Downgraded from Business Class.

[Kangol]

Back on topic - EmilyP, have your parents received the refund from FC yet?

Either way, have they considered doing a cc chargeback?

 

[grussellt]

I agree with moa999 that the total compensation which approaches $3000 is reasonable but not fair. However it has been provided somewhat begrudgingly by Qantas and an apology has been provided for staff behaviour. This thread has hopefully demonstrated to Qantas that downgrades and the treatment thereafter need considerable improvement and I imagine they may be working on that already.
I doubt that using other avenues for complaint (Ombudsman, etc) may not bring a lot more joy and I would be reluctant to follow those who have suggested legal redress.
Sadly the event will always leave a bad taste.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I agree with moa99 that the total compensation which approaches $3000 is reasonable but not fair. However it has been provided somewhat begrudgingly by Qantas and an apology has been provided for staff behaviour. This thread has hopefully demonstrated to Qantas that downgrades and the treatment thereafter need considerable improvement and I imagine they may be working on that already.
I doubt that using other avenues for complaint (Ombudsman, etc) may not bring a lot more joy and I would be reluctant to follow those who have suggested legal redress.
Sadly the event will always leave a bad taste.

I agree the Airline Consumer Advocate may not be able to assist in this case. But I would need a little more information as to why you think legal redress would not be suitable? There are some pretty good grounds for action that would at least have a fighting chance, and most certainly worth initial investigation. Consumer Affairs can help FOC in most (if not all) states.

The total compensation package is pretty much irrelevant if it's not useful. If you bought a toaster and it broke down, I'm not sure many of us would accept a 'total compensation package' from the shop in Zimbabwean Dollars. We want Aussie cash back. And the same should apply here.

If you pay cash, and don't receive the service, you should get cash back. Not points, not vouchers. Cash!

 

[equus]

Just on this I would suggest that if anyone has any specific ideas on potential legal grounds, they should PM those to Emily rather than stating them here. No need to give a heads-up too early!

Not a specific idea, but an observation. If someone were to mount a challenge based on bait advertising, or selling services that couldn't be delivered (Consumer protection provisions), then presumably the onus of proof would shift to QF to demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to believe they could deliver what they took payment for. Proving this, if over sales were involved, would require revealing the details of the basis on which yield management works to deal with such situations - something which may be commercially sensitive enough that they may not wish to do so.

Given that the details would be so central to the defence, would it be impossible for it to be kept sufficiently confidential such that they may be inclined to just settle?

The other side of this would be the open question of what is reasonable belief in ability to deliver. Occasional over sales that result in failure to supply may me acceptable, but what percentage level becomes knowledge that delivery is far from reasonably certain. What is certain, is that a regime which maximizes returns to the airline may be something very different to one which results in maintenance of reasonable delivery.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

There was a post that FC bookings are the first to be shunted, I guess because FC has some kind of deal with QF to sell lower priced tickets.

IIRC there was a post where another AFFer made that assumption ie solely based on seeing several commercial pax with FC itineraries on standby for a flight ex DXB to SYD or MEL.

The OP's parents were booked in "I" class which is not a fare bucket exclusive to FC & can be booked on the QF website.

I do not believe that booking through a TA means you're more likely to be targeted for downgrading.

 

[QF WP]

Can I suggest that we move this thread on - and those that want to discuss how to take this further through social media, legal action etc stay subscribed and keep the topic on those issues. Those who are not uninterested unsubscribe. We know QF final position now, so we are starting to go in circles.

Everyone has option to move on and unsubscribe if they don't like the current thread content

Hmmm, sounds like candidates for Moderators . However, I agree with their position. But everybody is entitled to their opinion (and where a new poster adds theirs, it's up for discussion by all).

 

[QF WP]

IIRC there was a post where another AFFer made that assumption ie solely based on seeing several commercial pax with FC itineraries on standby for a flight ex DXB to SYD or MEL.

The OP's parents were booked in "I" class which is not a fare bucket exclusive to FC & can be booked on the QF website.

I do not believe that booking through a TA means you're more likely to be targeted for downgrading.

