Downgraded from Business Class.

[QF WP]

[MOD HAT ON]

I think the time has come to actually let the OP or EmilyP answer the questions with information gathered from her parents, rather than the conjecture that is going around this thread. I appreciate the fervour surrounding the discussion and the measured responses to date - let's avoid getting personal before its too late.

[MOD HAT OFF]

 

[JohnPhelan]

Downgrades happen to those who checked in last (same as offloads) so it was just a case of poor timing.

That's what should happen, but it's not the way it works with QF. In the case of overbooking - and based on personal experience - QF decides who is going to be bumped before airport check-in even opens!

 

[whatmeworry]

Jim Jefferies the comedian once got downgraded from Business because of Neil Diamond's band.

 

[JohnK]

Also just playing devils advocate for a moment - just say there was a couple bumped from QF16 the night prior to EmilyP's parents & they had been transferred over to the next day which resulted in the oversale then that couple would have wanted two seats together.

It's possible there wasn't two people with a lower status that had seats next to each other ie if they bumped a PS J pax in 16J and a SG J pax in 8B that wouldn't have helped get the two pax together disrupted from the previous night seated together.

The right answer is not to take the seats off someone who does not want to give up their seats.

Qantas can't have everything the way it wants it. Yes I have said it a few times now but an airline should not be able to profit from overselling.

Here is another simple solution. Move disrupted passengers to other carriers. No? Why not? Don't disrupt more passngers to accommodate disrupted passengers.

 

[Princess Fiona]

It's not a wink .... It's light bulb (at least on my iPad) which I view as and "idea". The medical "industry" (didn't use the word profession) in LOTFAP is well known for dastardly deeds and poor customer outcomes ... I'm suggesting this incident appears to have similar undertones to the LOTFAP way of doing things.

I feel the water pump incident is valid. Why, because the repetitive ricital of the T&C has drown out all other discussion on the manner and ethics of the actual event including the terrible attitude of the LAX staff.

If the T&C argument is going to hold water - it needs to be plain vanilla for everyone ... not chocolate for some of us. BTW, I didn't mention names on purpose .... I'm sure 90% of posters in this thread wouldn't have had a clue what I was posting about!

QF have already made a compensation offer which is outwith their published T&C's to the OP's parents.
We await to hear whether or not that is final.
I'm not attempting to drown out any discussion on the manner or ethics of the event.

 

[farstar]

QF have already made a compensation offer which is outwith their published T&C's to the OP's parents.
We await to hear whether or not that is final.
I'm not attempting to drown out any discussion on the manner or ethics of the event.

Regardless of circumstances surrounding the downgrade. One of the main issues is, are the T&Cs fair and reasonable with regard to downgrades? The T&Cs seems very poor ,unreasonable and very one-sided in favor of QANTAS in terms of downgrade compensation.

 

[fersea]

I think everyone here is trying to make this sound far more sinister than it really is. My guess it was laziness on the part of the ground staff. They probably got told "you need to bump two people off business" and they thought "ow geez that's going to be a hassle".

So the first customers arrive. They are asked if they would be willing to move to tomorrow's flight. (That's what I don't understand everyone is saying they weren't asked - but they were asked if they wanted to go to tomorrow). Customers say no tomorrow is not an option. So then the lazy customer service agent just says they have to be bumped so that they can get on with their day and not have to worry about going through this with every passenger. Certainly poor behaviour on behalf of the Qantas rep but not the conspiracy theory some are suggesting.

Sounds to to me that the underlying issue is that Qantas are generally pretty generous when this happens - we have heard stories of where passengers have been well looked after with a hotel for the night, presumably some allowance for food and incidentals and then often upgraded on the next day. The one place it falls down is when the passengers move to a lower class, it seems the refund of the fare is pretty unreasonable.

As as far as going to A Current Affair or the Courier Mail (someone was suggesting the front page no less!), you are kidding aren't you. Here we have this pretty well off couple (if they can afford $15k for airfares and do it reasonably often), who had a bad experience but for one it was reversed before the plane took off, they are then going to get a refund of which the amount is pure speculation at the moment, plus a $500 voucher, plus 50,000 points. I can understand why they would be annoyed, very annoyed, but let's keep this in perspective. (Also do you think media do overly negative articles about their biggest advertisers?)

 

[equus]

One of the main issues is, are the T&Cs fair and reasonable with regard to downgrades? The T&Cs seems very poor ,unreasonable and very one-sided in favor of QANTAS in terms of downgrade compensation.

And further, are the T&Cs actually enforceable?

