Australia’s Prime Minister is facing attacks regarding his relationship with national carrier Qantas, including that in the past he’d reportedly phone up Qantas’ CEO to get his personal flights upgraded. However, his defense is that this has been disclosed, and that everyone does it…
In this post:
Anthony Albanese reportedly called Alan Joyce for upgrades
A book has just been published in Australia by Joe Aston, with the name “The Chairman’s Lounge,” described as “the inside story of how Qantas sold us out.” Qantas’ reputation has tanked in Australia in recent years, including former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce being forced to retire early due to the situation.
For context, the book’s name refers to the exclusive Chairman’s Lounge that Qantas has for top politicians and CEOs, which is only accessible by invitation.
According to the book, Australia’s current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has received at least 22 free Qantas upgrades from economy class, including some for his family and personal travel. The book claims that Albanese would liaise directly with Joyce for these upgrades. It’s claimed that the requests for these upgrades date back several years, including to when Albanese had the role of Transport Minister.
Albanese’s defense is that he had disclosed all of these upgrades. His colleagues who support him point out how so many politicians receive free upgrades and a Chairman’s Lounge invitation, and also that Labor made many decisions about wages and workplace relations that were opposed to Qantas, showing that Albanese didn’t help the company in exchange for flight upgrades.
Meanwhile his opponents are demanding an investigation, arguing that him potentially requesting upgrades directly from the CEO goes a step too far. The federal Coalition has signaled that it may call Joyce to a senate inquiry, to reveal any personal requests that he received from Albanese.
Does the Australian public not take issue with this?
I’ll admit, I don’t really have my finger on the pulse of Australian politics, but I’ll never be able to understood the gifts that Australian politicians can receive from corporations, without the public seemingly batting an eyelid.
As mentioned above, in Australia many politicians receive a Chairman’s Lounge invitation, reserved exclusively for politicians and top business leaders. If you ask me, this is screwed up on a couple of levels:
- Airlines shouldn’t be able to provide gifts to politicians
- It seems a bit backwards to create a space specifically for politicians and business executives; politicians should be serving the people, not corporations
Most politicians in Australia who oppose Albanese seem to be arguing that the issue isn’t that the (at the time) transport minister was getting free upgrades, because so many politicians get those, but rather that he was asking for them directly from the CEO.
Am I the only one who feels like we’re splitting hairs here? How about we see an Australian politician actually fight for the people, and make it so that politicians don’t get access to a special lounge, and where it is an issue when politicians get free upgrades? This isn’t how it should be, in my opinion.
To what extent did these factors influence the relationship between politicians and Qantas? I mean, it’s hard to say, though if you ask me, the Australian government has tried to block foreign competitors of Qantas, all while letting the airline operate in a way that simply isn’t in the best interest of the traveling public.
Could you imagine if in the United States all politicians received access to a super exclusive airline lounge not open to the public, and they could just phone up their buddies at the airline for free upgrades? You’d have to be on the Supreme Court to get away with that!
Lastly, I think it’s worth pointing out that some people may be reminded of the story we recently had in the United States, involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams being indicted for accepting free (or heavily discounted) flights and upgrades on Turkish Airlines. That was different and way worse for two reasons:
- He wasn’t disclosing that he was receiving these upgrades
- He was essentially accepting favors from a foreign government
Bottom line
Australia’s Prime Minister is facing scrutiny over the free upgrades he received on Qantas. The bizarre part (to me) is that the issue isn’t that he was getting free upgrades — lots of Australian politicians reportedly get those — but rather that he was asking the CEO for them directly.
Even though Australia generally isn’t a very corrupt country, politicians are able to receive all kinds of gifts from corporations while in office, ranging from upgrades to access to an exclusive lounge.
If an Australian politician wants to score bonus points here, they shouldn’t be fighting to hold Albanese accountable for the way in which he requested the upgrade, but rather they should be fighting to reform for the ways in which politicians can receive gifts. At least that’s my two cents.
What do you make of this Qantas upgrade scandal?
So a politician asking for free upgrade instead of using taxpayer money is a bad thing? Kudos to him.
If I have an airline ceo for a best buddy, I would probably ask for a favor or two.
