Banned from QF (for a few months)

[FL360]

the real reason for lying straight to your face about the seat change at the gate is that so you won't be slowing the boarding process down at the gate.

as staff always prefer minimum effort spent for the same pay...

first world problem really.

 

[rock86]

True. But selecting seats can be an expensive option. I don't blame people for not wanting to shell out extra.

I know the OP had a DYKWIA moment, but surely with pax who actually shell out $$ to select a seat then any seat change made by the carrier should be refunding the pax their money??

 

[mannej]

I know the OP had a DYKWIA moment, but surely with pax who actually shell out $$ to select a seat then any seat change made by the carrier should be refunding the pax their money??

The OP holds status, so isn't charged for seat selection.

For those who do need to pay, I am fairly sure that QF have it in their T&C's that they will refund the payment if they cannot honour the seat selection.

 

[p--and--t]

Wow only a few days and 10 pages of comments wandering all over the place and covering so many different topics.

All the usual attacks on the Op with suppositions on what actually happened including that he was drunk or abusive or whatever leading to obvious condemnation of the Op.

Reading through the various posts it appears only two people have bothered to focus on the main reason the Op had this event stick in his gut.

He was denied boarding (for whatever reason), received a temporary ban (for whatever reason) for which he said he was willing to forget - BUT QF refused to refund the portion of the ticket for which he was denied and he was forced to take them to court to get a refund. After throwing the lawyers at him in VCAT to derail the process, in the end QF rushed to settle before he could get it in front of the magistrate's court where the facts of the matter would possibly have seen light of day.

He claims they paid him out half or more of the original fare plus his accommodation costs incurred for the delay as well as lifting the ban.

Just in the spirit of kicking this confused thread along, if his behaviour was oh so bad, and even half the unfounded assumptions made by posters occured justifying the original denial of boarding...

Why would QF not fight this tooth and nail?

Why did they settle for more than the carriage denied to keep it out of court, given they had already gone down the legal path to try and find a technical loop hole at VCAT?

 

[RichardMEL]

Why would QF not fight this tooth and nail?

Why did they settle for more than the carriage denied to keep it out of court, given they had already gone down the legal path to try and find a technical loop hole at VCAT?

Valid questions, and yes your other point regarding conclusions/assumptions has validy too. No doubt.

re the VCAT loophole, that's more a usual laywer ploy that I've seen out there. Why have to fight a battle if you don't have to even start type deal. I don't think that part is very relevant to the particular issue. Maybe it is, but probably not. It's probably a standard thing. They don't have juristiction, so let's not even bother.

So why settle before going to court? Probably because the costs and effort would be more than the matter was worth so pay them out and be done with it.

That doesn't have to mean that QF considers the pax was "right" or anything like that.

And returning to the "attacks" on the OP (who appears to have disappeared...) ... you mentioned several times "for whatever reason" - well I think that is very relevant and what has resulted in the commtary from we in the peanut gallery. One does not usually get denied boarding from a flight for simply querying their seat allocation or trying to resolve it. They missed their original flight for, let's say, "trying to resolve the issue" .... I'm not suggesting they should have meekly accepted being put in a middle seat down the back, but it must have been one heck of a "polite conversation" to result in a denied boarding situation after QF did already move them onto another flight yet apparently couldn't find an acceptable seating arrangement....

I for one - like the vast majority of folks in this forum who do, and have, travelled a lot, find the behaviour expressed by the OP, and then subsequent postings OTT and petulant. Sure, I was not there. I did not witness it.. but again... the OP themselves admitted, without many important details, as a result of their refusal to accept the seat offered (and we do not know if this was the original one changed, or a new offer, or what) that they were then denied boarding. I am not sure how any reasonable person could think anything other than it must have been one heck of a dummy spit. I think we call that the pub test.

If they ever come back and wish to give more detail then great... (and waiting for the "why should they come back when attacked so much"? well.. seems to me they gave as good as they got)

 

[mannej]

Don't forget those involved from an airline operations PoV have already mentioned that they have no issues as to the OP being denied boarding from the information provided here.

 

[p--and--t]

Hi RichardMEL

I don't have issue with anything in your latest post and agree totally that some of the posts from the Op would have one easily drawn to the conclusion that the discussion on seating was particularly animated at the least.

**If**this was the case then I would probably denied boarding at least until he/she had calmed down and maybe altogether but I wasn't there so not in a position to pass judgement.

I'd still like to drag the thread back to the Ops original beef and perhaps tease out the refusal to refund the denied passage and having to go to court to obtain some compensation. Was QF right in this in the first place?

