Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
By NICK EVANS
- 7:21PM OCTOBER 23, 2023
The APSC quietly updated its guidance on disclosing gifts to public servants on Monday, and the only change?
A pointed note to public agency heads that membership of exclusive airline membership lounges – the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, along with Virgin’s Beyond Lounge – counts as a “gift” that should be disclosed.
“In circumstances where agency heads are gifted airline lounge memberships (including those which are invitation-only), these must be recorded in their agency’s gifts and benefits register annually or when circumstances change, such as a new or cancelled membership,” says the new disclosure guidance.
Most people might think that should be merely a statement of the bleeding obvious.
But apparently not, given the recent slew of belated disclosures across the public service – prompted partly by the revelation in September that new Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock had forgotten to disclose her membership of the exclusive invitation-only club at Qantas.
RBA governor Michele Bullock. Picture: John Feder It seems the senior executives across a vast range of federal government agencies had somehow failed to notice that lounge membership might be worth slightly more than the $100 threshold for inclusion in their agency’s gift register.For those playing at home, $100 will buy you about four ham and cheese toasties (with coffee) at Melbourne airport.
Qantas admitted in early October it offered membership of its exclusive club to a raft of senior public servants.
Soon after the Defence Department uploaded a special edition of its gift register dedicated to airline memberships – showing that more than 20 of its top civilian and uniformed personnel had accepted membership to the Qantas and Virgin lounges, including department secretary Greg Moriarty, chief of defence General Angus Campbell, associate secretary Matt Yannopoulos, and the list goes on down the ranks.
The Australian Federal Police banged in its own disclosures in late September, updating its gift registry to include airline lounge memberships for AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw, three deputy commissioners and its chief operating officer.
As befitting its usual operating mode of pointless secrecy, Home Affairs updated its own list in late September – but didn’t put any dates, names or numbers on the disclosure, saying only that the memberships were received by “senior executives”. Margin Call is a little surprised it didn’t write the affair off as an “operating matter” and decline to disclose anything at all.
Same goes for Services Australia, which purportedly delivers benefits for the country’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. Its September disclosure noted that an unnamed number of “qualifying department executive officials” accepted the kind of corporate largesse beyond the wildest dreams of the plebs they’re supposed to be helping.
And the list goes on, and on.
Kudos though to new Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry boss Adam Fennessy, who managed to disclose he had accepted membership of the Chairman’s Lounge before starting his new role on September 18.
Not so much his predecessor, Andrew Metcalfe, who bunged in his own disclosure on October 11 – more than 44 months after being first granted access to the exclusive club.
The following users liked this post:
Just goes to show how normalised the deviation is at the top of the Federal public sector and government. They seem seriously to believe that merely declaring the acceptance of the largesse makes the problem go away.
If the new NACC does not come out and state in words of one syllable: DO-NOT-ACK-SEPT-IT-IN-THE-FIRST-PLACE, that will not auger well for the NACC's efficacy.
There is a simple solution to allow them to continue to gather in cloistered splendour to feel superior to the lumpen proletariat: Establish an arm's length price for membership, and individuals must pay that fee out of their own remuneration packages.
If the new NACC does not come out and state in words of one syllable: DO-NOT-ACK-SEPT-IT-IN-THE-FIRST-PLACE, that will not auger well for the NACC's efficacy.
There is a simple solution to allow them to continue to gather in cloistered splendour to feel superior to the lumpen proletariat: Establish an arm's length price for membership, and individuals must pay that fee out of their own remuneration packages.
The following users liked this post:
That's an elegant solution LB, and may convince the underclass who lack the class consciousness that CL members seem to have, that CL members actually understand that free CL memberships and their acceptance pose an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.
The following users liked this post:
I coincidentally stumbled across this video presentation which neatly summarises why organisations turn toxic. We can safely assume who'd be nominated as 'the biggest asshole' in the Qantas organisation a year or so ago.
https://fb.watch/nU32UWuNmH/
https://fb.watch/nU32UWuNmH/
The following 4 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
A FIELD DAY FOR THE LEGAL FRATERNITY
Qantas has denied breaking the law or benefiting financially when it sold tickets on already cancelled flights last year, in its defence to a case brought by the consumer watchdog.
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court in late August, claiming Qantas sold thousands of tickets on more than 8000 already cancelled flights, in the period from May to July last year.