Agreed, I firmly believe that it had most to do with the fact that, if I recall corectly, EmilyP's parents hadn't checked in (online) before they arrived at the airport, so they would be higher on the offloading/downgrading list.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Not a specific idea, but an observation. If someone were to mount a challenge based on bait advertising, or selling services that couldn't be delivered (Consumer protection provisions), then presumably the onus of proof would shift to QF to demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to believe they could deliver what they took payment for. Proving this, if over sales were involved, would require revealing the details of the basis on which yield management works to deal with such situations - something which may be commercially sensitive enough that they may not wish to do so.

Given that the details would be so central to the defence, would it be impossible for it to be kept sufficiently confidential such that they may be inclined to just settle?

The other side of this would be the open question of what is reasonable belief in ability to deliver. Occasional over sales that result in failure to supply may me acceptable, but what percentage level becomes knowledge that delivery is far from reasonably certain. What is certain, is that a regime which maximizes returns to the airline may be something very different to one which results in maintenance of reasonable delivery.

The potential line of argument doesn't involve any of the issues you have raised (bait advertising/selling services that couldn't be delivered/belief in availability to deliver). I have done some investigation and got some helpful advice and there seems to be grounds for a case - at least something concrete for the authorities to consider. As Consumer Affairs is a free port of call - getting more formal advice isn't going to cost the OP passengers anything.

If all passengers simply roll over, we're unlikely to get change, and it might even mean the airline gets to close this matter and mark it as a 'successful' resolution.

 

[EmilyP]

In my view OP's parents should view the total compensation offered as approx $3000. Few reasons,

1. The 'ex-gratia' payment at airport. This is definitely part of compensation.
For those who chose to wait till the next day to fly in the J cabin - their compensation is this $700 for arriving 24hrs later, plus hotels, food etc looked after
For the OPs parents, the compensation is $700 plus the fare difference by schedule (as returned at a later datE). This is not how QF staff at LAX described it at the time. QF themselves descrived this as an inconvenience fee, that was independant of any fare difference refund.

2. The 'additional' $500 voucher and 50k points. This was seemingly provided as part of a general discussion about the downgrade and behaviour of the agents at LAX (I assume). Now not many details have been provided about the actual behaviour of agents in LAX, but if QF gave $1000 value for each coughpy experience with an employee, I would be very rich, and they would be broke. Again I think most (if not all) of this payment is an overall payment by QF for the downgrade. I have provided many details about how my parents were treated. If you read QF's last response you will see that even they agreed my parents were treated appallingly and measures have been put in place to stop it happenting again. Also, voucher and point are only of value to my parents if the choose to fly QF again, which they don't. They would happily give up the voucher and points for the full fare difference refund. Anyway, my father paid for a Business Class ticket so why shouldn't he get the points for it?

I don't believe OP has published anything about what they actually paid. But looking at October 2015. Yes I have. They paid $15,000 for two return Business Class airfares to the States.
BNE-JFK return can be had for $8600 in J, and $2100 in Y (looking at cheapest fares)
So the difference is $6500 (Obviously different dates will give different results - but I suspect this is ballpark)
Now the OPs parents were downgraded for 13hrs out of a 36hr journey (one leg out of four) (ie 36% of total journey)
About $2350 applying this percentage to the fare difference.

So in this respect I would view the overall QF compensation as fair, albeit certainly not overgenerous. I wonder if you would feel the same way if it was your money they took? I certainly would not feel that I was treated fairly.--

I agree the downgraded fare table itself (1200/1250) is pretty poor, but I believe in all these situations that a payment at the airport is generally made, so in my mind this needs to be included as part of the overall package (and is potentially reflected in the table) (presumably QF also has rules about airport payments)

Where I think QF has let themselves down in this situation is:
a. Seemingly the agent behaviour at check-in
b. The communication with the OPs parents - seemingly not enough, and simple things like telling them how much the refund would be, and proactively quickening the refund process via Flight Centre, were not done
c. Not fully explaining why these pax were selected for downgrade (per OPs post they had checked in early and were SG members). RedRoo posted a generic statement but it didn't seem to answer the question


While some on this board also think the number of thread views should make QF more generous, I actually think it has the opposite effect. I suspect they are being very cautious here not to set a precedent. Possibly, but I think sometimes people need to make a stand. Otherwise many unfair practices that happened in the past would still continue today

I would just like to thank everyone on this thread who have been supportive and provided great feedback and points of view. It is much appreciated.

