Downgraded from Business Class.

[amaroo]

I wonder if when refusing the downgrade whether people might then be refused boarding just for "being difficult.

Not IME. My refusal to accept a decision for one of our party to downgrade from F>J (BA BKK-SYD) was a discussion that resulted in the action being reversed.

All of this was handled poolside at BKK Peninsula, 8 or so hours before departure... The agent appeared surprised I answered the phone rather than the targeted elderly passenger.

FWIW they targeted a 76 year old pensioner... IMO airlines like to target the old and vulnerable.

 

[Pushka]

Not IME. My refusal to accept a request for one of our party to downgrade from F>J (BA BKK-SYD) was a discussion that resulted in the action being reversed.

All of this was handled poolside at BKK Peninsula, 8 or so hours before departure...

FWIW they targeted a 76 year old pensioner... IMO airlines like to target the old and vulnerable.

That's just sad then.

 

[timster]

What's "Refundation" ?

Qantas-speak for a refund that's not actually a real refund ?

 

[grussellt]

Imagine if restaurants overbooked their tables. Turn up at Vue de Monde only to be offered a table the following night or dinner at McDonalds just down the street. How long would they get away with it? It's amazing that airlines do.

Restaurants do make mistakes. I experienced that at Level 41. No table available for a party of 8 (despite booking well in advance) so they gave us a private dining room. Sadly this restaurant is no more

 

[Quickstatus]

I think it's possible to be all of those things.
Yes I'm certainly disgusted with the treatment of the passengers, especially so at LAX and yes I think that QF are acting within their own T&C's.
I do not however think that these T&C's are at all fair to the passengers. Many other airlines have similar T&C's which are equally unfair to their passengers. This is why the EU introduced 261/2004. Presumably prior to this a lot of passengers were ending up with similar woeful amounts of compensation.
The sooner we have something like this in Australia the better for everyone.

What I don't agree with is that I need to fear a downgrade every time I fly QF. Or that because two people on the internet I don't know got downgraded QF is falling apart at the seams or equal combinations of the two.
I'm happy to continue booking and flying with QF and won't be changing that as a result of this thread.

It wont happen to me unless it happens to me. Sort of like taking out travel insurance. Someone I didnt know went OS and got injured or sick. Has not happened to me therefore no need to worry, I wont take out travel insurance.......

Agree with the EU regulation - sets a standard of conduct that passengers and airline can rely on. Currently we can only hope it does not happen to us.... (until it happens to us)

 

[vetrade]

And as we all know (for now), people DO NOT have the right to be bigoted, so singling out Qantas for harsh treatment is unfair.

So what would you call the irrelevant inclusion of Tony Abbott into a conversation about downgrading airline passengers and calling him a muppet?

 

[Pushka]

I think that only works one way

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

So what would you call the irrelevant inclusion of Tony Abbott into a conversation about downgrading airline passengers and calling him a muppet?

I believe it was Senator Branson, and he was right. You have the right to say whatever you like. Whether it is in good taste, racist, etc is up to the interpretation. This forum however as a set of rules that would not allow it.

Now back OT...

 

[BadgerBoi]

I believe it was Senator Branson, and he was right. You have the right to say whatever you like. Whether it is in good taste, racist, etc is up to the interpretation. This forum however as a set of rules that would not allow it.

Now back OT...

i don't believe there is a Senator Branson, and if that is what he would say then I'm glad he doesn't exist.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

i don't believe there is a Senator Branson, and if that is what he would say then I'm glad he doesn't exist.

Maybe Sir Richard has got a new gig. :sly:

He could possibly be referring to Attorney General - Senator George Brandis.

http://m.watoday.com.au/federal-po...by-david-hicks-heckling-20141211-125cvx.html

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Maybe Sir Richard has got a new gig. :sly:

He could possibly be referring to Attorney General - Senator George Brandis.

http://m.watoday.com.au/federal-po...by-david-hicks-heckling-20141211-125cvx.html

Haha correct. Damn autocorrect on the iPhone...

