Does Qantas maintain its aircraft??

[NM]

Show me a Qantas commercial or advertisement that shows the true state of the aircraft in which you fly?

Show me a McDonalds or Burger King ad the shows the burgers in the true state as a customer receives at the counter ...

Note I am in no way justifying poorly cleaned or maintained aircraft interiors - just noting that ads commonly display images of the "perfect" product that are often not delivered in the same manner.

 

[markis10]

Show me a McDonalds or Burger King ad the shows the burgers in the true state as a customer receives at the counter ...

Note I am in no way justifying poorly cleaned or maintained aircraft interiors - just noting that ads commonly display images of the "perfect" product that are often not delivered in the same manner.

+1, I was going to make the same point but got disrupted by an announcement that there will a further 30 minute delay to my flight owing to cleaning, somewhat ironic, I will be putting on the white gloves when boarding for the inspection LOL.

 

[goldy]

Show me a McDonalds or Burger King ad the shows the burgers in the true state as a customer receives at the counter ...

Note I am in no way justifying poorly cleaned or maintained aircraft interiors - just noting that ads commonly display images of the "perfect" product that are often not delivered in the same manner.

A few points.... a burger costs a few dollars, not a few thousand. If your not happy with your burger, you can take it back and get the burger exchanged or get a refund. Mcdonald's dont lock you in their restaurant for 14 hours and force you to eat a big mac. And finally, you have every right to reject any product that is not as advertised, unless of course no reasonable person could possibly believe the accuracy of the advert. Does anyone remember the pepsi ad that advertised a Harrier jump jet to the first person to collect 7,000,000 pepsi points? if not, have a read of Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Qantas ads would not fall into such a category, so any claim would therefore in all likely hood be upheld.

If you place an order for a car and have paid for it, expecting it to be XYZ and when it arrives 3 months later, it is ZYX, you do not have to accept it. It is still the same brand, make and model of car and can get you everywheer that you intended to drive the car you ordered, but it is not XYZ and therefore has been misrepresented. Why are airfares any different?

And just because ads commonly do anything, does that make it ok?? In my book, no it doesn't!

 

[medhead]

So because a burger only costs a few dollars it is ok for advertising to misrepresent it?

 

[goldy]

So because a burger only costs a few dollars it is ok for advertising to misrepresent it?

If you read the response properly ( read the second line: "you have every right to reject any product that is not as advertised"), you'd have seen that I said in no uncertain terms that any misrepresentation is NOT OK and I went on to explain that the impact of the misrepresentation increases as the value of the transaction increases. I also went on to say that just because misrepresentation appears to be rife in the advertising world, does not IMO, make it ok. for burgers, for cars for airline seats... NOTHING!!

Why do you insist on continually taking things out of context? if you have nothing informative to add, could I politely ask you to keep your opinions to yourself!

 

[docjames]

Don't forget that the aircraft are also chartered out whilst they are on the ground in LHR or FRA, not sure about LAX.

Could you explain this more?

Chartered for flight ops? Training? Other stuff?

 

[medhead]

If you read the response properly ( read the second line: "you have every right to reject any product that is not as advertised") instead of being a right pain in the backside, you'd have seen that I said in no uncertain terms that any misrepresentation is NOT OK and I went on to explain that the impact of the misrepresentation increase as the value of the transaction increases. I also went on to say that just because misrepresentation appears to be rife in the advertising world, does not IMO, make it ok. for burgers, for cars for airline seats... NOTHING!!

Why do you insist on continually taking things out of context? if you have nothing informative to add, could I politely ask you to keep your opinions to yourself!

Umm step back there a second buddy. I have taken nothing out of context. You made "a few points". The first point was that a burger cost a few dollars not a few thousand. That is a clear, stand alone point in which you raised value as a point of difference. If you truly believe that value is meaningless when it comes to deceptive practices then you should never have made you're first point. Hence, I was questioning what your first point even means in the context of the rest of your post. You can tell that by the question mark at the end. I found you post confusing and contradictory.