Yes. He answers to his shareholders but if he isn’t abusing his power and under his purview to give free upgrade as ceo perk then why not?
Is the ceo embezzeling funds by giving...
So a politician asking for free upgrade instead of using taxpayer money is a bad thing? Kudos to him.
If I have an airline ceo for a best buddy, I would probably ask for a favor or two.
Yes. He answers to his shareholders but if he isn’t abusing his power and under his purview to give free upgrade as ceo perk then why not?
Is the ceo embezzeling funds by giving free upgrades?
Has the ceo failed his fiduciary duty since he gave free upgrades?
I don’t think so. No one has committed any crimes. Move on
Cost to taxpayer is multiplied aside from the ticket price. It includes the cost of protecting the airline via regulations, which gets passed on to taxpayers.
And what about ETHICS? Do you know the word?
As in all countries, politicians will pull strings. In the big picture this is minor....compared to favors other AU politicians haveasked of me. Hated when they asked favors, and never allowed my staff to agree to any request.
I'll just point out that this is exactly how/why the original Admiral's Club at DCA was set up (it was a follow-on to a "happy accident" of getting space for one at LGA), and IIRC it was only anti-discrimination concerns in the late 60s that saw it opened up. In those days, the DCA club also stored members' personal liquor bottles...
The comparison to Eric Adama situation is incomplete - he was charged with bribery, fraud, and the solicitation of illegal foreign campaign donations.
He received over $100k in travel perks, upgrades, freebies.
Then Turkey asked Adams to help get fire dept clearance for opening of the Turkey Consulate, despite a list of concerns. Allegedly, Adama pressured and threatened fire dept officials with termination if they didn't grant clearance so the building could open in time...
The comparison to Eric Adama situation is incomplete - he was charged with bribery, fraud, and the solicitation of illegal foreign campaign donations.
He received over $100k in travel perks, upgrades, freebies.
Then Turkey asked Adams to help get fire dept clearance for opening of the Turkey Consulate, despite a list of concerns. Allegedly, Adama pressured and threatened fire dept officials with termination if they didn't grant clearance so the building could open in time for PM's visit to NY. Apparently, an Adams staff member was told that it was now Adams' turn to help and Adams acknowledged affirmatively.
This may explain why during Covid the Australian taxpayer subsidised Qantas to the tune of $2.7Bn and since then, the airline has posted multi billion dollar profits year after year while charging the Australian tax payer some of the highest airline fares in the world. It is more expensive for Australians to travel with the airline they kept afloat than it is with any other carrier. It literally makes no sense.
Maybe having the...
This may explain why during Covid the Australian taxpayer subsidised Qantas to the tune of $2.7Bn and since then, the airline has posted multi billion dollar profits year after year while charging the Australian tax payer some of the highest airline fares in the world. It is more expensive for Australians to travel with the airline they kept afloat than it is with any other carrier. It literally makes no sense.
Maybe having the PM up the pointy end and getting freebies from QF is what justifies the end user getting screwed by the airline it helped keep afloat when it apparently needed support.
This is clearly a one way street for the tax payer but not for the man that controls the public coffers.
Oh Albo!!! Seriously??
Things like this encourage public cynicism of politicians to the level that many will vote for outrageous candidates whose only appeal is that they'll shake things up.
The chairman’s Lounge predates Qantas going public. Prior to 1996 it was a crown corporation wholly owned by the australian government.
I imagine shutting down the chairman’s lounge would have had significant adverse policy and commercial impacts.
Albanese should get FREE UPGRADE!!
It was FREE for goodness sake!
After all - he is the Australian Prime Minister - he deserves more respect
Does the Public want him to pay for Upgrades that would flow onto depleting the Public purse?
Ugh Australia really nice people but terrible Govt and no I will never fly there so I'm good :)
Thankfully we won't have to see you here. Whoever you are.
I dunno. How bad can be the country where prime minister pays his own economy vacation tickets?
Even if he eventually gets upgraded..
Ben,
I also don't have a finger on the pulse of the Australian public. But, do we not have an American Airlines lounge at DCA that has a room which is solely for the politically important? How does that work, and how is it different from the "free upgrades" scenario that is described in your post?
Thanks.
