Downgraded from Business Class.

[Sojourner]

As mentioned further up (sorry, not trawling back to find the post to quote it), Consumer Protection law precludes reliance on unfair Terms and Conditions, where conditions were imposed unilaterally, and the consumer had no means to negotiate.

What would be deemed unfair would depend on all the circumstances. The terms being repeatedly quoted and relies upon about a confirmed booking not guaranteeing performance with respect to time or date, or cabin need to be considered in the actual circumstances. Where the inabiltiy of the airline to perform is beyond its control - such as weather delays, acts of god, or unexpected equipment failure, reliance on these terms, and their presence may be deemed reasonable. (Take note that under the European regulations, equipment failure due to insufficient maintenance etc is not considered outside the control of the airline). In these circumstances, the airline may be deemed to not be in breach of the contract, and following there procedures (i.e. accepting what is offered). In the case where the airline offers carriage in the booked cabin at a later date, and pays for the accommodation, and the passenger chooses to travel earlier with a downgrade, there may not be much leverage to demand compensation other than what the airline is willing to offer.

However, if the failure is caused by something directly within the airlines control - such as overbooking, the terms may be viewed very differently. Those terms that let an airline bump a passenger at will with impunity may be viewed as unenforceable, leaving the airline libable for damages for breach of contract. In that situation, the damages recoverable may not be restricted just to direct loss, but may include consquential damages. If the passenge in mitigation were to book an alternative ticket in the same class of carriage on another carrier, then the cost should be recoverable directly as damages arising from breach of contract (although in that case, you would not expect to recover a refund of the original fare). Should costs be incurred due to delay - such as having to reschedule appointments, this may well be recoverable as well. Given the situation being discussed here, where the pax had a confirmed booking on a flight, and that flight departed with the scheduled equipment, there is no way for the airline to dispute that the breach of contract was something that was solely within the control of the airline, and thus something they should be prime facie liable for.

The distinction between the two situation is also (as well as other reasons) highly likely to be a factor into why, when a cancellation does occur, passengers are not generally bumped off other flights to make room for the affected passengers, but those passengers can be delayed for much longer waiting for availabiltiy. Bumping someone from a flight by choice would expose the airline to damages for breach, as they know that the Terms and Conditions are of dubious enforceabiltiy, but they are on much safer ground where a force majuere event has affected a flight.

None of the above should be taken as advice. I would suggest that the affected pax may be surprised at what may change as far as offered compensation should QF be approched by either Consumer Affairs or a lawyer acting on their behalf. There are have been many anecdotes about airlines customer relations blustering behind the T&C and attempting to bluff, only for the legal department to be in a great hurry to settle once it becomes obvious that someone is serious about having their rights enforced in a court.

Well said. My summary is that there is a big difference between getting bumped due to a force majeure event, or even due to mechanical/technical issues vs. overbooking. Force majeure = Less compensation or none at all (just put on the next flight available) because cough happens (and just hope your travel insurance will cover it). Over booking = they are completely at fault and you should expect to be compensated.

 

[Princess Fiona]

It seems this whole incident could have been avoided if QANTAS check in staff had asked for volunteers with compensation rather than just downgrade someone arbitrarily, I would be surprise if at least two pax wouldn't have minded an extra day in LA paid for by QANTAS with compensation.

How do you know that Qantas didn't ask? We have been told from third party exchanges with the crew onboard that other passengers were affected by the overbooking of this flight.

There is lots of speculation on here but very little is known about what Qantas did or didn't do at LAX other than the information provided by the daughter and friend of two of the affected passengers.

 

[timster]

How do you know that Qantas didn't ask?

The fact that the pax checked in very early would suggest, would it not, that QF did not exhaust all possibilities for finding volunteers before choosing to inflict this travesty on these particular pax, who they probably thought would roll-over ?

If there are other mitigating factors here which we don't know then QF are welcome to explain. If they don't, this forum will continue to draw its own conclusions, which are already clearly to QF's detriment.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

One thing is certain.
They wouldn't have been bumped in favour of anyone travelling on staff travel tickets.
Revenue PAX always have priority.
Staff often aren't even allocated seats until check-in closes for international flights or until every revenue passenger has boarded a domestic flight.
And they can be downgraded from premium cabins or pulled from aircraft entirely, even after they've boarded and taken their seats.
Anyone travelling on staff travel tickets knows they can't really relax until that last door is closed.
That particular conspiracy theory should be put to bed.

 

[ABC1]

Agree, staff are last on and aren't issued anything above a Y boarding pass until boarding commences, then if there is a J seat they might be bumped up if everyone else is accommodated at the gate.

Matt

Not quite.. If a staff member has booked and is entitled to a J or F seat, and they are available, then they'll get them at check in. But that is after all the points upgrades etc have been done. But commercial customers always take precedence.

