Downgraded from Business Class.

[Princess Fiona]

Any idea how to make it bigger?


Remember the Q 747 flight from the US earlier this year that got cancelled and the people were left to fend for themselves at the airport?

Apparently not one of them realised they could file (for free) a complaint for significant compensation - surely Q told them...

Sorry, can't help you with the photos.

Regarding the cancelled 747 flight under which DOT regulations could the passengers file for compensation?
(If you are referring to DOT regulations)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting table, look at column 2. If this upload works...

If not -Qn how do you make images expand to a better size?

Or download PDF from:
November 2014 Air Travel Consumer Report

2014 November ATCR.pdf

Look at Table 5 page 40.





View attachment 37879

the text and tables are interesting for two reasons.

a) complaints about over-sales are tiny (just 8 per month between the total number of foreign airlines flying to the USA), and indeed, for some or all of those complaints the airline may have complied with stated DOT regulations, and
b) the text defines over-sales for you, which talks in terms of bumping.

To define bumping, and to put the terminology used in the Air Travel Consumer Report into perspective, you must refer to the DOT's definitions, guidelines and policies. These are found elsewhere. For detailed advice, including overbooking and bumping, the DOT has prepared this document: Fly Rights | Department of Transportation

But you will note that downgrades are not covered.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry, can't help you with the photos.

Regarding the cancelled 747 flight under which DOT regulations could the passengers file for compensation?
(If you are referring to DOT regulations)

there are none PF.

the link to the DOT consumer advice makes it clear airlines are under no [US Government] obligation to provide compensation for delayed or cancelled flights: Fly Rights | Department of Transportation

Each airline has its own policies about what it will do for delayed passengers waiting at the airport; there are no federal requirements. If you are delayed, ask the airline staff if it will pay for meals or a phone call. Some airlines, often those charging very low fares, do not provide any amenities to stranded passengers. Others may not offer amenities if the delay is caused by bad weather or something else beyond the airline's control. Contrary to popular belief, airlines are not required to compensate passengers whose flights are delayed or canceled. As discussed in the chapter on overbooking, compensation is required by law only when you are "bumped" from a flight that is oversold. Airlines almost always refuse to pay passengers for financial losses resulting from a delayed flight.

However - QF has its own customer charter which deals with delays and cancellations, which any QF passenger has a right to enforce if affected. EU airlines would be subject to EU261.

For QF, failing the customer charter, you'd have to go your own way under contract law. Which you eouldn't bother with as you'd just claim the cost of an hotel and meals from your travel insurance.

 

[RAM]

Sorry, can't help you with the photos.

Regarding the cancelled 747 flight under which DOT regulations could the passengers file for compensation?
(If you are referring to DOT regulations)

Not being fully informed of their statutory rights in writing amongst many others. Whilst there is no DoT regulation requiring any specific course of action there are DoT regulations requiring airlines to accurately, timely and if requested (for any issue) in writing. Failure to adhere or mention this is possible is a breach of DoT regulations. So in the thread case it could be the supervisor turning and walking away IF nothing in writing was provided setting out what their civil rights were (or weren't) then that could be trouble.

Have a look at the Jan 2014 fine & consent order - failing to tell passengers of their legal rights, they could demand to get off the aircraft was actionable and Q got fined.

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
Aviation Consumer Protection Division has lots to guide with.

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, including its Aviation Consumer Protection Division, monitors compliance with and investigates violations of the Department of Transportation’s (Department) aviation economic, consumer protection, and civil rights requirements. The Office also provides legal review and support on aviation economic licensing matters.

As you well know the US is very big on civil rights violations and being told that 'the hotels are full there is nothing we can do' without telling and providing a copy of their legal rights would seem to qualify as a violation.

Lots of informative docs that may warrant a thread of its own, "Ensure you get what you're entitled to for flights to/from the US", or when "No does not mean no!"

 

[UP4014]

I've learnt three things from this thread.

1. There are issues about booking and being pushed down a rung and QANTAS can seriously take your money and not give you what you paid for.

2. QANTAS comes up with plenty of talk but at the end of the day doesn't care less.

3. QANTAS have no intention of fixing anything unless directed to do so by an appropriate authority.


Matt

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Not being fully informed of their statutory rights in writing amongst many others. Whilst there is no DoT regulation requiring any specific course of action there are DoT regulations requiring airlines to accurately, timely and if requested (for any issue) in writing. Failure to adhere or mention this is possible is a breach of DoT regulations. So in the thread case it could be the supervisor turning and walking away IF nothing in writing was provided setting out what their civil rights were (or weren't) then that could be trouble.

