Upgrades to Aus Politicians and Family

[coyote25]

289 upgrades declared by Fed politicians and their families

http://theage.com.au/opinion/politi...upgrades-upon-politicians-20120829-2515a.html

Not sure about including K Rudd's wife in these figures since they came to her as a businesswomen not when flying with her husband.

So free upgrades exists. Probably not that many really for people on the road with high status.

Does show majority are freeing QF. Doesn't list DJ upgrades in the article.

 

[TheInsider]

The only times that i have seen CL's get upgraded is when it is in the normal processes, such as overbooking, or "op-ups".

 

[Robert Qld]

Clearly a slow news day if this is news.

 

[TheInsider]

289 really isnt that many, compared to the amount of Politicians with CLP1 status.

 

[k3nnis]

I always wondered, if QFF is not around anymore, what status will the politicians have in terms of FF programs?

 

[Oneworldplus2]

289 really isnt that many, compared to the amount of Politicians with CLP1 status.

Depends. If they are in J already....

I always wondered, if QFF is not around anymore, what status will the politicians have in terms of FF programs?

Virgin 'VIP/Invite' tier.

 

[yohy?!]

therese rein is probably CL in her own right so its quite dodgy lumping her in with the pollies

 

[JessicaTam]

Clearly a slow news day if this is news.

I agree. With the number of flights that pollies would takeper year, 289 upgrades would be quite a small number.

 

[ric_melb]

Exactly my thoughts. Therese Rein had business interests overseas, and no doubt travelled a lot. Would think she would be CL in her own right, but having Kevin as a husband could also have helped. No doubt if she was valuable to Qantas commercially, with the addition of who her husband was, would make sense for her to score some upgrades.

 

[Hvr]

Given pollies fly J domestically as the norm then surely these must be international upgrades from J to F?

In which case that seems like a heck of a lot of flights, or to put it another way, they have a damned good strike rate at getting upgrades.

 

[Rebekkap]

Given pollies fly J domestically as the norm then surely these must be international upgrades from J to F?

In which case that seems like a heck of a lot of flights, or to put it another way, they have a damned good strike rate at getting upgrades.

If you actually look through the register of interests, they're mostly upgrades when travelling internationally on their own dime, from economy to PE or J.

 

[gbh]

Clearly a slow news day if this is news.

It should be news that a major company routinely bribes politicians and that politicians accept.

 

[Rebekkap]

It should be news that a major company routinely bribes politicians and that politicians accept.

That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever read on this board.

Do you actually know what the definition of a bribe is? Bribe | Define Bribe at Dictionary.com

You have to be giving someone something with the intention of corrupting the behavior of that person.

What Qantas is doing by giving anyone an upgrade, including a politician, is marketing. They're not trying to corrupt, they're trying to ensure loyalty to their brand (made considerably more difficult for them since politicians no longer get frequent flyer points, I dare say).

 

[richie9x]

I had a quick browse through their database.

A lot of the upgrades only seem to be for one leg of the journey. A handful were lucky to get an upgrade both ways of a journey, They were mainly economy>business. A few business>first. Some economy>PE and some PE>business. I didn't see anyone lucky enough to economy>first.

Virgin popped up a few times. Mainly free lounge membership or velocity status. They also gave Blackberrys to some politicians two years ago. There were two Virgin upgrades I saw.

Emirates seems to popup a quite few times with upgrades. Etihad makes a few appearances. There are a few upgrades where the airline isn't given, some you can guess the likely airline from the origin/destination pair.

There were very few hotel upgrades reported.

It actually doesn't seem all that great. The reality of it doesn't really match up with all the rumours and myths about Chairman's Lounge free upgrades. In the past year I have probably received more free upgrades than most of the MPs.

 

[geordieladinoz]

It actually doesn't seem all that great. The reality of it doesn't really match up with all the rumours and myths about Chairman's Lounge free upgrades. In the past year I have probably received more free upgrades than most of the MPs.

I would support that too. Having received the holy grail of a Y to F upgrade on a delayed LAX-SYD in January 2012 I shall forever be the optimist. Also had Y to Y+ and Y to J upgrades during 2012 (all International). I am surprised that there are not more upgrades overall given the number of MP's.

 

[Danger]

That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever read on this board.

Do you actually know what the definition of a bribe is? Bribe | Define Bribe at Dictionary.com

You have to be giving someone something with the intention of corrupting the behavior of that person.

What Qantas is doing by giving anyone an upgrade, including a politician, is marketing. They're not trying to corrupt, they're trying to ensure loyalty to their brand (made considerably more difficult for them since politicians no longer get frequent flyer points, I dare say).

