Banned from QF (for a few months)

[UP4014]

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".

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.....

The above snipped for ease of re-reading.

I saw a post from you saying none of us where there, but now I see a post claiming you're unlike most people on here. I would say you can't claim we don't know something and then claim something you don't know. (if you get my meaning)

What seat did you have, and what seat were you offered?

While I agree coughulative airline and airport failures get everyones back up, seat changes happen for reasons unknown.

If they refused to carry you they should refund the full fare paid.

Not every airline is suitable to every passenger, if QF are no good for you then please use someone whom for you is better.

 

[eastwest101]

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.

Actually hmmmm - I was more interested in finding out a few other things, firstly was the ban given to you in writing/email and if so how did QF explain the ban? When you returned to Australia could you provide more details about what happened in the VCAT hearings and think you mentioned further court action? Did you represent yourself or have legal representation? And what was the end result? Are you party to some sort of non-disclosure agreement that prevents you from expanding on the details?

Genuinely interested to hear more about this, I say good luck to anyone who can enforce their own consumer rights against the rather vague and one-sided airline t&cs and I would have thought that a frequent flyer community would be more than interested in finding out the details of these type of events rather than casting aspersions on the OP.

 

[AndyGoodyear]

You would be surprised!

I happen to know a person who is a member of this forum and run's their own company. They reside in Adelaide but have permanent accommodation in Melbourne with a frequent commute between the cities as well as Asia. They are indeed both Qantas Platinum One and Velocity Platinum, gaining such with SC maximisation strategies appropriately applied.

For example, elsewhere in this forum there is information alluding to how to earn half of the Qantas Platinum SC's re-qualification requirement for under $1500 with about a dozen flights. I myself have done that this year.

And, yes, with such strategy, I am both Qantas and Velocity Platinum having gained Qantas Life time Gold a decade ago.

Where is this thread?!?!?! $1500 and a dozen flights, yes please

 

[JohnK]

Actually hmmmm - I was more interested in finding out a few other things, firstly was the ban given to you in writing/email and if so how did QF explain the ban? When you returned to Australia could you provide more details about what happened in the VCAT hearings and think you mentioned further court action? Did you represent yourself or have legal representation? And what was the end result? Are you party to some sort of non-disclosure agreement that prevents you from expanding on the details?

Genuinely interested to hear more about this, I say good luck to anyone who can enforce their own consumer rights against the rather vague and one-sided airline t&cs and I would have thought that a frequent flyer community would be more than interested in finding out the details of these type of events rather than casting aspersions on the OP.

Personally I feel this has been an attack on the OP right from the beginning. Some in this thread have been helpful but the rest have been bashing.

I think the information you seek is in this thread. The OP took Qantas to court and received a refund for the flight not taken.

 

[oz_mark]

Enough to be barred? I've raised my voice when I can see they've stuffed up and refused to do anything about it. You can't deal calmly with someone who does not acknowledge they've stuffed up.

It doesn't just happen. I refuse to move on. Make it unhappen. Very simple.

There's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive.

 

[RichardMEL]

Well.. what a fun ride.

When I first read the (split) thread and the first couple of posts from "Hmmmm"(with a nickname like that and only a handful of postts, most of them apparently in this thread) I thought "Troll" but then I realised there's way too much detail and experience there so I revised my assessment to "entitled DYKWIA" but.. I continued to read.

Taking the OP's story at face value....

I find the whole series of rants rather contradictory and bizarre tbh.

For example, on the one hand they claim several times to understand that seats are not guaranteed, and to have read the contract of carriage which guarantees nothing yet then arc up in the lounge and *REFUSE* to travel in the seat they've been reallocated to because they're standing up for their "rights"? huh? Then, having chosen to not travel (because the seat they had selected before was no longer available, and apparently another acceptable seat could not be found to satisfy them) they were denied boarding and QF canceled the ticket(with no offer of refund)? Well wait, they *refused* to travel as stated... frankly someone arcing up like that, specially in a place like Singapore which has a culture of very strict adherence to obeying the laws etc and apparently made a scene of it to be noted as a "problem passenger" (because frankly, if you jump up and down over a seat change and claim rights you don't have and stipulate you *REFUSE* to travel in your allocated seat, yeah I'd wonder what you'd get up to in a confined cabin for the next 8 hours!).... well yeah you were offloaded, partially at your own request (you did write that you told them you *REFUSED* to fly in your seat) so sure, QF cancelled your ticket for that sector. Honestly I see no issue with that. You say you're accountable for your actions and all, yet you don't seem to accept the consequences.