Have a look at the Jan 2014 fine & consent order - failing to tell passengers of their legal rights, they could demand to get off the aircraft was actionable and Q got fined.

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
Aviation Consumer Protection Division has lots to guide with.

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, including its Aviation Consumer Protection Division, monitors compliance with and investigates violations of the Department of Transportation’s (Department) aviation economic, consumer protection, and civil rights requirements. The Office also provides legal review and support on aviation economic licensing matters.

As you well know the US is very big on civil rights violations and being told that 'the hotels are full there is nothing we can do' without telling and providing a copy of their legal rights would seem to qualify as a violation.

Lots of informative docs that may warrant a thread of its own, "Ensure you get what you're entitled to for flights to/from the US", or when "No does not mean no!"

i wanted to confirm with my American friend before posting a reply to this - but as I suspected, civil rights law plays no part in your line of argument here.

Civil Rights are fairly similar in concept to our anti-discrimination laws in Australia. They protect people who have been discriminated against on the basis of race, or colour, or religion (etc).

Not providing someone with their written rights (as outlined in the DOT obligations) is a breach of the DOT regulations, it is not a breach of civil rights.

 

[RAM]

i wanted to confirm with my American friend before posting a reply to this - but as I suspected, civil rights law plays no part in your line of argument here.

Civil Rights are fairly similar in concept to our anti-discrimination laws in Australia. They protect people who have been discriminated against on the basis of race, or colour, or religion (etc).

Not providing someone with their written rights (as outlined in the DOT obligations) is a breach of the DOT regulations, it is not a breach of civil rights.

However the Dot specifically states the 'civil rights requirements'.

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, including its Aviation Consumer Protection Division, monitors compliance with and investigates violations of the Department of Transportation’s (Department) aviation economic, consumer protection, and civil rights requirements. The Office also provides legal review and support on aviation economic licensing matters.

That is what Q got fined USD90,000 in January 2014 for - not informing passengers of their legal rights - please read the link provided a few posts back.

 

[maninblack]

Perhaps the OP's friends, the main subjects of the storyline of this thread could be used by QF as part of their new ad campaign. "FEELS LIKE HOME". The story is about a retired couple who have just enjoyed a long and exciting but tiring overseas holiday who are relieved to finally get to the Qantas check-in at the airport to head home and are summarily downgraded and treated like dirt by the Qantas staff :shock: And...cut. That's a wrap folks

 

[MEL_Traveller]

However the Dot specifically states the 'civil rights requirements'.

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, including its Aviation Consumer Protection Division, monitors compliance with and investigates violations of the Department of Transportation’s (Department) aviation economic, consumer protection, and civil rights requirements. The Office also provides legal review and support on aviation economic licensing matters.

That is what Q got fined USD90,000 in January 2014 for - not informing passengers of their legal rights - please read the link provided a few posts back.

Sure - all Americans (individuals and companies) must comply with Civil Rights laws. The DOT must have policies and procedures which are compliant with those laws. That's what 'civil rights requirements' means.

It has nothing to do with an airline telling passengers there are no hotel rooms. It has nothing to do with airlines failing to provide written statements to passengers. There are no civil rights violations in those circumstances.

Qantas being fined USD90K was not for a breach of the passengers' civil rights. It was for a breach of the DOT regulations.

When you research legal issues you need to put them into context. And you need to read surrounding legal frameworks. Just because there is a line on 'civil rights' doesn't mean everything under the DOT regulations, regarding passengers and transport, falls under the category of civil rights.

To help put this in context for you, have a look at the 'Civil Rights' section of the DOT website: https://www.civilrights.dot.gov/complaint-resolution/complaint-process

 

[RAM]

Sure - all Americans (individuals and companies) must comply with Civil Rights laws. The DOT must have policies and procedures which are compliant with those laws. That's what 'civil rights requirements' means.

It has nothing to do with an airline telling passengers there are no hotel rooms. It has nothing to do with airlines failing to provide written statements to passengers. There are no civil rights violations in those circumstances.

Qantas being fined USD90K was not for a breach of the passengers' civil rights. It was for a breach of the DOT regulations.

