Does Qantas maintain its aircraft??

[goldy]

Im aghast that this thread has gone as far as it has with personal attacks regardless of how eloquently worded. As drew said - about time it was mod-erated...

Goldy - theres a little button at the bottom right to multi quote posts...

Goldy - I would suggest you are wasting your time, regardless of how you conceive the law of contracts. I have a commercial law 101 book if you wish to borrow it...

As with nlagalle and others, of the one or two QF flights I have done, I have never been in a dirty AC. I have been sitting in Karratha watching dust gather due to static inside the AC - thats the environment, not a dirty AC.

Thanks for that. i've never noticed it before, and will use it in future.

And as im not trying to convince anyone of my position or force my opinion onto them, id appreciate the same courtesy. I dont get why people are hell bent on telling me im wrong, when the outcome doesnt affect them in any way shape or form.

The crux of the matter is simple , I flew on 2 aircraft that were IMO, not up to scratch. Qantas agree that, ITO, they were not either. What are they going to do to rectify the problem?? im not stupid enough to think that they can turn back time and miraculously clean them, so another solution needs to be found. If it cant be, im confident one can be found in the courts. It is that simple. why an airline or any company for that matter thinks they can get away with not meeting their obligations astounds me. Qantas have admitted, in writing, they did not meet their obligations so to me, this fact of law is not in dispute. The compensation however, is.

 

[harvyk]

goldy

you have mentioned 2 qf flights you have been on which ehere not to your satisfaction. you have mentioned that your legal council thinks this is a good idea and you have mentioned that your not rich.

So here is the way i see events panning out

qf lawyers will mention the other 17998 flights as your trying to prove systemic failure, thus you have opened the door for them.

the people who have said you have a case, what do they stand to gain from it? furthermore have you paid for the legal advice? i'm alway careful when it come to free advice, esp if the person giving the advice could gain advantage.

finally, qf lawyers do not need to be rich, just better funded, you joked about putting your house on the line, you may very well be doing so by taking this action.


look i know you want to "stick it to the man" so to speak, but how about you scale back your plans. Let qf know how displeased you are and what compensation you want. if that fails speak to the fair trade department in your state. This still sends a message to qf, not as big as you'd like, but your not risking your house on the outcome which is what "QF's lawyers don't need to be right, just well funded" could result in.

ps I do agree that qf should have done better, it just your response is in the absolute extreme which I think most ppl have issue with.

 

[nlagalle]

Im not really fussed by the percentages and you did raise the point, so without any concrete evidence, I think its very difficult to establish whose right or wrong.

I live in Victoria and it is well known you can get off with a caution if the criteria is met. I've not heard of anyone not succeeding.

so what if they looked at past history and find that everything was in order. that only serves to reinforce my argument that everything on the flight in question was not. Next would be why not and soon after that would come, plaintiff received XYZ on previous flights which he came to expect as that is what the respondent has provided previously and does so currently, therefore plaintiff did not receive the same product as the respondent would normally offer, breach upheld!!

so it will show there is no systematic failure anywhere and will

umm yeah, thats exactly what i'm saying. When you have a contract, you are legally required to execute the contract in its entirety and not the bits and pieces you choose to. When they don't, they are required to remedy the fault, and I have and continue to give Qantas the opportunity to do that, but if they don't, then I will seek the assistance of the courts in having the matter resolved.

They did honour their contract - you got from A to B didn't you?

im not saying you did. quite the contrary. Big companies with deep pockets often engage in protracted, expensive, vexatious litigation to subdue or harass a lesser party. I was just highlighting the fact that my pockets are no where near as deep as those of Qantas and so me taking them to court on one occasion can not be classed as vexatious, as I do not have the financial means to engage in such behaviour.

yes they do, a lot of the time it is now there to ward off ridiculous claims.

well im sorry, but i cant be held responsible for those matters by taking Qantas to court. I do get that you were offering a generalisation, and I actually agree with you on this point.

I'm guessing your "case" won't even make it to court (my opinion of course). I'm still failing to see what contract breach Qantas have done against you.

as for how much of the $640,000 the lady got, i have no idea, but that was the published settlement. Whilst I agree with you that, IMO, the case was not worthy of going to court, it clearly WAS, because it was successful, both in the first instance and on appeal. So all im trying to highlight here, is that despite something looking black and white to you or I, the Law is not always about right and wrong, but rather who's lawyer argues better, and that works in both directions. Guilty parties get off and innocent ones Dont.

