Does Qantas maintain its aircraft??

[munitalP]

There is the actual legal concept of loss.

Goldy - what have you lost to defend suing for it? The fact that you have publicly broadcast this perceived cast against QF will quash it before it gets going. As others have said, I hope you are not paying for your legal advice

As previous offered - I have some legal books here you may borrow - admittedly they are only 101 level...

Dust it off as an experience, and don't sift for more dirt or the grime will soil the thread more and the mods will sift through the posts, find the filth, clean up the thread and the lot will be brushed over.





*a wonderful collections of nouns and verbs for dust IMHO Ok, a little OT but - haven't we all had enough?

 

[goldy]

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

Dirt, dust, bacteria... all unacceptable in my book. I have no issue with you thinking im being cough, because in all honesty, if you take cough to mean pedantic, I probably am. And yes, there is more to the story, it is not simply about dust.

I really am amazed that you think QF can blame me for the "damaged" seat and I cant prove my innocence, yet somehow they CAN prove my alleged guilt?? Do you not see the contradiction here?

as for publicly slamming qantas, truth is a defence to slander or libel, so im not really sure what you mean about any claim being null and void. what a ridiculous concept. I could publish those pics on the front page of the SMH if I wanted to, without any consequence to the case unless of course QF sought and were granted an injunction.

Civil cases are on the balance or probabilities, a much lower burden of proof than criminal cases. Whilst proof is not essential, it sure as hell helps if you have it. I have pictures and RECLOC remarks that all support my position. What do QF have? a claimed lack of other complaints about the same issue (how hard is it for them to say, they've never received a similar complaint??) and their own admission that they failed to deliver what they normally would.


I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. it was never intended to turn into a debate regarding legal principle, but rather a simple question about what people thought about the cabin cleanliness and if they would be happy about it.

I think that question has been overwhelmingly answered in the affirmative, that 1: you guys dont care (or havent experienced it) and 2: you would be happy with it. I respect all of your opinions, and all I ask is that you respect mine.

I hope you can all look forward to flying on cleaner aircraft because some cough person stood up to goliath, and tried to make the flying experience just that little bit nicer and significantly more sanitary.

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...

When its stuck to some greasy substance, it is IMO filth. I know that dust is everywhere, but as many people have pointed out, they haven't flown on aircraft that were like the pictures. The DFW DM also confirmed that the aircraft "could have done with a clean". Just because it is everywhere, doesnt mean you cant attempt to remove it.
Would you sleep in a dirty hotel room, or eat in a dirty restaurant?? I doubt it. Why? Because itd make you wonder if that is what they are presenting to their customers, god knows what the back of house areas, that customers dont see, are like.

Not that its any of your business, but I have my house cleaned once a week, and I dont have up to 5400 people trampling in and out, using my toilet and sleeping, dribbling and farting all over my sofas and dining chairs.
A plane load of 350-400 people stuck in a metal tube for 14 hours is a pretty disgusting reality that requires more than a "once over" to make right.

 

[TheInsider]

and their own admission that they failed to deliver what they normally would.

You keep on repeating this line over and over again, like this is your saving grace against Qantas?

 

[samiam]

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

I've finally gotten something from this thread... If I use eek (with full colon either side) on the iPad, I get a cool new symbol.

Thanks all

 

[munitalP]

I've finally gotten something from this thread... If I use eek (with full colon either side) on the iPad, I get a cool new symbol.

Thanks all

There's also :geek: which is a dude with glasses - but does not work on this forum

 

[harvyk]

Goldy, despite the fact the general consensus by the forum states your going on a fool errand we have given you some good pieces of advice for how you can proceed, and yet your ignoring probably the most important piece of advise you could, and if your lawyer was worth their salt I'm sure they would say the same thing...

Basically "Stop posting details of an upcoming legal case on a public forum where representatives of the company you wish to sue regularly contribute"...
You don't need to make your case to us, you need to make your case to the judge. Every post you place up here risks contain something contradictory, which Red Roo (View Profile: Red Roo - The Australian Frequent Flyer Online Community) or one of the other QF lurkers here may report back to QF, who passes that information onto their lawyers. As someone who has taken legal action in the past against people and companies (and won most of them) I can assure you that the off the hand comment taken out of context CAN (and will) come back and bite you, I know it can because I've used such a thing before myself to my advantage (and it was once used against me to my disadvantage).

