Downgraded from Business Class.

[Flying mermaid]

I must admit I wasn't going to comment suffice to say - wow. There are some very out of line posts in this thread and I really hope Qantas takes a good look at many of them and the posters details are added to the iPad.

#disgusting

I wouldn't disagree with you that some posts have probably been out of line/unfair. It is a function of bulletin boards where passions run high and people will say things online that they never would face to face. However are you seriously suggesting that it is appropriate for a business to trawl through social media, work out who the posters are and then implement some form of retaliation for daring to criticise? sounds pretty fascist to me.....

 

[RAM]

I can't pick up on too many posts I'd call disgusting?

It's like 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

Exhibit A

"How dare those ungrateful peasants dare to criticise us for making some extra money on the side. Our enhancements to my bonus are modest only, next year the big ones hit."
Exhibit B

"If I've paid 10 months in advance for a business class seat and get downgraded at virtually the last second I expect to get more than a fraction of what I could have paid for an economy seat 10 months in advance."

From a certain perspective each could be viewed as perfectly acceptable and disgusting.

From the perspective of a company thriving vs in decline - you make up your own mind which viewpoint is 'disgusting'.

 

[maninblack]

Exhibit B

"If I've payed 10 months in advance for a business class seat and get downgraded at virtually the last second I expect to get more than a fraction of what I could have paid for an economy seat 10 months in advance."

I have looked at this carefully and can see nothing that is in any way disgusting about this post???

Anyway this is getting OT really.

 

[Anna]

I am confident that no Australian court or consumer affairs office would consider "IATA guidelines" as binding when it comes to calculating the appropriate refund for what happened to the pax here.

I am also confident that QF legal dept would not want that question tested by a court and would settle out of court on more favourable terms than the difference between discount J and the mythical full fare Y that nobody ever actually pays.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Criticism of an outcome, or providing feedback on an outcome, is not a personal attack on the person delivering that outcome. They are separate concepts.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I am confident that no Australian court or consumer affairs office would consider "IATA guidelines" as binding when it comes to calculating the appropriate refund for what happened to the pax here.

I am also confident that QF legal dept would not want that question tested by a court and would settle out of court on more favourable terms than the difference between discount J and the mythical full fare Y that nobody ever actually pays.

A quick google of 'IATA guidelines compensation' returns several results where IATA has rigorously challenged EU compensation rules. It seems IATA is firmely on the side of their members.

In 2004 IATA suggested the following in respect of EU261! Ridiculous! (my bolding):

Impractical. The regulation jeopardizes the future of short haul connector service to long haul flights. If a passenger on a long-haul flight misses a connection to a regional flight due to weather conditions, a strike or new security procedures, it is the short-haul operator that must compensate for the value of the entire journey. "Faced with this financial risk, many carriers will be reluctant to offer connections or will require longer connecting times. Along with consumers and airlines, regional destinations in Europe will suffer from higher costs and reduced service levels," said Bisignani.

According to IATA we should have absolutely no short haul connecting services by now in 2014!

A 2013 document by IATA seems to complain about the proliferation of consumer protection laws and says the passenger is confused! Yup - the passenger is confused by having rights!

Over the past decade, national passenger rights regimes have proliferated. There are now
over 50 countries that have passenger protections of some kind. The spread of passenger
rights legislation, some of which have extraterritorial provisions, creates difficulties for airlines
and confusion among passengers. For example, assume a passenger is travelling on an EU
carrier from the US to Israel via a European airport. If he is denied boarding at the US airport,
potentially three passenger rights regime would apply: the US DOT Consumer Protection
Rules, EU Regulation 261 and the Israeli Aviation Services Law.

Link: http://www.iata.org/policy/Documents/pax-rights.pdf

However, as the article points out, it is possible some international laws may be incorporated into Australian law through our adoption of conventions.

 

[Red Roo]

Red Roo: Just for interest - Can you answer privacy related questions, do Qantas do this, or do they in any way make a note of who you are, whether you have complained etc on this forum if they are aware of your QF #. I once asked you to follow something up for me, and are now worried that I have a black mark against my name. The lady who called me to resolve the issue certainly named this forum as the generating source of her call

I do not have access to the iPad app you're referring to, nor is it used for this purpose.

While there's no such thing as a "black mark", safety and security concerns are always flagged with the relevant internal and external teams for obvious operational reasons.

If your details have been passed on internally via a private message to Red Roo, I always request that the team member responsible for reaching out to you specifically mentions how/why they're calling.

Hope this clarifies.

 

[drron]

I've never used OLCI for Int flights - this thread has motivated me to start!

Me three...

 

[RAM]

I have looked at this carefully and can see nothing that is in any way disgusting about this post???

Anyway this is getting OT really.

From our perspective - I totally agree.

But from a certain Qantas Leader perhaps it may be. The OP who said 'disgusting posts' may also rate my exhibit B just so.

 

[Princess Fiona]

From our perspective - I totally agree.

But from a certain Qantas Leader perhaps it may be. The OP who said 'disgusting posts' may also rate my exhibit B just so.

The OP didn't say any posts were disgusting

 

[RAM]

The OP didn't say any posts were disgusting

Mixing definitiions - I meant the 'original poster' who said disgusting - 'Chocolate Radiation Man'.

Won't happen again!

 

[Baysider]

The OP didn't say any posts were disgusting

I think the reference was to <<the OP who said disgusting posts ...>> as opposed to the OP. (i.e. #chocolate radiation man)

 

[MelUser]

Might be time for moderators to close this - we've all said our bit. This happens from time. Lets all move on.

 

[wandering_fred]

Might be time for moderators to close this - we've all said our bit. This happens from time. Lets all move on.

As long as the original participants are willing to acknowledge some final resolution (with or without details) probably it is time to continue elsewhere.
Especially before the "grammar naz_s" start mentioning bits that would be disgusting to teachers of classical English grammar. :mrgreen:

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[JessicaTam]

As long as the original participants are willing to acknowledge some final resolution (with or without details) probably it is time to continue elsewhere.
Especially before the "grammar naz_s" start mentioning bits that would be disgusting to teachers of classical English grammar. :mrgreen:

Happy wandering

Fred

Hey! I resemble that remark!

 

[Princess Fiona]

Might be time for moderators to close this - we've all said our bit. This happens from time. Lets all move on.

I'm actually inclined to agree with you. It hasn't been pretty

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I disagree with closing the thread. Those who no longer wish to read it can unsubscribe or ignore notifications.

It would be a shame if an airline response was to be considered final and all further discussion gagged.

 

[Baysider]

I disagree with closing the thread. Those who no longer wish to read it can unsubscribe or ignore notifications.

It would be a shame if an airline response was to be considered final and all further discussion gagged.

I have to agree - closing this is a win to the party that is in the wrong here.

 

[amaroo]

I disagree with closing the thread. Those who no longer wish to read it can unsubscribe or ignore notifications.

It would be a shame if an airline response was to be considered final and all further discussion gagged.

+ 1 Could not agree more!

........

 

[Pushka]

I don't understand the rationale for closing it either unless the OP wants that.