Backcharging Credit Card Payment on flight downgrades and/or disappointments??

[Moopere]

Hi Folks,

I'm a relative newcomer to this forum so perhaps what I think is new chatter is actually old chatter, nevertheless, I've been reading quite a number of posts over the last couple of months that basically boil down to airline customers paying for something that they end up not receiving.

- Wrong class of seat,
- Changed seating allocation (where this involves an initial allocation cost),
- Not receiving food or IFE,
- Wrong plane. This may matter to some, particularly in long haul for lots of reasons,
- Broken facilities, seats that don't recline for instance, or other mechanical comfort issues


And the list goes on and on. Seems like, in general, PAX are getting to where they want to go, but the flight/conditions/comfort levels originally sold and therefore contracted by the airline receiving the money are not being delivered and in many cases that are reported here the compensation is laughable, or non existent until you whine long and loud.

Probably, by now, all mature airlines have all the possible flight and incidental failures fully covered in their terms and conditions. Thats fine, but it seems to me that you don't pay good money for the "chance" to get the service you paid for, it should be guaranteed or else the contract is broken inviting a new contract or a renegotiation.

Would it be an appropriate response to simply back-charge the credit card cost of any disappointing flights and by doing so force the airlines to pay attention? Backcharges of this type invite a reconciliation, its not about trying to score a free flight at all. I'd say in most cases PAX would be happy to pay a reasonable fee even given their initial disappointment.

The tales of Airlines taking 6-8-12 weeks or more to address such matters and even then flinging you essentially a free cheeseburger next time you fly seems insulting to me though. If they want to take 12 weeks to deal with such things then lets return the money whilst you think about it eh?

Is this a disproportionate response do you think?

{PS - the same idea might be valid for prepaid hotel stays that disappoint for the same reasons ... very similar tactics used by management there as well... long slow response which is ultimately inadequate}

 

[JohnK]

I agree with most of what you have to say although I would not go as far as backcharging a credit card payment.

But at the same time I would be extremely disappointed if I booked a seat on an A380 SYD-SIN and it was replaced at some stage with a 767 or 737. Don't know what I would do but nothing short of a full refund + possible compensation (If I cannot find a suitable airfae on another airline) would be requested from airline.

Contracts are always worded to favour the airlines but sometimes they are kidding themselves. I don't pay to just travel from A->B, I pay to travel from A->B to make sure I am on a specific aircraft type. If I go through the trouble to find the right equipment scheduled for the flights I want then the simplest thing the airline can do is deliver the service.

It also gets even more complex when discussing premium economy, business class and first class.

 

[oz_mark]

The tales of Airlines taking 6-8-12 weeks or more to address such matters and even then flinging you essentially a free cheeseburger next time you fly seems insulting to me though. If they want to take 12 weeks to deal with such things then lets return the money whilst you think about it eh?

Is this a disproportionate response do you think?

You always need to take it up with the airline first. As far as time frames are concerned, I have heard that this is one thing the ACCC is looking at as part of the Australian Consumer Law. E.g. If a flight is cancelled and you want a refund, the fairness test suggests those funds should be immediately available.

Time frame issues should be taken up with the state bodies or ACCC, for their views as well.

 

[Moopere]

You always need to take it up with the airline first. As far as time frames are concerned, I have heard that this is one thing the ACCC is looking at as part of the Australian Consumer Law. E.g. If a flight is cancelled and you want a refund, the fairness test suggests those funds should be immediately available.

Time frame issues should be taken up with the state bodies or ACCC, for their views as well.

Certainly it would almost always seem appropriate to call whichever vendor you are having trouble with first. They may surprise and come back immediately with a reasonable response after all.

After that however, despite the obvious potential for positive change by 'fighting the good fight' and filling in forms, talking to government bodies and ombudsmen, waiting for calls that are never returned, etc, etc. I wonder if mostly this stuff is just designed to wear you down with the hope that in the end you'll eat your dogfood.

Thinking about this a bit more since making my post, seems to me that the worst abuse of consumers, on face value at least, are those industries which have decided that pre-payment is the way to stop consumers not paying at all. Hotels, car rental, air and travel industry in general.

If one is not up to the potentially very long wait and struggle with the vendors themselves or to wait for legislative change I think this mode of action will have the vendors attention immediately and probably get you a pretty fast resolution too ...

So long as Vendors are paid full price for shoddy service their motivation to change (or simply be honest about their service up front ... I'm thinking Hotels here) is absolutely nothing.

Again, not floating this as some unconscionable way to try to score free service from anyone, more just wondering if it is actually inappropriate to bring forward, in time, the negotiation over a fair price for the lesser than expected service that was provided.

