Banned from QF (for a few months)

[jb747]

And it’s inherently unfair because the automatic assumption is made that a passenger who appears stroppy on the ground will likely be stroppy in the air as well. Undoubtedly this will be the case sometimes, but it’s not a given.

Yes, but it's easy to fix the issue on the ground, and very hard in the air....

 

[jb747]

At least on some types of aircraft, QF is known for encountering frequent IFE failures. Efforts by the crew to reboot are frequently unsuccessful.

It's a quite specific failure sequence, which has nothing to do with crew reboots.

 

[JohnK]

It seems relatively straight forward... but that’s me looking at it from an objective point of view. It probably looks different to you, subjectively.

Yes it is straight forward. A poor email and explanation and simply another poorly handled incident from Qantas. More than likely contract staff but still poorly handled.

 

[sjk]

Yes, but it's easy to fix the issue on the ground, and very hard in the air....

It’s also an issue of who should get the benefit of the doubt.

It’s very rare that someone gets offloaded, anyway. I saw it maybe three times in several hundred flights, and also saw a couple of cases where the general consensus after the fact was that offloading would have been the better option.

Would like to have seen what caused it in this particular instance.

 

[Melburnian1]

Yes, but it's easy to fix the issue on the ground, and very hard in the air....

That may be so, and offloadings are rare, but I have occasionally seen airline staff get aggressive with passengers who are quite within their rights to complain, and not even raising their voices, but being assertive.

It seems very loaded in favour of airlines, that 'after the fact' may issue a token (qualified) 'apology', and perhaps 'generously' award a tiny number of FF points to the complainant.

Some airline passengers are DYKWIA but whatever happened to the mantra of successful businesses, slightly changed, that the passenger is always right?

 

[hmmm]

An assumption. "They knew it wouldn't work". Have a think. You were told that it had overheating issues on the ground, but that it would work in flight. It's actually a tad difficult for them to test that particular scenario, unless you're suggesting they take the aircraft out for a flight to have a look. Nevertheless, there is a real failure sequence that leads to exactly this outcome. You may not believe it, but then you have no technical knowledge of the aircraft



Really. You're trying to tell me this. IFE per se might not be on the MEL, as it is not an airworthiness item. But, the systems that run it certainly are.

ECAM:
VENT IFE BAY VENT FAULT

IFEC - OFF
When, the IFEC pb-sw is set to OFF:
IFE BAY VENT AVAIL IN FLT


MEL:
On ground with both packs running and the CAB FANS pb-sw set to ON:
Set the IFEC pb-sw to Auto and wait for 5 min.
The alert appears with the INFO message IFE BAY VENT AVAIL IN FLT on the STATUS SD page:
Set the IFEC pb-sw to OFF on ground.
The IFE bay ventilation is insufficient on ground due to high ambient temperature. The IFE bay ventilation available in flight.

So, there you go. An MEL.

Firstly, if they couldn’t take it on a TestFlight, then they didn’t know it would work, they just ‘assumed’ it would. So sure.... blame me for assuming it would.


Secondly, If the IFE will be problematic and creating an MEL issue, if they want the aircraft to depart, they will simply not run it inflight, thereby avoiding the MEL issue. What was intended and I thought, patently obvious, is that IFE is not on the MEL for an aircraft to safely depart, so thanks for taking what I said out of context.

This is what s hits me to tears about forums like this. People twist and turn an obvious meaning into one that is so remote and unlikely, just to prove a point, rather than taking the comment in the way it was intended.

 

[straitman]

Firstly, if they couldn’t take it on a TestFlight, then they didn’t know it would work, they just ‘assumed’ it would. So sure.... blame me for assuming it would.

If the manual and the procedures were followed then that's how it works. If they do it this way 500 times and fixes the issue 499 then that's OK isn't it. You would forgive the ground staff for saying fixed when that's all they had ever seen.

Secondly, If the IFE will be problematic and creating an MEL issue, if they want the aircraft to depart, they will simply not run it inflight, thereby avoiding the MEL issue. What was intended and I thought, patently obvious, is that IFE is not on the MEL for an aircraft to safely depart, so thanks for taking what I said out of context.

As I said above. All MEL items indicate things as normal then it's normal to believe that operations will be normal. Nothing out of context from where I'm sitting.

This is what s hits me to tears about forums like this. People twist and turn an obvious meaning into one that is so remote and unlikely, just to prove a point, rather than taking the comment in the way it was intended.

