Qantas is cracking down on illegal buying & selling of frequent flyer points

Mannej you are missing the point, anyone can be someone’s partner, we can no longer assign a society view of what constitutes a relationship, I don’t see how QF could under any possible circumstances ask someone to prove that someone is their partner, how could that process possibly occur without invading someone’s privacy.

I didn’t mention illegal, you did, and completely irrelevant, plain and simple Qantas do not have the right to ask someone to prove that a person is in a relationship with someone else, it does not have a right to ask what sort of relationship you have, if you are married or not and who to. If a person indicates that someone is a brother, sister, cousin etc, and that person isn’t QF would have grounds to reject them, because that is quantifiable, but whether you are in a relationship or not isn’t.

Yes perhaps I am and the point you make is valid, my original comment was made in regards to the difficulty of trying the define a relationship in this day, why would a company bother, just let it slide and move on, but you are correct in that as long as QF ask every person to make the stat dec, then no discrimination exists.

Oh for goodness sake get real, the QFF program is for members to enjoy and extending points to your close family and friends is acceptable, on-selling your points in a commercial capacity to all and sundry is not in the spirit of the program and I’d be surprised if legitimate status members thought so.

Sorry if a little OT but kind of along the same lines....something that I find absolutely incredulous about domestic travel in OZ (well with QF anyway) and that i've not witnessed anywhere else in the world is the ability to get onboard an aircraft without once showing any form of ID.

whats next, they will force us to finish our meals before being allowed to leave the plane ?

It looks like I'll be in the minority here, but it seems to me FF points are a currency. One that Qantas, and others, set the exchange rate at their discretion. The points have been earned by loyalty sure, but they have still been earned not given away. So why should the program place any restriction on how the currency is spent. If it's "in your pocket" you should get to spend it or donate it at your discretion.

The points are acquired or “earned” (if that word makes people feel better) pursuant to a contractual relationship. The terms of that relationship dictate the use that may be made of the points. Quite extraordinary how many of the comments deny that basic fact, commenting on purported “discrimination” and alleging a freely transacted “currency”. Some time ago, the terms were amended to extend to family members, as defined. They can be further extended or confined with the consent of the parties. Absent any statutory intervention, take it or leave it as the contract provides. If you wish to agitate for a change to the contract, do so. Defending the notion of deliberately breaching the contract for commercial gain is not my preferred option.

"The last thing anyone wants would be the regulator to decide that they were financial products - as that would then create a whole host of regulatory burdens on the program (licensing, compliance, reporting, etc)"

With all due respect Brinkers, would this really be such a "bad" thing? Perhaps, it would force airlines to be much more transparent on the 'availability' of awards, let alone their points pricing to third party providers such as banks, credit card companies, supermarkets etc. In QF's case as an example, one can't fail to notice the annual continuous and expanding profitability of the FF division. This is not to suggest that QF shouldn't be able to make a profit on what is a very effective marketing tool but ..

Whilst FF points might not currently fit ASIC's definition of a 'non-financial' product, there is no doubt in my mind - and that of many others - that they are indeed Australia's largest de-facto second currency. A term often used in and coined by the financial press, no less. When 12.3m people (more than half the population) hold membership and points in the most dominant one, a substantial degree of transparency may be appropriate.

Whilst others have correctly stated that "this is the terms of the contract", it would be interesting to see how legally enforceable this would be. Contract wording is always open to a valid court challenge, particularly when and where the definition of 'ownership' is concerned.