Downgraded from Business Class.

[Quickstatus]

Actually the $2000.00 was the difference between J (fare paid) & PE (cabin travelled in) so one can assume that had the pax been forced to travel in whY that they would have received even more money.

yes correct ! OzBB ...Edited.......


Hey what happened to the rest of your C St L trip report you ended somewhere in Boston.....

 

[ozbeachbabe]

yes correct ! OzBB ...Edited.......

Hey what happened to the rest of your C St L trip report you ended somewhere in Boston.....

I really should finish that shouldn't I!

Got as far as YYC so perhaps that can be my homework over the weekend

 

[Quickstatus]

I really should finish that shouldn't I!

Got as far as YYC so perhaps that can be my homework over the weekend

I had booked a CStL side trip when in the US in DecJan but it got blown away literally. Is on my bucket list.....

 

[grussellt]

4.7 Seating Selection and Allocation

Although we will try to accommodate your seating need or choice, we do not guarantee you any particular seat. We may need to change your seat at any time, even after you have boarded the aircraft, for operational, safety or security reasons.If we need to ask you to downgrade for any reason, we will at your option:

• provide you with an appropriate refund of the difference in fares (or an appropriate credit of Qantas Points in the event that you are travelling on a Qantas Frequent Flyer Award), or
• accommodate you on a reasonable alternative available flight on our service

Perhaps QF needs a little coaching in the use of the word appropriate..........such that it is somewhat more accommodating in meeting the passengers' needs.

 

[Ansett]

Perhaps QF needs a little coaching in the use of the word appropriate..........such that it is somewhat more accommodating in meeting the passengers' needs.

They dont understand the word enhancement so why would you expect them to understand the word APPROPRIATE LOL

 

[opusman]

QED (Qantas English Dictionary).

 

[RAM]

Hang on, the only reference to misleading I can relating to RR and misleading is #631 relating to QF staff being on the flight in F and premium cabins.

That was debunked considering that this was a 3-class service with no F, and RR has stated there were no staff member in the premium cabins.

You are right, my memory failed me - misrepresented not misleading. In law I think you will find the term 'misrepresented' has a stronger meaning.

Funny - I can only think how 'dissappointed' the two passengers were when refused the seats they had paid for in full.

it was actually Red Roo Post#598 'I was disappointed to read that we had been misrepresented'

I appreciate your concerns, and by way of an update I can advise that our discussions with the customers are ongoing. However as would be the courtesy extended to any AFF member, I cannot share details due to privacy reasons.

RAM -hmm BUT I CAN VAGUELY ALLUDE TO THE ACCURACY of perhaps just one word used in the blog without actually identifying what possibly just a single word 'misrepresented'.

As such, I can only explain our position while being comfortable in the knowledge that our team are liaising with the passengers directly regarding this uncommon set of circumstances.

I would also like to remind you that Red Roo offered proactive assistance within minutes of the OP posting, by which time the customers had already contacted Qantas via our Facebook page.....

The customers and their daughter, EmilyP have a direct contact number and email address of the Customer Care Executives responsible for managing their file. The discussions with the customer contradict the updates on the thread from EmilyP and BNEFlyer.

RAM - But of course I cannot say what this was about, was it the supervisor turned 'her' back not 'his' back? Did the supervisor walk off to the side not directly away?

I was disappointed to read that we had been misrepresented, and comments from the conversation between Customer Care and EmilyP’s parents were taken out of context.

However to answer some of your questions (in no particular order) I can share:

We’ve immediately and personally apologised to the customers about the handling of this matter at Los Angeles, including the communication style regarding lounge access and compensation offered on the spot.

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.

And about Q staff on board - not debunked just skilfully answered. My own experiences of Q staff put on a full flight and passengers downgraded from business (2x) show lightening can strike twice. BTW both of those fares were full cost business paid for by company TA before I showed how much that was costing vs what we could organise ourselves.

