Banned from QF (for a few months)

[cambriamarsh]

Indeed. Although post #5 of this thread the OP would have us believe that the refund of the flight ex SIN was refused for want if jurisdiction and that he was successful at a later date. This does not fit with the VCAT case as linked in this thread (where the flight ex SIN was heard by VCAT and dismissed, and the IFE portion only was dismissed in jurisdictional grounds).

Sad that’s all I can say, just sad

 

[Kerrodt]

I’m thinking the $100 IFE claim then went to the Magistrates court and QF settled.

I think if QF settled out of court before it could get to the Magistrates Court then they would get the complainant to sign a non disclosure document for the obvious risk of the complainant telling the world that if your IFE is faulty then QF will give you $100. A long queue would form outside the QF offices with people complaining about faulty IFE and all other sorts of issues and demanding payment.

If it was settled and if a NDA was signed and if the OP and the complainant are the same person then I would think that the postings in this thread by the OP would be a breach of the NDA.

My view is matter never went to the Magistrates Court and QF never settled.

 

[RichardMEL]

Sorry but why would someone take a claim for $100 to the Magistrate's Court? Small claims tribunal perhaps but MC? Costs alone would far outweigh $100 claim.

The other claim (the "SIN incident") I could see, specially also as a matter of principle (from the OP or claimant's point of view) I could see

 

[juddles]

I think this whole thread is the OP trying to find salvation somewhere after the courts have already clearly told him to "get stuffed". Courts who actually have jurisdiction and the ability to request facts. It has been fun, but it is really now flogging a dead horse..... This one will live with me as yet another DYKWIA tantrum.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry but why would someone take a claim for $100 to the Magistrate's Court? Small claims tribunal perhaps but MC? Costs alone would far outweigh $100 claim.

The other claim (the "SIN incident") I could see, specially also as a matter of principle (from the OP or claimant's point of view) I could see

If your only avenue was to go to a particular court then that’s where you’d have to go. Magistrates courts do deal with things like fines, which could be quite low.

 

[RichardMEL]

A claim for $100 over a broken IFE isn't a fine though.... to my way of thinking that would be so petty.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A claim for $100 over a broken IFE isn't a fine though.... to my way of thinking that would be so petty.

Understand, but that’s not really the point here. Everyone is entitled to have their legal case heard, and if the Montreal Convention dictates it must be a court, then that’s what it is. Doesn’t matter how small.

Perhaps QF was thinking about not only their costs, but also not taking something so trivial to court when they decided to settle.

 

[SOPOOR]

Understand, but that’s not really the point here. Everyone is entitled to have their legal case heard, and if the Montreal Convention dictates it must be a court, then that’s what it is. Doesn’t matter how small.

Perhaps QF was thinking about not only their costs, but also not taking something so trivial to court when they decided to settle.

Maybe It's primarily about principal
If the case was so stupid, maybe Qantas would be like "hey if you want to waste money on a pointless case, go for it"

Maybe there is some merit to the argument.

I have in the past taken companies to tribunal or. Ombudsman when I felt I had been unfairly done by them to prove a point

 

[JohnK]

A claim for $100 over a broken IFE isn't a fine though.... to my way of thinking that would be so petty.

Petty to you but not everyone thinks that way.

I pay $500 for a one-way airfare and my IFE does not work. Airline refuses to refund any portion of the airfare. What do I do? Write it off as bad experience? And then it happens again. And again.

 

[Scott K]

To be frank about this, as this thread progresses, I feel this is a prime example of both the power and the failings of the internet.
The OP alluded to his own loss of patience, and skirted around the issue of his loss of temper - that to the casual reader is a bit of a red flag that they aren’t telling the whole story. The subsequent unvovering of the VCAT transcripts showed evidence that his own behaviour was significantly poor enough to warrant intervention of the authorities. Additionally the OP has been shown to be a bit blasé about the truth and facts.
The question has been asked a few times now - why dig this back up two years later? The OP certainly speaks of the event as though it was a recent occurrence, yet it was not.
I think this goes back to the failure of the OP to gain any genuine traction in his VCAT complaint. On a weekly basis AFF puts out a gazette that doesn’t pull its punches when it sees discussions about bad behaviour by airlines. I feel the OP has been attracted to the large, seemingly sympathetic audience that appears would be ripe for a bit of rage-baiting. With a few contortions of the truth, a view this list to be an attempt to use the forum to strike out at a business.
To that end, I feel such behaviour is very disrespectful and manipulative of our fellow forum members.

