Downgraded from Business Class.

[Austman]

The injustice is the quantum of compensation being the balance between cost of fare and full fare Y

The vast majority will agree quantum of compensation should be: balance between cost of fate and cheapest discount Y at the time of purchase

But then the debate should move to one that discusses the refund calculation that airlines use in situations where a full refund is offered as an alternative option on a partly used itinerary.

I've personally been affected by this calculation many times. By many airlines. And it's been nothing to do with my status or overbooking.

 

[Princess Fiona]

And the worry is that though extremely rare , it might happen to another J fare pax and it could be you or me and we will get screwed.

That's more a fact than a worry. It could happen on any airline.

 

[amaroo]

RR, the individual's status is irrelevant to the actual policy (except in the circumstances of this particular case, on which - understandably you cannot comment).

Back to the downgrade policy: when selecting passengers who are "candidates" for a downgrade, does Qantas - or Qantas' algorithm - take status into account?

Regards,

BD

IME it starts with slow moving easy targets ... and, ends when someone decides to change or allows themselves to be stuffed around.

 

[DC3]

Not sure about the "privacy" term.

Maybe I missed the post(s) where their personal details had already been provided to us. Otherwise, how would (invasion of) their privacy come into it if no-one knows who they are? I certainly don't know who they are (and don't need to know, anyway). They could just be Passengers A and B (who are/may be Gold FF), could they not?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But then the debate should move to one that discusses the refund calculation that airlines use in situations where a full refund is offered as an alternative option on a partly used itinerary.

I've personally been affected by this calculation many times. By many airlines. And it's been nothing to do with my status or overbooking.

Indeed but, the refund calculation for partly used sectors makes sense in the [absurd] airline pricing world where returns can be less expensive than a one-way. i can understand the basis for that type of calculation where the passenger voluntarily decides they don't want to fly (and can claim on insurance if it is involuntary such as illness).

But here we had an issue where the passenger was involuntarily moved though no issue of their own.

I suspect many of us just want transparency.

1) What are the guidelines we are supposed to know regarding refund calculations?
2) And, if they turn out to be manifestly unfair, can they be changed?
3) Finally, in situations such as this, will QF give a guarantee to accommodate passengers on other airlines if there is space available and if the passenger wishes to take that option? yes that will cost QF money, but neither should the airline profit out of the situation.

 

[SC9]

Privacy reasons are only valid if it can be used to identify the individuals. Many are citing privacy reasons these days when declining to comments.

 

[JohnK]

Our internal guidelines are beyond the minimum IATA requirements to allow individual, overall experiences to be considered by way of discretionary goodwill gestures.

The goodwill offered by Customer Care on this occasion was in addition to any fare differential offered by the agent, and the cash payment received at Los Angeles airport at the time.

Our yield management team is recognised as one of the best in the industry, however they don’t always get it right due to various operational reasons. A call out was made earlier in the day looking for volunteers to either downgrade or travel on the following day with the same offer of compensation.

However our team were unsuccessful in finding customers to reconsider their plans, and while not ideal, the last resort is to rely on no-shos and customer’s last to check in (including online check-in) to make the final decision.

I can assure you that there were no Qantas employees onloaded in Business or Premium Economy on QF16 LAX/BNE 16OCT, on either Duty or Leisure Travel categories.

For those suggesting that IATA regulations should not allow airlines to overbook flights, please note that fares would significantly increase to allow maximum flexibility across all airlines, in all fare buckets.

The refund via Flight Centre is following normal, documented procedure to be followed by all agents selling our products, but this process can take time. While we’re keen to maintain consistency, we have limited visibility over agent’s transactions.

Hope this helps to answer some of your concerns. Should you wish to discuss your personal travel arrangements, please don’t hesitate to send me a private message with your details as reference.

Please don't take this as criticism but if I understand things correctly regarding compensation on downgrades then IATA and Qantas are totally out of touch with reality.

If I can purchase an economy airfare today for $750 but choose to pay $3750 to travel in business then I expect to travel in business. If for whatever reason I am downgraded then I would expect $3000 to be refunded plus adequate compensation for the inconvenience.

Telling me $700 is more than adequate compensation and above IATA guidelines is insulting my intelligence. I don't care that the full economy airfare was $3250 at the time. I was never going to purchase full economy in the first place so should not be used in any calculation.

So by all means continue to oversell but don't try to make a quick buck out of it.