America has a much different court system, but even now they have tightened it up - you don't see too many silly cases in the courtroom now. Most probably due to previous ones being knocked over on appeal.

So whilst you're all entitled to your own opinions, don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

IF ​the matter gets to court, ill let you know the outcome. But that is not my preferred method of resolving this issue.

you still haven't even said how you want it resolved? i mean they offered you a cash refund didn't they? that wasn't enough?

 

[nlagalle]

Good luck to you buddy. While the majority of us here disagree with you the majority of us here are also shameless Qantas fans. More importantly, none of us are the judge ruling on your case (assuming it goes to court).

I'd still disagree regardless of the airline.. unless said airline was consistantly bad.

 

[lsmi4126]

IF ​the matter gets to court, ill let you know the outcome. But that is not my preferred method of resolving this issue.

Goldy - how can this matter be resolved for you, whether in court of out of it?

 

[goldy]

so it will show there is no systematic failure anywhere and will

why are you so hung up on this systemic failure issue? No one is suggesting there is one. But they failed on both occasions on this trip. Systemic or otherwise, they failed.

They did honour their contract - you got from A to B didn't you?

So if you were on board, all the toilets were not working, the galleys were toast meaning you had no food, the IFE was out and you were sat on a wooden non recliner, would you still be saying there was no breach of contract because they got you from A to B?? There are a lot more factors associated with your contract and not simply yours and others naive assertion to the contrary. You chose to fly QF because you know what you will be getting, either because of past experience, or their advertising. and for all the smart alecs out there... a J op up that you got 5 times in a row, could NOT have formed part of your "consideration" process before you bought the airfare because you damn well know that you're not entitled to it, but you got it for any number of reasons other than simply booking a Y fare!

yes they do, a lot of the time it is now there to ward off ridiculous claims.

They also use it to fight legitimate claims. "erin brockevich" ring a bell??

I'm guessing your "case" won't even make it to court (my opinion of course). I'm still failing to see what contract breach Qantas have done against you.

all cases go to court.... but there is a process to weed out cases that are unlikely to succeed. They are called "mentions" and "contest mentions", so thanks for your advice, but I think I might listen to my legally trained solicitor on this one.

America has a much different court system, but even now they have tightened it up - you don't see too many silly cases in the courtroom now. Most probably due to previous ones being knocked over on appeal.

And you got this from where?? watching Judge Judy??

you still haven't even said how you want it resolved? i mean they offered you a cash refund didn't they? that wasn't enough?

They offered me a credit voucher which I declined, because that would mean i'd need to spend more money with an airline that I no longer wish to fly, because I dont feel that they can meet my needs. If they offered me the cash equivalent, id take it. but according to them, that is "out of the question". I was offered a J upgrade from PE (DFW-BNE) which I accepted, but when I got to the airport the duty manager informed me that he could no longer offer me the upgrade because the flight was full (within weight restrictions) and was diverting to AKL anyway. he then offered to overnight me (at their expense), and send me to MEL via LAX on AA (in Y) and J on QF. i too accepted this. In LAX, I was bumped back to Y because the flight was full and I was "lucky to get on in Y, let alone J" (despite having a PE ticket).

So you see.... this situation is not as simple as some have tried to make it, and nor do I think I have been unreasonable.

QF offered me a resolution (confirmed J), I accepted. THAT IS A CONTRACT. then they broke it. So in addition to all the other cough that happened and all the to'ing and fro'ing about what is and isnt in the "contract" there is a hard and fast contract that was broken. In my book, it is generally not a good idea to further pi$$ off already pi$$ed off customers, but there you have it. so what do i want out of it? why dont you suggest something? because I sure as hell will not be accepting a voucher so that I spend more money with this airline who also offered me a space available SA) one way, one class upgrade as additional compensation, that is valid for 12 months, and they are "sorry, if for commercial reasons, the upgrade doesn't clear", meaning they deny every upgrade for 12 months and im F'd in the backside.

I want something tangible and something that has an actual value (or a direct cost to them), not some SA upgrade that they tried to flog off to every one else before realising its now worthless, and then throw me the left over scraps of their +1 cabin.

Is that unreasonable? I dont think so.

And for the record, my solicitors wrote to them requesting access to all the notes and remarks concerning this booking and it makes very interesting reading. The confirmed upgrade is backed up by notes in the booking, as is a remark from the LAX DM who noted that "pax will not be upgraded unless he pays for it" all because I questioned why I wasnt getting the upgrade promised, and confirmed (by way of logging into FF and seeing C class with 21A allocated) by the DFW DM. The LAX DM kept telling me it was a space available upgrade that the DFW DM had promised, despite the contrary notes (that i couldnt see at the time), and she would do her best to get me an upgrade, even to F is that is what it took to get me home. Now I found out she was lying all along. If im not entitled to be pi$$sed off by the blatant lies and deception, then I dont know who is!

