m0hamed

As far as I've read the 'Flight Test' SMH reviews are by novice travellers, full of incorrect information (I stopped emailing the reds after I found four factual mistakes in one review) and are generally Fairfax staff receiving free flights of some sort. Do I really want to a read a QF J review from someone who hasn't flown on any other equiavlent?

I'll take an AusBT review over that any day.

Dave Noble

Except that the SMH review of the A330 was by the same person

I am likely to have little trust in articles where the reviewers are dependant upon the future patronage by the airline

SQ421

I'm not certain djsflynn is "dependant upon the future patronage" by Qantas. Its not like Qantas is the only brand he reviews / covers to the exclusion of all others.

Having flown other products reviewed by AusBT, I've found my experience of those products to be generally similar to what's been said in the reviews. Where disagreement exists, it tends to be a matter of personal opinion (eg. I love the 2nd smaller J cabin on CX A330s, a reviewer might fight it too close to the PE bassinet rows).

BadgerBoi

Thinking of the ones in the Saturday SMH Traveller section, they are written by amateurs to a set format, and they often get things badly wrong.

I just look at them differently. David's review answered a lot of questions that I had about the seats, it was pretty much what I was looking for as a first review of the product.

Dave Noble

If relying on patronage to provide free flights for such activities rather than the reviewing company funding itself , it doesn't matter that other brands may be reviewed

m0hamed

That was precisely my point. This is one of the few SMH reviews I actually trust.

By this logic you also wouldn't purchase air fares from a TA who has done a familiarisation tour as a guest of an airline?

FWIW I know the EY person who regularly talks AMEX Centurion/Platinum Travel reps on F flights to encourage them to sell their product to their customers. Would you refuse to purchase from them because they are being flown for free by the airline and paid commission?

djsflynn

Absolutely there are - done by staff flying away on holidays, which is how it was all done back around 2001 when the SMH got all Uber-ethical for a few years (I was an editor there at the time) and still happens today from time to time.

There are also reviews by journos attending an international event but with their ticket paid for by an agency other than the airline (for example a motoring journo might fly Etihad J from Sydney to some European city for the launch & test-drive of a new BMW - their ticket will be paid by BMW, but they'll review the flight and it won't need a disclosure because it wasn't Etihad who paid for the ticket).

Totally understandable, and a bit of scepticism is always healthy! I have the same vibe a lot of the time on not just travel but a lot of other topics... it then comes down to how I feel about the 'brand' of the masthead or publisher as to the weighting I give that.

Dave Noble

I wouldn't trust the impartiality of their opinions and wary of any encouragement to use them

If I was to contact a TA , it would be with the flights I wish to book all known and wouldn't be relying on a TA who might try pushing towards a carrier where they make more money

For any review, if the company knows that it is being reviewed and has funded the reviewers travel, is it not perhaps beyond the realm of reason to suspect that the service might not be typical level

Platy

Why do you assume that all readers of FT know who you are and that your return flights have been covered by the airline? They would HAVE to link to the original article to find that out if they hadn't come across you before...

IMHO you haven't proposed a compelling argument to omit a disclosure statement on your FT post and I can't see what you have lose by presenting one (unless, perhaps, you feel that might lessen the through traffic to your own web site). Others may agree or disagree.

I think that we are all agreed the information itself is interesting and beneficial (and perhaps that alone would encourage people to proceed to the full article and explore the other great content on the parent site).

Platy

A traveller web site such as AusBT is dependent upon both the information flow from the airlines and other traveller product providers such as credit card companies (via press releases, free travel, inside contacts, etc), quality (accuracy, etc) and relevancy of its content to attract and maintain its readership and thereby make money.

David himself said:

"...nobody gets rich doing this gig. There's no way I or any journalist could afford to buy our own airfares for reviews, especially when it comes to J and F travel. Ditto for attending lounge openings, Airbus & Boeing media briefings etc..."

The challenge therein is that it tends to entangle the web site into the "establishment": if the content strayed too far from the "straight news" into more critical analysis, investigative, consumer focus, etc., it MIGHT put pressure on the "relationship" between the author and product provider.

Perhaps a web site like AusBT simply can't afford to operate effectively without a "working relationship" with Qantas: a significant amount of content is inevitably going to need to have been sourced from the nation's most patronised airline.

Thats said, an independent web producer can set his/her own goals and standards: publish content of limited "controversial" nature, or not, etc...and that, in part, must be driven by commercial reality...

djsflynn

As I've said, if FT mods require it I'll naturally do it. Over you you, mods.

Dave Noble

It does state at http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#externallinks

Platy

IMHO it is fair observation that the normal journalistic standard is to declare a commercial interest against your copy (QF paid for my return flight). This avoids the "cash for comment" issue.

I assume you agree with this since you do actually do it on your commercial web site, AusBT (a valuable asset to business and other travellers).

This allows you to run your commercial operation economically (accept the freebies on which your business depends) and the reader to enjoy and benefit from your endeavours with due consideration to the potential for bias.

Yet you are refusing to do that in the case of your FT post unless compelled do so by the Mods on this forum.

Don't make sense...there is also a theoretical risk that by declining to add a disclaimer on your FT post that some readers may "misjudge" your level of journalistic integrity.

In any case, if David Noble is right, you've broken the FT rules anyway.

DownUnderFlyer

[mod hat] Closed for moderator review [/mod hat]

EDIT

[mod hat] After reviewing the thread I will re-open it. Djsflynn's review is within the rules of FT when it comes to commercial posts. At the same time I think it is good practice and in the interest of everyone, especially djsflynn himself to disclose any sponsorships. So I would ask to include such notes in future posts.
Also, lets get back to topic of A330 J seats. This is not the place to discuss FT rules. If you have questions, please PM me. [/mod hat]

djsflynn

Easily done, thanks Dave.

Okay, kicking things off again: the Qantas' A330 Business Suite is very soon to see its international debut on the Melbourne-Singapore route, but I'm sure by now more than a few FT folk have flown it domestically - any first thoughts on the seat?