2 x Different Booking Classes for 2 x Pax on 1 x Booking - is it possible ?

[nonpop]

When I book for myself & my partner short haul I'd like to be able to select red-e (usually O class) for my partner and Flexi-Saver (usually V class) for myself on the same booking (ensures we are seated together and I can get her a better seat due to I being a WP & her being a PS) via the web (don't want to do it via phone as there are booking fees - yes I'm cheap).

For the life of me I can't seem to find a way to do it. Any ideas ?

(and if you want to know why ... well Flexi = double SCs vs Red-e and usually isn't much more $$ ... plus I sometimes have change travel plans due to work).

 

[Travel Guru]

It can't be done, if you have 2 pax on the one PNR they must both be ticketed on the same sectors.

You'd need to book them on different PNR's and have the PNR's TCP'd by the agent or airline.

TG

 

[nonpop]

It can't be done, if you have 2 pax on the one PNR they must both be ticketed on the same sectors.

You'd need to book them on different PNR's and have the PNR's TCP'd by the agent or airline.

TG

Thanks. As suspected. Shame.

Hey Qantas ... if you are reading this, here is an opportunity to make some extra $$. It owuld only be an IT change, so it's not like having to buy new planes.

 

[Travel Guru]

Thanks. As suspected. Shame.

Hey Qantas ... if you are reading this, here is an opportunity to make some extra $$. It owuld only be an IT change, so it's not like having to buy new planes.

You'll find its not Qantas, its a limitation of the GDS reservation system.

TG

 

[harvyk]

Thanks. As suspected. Shame.

Hey Qantas ... if you are reading this, here is an opportunity to make some extra $$. It owuld only be an IT change, so it's not like having to buy new planes.

How would QF get extra $$$? They are losing out as your booking a Flexi for one seat and only a Red-E for the other. I don't see an overly big incentive for them to change their system as most people would either make two distinct bookings and ask to be seated together at the airport, or would simply book the higher airfare. Besides only a "small IT change" can oftan have massive costs associated with it (eg making the change, testing it, implementing it and then supporting it, all has costs)...

 

[nonpop]

How would QF get extra $$$? They are losing out as your booking a Flexi for one seat and only a Red-E for the other. ...

Not for this little black duck. But thanks for telling me what I'm not actually doing.

Have just booked a few flights (feel free to PM and I'll happily show you proof of purchase).
I went red-e for both of us as I'm not that keen on paying for SCs. However; under the right conditions, I would have been willing to pay the small extra if I could have done it on a single booking & it was convenient and easy. But to have to go out of my way and increase the risks of things like separation, having a flight cancelled and only one of us re-booked on the next flight (yes I had this happen with business travel) etc no thanks.
No way I would even consider 2 unique bookings as I would also have to move backward in the plane to sit near my partner with pre-seat selection.

So to answer your question ... they would have picked up extra $$ from me just now with my bookings.
And for business travel, I often book red-e going and flexi return. But for a small additional cost I again would consider flexi both ways.

Oh and re an IT change ... pffft ... please ... In my professional life I keep hearing things like "oh our systems DON'T do that" when they are really saying "our systems haven't been configured to do that and in real terms we can't be stuffed trying to do it". The beauty about software related systems is that the only limitation is code. This is not a hardware related physical issue. It is 100% code based. So if someone did want to make it happen, then it could be done.

And re massive costs to do it. Again, please hold me back. Give customers what they want and they spend $$ with you. Don't and they wont. Make doing business easier. Unique advantage is something every business must strive for. Differentiation. Otherwise one business starts to look like the next. So in my case, Qantas had an opportunity to increase the revenue for each mile flown, but alas it wasn't to be.

But again, thank you for telling me what I am not doing.

 

[ajw373]

Oh and re an IT change ... pffft ... please ... In my professional life I keep hearing things like "oh our systems DON'T do that" when they are really saying "our systems haven't been configured to do that and in real terms we can't be stuffed trying to do it". The beauty about software related systems is that the only limitation is code. This is not a hardware related physical issue. It is 100% code based. So if someone did want to make it happen, then it could be done.

And re massive costs to do it. Again, please hold me back. Give customers what they want and they spend $$ with you. Don't and they wont. Make doing business easier. Unique advantage is something every business must strive for. Differentiation. Otherwise one business starts to look like the next. So in my case, Qantas had an opportunity to increase the revenue for each mile flown, but alas it wasn't to be.

He was 100% right, changing software/code is not a trivial thing to do, and can cost a bucket load. Airline systems in particular are extremely complex owing in no small part to the number of other systems that they need to interface into and the inherent availability that is required to run an airline. Also as someone else pointed out you will find the limitation (if you want to call it that) is in the back-end Amadeus system which Qantas does not own nor control.

 

[harvyk]

Not for this little black duck. But thanks for telling me what I'm not actually doing.

Have just booked a few flights (feel free to PM and I'll happily show you proof of purchase).
I went red-e for both of us as I'm not that keen on paying for SCs. However; under the right conditions, I would have been willing to pay the small extra if I could have done it on a single booking & it was convenient and easy.

Sorry misunderstood what you where trying to do... I read it as two pax both in different booking classes on the one booking on the one flight.

Oh and re an IT change ... pffft ... please ... In my professional life I keep hearing things like "oh our systems DON'T do that" when they are really saying "our systems haven't been configured to do that and in real terms we can't be stuffed trying to do it". The beauty about software related systems is that the only limitation is code. This is not a hardware related physical issue. It is 100% code based. So if someone did want to make it happen, then it could be done.

And re massive costs to do it. Again, please hold me back. Give customers what they want and they spend $$ with you. Don't and they wont. Make doing business easier. Unique advantage is something every business must strive for. Differentiation. Otherwise one business starts to look like the next. So in my case, Qantas had an opportunity to increase the revenue for each mile flown, but alas it wasn't to be.

I'll give you an example of a small IT change, linking two records together, seems simple enough. Here is the thing, you first need to add on a new column for the table which states that record one can be linked to record two. You then need to create the code which actually allows that new column to be populated. You then need to create the code which refuses to link the two records if it violates certain laws. You then need to modify your front end (aka the website) to use the new column and display the information correctly. You then need to ensure any other system which refers back to your system now understands that these two records can be linked together like that.

Then you need to test it and try your hardest to break it this includes making sure records which are not going to use this new feature are not adversely affected, which could easily involve making hundreds of dummy bookings (in a dev environment \ sandbox).

Finally you need to upload the changes to your production system (the one that joe public uses), and monitor your production system to make sure the change has not had any adverse affect on any other systems which did not come up in testing, as well as ensuring your backup systems will backup the new data.

I can tell you now that for anything other than the most trivial systems this is a very expensive process (potentially costing tens of thousands of dollars in programmer time alone), so to do it you need to make sure your change will infact generate additional revenue.

My source – I'm the principal software developer for an IT company, my role is to manage software projects where if there is problems, processes involving $ sums with 9 figures in it can be disrupted.