• expired

100,000 Complimentary Economy Class Return Tickets for Frontline Health Care Professionals @ Qatar Airways

6520

Update: Allocations for 12 May have been reached. The allocation is refreshed daily at midnight Doha time (GMT+3) = 7am AEST

100,000 complimentary tickets on Qatar Airways flights. As a healthcare professional, you are entitled to the following benefits*:

  • Up to two complimentary return Economy Class tickets for yourself and a companion, so you can take a well-deserved holiday to a destination of your choice within our network.
  • Receive 35% off at Qatar Duty Free outlets at our state-of-the-art hub, Hamad International Airport in Doha.

Visit this page starting from 12 May 2020 at 00.01 Doha time (GMT +3) to register and receive your exclusive promo code.

  • This promotional offer is strictly available to medical frontline professionals only. Eligible healthcare professions are limited to: Doctor, Medical practitioner, Nurse, Paramedic, Lab Technician, Clinical Researcher, Pharmacist.
  • It is mandatory to present the original medical identification at the airport check-in desk at the time of departure, and it must clearly state the occupation, as submitted on the offer registration form. No photograph or printed identification will be accepted.
  • Boarding will be denied, should any customer fail to provide the required original identification i.e. Medical licence/registration in additional to regular passport documents.
  • If the medical professional is not able to travel, then the companion will not be accepted at check-in to board the flight.

Terms & conditions:
Offer period: From 12 to 18 May 2020
Promo code booking period: From 12 May until 28 November 2020
Travel period: 26 May to 10 December 2020 (last outbound travel)
Promo code applies to Economy Class tickets only.
Ticket fare and surcharges will be waived, however, taxes are payable by the passenger.
The promo code is valid for a single booking for up to two adult tickets (age 12+) for the healthcare professional and a companion.
Eligible healthcare professionals will be entitled to one booking during the campaign period. If more than one booking is made, the first booking will be retained and any subsequent bookings will be cancelled automatically.
Bookings must be made at least 14 days prior to departure.
Tickets are limited to 100,000 and available on first come first served basis. A daily allocation of codes will be distributed by country throughout the offer period.
Personal information submitted on the registration form (Passport number) is required to match that of the main booker (healthcare professional) within the booking.
Qatar Airways will not be held responsible for any fare differences if a customer does not enter the unique promo code at the time of booking.
The promo code is valid on Qatar Airways operated one-way, return and multicity flight itineraries worldwide, excluding codeshare and interline partnerships. Refer to the Qatar Airwyas operated destinations list below.
Tickets are non-endorsable and non-transferable.
In case of involuntary flight cancellation, the passenger can rebook and change dates or destination to any Qatar Airways operated flight.
Tickets will be fully flexible, with an unlimited number of destination or date changes allowed without any fees.
Price displayed at the time of booking will include the total amount of taxes to be paid. Base fare and surcharges will be waived.
Seats are limited and are subject to availability.
This offer cannot be combined with any other promotion.
Other terms and conditions apply, please refer to the fare rules at the time of booking.

Related Stores

Qatar Airways
Qatar Airways

Comments

  • +39 votes

    Nice gesture, but sheesh - no love for allied health staff who are also amidst it all?

    • +18 votes

      +1. Wife's a psychologist. Not necessarily saying I would have liked a free flight, who wouldn't, but seriously the anxiety levels of some people have gone through the roof.

      But then again Qatar didn't need to offer any free flights at all, so let's call it a draw.

    • +7 votes

      It's all too narrow a focus, there are so many parts of society feeling it. E.g. overworked, underfunded childcare educators, supermarket workers, teachers, and so on…

      Probably more stressful for the millions that have lost work at the moment, compared to some of the more secure professions in healthcare.

      • +1 vote

        Maybe they shouldnt require doctors to study for 6+ years in Uni and another 6+ years to specialize.

      •  

        Still better targeted than the joke JobKeeper is …

        (before anyone jumps down my throat, I am purely talking about the finer points of the scheme like criteria, not the general idea of it)

      • +15 votes

        I miss the days when people respected medical professionals. I don't mean pretend to, like you are, but ACTUALLY respected them.

