Banned from QF (for a few months)

[hmmm]

My point was that to be banned, there was obviously a line crossed in your behaviour. My understanding of your original post was that you had a seat reassignment and your response to this was what caused you to be denied boarding. I can only assume that your response must have been very much deemed as threatening or inappropriate for this to happen. Yes, choosing to fly on other than QF is one way to move on, so hope you enjoy the new airlines.

my response to the seat reassignment was simply that I refused to travel in the reassigned seat. I made it clear I had a valid seat selection, and if they couldn't provide me with a reason as to why it was taken away, then I expect to be in that seat. Had they said it was broken, or there was a wheelchair passenger that needed it, or it was a bassinet seat (which it was not) I would been totally fine with that.

As an aside, when I checked in with BA in CPH, I notched the seat was wrong, but they said it had been changed by QF and they couldn't access QF's system, which is why QF had to fix it. my First contact with QF was in Singapore, by which point the seat had been taken by someone else.

 

[hmmm]

There are several other seats on a plane that get you where you need to be too.

you do realise this thread was split off from the "priority boarding thread" in which people are coughing and moaning about priority boarding, when the truth is, until all passengers are boarded, the plane isn't going anywhere...... so using your logic, there is no reason to have a gripe about anything, because at the end of the day, you still have to line up in the aerobridge and in the aisle.....

but sure.... shoot the messenger.

 

[Matt_01]

To the OP who was the airline which ticketed the original flight was is BA or QF or was it a flight package put together by a TA.

.........They're quite happy to con you to of your money by dangling the status carrot in front of your face, but when push comes to shove and someone actually expects to make use of their status benefits but is denied, you think they should be ok with this? When they are NOT ok with it, after repeated failures, you accuse them of creating multiple issues and constantly abusing staff. What a laugh.......

Sorry, status is all BS and that card is is more commonly being played but those who sign up to DSC, the 50% bonus DSC offers and suddenly think they are important and a valued QF member, get with the program.

 

[hmmm]

To the OP who was the airline which ticketed the original flight was is BA or QF or was it a flight package put together by a TA.



Sorry, status is all BS and that card is is more commonly being played but those who sign up to DSC, the 50% bonus DSC offers and suddenly thing they are important and a valued QF member, get with the program.

QF ticket.... and even the BA sectors were QF codeshares.

And this is the whole point.... status is BS. However, QANTAS makes it out to be the be all and end all. If you fly with us x times, we will blow smoke up your backside and make you believe you're valued and important when in reality, you're nothing of the sort. It took me a while to realise this, but that ban made me realise it quick smart. I think its very deceptive of Qantas, and most airlines for that matter to mislead and decide people the way they do. Take a look at this entire forum.... its littered with people who think they're important to QF, when in reality QF couldn't and doesnt give two coughs. If they did, they'd honour the benefits they advertise, but they dont. and that is the crux of this post, the original PB post from which this was split and pretty much every other service delivery complaint against QF.

 

[hmmm]

A salient lesson for the OP is what may be acceptable/tolerated in Australia is unlikely to pass muster in a place like Singapore. Google what can happen to Australians who fall foul of the authorities there and perhaps be thankful nothing worse happened to you.

ummm.... im not a violent or aggressive person and I most certainly did nothing that didn't "pass muster" in Singapore or Australia. All I wanted to do was to enforce my rights and my entitlements. After too many instances where I let things slide, only to get back to oz and get the standard "we are sorry we didn't meet your expectations" passive aggressive apology from QF customer (dont)care, i decided this would be the last time they pulled the wool over my eyes. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me... and THAT was NEVER going to happen a third time!

 

[TheRealTMA]

All I wanted to do was to enforce my rights and my entitlements.

Sorry but you don’t have any of these. You have status with an airline. That gives you some privilege but no rights. All is at the discretion of the airline and the specific flight you are taking.

Zen travel is recommended. DYKWIA behaviour won’t get very far in most cases.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

... but those who sign up to DSC, the 50% bonus DSC offers and suddenly think they are important and a valued QF member, get with the program.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[hmmm]

Utter bollocks. Your behavior is your choice and your responsibility. You chose to act in a way that was unacceptable and faced some consequences.

That your seat was changed and you were adversely affected does not give you carte blanche to misbehave. You have the right to complain and to seek restitution but not to act in a way that may be construed as threatening or abusive.

Whilst I concede your point about my behaviour being my choice and my responsibility, the fact is, I was and remain completely accountable for it.
Was I annoyed at the time? Sure. it was bit of an inconvenience, especially when the SYD flight from which i was denied boarding, was the last departure of the the night.
Did I care about it once I got home? Not really. My main concern was getting home, which I did the following day on EK.
Did the punishment for the crime? I dont think so.
Did I care about the Ban once i was Back in Australia. NOPE.
Is that why the ban was withdrawn? Probably.
Is QF ever responsible of accountable for their actions? That would be a big fat NO!

