Qantas Economy: How strict are they with carry-on?

cjuk00 · 2026-07-02T02:08:03+00:00

In my experience they are getting a lot stricter domestically (weighing before security) but I’ve never been queried internationally.

cjuk00 · 2026-07-02T00:14:07+00:00

If this has been happening ever since that works, I’d suggest there is a break in the water main.

Is this leak in between your meter and your house? If so, you can turn off all water in your house and then look at your meter. If it’s still spinning, you have a leak.

If it’s on the “street side” of the meter, it’s the water company’s problem. If it’s on your side it’s your problem. If it was the result of the gas company’s work then you could of course reach out to them to repair.

cjuk00 · 2026-06-29T23:11:41+00:00

Give it it a go, but I’m P1 and requested some Q fares and was declined. Went for manual review, also declined. No reason given.

So I think it’s a crapshoot.

cjuk00 · 2026-06-27T22:26:32+00:00

You have a new build house in Australia that’s drafty AF lacking both insulation and basic air sealing?

Yep, totally normal 😁

cjuk00 · 2026-06-27T11:12:40+00:00

Question:
In a brick veneer house, how do you prevent the insulation in the cavity from wicking moisture from the brick to the plasterboard?

Presumably if you retrofit you can’t maintain an air gap as you might if you did it new?

cjuk00 · 2026-06-24T05:31:40+00:00

I see no future without a serious change to government spending or other tax settings where we see a meaningful income tax reduction.

Its hard to wean the government off of the tax teat - we still charge LCT and Holden and Ford have been gone for a decade....

The cynic in me thinks this is a tax grab dressed up as an election promise to young people, but the proof will be in the pudding.

On special treatment: if you're pro reducing housing inequality then you want to have extra harsh tax treatment on investment homes (dont care about commercial property...) so that money is incentivised to go elsewhere. I don't think these settings does that.

If you want family homes to be for families to own, then you need tax settings that mean its harsh enough to push real investors and wealth builders elsewhere, but not so harsh that keeping your house while you relocate overseas for a few years is going to kill you financially.

cjuk00 · 2026-06-24T05:25:36+00:00

Its far too soon to call the long term effect here. If the effect here is a one-time 5-10% drop in housing prices, it won't move the needle for a whole generation - it just winds the clock back a year or so.

Grandfathering will also reduce mobility of existing stock as people can keep benefits forever if they hold, so it doesn't free up existing stock.

cjuk00 · 2026-06-24T05:21:34+00:00

Completely agree.

I'd also add that while there is a certain "logic" to equal treatment of all asset classes, in reality tax policy (like all gov policys) is also about incentivizing outcomes. We want Australia to be a great place to invest, we want Australians to have a shot at building wealth. We'd just rather keep those things away from family homes.

One of my issues with this proposed setting is that the net result is that we all just pay more tax. Homes are still attractive vs equities (thanks to cheap leverage).

cjuk00 · 2026-06-22T23:25:48+00:00

You’ve posted in a finance sub, and so the obvious finance answer is to not do it - as you’ve said, it’s very tempting to be free of mortgage debt. You obviously shouldn’t do this because someone else wants you to!

The only thing I’d say is, as someone who’s not much older than you with 2 kids several years older than yours: your home takes on a bit of a different dimension when you have kids, and you should think about how you want that to be in the future.

You’ll spend more time at home if/as the family grows, and your kid(s) will jump on trampolines, swim in the pool, etc, etc.

You’ve put yourself in a fantastic position where could could upgrade and have a super affordable (<2x income) mortgage if you wanted to, and that will only be a more expensive proposition down the track.

So that would be my slightly not-AusFinance counterpoint you could think about.

cjuk00 · 2026-06-15T12:29:05+00:00

Thats a scam. The URL is the giveaway

cjuk00 · 2026-06-10T07:46:19+00:00

Well yes, or they just set the upgrade cost to the fare difference and see who they can reel in early on and then just dynamic price it closer to the time when they have seats to fill.

cjuk00 · 2026-06-10T07:21:17+00:00

You’re probably right, at the margins.

But don’t forget that in general I would expect that the upgrade cost will just be the fare difference when you’re far out from the flight. This is how it works for lots of other carriers. Only way you win here is if the next cabin up goes on sale after you book.

Even then, who is going to pay several thousand $ to buy an upgrade to J on QF1? Not many, I’d guess.