Could I suggest a mod closes this thread if nothing else to protect Goldy from themself, so they doesn't jeopardize their legal action.

 

[medhead]

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.

Sorry buddy, someone else's post tells us nothing about what you believe. The words of someone else does not change what you wrote.

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

You have implied it by your statement that the other case is not worthy (those are your words) and you decision to pursue your case. A case which is dead, IMO, by your discussion of it here in public. Does your lawyer know you're here telling the world all about the case.

 

[goldy]

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

Get a second opinion.

If in your opinion, its so trivial, why bother asking if i've put my complaint to qantas management?

 

[goldy]

You keep on repeating this line over and over again, like this is your saving grace against Qantas?

I keep repeating it like a broken record, because many people just dont seem to get it. I can't fathom why it is such a difficult concept to grasp. QF did something that they wouldn't ordinarily have done, admitted to it, and you cant understand the significance of that admission??
and its not like I was going to sue them on that basis alone. I mean honestly......

It is not in itself a saving grace, but it damn well helps when the defendant/respondant admits fault, in writing. I fail to see how that can be excused by any court and given that they have admitted fault, I don't understand why they are so reluctant to resolve the matter.Given that we appear to have reached a stalemate, an external arbiter needs to be brought in to resolve the problem. Wether thats an executive relations manager, a court or AJ himself, I really don't care. I just want it resolved.

Sorry buddy, someone else's post tells us nothing about what you believe. The words of someone else does not change what you wrote.

Perhaps it wasn't clear. I wrote "and what was the outcome of this case?? oh yeah... SHE WON!! $640,000 to be precise"

meaning, that despite my thinking it wasnt valid, it obviously was, as a court found in the plaintiffs favour.
I didnt have all the facts of the case and was quick to judge as many of you appear to be doing here. and much like that plaintiff, I'll pursue the matter as I see fit. Im not naive enough to believe ill win, or stupid enough to know I will lose. Nothing is guaranteed, but you have to try.

Does your lawyer know you're here telling the world all about the case.

Don't flatter yourself. You and AFF does not constitute the world, but there I, go following in your footsteps of taking things out of context. see how stupid it looks??

QF will not learn anything new by reading this thread. They ought to already know everything and anything that has been posted here. Besides that, anything you intend to use in court to support your case must be divulged to the other party in a process called discovery. that way everyone knows the ground rules and the facts that are in dispute. This prevents the last minute introduction of the "smoking gun" that is often portrayed in B grade movies.


But I get it. You dont agree and you dont have to. It seems that none of you agree with the McDonalds case either, but look what happened there. And NO, im not comparing my case to hers or any other, or that mine is more valid. Im just saying that most views and opinions on here are at best, ill informed and at worst, fallacious.

 

[markis10]

Interesting thread given the concept and practice of Sub judice.

 

[mannej]

Goldy, although you may not think that this is the world, but there have been multiple times where references from these forums have made it to the media, and I can tell you that they were cut and pasted without anyone's consent, so that is something to keep in mind.

This is where I see the problem in this topic is. Fine you don't agree with other's comments, but the way you have gone about it has not endeared itself well to other member's on here.

But I get it. You dont agree and you dont have to. It seems that none of you agree with the McDonalds case either, but look what happened there. And NO, im not comparing my case to hers or any other, or that mine is more valid. Im just saying that most views and opinions on here are at best, ill informed and at worst, fallacious.

Just because someone (or a group of people) do not agree with your view point, does not make their opinions any less valid. They have questioned the advice you have been given, which is fair enough. You state that its from a qualified solicitor, but that in itself does not give the advice any credibility. Without knowing who the solicitor is, makes it hard to judge the quality of the advice, as he or she could be Dennis Denuto for all that we know. For that reason you have to accept that people will always have an opinion even if it differs from yours.