I accept responsibility for my actions 100%, so dont for one second think im blaming someone else. I do however, stand by the fact that my behaviour was a direct reflection of their behaviour. I did not misbehave, threaten or abuse anyone. I merely voiced my refusal to travel under the conditions that were changed without my input or consent. But in typical left wing fashion... when they treat you badly and you kick back, its YOU that has the problem. But when you treat them like they've treated you, they're shocked and appalled and that simply doesnt fly with me. Pardon the pun.

As for your point about complaining and seeking restitution? what price would you put on a platinum preferred seat? for me, (and in their defence) there is no fair or reasonable price that they could possibly be expected to pay to make good. would I be happy with a few thousand QF FF points? NO. $50? NO. $100? NO. $1000? now you're talking... but clearly they would never even contemplate such an offer, so the question comes back to what would constitute fair and reasonable restitution? In my mind... nothing could "undo" being forced to fly in the middle of the plane in a middle seat, and so i simply refused to subject myself to those conditions, because I knew, the ensuing meaningless apology simply wouldnt be appropriate or acceptable, and the restitution I would have been happy with, would not be fair or reasonable on them. So it really left me in quite a predicament where i wanted them to uphold they deal they initially agreed to... and if they couldn't, it was not up to them to feed me whatever scraps they felt like throwing my way, but rather offering me a tangible solution that made up for their error. The only two things i would have been willing to accept were my original seat, or a better one.

 

[Pushka]

Sorry, status is all BS and that card is is more commonly being played but those who sign up to DSC, the 50% bonus DSC offers and suddenly think they are important and a valued QF member, get with the program.

<lip quiver>. Wot, you mean I’m not important?

 

[Matt_01]

To the Mods, I will be frank can this thread be shut down. A month or so back "juddles" started a thread on ethics and flying or something to that effect that was shut down pretty quickly. @juddles is contributor to this site however his post was shut down and was interesting than this one.

This thread is gaining momentum from a new member that from what I read and the previous posts (17) adds no value to the AFF community and is just QF bashing based on what seems to be inappropriate personal behaviour at the SIN QF lounge from the OP.

 

[hmmm]

Sorry but you don’t have any of these. You have status with an airline. That gives you some privilege but no rights. All is at the discretion of the airline and the specific flight you are taking.

Zen travel is recommended. DYKWIA behaviour won’t get very far in most cases.

Thats an interesting interpretation... but I respectfully disagree. Qantas is responsible for setting peoples expectations. As a Qantas "whatever" status, it is your "right" to expect "x" additional luggage, lounge access, priority boarding and luggage... Why? because they say if you jump through these hoops, we will give you these additional benefits over and above what you would ordinarily get. Its not me saying DYKWIA or expecting unpublished benefits...... all I ever asked for was what they sold me. they cant bait and switch and say... book with us because we will treat you like a king, and when the time comes, they treat you like a pauper. whilst you accept the conditions of carriage contract, which doesnt say anything about status, the status benefits become and what is legally referred to as an implied term of the contract. They do NOT have discretion as to which bits they want to offer or not offer. There is a section within the Act that deals with accepting payment for goods or services and that ALL of those goods and services must be provided, not to mention rendering a service with due care and skill. I dont think ANYONE buys an airline ticket out of the goodness of their hearts. They usually buy them based on price, airline/route preference or because of the benefits they receive. That can be something as simple as QF/Jetstar, where one is full service and the other is a LCC. Every consumer makes a call on what best suits their needs. in my example, i couldn't fly JQ or SQ and expect the same benefits from them as i could from QF or Oneworld. I booked QF because THEY let me choose my seat, THEY give me lounge access, THEY give me priority boarding and luggage. Without those "benefits" id more than likely not have chosen them. Why? because IMHO, SQ had (and continues to have), a superior schedule, a superior product and they are roughly the same price as QF. Why did Qf get my money? Because of the additional promises they made and the additional benefits they would give me. To suggest that they can use that carrot to get my business but then not actually be expected to provide those benefits is simply misleading and untrue. It is not at their discretion... it is enforced by the Consumer Law Act!

 

[hmmm]

To the Mods, I will be frank can this thread be shut down. A month or so back "juddles" started a thread on ethics and flying or something to that effect that was shut down pretty quickly. @juddles is contributor to this site however his post was shut down.

This thread is gaining momentum from a new member that from what I read and the previous posts (17) adds no value to the AFF community and is just QF bashing based on what seems to be inappropriate personal behaviour at the SIN QF lounge from the OP.