 

[Moody]

So what would you call the irrelevant inclusion of Tony Abbott into a conversation about downgrading airline passengers and calling him a muppet?

The relevance is that if this thread can make Tony Abbott look like a good operator, then it's well and truly time for the nonsense to stop.

But if you really feel that it has detracted from the topic of ...... whatever this thread is now about, then I withdraw the inclusion of Despicable T and Georgie Porgie into the conversation. Oh - and I apologise to all Muppets that may have been offended.

So has anyone got anything new to say????

 

[Pushka]

Nice degeneration of the thread.

 

[medhead]

Nope, calculation shown quite clearly above - perhaps try reading my post before telling me I have misunderstood!



Of course it was part of their compensation. So what if it was given to everyone similarly affected? Why shouldn't it have been?

I know in QF semantics it was two different payments, but so what? All I've referred to is the total amount of cash they received.

So those affected who chose to fly the next day - Received $700 for arriving 24 hrs later, but flying in the same J seat
For the OPs parent - Received $700 for being forced to sit in a much smaller Y seat, but arriving at the same time.

Each is affected in different ways, but in the case in this thread, the $700 is clearly part of the overall downgrade compensation...

Note I am somewhat surprised at the more recent PE to Y downgrade where their was no at airport compensation provided.

Compensation of inconvenience is a completely separate issue.

The issue at hand is the refund for the business fare. The $700 compensation most certainly is not part of a refund. It really is that simple. The $700 is not a refund, it is compensation for inconvenience. They have been given a $1250 refund for the fare paid. Even if we accept the (low) $2100 value one of you has estimated, the refund is still $850 short. Payments for other things are not a refund of the airfare. If qantas want it to be considered a refund they need to say it is a refund, they haven't.

 

[DC3]

Nice degeneration of the thread.

Very "coachie".

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Not IME. My refusal to accept a decision for one of our party to downgrade from F>J (BA BKK-SYD) was a discussion that resulted in the action being reversed.

All of this was handled poolside at BKK Peninsula, 8 or so hours before departure... The agent appeared surprised I answered the phone rather than the targeted elderly passenger.

FWIW they targeted a 76 year old pensioner... IMO airlines like to target the old and vulnerable.

Since when does one have to specify their occupation when making their bookings? How would BA have know they were 'targeting' a pensioner? I don't believe EmilyP's parents were targeted based on their age, it was just an unfortunate set of circumstances where they were the people downgraded.

In fairness to BA, if they've got an oversale of one pax in F they're not going to call a party of two or more and ask if one of the group doesn't want to travel or heaven forbid 'downgrade' before they've called people (who might appear to be) travelling solo first.

Your M-I-L would have a different surname from 3 or possibly the four people in your family so it may not have been obvious to BA at first that you were a group of five travelling together.

I'm sure if the BA agent sounded surprised it was because they were expecting a woman to answer the phone instead of a man, rather than "OMG we got Amaroo that dreaded anti-downgrade crusader and son-in-law of this poor vulnerable little old lady".

 

[Jack_OC]

Compensation of inconvenience is a completely separate issue.

The issue at hand is the refund for the business fare. The $700 compensation most certainly is not part of a refund. It really is that simple. The $700 is not a refund, it is compensation for inconvenience. They have been given a $1250 refund for the fare paid. Even if we accept the (low) $2100 value one of you has estimated, the refund is still $850 short. Payments for other things are not a refund of the airfare. If qantas want it to be considered a refund they need to say it is a refund, they haven't.

Who said it was a refund? I said it was compensation.

 

[JohnK]

For those that want the thread closed can just as easily ignore the thread.

It's not possible to"'mistakenly" put someone from a lower cabin into a higher cabin such as J. Any upgrades have to have an appropriate category assigned to them eg pax with 'opt-in' points upgrade requests have a particular upgrade category if they haven't already received it the upgrade the day prior.

