Banned from QF (for a few months)

[serfty]

VCAT ... part 1, Magistrates part 2?

BTW did you actually win the case #60 seems to indicate your claim was dismissed

 

[hmmm]

Interesting read. Confirms my thoughts and the behaviour of the OP in the lounge. Actually did he ever post that he was offered the original seat he had chosen? I may have missed that bit.

I was never offered the same seat. Furthermore, QF claimed in their filed defence that I was reaccomodated the next day (true) but that I elected not to travel (false). I was ready and willing to travel but in the mean time, the ban was issued, so there was no way I elected not to travel.

 

[hmmm]

I am just wondering if I understand all this correctly, as for the OP, yes you reached breaking point you have stated this here and on record via the link. What I struggle to understand is that you seem to think that you are the one that was hardly done by. I am not a lawyer, ex police etc. however I would have thought that attendance by the police has been brought on by your actions and the police Singapore police have made the determination that no criminal act has been committed, this is not vindication.

As I read through this thread:

• you had a bad trip
• you encountered some problems
• you reacted poorly
• he said/ she said arguments
• you got banned
• you had your day in court
• you still seem unhappy with the outcome
• you shared it it here

You indicated that you have been SG or WP for many years and also LTG (unless I am confused with another thread) so that is fair amount of travel and based on this you should know what is acceptable and what is not. I know you will most likely not agree but surly this whole event was started and contributed to by your actions?

By the way you never mentioned but what what was your 'requested' seat and what was the 'allocated' seat that started all this.

BTW did you actually win the case #60 seems to indicate your claim was dismissed

And just because the airpor police attended doesn’t mean their attendance was warranted. For some context, this was all occurring around 11:30pm-12am and I have no clue what QF told the police to cause so many of them to show up. Several theories are going around, namely that my behaviour was so bad or that this is just the done thing in Singapore. I have no clue as to the actual reason other than to tell you that only 3 or so remained in the lounge for approximately 2 hours, mostly negotiating with the staff at the front desk whilst I remained comfortably seated in the main area.

And yes.... you’re right. I do disagree with you about what started this. This occurred when QF and BA were starting to go their separate ways and I felt as though I was a pig in the middle of their divorce. BA blamed QF, QF blamed BA. At the end of the day, it was a qantas ticket, on qantas flight numbers operated by a oneworld airline.

If you want some further context, qantas sent my luggage on the outbound flight only to London and not Copenhagen. Naturally, on arrival into Copenhagen, there was no bag. As per the rules, this ended up being BA’s fault who had to compensate me around £1000 in expenses, despite QF incorrectly tagging the bag only to London. By the time they got the bag to Copenhagen, I was in Düsseldorf and the bag literally followed me half way around Europe for nearly two weeks! So yes..... in isolation the seating issue was no big deal. When you combine it with everything else that went wrong on the trip, it’s a snowball effect. Wether you agree or disagree is immaterial.

And yes, I have flown A LOT and continue to do so. I do know what is acceptable and what isn’t, and I don’t accept the way I was being treated by both airlines was acceptable. Hence the response in the Singapore lounge. Were the lounge staff responsible? No. But where else did u expect me to express my displeasure? To customer (don’t) care? I’d had enough of their ‘we’re sorry we didn’t meet your expectations’ BS Excuses, and decided enough was enough. Since then, I’ve moved my travel to pretty much any airline but QF and to be frank, I couldn’t be happier. As others have pointed out, SQ, which just won the airline of he year award direct to Copenhagen, vs QF through SIN or PER and LHR and they aren’t even in the top 10 airlines. Yeah.... I’m REAL disappointed in not flying QF.

Those status handcuffs are looooong gone. It’s easily said when there’s nothing left to chase, but this experience, hitting LTG, and the continued poor service from QF has really been an eye opener for me. most Australians are a captive audience to QF and they know it. I’m glad I’m no longer one of them. They used to have over 30% market share out of Australia. Now they have around 7%. Consumers like me are clearly voting with their feet and once we leave it’s nigh on impossible to get us back. I can’t envisage a situation where I’d ever book a QF long haul ticket again.

 

[hmmm]

Just because people have a different take on things or disagree with you doesn’t make them haters.

You’re quite right. Some people are mature enough to agree to disagree and that’s perfectly fine. The haters are those who are casting judgment based on assumptions. You and several others have come across quite neutral, wether you agree with me or not and that is quite appreciated. What isn’t, is those who are ranting on with asinine posts like ‘yup....made my mind up’, ‘he deserved what he got’ blah blah blah. These are the same people defending a previous guy being furious when he observed a staff member refuse to process a priority passenger in the non priority queue. It just reeks of hypocrisy. Not to mention how they’d feel or react if it happened to them. They’d be straight off to their therapist!

 

[straitman]

If you want some further context, qantas sent my luggage on the outbound flight only to London and not Copenhagen. Naturally, on arrival into Copenhagen, there was no bag.

A reminder to always check the tags that are put on your bags.

most Australians are a captive audience to QF and they know it. I’m glad I’m no longer one of them. They used to have over 30% market share out of Australia. Now they have around 7%. Consumers like me are clearly voting with their feet and once we leave it’s nigh on impossible to get us back. I can’t envisage a situation where I’d ever book a QF long haul ticket again.

30% to 7% by itself means nothing unless a lot of other things are considered. Remember that statistics can be made to support almost any argument.

 

[Bodie]

I would like to make it known I object strongly to be so labelled - i merely located your vcat case and gave persons the option to read the case - i made no comment on your character or labelled you - i responded with made up my mind in response to a comment in a post. I will be big enough person to admit that if that comment caused offence I apologise . Im not a hater - i don know you from bar of soap.