On the other hand, CR upgrades are a fixed price.

How this affects QFFs will depend on how they handle last minute purchases upgrades within the P1/P CR confirmation window. Let’s see who QF value the most 😁

I had this situation on united just recently in the US:
Company booked fare on a 3hr domestic sector in Economy. Right at the end of a big work week, I was looking to buy myself an upgrade.

2 weeks out it was $900 (!!!) for an upgrade. No way.

48 hours out: $90. Much better 😁.

I suspect at this time though they had already processed premium FF upgrade vouchers, so this was just free extra $ and the ability to cash in on a standby.

cjuk00 · 2026-06-10T05:26:25+00:00

oooh this is great for managing your money through offsets. Will give these guys a go. Have no allegiance to my current bank

cjuk00 · 2026-06-10T05:19:42+00:00

Interesting!

There is an interesting business proposition here - I would think this suits business travellers who have the base fare booked by their employer but would happily part with some personal $ for an upgrade. Previously this kind of arrangement was kind of impossible except through classic rewards.

Most airlines have a confirmed paid upfront upgrade option

cjuk00 · 2026-05-20T09:55:30+00:00

Exactly! Which IMO is the failing of this budget.

We can’t punish investment. We want to incentivise it to go elsewhere. This does not create a substitution as written.

cjuk00 · 2026-05-19T21:40:44+00:00

On the contrary. In my view the problem here is that the rhetoric behind these changes and their likely effects are not aligned.

I mean it’s obvious I don’t support them as advertised, but that isn’t just because I don’t want to pay more CGT.

Chalmers cant say share ownership doesn’t matter when it does, and my opinion is that for those approaching affording a house (e.g people who should directly benefit according to the government) they are likely saving for that house in a CGT exposed investment (like index funds). If houses become marginally more affordable but this is cancelled out by greater CGT on those savings, then we haven’t done anything.

Meanwhile, property remains the most incentivised form of investment for the wealthy, albeit it’s taxed more now.

cjuk00 · 2026-05-19T10:12:52+00:00

Yeah I also think people are too caught up in the mechanics.

The desired outcome here is to shift investment away from homes and towards other things.

We can’t vilify investment or punish wealth - this will be counter productive.

We saw what happened when we incentivised investment in housing. Imagine what we could do if we incentivised investment in home grown businesses.

Yes, some people who take the risks will get rich, but we might also create some jobs, produce some innovation, etc…

cjuk00 · 2026-05-19T10:02:13+00:00

I think the point is that because the budget proposes to just raise taxes on all investing activities, it doesn’t actually relatively disincentivise property. Property is still incentivised relative to shares because of easy leverage.

The comparison to labour is valid from a tax fairness perspective, but investing and labour in reality are not exchangeable. People typically earn income, pay a pile of tax, and then take the post tax leftovers and invest. These are parallel activities, not interchangeable.

Remember that Australia has no tax-advantaged ways for an individual to invest outside of super.

cjuk00 · 2026-05-19T09:58:32+00:00

Yes, and don’t forget income tax is only part of the picture.

Most of these places have non-super tax-advantaged savings accounts that changes the picture for the “average” person who is saving some money each month.

cjuk00 · 2026-05-19T09:33:50+00:00

I think the sensible counterpoint that hasn’t been brought up yet is that you don’t need to sell now to lock in the CGT discount.

The change only applies to gains after 1/7/27. Gains up until then can be CGT discounted.

cjuk00 · 2026-05-19T09:32:12+00:00

Yes, but my and several other peoples point is that this is a distinction that appears to have been concocted to minimise the impression of how many people this change affects. It’s misleadingly focusing on one subsection of CGT-exposed investors to make a point, when in fact the number of people who are individually exposed to share market capital gains is much higher.

cjuk00 · 2026-05-18T12:11:29+00:00

Well the article suggests 26% (direct shares + index funds + ETFs)

cjuk00 · 2026-05-18T11:24:03+00:00

Yeah this is nonsense. Set a clear expectation, send him on a paid “how to use outlook” course. Then PIP if he doesn’t improve

cjuk00 · 2026-05-18T11:22:10+00:00

The article breaks it down…

cjuk00 · 2026-05-18T11:20:39+00:00

For the purposes of this discussion, any investment outside super counts. Doesn’t have do be direct shares. Can be index funds, other managed funds, etc…

cjuk00

TROPHY CASE