In a statement to the ASX on Monday, Qantas said in legal terms, the ACCC had ignored a fundamental reality and a key condition that applies when airlines sell tickets.
“While all airlines work hard to operate flights to schedule, no airline can guarantee that,” said the statement.
“That’s because the nature of travel when weather and operational issues mean delays and cancellations are inevitable and unavoidable, makes such a guarantee impossible. This is acknowledged on the ACCC’s own website.”
Qantas also insisted it did not gain any commercial advantage from selling tickets on already cancelled flights, saying no-one was left out of pocket.
The statement said the airline sincerely regretted what occurred but “crucially this does not equate to Qantas obtaining ‘a fee for no service’ because customers were re-accommodated on other flights as close as possible to their original time or offered a full refund”.
“Qantas did not delay communicating with our passengers for commercial gain. Nor did we cancel flights to protect slots, particularly given slot waivers were in place at most airports during that time,” said the statement.
The primary reasons given for the delays in removing cancelled flights from sale included to give staff time to establish alternative travel options for customers; to avoid further blowouts in call centre wait times and in some cases human error.
“Due to system limitations and the sheer number of flights involved, we couldn’t remove these flights from sale automatically while also providing impacted customers with alternative flights,” said Qantas.
“Given these flights were being cancelled well in advance of travel, we wanted to offer our customers alternatives rather than the uncertainty and frustration that would have existed if we had simply pushed through the cancellation in our system before we were able to offer alternative flights to get them to their destination.”
It was noted that in the months of February and March 2022 alone, Qantas had to process more than 415,000 itinerary changes.
“In summary Qantas fully acknowledges that the period of the post-Covid restart was deeply disappointing and frustrating for our customers and difficult for our people,” said the statement.
“Mistakes were made. While this level of upheaval is hopefully never repeated we have strengthened our systems and processes to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb has indicated she wanted a penalty in the vicinity of $250m against Qantas, to act as a deterrent to others for similar behaviour.
In its Federal Court claim, the ACCC alleged Qantas engaged in “false, misleading or deceptive behaviour” when it sold tickets on already cancelled flights for several months last year.
A case management hearing in the matter was set down for November 8 before Justice Helen Rofe.
A few days after the ACCC filed the lawsuit, then Qantas CEO Alan Joyce announced he was bringing forward his retirement by two months to help accelerate the process of renewal at the airline.
The move elevated chief financial officer Vanessa Hudson into the position of CEO where she has adopted a more conciliatory style than her predecessor with regards to the ACCC.
Since taking on the top job, Ms Hudson has terminated the planned acquisition of Alliance Aviation after the ACCC objected, and shelved the continuation of a joint business with China Eastern.
Qantas has denied breaking the law or benefiting financially when it sold tickets on already cancelled flights last year, in its defence to a case brought by the consumer watchdog.
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court in late August, claiming Qantas sold thousands of tickets on more than 8000 already cancelled flights, in the period from May to July last year.
In a statement to the ASX on Monday, Qantas said in legal terms, the ACCC had ignored a fundamental reality and a key condition that applies when airlines sell tickets.
“While all airlines work hard to operate flights to schedule, no airline can guarantee that,” said the statement.
“That’s because the nature of travel when weather and operational issues mean delays and cancellations are inevitable and unavoidable, makes such a guarantee impossible. This is acknowledged on the ACCC’s own website.”
Qantas also insisted it did not gain any commercial advantage from selling tickets on already cancelled flights, saying no-one was left out of pocket.
The statement said the airline sincerely regretted what occurred but “crucially this does not equate to Qantas obtaining ‘a fee for no service’ because customers were re-accommodated on other flights as close as possible to their original time or offered a full refund”.
“Qantas did not delay communicating with our passengers for commercial gain. Nor did we cancel flights to protect slots, particularly given slot waivers were in place at most airports during that time,” said the statement.
The primary reasons given for the delays in removing cancelled flights from sale included to give staff time to establish alternative travel options for customers; to avoid further blowouts in call centre wait times and in some cases human error.
“Due to system limitations and the sheer number of flights involved, we couldn’t remove these flights from sale automatically while also providing impacted customers with alternative flights,” said Qantas.
“Given these flights were being cancelled well in advance of travel, we wanted to offer our customers alternatives rather than the uncertainty and frustration that would have existed if we had simply pushed through the cancellation in our system before we were able to offer alternative flights to get them to their destination.”
