FA Unilaterally Downgrading PAX from J to Y on Trans Tasman (Jetconnect)

[Maca44]

In civil proceedings the burden of proof rests with the "balance of probabilities", and if this matter did reach a Civil Court hearing then the Plaintiff could subpoena all relevant documents to support his claim.

The Plaintiff does not need to prove that something happened "beyond a reasonable doubt" as this onus of proof is only relied upon more so in criminal matters. I repeat, it is the balance of probabilities, so the Plaintiff only to show that it was probable, or that it most likely occured to succeed.

 

[Travel Guru]

Methinks there is more to this story than has been revealed.

I was starting to think I was the only one

TG

 

[Dave Noble]

In civil proceedings the burden of proof rests with the "balance of probabilities", and if this matter did reach a Civil Court hearing then the Plaintiff could subpoena all relevant documents to support his claim.

The Plaintiff does not need to prove that something happened "beyond a reasonable doubt" as this onus of proof is only relied upon more so in criminal matters. I repeat, it is the balance of probabilities, so the Plaintiff only to show that it was probable, or that it most likely occured to succeed.

Indeed. the civil requirements are different to criminal however , as it stands, the only evidence is that the OP claims it to be so.

From the details provided regarding NSW system there seems to be no facility to force the defendant to provide evidence to support the plaintif's claim from what I can see from the courts website. I have only been involved in the UK system rather than the Australian one so not 100% sure

Dave

 

[serfty]

Actually, having travelled QF trans-Tasman at least twice a month this year (and also quite a few Jitcinnict flights within NZ), I have no doubt the downgrade occurred as posted.

 

[medhead]

Indeed. the civil requirements are different to criminal however , as it stands, the only evidence is that the OP claims it to be so.

From the details provided regarding NSW system there seems to be no facility to force the defendant to provide evidence to support the plaintif's claim from what I can see from the courts website. I have only been involved in the UK system rather than the Australian one so not 100% sure

Dave

I'm also not sure about the facility to force a defendant to provuide evidence. But it is wrong to state that the only evidence is the OP's claim. That is clearly not correct, as Qantas will hold records that are relevant to this case, and that also will provide access to relevant witnesses. Regardless of the facility to obtain evidence, I would think it would be pretty good grounds for appeal if the court didn't require qantas to produce the evidence that they hold.

Not only that, qantas due to the nature of the op's claim qantas couldn't just rely of issuing a boarding pass, it is claimed that the BP system was bypassed by the FA. So they need to provide a defence as to why that didn't occur. If the OP gets up in court and gives his story under oath and qantas do nothing do disprove the story then they must lose. Hopw can the court not accept the evidence of the OP if Qantas don't provide any contra evidence. So I just cannot agree that Qantas can just sit there and say nothing and the OP is left having to prove it all.

 

[Dave Noble]

I'm also not sure about the facility to force a defendant to provuide evidence. But it is wrong to state that the only evidence is the OP's claim. That is clearly not correct, as Qantas will hold records that are relevant to this case, and that also will provide access to relevant witnesses. Regardless of the facility to obtain evidence, I would think it would be pretty good grounds for appeal if the court didn't require qantas to produce the evidence that they hold.

There is, I believe, no appeal on a small claims. Qantas will not need to bring witnesses . The process in a Small Claims is different to a criminal trial. Qantas would not need to provide anything

Not only that, qantas due to the nature of the op's claim qantas couldn't just rely of issuing a boarding pass, it is claimed that the BP system was bypassed by the FA. So they need to provide a defence as to why that didn't occur. If the OP gets up in court and gives his story under oath and qantas do nothing do disprove the story then they must lose. Hopw can the court not accept the evidence of the OP if Qantas don't provide any contra evidence. So I just cannot agree that Qantas can just sit there and say nothing and the OP is left having to prove it all.

I don't know 100% about Oz, but in UK ( which I believe has v similar procedures) there is no oath in a civil court; the whole process was done in a room at a table with parties on other side of table. The plaintif makes their claim and provides any evidence that they have. The other party gets a chance to reply and then the judge makes a determination.