        While I do agree people have been historically under appreciated, the number of people who seem to genuinely believe that stacking shelves in Woolworths is of equal importance, stress and dedication as devoting your entire life to saving lives and being in extremely close contact to highly infectious people as you're battling to save their life while they're (unwillingly) coughing the virus all over you is pathetic.

        It does not compare in any way, shape or form to being in a nice comfortable building with the possibility someone temporarily walking near you might unknowingly have it, so stop pretending that it does.

        • +2 votes

          No respect for doctor, no respect for teacher, no respect for police, no respect for parents/old people. Generation gap with different values of life.

          •  

            @brongz: Rubbish. If anything I find younger people respect the medical profession more than the older ones. Which generations are most ferocious in fighting to fund it properly and which generations are most ferocious in seeking to limit access to it?

      • +2 votes

        I haven't seen a single deal specific to cleaners, and they are at significantly higher risk than MOST healthcare workers.
        (Just saying)

    • +2 votes

      Haha yes! As a hospital respiratory physiotherapist I feel the slight 😄 but still an awesome deal

    •  

      Shame no physio in the list.

    • +7 votes

      no love for allied health staff who are also amidst it all?

      lots of other occupations are at much higher risk than most healthcare workers.

      Doctors doing zoom sessions only, qualify for this… go figure…

      • +4 votes

        I don't understand why you get a neg for it, people are so petty.
        Honestly, not saying the front line staff are not doing a great job but with the amount of overtime pay, don't think they can't afford a holiday when things settled down, just saying..
        Spare a thought for the people who lost their businesses after this and the flow on effect, are you saying they are less deserve of this than the medical staffs ?

        •  

          I don't understand why you get a neg for it

          I believe the Health Care workers union have set up dummy accounts here to post these "deals" and to downvote everyone calling them out on all this discrimination.

          Just my opinion…

        • +2 votes

          Spare a thought for the people who lost their businesses after this and the flow on effect, are you saying they are less deserve of this than the medical staffs ?

          Agreed. I think all the hospitality workers who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are now struggling to pay off their bills, mortgages and put food on the table are much more deserving to get a free holiday… It will be a very long time before they could afford to pay for a holiday on their own.

          This was good to read the other day…

          • -3 votes

            @jv: Maybe. I applaud your new-found sympathy for hospitality workers. When you voted for Smirk-Mo did your overlook the fact that the federal cons removed penalty rates many of those workers relied on to "pay off their bills, mortgages and put food on the table"?

            Got any evidence of your conspiracy theory or should we add you to the list of possible moronavirus victims ?

            •  

              @Possumbly:

              your overlook the fact that the federal cons removed penalty rates many of those workers relied

              You mean like getting paid $70-$80 per hour triple pay to serve food on Sundays?

              • +1 vote

                @jv: Who got that much by serving food on Sunday?? I believe in so many Asian restaurant now in Australia that’s not the case.

                Even some local franchises like La Porc***, D*min***, 7-El**** not paying their staff’s income taxes, underpaid the staffs and relying on temporary visitor to work with them.

                •  

                  @brongz: Sunday standard rate used to be double time for some workers. If in fact anyone was paid the hourly rate he quotes it would be an extreme case and not even vaguely typical.

              •  

                @jv: Your empathy didn't take long to break down. Did that extra 20c you paid for your coffee to support a low-paid hospitality worker hurt that much?

                Time you familiarised yourself with their pay rates and why casuals get loadings in lieu. You can try the Fairwork website if you want in-depth details but here's a simple WA table which will help you get to grips with reality.

                https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/fil...

                https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/penalty-rate-cuts-2019/

                My daughter worked in hospitality as she did uni, fortunately before your mates cut their wages. Plenty of unpaid hours involved, as there are for some in retail.

                Found that evidence for your conspiracy theory yet?

                •  

                  @Possumbly: Well serving coffee doesn't require a lot of skills. If she reckons the pay is low try to upskill herself to find better paid jobs. All restaurants charge extra 15% (at least) on a public holiday, I would not be able to afford to eat out on those days so lesser patronage, lesser staffs needed, you want more pay but someone has to pay, businesses will choose not to open if they are earning more only to pay more costs, everything is inter related and a balance is needed.
                  My son worked casual in retail and he got paid around $48 an hour on public holidays. There were days he got paid that but the sales was not even enough to cover his and his colleague's wages, let alone the rent and outgoings. The business finally folded so he and his colleague haven't got a job anymore, he is now back to uni studying dentistry.