It was noted that in the months of February and March 2022 alone, Qantas had to process more than 415,000 itinerary changes.
“In summary Qantas fully acknowledges that the period of the post-Covid restart was deeply disappointing and frustrating for our customers and difficult for our people,” said the statement.
“Mistakes were made. While this level of upheaval is hopefully never repeated we have strengthened our systems and processes to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb has indicated she wanted a penalty in the vicinity of $250m against Qantas, to act as a deterrent to others for similar behaviour.
In its Federal Court claim, the ACCC alleged Qantas engaged in “false, misleading or deceptive behaviour” when it sold tickets on already cancelled flights for several months last year.
A case management hearing in the matter was set down for November 8 before Justice Helen Rofe.
A few days after the ACCC filed the lawsuit, then Qantas CEO Alan Joyce announced he was bringing forward his retirement by two months to help accelerate the process of renewal at the airline.
The move elevated chief financial officer Vanessa Hudson into the position of CEO where she has adopted a more conciliatory style than her predecessor with regards to the ACCC.
Since taking on the top job, Ms Hudson has terminated the planned acquisition of Alliance Aviation after the ACCC objected, and shelved the continuation of a joint business with China Eastern.
Qantas’ defence to selling tickets on ghost flight fails the pub test dismally
Elizabeth Knight
Business columnistOctober 30, 2023 — 3.45pmSave
Share
Normal text sizeALarger text sizeAVery large text sizeA Qantas’ defence to the competition regulator’s claims that it sold tickets on cancelled flights will infuriate customers and upend their understanding of what they are actually buying when they book an airline ticket.
According to Qantas, customers are not buying a particular flight to a particular destination at a particular time when they meticulously place all this information into the booking engine and press pay.
Qantas says it wasn’t selling a flight, it was selling a service.CREDIT: AFR Instead, Qantas maintains the customer is buying a “service”, which it defines as a bundle of contractual rights that obliges the airline to do its best to get consumers where they want to be on time.So what you are contracting to buy may result in a flight at a different time or on a different airline.
Customers understandably believe that when they book and pay – for example, for a Qantas ticket to Los Angeles on March 10 – the airline is legally obliged to take them to that destination on that day. Apparently not, according to Qantas.
Qantas did not deny accusations by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that the airline sold tickets on 8000 cancelled flights, or that it failed to promptly inform customers their flights had been cancelled.
Rather, Qantas says it was acting within the law to sell seats on these flights.
By this definition, booking a ticket sounds more like a lucky dip, or maybe one of those mystery flights that airlines used to sell.As defences go, it will be incendiary to customers whose holidays were ruined or whose business meetings were missed. How this defence plays out in the courts, or in settlement negotiations with the ACCC, remains to be seen.
But it fails the pub test dismally.By this definition, booking a ticket sounds more like a lucky dip or maybe one of those mystery flights that airlines used to sell.Qantas’ public relations experts fully understand the use of this legalistic interpretation won’t assuage anger towards the airline, so it issued a statement saying it denied breaking any laws and acknowledging that customers were let down.
And if you follow this legal defence to its head-scratching conclusion, Qantas has not – as the competition regulator has alleged – deceived or misled customers even if it booked customers on cancelled flights. Because Qantas says it wasn’t selling a flight, it was selling a service, and it provided a replacement service.
The airline isn’t denying that at times it failed to tell customers that flights had been cancelled.
Rather it contends that “Qantas made no representation, at any time, that any particular flight had NOT been cancelled”. Further, Qantas did not represent to consumers that the “manage booking” page would, at all times, necessarily reflect Qantas’ latest scheduling decisions. Play Video
Play video
0:25
Qantas denies claims of charging ‘fees for no service’
Qantas has denied claims made by the ACCC of charging "fees for no service" as the airline filed its defence against the case in Federal Court.
So Qantas never said it would tell its passengers about cancellations? That really makes one’s head spin.
And here is another one.
“While Qantas will use reasonable endeavours to operate in accordance with its published flight schedules, and thereby to do its best to get consumers where they want to be on time, Qantas does not represent that it will use reasonable endeavours to operate any particular flight,” according to its statement of defence.
While all the above outlines the highly legalistic argument about whether Qantas was entitled to sell tickets on ghost flights, the next question is why it did so.