 

[docjames]

I'd suggest goldy if you're taking legal advice best to stop posting here and pursue it though your legal counsel.

Please report back once the case if finalised and you have an outcome.

 

[Sprucegoose]

have you forwarded your concerns to Qantas management?

 

[goldy]

have you forwarded your concerns to Qantas management?

Ad nauseum.

been in written and verbal contact with a representative from executive relations and have slowly been chipping away, but really not getting anywhere. They keep telling me they are keen to resolve the issue, but dont seem to follow thru. can you suggest somewhere else i should refer the matter, apart from qantas legal? Legal action is not my preferred course of action, but im losing patience very quickly.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Ad nauseum.

been in written and verbal contact with a representative from executive relations and have slowly been chipping away, but really not getting anywhere. They keep telling me they are keen to resolve the issue, but dont seem to follow thru. can you suggest somewhere else i should refer the matter, apart from qantas legal? Legal action is not my preferred course of action, but im losing patience very quickly.

Legal action over some dust.......interesting case.

Get a second opinion.

 

[Lawlass]

as for how much of the $640,000 the lady got, i have no idea, but that was the published settlement. Whilst I agree with you that, IMO, the case was not worthy of going to court, it clearly WAS, because it was successful, both in the first instance and on appeal.

The lady in that case suffered third degree burns, requiring skin grafts. She spent 2 weeks in hospital because McD's kept their coffee at a completely unreasonable temperature so as to reduce the number of free refills. What's more, they were fully aware that their coffee was dangerously hot, having quietly settled earlier suits. She only sued for her actual medical bill (no Medicare in America). If they'd paid what she asked for, it would have been in the vicinity of her 20K medical bill. They didn't and she was awarded the 640K and finally it was all settled for an undisclosed amount before appeal.

But yeah, I can see that you having to sit under a piece of fluff is far more deserving a case.

And for the record, my solicitors wrote to them

I bet they're not working on a 'no win no fee' basis.

 

[goldy]

Legal action over some dust.......interesting case.

Qantas have admitted that the flight was not what up to their standards. Nor was it up to mine. I provided my solicitor with the same letter i sent to qantas, and it was he who suggested the numerous grounds on which this matter can be challenged in court.

If dirt and dust doesn't bother you and your happy to fly in filth, thats your prerogative. But it does bother me and I wont. Why do you find this concept so difficult to understand? or is it more a case of you simply thinking i'm blowing the situation out of proportion?

If I knew thats how the cabin would be, and I had no reason to, given past experiences, I wouldn't have booked with QF.

 

[goldy]

But yeah, I can see that you having to sit under a piece of fluff is far more deserving a case.

Who said im after $640K? and if youd read the thread in its entirety, youd have seen that case was posted by someone else as an example of a "ridiculous" case that had no place going to court. I pointed out that it wasn't ridiculous, seeing as tho she won, and now you pipe up agreeing that it was in fact, a legitimate case. Just goes to show that people see things very differently.

I bet they're not working on a 'no win no fee' basis.

im not a solicitor, but im not stupid either. My solicitor has reviewed the facts and provided a number of ways in which this matter can be tackled. Ive read the laws that could apply to cases such as this, and I agree that they could be used to challenge this matter in court.

so your assertion, that im some idiot being taken for a ride by a $$ hungry lawyer is quite moronic really, and says more about you than it does me.

 

[Lawlass]

if youd read the thread in its entirety, youd have seen that case was posted by someone else as an example of a "ridiculous" case that had no place going to court. I pointed out that it wasn't ridiculous, seeing as tho she won

Oooh you fibber! Your exact words were, and I quote, "IMO, the case was not worthy of going to court" Yet you think your case IS worthy of going to court.

Therefore, you think you having to sit under a bit of fluff is more worthy of a court case than a 79-yo woman who suffered such severe burns she required skin grafts.

so your assertion, that im some idiot being taken for a ride by a $$ hungry lawyer is quite moronic really, and says more about you than it does me.

Where did I assert that? That you make up stuff says more about you than it does me.

So is your lawyer working on a 'no win no fee' basis?

but im not stupid

I would say I beg to differ, but the mods would probably spank me for that.

 

[jsd]

If dirt and dust doesn't bother you and your happy to fly in filth, thats your prerogative.