Further you then go on and on about how QF had failed you previously with PB (goodness me, we all get on the plane in the end!), bag delivery (which is an airport function more than an airline, and I've had priority bags come out at MEL from QF flights heaps of times in the first batch.. sometimes before I've gotten through immigration). and all these apparent reasons to hate them yet apparently did nothing but stew until you explode over a seat????

And the posts say that BA in CPH claimed QF changed the seat (probably reading the PNR quickly was a reasonable assumption to make on a QF issued ticket...) and QF lounge staff (who may or may not be direct QF employees) claimed it was BA. In the end you do not know WHAT happened.. yet you blame QF without knowing! What if it was BA somehow? (I don't quite see how, but that doesn't mean it's not possible) ....

I wonder, if the lounge staff said a P1 took the seat you had allocated or even a CL.. you exstole the promises of status .. would you accept that as a reason because they had higher status? Curious (personally I would not be very happy but RHIP.. though I have never once *asked* for any such thing to happen on my account... if I see a seat allocated then it's allocated I move on).

You say QF sets the customer expectation... and I do agree with this to an extent, but ANYONE who has travelled more than a little bit, and that would include Ms/Mr "Hmmmmm" - they would know there are screw ups from time to time... sometimes the equipment changes and seats change, sometimes there's a mechanical.. sometimes the prioritty bags are not loaded/unloaded in the correct sequence or get held up in the delivery system.. or sometimes one's bag gets diverted to BNE due to a tight connection in LAX caused by a 3 hour AA delay, or sometimes agents override seating selections to seat families together or to try and satisfy some other need (or maybe it's a air marshal!).... the vast majoruty of us accept these little things as part of the experience of travel. Yeah, it can be annoying and some times waste our time or cause us to miss things... yeah, that's life.

There's what happens, and how we react to them and deal with it.. one we can control, the other we cannot.

Frankly as a QF pax I'd be happy to not have someone with your apparent anger issues and seemingly misplaced sense of entitlement to things, even you admit, you do not have on the same flight with me because.. heaven forbid they don't offer a PDB in J or something!! Maybe you'll have better luck on VA but I'd suggest not doing the "seat tanty" in the EY lounge in AUH or similar... you might find the response someone less polite than in SIN.

my 2 cents.

 

[UP4014]

There's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive.

There is indeed, however airline staff (and security contractors) are often not able to tell the difference and take everything as being aggressive.

 

[mrs.dr.ron]

I think it was more like 20 cents worth

 

[mannej]

Personally I feel this has been an attack on the OP right from the beginning. Some in this thread have been helpful but the rest have been bashing.

I think the information you seek is in this thread. The OP took Qantas to court and received a refund for the flight not taken.

Two things JohnK

1) The tone of the OP invites the response. There are a lot of digs coming and the OP isn't a saint.

2) It is incorrect to state that the OP took QF to court, as VCAT is a tribunal.

 

[nathrek]

Well this has been a highly entertaining read! There's some next level DYKWIA action.

 

[serfty]

2) It is incorrect to state that the OP took QF to court, as VCAT is a tribunal.

Actually it seems both occurred.

While the OP states they started with VCAT but Qantas successfully argued that VCAT had no jurisdiction as it was a tribunal.

The OP further states they then initiated proceedings via the Magistrates court but Qantas settled the day before the case was due to be heard.

 

[love_the_life]

Actually, while the OP states they started with VCAT but Qantas successfully argued that VCAT had no jurisdiction.

The OP further states they then initiated Majistrates

And they received a refund for the denied leg from what I understand. This is no admission of guilt by QF, rather IMO just to finalise the situation. There is no indication that QF would’ve lost in the Magistrates court. If not, would the OP have taken it higher on appeal I wonder.

 

[love_the_life]

And they received a refund for the denied leg from what I understand. This is no admission of guilt by QF, rather IMO just to finalise the situation. There is no indication that QF would’ve lost in the Magistrates court. If not, would the OP have taken it higher on appeal I wonder.

Oh dang! I wasn’t going to bother posting on this any more.

 

[mannej]

Actually it seems both occurred.

While the OP states they started with VCAT but Qantas successfully argued that VCAT had no jurisdiction as it was a tribunal.

The OP further states they then initiated proceedings via the Magistrates court but Qantas settled the day before the case was due to be heard.

Ooops - I must have lost that in the waffle amongst other things.

 

[Pushka]

Oh dang! I wasn’t going to bother posting on this any more.

You’ve changed I see. And just can’t help yourself.

 

[JohnK]

Two things JohnK

1) The tone of the OP invites the response. There are a lot of digs coming and the OP isn't a saint.

2) It is incorrect to state that the OP took QF to court, as VCAT is a tribunal.

