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

[serfty]

There is precisely no justification for someone being given specific information to act upon and then acting differently.

There is precisely no justification for providing specific information and then acting differently.

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

 

[drron]

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.

How could it not be relevant.
A more accurate scenario is I was speeding so hit and killed the pedestrian jay walking.on your reasoning the pedestrian is at fault.but if I had not made the mistake of speeding the result for the pedestrian is quite different.

 

[theevilmuppet]

Sefty, you're quoting Qantas stating that the cancellation was final.

I'll be the first to admit that I will eviscerate an airline after they have failed to do was was agreed.

And the facts of the matter are quite simple - a passenger presented a specific itinerary to an airline staffer and said staffer did not handle the specific itinerary.

Whatever Qantas did or did not do is completely irrelevant. The customer asked for a very specific outcome and their request was completely discarded. EK has completely failed to service one of their customers .

 

[theevilmuppet]

How could it not be relevant.
A more accurate scenario is I was speeding so hit and killed the pedestrian jay walking.on your reasoning the pedestrian is at fault.but if I had not made the mistake of speeding the result for the pedestrian is quite different.

Err....no. You're talking about violating a law, driving dangerously as stated by various bodies and then blaming someone because they assumed safety was absolute. Jaywalking is an example of not observing marked and indicated crossings, however drivers are expected to be aware of pedestrians at all times. Your analogy is massively faulty and irrelevant.

This really isn't that hard - a check-in agent was given a specific set of details to execute and they decided to not use the majority of the information presented to them.

 

[drron]

Then we will also agree to disagree.

 

[Cryptarcadian]

What unusual and unfortunate circumstances indeed!

I suppose we could all check the PNR on our boarding passes to see that it matches the ticket we intended to use. But never in a million years would I have thought that would ever be necessary — especially after presenting matching paperwork at check-in, as the OP reported!

I can see it being entirely possible that both QF and EK are contributing parties to the loss (depending on the sequence of ticket cancellation, at least one but possibly both could have prevented it). I can't see how NZ is responsible, as there is nothing they could have done to prevent it.

I hope we can all agree the one party definitely not at fault is the OP. I hope this is resolved in your favour @Artorias, and soon!

 

[Must...Fly!]

This really isn't that hard - a check-in agent was given a specific set of details to execute and they decided to not use the majority of the information presented to them.

Ex ground staff here.

Unless you noticed that there were two people with the same name, both ticketed on the flight, nothing would be suspicious.

If you saw two with the same name, you'd wonder what was going on and investigate but if it was a name like John Smith, it's not at all uncommon.

Throw something else in to the mix - what about thie scenario.

I don't know how EK's system works but if they used APIS data to look up the reservation - the Air NZ booking would not be loaded with it, as they've just provided EK with a list of names and said "fly these people on EKxx_ to YYY, we'll pay you later".

But the QF one probably would be loaded with APIS through the QFF profile etc - so you're doing the right thing, looking up a passenger by their passport information (remember, everyone's is unique) and checked in a passenger on a 100% ticketed fare. The passport number matches the booking, which matches the name, which DFAT have given an approval to uplift for.

What is incompetent about that scenario?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ex ground staff here.

Unless you noticed that there were two people with the same name, both ticketed on the flight, nothing would be suspicious.

If you saw two with the same name, you'd wonder what was going on and investigate but if it was a name like John Smith, it's not at all uncommon.

Throw something else in to the mix - what about thie scenario.

I don't know how EK's system works but if they used APIS data to look up the reservation - the Air NZ booking would not be loaded with it, as they've just provided EK with a list of names and said "fly these people on EKxx_ to YYY, we'll pay you later".

But the QF one probably would be loaded with APIS through the QFF profile etc - so you're doing the right thing, looking up a passenger by their passport information (remember, everyone's is unique) and checked in a passenger on a 100% ticketed fare. The passport number matches the booking, which matches the name, which DFAT have given an approval to uplift for.

What is incompetent about that scenario?

Good point. I guess that explains why it happened. And if the QF booking had been cancelled it shouldn't have allowed check-in.

 

[Ekka]

Welcome to AFF.

I feel very sorry for you. It’s a most unusual situation. Sadly I don’t have much practical advice.

But I can offer reassurance. We get lots of people join AFF to have a rant. Which is their right. But the inflammatory language and emotion doesn’t get good outcomes.

Your post is measured and the tone even. If you’ve taken that approach with the airlines I’m sure you’ll get a better result than going in all guns blazing.

You could try the Airline Consumer Advocate.

AFFers are really generous with their knowledge and I’m sure you’ll get some good advice.

Why on earth mention those who rant, as this poster's information is entirely devoid of inflammatory language?

 

[TheJoshy]

As ground staff myself for one of Australia’s major airlines, I don’t understand why a check in agent would be provided with a PNR and then check in the pax using the wrong booking.

I totally understand searching by name as it’s the most efficient, but when two identical results come up, alarm bells should be ringing and you should be confirming which one to check in.

My blame is on the check in agent for this one. The pax did NOT want to check in the QF booking and thus EK is in the wrong for checking in the WRONG booking.