Perhaps this post is a little early given recent consumer law change. Most of these types of problems may well get sorted under the 'you must not sell goods/services you can't provide' section of the new law.

 

[JohnK]

hinking about this a bit more since making my post, seems to me that the worst abuse of consumers, on face value at least, are those industries which have decided that pre-payment is the way to stop consumers not paying at all. Hotels, car rental, air and travel industry in general.

One refreshing change which has been in place for a number of years is that car hire companies no longer charge the rental upfront.

So reserve a car and pay for it after you have unsed it.

 

[trooper]

All but one of the "factors" listed ARE already covered by "standard compensation".. and that one - aircraft type - is IMO a completely different matter....

The airlines ARE selling transport "from A to B".

Sure, I book the flights that are scheduled to be operated by the a/c I prefer to travel on... but to suggest that the substitution of a different a/c is somehow a breach of a contract to provide that transportation is IMO a bit ridiculous. Especially (as is usually the case) there is no fare difference for "our" preferred type.

AFAIK ALL airlines make it clear that such substitution may occur.. and in many cases there really is NOT an option.

When QF withdrew A380 services to allow safety checks to be done substitutions were bound to occur... and if you think every passenger put on a 747 instead is entitled to "refund + possible compensation" (as suggested in this thread) then I will simply have to disagree.

The T's & C's may well be one sided.. but you don't have to agree to them.. you can choose to fly with another airline that DOES guarantee a/c type, working IFE etc etc... You can also look for an airline that does compensate appropriate things to the level you feel they should...

Good luck with finding them BTW....:mrgreen:

The ONE time I was compensated by an airline ( I flew UA in C NRT-SFO) was because a valve was left open somewhere and the aircrafts water supply was presumably dumped into the pacific... Bottled water was supplied in sufficient quantities for drinking (and hand washing) and before we even left the aircraft a $250 voucher was presented...

Seemed more than fair to me. The cabin crew/flight crew could do nothing about the ground handlers error.. but they did what they could... Why get all twisted about it?

Note - That was a flight I had specifically booked to try out the new seats on their 747... as we arrived late into NRT on the connecting flight I ended up on the later 777 flight.. with the old product..

Should I have tried to "backcharge" my CC payment for that flight? I think not....

YMMV ... as always.

 

[Moopere]

The airlines ARE selling transport "from A to B"

I'm really not sure this is the case else all seats would be Y and there would not be paid options for other things (J, F, legroom, baggage, etc, etc).

Same with car hire. All cars hired in the country would be Datsun 180B's if all the hire companies were actually selling was a mode of transport from A-B (in fact, they'd probably hire you Donkeys).

Again with Hotels. The myriad suites and room options implies that they are, in fact, trying hard to find inventive ways to get at more of your money by offering more then just a roof over your head during inclement weather.

Substitutions are almost always downgrades. You don't often hear of the overbooked Y PAX getting a free F seat for instance.

My argument, I will admit, is less compelling for steerage customers, be it air, hotel, car, whathaveyou, but this is mainly because you can't really drop the service to your bottom rung customers can you? In relation to your lowest tier clients then, yes, I guess all you are paying for is the basic service and so long as you get essentially that then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

 

[JohnK]

AFAIK ALL airlines make it clear that such substitution may occur.. and in many cases there really is NOT an option.

When QF withdrew A380 services to allow safety checks to be done substitutions were bound to occur... and if you think every passenger put on a 747 instead is entitled to "refund + possible compensation" (as suggested in this thread) then I will simply have to disagree.

While there may not be big difeerence going from an A380 to 747 there is a huge difference, and downgrade, dropping down to a 767 or even 737 for a 6-7 hour flight.

I know I choose flights to sit in a specific seat at a specific level of comfort. A380, 747, A330 have IFE where as 767, 737 and A320 do not have IFE.

Sorry but I do not accept these type of downgrades even if I am only sitting in economy. Airlines need to work out how they can provide the level of service promised instead of hiding behind their terms and conditions like cowards.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

If all of those happened at once, you would have a good argument to charge back.

However, once you charge back you'll be banned from flying with them and your FF account will no doubt be suspended.

It's all risk

 

[Moopere]

If all of those happened at once, you would have a good argument to charge back.

However, once you charge back you'll be banned from flying with them and your FF account will no doubt be suspended.

It's all risk

Hehe Certainly seems like a 'shutup and eat your dogfood' type deal, but I'm unsure of being banned for complaining and withholding payment until mediation/reconcilliation.

The individual airline, hire car, hotel company would probably respond differently depending on exactly how you approach the matter I suspect. If you just hard hit them with "I want the service I received to be free because I didn't get what I asked for" then thats pretty unreasonable and they'd probably put your name into the folder of other unreasonable/abusive customers whom they decline to service in the future.