You might be right about the first point but a few people in this thread have a history of bashing.

This is not criticism of you in any way @mannej as I've met you and you're a nice bloke but to some of the others who have posted in this thread advising to move on just realise that just because you like to accept being shafted and moving on doesn't mean ithers should accept that advice.

Seating is not guaranteed but when you are constantly shafted without explanation it becomes an issue. Just like that time I lost pre-allocated 767 bulkhead seat SYD-MEL. On boarding the flight is full but the old lady sitting in my seat has one of the only spare seats of the flight next to her. Apparently she needed wheelchair assistance from LAX but in MEL she ran to the ADL flight as it was a tight connection. I pushed and didn't ask but received business class upgrade next day.

On the second point Qantas knew they were wrong and settled. Surprising because Qantas usually stands firm on their mistakes.

 

[jb747]

I decided that he wasn't flying after the first post.

 

[mannej]

You might be right about the first point but a few people in this thread have a history of bashing.

This is not criticism of you in any way @mannej as I've met you and you're a nice bloke but to some of the others who have posted in this thread advising to move on just realise that just because you like to accept being shafted and moving on doesn't mean ithers should accept that advice.

Seating is not guaranteed but when you are constantly shafted without explanation it becomes an issue. Just like that time I lost pre-allocated 767 bulkhead seat SYD-MEL. On boarding the flight is full but the old lady sitting in my seat has one of the only spare seats of the flight next to her. Apparently she needed wheelchair assistance from LAX but in MEL she ran to the ADL flight as it was a tight connection. I pushed and didn't ask but received business class upgrade next day.

On the second point Qantas knew they were wrong and settled. Surprising because Qantas usually stands firm on their mistakes.

Sorry JohnK, but wrong again regarding my views on being shafted and just accepting it. Really it is on the contrary.

There is a time and a way to pick a fight that doesn't involve being denied carriage, and generally involves diplomacy/flattery etc. Some are better at it than others. I have been in the same situation as the OP to find that seats have been moved, and lied to about it. Was I able to get the change reversed without being offloaded, yes indeed I was.

In my mind it is clear why the OP denied carriage, and his subsequent carry on hasn't changed that. That is not attacking the OP.

 

[RichardMEL]

Personally I feel this has been an attack on the OP right from the beginning. Some in this thread have been helpful but the rest have been bashing.

I think the information you seek is in this thread. The OP took Qantas to court and received a refund for the flight not taken.

Well John you're right, and since I just went to town on the OP myself more or less I'll put my hand up.

Why do forum members respond in such a way? It's all about attitude.... and the description of an event, which is usually one sided and biased (as another posted much earlier).

Now John we all know you are one to stand up for your principles and not take a backwards step for the things you believe in. I don't think you'd act in such a way in a lounge(or other airport location) over something like a seat change to warrant denial of boarding. While short on detail (and who'd want to really admit just how they acted?) the OP did absolutely suggest they did not act in a calm and polite way.

As noted above there's a difference between being assertive and being agressive....

 

[RichardMEL]

There is a time and a way to pick a fight that doesn't involve being denied carriage, and generally involves diplomacy/flattery etc. Some are better at it than others. I have been in the same situation as the OP to find that seats have been moved, and lied to about it. Was I able to get the change reversed without being offloaded, yes indeed I was.

In my mind it is clear why the OP denied carriage, and his subsequent carry on hasn't changed that. That is not attacking the OP.

Exactly. There's a time and a place.. And there's a way to handle such things respectfully while still getting the point across.

And, unless I missed it amongst the vitriol, the exact nature of the seat change was never given.. as in.. bulkhead aisle or window to a middle down the back? to a similar seat just further back or even another seat in the same row?

Regardless of this though there's a way to approach staff and ranting and raving (one can only assume it's along these lines given the DB) isn't the way. Be assertive by all means and work with them given a situation has Happened to find an acceptable compromise. I would submit staing one would not get far by "refusing to fly" on the assigned seat. Remember that contract of carriage? It's about getting you from point A to point B. No where does it guarantee because you picked 24A you'll get 24A. Most of the tim eyes.. in fact the vast majority of the tme, but things happen. Is it good the seat was changed (for whatever reasons).. of course not. Does it suck? Definitely... but you pay for a seat in a class of service. Pouting up like a 54 year old saying "I own't go because of this seat you put me in".. and you'd be treated like that 5 year old.. and hey, they didn't go....

if it were me I'd ask what else was available and either pick the best of a bad bunch and live with it, ask for alternate flight options, or even chance of an upgrade or something else to work it out. Standing ground definiatly claiming rights I don't have? nah.