                  • -2 votes

                    @sistermay: Nothing to do with skills, although making good coffee and providing good service in both retail and hospitality is highly underrated by some, as your comment shows. Me, I appreciate the service I get from most (there are exceptions to every rule) "unskilled" workers - like cafe staff, supermarket employees, cleaners, trolley collectors etc etc.

                    Just an observation but if you can't afford the very small impost charged by some businesses for phs, Sundays etc then perhaps you should dine out on other days, or maybe upskill and get a (better) job? Sorry that was cruel, but your similar comment deserved it. My daughter has long since moved into a far better paid and more satisfying job, but not everyone has that opportunity for a huge variety of reasons. I only apologise because I don't know your circumstances any more than you know why businesses fail.

                    The additional surcharge some hospitality businesses put in place is negligible and isn't the reason why businesses fail or people can't eat out. That starts and often ends with ridiculous rents, unregulated franchise costs, bad business skills, etc.

                    Your final sentence is telling, even though I don't agree with your supposition about the reason why the business failed. The con government's claim for cutting penalty rates was that it would create jobs. There was no evidence given to prove that (in this country), and no evidence that it achieved anything like that. Rent control on the other hand….

            •  

              @Possumbly:

              list of possible moronavirus victims

              I'd add all the people creating discriminating deals to that list, yes…

        • +2 votes

          @sistermay Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

          During wars do you throw hissy fits about praising the soldiers saving your life, insisting that the key workers work just as hard and deserve more? I don't care how many times you say it, someone losing their job is NOT more deserving of a holiday than a person working 18 hour days in horrific conditions to literally save lives (there's a whole world outside Australia you know…). These perks (aside from being a PR exercise) are to give extraordinary people a break, not a social security safety net - so stop treating it like it is.

          Finally, this isn't a "who's worthy" competition or the workings of a government scheme. It's a private company wanting to help HEALTH workers during a HEALTH crisis. The suggestion of opening this up to 500 million people who have lost their job is exactly the level of stupidity I'd expect from the site. How on Earth do you think that could ever work?

    • +4 votes

      This is going straight to /r/choosingbeggars

    •  

      At least they are including clinical researchers this time. My best mate is part of the Australian team working on a vaccine. He's also a single parent. He could sure use a holiday when all this over.

  • +2 votes

    This is bonkers. Wish me luck!

  • +1 vote

    In 45min

  • +3 votes

    Fantastic gesture, note that taxes still need to be paid.

    Good way for the airline to ensure they have medically trained professionals on board in case of emergencies! I know which airline I will choose for my frail relatives, although the risk of contracting coronavirus may be higher…

  • +13 votes

    Is there a doctor on board?

  • +15 votes

    But can you leave the country before December 2020?

  • +13 votes

    Nice gesture but a couple of considerations for those that qualify.
    Will Australians actually be permitted to travel overseas, other than to NZ, by years end? If the answer is no, it's unlikely that Qatar will be operating any flights to Australia if there are no outbound passengers.

    And there's also this…..https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/qatar-airways-plans-job-cuts-due-to-covid-19

    •  

      yeah I realised this too after googling it I didn't realise it was world wide, maybe Aussies are better off not trying to sign up since we probably won't get to use it anyways and leaving it for those who can

  • +8 votes

    where can we go by December 2020 anyway???

  • +2 votes

    Isn't economy class where all the germs are shared? (speaking from experience) :)

    •  

      Yeah can’t see myself getting on a plane any time soon

      •  

        Do you take the train or a bus or an uber?

        •  

          Personally I wouldn't want to get on a plane, and I also wouldn't want to get onto any of those things either.

          •  

            @Ghost47: Well, enjoy two years inside then till a vaccine. I’ll be out living life and enjoying the world.

            •  

              @UberIsCool: Right, because I'm not willing to get on transport with dozens of other people it means I can't use my car for the time being.