Enter the chaotic era and system limitations.
“We couldn’t remove these flights from sale automatically while also providing impacted customers with alternative flights,” Qantas said.
Qantas was essentially saying that it was trying to find solutions before the customers knew there was a problem and took it upon themselves to fix it.
As for booking customers on cancelled flights, Qantas said it “wanted to offer our customers alternatives rather than the uncertainty and frustration that would have existed if we had simply pushed through the cancellation in our system before we were able to offer alternative flights to get them to their destination”.
This explanation feels flimsy and Qantas does concede that longer delays informing customers that they had booked on cancelled flights were due to human failure and processing problems.
The ACCC contends that some flights were cancelled for commercial reasons or to protect landing slots, but Qantas disputes this.
The question now is whether this dispute will make its way to the Federal Court or get settled.
Airing this defence would be a public relations disaster that Qantas must want to avoid.
Let the negotiations begin!
Dragon Man,
The one thing is that you can be relied on to reproduce any article which is negative to Qantas as soon as it is written.
you must have one big grudge against Qantas.
If you employed by Qantas, the sooner they can weed you out the better you and the Qantas community will be.
The one thing is that you can be relied on to reproduce any article which is negative to Qantas as soon as it is written.
you must have one big grudge against Qantas.
If you employed by Qantas, the sooner they can weed you out the better you and the Qantas community will be.
Dragon Man,
The one thing is that you can be relied on to reproduce any article which is negative to Qantas as soon as it is written.
you must have one big grudge against Qantas.
If you employed by Qantas, the sooner they can weed you out the better you and the Qantas community will be.
The one thing is that you can be relied on to reproduce any article which is negative to Qantas as soon as it is written.
you must have one big grudge against Qantas.
If you employed by Qantas, the sooner they can weed you out the better you and the Qantas community will be.
Well why don’t you post the positive ones. Oh, I know there are none. I guess you think their defence is a good and justifiable one .
The following 4 users liked this post by dragon man:
Dragon Man,
The one thing is that you can be relied on to reproduce any article which is negative to Qantas as soon as it is written.
you must have one big grudge against Qantas.
If you employed by Qantas, the sooner they can weed you out the better you and the Qantas community will be.
The one thing is that you can be relied on to reproduce any article which is negative to Qantas as soon as it is written.
you must have one big grudge against Qantas.
If you employed by Qantas, the sooner they can weed you out the better you and the Qantas community will be.
The following 2 users liked this post by ozbiggles:
If you are a current employee Jamie - you certainly weren’t one while the tragic destruction of a once unassailable icon took place.
With willing assistance from all quarters, Elaine has destroyed what Qantas once was. I haven’t seen a single sign that that the muppet now in charge actually understands what’s been done to the place. It would be akin to having the senior management of IBM taking over Apple and sacking the very people who made it Apple. They simply do not know what it is they threw away.
With willing assistance from all quarters, Elaine has destroyed what Qantas once was. I haven’t seen a single sign that that the muppet now in charge actually understands what’s been done to the place. It would be akin to having the senior management of IBM taking over Apple and sacking the very people who made it Apple. They simply do not know what it is they threw away.
The following 3 users liked this post by V-Jet:
Yes Vjet, you drink from the same fountain.
And Cloudbuster.
You all have at least 2 things in common. Happy to tear Qantas down at every opportunity and more to the point, do it from the gutless point of anonimity.
And Cloudbuster.
You all have at least 2 things in common. Happy to tear Qantas down at every opportunity and more to the point, do it from the gutless point of anonimity.
No. I just rely on the press to report whatever.
You rely on the press..........for what? Toilet paper?
do it from the gutless point of anonimity.
The following 2 users liked this post by Mr Mossberg:
It's Mr Mossberg to you. A little respect.
The following 3 users liked this post by Mr Mossberg:
The following users liked this post:
What are you on Jamie? I like a lot of other people I'm sure am quite thankful for the "republishing" of articles I likely wouldn't otherwise see but find interesting.
That's not hard to fathom is it?
That's not hard to fathom is it?
The following 4 users liked this post by Massey058:
1) Do you work for Qantas?
2) In an operational field?
3) How long for?
I'd suggest that most on this site have 20+ years and have seen all comers. Hence the perception you have of animosity.
Al Pacino - 'We've been around - y'know!'