You said Qantas yield management gets it right most of the time. Great work. But when they get it wrong the customer shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[Quickstatus]

We all accept that it may happen but customers hate being "done over" or "screwed" especially by a big company

Qantas , it's not fair

 

[Danger]

Privacy reasons are only valid if it can be used to identify the individuals. Many are citing privacy reasons these days when declining to comments.

I could not agree more. The number of people who throw around the "privacy reasons" line today is astounding. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say 1 in 100 people that use that line actually know the impact of them. It's become a quick and easy excuse for businesses to shutdown conversation (and I make direct reference to Red Roo here).

 

[dajop]

Long long thread and always the truth and a reasonable position is probably somewhere in between both sides. Personally I think in this instance either a refund of 37% of the fare paid OR 37% of the difference between fare paid and current lowest fare would be reasonable, given that 63% of the distance (or time) had already been travelled.

I don't buy the arguments around mental distress or full refund of whole fare.

QF simply picked the wrong travellers, ideal customers for a involuntary downgrade would be relatively junior corporate (non small business) travellers on the company dime. They would probably be happier with pocketing some cash and points, given they didn't pay for the fare themselves.

Partner had a downgrade on CX once HKG-MEL, on company travel, and was given a modest amount of cash and after providing some feedback an confirmable (non standby) upgrade certificate. Simple and effective.

 

[anna2103]

I wonder whether many of the comments about 'fairness' and 'the Australian spirit' on the last few pages are also reflective of the fact that many of us have an emotional attachment to Qantas, and in some way feel let down by the way we could be treated if we were in the same position as Emily's parents

 

[RAM]

In summary...

full flight
unsuccessful recruitment of volunteers to fly another date
J pax downgraded to Y leaving one in J
Pax concerned tried to negotiate
Pax unable to fly another date

QF offered compensation over and above IATA guidelines

We all understand this is an extremely rare occurence
But it has happened
Sure QF tried according to RedRoo to accomodate everyone sans QF employees
But it has happened.

The injustice is the quantum of compensation being the balance between cost of fare and full fare Y

The vast majority will agree quantum of compensation should be: balance between cost of fate and cheapest discount Y at the time of purchase, and then as goodwill points.

Cruise liners will do the following: Refund cost of cruise (compensation) and then free cruise next time (goodwill)

Compensation is not goodwill

As it is extremely rare, it would not cost that much

No a couple of mistakes in the summation.

The mistakes are what is the part of the 'strangeness' about this.

BOTH passengers were told either stay a day or be downgraded from FULL FARE business to Economy.

They stated they arrived early as flight missing phobia (OK paraphrase) to be told you're not in business.
They protest and supervisor walks off in mid conversation.
They then text relative about what to do.

They're both booked in economy but at last minute a no-show in business sees the lady get back into a business class seat.

Compensation offered after MUCH PUBLICITY still only appears to be a fraction of the difference between the LAX-OZ full fare business and economy. But IATA rules set by the airlines themselves are so biased that Q can claim "We paid more than IATA required" or many words to that effect.

Qantas still MADE EXTRA REVENUE by over selling full fare business and only refunding a fraction of the price difference.
Qantas caused much anxiety for the couple and frustration at potentially being stranded etc.
Qantas LAX supervisor walked off mid-conversation.
Qantas has this happen on the Friday LAX to OZ flights quite regularly (from reports in this thread) and has had for quite some time.
Qantas appears to have adopted the approach 'letter of the law' which was set by the airlines club. Unconscionable is unconscionable.

Qantas RR says some of the info is misleading (and RR is disappointed).

On misleading, they didn't say that a Q or related person/s was not in First causing Firsts to be downgraded - just that there was no Q+/or in Y or J. For completeness I would have stated there were no Q staff or related parties nor last minute high ranking passengers on the plane. Of course if that was not true then I would say none in Y or J (missed Premium eco and First). If you do not want to be potentially misleading - people in glasshouses...

Having experienced this PR technique first hand (current by Transport for New South Wales about the CBD & South-East Light Rail which is actually cutting public transport capacity by 60% in 5 years time at a cost of over $2bn - said my figures on detailed calculation were wrong. Whistleblower contacted me to say TfNSW rounded a number down .501 rounded down to 0 - and that was basis of TfNSW saying 'misleading information' and refused to provide detail of what's misleading. Since all data sourced directly from TfNSW and independently verified. Enough for State Auditor General (now called Audit NSW) to investigate!) - I am suspicious.