Boeing likely puts far more into the pockets of American Politicians. We just call it "lobbying", which is just a synonym for bribery.
It's really not bribery, it's regulatory capture. After all, why is the FAA going to give a crap if a rep from Washington is trying to get them to give Boeing the kiddie gloves? Lobbying gets you contracts, it doesn't save you from the regulators.
The reason Boeing got away with so much crap prior to the MAX fiasco is that in general, private companies pay technical specialists far better than government does. Leading to...
It's really not bribery, it's regulatory capture. After all, why is the FAA going to give a crap if a rep from Washington is trying to get them to give Boeing the kiddie gloves? Lobbying gets you contracts, it doesn't save you from the regulators.
The reason Boeing got away with so much crap prior to the MAX fiasco is that in general, private companies pay technical specialists far better than government does. Leading to a situation where private companies have all the experts and government regulators don't, and as such the regulators have to take the companies' words that everything is kosure. Otherwise everything grinds to a halt because the regulatory bodies don't have the numbers or expertise to actually determine when the corporations are BSing them, up until something actually does go wrong.
Everybody likes to complain about government incompetence and waste, but that's what happens when you don't pay civil servants and regulatory specialists well, or provide the agencies enough money to hire enough people to handle the workload. Decades of GOP "small government" austerity are a big part of what got us here.
What do you expect? Both people are disposable imbeciles…
Explains why QF has always been stingy with premium class awards, they were giving them away to PMs.
We cycle our PMs quickly but not that quickly.
In terms of the political landscape I guess it is a little bit like Australian's do not understand how US political parties can accept millions in donations from corporations during elections.
I think you'll find after a little bit of reading that there is PLENTY of corporate money washing around Australian elections.
Never underestimate the extremes Aussies will go to to get free alcohol (in general) and toasted sandwiches in an airline lounge…
What a dufus comment .
"You’d have to be on the Supreme Court to get away with that!"
OOF!
Well played, Ben, well played indeed.
hit it right on the nail... elected politicians can't, but become one well-connected supreme court justice and suddenly the justices are above the law
it's not a good look - and it really annoys me that this is the government who blocked Qatar's expansion into Australia to essentially allow Qantas to profit off us Australians.
This is the same politician who in May, in the middle of an election campaign, put down $4M on a luxury house in Sydney.
It looks really bad given the massive housing crisis in Australia.
All politicians are scum.
It's not just the fact that he spent AU$4.3M (US$2.83M) on a weekender, it's the fact that he's a member of the so-called "socialist left" faction of the Australian Labor Party - and yes, that's exactly what they call themselves. He's claiming to be a man of the left, in touch with "ordinary" people, while living the life of an investment banker.
Middle of an election? What election? I'm Australian and live in Australia and there is no federal election till May 25. Get your facts right mate before commenting.
He may be referring to the QLD state election which just occurred, in which Labor got thumped.
Albanese isn't standing in that election, of course. But the actions of the Prime Minister do affect voters' perceptions of the party at State level.
Australia has a friendly facade but is one of the most corrupt countries in the developed world.
Full of monopoly or duopoly market structures that price gouge the population, and where income is taxed at extremely high levels. All for the service of the (predominantly) Anglo Saxon elite who are like pigs to a trough for benefits such as Chairman’s Lounge.
I agree.
And I live in Australia.
But corruption is only available for the big honchos, not the commoners!
Qantas will upgrade people from J to F if J is oversold. And usually based on status or other factors. Normally QF doesn't and leaves empty seats in J and F.
If flights has empty seats - then QF has the discretion to upgrade someone if they want. They don't want to do this normally - or it would keep people from buying the seat - but if empty - they might upgrade a...
Qantas will upgrade people from J to F if J is oversold. And usually based on status or other factors. Normally QF doesn't and leaves empty seats in J and F.
If flights has empty seats - then QF has the discretion to upgrade someone if they want. They don't want to do this normally - or it would keep people from buying the seat - but if empty - they might upgrade a high profile person.
So the question is - did these free upgrades result in J and F cabin being full and did QF lose money as a result?