 

[maninblack]

One thing is certain.
They wouldn't have been bumped in favour of anyone travelling on staff travel tickets.
Revenue PAX always have priority.
Staff often aren't even allocated seats until check-in closes for international flights or until every revenue passenger has boarded a domestic flight.

You guys are talking about the schleppers. Senior management, board members and certain others are a whole different ball game I can promise you.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Most hotels won't recognise your status or give any points if you don't book directly through them.

Booking hotels through third party sites like Hotwire or Priceline is different as with airlines your freq flyer status will be evident as long as the TA remembers to put your ffn in the booking. You also still earn points & SC with an airline.

Do the comments by the cabin crew mean that the passenger manifest was incorrect?

The ground staff should provide a final manifest to the cabin crew on finalisation of the flight ie only after all ODU's, seat changes or other regrades have been processed. I'm not sure whether the FA was going off the CSM's app or a list that was printed earlier that was obviously out-of-date however it just caused even more confusion to an already unfortunate turn of events.

Separating your parents with no option whilst leaving a seat for a as yet to arrive other business class traveller is very smelly. I wonder whether there was a Q senior person

From what has been reported:

+ That your parents where on the flight manifest as business
+ That a late no-show resulted in your mother getting a seat at a late stage (so your parents were singled out for some unstated reason)
+ That your parents were early to check-in (any evidence? Time stamp on boarding pass for Y etc)

Need to establish whether they were told getting downgraded several hours before flight scheduled for take-off.

My understanding of the situation was that both pax were downgraded to Y due to an oversale of 2 seats in J. It was only due to the noshow of another J pax (not sure if they'd just allocated a seat & failed to checkin or had done OLCI then were a fail to board) but as EmilyP's parents had J tickets, Altea (checkin system) would recognise that if there was a seat that became available in J it would reinstate them back into their (rightful) ticketed cabin of J.

Just opt for a charge back. I did that when QF canned Per-Sin and they rebooked me on JQ and refused to follow their own policy even after calling them a few times to go on MH.

The only potential issue with a chargeback is that it may not have been QF's merchant number but Flight Centre's so I would check your credit card statement first to see what appears against the $15K charge.

Agree, staff are last on and aren't issued anything above a Y boarding pass until boarding commences, then if there is a J seat they might be bumped up if everyone else is accommodated at the gate.

Was chatting to someone at a bbq last weekend who tried for several days to get home from LAX on staff travel & ended up flying LAX/HKG/NRT on CX then NRT/SYD/BNE on QF.

By the sounds of things... It meets their conditions of carriage. Certainly doesn't make it right though and it will cost a lot of future business.

I can't believe airlines are allowed to write things like "we don't guarantee you a seat" into T&Cs.

Lexus could make a lot of money writing a clause that they don't guarantee you an ES300 and just hand over a Camry plus "compensation" of $1200.

That's the bit I don't get. What's the consumer law that prevents Lexus from doing this yet makes it acceptable for airlines to do so?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

You guys are talking about the schleppers. Senior management, board members and certain others are a whole different ball game I can promise you.

Yes and they usually travel on confirmed tickets "purchased" by the airline.
Not on standby staff travel tickets.

 

[JohnK]

I know I always allow up to 2 days grace at the end of an overseas trip to allow for a disruption. This first occurred to me during the volcanic eruptions a few years ago.

There is always a trade-off between those few extra days away, and the need for a bit of wriggle room.

It's good if you are able to allow yourself extra time in case something goes wrong. Not all of us can do that though and there is no need for the airline to try and take advantage of the situation.

I have 4 weeks annual leave. I also purchase 2 weeks extra annual leave which is like unpaid leave but they use pay averaging over 52 weeks. And I take 3 weeks unpaid leave. So all up 45 days available.

I go to Thailand 4-5-6 times a year. I cannot afford to come back 2 days early each time just in case the airline stuffs up and I am delayed.

And if the airline stuffs up then they should be the ones paying for it. Not the customer. Yes I know it is a tough business but that is what they chose to do. And stuffing up your customers is the last thing that should happen.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

And they can be downgraded from premium cabins or pulled from aircraft entirely, even after they've boarded and taken their seats. Anyone travelling on staff travel tickets knows they can't really relax until that last door is closed. That particular conspiracy theory should be put to bed.

Like one chap found out when he made the mistake of changing into his J class PJ's prior to the door closing on a SFO/SYD flight. The flight departed with the rest of his family on board while he had to regroup in the terminal dressed as a grey smurf. :shock:

Not quite.. If a staff member has booked and is entitled to a J or F seat, and they are available, then they'll get them at check in. But that is after all the points upgrades etc have been done. But commercial customers always take precedence.

Only if there is a sufficient buffer of seats in the higher cabin that would take into account any commercial pax with an 'opt in' ODU request at the airport ie even an NB with an ODU request trumps any category of staff leisure travel.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The fact that the pax checked in very early would suggest, would it not, that QF did not exhaust all possibilities for finding volunteers before choosing to inflict this trajesty on these particular pax, who they probably thought would roll-over ?