Slight diversion - if the thread is correct that he originally only wanted a partial refund of a single segment, and it seems they paid out maybe 3 times that amount, QF would would have paid out more than the original request just to get a legal opinion to try and have it thrown out of VCAT.

Ultimately, just guessing, it cost them perhaps 6-10 times the refund requested.

BTW - please dont read into my posts any defence of the Ops actions nor am I here to condemn his actions. I'd like to address the original beef over no refund

 

[p--and--t]

Don't forget those involved from an airline operations PoV have already mentioned that they have no issues as to the OP being denied boarding from the information provided here.

My post is not intended to be related the merits or otherwise of the boarding denial or the events leading to it which this thread seems fixated on.

The Ops beef was the refusal to refund.

 

[mannej]

My post is not intended to be related the merits or otherwise of the boarding denial or the events leading to it which this thread seems fixated on.

The Ops beef was the refusal to refund.

You can't discount what actually happened in SIN as it is fairly relevant in the context of the thread.

 

[RichardMEL]

re the refund issue it's probably a bit difficult given it was part of an long haul ticket. We know the return was CPH-LHR-SIN(BA, with QF codes)-MEL on QF. Don't know the outbound, but could reasonably presume it was MEL-xSIN-xLHR-CPH. It becomes messy to deconstruct just what that sector was "worth" in the total fare compoent. Yes, I know tickets are priced with fare components usually in NUC's, but you also have a partner airline involved. I mean let's say the ticket was $2400 MEL-CPH r/t and it involved 6 sectors, you can't just suggest well that SIN-MEL was obviously worth $400.

Plus, I would presume, there's a factor of "inconvenience" in the refund amount plus the accom costs and whatnot. seems pretty reasonable to me tbh.

 

[UP4014]

I think if an airline denies boarding then the full price paid for all sectors even those flown should be refunded. I didn't get to my destination.

If I buy a car I expect it all to be there and pay the price asked. If they don't give me the whole thing then I'm not paying for a bit they gave me.

 

[RichardMEL]

I think if an airline denies boarding then the full price paid for all sectors even those flown should be refunded. I didn't get to my destination.

If I buy a car I expect it all to be there and pay the price asked. If they don't give me the whole thing then I'm not paying for a bit they gave me.

side comment/thought.. is it fair to expect refunds if one is denied boarding because of one's own actions (this is a general question not intended to be taken in relation to the OP's question).

I mean if I get drunk and punch up a gate agent or something and am denied boarding.. is that reasonable to expect a full refund because I didn't get to my destination?

Obviously, a situation of a a involuntary Denied Booking due to an airline's issues, changes, operations etc.. absolutely...

but if it's due to the pax actions... ?

personally.. not for me.

 

[burmans]

Why would QF not fight this tooth and nail?

I know nothing of this particular incident but there is an obvious answer to that question, because lawyers are expensive! Companies setlle claims all the time out of court, and whether they are in the right is probably less than 50% of the equation, the main reason for settling is just plain old pragmatic commercial reasons.

 

[p--and--t]

re the refund issue it's probably a bit difficult given it was part of an long haul ticket. We know the return was CPH-LHR-SIN(BA, with QF codes)-MEL on QF. Don't know the outbound, but could reasonably presume it was MEL-xSIN-xLHR-CPH. It becomes messy to deconstruct just what that sector was "worth" in the total fare compoent. Yes, I know tickets are priced with fare components usually in NUC's, but you also have a partner airline involved. I mean let's say the ticket was $2400 MEL-CPH r/t and it involved 6 sectors, you can't just suggest well that SIN-MEL was obviously worth $400.

Plus, I would presume, there's a factor of "inconvenience" in the refund amount plus the accom costs and whatnot. seems pretty reasonable to me tbh.

side comment/thought.. is it fair to expect refunds if one is denied boarding because of one's own actions (this is a general question not intended to be taken in relation to the OP's question).

I mean if I get drunk and punch up a gate agent or something and am denied boarding.. is that reasonable to expect a full refund because I didn't get to my destination?

Obviously, a situation of a a involuntary Denied Booking due to an airline's issues, changes, operations etc.. absolutely...

but if it's due to the pax actions... ?

personally.. not for me.

Yep agree and agree.

Its seems he eventually got compensated and as the full circumstances are unknown then maybe fairly maybe generously to shut him up.

If they had just paid him out in the first place would (just guessing) been worth maybe $300-400. Instead of that they tried to fight the refund through a technicality at VCAT which probably cost more than the refund.

The Op persevered to take the matter to court and when the facts were due to come out in court, QF quickly settled with all up costs with lawyers etc possibly running to up to $5K or more.