              I've come to terms that overseas or interstate trips may come at a higher risk, hence why I'd prefer to just travel locally within my state or drive interstate if I want.

              • -1 vote

                @Ghost47: The last thing we need is roads filled with cars

                •  

                  @UberIsCool: What kind of reply is this? Honestly, first thing I said is that I don't want to be on a plane risking my health with other people, to which you reply with some silly "enjoy being inside for two years" reply as if you're better, then I reply that I was simply thinking of my own health and you still find an issue with it?

                  You're insufferable, get over the fact that not everyone agrees with you. It's pretty sad that you keep trying to find fault with what I'm doing when I don't want to contract the disease or risk spreading it to my family.

                  • -4 votes

                    @Ghost47: “ I don't want to be on a plane risking my health with other people” this is a misconception that people get sick from a virus on an aircraft. You will get sick more from shopping at Woolworths, walking in the park exercising or visiting friends and family in other houses and units blocks. My original and current argument is people need to wisen up and understand the chances of getting COVID on an aircraft is extremely low and less than other ‘normal’ living arrangements. If you don’t want to fly cause you have a misunderstanding about getting sick than that’s your incorrect belief, don’t spread that incorrect information.

                    •  

                      @UberIsCool: I don't think you realise that unless physical distancing is forced on a plane — and we have seen in recent times that overseas airlines have not followed guidelines and that our national flag carrier has requested that middle seats be filled — that contracting the virus is possible on a plane, although yes it may not be probable, I will give you that. But hey I'll bet you're going to say "but that article is about the flu, not coronavirus" and yes that is the case because I would argue there is not enough data to determine how transmissible coronavirus is on aircraft because the virus is still somewhat new. I'm sure you know the virus is very contagious, you have seen the cruise ship incidents correct? But then you'll go on about planes having HEPA filters, and I'll rebutt that saying "Well you do realise if someone next to you coughs and there is no PPE worn (or even if there is PPE such as a surgical facemask) that infected droplets can spread before making it into the HEPA filtering system". There are a multitude of factors when it comes to viruses spreading on aircraft.

                      My original and current argument is people need to wisen up and understand the chances of getting COVID on an aircraft is extremely low and less than other ‘normal’ living arrangements.

                      You did not present this argument anywhere. Asking "Do you take the train or a bus or an uber?" was not the same at all, and to frame it as if you were arguing that is completely disingenuous and a sad attempt to get some sort of upper hand. I'll also add, you never presented any information to back up your "argument" (which let's admit, was a silly question yet somehow encompasses everything about flying being safe? LOL).

                      If you don’t want to fly cause you have a misunderstanding about getting sick than that’s your incorrect belief, don’t spread that incorrect information.

                      I'm not spreading misinformation, I'm telling you what I would prefer not to do. I would rather err on the side of caution, yet you are making it out like I'm doing the wrong thing — especially with your reply "the last thing we need is roads filled with cars" which frankly is just a completely idiotic reply — even though what I will be doing won't affect you as you will be going overseas.

                      •  

                        @Ghost47: If you think “ Do you take the train or a bus or an uber?” is not a direct implied statement and argument against the same chances of air travel or any other form of public placement or gathering then I can’t expand your restricted way of thinking.

                        Couldn’t be bothered going on anymore, regardless of what any airlines do, the main point that covers all these useless statements about ‘dangerous’ air travel is less harmful or on same level as all the other suggested and approved actions that people are allowed to do now and in the upcoming ease of restrictions.

                        Good on you for not wanting to fly, well done. Like I said, myself and many others will continue to live our lives flying the same as anyone wanting to venture outside their front door.

                        • +2 votes

                          @UberIsCool: Good reply, lots of evidence, 10/10.

                          If you think “ Do you take the train or a bus or an uber?” is not a direct implied statement and argument against the same chances of air travel or any other form of public placement or gathering then I can’t expand your restricted way of thinking.

                          Do you even read what you post? You said your original argument was:

                          My original and current argument is people need to wisen up and understand the chances of getting COVID on an aircraft is extremely low and less than other ‘normal’ living arrangements.