Who exactly made you the judge and jury on what adds or doesnt add value? if you dont like the thread, dont read it. but asking for it be be shut down? all because you "think" its some form of qantas bashing?

its nothing more than an accurate description of events that transpired and was an example of what Qantas do when they are confronted with the consequences of THEIR actions. This thread was split by the moderators from a priority Boarding Post, and was a reply to a post by the OP of the BP thread who said he was reluctant to speak up about his displeasure because he needed to get home and feared being banned by QF. I was merely giving an example confirming the OP's fears. thats not Qantas bashing. thats FACT. ive even defended QF where necessary, namely with their "right" to ban anyone they god damn please......even if its unfair or unjust. The point is, its their plane and they can do what they want. Thats what they did when AJ grounded the global fleet and thats what they do when they dont provide what they're supposed to provide. What they can NOT do, however, is override consumer law. If they took money for a product or service and they no longer want to provide that product or service, they MUST refund the money.

This thread is not about the justification for banning me or anyone else. I personally dont think they had any reason to, but that isn't my decision to make. Its just a warning to people that if you dare speak up about a grievance you might have, this is a possible consequence.

if you dont like that... dont read it. But dont try and deny others rights to read something they find interesting or informative, just because it doesnt suit your left wing agenda!

 

[GoldCanyon340]

It would be appropriate to rename this thread ‘Antarctica’. It couldn’t possibly go any further south.

 

[mannej]

OP, to be honest it looks as if you are throwing a lot of consumer law terms around for the sake of it. I have attached the screenshot of what QF state on their seat selection page for reference.

I am not so sure it adds any credibility to your arguments here, hence why people are piping back at it as it comes across as waffle IMHO.

Whilst you try and justify your actions in SIN, honestly it does come across as an entitlement dummy spit, confirming to many here the decision to offload was the correct decision. Don't think you will gain any sympathy with that amount of tact.

 

[Matt_01]

Who exactly made you the judge and jury on what adds or doesnt add value? if you dont like the thread, dont read it. but asking for it be be shut down? all because you "think" its some form of qantas bashing?

its nothing more than an accurate description of events that transpired and was an example of what Qantas do when they are confronted with the consequences of THEIR actions. This thread was split by the moderators from a priority Boarding Post, and was a reply to a post by the OP of the BP thread who said he was reluctant to speak up about his displeasure because he needed to get home and feared being banned by QF. I was merely giving an example confirming the OP's fears. thats not Qantas bashing. thats FACT. ive even defended QF where necessary, namely with their "right" to ban anyone they god damn please......even if its unfair or unjust. The point is, its their plane and they can do what they want. Thats what they did when AJ grounded the global fleet and thats what they do when they dont provide what they're supposed to provide. What they can NOT do, however, is override consumer law. If they took money for a product or service and they no longer want to provide that product or service, they MUST refund the money.

This thread is not about the justification for banning me or anyone else. I personally dont think they had any reason to, but that isn't my decision to make. Its just a warning to people that if you dare speak up about a grievance you might have, this is a possible consequence.

if you dont like that... dont read it. But dont try and deny others rights to read something they find interesting or informative, just because it doesnt suit your left wing agenda!

Your response to my comment and the way in which you have responded seems to just support my request to shut down this post. In the response above you are apportioning blame on the Mods in splitting posts. Personally I think you are becoming over excited about an issue you caused. I may be incorrect but as you are are a QF WP I am happy to take your guidance. After all YoY I retain QF WP1, VA WP plus the gold give away and finally *A G with SQ. I guess I am just a novice traveler.

 

[hmmm]

OP, to be honest it looks as if you are throwing a lot of consumer law terms around for the sake of it. I have attached the screenshot of what QF state on their seat selection page for reference.

I am not so sure it adds any credibility to your arguments here, hence why people are piping back at it as it comes across as waffle IMHO.

Whilst you try and justify your actions in SIN, honestly it does come across as an entitlement dummy spit, confirming to many here the decision to offload was the correct decision. Don't think you will gain any sympathy with that amount of tact.

Firstly, i never asked for, nor do i need any sympathy from anyone. unlike most people on here, i am wholly accountable for my own choices and conduct. you also miss the point that im not arguing about the validity of offloading me or not. im just highlighting that it is an option Qantas and every airline for that matter, has up their sleep when things get "too hard basket". The fact passengers have no option but to cop it on the chin is unfair as it is irrelevant. As i have said ad nauseam...... this is not a debate about bans...but rather that you cant have your cake and eat it too. And i didn't throw around consumer law terms for the sake of it. They were EXACTLY the terms I relied upon to get my money back because QF sure as hell weren't voluntarily returning it. Furthermore, place tickets are no different to any other consumer good. they are all subject to Australian Consumer Law. Qantas, or any other airline for that matter isn't some magical organisation that is exempt from it, despite several protestations from Qf fanboys on this forum to the contrary.