 

[love_the_life]

I was never offered the same seat. Furthermore, QF claimed in their filed defence that I was reaccomodated the next day (true) but that I elected not to travel (false). I was ready and willing to travel but in the mean time, the ban was issued, so there was no way I elected not to travel.

Well someone got it wrong then.
Point #11 - the seat was available and a boarding pass issued
Point #12 - Despite being allocated the seat he wanted.....

 

[GSP]

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?

I think there is a greater injustice in the title of the thread - you may want to consider getting the moderators to adjust the title of the thread.

 

[mrfreeze]

To the OP I'm going to straight to the point - get over yourself!
You had some small issues that you would not and can not let go of it, again get over it.

There are big issues in the world than a broken IFE system, a lost bag or not getting the seat you wish etc.
My best mate has a young daughter with type 1 diabetes, his wife /her mother suddenly died last year and now he has all of that to deal with.
A friend decided to commit suicide over the weekend, imaging how his family feel.
I could go on but will not, but the ability to not be able to watch a movie on a flight having your favourite seat is pretty mealiness to get worked up over.

Just saw this:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154619923437371

Maybe you should watch it an decide what the important things in life are.

 

[jb747]

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.

Ah, you misunderstand. I’m not referring to fixing anything with regard to the aircraft. I’m referring to passenger behaviour.

If you bring attention to yourself on the ground, you almost certainly will not be flying. You will not be discussing it with me, nor will there be any negotiation. I do not care who you are, or what rare metal you associate with yourself.

 

[eljefe]

same guy?

Man wants refund for $800 Gucci bag

 

[eastwest101]

I was never offered the same seat. Furthermore, QF claimed in their filed defence that I was reaccomodated the next day (true) but that I elected not to travel (false). I was ready and willing to travel but in the mean time, the ban was issued, so there was no way I elected not to travel.

I think that is one of the key points that people are trying to understand, if as you say, Qantas issued you the ban by email that evening in Singapore, but later claimed in one of their defence documents that you elected not to travel the next day then they have a major credibility / contradictory statement problem in their communications to you, or in their later legal arguments, in either case this contradictory information is an instant path to failure in a courtroom so I guess this is why Qantas folded.

 

[love_the_life]

same guy?

Man wants refund for $800 Gucci bag

If it is, it speaks volumes. Either that or the OP has the most amazing bad luck.

 

[TonyHancock]

Now we have had the "get over it and there are far bigger issues to worry about"* post we only have to slot in a naz_/Hitler^ reference and we have pretty much have the complete AFF thread.

My big takeaway from this thread is that the OP took QF to court and won. I would not have had the drive to do that and would have probably accepted my lot and been out of pocket.

I do wonder how many times this has happened.


*There are definitely some horrendous things out there in the world, sadly happening to good folk every day but this is a frequent flyer travel forum where we all debate the mundane, trivial and absurd.
^Does that count or does it have to be the full comparison to someone?

 

[love_the_life]

Now we have had the "get over it and there are far bigger issues to worry about"* post we only have to slot in a naz_/Hitler^ reference and we have pretty much have the complete AFF thread.

My big takeaway from this thread is that the OP took QF to court and won. I would not have had the drive to do that and would have probably accepted my lot and been out of pocket.

I do wonder how many times this has happened.


*There are definitely some horrendous things out there in the world, sadly happening to good folk every day but this is a frequent flyer travel forum where we all debate the mundane, trivial and absurd.
^Does that count or does it have to be the full comparison to someone?

According to the OP, though a read through of the case doesn't sound like it. I do not dispute that QF paid him some money though IMO it was probably to end the process and was not an admission of liability.
As it seems to have been resolved now, perhaps it is time to put the whole sorry saga to bed.

 

[TonyHancock]

According to the OP, though a read through of the case doesn't sound like it. I do not dispute that QF paid him some money though IMO it was probably to end the process and was not an admission of liability.
As it seems to have been resolved now, perhaps it is time to put the whole sorry saga to bed.

Perhaps I am getting confused. I thought it was just the VCAT case , a case that did not fall under the jurisdiction of VCAT, that was posted here, rather than the court case that was to come before QF pulled out and paid out?

 

[love_the_life]

Perhaps I am getting confused. I thought it was just the VCAT case , a case that did not fall under the jurisdiction of VCAT, that was posted here, rather than the court case that was to come before QF pulled out and paid out?

You may well be correct but the VCAT case in the first instance (denied boarding) did not seem to say it was out of its jurisdiction. Regardless, the issue was resolved and so is now at an end. IMO there now is not a lot of point continuing discussion of the pros and cons. YMMV (a general statement, not you personally).

 

[Austman]

I'd just like to state that this seems to me to be a rather rare thread where we have been given several key views of an issue.

The key views, IMO, are the OP's view, the airline's view, a pilot's view and even another witness passenger's view.

And of course there are the views of AFF members.

I can't recall too many threads like this one...

 

[Matt_01]

Perhaps I am getting confused.

So am I.

same guy?

Man wants refund for $800 Gucci bag

Unfortunately for the OP the name brings up many hits that is on public record or the internet.

This thread has taken on a life of its own.

 

[Kerrodt]

My big takeaway from this thread is that the OP took QF to court and won

Where do you get the evidence that the OP took QF to court and won? Apart from the OP stating that himself, nothing has been provided to demonstrate a win by the OP.

Given what I consider to be some serious credibility issues in the OP relaying accurate facts in this thread (vs what we know are the facts in the VCAT paperwork) I’d be more inclined to believe at this point that the OP did not win. Happy to correct this if the evidence shows otherwise.