Airlines blaming each other [QF fails to inform EK of cancelled booking]

[MEL_Traveller]

Hi all,

Thanks very much for all your responses and advice; this has been most helpful. I have a good sense of the avenues which are available.

Broadly consensus appears to be that the cancellation should have been made effective by Qantas, and but for this issue no other loss would have taken place. Interestingly, despite the Qantas website being quite clear on this (Your booking has been cancelled), they appear quite averse to being as clear cut (You requested a full refund from the website / A request to cancel was initiated).

Not sure how this will pan out but will keep you posted.

Thanks again.

I supopse they may have some basis for wanting to say a 'request' for a cancellation was initiated. There may be circumstances where, for example, a passenger has bought a return ticket but has only travelled one way. Or has bought a one way ticket but decided to break their journey part way through. In both these cases there may be additional fees or charges associated with that 'early' cancellation. (Airlines oftne threaten this, but rarely seem to pursue collection.)

But I'm not sure that even that argument holds. If the passenger wishes to cancel, they should be free to do so, even if it would result in additional fees.

I think you have summed it up. But for QF's inaction, you would have suffered no loss.

As I mentioned before, I think the issue here is that this case just hasn't reached the right department. This is a legal issue, not a general ticketing or fares issue than can be handeled by reservations or by frequent flyer. Once it gets to their legal department you should get a more definitive response.

 

[Artorias]

I supopse they may have some basis for wanting to say a 'request' for a cancellation was initiated. There may be circumstances where, for example, a passenger has bought a return ticket but has only travelled one way. Or has bought a one way ticket but decided to break their journey part way through. In both these cases there may be additional fees or charges associated with that 'early' cancellation. (Airlines oftne threaten this, but rarely seem to pursue collection.)

But I'm not sure that even that argument holds. If the passenger wishes to cancel, they should be free to do so, even if it would result in additional fees.

I think you have summed it up. But for QF's inaction, you would have suffered no loss.

As I mentioned before, I think the issue here is that this case just hasn't reached the right department. This is a legal issue, not a general ticketing or fares issue than can be handeled by reservations or by frequent flyer. Once it gets to their legal department you should get a more definitive response.

You're right, though at the same time I can't help but feel there is some element of Qantas trying to distance themselves from the finality of cancellation that their website quite clearly presents. Maybe I'm reading into it too much.

Having said that - definitely agree with your view on the department. I am hoping this will be escalated accordingly.

Cheers

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You're right, though at the same time I can't help but feel there is some element of Qantas trying to distance themselves from the finality of cancellation that their website quite clearly presents. Maybe I'm reading into it too much.

Having said that - definitely agree with your view on the department. I am hoping this will be escalated accordingly.

Cheers

i wouldn't rely on it being internally escalated to the right area on its own accord. It may get to the manager of the call centre. I'd actually suggest that you outright ask it to be escalated to the legal department.

 

[Artorias]

i wouldn't rely on it being internally escalated to the right area on its own accord. It may get to the manager of the call centre. I'd actually suggest that you outright ask it to be escalated to the legal department.

Thanks - will do. I recall your prior post where you suggested the ACA would likely connect with the right department but hopefully this can accelerate the process.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thanks - will do. I recall your prior post where you suggested the ACA would likely connect with the right department but hopefully this can accelerate the process.

If the ACA gets involved they will take up your cause. You could also just ask for it to go straight to Qantas legal. And if nothing happens there, go to the ACA anyway.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Not being a TA, I don't really know what I'm talking about, but aren't both EK and QF using Amadeus (and ANZ for that matter)? Surely a cancellation with QF is immediate with EK so how can the EK check-in staffer use a cancelled PNR (especially when there is another PNR active for the same pax)?

 

[Must...Fly!]

Not being a TA, I don't really know what I'm talking about, but aren't both EK and QF using Amadeus (and ANZ for that matter)? Surely a cancellation with QF is immediate with EK so how can the EK check-in staffer use a cancelled PNR (especially when there is another PNR active for the same pax)?

I can only speak for Sabre, but it's certainly possible to check someone in without an e-ticket. You shouldn't just be able to do it without some sort of warning, but it can certainly be done

 

[Isochronous]

The OP has retained evidence that he cancelled the booking through QF. He therefore has legal grounds to sue QF for a refund. I would encourage him to do so.

 

[JohnPhelan]

The OP states that they did use the NZ paperwork to check in, so the check in agent has got it wrong there.

This is actually at the heart of the problem. The OP provided the NZ paperwork with the NZ-booked PNR - yet the EK staff checked them in under the QF PNR. The direct fault here is that of the EK check-in staff - they searched for the passenger name, rather than the booking reference. They should always search by PNR, or at the very least, cross-check the PNR against the name.