When you research legal issues you need to put them into context. And you need to read surrounding legal frameworks. Just because there is a line on 'civil rights' doesn't mean everything under the DOT regulations, regarding passengers and transport, falls under the category of civil rights.

To help put this in context for you, have a look at the 'Civil Rights' section of the DOT website: https://www.civilrights.dot.gov/complaint-resolution/complaint-process

I agree totally with "When you research legal issues you need to put them into context. And you need to read surrounding legal frameworks."

Have you read the full details of the Jan 2014 Qantas Consent Order?

It is about denial of rights;

USA: DOT fines Qantas for not informing passengers of opportunity to leave delayed aircraft | iftta.org


[h=1]USA: DOT fines Qantas for not informing passengers of opportunity to leave delayed aircraft[/h] Submitted by Michael Wukoschitz on 21 January, 2014 - 16:56
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced that Qantas Airways violated federal rules last March by not informing passengers on a delayed aircraft at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport that they had the opportunity to leave the plane as it sat at the gate for an extended period of time with the door open."

“At DOT, we are committed to protecting consumers’ rights when they travel, and will continue to take enforcement action when our rules are violated.”

The passengers have the 'right' to know they could leave. This 'right' was not communicated to them in the manner the DoT prescribes, or in any manner whatsoever. The violation of this right led to the civil penalty. Possibly long bow but may even say the civil right in this case is a breech of first amendment rights.

In this instance passengers 'had the right to know' and Q violated that right.

Announcements that passengers can leave the plane must come 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time and every 30 minutes afterward.

Just as IMHO (and awaiting DoT response) once Q offered the parents the right to fly the next day it then activates the parents' right to receive the written legal rights such an offer carries with it as the DoT outlines. They were not given this written information as required by the DoT = violation of the legal rights. Now the subsequent fines was described as 'Civil penalties' not 'criminal'.

Once Q makes an offer (which RedRoo does not deny) then it is with the intention of creating a new 'contract' to fly on a different day. Bingo - all DoT requirements come into play. That the parents subsequently are given another offer after rejecting the first does not excuse Q from fulfilling its obligations under the DoT requirements/regulations. If they had accepted the initial offer to fly another day - would you still say that the DoT rules do not apply?

[h=3]UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF ...[/h]www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/eo_2014-1-11.pdf
Order 2014-1-11. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ... On the Fifteenth day of January, 2014. Qantas ... This consent order concerns violations by Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) of. 14 CFR Part ... assesses the carrier $90,000 in civil penalties.

[h=3]U.S. Department of Transportation Fines Qantas for Not ...[/h]www.dot.gov/.../us-department-transportation-fines-qantas-not-informin...
DOT fined Qantas $90000 and ordered the airline to cease and desist from further ... The consent order is available on the Internet at Regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2014-0001. ###. DOT 07-14. Wednesday, January 15, 2014.



Now to wait and see what DoT answers to the email.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I agree totally with "When you research legal issues you need to put them into context. And you need to read surrounding legal frameworks."

Have you read the full details of the Jan 2014 Qantas Consent Order?

It is about denial of rights;

USA: DOT fines Qantas for not informing passengers of opportunity to leave delayed aircraft | iftta.org


USA: DOT fines Qantas for not informing passengers of opportunity to leave delayed aircraft

Submitted by Michael Wukoschitz on 21 January, 2014 - 16:56
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced that Qantas Airways violated federal rules last March by not informing passengers on a delayed aircraft at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport that they had the opportunity to leave the plane as it sat at the gate for an extended period of time with the door open."

“At DOT, we are committed to protecting consumers’ rights when they travel, and will continue to take enforcement action when our rules are violated.”

The passengers have the 'right' to know they could leave. This 'right' was not communicated to them in the manner the DoT prescribes, or in any manner whatsoever. The violation of this right led to the civil penalty. Possibly long bow but may even say the civil right in this case is a breech of first amendment rights.

In this instance passengers 'had the right to know' and Q violated that right.

Announcements that passengers can leave the plane must come 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time and every 30 minutes afterward.

Just as IMHO (and awaiting DoT response) once Q offered the parents the right to fly the next day it then activates the parents' right to receive the written legal rights such an offer carries with it as the DoT outlines. They were not given this written information as required by the DoT = violation of the legal rights. Now the subsequent fines was described as 'Civil penalties' not 'criminal'.