 

[mrfreeze]

Petty to you but not everyone thinks that way.

I pay $500 for a one-way airfare and my IFE does not work. Airline refuses to refund any portion of the airfare. What do I do? Write it off as bad experience? And then it happens again. And again.

My flight from hell: 11 hours with no in-flight entertainment

To quote from the article "Under their conditions of carriage, the contract between the passenger and the airline, Australia's carriers undertake to get you from A to B, and nothing more. If your flight is delayed - and unlike in the US and EU countries – there is no statutory right to compensation in Australia."

Virgin Australia T&C's are at https://www.virginaustralia.com/au/en/information/ife-terms-and-conditions/
8. Virgin Australia is not responsible for any interruptions to the service including, without limitation, those due to acts of nature, power failure, satellite signal failure or any other cause.
9. Virgin Australia is not responsible if IFE is not available on a flight due to a technical fault or serviceability issues.

I could not find Qantas T&C's for IFE.

Buying the ticket you have agreed to the terms and conditions of carriage etc. so there is no right to compensation.
Yes it would be annoying if it did not work especially if time and time again, but again there is no right to compensation and if any if given it is a sign of goodwill.

 

[SOPOOR]

My flight from hell: 11 hours with no in-flight entertainment

To quote from the article "Under their conditions of carriage, the contract between the passenger and the airline, Australia's carriers undertake to get you from A to B, and nothing more. If your flight is delayed - and unlike in the US and EU countries – there is no statutory right to compensation in Australia."

Virgin Australia T&C's are at https://www.virginaustralia.com/au/en/information/ife-terms-and-conditions/
8. Virgin Australia is not responsible for any interruptions to the service including, without limitation, those due to acts of nature, power failure, satellite signal failure or any other cause.
9. Virgin Australia is not responsible if IFE is not available on a flight due to a technical fault or serviceability issues.

I could not find Qantas T&C's for IFE.

Buying the ticket you have agreed to the terms and conditions of carriage etc. so there is no right to compensation.
Yes it would be annoying if it did not work especially if time and time again, but again there is no right to compensation and if any if given it is a sign of goodwill.

So hypothetically, in a more extreme case if their oven broke down or they ran out of food, Qantas could and probably would ignore you or give you$20 discount off your next flight

Sounds extreme but given by accounts of recent people, it wouldn't surprise me

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My flight from hell: 11 hours with no in-flight entertainment

To quote from the article "Under their conditions of carriage, the contract between the passenger and the airline, Australia's carriers undertake to get you from A to B, and nothing more. If your flight is delayed - and unlike in the US and EU countries – there is no statutory right to compensation in Australia."

Virgin Australia T&C's are at https://www.virginaustralia.com/au/en/information/ife-terms-and-conditions/
8. Virgin Australia is not responsible for any interruptions to the service including, without limitation, those due to acts of nature, power failure, satellite signal failure or any other cause.
9. Virgin Australia is not responsible if IFE is not available on a flight due to a technical fault or serviceability issues.

I could not find Qantas T&C's for IFE.

Buying the ticket you have agreed to the terms and conditions of carriage etc. so there is no right to compensation.
Yes it would be annoying if it did not work especially if time and time again, but again there is no right to compensation and if any if given it is a sign of goodwill.

Oh dear. That article is a tad misleading. Incorrectly referencing the VCAT dismissal is poor journalism. It implies the claim was baseless, not that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

It surprises me the author of the article can’t understand the fairness of EU261. It doesn’t matter if a person has paid £30 (LCC) or £130 (legacy carrier). If a LCC cancels a flight, a last-minute full walk-up fare is going to cost a lot of money. That’s what EU261 covers.

