Avoiding the Qantas 787

[justinbrett]

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).

Don’t presume to tell me what I do and do not understand! Get of your high horse!

Two things - as I said this happens in every industry. Like it or not it is the norm in western countries.

The other - you are implying that every journalist will write a biased article so they keep getting free stuff. Some may, probably the younger ones without experience. But to suggest all of them do is scandalous.

David Flynn has already commented on this - you think he’s worried the free stuff will dry up? I doubt it.

How would you like it if someone questioned your professional integrity on a public forum without specific evidence?

 

[Mr_Orange]

2. you call a set-menu delivery dinner 'wining and dining'? Not really! And for me that was a working dinner anyway, for a while I had laptop in front of me and meals being served to the side as I wordsmithed away.

Oh, cry me a river. Seriously!!

I've read your report on ABT, and it was sycophantic and gushy. There is nothing revolutionary about the QF787 J seat. Changing the divider from fixed to sliding and changing the colour palette is not revolutionary.

 

[levelnine]

Don’t presume to tell me what I do and do not understand! Get of your high horse!

Two things - as I said this happens in every industry. Like it or not it is the norm in western countries.

The other - you are implying that every journalist will write a biased article so they keep getting free stuff. Some may, probably the younger ones without experience. But to suggest all of them do is scandalous.

David Flynn has already commented on this - you think he’s worried the free stuff will dry up? I doubt it.

How would you like it if someone questioned your professional integrity on a public forum without specific evidence?

I do not need to presume anything. You demonstrated a lack of knowledge in your post. And continue to do so in this one.

First, it 'happens in every industry' is not in any way a response to my post. A form of poor practice that is widespread is still a form of poor practice.

That's what the ABC Media Report showed. It is commonplace for media organisations to accept junkets from Qantas. The fact that many do it simply accentuates the cause for concern.

Second, a travel writer's entire livelihood depends on receiving privileged access to travel industry suppliers. If they do not, they are not in a position to offer exclusives, scoops and so on. So a travel writer absolutely has to worry about losing privileged access.

Third, in terms of a lack of 'specific evidence', you clearly did not read the link that I posted. If you had, you would have seen that the High Court of Australia specifically addressed this issue. At paragraph 37, they quote from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on clientelism:

It has been said of the nature of the risk of clientelism that:

unlike straight cash-for-votes transactions, such corruption is neither easily detected nor practical to criminalize. The best means of prevention is to identify and to remove the temptation.

 

[RichardMEL]

All this bashing of one bloke, who at least stands by his real name, seems pretty unfair to me and frankly is OT to this thread in my view.

My concern about the QF 789 J suite is that it works fairly well for the current missions it is on - the 8-10 hour asia missions, but we're talking 17 hours PER-LHR ULH operations... ANY seat is going to be painful (let's not even contemplate Y, though many will have to ) and it seems QF have not changed the overall design much to even provide a little more room.. once in those seats it can be a little crampy to me. That with the lack of a stand up sort of area (bar if you will) means pax will be more or less confined to their seating area which isn't going to be much fun come 13+ hours in. Sure, you can get up and go walk and hang around the door 2/galley area until the FAs get sick of it, or walk down the back but it seems like QF have ignored that on such a long flight just getting up and stretching is vital for many every so often. Even doing F on the 380 I get up and go stretch ahead of the lavs in the 1L area (1R being that little rest area) or walk upstairs to the J "lounge" area.. it's something... of course we know on the 789 being forward of row 1 is difficult due to the coughpit location, security etc....

Come to think of it, there seems nothing for PE or Y pax either in this regard.

I know space is $$$$ and all, but I think some other carriers may have thought this through a little better.

 

[justinbrett]

I do not need to presume anything. You demonstrated a lack of knowledge in your post. And continue to do so in this one.

First, it 'happens in every industry' is not in any way a response to my post. A form of poor practice that is widespread is still a form of poor practice.

That's what the ABC Media Report showed. It is commonplace for media organisations to accept junkets from Qantas. The fact that many do it simply accentuates the cause for concern.

Second, a travel writer's entire livelihood depends on receiving privileged access to travel industry suppliers. If they do not, they are not in a position to offer exclusives, scoops and so on. So a travel writer absolutely has to worry about losing privileged access.

Third, in terms of a lack of 'specific evidence', you clearly did not read the link that I posted. If you had, you would have seen that the High Court of Australia specifically addressed this issue. At paragraph 37, they quote from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on clientelism:

The context of both the Australian High Court order you linked and the US Supreme Court decisión are both in relation to electoral corruption. Put the university ethics textbooks away and take a lesson in the real world.

Also a warning to you personally as you throw around words like corruption in relation to a corporate entity like Qantas or a respected journalist like David Flynn. Similar posts on another aviation forum (pprune) has led to legal action for defamation.

Recent high-profile defamation events illustrate that there are ways in which third parties can force personal data, including contents of personal messages, to be released by bulletin board owners. Be careful - libelous/defamatory posts can and have landed members in legal hot water. PPRuNe will not guarantee your anonymity in such situations.

.