That's not the question at all. The question is why a commercial enterprise (Qantas) is spending so much time and money courting the favors of senior Australian politicians who buy their airfares with public money. The PM doesn't even fly commerical, yet his 20-something year old son has a Chairman's Lounge membership. What does Qantas expect in return? Does this have any bearing on the apparent restricted access to foreign carriers at Australian airports, namely...
That's not the question at all. The question is why a commercial enterprise (Qantas) is spending so much time and money courting the favors of senior Australian politicians who buy their airfares with public money. The PM doesn't even fly commerical, yet his 20-something year old son has a Chairman's Lounge membership. What does Qantas expect in return? Does this have any bearing on the apparent restricted access to foreign carriers at Australian airports, namely Qatar being refused additional flights to Melbourne and Sydney? What other favors have they extracted with from government by offering unpublished FF privileges to lawmakers and senior public servants?
At last someone gets the facts. The PM asked Alan Joyce to give his son, not long out of university, Chairman's lounge membership. What's he done to deserve that? Zippo. And the fact that Albanese, for those who don't know, the PM, contacted Joyce directly for upgrades etc, all while handling national transport matters relating to airlines etc. And to the article writer please don't comment on what you don't know and try to show...
At last someone gets the facts. The PM asked Alan Joyce to give his son, not long out of university, Chairman's lounge membership. What's he done to deserve that? Zippo. And the fact that Albanese, for those who don't know, the PM, contacted Joyce directly for upgrades etc, all while handling national transport matters relating to airlines etc. And to the article writer please don't comment on what you don't know and try to show you do, especially about Aussie politics.
I don't like these freebies in Australia either, but at least the politicians are declaring it. In USA the congressman would get picked up in a limo and driven to the door of a private jet and no-one would know about it ;)
It's wrong for a politician to ask for an upgrade, but if it's given to him/her by the airline without interaction, I don't see the problem. Many CEOs/CIPs/VIPs get upgraded for free by airlines. At least now, it's the airline paying for his business/first class ticket. If he wouldn't be upgraded, he'd probably pay a business/first class ticket on the tax payer's dime next time he flies.
Maybe I'm missing the paragraph where you mention whether or not this practice is illegal? You mention you think it goes a step too far. Maybe. Maybe not. The challenge is that everyone's "step too far" is probably different. So how do you police that?
I can't believe I'm taking the side of the politicians, but wouldn't security concerns warrant a separate lounge? Or a separate space for them to wait to board? Versus just...
Maybe I'm missing the paragraph where you mention whether or not this practice is illegal? You mention you think it goes a step too far. Maybe. Maybe not. The challenge is that everyone's "step too far" is probably different. So how do you police that?
I can't believe I'm taking the side of the politicians, but wouldn't security concerns warrant a separate lounge? Or a separate space for them to wait to board? Versus just plopping them into a lounge with all the premium passengers? We've all likely seen internet footage of American congressmen and women getting yelled at as they walk thru DCA waiting for flights. I have a strong party preference but I don't enjoy seeing members of the other party getting booed at the gate.
Did Eric Adams do anything wrong? A court and a jury of his peers will sort that out.
If folks in Australia don't love the Chairman's Lounge, get a law passed. Otherwise it's just words.
“politicians should be serving the people, not corporations” is probably the most hilarious thing I have ever read on this blog, the irony of saying that as an American is surely lost on you?
America is terminally infected with the rot of lobbying aka bribery.
@ James -- I agree with you 100%. Sorry, as someone with US citizenship, do I have to agree with everything the US does?
Albo will say he grew up in public housing and knows what it's like to struggle
One of the more significant issues here is at least the perception of a conflict of interest. Albanese’s Labor government recently rejected Qatar Airway’s application for more slots at Australia’s four main international airports, certainly benefitting Qantas. Australians pay some of the highest ticket prices in the world, in part due to constrained supply and constricted competition. Any connection with Qantas gifting politicians luxury lounge access and free upgrades? You be the judge.
One of the more significant issues here is at least the perception of a conflict of interest. Albanese’s Labor government recently rejected Qatar Airway’s application for more slots at Australia’s four main international airports, certainly benefitting Qantas. Australians pay some of the highest ticket prices in the world, in part due to constrained supply and constricted competition. Any connection with Qantas gifting politicians luxury lounge access and free upgrades? You be the judge.
