Appalling service and care from Qantas

[JohnPhelan]

I have had a similar experience on a fully paid Business class flight JFK LAX SYD PER. Had to spend two hours upright in our seats at LAX whilst plane was unloaded looking for someones Galaxy Note 7. No warnings were given at check in only on boarding about this, but the Red Roo denied all compensation when they shoved my wife and I into squashed 737 economy having told us we missed our flight to Perth in spite of four and a half hours for the connection. Complaints to Qantas ground staff, emails to Qantas complaints and Airline Customer Advocate were a waste of time.

You should have refused to board the new (Y) flight and held out for J seats whenever they were next available. If you weren't happy with the solution they suggested, you should not have accepted it. By accepting it, you agreed to it. That's why no-one - including the Airline Customer Advocate - consider you have a case.

 

[rollyko]

That's fine if you are taling about flights up and down the east coast that are relatively frequent. After a 20 hour plus journey to get to SYD from JFK and the prospect of not getting a flight to PER for many hours or the next day Qantas has you by the .......

 

[rollyko]

You miss the point: if a passenger put a phone in checked luggage and they were not warned that this is not allowed, then the airline needs to share some responsibility. It is stupid for that passenger to have done that but it should not mean that 500 people waiting for two hours on the tarmac and many missing onward connections.

As to your posting about another site, I acknowledged that posting when I referred to the survey. Clearly from this thread I am not alone in my upset at the 'appalling' treatment from Qantas. It is time for consumer protection legislation to cover this in Australia as in Europe. Relying on the kindness of Qantas isn't working.

 

[RichardMEL]

You miss the point: if a passenger put a phone in checked luggage and they were not warned that this is not allowed, then the airline needs to share some responsibility. It is stupid for that passenger to have done that but it should not mean that 500 people waiting for two hours on the tarmac and many missing onward connections.

Whoa there.

I re-read your earlier post. You flew JFK-LAX-SYD, the pax in question could have checked in at LAX, they could have checked in at an offline station like Denver or Seattle for all you know.

Now I recall signs at QF check-in at MEL for months about Galaxy Note 7's and all US domestic flights (eg: AA UA etc) have had announcements too. Don't recall on last visit at LAX check-in tbh but doesn't mean there wasn't one.

but let's assume that the pax with the phone checked in at LAX,and there was a sign and they missed it, or the wasn't a sign... or maybe they thought if it was checked in the hold it would be turrned off, then thought better of it to advise the crew....

but you're STILL somehow putting this blame on QF? Seriously? Everyone and their dog knew about the Note 7 for months. Now sure, you did not give a date for your misadventure, so perhaps it was at the beginning of the Note 7 recall/banning and things were still in flux but the on board announcements tweaked the pax to inform them about the phone. That's QF warning the passenger there. A bit late, but they did. Maybe this happened say a month ago when just about everyone knew about the Note 7 and they were bricked by Samsung also so it wouldn't be front of mind for agents to ask and stuff... because practically nobody should have them these days.

Either way I think it's very very harsh to put blame on QF for a stupid passenger who just realised at the last minute they had one in their checked bag. We're not in primary school and spoon fed and hand held with everything. Adults need to take responsibility.

I think, personally, you blaming the delay on QF check in staff is a pretty long bow to stretch imho.

They take responsibility for ensuring safety of a long haul flight when notified about a potentially dangerous device in the hold? Safety every single time. I get the result annoyed you from the delay but just as much QF12 gets delayed due to the late inbound from JFK as it is, and people would still miss connections.

The phone thing was the pax's fault. QF respoinded (that it took two hours seems overly long, but 380's are big beasts with hundreds of bags to sort through I guess).

Feel free to take your complaint up with QF or anyone else you like. Good luck.

my opinion.

 

[njba]

Sometimes it is some or all of us flying in a different class, sometimes on a different, even non-Oneworld carrier..

I remember something similar happened to me a few years ago. QF's response was to book me on an AA service 5+ hours later that day. I politely but assertively insisted that that wasn't going to fly and I needed a better solution. I then got offered I think a connecting AA service which still would have gotten us to NYC many hours later. Eventually, we were offered seats on a United service on a flight that was leaving in t-50 minutes. A great rush across LAX later and we made it only slightly later than we have on the original booked QF service. Of course, going from full service QF to a domestic US carrier was not a great outcome...

Of course, I didn't have a child in toe, which gives me the privilege of being able to stand and complain until I get what I want. Also my partner is very tolerant and is happy to play the good cop to my bad cop when dealing with poor customer service staff. Plus my natural charm and all that

OP's experience is upsetting and I'm sorry it happened. I hope that it did not affect enjoyment of the subsequent holiday. It's surely in QF's commercial interest to make a goodwill gesture to OP.

