Boarding refusal in Rome by Qantas (BA as agent)

[Dave Noble]

Acutally, the facts say that a married couple turned up or 2 very closely related people. This is evidenced by their passports, and otehr ID completely independantly of the booking. This related couple then had 2 seats booked in the name of one of them. Basically these are not complete strangers as suggested by your post Dave.

More simply - and please... where are the misinterpretations?

2 people turned up , each of which had different names
One of those passengers had a name which did not match the name on the booking
The airline declined to check the passenger whose name did not match the booking. This was a name which was significantly different to the name on booking - not just 1 character
This wasn't the start of the return of a long journey which had already been permitted to use this ticket but was the FIRST sector of the itinerary and so claims of being "stranded" are flawed imo ( as indicated at http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/com...-refusal-rome-qantas-ba-20526.html#post279709 )
BA quite correctly referred the passenger with this UNUSED ticket back to the issuing travel agent ( QF ) ; there would be no reason imo to expect them to sort out the issue with a ticket before commencement of travel
With rebooking there is a need either to find a flight with availability for award travel or to purchase a ticket for travel and refund the award booking

If this had been the start of the return journey and had been permitted to travel on the incorrect name up to this point, then there might be some reason to be disappointed, but not permitting the journey to be started seems perfectly reasonable to me

I cannot see any grounds to complain to QF about the person booking the ticket doing it in the wrong name; if doing ones own bookings, it is ones own responsibility to make sure it is correct

Dave

 

[medhead]

More simply - and please... where are the misinterpretations?

2 people turned up , each of which had different names
One of those passengers had a name which did not match the name on the booking
The airline declined to check the passenger whose name did not match the booking. This was a name which was significantly different to the name on booking - not just 1 character

This is the misinterpretation (IMO), or maybe something like ignoring the full meaning behind this situation. 2 people turned up with different christian names and the same surname on their ID. So, no, it is not different names at all. This means that either they are married or they are closely related (in the case they don't have the marriage certificate on them).

The name on the booking must have partial matched the ID and I don't consider it to be a significant difference. To characterise a married couple as "2 people turned up" implies that they are somehow unrelated, whereas they would have had enough evidence to conclude there was some family relationship, but perhaps not marriage. IMO a misinterpretation of the situation.

As I said I agree with the rest of your points and conclusion.
But I would probably, at least, discuss the matter with QF.

This wasn't the start of the return of a long journey which had already been permitted to use this ticket but was the FIRST sector of the itinerary and so claims of being "stranded" are flawed imo ( as indicated at http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/com...-refusal-rome-qantas-ba-20526.html#post279709 )
BA quite correctly referred the passenger with this UNUSED ticket back to the issuing travel agent ( QF ) ; there would be no reason imo to expect them to sort out the issue with a ticket before commencement of travel
With rebooking there is a need either to find a flight with availability for award travel or to purchase a ticket for travel and refund the award booking

If this had been the start of the return journey and had been permitted to travel on the incorrect name up to this point, then there might be some reason to be disappointed, but not permitting the journey to be started seems perfectly reasonable to me

I cannot see any grounds to complain to QF about the person booking the ticket doing it in the wrong name; if doing ones own bookings, it is ones own responsibility to make sure it is correct

Dave

But I'm not sure which passenger you mean had an unused ticket?
The passenger with 2 seats in their name doesn't need to be referred anywhere as they have a seat. And the passenger with a different name doesn't have any ticket, used or otherwise.

 

[oz_mark]

It is not just airlines that are involved, there are also issues with immigration authorities when names don't match. For example, the US has become quite strict on names matching recently.

FWIW, even if boarding was allowed in Rome, it is quite possible that boarding may have been denied in Hong Kong after the 18 hour stopover.

 

[JohnK]

Know what you're saying, and on a good day commonsense may have prevailed. But this is the 2000's, and the name "Mrs Michael Hoy" belongs in the 1950's/60's - not in the 2000's and certainly has no place in the post 9-11 world, and BA were just following the book.

I do agree with you in a way but there are still some people who prefer to use married names and not Ms or whatever. For example my mother is Mrs K wherever she goes.

The problem is at the time of boarding (when they were refused), how could their relationship be easily proven to a complete stranger beyond any doubt? Showing two passports with identical last names and two matching wedding bands is more than likely good enough for us. I don't think many couples frequently travel with a copy of their marriage certificate. And I don't believe that the gate agents are prepared to call the registry of marriages for the relevant couple's jurisdiction to make a confirmation call.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in your merely saying

since all acceptable, reliable identification documents are official (whether you choose to take that figuratively or literally) for a good reason. In a world where fraud is common, these official documents are very important for identifying the right person (irrespective of the ability to forge any document); why would you attempt to complicate matters when ensuring that you prove you are the person who is travelling is crucial, for your own sake/safety and in order to be in line with the law?