I have not seen any new information for a while now, and feel that new information will not come out until a resolution, or next course of action is taken.

 

[goldy]

Interesting thread given the concept and practice of Sub judice.

The case has not been filed and the matter is therefore not currently before or being considered by a court. Sub judice is therefore irrelevant. Besides.....it cannot serve as a deterrent to free speech, unlike various AFF'ers who attempt to stifle any negative discussion about Qantas.

 

[MarkD]

Sounds to me goldy like you are chasing the money here.

 

[goldy]

Goldy, although you may not think that this is the world, but there have been multiple times where references from these forums have made it to the media, and I can tell you that they were cut and pasted without anyone's consent, so that is something to keep in mind.

I appreciate the heads up. but any media involvement would IMO reflect less favorably on QF, if only for the fact that people would see what they are really buying when they choose Qantas.

Just because someone (or a group of people) do not agree with your view point, does not make their opinions any less valid. They have questioned the advice you have been given, which is fair enough. You state that its from a qualified solicitor, but that in itself does not give the advice any credibility. For that reason you have to accept that people will always have an opinion even if it differs from yours.

I have no issue with peoples difference of opinion. But nor should they take issue with mine. The advice received, is IMO, more credible than uninformed opinion or advice by random forum members who aren't privy to the entire facts and who, for some, have disclosed a clear bias due to their insurmountable love and affection for anything Qantas.

new information will not come out until a resolution, or next course of action is taken.

Heres hoping that it does get resolved soon. But I am loosing patience with QF.

As per your advice and because im getting tired of repeating myself (ie: bashing my head against a brick wall) to obviously pro Qantas posters, I wont be posting again, until I hear something back from QF.

 

[goldy]

Sounds to me goldy like you are chasing the money here.

$$ in preference to an MPD voucher?? yes.

as for the rest....

• 1x confirmed J class upgrade (or J to F) as per what was promised,
• 2x space available J class upgrades as per customer care's initial offer (after I complained about the first flight, and which did not clear for the return),
• both to be valid until they are realised (ie: no 12 month validity so that QF can simply deny the upgrades for 12 months and then go "bad luck")
• additional expenses in LAX and DFW to be reimbursed, which they have agreed to, so its not in dispute,

only once these are agreed to, would i ever consider an MPD voucher as settlement as without the above, I will not set foot on a QF aircraft.

my concern is that this matter might get resolved this time. but what happens next time, when the same $hit happens??

So not only am I after some sort of resolution, im seriously reconsidering my future travel needs, as i'm not confident QF can meet them.
I dont want to be going around in circles with them either so if their planes (specifically 744's) are always dirty, i'd rather move my flying to other airlines. This would of course change the resolution being sought above, but that is Qantas's call to make. If they are confident they can provide clean safe air travel, ill give em a go. but if they don't, we will find ourselves back at square one to everyones detriment.

They need to tell me what they can or can't do. The ball is in their court.

 

[drewbles]

Whilst i'm not a moderator, perhaps it's time to close up this thread? Goldy, you're hurting your chances of successful litigation by continually posting in here. I for one don't think this is a case worth of pursuing, to only effectively line the pockets of barristers and solicitors, but of course it's a free world and you are welcome to pursue it.

Failing that, i'll sit back with my popcorn and enjoy

 

[Lawlass]

I for one don't think this is a case worth of pursuing, to only effectively line the pockets of barristers and solicitors,

Shut up drewbles, who asked you?

 

[nlagalle]

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!

So did Qantas just hand over these notes without a court order? I really find that really hard to believe...

 

[mannej]

What can I say. Another dig at a group of people who do not agree with you.

Your information may be credible, but without any proof of who your solicitor is, it is open to interpretation on here. I would not call things an insurmountable love for QF on here, as the people who are disagreeing with you are some of the most vocal people who are not happy with changes or the direction that QF is heading.

I do agree that perhaps it is time for the thread to be closed, as its going in circles, and probably not worth the hassle for the mods to keep moderating it.

 

[drewbles]

Shut up drewbles, who asked you?

Step into my Suite (1 of the SYD F lounge) and we can discuss