I stand by my earlier comments that RR's post, procedures and subsequent prose match PR 101. Ignore those who are hostile, confuse those who are wavering and provide an excuse for those who are welded on.

If you want to defuse a situation you do not start accusing the other party of misrepresenting - that is the style of Question Time in Parliament.

It is not that hard to track down the Q Company Secretary EmilyP - PM me and I will give you the details if they have not already rung QC.

 

[SpudOz]

Despite some views that this thread should be put to rest, I disagree.

Put yourself in the shoes of the OP's parents who were confronted with the prospect of flying back to Oz in Y having paid handsomely for J. Imagine being put in the position of having a futile argument with the pseudo QF customer service who at any time can pull rank and deny boarding you altogether if you disagree too loudly.

And it it could happen again....to YOU.

 

[Princess Fiona]

You are right, my memory failed me - misrepresented not misleading. In law I think you will find the term 'misrepresented' has a stronger meaning.

Funny - I can only think how 'dissappointed' the two passengers were when refused the seats they had paid for in full.

it was actually Red Roo Post#598 'I was disappointed to read that we had been misrepresented'



RAM -hmm BUT I CAN VAGUELY ALLUDE TO THE ACCURACY of perhaps just one word used in the blog without actually identifying what possibly just a single word 'misrepresented'.



RAM - But of course I cannot say what this was about, was it the supervisor turned 'her' back not 'his' back? Did the supervisor walk off to the side not directly away?



And about Q staff on board - not debunked just skilfully answered. My own experiences of Q staff put on a full flight and passengers downgraded from business (2x) show lightening can strike twice. BTW both of those fares were full cost business paid for by company TA before I showed how much that was costing vs what we could organise ourselves.

I stand by my earlier comments that RR's post, procedures and subsequent prose match PR 101. Ignore those who are hostile, confuse those who are wavering and provide an excuse for those who are welded on.

If you want to defuse a situation you do not start accusing the other party of misrepresenting - that is the style of Question Time in Parliament.

It is not that hard to track down the Q Company Secretary EmilyP - PM me and I will give you the details if they have not already rung QC.

I'm not sure what the overall point of your post is but in selectively quoting Red Roo's post you have left out the part which referred to the poor customer service they received at LAX

"We’ve immediately and personally apologised to the customers about the handling of this matter at Los Angeles, including the communication style regarding lounge access and compensation offered on the spot."

 

[straitman]

Despite some views that this thread should be put to rest, I disagree.

Put yourself in the shoes of the OP's parents who were confronted with the prospect of flying back to Oz in Y having paid handsomely for J. Imagine being put in the position of having a futile argument with the pseudo QF customer service who at any time can pull rank and deny boarding you altogether if you disagree too loudly.

And it it could happen again....to YOU.

For those who are still commenting about the thread being closed then please look at posy #785 by QF WP.

Threads are not closed as a matter of course so long as the discussion remains reasonable.

 

[RAM]

I'm not sure what the overall point of your post is but in selectively quoting Red Roo's post you have left out the part which referred to the poor customer service they received at LAX

"We’ve immediately and personally apologised to the customers about the handling of this matter at Los Angeles, including the communication style regarding lounge access and compensation offered on the spot."

I replied directly to the post that said they could not find a Red Roo post about 'misleading'. I acknowledged my poor memory - RED ROO was was disappointed to read that we had been misrepresented'

I selectively quoted what was required in response to ManneJ. I indicated this in the accepted manner showing ...... to signify cutting out many lines of text.

I also pointed out how RED ROO's response, possibly unwittingly, tracked SPIN 101 procedures very closely.

RR then went on to let us know how much Q had bent over backwards in providing more than just the bare minimum response required by IATA - the travel industry's own incestuous body. The fact that the bare minimum plus Q's 'gesture' does not come close to what a 'reasonable' person would expect as fair recompense is by-the-by.

