Qantas - Sorry But I Am Over You

[jb747]

I guess because pilots don't always begin their message by identifying themselves, so 'from the flightdeck' (or whatever) gives context. It could be cabin crew otherwise.

A welcome 'from the flightdeck' is also perhaps more inclusive as it collectively includes everyone up there, rather than just the captain or first officer?

I've have said it was the other way around. I don't recall anyone who hasn't said their name and rank. Anyway, the flight deck is a place, not a person, or group thereof....

 

[drron]

Mrsdrron also would reject partner.
But on QF it is more than the words they use that are sexist.
Until this year mrsdrron was WP,I a mere NB and for 2 yearsPS.But invariably on QF I would get the greeting from the CSM whatever their gender was.On CX they got it right.

 

[Pushka]

Mrsdrron also would reject partner.
But on QF it is more than the words they use that are sexist.
Until this year mrsdrron was WP,I a mere NB and for 2 yearsPS.But invariably on QF I would get the greeting from the CSM whatever their gender was.On CX they got it right.

But what is right? Right for mrsdrron but not someone else. I’ve been ignored as WP when MrP (also WP) was graciously welcomed. But that seems to have improved lately.

 

[JohnK]

It’s interesting that this ‘inclusive’ language, is actually insulting to some people. For instance, a wife may well dislike being called a partner...I know one who does.

For some people being husband and wife is an important part of life. When you refer to them as a partner it is offensive.

Why? Going out with someone for a month and they are your partner. Going out with someone for a year and they are your partner. Married to someone for 50 years and they are your partner.

Something is not quite right. I'm not convinced the push for inclusiveness is right when you make others feel excluded.

We discussed birth certificates earlier. It is wrong to want to remove mother and father from birth certificates. I'm quite proud when I see the word 'father' on my daughter's birth certificate. For the majority of my adult life I was not going to be a 'father'. Donor 1 and Donor 2 or parent 1 and parent 2 do not have the same meaning. They are so impersonal.

If you feel excluded with current birth certificate then have another version of a birth certificate that does not have mother and father. People keep saying there is no one size fits all when it comes to parents so let's move to the lowest denominator so we don't offend some people. That's not right either. You're now offending me and if I'm now a minority you need to look at my needs too otherwise you're a hypocrite.

 

[drron]

But what is right? Right for mrsdrron but not someone else. I’ve been ignored as WP when MrP (also WP) was graciously welcomed. But that seems to have improved lately.

Exactly my point.What is "inclusive"language for some will not be for others.

 

[jb747]

My wife's theory on this is that it has nothing to do with language or inclusiveness...but is simply about control.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My wife's theory on this is that it has nothing to do with language or inclusiveness...but is simply about control.

It could be, except I'm thinking the use of gender specific language actually has potential ramifications for people's well-being, which would seem to take it out of the 'control' sphere. (That is, there's actually a point to being inclusive.)

I think your wife's point is a valid one if we were to consider a whole range of issues like (anti-)seat recline, (anti-)feet on bulkheads, what people can and can't wear into the Qantas Club... those things are all about control, and wanting to control others. Because doing any of those things has no ramifications for people's emotional welfare or self esteem.

 

[Blackbird]

Basic biology and some solid maths in base 2 and this thread wouldn’t exist.
It’s an education failure. Nothing else.
In aeronautical terms it’s defying gravity (and aeroplanes rely on gravity.)

 

[ALH]

Councils now call us Clients or Customers. No. We have no choice. We have to pay your rates.

I had my first experience with Centrelink recently. I accompanied a friend to try and help her navigate their system. I was quite shocked when she was referred to as a “Client”.

To my mind, “clients” are people paying for a service.

 

[ALH]

........To my mind (ancient that it is), partner has a degree of disposability to it....

I couldn’t agree more when describing a husband, wife or fiancée etc.

‘Partner’ to me sounds more businesslike. I have Business Partners. I could sell my shares, dissolve the partnership, or retire at any time. I don’t feel the same way about my marriage.

 

[Pushka]

I had my first experience with Centrelink recently. I accompanied a friend to try and help her navigate their system. I was quite shocked when she was referred to as a “Client”.

To my mind, “clients” are people paying for a service.

Maybe tax payers should be referred to as clients and Centrelink people referred to as, well, I don’t know then?

I couldn’t agree more when describing a husband, wife or fiancée etc.

‘Partner’ to me sounds more businesslike. I have Business Partners. I could sell my share, dissolve the partnership, or retire at any time. I don’t feel the same way about my marriage.