I don't believe there can be any denying that circumstances will occasionally mean passengers can't be carried as originally booked. Equipment malfunctions, weather, connection delays, overbooking, equipment change - whilst the original reason may vary, then end result will be that not everyone may be able to be carried on a given flight in the class which they expect.

The major issue being debated is really around how the pax are treated when the inevitable occurs - both at the time in terms of options and information provided, and then in terms of any refund or compensation. From my perspective, the only major issue (apart from the quality of customer service interaction), is the fairness of the refund offered - and the fairness (or lack there of) of the T&C in the circumstances, coupled with the apparent inflexible reliance on probably unenforceable terms by the airline to their advantage.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Regardless of circumstances surrounding the downgrade. One of the main issues is, are the T&Cs fair and reasonable with regard to downgrades? The T&Cs seems very poor ,unreasonable and very one-sided in favor of QANTAS in terms of downgrade compensation.

I completely agree. The T&C's for Airlines not covered by the EU regulations are poor, unreasonable and one-sided when it comes to refunds in the case of involuntary downgrades.
They are likely one-sided for a few other things as well.

 

[maninblack]

For some people, travel is not so simple or easy going. Sometimes people who are older, who have a physical or medical condition, very large or tall people, or perhaps those who have significant work pressures. People may book and pay for premium classes for their own reasons which may be very important or even critical. If a person is very adamant that they do not want to be bumped to economy or travel the next day, the airline should look for alternatives. Airlines need to respect their customers. Delays and weather and equipment changes do occur but that was not the case here. Overbooking is a terrible practice that needs to stop.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I think everyone here is trying to make this sound far more sinister than it really is. My guess it was laziness on the part of the ground staff. They probably got told "you need to bump two people off business" and they thought "ow geez that's going to be a hassle".

So the first customers arrive. They are asked if they would be willing to move to tomorrow's flight. (That's what I don't understand everyone is saying they weren't asked - but they were asked if they wanted to go to tomorrow). Customers say no tomorrow is not an option. So then the lazy customer service agent just says they have to be bumped so that they can get on with their day and not have to worry about going through this with every passenger. Certainly poor behaviour on behalf of the Qantas rep but not the conspiracy theory some are suggesting.

Sounds to to me that the underlying issue is that Qantas are generally pretty generous when this happens - we have heard stories of where passengers have been well looked after with a hotel for the night, presumably some allowance for food and incidentals and then often upgraded on the next day. The one place it falls down is when the passengers move to a lower class, it seems the refund of the fare is pretty unreasonable.

As as far as going to A Current Affair or the Courier Mail (someone was suggesting the front page no less!), you are kidding aren't you. Here we have this pretty well off couple (if they can afford $15k for airfares and do it reasonably often), who had a bad experience but for one it was reversed before the plane took off, they are then going to get a refund of which the amount is pure speculation at the moment, plus a $500 voucher, plus 50,000 points. I can understand why they would be annoyed, very annoyed, but let's keep this in perspective. (Also do you think media do overly negative articles about their biggest advertisers?)

Well put. We do however know that there were more than two passengers affected by the oversell. EmilyP posted that her parents were told this by the CSM.

 

[amaroo]

I think everyone here is trying to make this sound far more sinister than it really is. My guess it was laziness on the part of the ground staff. They probably got told "you need to bump two people off business" and they thought "ow geez that's going to be a hassle".

So the first customers arrive. They are asked if they would be willing to move to tomorrow's flight. (That's what I don't understand everyone is saying they weren't asked - but they were asked if they wanted to go to tomorrow). Customers say no tomorrow is not an option. So then the lazy customer service agent just says they have to be bumped so that they can get on with their day and not have to worry about going through this with every passenger. Certainly poor behaviour on behalf of the Qantas rep but not the conspiracy theory some are suggesting.
)

Agreed. As posted many pages back, when this happens and you're not happy with the alternative - you need to pushback and ensure the lazy staff don't manage the issue to suit their agenda. This couple allowed the airline to treat them poorly...

I wonder if the staff are on some sort of bonus system to minimise the costs to the airline when these things occur. The actions of the LAX staff suggest this is possible.

 

[OATEK]

I think everyone here is trying to make this sound far more sinister than it really is. My guess it was laziness on the part of the ground staff. They probably got told "you need to bump two people off business" and they thought "ow geez that's going to be a hassle".