                          First you reply with some silly question that was supposed to equate the chances of contracting a virus on a bus to a plane (lol really — a bus is still a riskier environment because it's an enclosed space and you are near other people, if someone sneezes and droplets land on a surface when you then end up touching and then touch your face you are at a higher risk of contracting the virus — this is just one example of why being on a bus can be risky and by risky I don't mean 10000000x riskie, I just mean risky), yet you say that was supposed to be an argument that chances of getting the virus on a plane is very low, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

                          Couldn’t be bothered going on anymore, regardless of what any airlines do, the main point that covers all these useless statements about ‘dangerous’ air travel is less harmful or on same level as all the other suggested and approved actions that people are allowed to do now and in the upcoming ease of restrictions.

                          1. You didn't present any data on plane travel being safe, you only threw that in as an afterthought, might I also add after you made some dumb comment about roads being filled up.
                          2. Right, so just because restrictions are eased that must mean that they are correct and that the government is some infallible entity that never makes mistakes, and we should blindly follow and extrapolate their guidelines to everything else.

                          Good on you for not wanting to fly, well done. Like I said, myself and many others will continue to live our lives flying the same as anyone wanting to venture outside their front door.

                          See, this is what is sad. You putting down me and others just because we don't want to do what you want to do. Do you always force others into guilt when they do something different to you especially when it doesn't cause you any actual harm? Take a look at yourself.

                    • +1 vote

                      @UberIsCool: Extremely close contact as exists on planes and cruise ships is exactly the right environment for passing on viruses like colds, flu and Covid-19. The one caveat to that for C-19 is airlines will presumably/maybe be required to conduct temperature tests of passengers prior to boarding. Even that is no guarantee as experts have said on many occasions.

                      Please stop spreading your amateur guesswork and leave it to experts to advise on risks. People should read proper advice on travel and decide for themselves what sort of close contact they are prepared to risk - just as Ghost47 has.

                      •  

                        @Possumbly: Nothing amateur about it. Air travel will be just as safe as getting on a bus or shopping at the supermarket.

                        •  

                          @UberIsCool: Obviously amateur, and obviously guesswork. Your assurances are meaningless garble.

                          •  

                            @Possumbly: Thanks for your opinion.

                            “Aviation Fact: Pressurized Aircraft pose no risk to Coronavirus infection.

                            We hear the myth all the time that pressurized aircraft recirculate the same air around and around the cabin, slowly infecting all occupants with the same virus. This is NOT true. “

                            •  

                              @UberIsCool: And exactly what has that to do with the fact that Covid-19 is passed on via close contact with a carrier? Despite authorities hammering home the message wrt social distancing it seems you still haven't got it. It's not rocket surgery.

                              •  

                                @Possumbly: You mean rocket science. If you bothered to actually follow the discussion you will see that the man discussion point is people’s misconception that they will have more chance of getting COVID on an aircraft than any other normal society deemed ok activity or area.

                                •  

                                  @UberIsCool: No I meant rocket surgery. Try the urban dictionary if you don't get the obvious origins of the term.

                                  I followed the discussion, and only one party showed he had absorbed and understood the myriad public messages and warnings, and would apply common sense to his future activities. Want a 50/50 split on who that was?

        • +1 vote

          Here's something somewhat empirical.
          Read and make up your own minds.

          https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-t...

          •  

            @do-ob: Great article. Also read the one she refers to that inspired her to write it, the link is at the bottom of her article. Here is a quote about aircraft from that original article:

            “ It’s similarly notable that airplanes don’t seem to be common sites for known SSEs(Super Spreader Events), notwithstanding the sardine-like manner in which airlines transport us and the ample opportunity that the industry’s bureaucracy offers for contact tracing. I have been made aware of a Vietnamese woman who apparently spread infection on a flight. And New Zealand has one cluster that’s based around an infected but asymptomatic flight attendant. But the many known infections he caused took place at a wedding reception, not in an airplane”

            Aircraft don’t fit into her description as they filter the air with hospital grade HEPA filters and also bring into the cabin fresh air from outside.

            •  

              @UberIsCool: Good article but she's making a huge number of broad assumptions in that article. Where and how people acquire Covid-19/corona viruses generally is not specifically known or well-understood however reasonable assumptions can be made and this is what health warnings and advice are drawn from.