 

[goldy]

Umm step back there a second buddy. I have taken nothing out of context. You made "a few points". The first point was that a burger cost a few dollars not a few thousand. That is a clear, stand alone point in which you raised value as a point of difference. If you truly believe that value is meaningless when it comes to deceptive practices then you should never have made you're first point. Hence, I was questioning what your first point even means in the context of the rest of your post. You can tell that by the question mark at the end. I found you post confusing and contradictory. If you not prepared to explain yourself in such a situation, I suggest the problem is with you.

I never made a point for or against "value" with regards to deceptive practice except to highlight it as a valid consideration as tho wether or not it would be worth someones while to pursue a matter, when the monetery value is insignificant or can be remedied in ways that were explained in the next sentence, ie: exchange the burger or seek a refund. I thought this would have been obvious to anyone with half a brain.

If you didnt understand a certain point then by all means seek clarification (as others have done), but to single out the least significant point out of a discussion and then make it your only argument is simply absurd. It is even more absurd to read the entire response and see that the point you have just made such a big deal about, has actually been clarified beyond any doubt that no matter what the product being advertised (or its value), deceptive advertising is unacceptable.

 

[goldy]

Could you explain this more?

Chartered for flight ops? Training? Other stuff?

Qantas sometimes fly charters ex LHR, for tour groups and others needing to get people to cruise ships or wherever they need to go. All it means is that the aircraft are not sitting on the ground in LHR for the entire time between arriving early in the morning and departing late in the evening.

A recent example of a charter is Flight centre chartering 2 NZ 744's to take their agents to LAS for their annual world ball. Flight centre charter the entire aircraft, meaning seats are not sold on an individual basis. The Qantas antarctic flights are also done this way, but the tour operator sells the seats individually, but ultimately has to pay for the entire aircraft regardless of how full it is. In order to appease those who have a penchant for nit picking and taking things out of context, there are exceptions to the negotiations between airline and the business wanting the charter, meaning the final arrangement is anything that the 2 parties are happy with.

 

[docjames]

Qantas sometimes fly charters ex LHR, for tour groups and others needing to get people to cruise ships or wherever they need to go. All it means is that the aircraft are not sitting on the ground in LHR for the entire time between arriving early in the morning and departing late in the evening.

.

Whilst i'm aware of the antarctic charters, I wasnt aware of any european ones (only exception I can think of is ex-FRA to expatriate Aussies from Egypt earlier this year).

Got any specific examples of these ex-LHR ones?

 

[harvyk]

QF advertise features which MAY be available on your flight, the type of aircraft which you MAY fly, and a bunch of kids singing.
They never offer a guarantee as to the actual quality and features available on any one flight. For proof of that look for the little stars next to any printed ad stating the exclusions.

Now should this give QF a free pass as to not looking after the interior of their planes as well as we think they should? Well sadely yes, they have never guaranteed anything more than getting you from A to B. Here is the real gotcha even if your paying for Y+ \ J \ F the only guarantee they make is you'll get from where you are to where you need to at some point in time. You don't even have a guarentee that you'll get a seat in the class you'd paid for.

Now should QF be cleaning \ maintaining their interiors better? Well if they want the public perception of a "premium airline" to stay around, yes they should.

So back to goldy's plans to sue QF, they will simply ask "did you get from A to B safely?" and you'll respond "yes" and from a contract and legal perspective they are covered.

 

[ozmille]

Whilst i'm aware of the antarctic charters, I wasnt aware of any european ones (only exception I can think of is ex-FRA to expatriate Aussies from Egypt earlier this year).

Got any specific examples of these ex-LHR ones?

Last one I saw was some tour operator going from LGW but for the life of me I can't remember where. I asked the people in LGW and they said it is a common sight.

 

[docjames]

Last one I saw was some tour operator going from LGW but for the life of me I can't remember where. I asked the people in LGW and they said it is a common sight.

I guess "Captains Choice" tours are another but they're usually ex-Aus.

Strange there's not pics of QF aircraft in unusual places!