Once Q makes an offer (which RedRoo does not deny) then it is with the intention of creating a new 'contract' to fly on a different day. Bingo - all DoT requirements come into play. That the parents subsequently are given another offer after rejecting the first does not excuse Q from fulfilling its obligations under the DoT requirements/regulations. If they had accepted the initial offer to fly another day - would you still say that the DoT rules do not apply?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF ...

www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/eo_2014-1-11.pdf
Order 2014-1-11. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ... On the Fifteenth day of January, 2014. Qantas ... This consent order concerns violations by Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) of. 14 CFR Part ... assesses the carrier $90,000 in civil penalties.

U.S. Department of Transportation Fines Qantas for Not ...

www.dot.gov/.../us-department-transportation-fines-qantas-not-informin...
DOT fined Qantas $90000 and ordered the airline to cease and desist from further ... The consent order is available on the Internet at Regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2014-0001. ###. DOT 07-14. Wednesday, January 15, 2014.



Now to wait and see what DoT answers to the email.

I have read the full order.

And the 'rights' talked about are not civil rights. 'Civil Rights' have a specific meaning and definition.

Consumer protection laws, DOT laws, contract law - just as examples - none of them are necessarily civil rights laws.

A consumer protection law may tell an airline they have to inform passengers, but a breach is not a breach of the passenger's civil rights. It is a breach of the rights a passenger has under DOT rules. They are not one and the same.

When Qantas offered the passengers the opportunity to fly the next day, it was exactly that... an offer. When the passengers rejected that offer, the previous contract still stands, along with the contract of carriage, and applicable contract law or consumer law which extend to the original ticket.

If the passenger had accepted the offer to fly the next day, whether it was a modification of the existing contract (as permitted by the contract of carriage), (or, whether it was an entirely new contract), the same consumer protection laws would have applied.

Volunteers are not required to be provided with a written statement of their rights. They need only be told of the compensation that would otherwise be due in the event they could be involuntarily bumped (should there not be enough volunteers).

Those who are actually involuntarily bumped are required to have a written statement of their rights (etc).

But - neither of those apply in situations where the passenger is not bumped, or likely to be bumped from the flight. There were still seats available, just not in the ticketed class of service. (you know the laws don't apply to downgrades because you haven't found any rule or regulation to support that. If you can't find the rule, the airline won't have the rule. And if the airline doesn't have it, they can't be fined for a breach.)

If Qantas choses to call for volunteers for an overbooked business class cabin (or First or premium economy), is an internal procedure which it has decided to follow. That internal procedure is not enforceable by the passenger, nor it is subject to review or enforcement by regulatory authorities.

In some cases, and airline will incorporate its own rules as part of your contract with them. Turkish Airlines, as one example, states in its customer charter that it will ask for volunteers in the event a higher cabin is oversold. While the passenger may be able to enforce that as a matter of contract, you'd need good reason to sue the airline for it (for example, if you went out and purchased a ticket on another airline and were seeking to recover costs). You wouldn't sue simply on the basis the airline failed to ask for volunteers.

 

[JohnK]

So just a dollar point.To fly tomorrow BNE-LAX is $930 in discount Y and $1451 Flexible.
Discount J is $5286 and flex J $5976.
The bandied amount of ~ $1250 just doesn't stack up.

And these are last minute airfares.

Not sure how the airlines have been allowed to propose unsatisfactory refunds in their terms and conditions.

And the thought of using a one-way airfare to calculate refund for half a return airfare when you have inconvenienced the customer is ludicrous.

There is something seriously wrong when we create faceless corporations and hire people to dream up this rubbish. Sad.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And these are last minute airfares.

Not sure how the airlines have been allowed to propose unsatisfactory refunds in their terms and conditions.

And the thought of using a one-way airfare to calculate refund for half a return airfare when you have inconvenienced the customer is ludicrous.

There is something seriously wrong when we create faceless corporations and hire people to dream up this rubbish. Sad.

This is where it's interesting. Airlines have the ability to determine the lowest fare paid on a particular flight - when it suits them!

The DOT regulations for bumping state that involuntary bumpees are to be paid 200% or 400% of their fare (for delays of 2 hours or 4 hours respectively).

However, the DOT regulations say if there is no fare stated, for example an award ticket, the airline may use the lowest fare paid for that flight either by cash, cheque or credit card. No doubt the airlines would be on to that in 2 seconds flat!