There's no such thing as 'what happens in LAX (or insert appropriate city code here) stays in LAX' as it's not difficult for anybody to view who's been upgraded.

I don't believe for a minute that any staff or friends of staff were in J or PE. That notion has been done to death. There are many more likely scenarios I can think of none of which involve the above.

I don't for one minute doubt there are procedures in place for handling upgrades/seating etc and there is also an audit trail. Doesn't mean this audit trail is always checked and I believe staff will stick up for staff in these types of situtations.

Something doesn't quite sit right in this situation and the behaviour of the staff in LAX is questionable. Suspect even.

And the way Qantas has handled the situation is not much better.

Apart from this thread, tell me another thread where a member was downgraded. Not bumped back to the original flight.

Hard to suggest it is a regular occurrence by your inference.

The person going to Tokyo who was informed they were downgraded but later on were reinstated to business when there was a no show.

How many people just accept what they are told without complaining?

 

[medhead]

Who said it was a refund? I said it was compensation.

Yet you keep including the compensation in as part of the refund. You can't have it both ways. The couple in this case have not received a fair refund. That is not changed by you trying to pretend the $700 cash and $500 voucher are part of the refund.

 

[eastwest101]

Yet you keep including the compensation in as part of the refund. You can't have it both ways. The couple in this case have not received a fair refund. That is not changed by you trying to pretend the $700 cash and $500 voucher are part of the refund.

Exactly medhead - if I remember correctly from earlier in the thread the $700 offered as an 'inconvenience payment' was offered to all J class pax affected in LAX on that day - presumably whether they volunteered to stay in LAX for another 24 hours and flew J the next day, or indeed also J pax whom were downgraded to Y class, or any other combination/permutation of affected J class passengers.

I think the concept of 'compensation' needs to be dealt with separate to the concept of a refund. The refund should be for services unable to be provided - in this case the J class seat on the flight originally booked - and the method and perceived fairness used to calculate the refund is one of the main issues the OP parents have.

The compensation could be for a number of things - but you would expect that compensation is for one or a couple of the following, inconvenience of flying in the same cabin as originally booked but at a later date, rude treatment of pax by LAX staff, or even mishandling of the complaint could be further compensation?

Compensation is sort of discretionary and usually a recognition that a customers service was below standard, in some cases the compensation may exceed the lost value to the consumer and is usually about saving face/bad PR/avoiding further legal action.

Refunds on the other hand - is more of a consumer law or customer right matter, and how fair or unfair the refund calculation that QF uses is the subject of many posts and opinions.

So lets not mix up 'compensation' from a 'refund'.


From the ACCC web site:

Consumer guarantees applying to services

Businesses that supply services guarantee that those services will be:

• provided with due care and skill
• fit for any specified purpose (express or implied)
• provided within a reasonable time (when no time is set).

A contract or agreement for the supply of services usually states when the services will be provided and the date they will be completed. If not, the supplier guarantees to supply the service within a reasonable time. What is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the nature of the service and other relevant factors such as the weather, for example, if services are being performed in outdoor areas.

What happens if these guarantees are not met?

If you sell a customer a service that fails to meet one or more of the consumer guarantees, he/she is entitled to a remedy – for example, a refund, a further service to rectify the problem and in some circumstances compensation for consequential loss. The service provider must then provide the appropriate remedy.
If the problem is minor and can be fixed, you can choose how to fix the problem.
The consumer cannot cancel and demand a refund immediately. You must have an opportunity to fix the problem. If the repairs take too long, the consumer can get someone else to fix the problem and ask you to pay reasonable costs, or cancel the service and get a refund.
If the problem is major or cannot be fixed, the consumer can choose to:

• terminate the contract for services and obtain a full refund, or
• seek compensation for the difference between the value of the services provided compared to the price paid.

A purchased service has a major problem when it:

• has a problem that would have stopped someone from purchasing the service if they had known about it
• is substantially unfit for its common purpose, and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time
• does not meet the specific purpose the consumer asked for and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time
• creates an unsafe situation.