Maybe because the facts were embarrassing maybe because they had wasted too much money already, we will never know.

Either way with the glorious benefit of hindsight, it seems QF would have been better off just sending him a cheque for $300-400 for inconvenience to defuse the situation so it wasn't worth the Ops while to press on to court.

 

[UP4014]

Full refund for any reason. If the airline denies boarding then full refund. A cost of doing business.

RichardMEL, if you did that in an eatery they wouldn't get paid, airlines take the money up front, they want no risk to their end but after taking your money they pretty much can change everything and if they 'agree' to a refund rather than a credit there is often a fee and it takes how long, 8 weeks, 12 weeks?

If you get drink and punch an employee the police if called will sort it out. As we so often like to say on this board, there might be another side to the story.

 

[RichardMEL]

Full refund for any reason. If the airline denies boarding then full refund. A cost of doing business.

RichardMEL, if you did that in an eatery they wouldn't get paid, airlines take the money up front, they want no risk to their end but after taking your money they pretty much can change everything and if they 'agree' to a refund rather than a credit there is often a fee and it takes how long, 8 weeks, 12 weeks?

Except that in the case of the OP, as presented, they do not appear to have been denied boarding due to a lack of seats or something due to the airline's change. They did not like the changed seat assignment (understandable!) and refused to fly and (for whatever reason) were denied boarding, most likely due to action.

In the case of, as I noted, an airline creating a denied boarding situation due to lack of seats (say an aircraft swap due to mechanical or something) then yes, full refund, upgrades, the airline is obliged to take care of the passenger. No question.

If you get drink and punch an employee the police if called will sort it out. As we so often like to say on this board, there might be another side to the story.

... and if I do not board the aircraft due to what I did, the cops being involved and all that... I do not think that gives me ANY grounds to demand any kind of refund from the airline.

different situations.

 

[drron]

It is true that we have only heard one side of the story and from that it is probable that the OP's behaviour led to the ban.But what part did the other side of the incident play?
Over many years I have seen many incidents of staff abuse.I remember a VA staff member at checkin experience a really threatening tirade from a fellow whose partner was denied a BP because the wrong name was on the ticket.Quite frankly he could have been sl;apped with a ban but he wasn't flying.The agent though with patience and tact defused the situation and he calmed down.I was lucky to be the next pax and congratulated her on her performance whilst saying you shouldn't have to put up with it.I got an exit row right back to MCY.

On the other hand where else but LOTFAP I have seen an agent inflame the situation until it was well and truly out of control.
So I am prepared to give the OP the benefit of the doubt as not being 100% to blame for what happened.Sure he should have controlled his temper but some cant and the OP was obviously tired and there was a history with QF.So what happened could be the last straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[RichardMEL]

Sure, there's two sides to every story, and it's always possible that the agent(s) handling this customer could have handled it badly or been worse... however bear in mind.. this is Singapore. Of all the QF stations out there I would put SIN and HKG in the "most polite" status. LAX? SYD? Bad day in BNE? Any agent on their day, like pax, can have problems and attitude.. I find it just that much harder to believe of SIN though tbh.

happy to be corrected... but I'll also note the OP never once suggested the agents were rude or horrible to them just that they couldn't resolve the situation to their satisfaction. And they did not sue based on the denied boarding or any of the service aspects in SIN

Thus, I do not think this particular issue was an agent one.

 

[vandy]

Either way with the glorious benefit of hindsight, it seems QF would have been better off just sending him a cheque for $300-400 for inconvenience to defuse the situation so it wasn't worth the Ops while to press on to court.

My guess is that Qantas didn't expect to actually be taken to court. They assumed that the OP, like the vast majority of other people who complain, would just give up after being told no.

 

[burmans]

If you are a solo traveller in the middle seat you are pretty much confined to a 17 by 31 inch box for the entire flight, mindful that you have two strangers on either side, and you'll disturb the person on the aisle if you want to escape your box to stretch your legs, or retrieve something from your cabin bag overhead, or go to the WC. If you are travelling with someone, none of those things apply. You don't have to worry about disturbing the person on the aisle. You can encroach your legs sideways into their space to stretch every now and then. You have much more freedom to get up and about. You can store things like your pillow or blanket in the overhead, knowing you can get up at any time to retrieve them. Not as easy if you have a stranger there.

When you buy a seat on QF that's all you are buying - A seat not a particular seat. That's unless you are prepared to pay the extra for seat selection. Single travellers don't pay extra and have no special rights above that despite your obvious belief they should have.

Frankly most people on a flight are strangers, sure I get that sitting next to someone you know may make it easier but if you are paying the same price I don't agree that singles have any special rights.