An alternate way to look is to ask those with the qualifications their opinion and accept their answers.

Whether or not an MEL applied is really irrelevant to the main discussion IMHO

 

[hmmm]

Yes, but it's easy to fix the issue on the ground, and very hard in the air....

This is the problem..... Qantas is so arrogant that they weren't actually interested in fixing it on the ground. Before OR after the event. They only came to the table when I forced them to. I failed to force them to fix it in Singapore, but clearly succeeded when I took them to court.

In my opinion, this could have been resolved so quickly and easily. But Qantas is so belligerent and indifferent toward their customers (Platinum at that!) and they think they are never in the wrong. Put your hand up, admit "an" error was made, fix it and move on. its THAT simple. But to tell a customer, we took something away from you, we don't care, you'll accept what we give you and you'll thank us for the privilege, will get them nowhere quickly. all its done is created a huge amount of negativity and ill will. I was a gold customer for 10 years, and platinum for 6 years after that. So basically, I was pretty loyal. Since this episode, and despite the ban only lasting a few short weeks, before it was replaced with a "warning", I have flown Qf maybe 8 times. In my last "frequent flyer" year, I flew them a big fat ZERO times and have subsequently dropped to my LTG status. I now gladly fly other airlines, can book the cheap, non earning fare buckets and Qantas gets the bill for my lounge visit. So remind me who lost out here?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

An alternate way to look is to ask those with the qualifications their opinion and accept their answers.

True, in the context of AFF

But to the average customer, airlines aren’t good communicators, and customers are rarely afforded the respect of transparency and fairness when things don’t go as planned. In that environment, understandable why passengers could be skeptical of any assurances issued by airlines.

 

[burmans]

It's a quite specific failure sequence, which has nothing to do with crew reboots.

This may be so but its still a failure.

 

[drron]

The problem is not that IFE fails-I accept it does.But what happens afterwards sees QF way behind.
QF IFE failure x2-zip.
IFE failure on JAL.FAs came around giving everyone a 2000 yen voucher.
IFE failure on BA.FA talks to purser and comes back with a 15000 avios credit.

Which airline do I not use internationally now?

 

[TonyHancock]

IFE failure on BA.FA talks to purser and comes back with a 15000 avios credit.

Pffft they only gave me 5000 Avios.

........... I'd better get Griselda to write a letter to that Walsh chap.

 

[cwd]

In my last "frequent flyer" year, I flew them a big fat ZERO times and have subsequently dropped to my LTG status. I now gladly fly other airlines, can book the cheap, non earning fare buckets and Qantas gets the bill for my lounge visit. So remind me who lost out here?

How sure are you of this? My understanding is the operating carrier pays the lounge operator. But without being privy to the OW agreement, who knows...

 

[drron]

Pffft they only gave me 5000 Avios.

........... I'd better get Griselda to write a letter to that Walsh chap.

Sorry Tony but TKWIW.

 

[oz_mark]

How sure are you of this? My understanding is the operating carrier pays the lounge operator. But without being privy to the OW agreement, who knows...

I have also been led to believe this is the case for OW

 

[Matt_01]

How sure are you of this? My understanding is the operating carrier pays the lounge operator. But without being privy to the OW agreement, who knows...

I have also been led to believe this is the case for OW

Although not a great deal of help, there was an AFF who posted recently who pays for the lounge access and from memory it was not just based on operating carrier, but also cabin class. The post was specific to OW but can not find it.

 

[hmmm]

How sure are you of this? My understanding is the operating carrier pays the lounge operator. But without being privy to the OW agreement, who knows...

I'm not 100% certain..... but the info I was given is that the airline with the "liability" pays. If you're using a lounge via cabin class, the operating airline pays. If you're using a lounge via status, the airline with whom you have status, pays. I could be wrong tho.

 

[hmmm]

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??

You "know" I had a DYKWIA moment? how could you possibly know that?

I wish people on here stop making baseless assumptions.

 

[drron]

You "know" I had a DYKWIA moment? how could you possibly know that?

I wish people on here stop making baseless assumptions.

You had me onside until this.Here we are entitled to have our DYKWIA moments.

 

[Bodie]

You had me onside until this.Here we are entitled to have our DYKWIA moments.

A search on austlii website located the vcat case involving the op. Very interesting reading. I will it to others to read and make their own mind. But seriuosly i dont know of how many DYKWIA moments requires between 6 - 12 police to attend the lounge in Singapore