If you consider dust to be filth, then that means you live in filth everyday, dust is EVERYWHERE, you breathe it in all the time...

Don't believe me? go into a dark room and just let a little smidgen of sunlight in...

 

[mannej]

Goldy,

As much as I think there are issues here, I do not think you are doing your case on here any favours. I think that DocJames has offered some pretty sound advice in regards to this. Using people's quotes out of context does not endear (both sides) you well on here. Currently, I think the topic is a bit stale, but will have more to it if any thing should come of the action.

Going back to the topic, Goldy, it is a bit more than just the state of the aircraft is it not? Is that forming part of the action, or are you going after breach of contract due to the state of the aircraft as originally stated? This is where I am confused. You have also stated you are not in it for the money, but you also say they will pay? What do you deem acceptable, as I don't see the answer being anything apart from one thing.

As an aside, in the scheme of things 2 flights can not be deemed statistically significant for what you are claiming. Considering the amount of flights that QF conduct daily, 2 (even if in the same day) still would not be considered significant. As others have stated, on the 737, 767 and 330's that I have been on lately, none have remotely been close to the pictures that you have showed.

Like others have said, it will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved. Whether it is frivolous or not, only time will tell.

 

[mannej]

And for what it is worth, If you don't like the idea of dust- in my experience ignorance is bliss. That is my experience ;-)

 

[MarkD]

And for what it is worth, If you don't like the idea of dust- in my experience ignorance is bliss. That is my experience ;-)

Dust is not the problem it the bacteria that breeds in the system that COULD cause health issues

Dont mean to be a smartarse goldy but if you are going down the road of blame and sueing etc. Have you thought tbat maybe qf will blame you for the damaged seat, deny it was like that preflight and sue you for damages to their property. You will then be liable for defence legal costs for something you will be unable to prove. Bad form to carry on on a public forum about potential legal dispute, especially when company reps are active members of the community. Some would say downright bloody stupid actually. Basically any claim you think you had is null and void because you have publicly slammed qf
Also i thought civil cases were balance of probabiliies which varies with facts So theee is no proof required either way. My personal opinion which counts for very little. You are being cough


Damn you iphone and fat fingers. Sent from my iphone and AFF app )

 

[markis10]

Just goes to show that people see things very differently.im not a solicitor, but im not stupid either. My solicitor has reviewed the facts and provided a number of ways in which this matter can be tackled. Ive read the laws that could apply to cases such as this, and I agree that they could be used to challenge this matter in court.

so your assertion, that im some idiot being taken for a ride by a $$ hungry lawyer is quite moronic really, and says more about you than it does me.

I would humbly suggest that said assertion is based on considerable actual professional experience, and that it is not motivated by possible billable hours .

 

[goldy]

Oooh you fibber! Your exact words were, and I quote, "IMO, the case was not worthy of going to court" Yet you think your case IS worthy of going to court.

and yet you somehow managed to conveniently ignore this response:

Originally Posted by nlagalle
It's cases like this that leave me shaking my head - it rivals with sueing because the coffee was too hot..

and what was the outcome of this case?? oh yeah... SHE WON!! $640,000 to be precise.


The sentence you misread, was that, on face value, i personally didnt think the case was worthy, but the reply above clearly implies that it was, seeing as tho she won.
Having said that, im not that lady. I wasnt privy to a lot of the information/evidence that you highlighted and at the end of the day, my opinion doesnt really matter. she felt she had a valid case, as did her legal team. She fought it and won. Had she posted on here and taken advice from all you learned AFF'ers she'd no doubt have been bullied into thinking shes stupid, and that of course coffee is hot and she should have known better.

Therefore, you think you having to sit under a bit of fluff is more worthy of a court case than a 79-yo woman who suffered such severe burns she required skin grafts.

where did I EVER say that?? Would you kindly stop putting words into my mouth?

Where did I assert that? That you make up stuff says more about you than it does me.

Assert was the wrong word. Imply is more appropriate.

So what else did you mean?, because its pretty evident to me that that is exactly what you implied.

So is your lawyer working on a 'no win no fee' basis?

Why is this any of your business or relevant to the discussion? but to answer your question, no they are not. They are good friends of mine, that to date have not charged me a cent. If it does proceed to court, it will not cost me the full commercial rate either.

Lawyers worth their silk like to bring interesting cases to court that challenge current wisdom, but I wouldnt expect you to know that.

I would say I beg to differ, but the mods would probably spank me for that.

You obviously weren't spanked enough as a child......