 

[RichardMEL]

I remember something similar happened to me a few years ago. QF's response was to book me on an AA service 5+ hours later that day. I politely but assertively insisted that that wasn't going to fly and I needed a better solution. I then got offered I think a connecting AA service which still would have gotten us to NYC many hours later. Eventually, we were offered seats on a United service on a flight that was leaving in t-50 minutes. A great rush across LAX later and we made it only slightly later than we have on the original booked QF service. Of course, going from full service QF to a domestic US carrier was not a great outcome...

Of course, I didn't have a child in toe, which gives me the privilege of being able to stand and complain until I get what I want. Also my partner is very tolerant and is happy to play the good cop to my bad cop when dealing with poor customer service staff. Plus my natural charm and all that

OP's experience is upsetting and I'm sorry it happened. I hope that it did not affect enjoyment of the subsequent holiday. It's surely in QF's commercial interest to make a goodwill gesture to OP.

QF are going to apply the easiest option every time. That will mean finding available seats in the available class in a "reasonable" amount of time (definitions can vary ) on a partner carrier. Now it's great you pushed to wind up on United (well... ) but that would never be their first option as that would cost them a lot more to essentially buy that seat(s) from them as opposed to their partner.

Now, none of those "internal" things matter or should concern customers, and most will accept, more or less, the usual options put forward...

I can understand how that happened though but it was a good result for you in the end.

 

[njba]

QF are going to apply the easiest option every time. That will mean finding available seats in the available class in a "reasonable" amount of time (definitions can vary ) on a partner carrier. Now it's great you pushed to wind up on United (well... ) but that would never be their first option as that would cost them a lot more to essentially buy that seat(s) from them as opposed to their partner.

Now, none of those "internal" things matter or should concern customers, and most will accept, more or less, the usual options put forward...

I can understand how that happened though but it was a good result for you in the end.

I've quite naturally taken to the approach that the best way of getting good outcomes when dealing with companies is to make your preferred outcome be cheaper/easier/quicker for them than the alternative, which is discussing the issue endlessly. I'm always surprised how consistently being a (polite, friendly, but persistent) pain in the neck works!

The flip side of this tactic is that I work hard to otherwise be a good (i.e. trouble free) customer. I strongly suspect my preferred approach would be subject to diminishing returns.

By the way, I've long suspected that putting us on United would have been more expensive for QF, and now I'm slightly pleased that this is, in fact, the case. Of course, it was a crummy flight, so let's just say it's a tie.

 

[RichardMEL]

I've quite naturally taken to the approach that the best way of getting good outcomes when dealing with companies is to make your preferred outcome be cheaper/easier/quicker for them than the alternative, which is discussing the issue endlessly. I'm always surprised how consistently being a (polite, friendly, but persistent) pain in the neck works!

The squeaky wheel gets the grease - as the saying goes

By the way, I've long suspected that putting us on United would have been more expensive for QF, and now I'm slightly pleased that this is, in fact, the case. Of course, it was a crummy flight, so let's just say it's a tie.

I'm not saying it was, but likely was. Carriers tend to have agreements (interline etc) with partners that preference them both cost wise and the like. Not to mention the fact, as you experienced, that generally partners are close by (well at LAX that's relative but T4 is much closer than T7/8!). UA or DL is likely the last they would want to send their pax to.

 

[coco50]

Whether the flight was paid for in money or FF points is not the point. The customer did not get what he had paid for
and the solution is simple - Qantas needs to refund him the points difference which is 9500 points. Further, I feel that there should be further compensation for the inconvenience that he and his family suffered - say business class flights between the member's home port and perhaps a destination of choice in Australia.

 

[muppet]

You should have refused to board the new (Y) flight and held out for J seats whenever they were next available. If you weren't happy with the solution they suggested, you should not have accepted it. By accepting it, you agreed to it. That's why no-one - including the Airline Customer Advocate - consider you have a case.

*Dislike

People don't know their options. Airlines lie and present whatever their solution is as the ONLY solution. This is not a case of "buyer beware".

In these cases people are tired, frustrated and in a weak bargaining position (usually no phone with international data etc.) and then airlines pile on top and take advantage. This is why other jurisdictions regulate.

 

[RichardMEL]

*Dislike

People don't know their options. Airlines lie and present whatever their solution is as the ONLY solution.

Sweeping statement much?

I agree being armed with information and options is always helpful, but it could also lead to more frustration. For example say you land in LAX, your onwards AA connection is cancelled and you see the next viable flight is on WN but AA offer you the next AA flight 4 hours later. You could insist for WN, but AA says well no they have no interline agreement with WN and refuse. Then what?

I disagree that often only one option is presented. I've had multiple options offered in (rare) cancel/missed connection situations. Now last year I had to push for a standby option which they got me on at the very last second (yay!) and that was with me using EF and knowing the options on the route I needed (and mostly full flights all day)

Let's not use a broad brush to paint all airlines or situations as the same....

 

[Franky]

Let's not use a broad brush to paint all airlines or situations as the same....