Airlines are free to put whatever cancellation and refund terms into their contracts as they want. It's not uncommon to see a total forfeit of fare if you miss your flight. And that's fine.

However, those terms and conditions must be disclosed if they are going to form part of the contract.

You can't have a secret internal table, or a table which is available only to travel agents, and later seek to rely on that. We have asked the airline for a quick guide on how they calculate refunds, but they have so far given no indication if they are going to supply that, or when.

 

[EmilyP]

**Non-eventful Update**

Hi All,

So after hearing nothing from FC on Monday or Tuesday, Mum and Dad dropped into the FC office today.

After a search of their database, FC have stated they have received no funds from Qantas in relation to the fare difference refund request. FC have promised to 'look into it'.

So Qantas are saying "We have given FC the money"
FC are saying "We have not received any money from Qantas" with the good old proviso of "It won't be as much as you expect"


This just seems like a neverending stuff up of epic proportions.................

Will update when and if this ever gets resolved.

Emily

 

[Quickstatus]

**Non-eventful Update**

Hi All,

So after hearing nothing from FC on Monday or Tuesday, Mum and Dad dropped into the FC office today.

After a search of their database, FC have stated they have received no funds from Qantas in relation to the fare difference refund request. FC have promised to 'look into it'.

So Qantas are saying "We have given FC the money"
FC are saying "We have not received any money from Qantas" with the good old proviso of "It won't be as much as you expect"


This just seems like a neverending stuff up of epic proportions.................

Will update when and if this ever gets resolved.

Emily

EmilyP - do you know how much you are being refunded?. (dont have to reveal here)

The statement by FC of "It won't be as much as you expect" suggests that EmilyP and her family do not know how much they are getting back.

It is very easy for QANTAS to let the pax know of the amount of refund in advance. This just gives QANTAS the look of an airline which really does not care in circumstances when it really should.

It gives the impression that QANTAS is trying to drag this out for as long as possible (whether actively or passively) in an attempt to exhaust the will of the passenger..


It probably happens on other airlines too but to be treated like this is inexcusable.

 

[Quickstatus]

Without breaching privacy, I’d like to clarify that Qantas have released the funds back to the agent 2 weeks ago, and it’s now up to them to coordinate with your parents.

This process was explained to your parents earlier today, and I recommend that they continue their discussions with their dedicated Qantas contact.

Well Red Roo posted the above #977 on the 17th November.


2 weeks ago meant around 03 November. Now its Nov 26.


Unfortunate for Red Roo who is caught in the middle and really has nothing to do with this debacle except that s/he is the representative for QF in this forum.

Red Roo, when QANTAS puts up an announcement here in AFF or publicly about any matter, I wish for you to understand there is and will be substantial skepticism. We all suspect the truth is different to that portrayed.

Two that come to mind: "fairer and simpler" and Qantas' use of the word "enhancement"

 

[Baysider]

Two that come to mind: "fairer and simpler" and Qantas' use of the word "enhancement"

Unfortunately very true.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

EmilyP - do you know how much you are being refunded?. (dont have to reveal here)

The statement by FC of "It won't be as much as you expect" suggests that EmilyP and her family do not know how much they are getting back.

It is very easy for QANTAS to let the pax know of the amount of refund in advance. This just gives QANTAS the look of an airline which really does not care in circumstances when it really should.

It gives the impression that QANTAS is trying to drag this out for as long as possible (whether actively or passively) in an attempt to exhaust the will of the passenger..


It probably happens on other airlines too but to be treated like this is inexcusable.

I would actually believe RedRoo in this case - agents are slime balls who will hold on to money as long as they possibly can. They are also likely to take a cream off the top of the refund for their 'inconvenience'.

After traveling the world for many years my first piece of advice to new or unseasoned travellers - NO AGENTS! You are adding a layer of complexity and when things go wrong they're nowhere to be seen.

While this is a sweeping statement and there may be ethical professional agents out there, IME they are few and far between.

 

[Baysider]

After traveling the world for many years my first piece of advice to new or unseasoned travellers - NO AGENTS! You are adding a layer of complexity and when things go wrong they're nowhere to be seen.

Agree 100% with this comment, and Flight Centre are one of the worst !

 

[Happy Trails]

NO AGENTS!

Completely off topic but I couldn't help thinking of this classic clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJPTqWtv8IQ