A claimant alleging that someone owes them money without anything to substantiate the claim has pretty much zero chance of convincing a judge that the other party needs to pay them anything

The evidence that the claimant would have would be that he had a business class boarding pass which is not enough

If is not a formal adversarial system as , say, the USA has for civil claims with relatively complex procedures

I have taken a few cases to a small claims court and the system is pretty decent but , as would be expected, it is up to the claimant to prove their case not for the defendant

Dave

 

[medhead]

There is, I believe, no appeal on a small claims. Qantas will not need to bring witnesses . The process in a Small Claims is different to a criminal trial. Qantas would not need to provide anything

I don't know 100% about Oz, but in UK ( which I believe has v similar procedures) there is no oath in a civil court; the whole process was done in a room at a table with parties on other side of table. The plaintif makes their claim and provides any evidence that they have. The other party gets a chance to reply and then the judge makes a determination.

A claimant alleging that someone owes them money without anything to substantiate the claim has pretty much zero chance of convincing a judge that the other party needs to pay them anything

The evidence that the claimant would have would be that he had a business class boarding pass which is not enough

If is not a formal adversarial system as , say, the USA has for civil claims with relatively complex procedures

I have taken a few cases to a small claims court and the system is pretty decent but , as would be expected, it is up to the claimant to prove their case not for the defendant

Dave

Certainly, I have no experience of this, and what you outline sounds reasonable. But even given the process you outline, qantas would have to prove something to disprove the claim that the FA moved the guy. The OP would making a statement (Stat Dec) that is subject to perjury issues and all, that to say what happened. He has more that just a verbal claim to say they owe him. He has a BP, he has a booking with T&C and he has a version of events that might ahve occurred once he boarded. If qantas doesn't provide anything to refute his version of events then it must be accepted. They need to show why they shouldn't accept his claims about what happened on the aircraft. Like the FA would have to come forward to call him a liar.

Anyway, given my lack of knowledge of this stuff I'll leave it at that. And I'm really only expressing a general opinion

 

[Commuter]

Actually, having travelled QF trans-Tasman at least twice a month this year (and also quite a few Jitcinnict flights within NZ), I have no doubt the downgrade occurred as posted.

This would sound seriously unscientific (and it is indeed totally unscientific way of thining), but I too tend to believe the OP's story as my worst experience involving an FA on QF happened on trans-Tasman.

I was fairly shocked at what happened (I shall not elaborate as it had been appropriately dealt with by QF premium team) - it was something I expected a random shonky operator to do, not QF.

 

[docjames]

You cant leave it at that Commuter! :shock:

How about a five line summary (acknowledging it has been dealt with!)?

 

[munitalP]

I was starting to think I was the only one

TG

You obviously missed post 39 on page 4 TG!




Mr!

 

[Diesellife]

What Dave said is true...Qantas does not need to provide any sort of responces nor any witnesses.

The plaintiff is required to provide evidence to support their claim, or at least, to prove that such incident had possibly occured.

On the other hand, statutory declaration is some form of evidence. BUT the court will look into all sorts of evidence presented and make a judgement. A judge is usually unwilling to award either side based on the staturtory declaration alone. Thus cases will drop because of insufficient proof.

Back to this case, if you threaten Qantas long enough, the case usually will settle outside of court as Qantas will most likely to offer compensation (Regardless whether they admit the case or not) as going to court will stir media problems and damaging corporate image.

 

[medhead]

What Dave said is true...Qantas does not need to provide any sort of responces nor any witnesses.

The plaintiff is required to provide evidence to support their claim, or at least, to prove that such incident had possibly occured.

On the other hand, statutory declaration is some form of evidence. BUT the court will look into all sorts of evidence presented and make a judgement. A judge is usually unwilling to award either side based on the staturtory declaration alone. Thus cases will drop because of insufficient proof.

Back to this case, if you threaten Qantas long enough, the case usually will settle outside of court as Qantas will most likely to offer compensation (Regardless whether they admit the case or not) as going to court will stir media problems and damaging corporate image.