 

[goldy]

Whilst i'm aware of the antarctic charters, I wasnt aware of any european ones (only exception I can think of is ex-FRA to expatriate Aussies from Egypt earlier this year).

Got any specific examples of these ex-LHR ones?

Qf was chartered by P&O cruises to ferry passengers from LHR to BCN and IST a while back...
They also used to operate LHR-MAN, but that was more for keeping a LHR slot as opposed to charter work.

 

[goldy]

So back to goldy's plans to sue QF, they will simply ask "did you get from A to B safely?" and you'll respond "yes" and from a contract and legal perspective they are covered.

Thats not the advice i am getting. Courts are frowning upon one sided contracts, the terms of which cannot be negotiated between the parties. There are also "implied" terms in contracts that need to be taken into account.

If all airlines have the same generic "terms and conditions of carriage" which, if they are members of IATA, they do, then please tell me how airlines differentiate themselves?? They do it based on their reputation, which also enables them to price their product accordingly, despite being bound to the same contract. Airlines are obliged to give you the points from flights, a certain status in their FF program, food, IFE and priority luggage not because it is in the T&C's but because they are implied terms in the contract. IMO, the cleanliness of the aircraft also falls into that category. Would you pay $XX for a hotel room that hasnt had the bed sheets changed or the shower cleaned? No you wouldnt. It is implied that the room will be clean before you occupy it.

But on another note, what would you think the public perception would be if people really knew what they were actually buying. If pictures like the ones I posted were published on the front page of the daily news, do you think it would increase sales of QF airfares, have no impact, or have a negative impact? hmmmm......

 

[nlagalle]

Thats not the advice i am getting. Courts are frowning upon one sided contracts, the terms of which cannot be negotiated between the parties. There are also "implied" terms in contracts that need to be taken into account.

If all airlines have the same generic "terms and conditions of carriage" which, if they are members of IATA, they do, then please tell me how airlines differentiate themselves?? They do it based on their reputation, which also enables them to price their product accordingly, despite being bound to the same contract. Airlines are obliged to give you the points from flights, a certain status in their FF program, food, IFE and priority luggage not because it is in the T&C's but because they are implied terms in the contract. IMO, the cleanliness of the aircraft also falls into that category. Would you pay $XX for a hotel room that hasnt had the bed sheets changed or the shower cleaned? No you wouldnt. It is implied that the room will be clean before you occupy it.

But on another note, what would you think the public perception would be if people really knew what they were actually buying. If pictures like the ones I posted were published on the front page of the daily news, do you think it would increase sales of QF airfares, have no impact, or have a negative impact? hmmmm......

But where in the contract does it state what you are referring too. Personally I can't see it going anywhere near the courts as there is no basis on it. The airline contract says it will get you from A to B. Doesn't specify aircraft type etc or what will be on the plane etc.

Iut of the 44 flights I have taken on QF this year, none of the aircraft were dirty by any means. So from my side it just looks like there was an aircrft which hadn't been cleaned properly (or two if it wasn't the same plane).

 

[harvyk]

Thats not the advice i am getting. Courts are frowning upon one sided contracts, the terms of which cannot be negotiated between the parties. There are also "implied" terms in contracts that need to be taken into account.

If all airlines have the same generic "terms and conditions of carriage" which, if they are members of IATA, they do, then please tell me how airlines differentiate themselves?? They do it based on their reputation, which also enables them to price their product accordingly, despite being bound to the same contract. Airlines are obliged to give you the points from flights, a certain status in their FF program, food, IFE and priority luggage not because it is in the T&C's but because they are implied terms in the contract. IMO, the cleanliness of the aircraft also falls into that category. Would you pay $XX for a hotel room that hasnt had the bed sheets changed or the shower cleaned? No you wouldnt. It is implied that the room will be clean before you occupy it.

But on another note, what would you think the public perception would be if people really knew what they were actually buying. If pictures like the ones I posted were published on the front page of the daily news, do you think it would increase sales of QF airfares, have no impact, or have a negative impact? hmmmm......