If we're a tad more reasonable than that and are at the point of discussing exactly what the sub-standard service we did receive was actually worth, and theres a bit of subjectivity in there for sure thus the need for mediation, I wonder if they'd simply outright ban you? Maybe. Sounds awfully small business minded to me, but you may well be right.

In any event, I guess theres one more potential reason to never store rewards points with vendors ... you are completely at their mercy.

 

[oz_mark]

Hehe Certainly seems like a 'shutup and eat your dogfood' type deal, but I'm unsure of being banned for complaining and withholding payment until mediation/reconcilliation.

With flights, it is more that you are asking them to give money back, rather than withholding it. When you fly they should already have the money.

One other thing to bear in mind with chargebacks, is that the vendor has the right to dispute the chargeback.

 

[Moopere]

With flights, it is more that you are asking them to give money back, rather than withholding it. When you fly they should already have the money.

Oh sure, I was assuming that a request for chargeback essentially escrows the debated payment, therefore neither the vendor nor yourself has access to the cash whilst the dispute is reconciled.

One other thing to bear in mind with chargebacks, is that the vendor has the right to dispute the chargeback.

Yes, absolutely. Chargebacks I've done in the past have led me to believe that as soon as you apply for one the money is 'held' somehow - this, and the fee for a successful chargeback which is charged by the bank, is what gets the vendors attention, its also why I honestly believe you should give the vendor the first contact and chance to immediately resolve the issue.

However, I can't see why any consumer should have to wait for more than a day or so to get a preliminary response to an under-servicing/refund complaint. Why should it be assumed that the customer is any more happy to wear the cost of money than the vendor is?

One thing I've noticed about previous chargebacks is that the chargeback process itself is not the vehicle for price/discount negotiation. You either make a chargeback claim, for 100% of the total spent, or you don't. So, as we're presumably looking for a refund of some sort anyway then the whole chargeback idea is really not as nasty as many might think it is.

You pay for a service and don't receive that service. If you are happy with the service you -did- receive, whether it be better or worse than expected, then fine, everyone walks away happy (and the vendor learns literally nothing).

If you are not satisfied then whats left? Get bitter and twisted but do essentially nothing? Its an option that many of us choose to take, me included, outcomes can include never using the vendor again - its valid but not the only way.

Call, chase, wait and generally go through the vendors own (usually) arduous complaints process. Nothing wrong with this as a choice either. Usually takes a while and very often folks appear to be satisfied with the results they obtain given their patience.

I think its still a reasonably valid option, when not receiving the service paid for to simply rescind payment and then go into negotiation. So long as you don't give the impression that you are not willing to pay -anything- I suspect you'll get to a middle point agreement a bit faster than option 2 above.

Ultimately I guess one would hope for a more consistent service from the vendors one chooses to use by gentle reminders that within reason cash and customers are king.

Nothing, really nothing, gets a companies attention like financial matters. Placating an angry customer is one thing and most companies take this seriously, but getting the cash in the door and holding on to it is a whole other game and seems, in general, to be taken a -lot- more seriously.

 

[burmans]

I'm really not sure this is the case else all seats would be Y and there would not be paid options for other things (J, F, legroom, baggage, etc, etc)

The key here is the word paid, a key part of contract law is that there has to be a payment (no matter how minimal) for a service. So legally if you have paid for a different service, seat upgrade/class/food or IFE (where this forms part of Terms of Service) and Terms of Service all fall into this category, I don't think choice of plane does. Rental car companies and hotels can and do provide differing versions within the same class of service (e.g. small car, standard room) and reserve the right to substitute and suspect T&C's for airlines allow them to do exactly the same.

I personally think chargebacks are a perfectly legitimate way to get money back for a service that hasn't been provided as described, indeed that's what they are there for, however the chargeback does need to relate to what is promised under the T&C's.

Appreciate some people want and have an expectation that the service will be of a certain quality but at the end of the day this will be (legally) determined by the T&C's and the reasonableness of the expectation. Credit Card companies will not be approving any chargeback just because because you don't like a service if this is not part of the contracted T&C's.

 

[Moopere]

I personally think chargebacks are a perfectly legitimate way to get money back for a service that hasn't been provided as described, indeed that's what they are there for, however the chargeback does need to relate to what is promised under the T&C's.

A valid and quite fair argument, however, having dabbled ever so slightly in this area in a long distant previous life, I'm not convinced that an individual companies T&C's are necessarily the end of the story, though many companies would certainly like their customers to think that they are able to write consumer law themselves.

Many companies in fact sport T&C's that are verging on legally shaky ground when you match them up against various statutory rights as presented, implied or inferred in the Trade Practises Act. Plenty of wiggle room in many parts of the TPA, at least that was my impression - therefore some definite opportunity for legal discussion hehehe.