Ok but here is the fundamental contradiction with the bolded bits. If qantas does not provide any responses or evidence then the court has to accept the version of events presented if it seems reasonable (i.e. no mention of aliens or superheros). They have no reason not to accept the version of events presented.

 

[Dave Noble]

Ok but here is the fundamental contradiction with the bolded bits. If qantas does not provide any responses or evidence then the court has to accept the version of events presented if it seems reasonable (i.e. no mention of aliens or superheros). They have no reason not to accept the version of events presented.

No. All Qantas has to say is that they do not believe this happened and with nothing to corroborarate the claim, the case is bound to fail

Alleging that the event occurred is not evidence; it is up to the claimant to provide sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would believe that the claim is valid AND that the amount claimed is correct

A Statutory Declaration from the claimant means nothing since the claimant is present

As it stands the clamant would have nothing to support the claim whilst having plenty of evidence to refute it ( such as having been credited for business class miles and having a business class boarding pass )



Dave

 

[medhead]

No. All Qantas has to say is that they do not believe this happened and with nothing to corroborarate the claim, the case is bound to fail

Alleging that the event occurred is not evidence; it is up to the claimant to provide sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would believe that the claim is valid AND that the amount claimed is correct

A Statutory Declaration from the claimant means nothing since the claimant is present

As it stands the clamant would have nothing to support the claim whilst having plenty of evidence to refute it ( such as having been credited for business class miles and having a business class boarding pass )

Dave

What the claimant has is a reasonable sounding story. The boarding pass does not refute their version of events at all. The story is I got my BP, got on the aircraft, sat in my seat, and then the FA then asked me to move. That last bit is not refuted by the BP. Qantas saying we don't think that happened, doesn't have much weight, since their belief basically gets them off the hook. Whereas the claimant is prepared to give a statement in a legal binding way that is open to penalties if proven a lie. For qantas then to simple say they didn't believe it happened (a claim that allows them to win, without any legal penalty) and to not provide evidence or the FA as a witness make them less credible. In a case of one word against another credibility is the key point.

"We don't think it happened."
"Do you want to present a basis for that belief?"
"No"

This is not a good look.

So in a general sense qantas has no crediblity if not presenting something to refute the claim and that deals with the issue of validity. In terms of the amount claimed, this is set out in the T&C, why would the OP something more than that. In any case, leaving of one world has been mentioned why would they want any credit or compensation that has to be used with one world.

 

[Dave Noble]

"We don't think it happened."
"Do you want to present a basis for that belief?"
"No"

This is not a good look.

So in a general sense qantas has no crediblity if not presenting something to refute the claim and that deals with the issue of validity. In terms of the amount claimed, this is set out in the T&C, why would the OP something more than that. In any case, leaving of one world has been mentioned why would they want any credit or compensation that has to be used with one world.

They do not have to provide ANY defence... it is up to the claimant to PROVE the case. As described by the poster, he has no proof. That it sounds like it might have happened is not enough.

with no proof has v little chance of success

They say "we dont believe it happened" .... they do not have any need whatsoever to provide any basis.... the claimant needs to provide something to substantiate the claim beyond "it must be true cos I said so"

If the person, had, for example required that they provided a new boarding pass or had got the details of the passenger he ended up sat next to who he could use as a witness then there would be something for them to defend.

Try suing a company without evidence and see how successfully it goes
Turn up with good substantiation to support the claim and the small claims system is great but "he says, she says" is not going to work


That the claimant is prepared to claim that an event took place is hardly compelling

What does the CoC state in regards to being downgraded?

Dave

 

[medhead]

They do not have to provide ANY defence... it is up to the claimant to PROVE the case. As described by the poster, he has no proof. That it sounds like it might have happened is not enough.

with no proof has v little chance of success

They say "we dont believe it happened" .... they do not have any need whatsoever to provide any basis.... the claimant needs to provide something to substantiate the claim beyond "it must be true cos I said so"

If the person, had, for example required that they provided a new boarding pass or had got the details of the passenger he ended up sat next to who he could use as a witness then there would be something for them to defend.