Emily P

 

[grussellt]

I agree the Airline Consumer Advocate may not be able to assist in this case. But I would need a little more information as to why you think legal redress would not be suitable? There are some pretty good grounds for action that would at least have a fighting chance, and most certainly worth initial investigation. Consumer Affairs can help FOC in most (if not all) states.

The total compensation package is pretty much irrelevant if it's not useful. If you bought a toaster and it broke down, I'm not sure many of us would accept a 'total compensation package' from the shop in Zimbabwean Dollars. We want Aussie cash back. And the same should apply here.

If you pay cash, and don't receive the service, you should get cash back. Not points, not vouchers. Cash!

It's simply a question of a risk/reward basis. If an adequate consumer complaint can be made at minimal cost then it may be worthwhile but before visiting the Supreme Court to take on a company the size of Qantas I believe you should have a good understanding of the consequences. Although we may not all consider that Qantas "Noddy Dollars" are the real deal, the chap in the funny wig will closely consider legal precedents.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's simply a question of a risk/reward basis. If an adequate consumer complaint can be made at minimal cost then it may be worthwhile but before visiting the Supreme Court to take on a company the size of Qantas I believe you should have a good understanding of the consequences. Although we may not all consider that Qantas "Noddy Dollars" are the real deal, the chap in the funny wig will closely consider legal precedents.

i don't see anyone suggesting the consumer bring a Supreme Court action. that would be a little extreme for $2800. in victoria we'd just go to VCAT... there'd be an equivalent in QLD.

 

[Baysider]

i don't see anyone suggesting the consumer bring a Supreme Court action. that would be a little extreme for $2800. in victoria we'd just go to VCAT... there'd be an equivalent in QLD.

Its QCAT in fact !

 

[N860CR]

I think that's the answer, and the airline would no doubt cave before it came to fronting a small claims hearing. The cost for one... But more they don't want to risk losing.

 

[love_the_life]

I'm going to take a slightly different take to a few posters here.

In my view OP's parents should view the total compensation offered as approx $3000. Few reasons,

1. The 'ex-gratia' payment at airport. This is definitely part of compensation.
For those who chose to wait till the next day to fly in the J cabin - their compensation is this $700 for arriving 24hrs later, plus hotels, food etc looked after
For the OPs parents, the compensation is $700 plus the fare difference by schedule (as returned at a later datE).

2. The 'additional' $500 voucher and 50k points. This was seemingly provided as part of a general discussion about the downgrade and behaviour of the agents at LAX (I assume). Now not many details have been provided about the actual behaviour of agents in LAX, but if QF gave $1000 value for each coughpy experience with an employee, I would be very rich, and they would be broke. Again I think most (if not all) of this payment is an overall payment by QF for the downgrade.

Perhaps I have a more literal view of 'ex gratia' as something above the normal, an extra if you will. Maybe you could include it in a compensation calculation but I wouldn't and anyway it's the paltry refund that's the real stick in the craw point here IMO.

 

[medhead]

To take Wikipedia as a general indicator:

Ex gratia (/ˌɛks ˈɡreɪʃiə/;[1] also spelled ex-gratia) is Latin for "by favour", and is most often used in a legal context. When something has been done ex gratia, it has been done voluntarily, out of kindness or grace. In law, an ex gratia payment is a payment made without the giver recognising any liability or legal obligation.

If you've made a payment that is totally unrelated to any liability. That is not intended to acknowledge or address liability. I don't really see how it is possible to claim that payment fulfils a liability claim, ie a fare refund, that someone makes again you.

If the total amount paid does amount to a reasonable refund then qantas were a bit misguided in not just calling it a refund. Instead they made an ex gratia payment that relates to no particular liability.

 

[RAM]

And say what, exactly.

Since it's so popular with our glorious leaders, let's scrape a few barnacles off this hoary old thread.