RR then goes on to allege that there was misrepresentation, and imply that most posters have got it wrong. Really Q is the aggrieved party that these two people who paid full fare (or what most would consider a full fare) are at fault in this case.

RR should regret their actions by now.

Acting in a professional capacity - making accusations of misrepresentation whilst claiming 'privacy does not permit' repeatedly in my mind signals a very short career path. I am certain the Q Company Secretary would share that opinion given their past actions.

After all, given RR's protestations then to accuse 'disappointed to read that we had been misrepresented' signals, IMHO, what unfortunately many have observed - the true value Q holds its customers.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I stand by my earlier comments that RR's post, procedures and subsequent prose match PR 101. Ignore those who are hostile, confuse those who are wavering and provide an excuse for those who are welded on.

I can assure you that that is not PR101! 'Ignore', 'confuse', 'excuse' should not be in any PR practitioner's handbook.


What is PR and how might it play out in the current situation? The following is an oldie but a goodie - reproduced here courtesy of Carlton PR and Marketing:

When the circus comes to town, the advance man buys a billboard that says “The circus is coming!” The billboard usually lists the dates and shows a picture of an elephant. This is “advertising”. You pay for it and you have complete control over the ad’s content.

When the circus arrives in town, they usually parade the elephants through town. This is an “event” or “promotion”. The TV cameras show up and capture the event — this is “coverage”. People come out of the houses to watch the elephants and everyone knows the circus is in town.

However, if one of the elephants escape and tramples the mayor’s rose garden before he is caught, this is “news”.

If you get the mayor to smile for the media’s cameras, get his picture taken with the elephant and say, “What’s one or two rose bushes between friends? Everybody loves the circus!” Now that’s “PR” with an emphasis on media relations and a nod to “influencer relations” or “government relations”.

Marketing Elephants | Bobbie Carlton PR and Marketing

 

[Princess Fiona]

I replied directly to the post that said they could not find a Red Roo post about 'misleading'. I acknowledged my poor memory - RED ROO was was disappointed to read that we had been misrepresented'

I selectively quoted what was required in response to ManneJ. I indicated this in the accepted manner showing ...... to signify cutting out many lines of text.

I also pointed out how RED ROO's response, possibly unwittingly, tracked SPIN 101 procedures very closely.

RR then went on to let us know how much Q had bent over backwards in providing more than just the bare minimum response required by IATA - the travel industry's own incestuous body. The fact that the bare minimum plus Q's 'gesture' does not come close to what a 'reasonable' person would expect as fair recompense is by-the-by.

RR then goes on to allege that there was misrepresentation, and imply that most posters have got it wrong. Really Q is the aggrieved party that these two people who paid full fare (or what most would consider a full fare) are at fault in this case.

RR should regret their actions by now.

Acting in a professional capacity - making accusations of misrepresentation whilst claiming 'privacy does not permit' repeatedly in my mind signals a very short career path. I am certain the Q Company Secretary would share that opinion given their past actions.

After all, given RR's protestations then to accuse 'disappointed to read that we had been misrepresented' signals, IMHO, what unfortunately many have observed - the true value Q holds its customers.

Thanks for the clarification.
Many people are alleging many things it's difficult to keep track of it at times.

Red Roo has stated AFAIK that QF have apologised to EmilyP's parents for the handling of this matter at LAX.
They have offered them FF points and a voucher in addition to the refund which will be processed by their TA.
Everyone here, myself included thinks that the TA refund isn't likely to be fair or even close to what the actual fare difference in the real world would be. I wholeheartedly believe that this event has exposed to a wider audience that outwith EU 261/2004, airline compensation policies are woefully inadequate and should be looked at.
I do not believe that Red Roo posting on behalf of QF has attempted to mislead us in any way and in fact they have been fairly frank in the replies to this thread. I also do not believe that Red Roo is implying that the customers are at fault in this case and I don't understand what has caused you to infer that.

 

[whatmeworry]

"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.