Again I agree with your points and I am not saying I am right but if someone is able to prove they are the person named on the ticket why wouldn't the airline (or representatives) try to fix things (it would not be the first time this has happened) instead of putting them on the spot and trying to scam them furtherf?

And yes I realise that there are problems since September 11 and customs and immigration and other official departments but the easiest thing would have been to get the person back home instead of traumatising them further in a foreign country. Yes they made a mistake but they did not deserve the treatment they got in Rome. Maybe I am just naive but I think I am also sensible and terms and conditions are there to be used as an interpretation and not as gospel.

Is it hard to put 2 and 2 together to get a conclusion? As mentioned by the OP Michael Hoy and Mrs Michael Hoy turned for a flight that day. So Mrs Michael Hoy had a passport that shows her Gxx_xx_ Hoy and not as Mrs Michael Hoy. So what? These 2 people are possibly related in some way. Do they live at the same address? Do they have pension cards with each other as a cross reference? Do they have credit cards? Do they have a drivers license with the same address? Any other ID that may prove they are together? Change the ticket and let them get on a the flight. The airline achieved absolutely nothing making her stay and let the aircraft fly off with one less passenger unless off course they were overbooked and saw this as a great opportunity for further greed.

To me that is common sense. Quoting terms and conditions does not really solve anything. People make mistakes all the time. The airlines do not really have a good image right now and it is stories like this that make it worse.

Sorry for the waffle but I work for a company that constantly wins call centre awards and prides itself in the customer service it provides and I think that is fantastic. People make mistakes all the time with online insurance policies but we fix the mistakes for them free of charge.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have given this matter some thought and I believe Michael may have a legal case against Qantas.

Why so?

Because they allowed him and his wife to travel outbound from Australia.

By allowing the passenger to travel outbound the airline set the passenger up for the costly scenario where return travel was not allowed and a new ticket had to be purchased.

The airline should not be permitted to profit financially (purchase of new ticket) for an error which they either (a)allowed to continue, (b)should have picked up and prevented, or (c) which they did pick up but did not mention to the passenger at the time of outbound travel, allowing the passener to act detrimentally to their interests at a later time.

Had the check-in agent mentioend the name problem on the outbound, then the passenger may have had other options which were less costly (for example buy a new return ticket and apply the old ticket as a credit for a later date), or, the passenger may have chosen not to fly at all.

(Interesting thing too is that outbound immigration from Australia must also have passed the boarding pass in the name of Mrs Michael Hay against her passport. So it may also be a case here where English countries would accept Mrs Michael Hay, but Italy did not. I wonder if a call back to Qantas in Australia could have sorted it out at the time?)

I would hope and expect in dealing with Qantas that the refund made to the passenger would be for the cost of the new ticket. If an unsatisfactory respose comes back from Qantas (and let's hope they do the right thing in the first place), then a good lawyer may be able to help.

 

[anat0l]

I have given this matter some thought and I believe Michael may have a legal case against Qantas.

Why so?

Because they allowed him and his wife to travel outbound from Australia.

By allowing the passenger to travel outbound the airline set the passenger up for the costly scenario where return travel was not allowed and a new ticket had to be purchased.

The airline should not be permitted to profit financially (purchase of new ticket) for an error which they either (a)allowed to continue, (b)should have picked up and prevented, or (c) which they did pick up but did not mention to the passenger at the time of outbound travel, allowing the passener to act detrimentally to their interests at a later time.

Had the check-in agent mentioend the name problem on the outbound, then the passenger may have had other options which were less costly (for example buy a new return ticket and apply the old ticket as a credit for a later date), or, the passenger may have chosen not to fly at all.

(Interesting thing too is that outbound immigration from Australia must also have passed the boarding pass in the name of Mrs Michael Hay against her passport. So it may also be a case here where English countries would accept Mrs Michael Hay, but Italy did not. I wonder if a call back to Qantas in Australia could have sorted it out at the time?)

I would hope and expect in dealing with Qantas that the refund made to the passenger would be for the cost of the new ticket. If an unsatisfactory respose comes back from Qantas (and let's hope they do the right thing in the first place), then a good lawyer may be able to help.

That is actually a plausible scenario.

In practice, QF would probably claim (under their own policies or as a reference to the relevant law) that it is ultimately the responsibility of the passenger to book with the correct names and ensure this. A good lawyer would need to prove that either

• QF had shared or substantial responsibility in ensuring the passenger should not travel with incorrect name details, and/or
• QF allowed the passenger to travel with incorrect details with malicious intent to defraud, or with the knowledge that what the passenger did was wrong but instead did not proactively take steps to stop the passenger (for whatever reason, e.g. it is not QF's legal obligation, notwithstanding the previous clause)

In either case, it would be difficult to argue either point under the relevant law. You might get a better outcome by going to ACA or TT

As mentioned, something has to be said about Australian outbound immigration, let alone (gasp) the immigration officials and/or check-in agents at Rome (assuming a non-Schengen flight, but there would have been at least one check for passport and BP in the process leading up to at-gate boarding). So someone in a very strict EU security regime is also not doing their job and (proverbially) should be shot.