Try suing a company without evidence and see how successfully it goes
Turn up with good substantiation to support the claim and the small claims system is great but "he says, she says" is not going to work


That the claimant is prepared to claim that an event took place is hardly compelling

What does the CoC state in regards to being downgraded?

Dave

Sorry Dave but there is a fundamental contradiction in your statements. You say that "he says, she says" does not work, but then you also say that Qantas says does work.

You are also missing the point. While qantas doesn't have to provide a defence, the fact is that the claimants direct experience is evidence. Our legal system does in fact accept the experiences of people directly involved in situations. The claimant would be saying it must be true because I experienced it. Qantas is saying we don't believe it happened but we are not going to back up our believe with a statement from anyone actually involved in the incident. It seems your position is that heresay beats a witness. I'm not sure that is compatible with common law. No matter how much small claims use different rules, IMO they can't overrule common law.

Finally, if someone sued a company they would have the right to discovery, they could get orders for qantas to provide the records. That is, as you explain, a key difference between small claims and a court.

Anyway, this is a very interest hypothetical discussion. I think the key difference is that I'm banging on about principles and you've got all the facts. Sorry to say but the facts are not going to change my belief in principles.

 

[Dave Noble]

Sorry Dave but there is a fundamental contradiction in your statements. You say that "he says, she says" does not work, but then you also say that Qantas says does work.

You are also missing the point. While qantas doesn't have to provide a defence, the fact is that the claimants direct experience is evidence. Our legal system does in fact accept the experiences of people directly involved in situations. The claimant would be saying it must be true because I experienced it. Qantas is saying we don't believe it happened but we are not going to back up our believe with a statement from anyone actually involved in the incident. It seems your position is that heresay beats a witness. I'm not sure that is compatible with common law. No matter how much small claims use different rules, IMO they can't overrule common law.

there is no contradiction. The claimant has to prove that the other party owes them money; the defendant does not have to prove that they dont. If the only "evidence" is the statement of the claimant with nothing to substantiate it, the defendant has to do nothing whatsoever since the claimant has not provided anything to prove their claim to the required level.

Consider, there are posts in this thread that show that some people at least do not believe that what has been stated is all that happened;

If the person had insisted on a new boarding pass or , perhaps, had got the details of the passenger sat adjacent to him in economy and got a statement from that person to support the claim then there would be some substance to the claim.

If the claim was not a small claim and was being handled outside of the small claims system then procedure is different

It is facts that do matter in a case

 

[djfuzz]

This conjecturing really seems kind of pointless. The fact is, it's not even going to reach any administrative / smalls claims dispute process.

The issue is whether or not from a customer service perspective Qantas will follow this up appropriately if pushed. A complaint filed by a valued frequent flyer who, like most of you, would expect to be treated better in order to continue flying with them. The $150 offer may seem cursory, but it will hardly be the final word.

As such, chriszzz14, I wish you well in your complaint, and please let us know how it pans out.

 

[medhead]

If the person had insisted on a new boarding pass or , perhaps, had got the details of the passenger sat adjacent to him in economy and got a statement from that person to support the claim then there would be some substance to the claim.

And it is only by assumption that you conclude this other evidence doesn't exist. Or that the name of the FA isn't known. And of course there is the letter from qantas where they state that they accept the PAX word that the event happened and are prepared to offer compensation.

I've read many posts here that people have never heard of this happening, but I don't recall any that said they didn't believe it happened.

As such, chriszzz14, I wish you well in your complaint, and please let us know how it pans out.

+1

 

[JohnK]

I have only just come across this thread and I am shocked at what I read. This is totally unacceptable and I would follow it up until I received satisfactory compensation and an apology.

Way after the horse has bolted (and easy to think of in hindsight), but the obvious response to the 'request' for the couple to sit together was that they're welcome to, in Y. Move the J spouse back to Y and upgrade someone who was sitting next to the Y spouse. Probably would have been met with a pig-ignorant response from the FA.

I do not understand why people who could not be bothered to ensure they were seated together at check-in (or even pre-allocated seats at booking time) always want the best possible seats and inconvenience other passengers....