Im also well aware that seats are not guaranteed. I made mention of that several replies ago..... but if you bothered to look at the conditions of carriage, you'd see that actually....NOTHING is guaranteed. airlines are not liable or even obligated to get you where you need to be, at the time or even on the day they say they will. Perversely, they are able to price discriminate by time, but aren't even obligated to get you there at that time. You can pay 4x the price for a Syd-Mel flight first thing on a monday morning to make your meeting, and Qantas can actually fly you there whenever they feel like it, including on the 2pm flight that would've been 1/4 the price had you originally booked it. obviously you'd be able to cancel and get a refund of what you paid because the flight is no longer suitable, but the fact it wastes your time and ruins your day?
there is a vast gulf of inequality between consumers and airlines and im surprised (not really!!) the ACCC hasn't taken them to task for unfair contracts because they are selling a product they admit they may have no intention of actually providing.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Firstly, i never asked for, nor do i need any sympathy from anyone. unlike most people on here, i am wholly accountable for my own choices and conduct. you also miss the point that im not arguing about the validity of offloading me or not. im just highlighting that it is an option Qantas and every airline for that matter, has up their sleep when things get "too hard basket". The fact passengers have no option but to cop it on the chin is unfair as it is irrelevant. As i have said ad nauseam...... this is not a debate about bans...but rather that you cant have your cake and eat it too. And i didn't throw around consumer law terms for the sake of it. They were EXACTLY the terms I relied upon to get my money back because QF sure as hell weren't voluntarily returning it. Furthermore, place tickets are no different to any other consumer good. they are all subject to Australian Consumer Law. Qantas, or any other airline for that matter isn't some magical organisation that is exempt from it, despite several protestations from Qf fanboys on this forum to the contrary.

Im also well aware that seats are not guaranteed. I made mention of that several replies ago..... but if you bothered to look at the conditions of carriage, you'd see that actually....NOTHING is guaranteed. airlines are not liable or even obligated to get you where you need to be, at the time or even on the day they say they will. Perversely, they are able to price discriminate by time, but aren't even obligated to get you there at that time. You can pay 4x the price for a Syd-Mel flight first thing on a monday morning to make your meeting, and Qantas can actually fly you there whenever they feel like it, including on the 2pm flight that would've been 1/4 the price had you originally booked it. obviously you'd be able to cancel and get a refund of what you paid because the flight is no longer suitable, but the fact it wastes your time and ruins your day?
there is a vast gulf of inequality between consumers and airlines and im surprised (not really!!) the ACCC hasn't taken them to task for unfair contracts because they are selling a product they admit they may have no intention of actually providing.

What’s the point of this rant? Now it is degenerating into abuse of responders.

Time to move on.

 

[hmmm]

Your response to my comment and the way in which you have responded seems to just support my request to shut down this post. In the response above you are apportioning blame on the Mods in splitting posts. Personally I think you are becoming over excited about an issue you caused. I may be incorrect but as you are are a QF WP I am happy to take your guidance. After all YoY I retain QF WP1, VA WP plus the gold give away and finally *A G with SQ. I guess I am just a novice traveler.

I "was" WP. Having flown QF a big fat ZERO times in my last membership year, I've defaulted back to lifetime gold.

its rather ironic how you're chastising me for a seemingly false sense of entitlement and yet here you are you boasting about holding the highest status in every airline alliance going. like that is supposed to somehow validate your opinions as if they were fact?
and quit with the self deprecating "im just a novice traveller" BS........
if you want a home truth, half the people on here are either lying or over exaggerating their status. I know how much I flew when earning between 2000-2400 credits per year and how hard/time consuming it was. for you to earn all the status's you claim to have, you'd pretty much live on planes and have no time for work or family and definitely no time to be trawling a puerile internet forum. also... if you were as important as you claim to be, either you or your employer would be flying you on a private jet and not on commercial airlines..... but sure.... you go and keep earning your status's "year on year" and keep thinking that makes you a better and more important person.
Your status also means diddly squat. The status to have is the one you cannot earn, namely CL. Kind of like royal titles.... just because you buy a square foot of some derelict scotish castle does not make you a HRH.
Whilst Adelaide has some wealthy people, no major company that would warrant so much travel is based there, and the people who are truly wealthy, like the Gerard's, have a private jet and dont waste their very precious and valuable time on internet forums. unless of course you're using wifi half way across the pacific in a First class cabin that has been fully booked by you (or your employer) so as to not be disturbed by former WP riff riff such as myself.

...

 

[hmmm]

What’s the point of this rant? Now it is degenerating into abuse of responders.

Time to move on.

care to highlight the abuse in that reply?
as i said earlier.... people can have their digs, insults, unhelpful/useless comments and im expected to cop it. when i respond, im the rude and abusive one?

i must have missed that hypocrisy memo.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

It would be appropriate to rename this thread ‘Antarctica’. It couldn’t possibly go any further south.

Ok, I was wrong.