The majority of the fault here clearly belongs to the EK check-in staff. And as noted earlier, because the QF booking was the one activated by the EK staff, QF will have paid EK for the carriage of the passenger.

Yes, it would be ideal if a cancelled ticket immediately showed up that way in the system, but I have seen several instances (on differing airlines) where this doesn't happen.

From a goodwill perspective, QF could refund the points cost to the OP and then seek reimbursement from EK. I don't think either the OP or QF should wear the cost - it's a clear mistake by the EK staff, so they should carry the cost.

 

[serfty]

The majority of the fault here clearly belongs to the EK check-in staff.

I disagree.

If QF had properly cancelled the booking there would have been nothing for the EK staff to find in relation to the 081- ticket and this issue would not have happened as it did.

 

[theevilmuppet]

I disagree.

If QF had properly cancelled the booking there would have been nothing for the EK staff to find in relation to the 081- ticket and this issue would not have happened as it did.

In a first, I have to disagree with you here serfty. Specific details were provided to the EK staffer and they obviously didn't handle those details appropriately.

Regarding getting the appropriate care from the various parties involved, NZ needs to act here as do QF. Those are the companies that you've obtained services via. Unfortunately, sometimes there's only one real option to get the attention of anyone who is inclined and/or able to act: My favourite C word | Ultimate coughhole

 

[serfty]

I have to disagree

We will have to agree to disagree.

It was a Qantas process failure the resulted in EK not being informed the booking was cancelled.

Take note:

... finality of cancellation that their website [Qantas'] quite clearly presents.

Qantas subscribe to the www.airlinecustomeradvocate.com.au.

 

[SOPOOR]

Just dont get it why in these sort of obvious stiuations, that qantas simply dont give the refund, as part of a gesture of good will,
rather than take the risk of copping more flack through the media/forums

 

[blaz]

I would look at Emirates here. It seems they were paid twice for the same person...does this not show up somewhere when some one checks in? Also, unless the Emirates flight was full, the empty seat would not have affected their revenue .This seems like greed (this assumes that both Qantas and Air New Zealand paid Emirates for each seat.)

 

[Rich]

Interesting one.

If QF is at fault, it is an issue between them and Emirates. It is nothing to do with the passenger.

I would seek a correction of the tickets used by Emirates. i.e. tell them point blank that as per your instructions at check in, you took the Air NZ booked flight, not the QANTAS booked flight and they need to correct this. If Emirates have a problem with QF not issuing a cancellation in due time, they should take it up with them. Think it about though, surely Emirates were already aware of this practice and perhaps the same thing happens in reverse.

 

[theevilmuppet]

We will have to agree to disagree.

It was a Qantas process failure the resulted in EK not being informed the booking was cancelled.

Take note:

Qantas subscribe to the www.airlinecustomeradvocate.com.au.

Serfty, you're completely wrong here.

There is precisely no justification for someone being given specific information to act upon and then acting differently. Your position would see any organisation dealing with ambiguity held blameless because the instructions they were given by a customer directly were able to be verified but some other piece of information was also present and was held as more correct in complete disregard of available information.

Ambiguity happens - if you're stating that the EK staffer was completely unable to deal with such ambiguity, that is still an EK issue. I don't see how your position on this case can be justified.

 

[drron]

Serfty, you're completely wrong here.

There is precisely no justification for someone being given specific information to act upon and then acting differently. Your position would see any organisation dealing with ambiguity held blameless because the instructions they were given by a customer directly were able to be verified but some other piece of information was also present and was held as more correct in complete disregard of available information.

Ambiguity happens - if you're stating that the EK staffer was completely unable to deal with such ambiguity, that is still an EK issue. I don't see how your position on this case can be justified.

Except that the QF mistake happened first and if it had not EK couldn't have made their mistake.

 

[theevilmuppet]

Except that the QF mistake happened first and if it had not EK couldn't have made their mistake.

How is that even remotely relevant?

QF made a mistake, therefore EK should be completely forgiven for making a mistake? This is an example of extremely juvenile thinking that should not be remotely entertained - it's the direct equivalent of justifying beating up your sister because she stated that you were slightly cough at Call of Duty.

 

[serfty]

Serfty, you're completely wrong here.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[theevilmuppet]

Serfty - you're not engaging in discourse here. You're making statements without justification and that detracts from the conversation.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but you've offered no basis for correctness of your position. How exactly are you justifying someone failing to do their job as being the fault of another employer?