While "bribe" may or may not be too strong a term, I disagree that it can be called "marketing".

While federal politicians might not routinely earn QF or DJ frequent flyer points, possession of a CL membership still comes with equivalant oneworld Emerald status so that in itself is a pretty significant reason to fly QF internationally, at least when flying on your own dime in Y or Y+.

If it's marketing and trying to build brand loyalty then why aren't upgrades provided by QF to 'everyday' passengers? I'm only guessing but I dare say that 95% of the declared upgrades weren't provided because the passenger was oneworld Emerald or there was simply space in a higher cabin, but because he or she is a federal politician.

I had a quick browse through their database.

A lot of the upgrades only seem to be for one leg of the journey. A handful were lucky to get an upgrade both ways of a journey, They were mainly economy>business. A few business>first. Some economy>PE and some PE>business. I didn't see anyone lucky enough to economy>first.

Virgin popped up a few times. Mainly free lounge membership or velocity status. They also gave Blackberrys to some politicians two years ago. There were two Virgin upgrades I saw.

Emirates seems to popup a quite few times with upgrades. Etihad makes a few appearances. There are a few upgrades where the airline isn't given, some you can guess the likely airline from the origin/destination pair.

There were very few hotel upgrades reported.

It actually doesn't seem all that great. The reality of it doesn't really match up with all the rumours and myths about Chairman's Lounge free upgrades. In the past year I have probably received more free upgrades than most of the MPs.

I'm a little confused by this register. Although it seems to have been taken from the documents tabled in parliament, there's plenty of politicians who have failed to declare their CL membership. And they all get it. This leads me to believe that, similarly, not all upgrades are reported either and that they are therefore probably plenty more.

Interestingly, the database seems to be no longer available, at least not at The Age website.

 

[dajop]

While "bribe" may or may not be too strong a term, I disagree that it can be called "marketing".

I agree. With normal (private) citizens and companies it would be simply marketing to sway a purchasing decision. Simple as that. But for politicians there is a difference, it is not only about winning business but also the general legislative environment affecting airlines. It's a fine line I guess, and I assume these upgrades have been determined to be on the "safe" side of that line. A builder happens to be building a 3 BR single story home for a local councillor, but decides to "upgrade" it to a 5BR home with a swimming pool out the back for no extra cost, knowing full well the council is always letting out building contracts and can change planning laws .... where is the line?It would be interesting how the USA would view such actions under their Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, ,which restricts providing payments or things of value to politicians to influence their decision making (not that it applies to QF).

 

[gbh]

What Qantas is doing by giving anyone an upgrade, including a politician, is marketing. They're not trying to corrupt, they're trying to ensure loyalty to their brand (made considerably more difficult for them since politicians no longer get frequent flyer points, I dare say).

That's demonstrably false. The upgrades are not designed to influence politicians' behaviour as customers, they are designed to influence their behaviour as regulators, which is the very definition of corruption.

If they were trying to influence purchasing decisions, they wouldn't routinely upgrade politicians, they would use those upgrades those who are likely to be their most profitable customers ... and we all know how that's working out for us.

Qantas operates in a highly regulated industry, including the Qantas-specific legislation. It has innumerable interactions with governments, and there are innumerable ways that government can help or hinder its business. It has every incentive to grease the skids, and this is one way that it does it.

 

[BD1959]

It would be interesting how the USA would view such actions under their Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, ,which restricts providing payments or things of value to politicians to influence their decision making (not that it applies to QF).

I'm not sure that Qantas is exempt from the FCPA:

With the enactment of certain amendments in 1998, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA now also apply to foreign firms and persons who cause, directly or through agents, an act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the United States.

Working for a US Corporation, we have to undertake annual training which briefly covers the FCPA. I certainly would never pay for a prospective customer's upgrade because of the possible implications.

Regards,

BD

 

[medhead]

That's demonstrably false. The upgrades are not designed to influence politicians' behaviour as customers, they are designed to influence their behaviour as regulators, which is the very definition of corruption.

That's a massive call! Where's the proof? How do you know the expectation. If anything what you're saying here is demonstrably false due to the very existent of a register. That's the whole point of it so that everyone knows what has been given and there are no secrets. Corrupt advances are possible when the benefit is secret not when it's out in the open.

I've had a company fly me, when a regulator, on their private aircraft. Was that corrupt? Does it help you to know that they flew me to their site to investigate a serious matter. Still corrupt?

Besides giving someone something isn't corruption. You're all talking about this FCPA thingy as if giving something is proof in itself. Don't ignore the bit about the giving "being intended to influence". If you can give out stuff without an expectation of favours and it will not be corrupt.


Sent from the Throne