If there are other mitigating factors here which we don't know then QF are welcome to explain. If they don't, this forum will continue to draw its own conclusions, which are already clearly to QF's detriment.

No the early check-in doesn't suggest that all possibilities were exhausted IMO. Many passengers would have checked in long before them online.
I may be a lone voice but I don't think QF need to explain anything to this forum. In fact I don't think they will as that will be in neither party's interests. They will be damned anyway no matter what explanation they give. Imagine the explanation is that preference to travel is given to those booked directly through QF on a higher fare basis? We would have TA's in uproar once that's picked up by nonews.
It's pretty clear to me that there has been somewhat of a Swiss Cheese effect going on here and EmilyP's parents (amongst others) have landed at the bottom of it.

The best outcome would be an apology by QF, appropriate compensation that is acceptable to them. There should also be an assurance by QF that they will look internally at the processes behind the downgrade procedures to see if in fact things were handled badly or incorrectly so that future passengers may have confidence in booking with them.

 

[Pushka]

I think as passengers who regularly book J class fares it would be a good idea to explain how this happened so that others can mitigate the chances of it happening to them.

 

[OATEK]

My view is that firstly we want to see the affected couple given fair compensation, and perhaps a note in the system that they should not be subject to an involuntary downgrade again.

Then we need RedRoo to announce that following acceptance of the compensation QF will review procedures and staff training to try and ensure loyal pax with decent status will be well looked after in the future.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That's the bit I don't get. What's the consumer law that prevents Lexus from doing this yet makes it acceptable for airlines to do so?

It's partly historical... originating in the days when passengers would make multiple reservations across different flights, and decide on the day which they were going to take. Airlines responded by overbooking to compensate for the loss in revenue (remember when fares were fully refundable and no penalties for changing?)

That's kind of carried over to the current day, and airlines are good at lobbying to keep it that way (with arguments that fares would increase etc etc if there was a change).

Some countries have responded with initiatives such as EU261. In the USA the system supposedly works quite well, with airlines getting the whole volunteer thing down-pat. But unlike USA domestic where there are literally dozens of flights on any route each day (including connecting points), some airlines offer only limited services internationally, with a potential wait of 24 hours till the next flight.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I may be a lone voice but I don't think QF need to explain anything to this forum. In fact I don't think they will as that will be in neither party's interests. They will be damned anyway no matter what explanation they give. Imagine the explanation is that preference to travel is given to those booked directly through QF on a higher fare basis? We would have TA's in uproar once that's picked up by nonews.

it depends if you think a company owes transparency in a potential contract?

There are pages on the QF site listing every imaginable fee a passenger can encounter. pages on cancellations and other rules a passenger must abide by in order to be carried. There are pages on baggage rules. Every QF email comes with almost as much, if not more, text in the terms and conditions section than does with the actual offer it's promoting.

but when it comes to something which benefits QF to the extreme detriment of the passenger, there is nothing to be found, anywhere. The supposed refund table doesn't even appear!

 

[maninblack]

Yes and they usually travel on confirmed tickets "purchased" by the airline.
Not on standby staff travel tickets.

Correct.
I don't think that I have ever said anything about 'standby staff travel tickets', that's might be someone elses concept.

 

[Pushka]

I thought from our friend who was a Q staff member that they were given 24 hour notice of being able to travel when that flight is part of their salary package/contract. It certainly wasn't a last minute stand by agreement.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The supposed refund table doesn't even appear!

Are there many (any ?) Airlines where the refund tables appear on the main consumer website? Qantas is definitely not alone in that regard.
The actual refund table is available online at the Qantas industry sales site. It's a site used by Travel Agents and contains links to many of Qantas policies and procedures.
One interpretation of this could be that it's used almost exclusively by TA's on behalf of their clients.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Are there many (any ?) Airlines where the refund tables appear on the main consumer website? Qantas is definitely not alone in that regard.
The actual refund table is available online at the Qantas industry sales site. It's a site used by Travel Agents and contains links to many of Qantas policies and procedures.
One interpretation of this could be that it's used almost exclusively by TA's on behalf of their clients.

Agree - although it is there indirectly for every European operator. They incorporate EU261 into their terms and conditions, which state 75% of the ticket price (with some debate on whether that's one way or return). But either way, the calculation is somewhat transparent in the case of downgrades.

I'm quite sure QF doesn't want to publish the refund table - because unless it's an indication of compensation (with fare difference in addition) - no one would willingly enter into an agreement to accept what's written.

For the sake of transparency QF could add a line to their overbooking section clearly stating: 'in the event of a downgrade we will refund you the difference between the fare paid and the lowest applicable fare of the final class of travel as determined either at time of ticket purchase, or on day of departure, whichever is greater'.

 

[amaroo]

You guys are talking about the schleppers. Senior management, board members and certain others are a whole different ball game I can promise you.

Some have certain rights enshrined in their EBA ... including highest cabin available.