But if they never put in the contract the state of the aircraft and they never put that into advertisements, then how is it a breach? "Implied" terms are more towards false advertising, for example if QF showed photos of skybeds and said "If you fly in business class you'll fly in a skybed" would imply that every time you fly in business class you'll get a skybed. No amount of contract terms and conditions would null this. But simply showing a photo of an aircraft at it's best does not constitute an "implied" agreement (unless they used the words "every aircraft will look like this")

Yes, from a customer relations point of view, having A/C which looks shabby is something which should be avoided, and you are right word of mouth or splashing the photos of the shabby interior all over the front page of a news paper does not help QF's "premium airline clause" (and as a side note, would not be illegal as your simply reporting the truth)

As for how airlines differenciate themselves, well they offer either different prices, or AVOD, or different food, or even just different colour paint. Again unless they specifically state "you will have a certain feature" they are not bound to offer that feature on every flight.

Also airlines are not obliged to give FF points \ status. This is a completely different agreement, and as you may or may not know, it's only certain class of airfares which actually award points. Furthermore they do have a clause which allows them to modify the agreement with a certain amount of notice.

I'm not saying that your wrong in regards to what QF should have done in regards to the presentation of their aircraft, I'm just saying that technically they are under no legal obligation to have every one of their aircraft up to a certain standard of features.

 

[goldy]

But where in the contract does it state what you are referring too.

I doesnt.... it is am implied term. people who have flown qantas before, know what to expect. They know what "extra's" they got that they wouldn't ordinarily get (like express immigration cards etc) but there is a certain standard that is expected of any given airline, based on past performance, experience and reputation.
This discussion is about the fundamental lack of hygienic maintenance of the aircraft. Is it in the contract that you will be fed or have access to a WC whilst on board an aircraft?? No its not. It's implied because that is what you got before, and expect again next time.

Personally I can't see it going anywhere near the courts as there is no basis on it. The airline contract says it will get you from A to B. Doesn't specify aircraft type etc or what will be on the plane etc.

That is your opinion and your entitled to it. If you feel aggrieved about a matter and the professional advice is that you do have several legs to stand on, what would you do? I accept that this path is not for everyone, but I for one have had a gutfull of Qantas and their shenanigans and so will do whatever i feel necessary to hold them accountable.

This discussion is and never was about a change of aircraft or a lack of IFE but was always about the lack of hygiene onboard QF aircraft.

 

[goldy]

But if they never put in the contract the state of the aircraft and they never put that into advertisements, then how is it a breach? "Implied" terms are more towards false advertising, for example if QF showed photos of skybeds and said "If you fly in business class you'll fly in a skybed" would imply that every time you fly in business class you'll get a skybed. No amount of contract terms and conditions would null this. But simply showing a photo of an aircraft at it's best does not constitute an "implied" agreement (unless they used the words "every aircraft will look like this")

Yes, from a customer relations point of view, having A/C which looks shabby is something which should be avoided, and you are right word of mouth or splashing the photos of the shabby interior all over the front page of a news paper does not help QF's "premium airline clause" (and as a side note, would not be illegal as your simply reporting the truth)

As for how airlines differenciate themselves, well they offer either different prices, or AVOD, or different food, or even just different colour paint. Again unless they specifically state "you will have a certain feature" they are not bound to offer that feature on every flight.

I give up......

Airlines use several variables to differentiate themselves and they price that differentiation accordingly. Who would fly Qantas if every other airline offered exactly the same thing for half the price?? You fly qantas because of the perceived benefits that the airline offers you, and one of those benefits (for me at least) is a well maintained clean aircraft, that on BOTH occasions was not provided.

 

[nlagalle]

This discussion is and never was about a change of aircraft or a lack of IFE but was always about the lack of hygiene onboard QF aircraft.

But how is that a breach of contract? Ok so you had an aircraft that had no been cleaned well. has it happened since?

I still fail to see how you can "hold them accountable" what do you expect to get out of it?