I don’t know if the author is a lawyer or not. But I’m not sure it’s correct to reference the conditions of carriage for things like failed IFE, or lack of food. Those things, amongst others, are paid for by the passenger, over and above ‘base’ fares, as evidenced by component prices charged by LCCs. So there is some component of the ticket paying for those services, and if not provided, there should be some compensation. Perhaps IFE is a little more tricky... but certainly for food, if it’s not provided the airline is pocketing the money (they’ll recoup it from someone in the supply chain), so that should be passed on to the passenger who has paid for it.

 

[JohnK]

I could not find Qantas T&C's for IFE.

Buying the ticket you have agreed to the terms and conditions of carriage etc. so there is no right to compensation.
Yes it would be annoying if it did not work especially if time and time again, but again there is no right to compensation and if any if given it is a sign of goodwill.

Ah yes the one sided terms and conditions. I've agreed to nothing regardless of what boxed I've ticked when I've purchased the ticket. If I feel I have been ripped off then I'll complain/provide feedback and in case of non functioning IFE I'd expect compensation for a service stated that has not been delivered.

 

[juddles]

Ah yes the one sided terms and conditions. I've agreed to nothing regardless of what boxed I've ticked when I've purchased the ticket. ..

Unfortunately for you, yes you have agreed to the terms and conditions. The fact that you hate them makes no difference - in fact in a court if you expound such a view (that you signed but did not agree with conditions) you are just sealing your fate. Legally you have less than one leg to stand on. And if you are going to take something to "court", it is the legal angle that is crucial.

If you decide to go non-legal (just be a massive pain in the ar__) then you may glean small victories. But they are not "legal" victories in any shape or manner.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Unfortunately for you, yes you have agreed to the terms and conditions. The fact that you hate them makes no difference - in fact in a court if you expound such a view (that you signed but did not agree with conditions) you are just sealing your fate. Legally you have less than one leg to stand on. And if you are going to take something to "court", it is the legal angle that is crucial.

If you decide to go non-legal (just be a massive pain in the ar__) then you may glean small victories. But they are not "legal" victories in any shape or manner.

Thankfully this is not necessarily true. We have consumer and other legal protections which can, and do, override terms and conditions in all kinds of circumstances.

Just because we tick a box doesn’t mean we have accepted and agreed all terms and conditions. Companies can write all sorts of things int their contracts. It doesn’t mean they are legally correct.

 

[juddles]

Thankfully this is not necessarily true. We have consumer and other legal protections which can, and do, override terms and conditions in all kinds of circumstances.

Just because we tick a box doesn’t mean we have accepted and agreed all terms and conditions. Companies can write all sorts of things int their contracts. It doesn’t mean they are legally correct.

And just how often does this work, really??

And what in Qantas terms and conditions is not, as you put it "legally correct"?

 

[JohnK]

Unfortunately for you, yes you have agreed to the terms and conditions. The fact that you hate them makes no difference - in fact in a court if you expound such a view (that you signed but did not agree with conditions) you are just sealing your fate.

Who said anything about going to court? Terms and conditions are not going to stop me complaining or seeking compensation.

 

[love_the_life]

Who said anything about going to court? Terms and conditions are not going to stop me complaining or seeking compensation.

The OP

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And just how often does this work, really??

And what in Qantas terms and conditions is not, as you put it "legally correct"?

This is not a simple topic. But suffice to say that if contracts were all as straightforward as you make out we wouldn’t need a court system. Different issues pop up all the time... IIRC there was one low cost carrier (Scoot I think?) that stated they had a strict no refund policy, period. Even if you agreed to the terms and conditions, that wasn’t legal for ticket sales originating in Australia. Those terms and conditions were subsequently modified with a special exemption for Australian purchases.

Terms and conditions may state company policy... ‘no refunds’, or ‘this is the refund table we use in the event of a downgrade’, or ‘we won’t pay for delayed baggage until at least 24 hours have elapsed’... but policy doesn’t necessarily always comply with the law.

The ACCC is looking at a range of issues which gives an idea of some potential areas of interest with airline contracts: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Airlines Terms and Conditions Report.pdf