So the first customers arrive. They are asked if they would be willing to move to tomorrow's flight. (That's what I don't understand everyone is saying they weren't asked - but they were asked if they wanted to go to tomorrow). Customers say no tomorrow is not an option. So then the lazy customer service agent just says they have to be bumped so that they can get on with their day and not have to worry about going through this with every passenger. Certainly poor behaviour on behalf of the Qantas rep but not the conspiracy theory some are suggesting.

I am not a great one for conspiracy theories, and as I think about it laziness and other human foibles are often a very adequate explanation for why many things happen. But I still think there is an argument to be made that EmilyP's parents were a soft target, and as a self-funded international traveller, spending my children's inheritance on J seats, the poor response from QF, both on the ground and after the trip, resonates.

 

[drron]

I am not a great one for conspiracy theories, and as I think about it laziness and other human foibles are often a very adequate explanation for why many things happen. But I still think there is an argument to be made that EmilyP's parents were a soft target, and as a self-funded international traveller, spending my children's inheritance on J seats, the poor response from QF, both on the ground and after the trip, resonates.

Totally agree.
Doesn't matter what is technically right or what you should do in the circumstances this incident to me is another nail in QF's coffin.
It is about time QF became proactive in regards to apologies and compensation.
Compare this to the AA experience of 7 months ago.Several hours delay due to weather and a plane going tech.By the time we had landed each of us had an email apologising for the delay and 5000 miles each already in our Aadvantage accounts.

 

[love_the_life]

Agreed. As posted many pages back, when this happens and you're not happy with the alternative - you need to pushback and ensure the lazy staff don't manage the issue to suit their agenda. This couple allowed the airline to treat them poorly...

I wonder if the staff are on some sort of bonus system to minimise the costs to the airline when these things occur. The actions of the LAX staff suggest this is possible.

From my understanding, EmilyP's mother did stand up for themselves and did argue that their treatment was not acceptable to them and they wanted a different solution. The staff rep/supervisor turned her back and walked away.

 

[marks]

For those that don't mind a bit of language, Australian comedian Jim Jefferies does a great routine about this in his new video BARE.
Bumped from J from a South Africa flight to UK, because the Neil Diamond & entourage decide to go a day earlier...

Without giving away the punchline, he does suggest a way to get a J seat.

 

[amaroo]

From my understanding, EmilyP's mother did stand up for themselves and did argue that their treatment was not acceptable to them and they wanted a different solution. The staff rep/supervisor turned her back and walked away.

For me, the discussion/negotiation would change at the point that person rudely walked away ... not end - as appears to have occurred in this case.

Tactics/treatment like that should not be tolerated.

 

[love_the_life]

For me, the discussion/negotiation would change at the point that person rudely walked away ... not end - as appears to have occurred in this case.

Tactics/treatment like that should not be tolerated.

True, but I think that unless we were there, we do not know what opportunity her parents had to continue their case. Sometimes one can be so flabbergasted that the chance is lost.
My comment was more that some posters seemed to feel that the couple just 'rolled over' and only now is a complaint being made on their behalf. I was pointing out that they made it very clear that they were unhappy with the situation and tried to do something, only to be brushed off with the general attitude of 'stiff'.

 

[Pushka]

True, but I think that unless we were there, we do not know what opportunity her parents had to continue their case. Sometimes one can be so flabbergasted that the chance is lost.
My comment was more that some posters seemed to feel that the couple just 'rolled over' and only now is a complaint being made on their behalf. I was pointing out that they made it very clear that they were unhappy with the situation and tried to do something, only to be brushed off with the general attitude of 'stiff'.

I agree. Sometimes you just "miss the moment" especially when tired from travel, and something like this comes as a bolt out of the blue.

I believe the couple behaved far better than I might have done. I have agonised in the past about whether to spend my personal money on booking a business class fare for a holiday. In the end I didnt as I just couldnt rationalise the cost. (But Emirates, lovely Emirates ended up upgrading us to Business class anyway - I could have cried!) To think I could have spent that money, and then at the gate, be told, tough cheese. Travel tomorrow or travel in Y!

 

[EmilyP]

I avoid them like the plague.....even if they arrived one day later they would probably still have to wait another 3 hours in reception, without missing their original appointment.....having said that...not a good idea to set up an appointment the day after you get back from overseas, for various reasons.(including missing your flight)

Actually the appointment had to be made by me while my parents were still in the States. My Father had a fairly serious health incident over there and I was able to get him an appointment with his specialist as soon as he arrived home (at the recommendation of said specialist).

Please try and stay on topic here and keep your speculation about my parents' apparent lack of organisation to yourself.

QF are at fault here, not my parents.