But in reality a marriage in its legal sense is no more than a partnership that can be dissolved.

 

[sjk]

Wonder if this (SMH article) will make the OP feel any better:

Cricket Australia has been told by major sponsor Qantas to deal with its cheating scandal as quickly as possible, with the airline's chief executive Alan Joyce saying that the incident had damaged Australia's global reputation as the land of the "fair go".

Mr Joyce said he was “extremely disappointed” by the incident, which has seen his airline's logo - embroidered on disgraced former captain Steve Smith’s official team cap – printed on the front pages of newspapers across the globe.

 

[Happy Dude]

Wonder if this (SMH article) will make the OP feel any better:

Cricket Australia has been told by major sponsor Qantas to deal with its cheating scandal as quickly as possible, with the airline's chief executive Alan Joyce saying that the incident had damaged Australia's global reputation as the land of the "fair go".

Mr Joyce said he was “extremely disappointed” by the incident, which has seen his airline's logo - embroidered on disgraced former captain Steve Smith’s official team cap – printed on the front pages of newspapers across the globe.

Yeah because QF's role in fixing freight charges and fuel surcharges places them in a position of moral authority.

 

[Toad]

Yes My Joyce you should clean up QFs own backyard first and get QF back in the line with the Spirit of Australia attitude or lack thereof by.QF customer service in many areas including flight crews.

 

[TheInsider]

Yes My Joyce you should clean up QFs own backyard first and get QF back in the line with the Spirit of Australia attitude or lack thereof by.QF customer service in many areas including flight crews.

This has been said over and over again, yet Qantas NPS (in the 50s) (Net Promoter - Wikipedia) is the highest it's ever been. Not saying they aren't doing things right all the time, but they must be doing something. So clearly people aren't giving negative feedback when they are asked for it at the end of every flight through their emails.

QANTAS - NET PROMOTER SCORE - Infografia

 

[Toad]

This has been said over and over again, yet Qantas NPS (Net Promoter - Wikipedia) is the highest it's ever been. So clearly people aren't giving negative feedback when they are asked for it at the end of every flight through their emails.

Yes agree but it is most likely that people have given up as the response from QF with complaints is mainly silence, silence and more silence. Qantas Facebook comments says it all

 

[HeavyElectricity]

To me, people getting offended/angry (on both sides of the debate) is a bit over-the-top, as usually there is no offence intended.

However (and I guess I'm a big hippy behind my façade), it makes me feel good to think that everyone is included and is not unintentionally ostracised. Going about your daily life and constantly being made to feel "abnormal" by being (unintentionally) excluded in casual conversation/phrases just because "it's what people have always said" can't be nice, even if people don't really mean it - it's still there.

Whilst a little bit of thought and a little bit of an attempt at being more inclusive might seem daft now, I can see how it could affect people in the long-term if they're excluded like that throughout their lives. But once it becomes more commonplace you likely won't need to "think before saying" anymore, and we'll be using the more inclusive terms "normally".

And no one is asking you to change how you refer to your personal relationships (people you know) - obviously you call them however your relationship has been built. This was talking about how to address people in general - people you don't know - in a way which can be more inclusive with maybe just a little effort for now, but really it's not much.

I won't get offended/angry if people make an assumption when they mean no malice, maybe just slightly disappointed . A request like this really shouldn't consume as much energy/debate as it does. Surely a small change to make others feel better (at no real detriment to yourself) should make people think "Yeah, why not", rather than start the defensive? But then I can also understand the defensive reaction when there are over-the-top accusations. So maybe we all need to calm down? Peace and love.

 

[HeavyElectricity]

Oh, and one final thought from me to try and put a positive spin on this entire thread...

Isn't it absolutely amazing that we can now have these debates on the "more trivial" issues? The world has never been as black/white as some like to think. It was purely that compared to the "big issues" (safety/freedom/rights) these kinds of requests/discussions weren't even considered - and even when most of those rights were established people probably felt they would be shunned/ostracised/ridiculed if raising them.

Yes, in the grand-scheme of things requests like this can seem petty, but the fact that we've got here is fantastic.

 

[QF WP]

Yeah because QF's role in fixing freight charges and fuel surcharges places them in a position of moral authority.

The good news is that with a new Global Head of Freight, (well 2-3 years ago now), who some here have met and is one of my QF contacts, they aren't going to be in that position again

I wonder whether the OP subject matter has been discussed sufficiently yet...