You really need to get a grip. It’s not like they could choose their destination or go on holidays with their families. A couple of days of luxury yes, but they had to work, albeit in comfortable surroundings. For you to go down this corruption line of thinking is just wrong.

 

[Berlin]

Is it only me or is this thread going WAY out of hand (i.e. off topic)? Any mods around?

 

[Flying Fox]

We are a very passionate lots aren't we

 

[Comoman]

Another article - this time all three classes are reviewed:

A 17-hour long haul? How the Qantas Dreamliner's seats stack up

 

[dajop]

For you to go down this corruption line of thinking is just wrong.

I think it is ethically flawed (though it's a perhaps a bridge too far to suggest it is corrupt) if there is no disclosure. As long as journalists, bloggers and TV news reporters disclose that the product and trip they reviewed was provided by Qantas gratis then readers/viewers can make their own judgements.

We should leave talk of corruption to discussions about the Chairman's Lounge

 

[dajop]

Another article - this time all three classes are reviewed:

A 17-hour long haul? How the Qantas Dreamliner's seats stack up

IMHO, I don't think you can credibly review economy seats as they relate to a 17 hour long haul flight unless you've sat in them in a full cabin (or near to full cabin) for at least 5 or 6 hours.

 

[justinbrett]

I think it is ethically flawed (though it's a perhaps a bridge too far to suggest it is corrupt) if there is no disclosure. As long as journalists, bloggers and TV news reporters disclose that the product and trip they reviewed was provided by Qantas gratis then readers/viewers can make their own judgements.

We should leave talk of corruption to discussions about the Chairman's Lounge

I absolutely agree, and I’m not defending the sunrise/today reporters. The media watch article said all of the other journos did. They all should have, no question.

 

[Berlin]

Another article - this time all three classes are reviewed:

Can one really call this a "review"? These articles are always so meh, once read I instantly regret having wasted a few minutes of my life.

 

[Comoman]

Can one really call this a "review"? These articles are always so meh, once read I instantly regret having wasted a few minutes of my life.

Absolutely agree.

 

[drron]

I will not be chasing QF's Dreamliner.To me a plane is a plane.As long as it gets me from A to B in reasonable time with a reasonable hard product everything is OK.What matters more to me is the soft product.Good service is what to me makes an enjoyable flight.So my last flight on a TG 787 was a good flight-reasonable crew and top quality Thai food.

 

[QF WP]

Is it only me or is this thread going WAY out of hand (i.e. off topic)? Any mods around?

Yes, we're around, watching and reading. Agree so far there has been a lot of passionate debate. Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing under the pseudonym of SG Tallentyre) said it best: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I'm sure that our members know when the line is crossed and it becomes a personal attack (and everybody should be aware, ahead of time, of the consequences for such actions).

Now back on topic. To put my disclaimer up front, I've only flown the QF A380 twice (on the Media trip to DXB in 2011, paid for by QF and EK, thankfully in Premium Economy). For my own comment, I'm not really much of an international flyer these days, but I know that will change. Personally, it matters less about seat pitch (even though I'm tall) or width (thankfully I'm not overweight) or even noise (isn't that why NC headphones were built?); rather I'm into other experiences (Check-in, Lounges, CSM/FA service, food and beverage, IFE). I would say that an extended delay in getting to a toilet and space within is relevant. When I am looking at medium- or long-haul (looking at LAX in September 2018), then I'll pay attention to the data and experiences advised by others.

 

[davidj]

Any blogger who receives 'free' flights and exclusive treatment by airlines is by definition non-independent.

The only way one can be truely independent and report non-bias reviews is arms length flights, purchased like any other pax. They would also need to disclose any other conflict of interest, or remove themselves from the conflict.

 

[serfty]

Is it only me or is this thread going WAY out of hand (i.e. off topic)? Any mods around?

[Monderator Hat]

We have been watching ...

All, you are free to discuss the topic at hand, however, do not disparage another member or post in a manner that is in violation of the terms of being a member of this site.

Further such comment may incur sanction for any member so infringing!​

[/Moderator hat]

 

[davidj]

David Flynn has already commented on this - you think he’s worried the free stuff will dry up? I doubt it.

It would be a very stupid business decision if he did NOT. How do you think he'll react if he misses out on the next airline launch junket? Obviously he misses out on a 'scoop', and cost him advertising dollars.

 

[DavidFlynn]

For those bleating about junketeering journalism and making inane claims of influence – as if a single business class trip, some dinners and delivery flight could influence me, seeing I do this stuff all the time, it's only novel to those who don't go, for me it's just work (and there's a lot of work involved) and it's just the job – but either way, my review of the Qantas Boeing 787-9 premium economy seat should put things things in perspective and maybe even see some Neil Perry humble pie served up
Review: Qantas Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner premium economy seat

 

[andyhui01]

David Flynn has just posted this review on the PE seat. It isn't full of marketing PR spin, seems like a fair and non-biased review. tbh, I am not sure why ausbt got singled out in this thread. The same comments can be made to any outlet that covered the Dreamliner launch last week, didn't see any need to start naming.

Review: Qantas Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner premium economy seat