Richard, well done for what you have achieved in these circumstances, but I suggest you're a very savvy traveller. However, I would suggest that the vast majority of people who find themselves in this position would unfortunately fall into Muppet's scenario because they are'nt so savvy.

 

[RichardMEL]

Richard, well done for what you have achieved in these circumstances, but I suggest you're a very savvy traveller. However, I would suggest that the vast majority of people who find themselves in this position would unfortunately fall into Muppet's scenario because they are'nt so savvy.

That may well be and I'm not suggesting otherwise... but the contention was that "Airlines lie and present whatever their solution is as the ONLY solution." and that is a statement about the airlines and not the passengers. To me this is not about QF, or AA or VA or anyone I just feel it's unfair to broadly make a statement like this when I, for one, do not believe it.

And i'll also note without any reference to any particular or specific situation that often we, as customers, don't always know the full facts - only what we see, and what we are told (which can change in a rapidly changing irrops situation) - and it doesn't mean that the informaton imparted by one agent is a lie - it may be perfectly valid at the time, and to the understanding of that agent... but it can also change as things shift depending on other decisions.

I really don't feel generalisations are fair in situations like this. And this is my point, not about the customers involved and their level of awareness of options or entitlements etc.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That may well be and I'm not suggesting otherwise... but the contention was that "Airlines lie and present whatever their solution is as the ONLY solution." and that is a statement about the airlines and not the passengers. To me this is not about QF, or AA or VA or anyone I just feel it's unfair to broadly make a statement like this when I, for one, do not believe it.

And i'll also note without any reference to any particular or specific situation that often we, as customers, don't always know the full facts - only what we see, and what we are told (which can change in a rapidly changing irrops situation) - and it doesn't mean that the informaton imparted by one agent is a lie - it may be perfectly valid at the time, and to the understanding of that agent... but it can also change as things shift depending on other decisions.

I really don't feel generalisations are fair in situations like this. And this is my point, not about the customers involved and their level of awareness of options or entitlements etc.

To be completely accurate you can simply insert the word 'can' - 'airlines can lie and present whatever their solution is as the ONLY solution'.

And sometimes it's true... as experienced travellers many of us will know that the proposed solution is not the only one. We may see seats available on alternative flights, or we may see seat maps, or instinctively know that a 'promised' departure time is in fact impossible (like the inbound is still in the air).

Many times it appears the agent is disinterested in finding a better solution. I've been told point-blank by an agent that a flight delay was due to ATC therefore we had to cuck it up. We got on the plane and the pilot apologised because the original aircraft went tech and they needed our plane to fly a long haul flight. Which in itself is fine, but had pax on the ground known it wasn't ATC we could have insisted on earlier flights irrespective of ticket or fare conditions.

 

[Himeno]

Agents don't go out of their way to mislead and/or lie to the customer. In the case of rebooking due to irrops, they are far more likely to want to deal with the person in front of them as quickly as they can (because there are likely dozens of other people to deal with in such cases) and will just offer the first thing that shows up on their screen.
In the event of delays, they likely have dozens of people asking them what's going on and they just want to move them along as soon as they can, so they don't bother looking up in the system what the reason for the delay is and just say "weather" or "ATC".

A few years back, I was flying CBR-xSYD-NRT. Wind in SYD had knocked them down to 1 runway for most of the afternoon, so every flight was late. The delays were leading to a misconnect. I raised the issue with CBR ground staff and they just said they would put me on whatever flight to SYD was ready first, until I pointed out the international connection. It was only then that they started looking at options, with their first idea to get me to SYD, overnight me in a hotel then onto JAL in the morning - which was full. Their next option was down to MEL, then JQ MEL-DRW-MNL-NRT. To which I went, "er, no". Last option was to MEL then on to CX.

The same year, a few months later. Was in CAE flying to LGA via PHL. Almost every flight out of CAE was delayed. Storms to the west were delaying flights to DEN, DFW and west. ATC flow control was in place for NYC and CHI (I think some entire TRACONs in the NE weren't taking any new flights due to the congestion). I had noticed the issues, had already looked up an option and was packing up to go talk to the US gate agent when they called for people with connections to look at rebooking.
Their options were to overnight in either CAE or PHL, then into LGA in the morning. The agent just focused on using the same CAE-PHL-LGA route that they forgot about other options. Then I pointed out the flight to CLT in about 30 mins would connect to a JFK flight. Which they then put me on. No hotel cost for US (and no LGA-JFK hotel taxi for me).

 

[dajop]

No hotel cost for US (and no LGA-JFK hotel taxi for me).

I thought that you don't get hotel provided for weather or ATC related delays anyway in the US ...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Agents don't go out of their way to mislead and/or lie to the customer.

...so they don't bother looking up in the system what the reason for the delay is and just say "weather" or "ATC".

I'd argue in some situations those two things are the one and the same. Not being bothered to look it up and presenting something as the only solution is misleading. If they know the delay is a mechanical then they can accommodate you by waiving all ticketing conditions.