I think you really should tell us whether the cabin was oversold or whether they were bumped because some celebrity wanted to fly last minute?

 

[Quickstatus]

I think you really should tell us whether the cabin was oversold or whether they were bumped because some celebrity wanted to fly last minute?

I dont think this really matters, whatever the reason for overbooking - whether too many normal passengers, QF staff sneaking in, celebrity wanting to travel last minute or another reason

The actions of QF AFTER the incident is what most people here are unhappy about and especially the way QF calculates the quantum of refund.



Again for those not reading the full thread:

If a passenger is involuntarily downgraded Qantas calculates the refund as the difference between fare paid for a particular cabin and the full fare price of the downgraded cabin on the DAY OF DEPARTURE.


Most would argue that the appropriate refund should be the difference between fare paid for J and and similar fare in Y. That is: discount J to discount Y. If the pax bought a full fare J then the refund should be to full fare Y AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE.


Any goodwill Qf extends to the affected passenger should be separate from and incidental to this calculation.

QF may overbook flights to ensure maximum yield but when a involuntary downgrade occurs due to the practice of overbooking the passenger affected should not be out of pocket.


QF would really like this thread to confuse peripheral issues with the actual issue which is not so much the downgrade but the quantum of the refund.

 

[opusman]

The actions of QF AFTER the incident is what most people here are unhappy about and especially the way QF calculates the quantum of refund

This. Things go wrong. It's a fact of life. It's how they're dealt with that matters.

So far, QF do not seem to have dealt with this issue particularly well.

 

[sinophile888]

I have outlined the situation with EmilyP’s parents to my husband. He is disgusted with the way her parents were treated and is now more determined to avoid flying Qantas, even if we could. We have a much better alternative in CX as we mainly fly to HKG and then travel by various means into China.

 

[JohnPhelan]

The actions of QF AFTER the incident is what most people here are unhappy about and especially the way QF calculates the quantum of refund.

Whilst I certainly agree that the way the refund is calculated is unacceptable, that's not the main issue at all - the main issue is how pax with confirmed J seats could be bumped at check-in. That's the core problem.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Whilst I certainly agree that the way the refund is calculated is unacceptable, that's not the main issue at all - the main issue is how pax with confirmed J seats could be bumped at check-in. That's the core problem.

I actually disagree with that. There are a a few reasons why a passenger could be legitimately downgraded, one reason which might be totally outside the control of QF (air marshal).

But if you look at the elephant example above... if the passengers were bumped, but given an envelope with $3000 at check-in, a great seat, fantastic service by crew, and 100,000 QFFF points, it might be a case of 'yeah, what's a couple of rose bushes when everyone loves Qantas!'

 

[Quickstatus]

Whilst I certainly agree that the way the refund is calculated is unacceptable, that's not the main issue at all - the main issue is how pax with confirmed J seats could be bumped at check-in. That's the core problem.

I would disagree with that JP, because downgrades or denial of carriage can occur as QF condition of carriage does not guarantee a seat.

There can be many causes and that is an issue in itself

RedRoo says their Yield management is among the best in the world. And I would agree they get it right most of the time but not always. And certainly its not a 'extremely rare" situation.

These situations can occur due to overbooking, technical, security or other reasons like QF staff sneaking in nod nod wink wink from checkin crew, celebrity wanting last minute travel, broken seat....there are many possible reasons including needing to transfer pax from other flights gone tech etc etc.

Most people can understand the involuntary bumping to another day and even a downgrade. (I would rather fly another day)

what most will not accept is the way QF has dealt with the issue:


Again QF's policy of an appropriate refund in event of a involuntary downgrade is the difference between fare paid and Full fare in downgraded cabin on the day of travel. As though the passenger cancels their J seat paid for a while ago sometimes weeks to months to only buy a full fare economy on the same flight. No reasonable person would do that because they know there is no value in it.


The customer should be made whole. QF's actions does not make the person whole.