 

[Travel Guru]

I have given this matter some thought and I believe Michael may have a legal case against Qantas.

Why so?

Because they allowed him and his wife to travel outbound from Australia.

By allowing the passenger to travel outbound the airline set the passenger up for the costly scenario where return travel was not allowed and a new ticket had to be purchased.

The airline should not be permitted to profit financially (purchase of new ticket) for an error which they either (a)allowed to continue, (b)should have picked up and prevented, or (c) which they did pick up but did not mention to the passenger at the time of outbound travel, allowing the passener to act detrimentally to their interests at a later time.

Had the check-in agent mentioend the name problem on the outbound, then the passenger may have had other options which were less costly (for example buy a new return ticket and apply the old ticket as a credit for a later date), or, the passenger may have chosen not to fly at all.

(Interesting thing too is that outbound immigration from Australia must also have passed the boarding pass in the name of Mrs Michael Hay against her passport. So it may also be a case here where English countries would accept Mrs Michael Hay, but Italy did not. I wonder if a call back to Qantas in Australia could have sorted it out at the time?)

I would hope and expect in dealing with Qantas that the refund made to the passenger would be for the cost of the new ticket. If an unsatisfactory respose comes back from Qantas (and let's hope they do the right thing in the first place), then a good lawyer may be able to help.

If it were the same ticket they flew outbound on i'd agree with you, infact i'd go so far to say that if the airline allowed them to depart on a ticket then they have an obligation to uplift them on the return to get them home as they're partially responsible for the situation (in as far as letting them travel)

However, they didn't, sure they may have viewed the return flight, but that's it, and I personally don't think the OP has any reason to expect compensation from the airline.

TG

 

[oz_mark]

To Dave: this was the first time we were travelling with this ticket, so no one had let us slip through to this point.

A good lawyer would need to prove that either

• QF had shared or substantial responsibility in ensuring the passenger should not travel with incorrect name details, and/or
• QF allowed the passenger to travel with incorrect details with malicious intent to defraud, or with the knowledge that what the passenger did was wrong but instead did not proactively take steps to stop the passenger (for whatever reason, e.g. it is not QF's legal obligation, notwithstanding the previous clause)

This would be hard. The outbound appears to have been on a separate ticket that had the correct name on it.

 

[Dave Noble]

I have given this matter some thought and I believe Michael may have a legal case against Qantas.

Why so?

Because they allowed him and his wife to travel outbound from Australia.

By allowing the passenger to travel outbound the airline set the passenger up for the costly scenario where return travel was not allowed and a new ticket had to be purchased.

Thi is not the case; if you read the OPs second post, he confirms tha this was a ticket that had not been used ; it wasn't a cae of being allowed to travel out and being refused travel back

Dave

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That is actually a plausible scenario.



In practice, QF would probably claim (under their own policies or as a reference to the relevant law) that it is ultimately the responsibility of the passenger to book with the correct names and ensure this. A good lawyer would need to prove that either

• QF had shared or substantial responsibility in ensuring the passenger should not travel with incorrect name details, and/or
• QF allowed the passenger to travel with incorrect details with malicious intent to defraud, or with the knowledge that what the passenger did was wrong but instead did not proactively take steps to stop the passenger (for whatever reason, e.g. it is not QF's legal obligation, notwithstanding the previous clause)

In either case, it would be difficult to argue either point under the relevant law. You might get a better outcome by going to ACA or TT

To all subsequent posters to my post above - my apologies - I didn't realise it was a single return ticket that hadn't been used on the outbound.

That DOES change my opinion and I agree with the majority. The passenger should have ensured the name on the ticket matched the travel document as required by law.

To anat0l - in respect of a. (in your post) i do believe it may be law that Qantas matches the name on the ticket with the name in the travel document. I certainly know it is law for passengers going into the USA, and I dare say it is law for plenty of other countries too. Qantas needs to comply with these laws. So if the check-in agent had let it slip then they should in part be responsible.

As for b. I'm not sure if you would have to prove a malicious intent to defraud. The contract law of estoppel (and it would be a bit of work to determine which ground would even be applicable) may have come in to play - but only in respect that Qantas could not have allowed the passenger to do something (ie travel out on an invalid ticket) which they then later renegged on to the passenergs detriment (that is, made a profit by making the passenger buy a new ticket). But it may be a strech to bring it under such a law. (Hence a lawyer that is up to date in this field would need to give a good opinion.)

However, as the ticket was only one way and could not have been checked by QF it is not a relevant consideration.