RAM - you are confusing denied boarding with a refund in the case of a downgrade.
Emily's parents were not denied boarding. And the rules for denied boarding (both in EU legislation, and the US Department of Transport) don't apply for an involuntary downgrade.
The Airline Consumer Advocate is also highly unlikely to be able to achieve a result in this case. The duty of the ACA is to ensure airlines are in compliance with their customer charters. They are not there to provide legal advice, or to understand the legal frameworks such as contract law, australian consumer law, air law or international law. I have previously provided a link to a similar situation (passenger downgraded to economy) where the ACA was unable to assist and advised the passenger to go to consumer affairs. The outcome is probably expected because QF has complied with its customer charter. It's just the customer charter (and other guidelines) that are now being challenged.
As for the DOT fine to QF (as linked from Shine Lawyers), that was $90,000 not for denied boarding, but for failing to advise passengers they were free to disembark during an extended delay. There was no implication of any denied boarding irregularities in that case.
Airline denied boarding ex the USA is easy to find under DOT guidelines ($200/$400 depending on the length of delay in reaching final destination etc etc).
Possibly wrong but not necessarily - they were definitely denied boarding in the ticket class they purchased.
From the OP it appears that they were not told they could get their fare refunded to allow them to fly another airline.
Similarly, it would appear at odds with the clause you posted earlier (what link is that from?)
The Shine Lawyers piece was what the Google search turned up (pg 2) for "Qantas denied boarding compensation policy". Why I thought it relevant was the Q was fined for NOT FULLY INFORMING PASSENGERS OF THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.
From all I have read throughout this thread that would appear to be the exact situation the two parents found themselves in. I may be wrong, but I think that info would have been relayed in the early 'toing & froing' as posted. It was not.
That, in my biased (although tried to be fair) eyes brings the US DoT into play. If correct then Q is a repeat offender and would have to pay the suspended $45,000 fine for no further incidents within the 'probation period'.
I may well be wrong but if I am correct then Q and Red Roo's approach to EmilyP's parents was incredibly short-sighted and will likely end up costing them 6 figures.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul I suppose.
Thanks for the suggestion of DoT. I wonder what proof Q have that they asked for volunteers? If as has been the stated habit of EmilyP's parents previously that they arrive way in advance of flight then perhaps there was no call for volunteers. There has never been any mention of written notice being provided to her parents - if not Q is in breach of that requirement alone!
Were they told they could get cash compensation up to USD1,300 each if they were delayed in addition to the fare refund? Not that we've been informed they did not - what the Q supervisor did was turn their back and walk off in mid sentence. A point never denied by Red Roo.
Perhaps EmilyP could answer that question on whether they were given the full procedures in writing at the time they were told they were being downgraded for the flight or delayed to the next day as it would not prejudice the case, especially if the answer was no they were given nothing in writing stating the procedures as detailed in the Delta Fine info from the DoT.
If no proof of call was the case then Q would face punitive damages in addition as acting to pervert the course of justice (US does have different phrase) is significantly more serious and can result in air operators permission revoked at worst.
Compensation Rules
DOT 58-13
DOT Fines Delta for Violating Bumping Compensation Rules
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today assessed a civil penalty against Delta Air Lines for violating federal rules protecting passengers who are denied boarding against their will, or “bumped,” on oversold flights. DOT fined Delta $750,000 and ordered the airline to cease and desist from further violations.
“
Airline passengers deserve to be treated fairly, especially if they are forced to miss a flight because an airline oversold seats,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Consumers have rights, and we will continue to take enforcement action when airlines violate our rules to protect the traveling public.”
When an airline oversells a flight, DOT regulations require the airline to seek volunteers willing to give up their seats for compensation. If there is not a sufficient number of volunteers, the airline then bumps passengers involuntarily.
Passengers are entitled to a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the airline decides whom it will bump first. In most cases, passengers bumped involuntarily also are entitled to
cash compensation of up to $1,300 depending on the value of their tickets and the length of time that passengers are delayed. In addition, the larger U.S. airlines must file quarterly reports with DOT on the number of passengers who were bumped involuntarily from oversold flights as well as those who agreed voluntarily to give up their seats.
In March 2012, the Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office found that, in a number of instances, Delta failed to seek volunteers before bumping passengers involuntarily, or bumped passengers involuntarily without providing them a written notice describing their rights or informing them that they had a right to cash compensation. In addition, Delta classified some passengers who were bumped involuntarily as having volunteered to give up their seats, which both violated the passengers’ rights to compensation and resulted in inaccurate bumping reports filed with DOT. Delta also violated its published customer commitment, which included a pledge to obey DOT’s bumping regulations.
Delta may use up to $425,000 of the penalty to buy electronic tablets to record consumers’ decisions on whether they agreed to leave a flight and accept compensation offered by the airline, as well to train Delta personnel on using the tablets. The data collected can be used to help correct any problems the airline may have in complying with the bumping rules.
This is Delta’s second violation of the Department’s bumping rules in the past four years. On July 9, 2009, the airline was fined $375,000 for violations similar to those included in today’s consent order.
The consent order is available on the Internet at
www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2013-0004. A summary of the oversales rules is available at
www.dot.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
I wonder if Q is classed as a larger US airline? Then we could find out some VERY interesting information. I will email DoT and ask.
"...the larger U.S. airlines must file quarterly reports with DOT on the number of passengers who were bumped involuntarily from oversold flights as well as those who agreed voluntarily to give up their seats."
)
