utility of the sale or lack thereof).

I have no idea what you just said :shock:, but market segmentation (aka price discrimination) is a fundamental underpinning of yield management! Consider the promotion from a yield management perspective, and the promotion makes sense.