@ Fonseca -- Yep, exactly this!
So the only reason Albanese's government rejected the Qatar application was because of his previously disclosed upgrades? Hmmmmm.
Is the Qatar decision public? Wouldn't there be pages and pages of reasons it was denied?
@ NSS -- I don't think anyone said or suggested that this was "the only reason."
It almost seems that the more left leaning, the more benefits are grabbed. Just the other day an ultra left dutch politician and climate activist was spotted with a lifetime Platinum Flying Blue tag, no doubt primarily paid for with tax payers money.
Ideology appears primarily intended for others.
Give me the Singapore Prime Minister any time who has no issue flying a budget airline.
@ William -- I'm not sure I see the issue with that, though? Earning lifetime Flying Blue Platinum status isn't that hard. Many politicians have to travel a lot for their job (yes, paid by taxpayers). Anyone can earn that status, though. So should the politician simply not credit flights to Flying Blue, or the politician not travel for work because he cares about environmental policies?
@Ben, I would probably agree if this politician had been a minister who indeed may need to travel more frequently. Not the case here. This one has never been more than a member of parliament which can be done without flying.
you're making this argument about the most highly-paid elected politician in the world?
Singapore is explicit that they pay politicians very highly because they believe it reduces their susceptibility to corruption and bribery.
Opinions vary on whether this actually works, but there is a certain logic to it.
Yessss. Singapore got it right. They pay their ministers very well so they get skilled people running the country instead of leftovers. Furthermore corruption is dealt with harshly.
William, you said 'has no issue flying a budget airline' -- I assure you that the PM, earning a couple million a year, is not flying AirAsia...
'Opinions vary on whether this actually works' -- fair enough, we just saw the Iswaran case... but corruption has been pretty limited.
I really don't think the comment/joke about the Supreme Court was warranted, and you should aim not to stray into political territory, Ben. The Supreme Court is a respected institution, and you're poking fun at it does not come off well. And I dare to say, you would not have mocked it when its decisions were more to your liking, and you were overlooking gifts or compensation other justices received as well. Of course, the...
I really don't think the comment/joke about the Supreme Court was warranted, and you should aim not to stray into political territory, Ben. The Supreme Court is a respected institution, and you're poking fun at it does not come off well. And I dare to say, you would not have mocked it when its decisions were more to your liking, and you were overlooking gifts or compensation other justices received as well. Of course, the more recent stories are not positive and do not do the institution any favors, but to bring doubt on justices because you disagree with what they've ruled on, is not right. It has a similar taste of a certain person attacking the integrity of the voting system because he didn't win.
@ Eric Schmidt -- Me poking fun at it has nothing to do with the court's rulings, or which way it leans. It has to do with the fact that one Supreme Court Justice has accepted millions of dollars in gifts. Supreme Court Justices shouldn't be able to accept any substantial gifts, let alone millions of dollars worth. Wouldn't you agree? This seems like common sense to me, regardless of the affiliation of the Justice.
It is true that that one Justice's practices have been questionable and not good for the perception of the court. But to make it seem like this has brought into question the legitimacy of the institution is wrong. And I am willing to bet that you didn't care one bit about this issue until attention was brought onto it because the Court began making rulings that you didn't like.
The legitimacy of the institution was brought into question by the actions of one justice AND the failure of the chief justice to do something meaningful about it, i.e adopt an ethics code that is not just handwaving. The “institution” is not an abstract concept. The justices make up the institution. When one of them behaves unethically and the others refuse to do something about it, then the justices themselves, not the criticism of their...
The legitimacy of the institution was brought into question by the actions of one justice AND the failure of the chief justice to do something meaningful about it, i.e adopt an ethics code that is not just handwaving. The “institution” is not an abstract concept. The justices make up the institution. When one of them behaves unethically and the others refuse to do something about it, then the justices themselves, not the criticism of their behavior, are the ones that is bringing questions into the legitimacy of the court.
@Eric Schmidt
You are wrong. The Supreme Court deserves to be mercilessly mocked and made fun of. Clarence Thomas still being on the court after receiving millions of dollars in undisclosed gifts from a partisan political donor is reason enough, but even without that you have Alito bending established law into pretzels to push massive reductions in human rights (ending Row) and killing the government's ability to regulate corporations (ending Chevron). The institution as...
