The Down Under Lounge
- Thread starter TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME
- Start date
I summed up qantas many years ago - while they might want Australians to fly with them, they don't want to employ Australians if they can get away with it (at the time they were trying to replace a lot of Australian cabin crew with cheaper overseas labour).
Wasn't it 457 Visa holders they wanted to take advantage of by hiring them?
why don't you research it and get back to us?
I don't know I know those get abused in rorts, well they did under Howard
Good article on all the drama and (honestly horrifying) things going on with Qantas:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...d-but-the-airline-still-has-plenty-of-baggage
"During the May-July 2022 period the ACCC’s allegations relate to, it found Qantas cancelled about 15,000 out of 66,000 domestic and international services – almost one in four flights."
Holy crap!
Qantas build it's rep in another era. Times have changed both for the optics of the Airline industry and for Aussie pride.
It's absolutely terrible how they shat the bed and their reputaion
National carriers such as QANTAS, air canada, British Airways tend to get a lot of protection from governments (even though they're generally private corporations) and then they turn around an abuse the position and deliver shitty service.
And their protected status can make it worse for passengers because they get monopolies on certain routes so it's put up with the shitty service or plan on multiple stops and plane changes on some routes.
So we don't really know why Albanese denied Qatar airlines more routes in Aus.
I 100% do not believe Qatar airlines was denied because of this incident
If they are virtue signaling over it that's really fucked up.They need to be transparent because more airlines means cheaper fares. Someone doesn't want competition, and yes it is probably Qantas.
Nah, if she cared that much about this issue why are any Qatar planes landing here?
You can have planes, but not extra planes? I firmly believe this is a convenient reason which sounds good but there's a lot more to it.
You can have planes, but not extra planes? I firmly believe this is a convenient reason which sounds good but there's a lot more to it.
The amount of misinformation / utter crap about the forthcoming referendum is quite dismal - to put it incredibly politely. I'll be shocked if it even comes close to passing.
As for Qantas, it's been a joke for years. It'd be nice to be able to believe the new boss will at least consider paying back all that Jobkeeper money, but yeah - more chance of people being able to fly by flapping our arms than that happening. Given the realities of climate change people ought to be flying much less, anyway.
As for Qantas, it's been a joke for years. It'd be nice to be able to believe the new boss will at least consider paying back all that Jobkeeper money, but yeah - more chance of people being able to fly by flapping our arms than that happening. Given the realities of climate change people ought to be flying much less, anyway.
The 1999 republic referendum question, via the AEC:
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
I cannot for the life of me understand how that question is somehow "loaded" (or whatever) in such a way that the referendum was bound to fail. Maybe I'm stupid or something but I just don't get it. I didn't then and I don't now.
As for the racist scumbag Dutton and his proposed referendum, he can shove it.
because it exploited the division in the republican movement between those who wanted the directly elected and those who wanted an appointed.
those who wanted elected an head of state had a dummy spit that would make the green proud and hopped into bed with the monarchists.
One of my friends says she is voting no. Her reason is ‘because I don’t know what the referendum is about’ adding that she isn’t interested in politics.
This is the same woman who voted ‘no’ to gay marriage because ‘she doesn’t approve of marriage’ not because she has anything against gay people.
This is the same woman who voted ‘no’ to gay marriage because ‘she doesn’t approve of marriage’ not because she has anything against gay people.
