Revoking Privileges from those Voicing Opinions Contrary to Yours

[Forg]

^ Indeed. But there seemed to be people in this thread who were either saying or thinking that the agenda was personal; but it’s just, as you say, “brand”. QF wants their brand to appear progressive, and to be honest I think they’re right in thinking that the future is going to see more & more people being intolerant of intolerance - people who’ll buy a ticket because of association with racism & sexism & religious intolerance are fewer than people who WON”T buy a ticket due to association with those things.

In fact ... wonder if a part of Joyce getting the job was due to his sexual orientation? The board working with the marketing people to get the person with the “right image”.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think that's right. And why should a major airline sponsor a sportin team if the members of that team can't abide by the sponsor's brand? Same with TAC in Victoria... if a member of a sports team is found drink driving they risk sponsorship.

 

[amaroo]

The brand argument doesn't work all that well with the Emirates partnership .... unless you totally ignore the hypocrisy of it all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The brand argument doesn't work all that well with the Emirates partnership .... unless you totally ignore the hypocrisy of it all.

As was said in the thread about boycotting Brunei... it's one thing to have a law and not enforce it, it's another to proactively add it to your books.

Same with Emirates... Dubai you can still do pretty much what you want. They recognise the value of tourism. That, coupled with the Emirates brand itself makes for a comfortable (albeit maybe not 'perfect') for for the brand.

Different to an individual saying a certain class of people are evil and will go to hell.

If the Emirates came out with similar comments it would be interesting to see how the partnership would go.

 

[amaroo]

As was said in the thread about boycotting Brunei... it's one thing to have a law and not enforce it, it's another to proactively add it to your books.

Same with Emirates... Dubai you can still do pretty much what you want. They recognise the value of tourism. That, coupled with the Emirates brand itself makes for a comfortable (albeit maybe not 'perfect') for for the brand.

Different to an individual saying a certain class of people are evil and will go to hell.

If the Emirates came out with similar comments it would be interesting to see how the partnership would go.

So ignore it is then

 

[Pushka]

So ignore it is then

When it suits. Apparently.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So ignore it is then

It's not a case of 'ignore'. But it's also not a case of comparing apples with apples. Falou and Emirates aren't the same issue.

 

[Forg]

When it suits. Apparently.

We’re talking about a corporate entity whose prime responsibility is to it’s shareholders.
Shirley this attitude ain’t a surprise?

The Emirates tie-up ... was it arranged under a different QF regime? Regardless, Emirates does push (and I would suggest does have) an image of ‘premium’; gaudy, shallow & tastless ‘premium’ but nevertheless ‘premium’. That would’ve been weighed up as a ‘positive’ against the awful human-rights violations of Emirate’s owners ... they thought to obtain at least as much ‘sheen’ as ‘poo smell’ outta the arrangement, while allowing more convenient (for QF) management of routes & transfers.

 

[Pushka]

It's not a case of 'ignore'. But it's also not a case of comparing apples with apples. Falou and Emirates aren't the same issue.

They kind of are really as they both stem from a dislike of “variations” in what they consider to be “normal” human relationships and which is then indoctrinated into a religion.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

They kind of are really as they both stem from a dislike of “variations” in what they consider to be “normal” human relationships and which is then indoctrinated into a religion.

You need to consider it in the context of brand management though. In that context the two are very different.

If it was a different context, the tie-up with Emirates may well come under closer scruitiny.

 

[amaroo]

You need to consider it in the context of brand management though. In that context the two are very different.

If it was a different context, the tie-up with Emirates may well come under closer scruitiny.

It has .... multiply articles have been written about the hypocrisy.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It has .... multiply articles have been written about the hypocrisy.

I haven't come across them. It would be interesting to see who they are authored by. Social commentators, or those in the PR/brand field.

 

[Haplo]

I really dont know why politicians should be able to use the CL in the first place. They are voted in by the people so should spend time with the people (i.e. in the Qantas Business or Qantas Club) so they can actually know what is going on in the outside world rather than being in their own exclusive club and have no idea what the average people want.

 

[serfty]

The Emirates tie-up ... was it arranged under a different QF regime?

No - Qantas under AJ was courting MH but EK came with a better offer.

(AJ became CEO in 2008, the QF and EK tieup was launched in 2013).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No - Qantas under AJ was courting MH but EK came with a better offer.

(AJ became CEO in 2008, the QF and EK tieup was launched in 2013).

Hard to imagine the basis for a tie-up with MH. Zero European network?

 

[serfty]

Hard to imagine the basis for a tie-up with MH. Zero European network?

Qantas sponsored MH into oneworld ... the process began in 2011

| oneworld

www.oneworld.com

News Room Archives | Qantas

Search our historical News Room archives to discover media releases from 2002 to 2013.

www.qantas.com

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Qantas sponsored MH into oneworld ... the process began in 2011

| oneworld

www.oneworld.com

News Room Archives | Qantas

Search our historical News Room archives to discover media releases from 2002 to 2013.

www.qantas.com

But sponsoring is different to a partnership like EK? And not sure how long it would have lasted after 2014 - huge risk to have a QF codeshare on flights after that.

 

[serfty]

But sponsoring is different to a partnership like EK? And not sure how long it would have lasted after 2014 - huge risk to have a QF codeshare on flights after that.

Qantas were exploring opportunities with MH - to Quote AJ:

...
GATEWAYS TO THE WORLD
...
We are choosing the world’s leading airlines to help us take our customers to their favourite places around the world and to their key business destinations.
...
- We’re also looking at new opportunities to work with oneworld™ member elect, Malaysia Airlines particularly given its services to continental Europe including Istanbul, Rome and Amsterdam. ...

Any issues that happened with MH in2014 were after QF alliance EK the year before.

So my comment stands:

No - Qantas under AJ was courting MH but EK came along with a better offer.

 

[drron]

It's not a case of 'ignore'. But it's also not a case of comparing apples with apples. Falou and Emirates aren't the same issue.

Except that homosexuality is illegal in Dubai and for punishment you don't have to wait for the afterlife.You will get a look at an UAE prison from the inside.
So i agree Folau and Emirates aren't the same issue.Emirates is worse

 

[Moody]

Except that homosexuality is illegal in Dubai and for punishment you don't have to wait for the afterlife.You will get a look at an UAE prison from the inside.
So i agree Folau and Emirates aren't the same issue.Emirates is worse

Sorry - how is the Emirates airline tie-up worse? Are they profiling their passengers and marching the queer ones off to jail if they dare to transit via Dubai? Or simply berating them for their behaviour and telling them that they will burn in hell?

If they did anything like that I am fairly sure Qantas would move to terminate the relationship. Like they have with that muppet IF.