@Eric Schmidt
You are wrong. The Supreme Court deserves to be mercilessly mocked and made fun of. Clarence Thomas still being on the court after receiving millions of dollars in undisclosed gifts from a partisan political donor is reason enough, but even without that you have Alito bending established law into pretzels to push massive reductions in human rights (ending Row) and killing the government's ability to regulate corporations (ending Chevron). The institution as it is now is actively hostile to the wellbeing of the people it was supposed to serve.
There is as little legitimacy in the Supreme Court, which openly takes bribes, as there is in Congress which also openly takes bribes. If this was happening in West Africa we'd call it corruption, but here in the US we call it "lawful."
The Supreme Court was a respected institution. And now it is not. C'est la vie.
lol SCOTUS is not even legitimate anymore, let alone respected!
SCOTUS has been losing legitimacy for a long time, but the corruption of justices receiving millions of dollars of disclosed or undisclosed gifts from political supporters is beyond the pale
The Supreme Court has squandered a lot of the respect they once had. They do not have an ethics policy, justices have accepted lavish gifts on many occasions, and seem to show no remorse for it. These are just facts.
This isn't exclusive to Qantas in Australia. Virgin has a similar exclusive lounge arrangement. Ironically, they call it a secret lounge in a press release on their own website. https://newsroom.virginaustralia.com/release/virgin-australia-opens-secret-invitation-only-beyond-lounges
@ nohohon -- Right, but Virgin Australia isn't (currently) a global competitor. When it comes to long haul flights operated by Australian carriers, there's essentially a monopoly at the moment. So as the Australian government has continued to block expansion from some foreign carriers, one can't help but wonder to what extent these cozy relationships played a role.
As an Australian, I think many feel that our politicians have a far too cozy relationship with Qantas - and arguably Virgin Australia too, as they have a similar lounge arrangement.
Almost all politicians are members of the Chairman’s Lounge, which in addition to a private lounge and free upgrades also grants them Oneworld Emerald perks.
They all just accept these perks with no scrutiny. If any other company or industry in our...
As an Australian, I think many feel that our politicians have a far too cozy relationship with Qantas - and arguably Virgin Australia too, as they have a similar lounge arrangement.
Almost all politicians are members of the Chairman’s Lounge, which in addition to a private lounge and free upgrades also grants them Oneworld Emerald perks.
They all just accept these perks with no scrutiny. If any other company or industry in our country tried to offer any perks or benefits anywhere near this magnitude there would be massive corruption investigations and calls for the politician to resign.
It is gross double standards and needs to be stamped out.
Ben all politicians here get Chairmans Lounge membership, and they get treated very well (free upgrades from even the cheapest discount economy tix). A good friend of mine is very senior in a consultancy here and whenever we travelled together his assistant would have Qantas link our bookings and I would be upgraded to business and seated with him every single time. The attendant would quietly come over to where I was seated and hand...
Ben all politicians here get Chairmans Lounge membership, and they get treated very well (free upgrades from even the cheapest discount economy tix). A good friend of mine is very senior in a consultancy here and whenever we travelled together his assistant would have Qantas link our bookings and I would be upgraded to business and seated with him every single time. The attendant would quietly come over to where I was seated and hand me a new boarding pass. The issue is if Albanese requested the upgrades vs. his profile being flagged for upgrades each and every time. The upgrades are a frequent perk amongst corporate and political circles of influence as well as prominent journalists and some celebs.
Australia is an extremely corrupt country (although the current woke generation seems to be ignoring that as it’s “their party” who is benefiting). Anybody who has had any dealings with an Australian government department realizes how absolutely inept and blatantly corrupt they are, however Australians just seem to accept it. Bizarre country.
This is nothing come to the middle east and Africa then you would see what real corruption is like. Very ignorant comment lol.
So because somewhere is more corrupt… that makes it ok for other places to be less corrupt? Little wonder this corruption goes unchecked! I’m from South Africa and I realise there are a lot of corruption issues. They are well know. In Australia, we pretend we are above that - however we are not. I’d suggest you are, in fact, the ignorant one.
What do you expect?
This country was born from ex-convicts!