Barnacle 1 - Business Class was over-subscribed. This happens to all airlines at some time or another, whether from over-booking or IRROPS. Qantas is not a serial offender in this, and gets loadings better than most. [Scrape]

Barnacle 2 - Qantas offered to put the OP (and others) up for the night and get $700 for their troubles if they could delay travel for a day. Pretty fair offer but the OP declined. [Scrrape]

Barnacle 3 - A Qantas representative (allegedly) took their frustrations out on the OP in a less than stellar example of customer service. Qantas have accepted this as fact, have taken actions to address it and given the OP 50K points and an apology. [Sccrrrape!]

Which gets us to the issue that worries the precious listeners the most ...

The compensation table for those that choose a downgrade over a reschedule or refund, is overly simplistic and works in Qantas' favour. This is the barnacle that is stuck fast to the good ship AFF, as it hints at privilege being only an ephemeral thing that status does not always protect.

Solution - fly economy. From there the only way is up!

What no downgrade to DeathStar?

 

[RB]

What no downgrade to DeathStar?

RAM have I missed the post where you provided any feedback you received from DOT?

 

[Princess Fiona]

What do you expect them to tell us? The truth?

Funnily enough yes.
Do you think that isn't the case ?

 

[fersea]

I'm going to take a slightly different take to a few posters here.

In my view OP's parents should view the total compensation offered as approx $3000. Few reasons,

1. The 'ex-gratia' payment at airport. This is definitely part of compensation.
For those who chose to wait till the next day to fly in the J cabin - their compensation is this $700 for arriving 24hrs later, plus hotels, food etc looked after
For the OPs parents, the compensation is $700 plus the fare difference by schedule (as returned at a later datE).

2. The 'additional' $500 voucher and 50k points. This was seemingly provided as part of a general discussion about the downgrade and behaviour of the agents at LAX (I assume). Now not many details have been provided about the actual behaviour of agents in LAX, but if QF gave $1000 value for each coughpy experience with an employee, I would be very rich, and they would be broke. Again I think most (if not all) of this payment is an overall payment by QF for the downgrade.

I don't believe OP has published anything about what they actually paid. But looking at October 2015.
BNE-JFK return can be had for $8600 in J, and $2100 in Y (looking at cheapest fares)
So the difference is $6500 (Obviously different dates will give different results - but I suspect this is ballpark)
Now the OPs parents were downgraded for 13hrs out of a 36hr journey (one leg out of four) (ie 36% of total journey)
About $2350 applying this percentage to the fare difference.

So in this respect I would view the overall QF compensation as fair, albeit certainly not overgenerous.

--

I agree the downgraded fare table itself (1200/1250) is pretty poor, but I believe in all these situations that a payment at the airport is generally made, so in my mind this needs to be included as part of the overall package (and is potentially reflected in the table) (presumably QF also has rules about airport payments)

Where I think QF has let themselves down in this situation is:
a. Seemingly the agent behaviour at check-in
b. The communication with the OPs parents - seemingly not enough, and simple things like telling them how much the refund would be, and proactively quickening the refund process via Flight Centre, were not done
c. Not fully explaining why these pax were selected for downgrade (per OPs post they had checked in early and were SG members). RedRoo posted a generic statement but it didn't seem to answer the question


While some on this board also think the number of thread views should make QF more generous, I actually think it has the opposite effect. I suspect they are being very cautious here not to set a precedent.

I agree, I don't think the customers have been treated that badly. Not great but this is hardly the worst any customer has been screwed over by a large corporation.

 

[SpudOz]

I have been intrigued in this thread since it started. What happened to your parents could happen to any of us. I am happy for this thread to go on until there is news of a reasonable outcome, which in my view has not occurred to date.

And as as for Qantas "lying", they do! I travelled to LAX on a delayed QF and was constantly reassured by the cabin crew that the connecting flight to JFK would wait for our flight. I became suspicious upon landing when the PA arced up and called out some pax names with a few doctors in the mix. They were quickly ushered off and the plebs (me included) were herded into the arrivals hall to be told that the connecting flight had just departed. It seemed only F & J pax made the flight. We were relegated to a delta flight 8 hours later and they lost some of our bags as well.

Qantas staff do lie, as do other airlines, when it suits