              If you want to know the facts wrt aerosol spread - and there aren't many for corona viruses, esp Covid-19s for obvious reasons - then read some studies on previous corona virus outbreaks, SARS and MERS. The Conversation had a good summary if you can't be bothered with academic studies. Here it is: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-drifts-through-the-a...

          •  

            @do-ob: Also, a really easy YouTube to watch on how Cabin air works - https://youtu.be/ldm3n0hEsd4

            •  

              @UberIsCool:

              Nothing amateur about it. Air travel will be just as safe as getting on a bus or shopping at the supermarket.

              And people are allowed to come to their own conclusions about whether they want to risk it or not.

              This is a new article today about a doctor who believes he contracted COVID-19 through his eyes on a plane. From the article, he is a virologist and epidemiologist "who has responded to multiple outbreaks around the world". I should not have to reiterate how obvious it is that this virus is extremely contagious, especially when countries that have eased their restrictions are seeing rises in cases again, for example in Germany and South Korea.

              This basically means that you should not expect your life to go back to normal and doing so is somewhat ignorant IMO. Even the head of the International Air Transportation Agency has said air travel will not resume to normalcy until 2023. That isn't to say travel will not resume at all, you can feel free to go to Italy or South Korea if you want, but just because other people can see that risks exist when catching PT or flying does not mean that they are wrong. Gloating about how you will "go back to travelling the world" is silly and above all disregards scientific fact. It's not rocket science either that being in a confined space with other people (whose health history is unavailable to you) is obviously riskier than being in your own car without any other passengers.

              Here is another article about how you actually can catch viruses on a plane:

              “To be honest, airplanes are not designed to prevent infectious-disease transmission,” said Chen, who was co-director of the FAA-funded Airliner Cabin Environment Research center from 2004 to 2010. “They’re not designed to do the job.”

              Experts agree that HEPA filters are highly effective at capturing everything from viruses to skin flakes.

              But that is only part of the picture.

              The problem is passengers can still breathe in tiny floating droplets from a coughing passenger seated nearby — before the air carrying those droplets can be vented out of the cabin and filtered.

              Precisely how far the droplets might float before being pulled out and cleaned has been the subject of intricate scientific observation, airflow modeling and disease tracing, from the onboard flu cases in Alaska to an earlier coronavirus outbreak in 2003, when severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) killed 774 people around the world.

              On March 15 of that year, a Boeing 737 took off from Hong Kong for a three-hour flight to Beijing, with a feverish 72-year-old man sitting in 14E, a middle seat.

              Of the 120 people on board, 22 were later diagnosed with confirmed or probable cases of SARS, according to a reconstruction published in the New England Journal of Medicine that year. Researchers said the “most plausible” explanation was that they were infected on the plane by the man in 14E. He died of atypical pneumonia a few days after the flight.

              The World Health Organization had defined “contact” with a SARS patient as sitting in the same row, or in the two rows ahead or behind the infected person.

              The researchers found that the risk for those in the three rows in front of the man in 14E, or in the same row, was much higher than for those sitting elsewhere. But two people seated as far as seven rows in front of him were also infected, as were two flight attendants. Five passengers later died.

              People moving around or touching surfaces may have played a role, or the virus may have floated in the air for longer than expected, the researchers concluded.

              In actuality though viruses can spread through touching surfaces. That article by Erin Bromage seems to largely ignore that fact as someone rightly commented: "I know that droplets are a big issue, but most discussions of transmissibility also talk about shared-touch surfaces, like door handles and PIN pads. Was there a reason you left that out?".

              The simple fact is, if you are in a space with other people whose medical history you are not aware of, it is a risk. When it comes to my personal health and the health of my family and the people I am around, I am not willing to risk taking the chance. You can go ahead and do it, but don't put others down as if they're being silly for reacting in this manner based on all the science.

              I can easily remember two groups of people forming when this virus emerged, the "what's the big deal it's just a flu" group and the "we should be very careful regarding this virus" group. I would say you are in the former and I am in the latter.

      • +5 votes

        How about a nice cruise?

    • +5 votes

      First, business and economy all share the same air!

  • Top