Lest this really interesting discussion now descend into a myriad legal possibilities, which though interesting in itself is not the point of this thread, I think that its possible that we as consumers have allowed our fangs to be pulled a little bit.

Logically it can't be enough as a service provision company to simply create a huge set of tricky T&C's which you stuff under a disappointed customers nose every time you fail to provide the service they contracted you to provide. If it were then literally all companies would do it and there would be no legal standing for anyone to complain:

"Oh, I'm sorry you paid for a double Big Mac sir, we only have cheeseburgers today, please see your copy of our T&C's if you don't like that"

I'm being silly of course but I think there must be legal basis for having to provide contracted services no matter what your own feelings (or T&C's) may be on the matter.

Maybe I could present this idea in a slightly different hypothetical way and see if it feels any differently.

Lets assume that we're talking about a flight, though the idea should be much the same for hotel, car hire, whatever. You buy a J ticket but because this is a fantasy the deal is that you pay the airline after the service provision. On embarking the plane you find J is overbooked and you end up in Y.

24 hours later you disembark feeling a bit grumpy. As you leave you need to pass the sales desk and actually pay for the flight now its been taken. They ask you for the full $5000 J class cost even though you ended in Y which is a $1,000 fare.

"Oh yes Sir, we'll look into your concerns relating to seat allocation per our T&C's over the next 8-16 weeks, please pay the full $5,000 now and we'll refund later if we deem your claim is reasonable"

How would we feel about that?

 

[yohy?!]

From memory chargebacks against airlines are some of the most unlikely to succeed in the cardholder's favour. This is because the airline only has to prove that you travelled on the flight and the charge is valid - I would think your Consumer Tribunal would be a far more useful forum for seeking redress from airlines.

 

[niemann]

I agree with most of what you have to say although I would not go as far as backcharging a credit card payment.

But at the same time I would be extremely disappointed if I booked a seat on an A380 SYD-SIN and it was replaced at some stage with a 767 or 737. Don't know what I would do but nothing short of a full refund + possible compensation (If I cannot find a suitable airfae on another airline) would be requested from airline.

No airline is going to guarantee you an aircraft type: that's what chartering or buying your own plane is for. The problems mentioned by the OP are problems with the standard ticket contract, not service delivery issues (except for perhaps the IFE and broken seats).
I see the ACCC et al are looking hard at these contracts (which they damn well should: not offering an immediate refund for a cancelled flight is appalling), but as for specifying an A380 - you're dreaming. Airlines couldn't exist if these kinds of conditions applied.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Sorry but I do not accept these type of downgrades even if I am only sitting in economy. Airlines need to work out how they can provide the level of service promised instead of hiding behind their terms and conditions like cowards.

You don't have to accept it; you can fly the next day (or whatever other option the airline is able to provide). But there needs to be some flexibility involved. As mentioned earlier, the contract with the airline specifically states that timing and specific seating are not a condition of the contract, and I suspect (without checking) that type of aircraft is also part of that disclaimer.

Re chargebacks - it will depend on which card you're dealing with and what their policy is. Visa and Mastercard, for example, will only put a payment "on hold" while they wait to hear back from the merchant in the case of a "disputed transaction" and they make everyone fill in forms about the issue. They work on the assumption that the payment should proceed unless they are convinced otherwise by you and the merchant agrees.

Amex more strongly takes the consumer's side and puts the onus on the merchant to prove why they should be paid.

But having received the service - the flight, even if not as quite per the original ticketing - you would have a difficult argument to support a chargeback.

 

[Moopere]

Granted its been a while since I last did this, but I have never hit any problems previously though admittedly I've never tried an airline on for size.

Note that the logic of it, from my point of view, is that you are not asking the credit card providers to arbitrate between the vendor and yourself on the claim of the vendor to actually be paid - an argument that the various companies would never ever enter into - rather that the specific payment was erroneous or unwarranted for some reason.

I've never had a problem getting a refund from the CC company for partially or erroneously delivered goods even with strenuous protest from vendors.

Now, of course, once the refund is in hand (8-12-16 weeks later) there is a definite case that you need to answer for the vendor to be compensated for whatever service they _did_ provide. If you really can't agree then the matter will go to court or be dropped, at the pleasure of the involved parties, but this bit of the argument is no different to any other contract for goods/services, provision of said goods/services and demand for payment.

T&C's are fine, but no CC company is going to read them and then try to make a legal judgement themselves based on their own perception of who is right in the matter.

Anyway, always good to get a view from your particular card company I guess as frivolous/unsuccessful charge-backs will incur a fee to you, so you have to be pretty sure you're going to succeed.