As for QF, yes, they should have cancelled it but at the end of the day, EK checked the wrong PNR in which has caused the issue.

NZ on the other hand hasn’t got anything to do with this really.

In my opinion, EK should refund QF for the ticket and QF should subsequently refund the pax.

If QF won’t budge, then I think EK should foot the bill. It’s THEIR check in error after all.

 

[williamsf1]

Playing the blame game ..... I would place it in the following order

1- EK check-in agent
They should have checked the associated ticket/PNR was allocated to the correct segment

2-NZ
They should have endorsed the coupon correctly across to the EK flight segment in the FIM process as it was originally their coupon 086 / Flight

3-QF
really they are just the poor suckers caught up in this cough storm ... the PNR would have been canceled... but the E-ticket refund/ void process can take some time ( and it appears everything has happened really fast ie same day 24hr period) ... the EK agent has picked up this 081 ticket and used

Now how to fix ....

EK will need to reopen the coupons on the 081 QF ticket to allow QF to refund ..... once done EK can allocate the NZ 086 FIM ticket and update the coupons manually to flown with the details.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Playing the blame game ..... I would place it in the following order

1- EK check-in agent
They should have checked the associated ticket/PNR was allocated to the correct segment

2-NZ
They should have endorsed the coupon correctly across to the EK flight segment in the FIM process as it was originally their coupon 086 / Flight

3-QF
really they are just the poor suckers caught up in this **** storm ... the PNR would have been canceled... but the E-ticket refund/ void process can take some time ( and it appears everything has happened really fast ie same day 24hr period) ... the EK agent has picked up this 081 ticket and used

Now how to fix ....

EK will need to reopen the coupons on the 081 QF ticket to allow QF to refund ..... once done EK can allocate the NZ 086 FIM ticket and update the coupons manually to flown with the details.

This scenario is a bit like the dinosaur or the egg saga.

There would have to have been a duplicate booking in the EK checkin system, so when the EK CSA brought up two identical names they should have double checked which EK pnr was on the NZ paperwork and checked pax in accordingly.

NZ can't endorse an electronic 086 eticket coupon to EK, NZ would most likely have issued a FIM which is the payment to EK for the ticket in the absence of an eticket or a paper ticket for the EK flight. EK may or may not issue an eticket on their own 176 ticket stock.

The QF booking for the EK flight using QF points was obviously not cancelled at that point in time because if it had been then the EK CSA would not have been able to check the pax in on it. It wouldn't matter if the QF eticket for the EK flight hadn't yet been voided. If EK somehow found an 081 ticket still 'live' they still would need to rebook flights to attach the eticket to before utilising it.

 

[JohnK]

Good point. I guess that explains why it happened. And if the QF booking had been cancelled it shouldn't have allowed check-in.

I still don't understand why Qantas doesn't cancel immediately preferring to put cancellations in a queue to be processed at a later date. Keeping the taxes and surcharges longer? I can't think of any other reasons and that's a poor reason too.

 

[Artorias]

Hi all,

Thanks again for the guidance provided and your well wishes in respect of this situation.

I am very happy to share the news that the points have been fully refunded by Qantas as a gesture of goodwill. The matter was resolved very expeditiously by the ACA and Qantas - within two days of submission.

My sincere thanks once more to the forum members for the great advice, assistance and wealth of knowledge provided, and to the ACA and Qantas for quickly remedying what was a very tricky set of circumstances.

I can't imagine there would be many who will face a similar predicament, but if so, make sure to confirm which ticket to use!

Safe travels.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Good news, but dare I say that was not a gesture of good will, if it were, no 3rd party intervention would have been required

 

[Danger]

. . . I am very happy to share the news that the points have been fully refunded by Qantas as a gesture of goodwill . . .

Good news, but dare I say that was not a gesture of good will, if it were, no 3rd party intervention would have been required

This "gesture of goodwill" rubbish really irks me. After lodging a FOS complaint one time the bank's settlement letter included this feelgood line. I refused to sign it unless the text was removed.

 

[dajop]

This "gesture of goodwill" rubbish really irks me..

It's a bit like the term "enhancement" , Isn't the order just reversed, of who is actually providing the gesture?

It's time to kill the hypocritical phrase: 'a gesture of goodwill'

 

[ayebee]

It is usually a sign the issue has reached a staffer with enough authority to make an actual decision.
The "goodwill" is usually an internal signal for the right decision but they can't quite work it out in the documented rules.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I don't know whether this has occurred to the airline or not but if they delay cancelling and refunding a booking to the extent that a pax is considered a 'noshow' then they have effectively stopped someone else from buying that seat and missed out on a potential sale as their inaction has tied up that seat.

 

[ftm]

I don't know whether this has occurred to the airline or not but if they delay cancelling and refunding a booking to the extent that a pax is considered a 'noshow' then they have effectively stopped someone else from buying that seat and missed out on a potential sale as their inaction has tied up that seat.

Absolutely. If that was any other agent and they failed to cancel the seat prior to the flight departure, QF would charge a no show fee on the refund. The no show fee is to penalise the passenger/agent for not cancelling the seat that could have otherwise been sold.

So I hope QF charged itself a no show fee for not following its own procedure.