I hope the OP can shed some light but I suspect Q will not reveal to her what they considered misleading. Perhaps the supervisor said to Q SYD - I finished saying no and then departed. Who knows but claiming misleading often = SPIN 101 technique as then people always come to your defense as they want to believe the best about you (works for all but banks).

 

[Quickstatus]

Many QF pax are loyal for status privileges and many also have an emotional attachment.
Companies like QF operate under a legal license but also a social license.

Doesn't matter how right the company thinks it is, If it's actions degrade their social license, their business loses goodwill and with that their ability to engage with their customers.

This means that whatever it does/say, less people are listening.

 

[Princess Fiona]

On misleading, they didn't say that a Q or related person/s was not in First causing Firsts to be downgraded - just that there was no Q+/or in Y or J. For completeness I would have stated there were no Q staff or related parties nor last minute high ranking passengers on the plane. Of course if that was not true then I would say none in Y or J (missed Premium eco and First). If you do not want to be potentially misleading - people in glasshouses...

).

Red Roo is not misleading anyone :
There was no First Class cabin on that flight FYI

 

[Quickstatus]

So what are the busy days of the week for coming into and out of LAX?

 

[Red Roo]

Once again, due to privacy reasons I'm not in a position to verify the customer's Qantas Frequent Flyer tier status.

Privacy reasons are only valid if it can be used to identify the individuals. Many are citing privacy reasons these days when declining to comments.

I could not agree more. The number of people who throw around the "privacy reasons" line today is astounding. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say 1 in 100 people that use that line actually know the impact of them. It's become a quick and easy excuse for businesses to shutdown conversation (and I make direct reference to Red Roo here).

"Privacy" is in reference to the customers (who are not on AFF to my knowledge), BNEFlyer and EmilyP, and also reflects my respect for the current ongoing discussions between Mr and Mrs EmilyP and Customer Care.

The 10,000's of views and 100's of posts on this thread include mine, many of which have been after hours. I fully appreciate the sensitive nature of this situation, and am acutely aware of the perception created by the limited factual information provided by both sides.

Tier status was not a factor in the outcome, nor was the value of the original fare purchased. While these aspects were referenced in post #1 and have been included in the ongoing conversation, I'll leave it to BNEFlyer and/or EmilyP to disclose the customer's tier status and fare details should it be of interest to you.

It is not my intention to mislead or upset you, or jeopardise the existing relationships with our loyal and most frequent travellers. I hope you can appreciate my position, and trust that I would afford each of you the same courtesy should you require assistance in the future.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Just a thought that 'operational reasons' might have meant a sky marshal on board. Or two. That could account for pax being downgraded, and QF wouldn't be able to disclose that.

But that still doesn't get around the fare refund calculation - although I guess we need to wait and see what that comes to.

But if there is a formula, why can't that be shared with passengers?

JohnK, as for IATA guidelines, I believe (if they exist) they are just that... 'guidelines'. They can certainly be overruled by specific regulations (such as EU261) and I can't see a good reason why an airline can't offer over and above. I remember 40 years ago IATA used to require airlines charge for alcoholic beverages in economy class. We were on a Singapore Airlines flight where they 'deeply regretted the delay of today's flight' and 'all alcoholic beverages would therefore be free of charge'. We were 30 seconds behind schedule!

 

[Quickstatus]

The reason for downgrade could be a need to accommodate Air Marshals, DYKWIA pax with high PCV or just overbooking
In fairness to QF I prefer to believe the latter.
But QF is not being fair with refund calculation.

 

[BD1959]

Tier status was not a factor in the outcome

I'd like to first thank RR for continuing to address the collective concerns, however - to me - this is most disquietening.

Whilst the perks of WP are nice, I've always thought that status would afford me a certain level of protection in the event of IRROPS - and I'd certainly hope this *was*an IRROP. To now learn this us not the case makes me question the relevance if status when something goes awry.

Regards,

BD

 

[wrekker]

I'd like to first thank RR for continuing to address the collective concerns, however - to me - this is most disquietening.

Whilst the perks of WP are nice, I've always thought that status would afford me a certain level of protection in the event of IRROPS - and I'd certainly hope this *was*an IRROP. To now learn this us not the case makes me question the relevance if status when something goes awry.

Regards,

BD

The more I read in this thread the more I am disturbed both by the decline of the value FF Status and adequate compensation if downgraded from J by Qantas.