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

[Commuter]

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....

It's possible that they asked to be both seated in J at check-in and were told no, so decided to try on board (or they already knew the FA would be on board so decided to get her to do that).

 

[Dave Noble]

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.

If there was evidence then I would doubt v much that the OP would have any issue and posts 6 and 23 show that Qantas do NOT accept that the event happened

The women i spoke to at Qantas simply said that its my word against their records, of which show i was given a J boarding pass! She also said that the fare is not divided between the MEL-AKL and ALK-LAX trips, and that they would not be able to issue a refund of any kind.
Compensation is all i could hope for.

and

They simply apologised for what inconvenience that may have been caused.

They claim to have looked into the matter and spoken with the CSM on the flight who assured them that such a situation did not occur.

There is no acceptance that I can see that the event happened but that they offered ex gratia compensation

If the OP has got something to substatntiate the claim, then would be worth proceeding; without anything , given that he has indicated that QF have replied denying the event then all I can see is that he would be out of pocket of the amount of raising the claim

The whole alleged event sounds quite bizarre to me and I am with the posters who think that there may well be more to the story

Dave

 

[straitman]

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. +1

The whole alleged event sounds quite bizarre to me and I am with the posters who think that there may well be more to the story

Dave

Maybe it is time that medhead & Dave Noble agree to disagree with this.

As pointed out there are a lot of possibilities and so both sides of this are incorporating a whole lot of speculation. Without more information this is just turning into a he said, she said and (dare I say it) giving the rest of us quite a laugh.

My first (and only) say on the matter is that there is a lot more information that we don't and never will know from both sides of the argument so let's not get bent out of shape over something we cannot hope to resolve.

 

[medhead]

If there was evidence then I would doubt v much that the OP would have any issue and posts 6 and 23 show that Qantas do NOT accept that the event happened



and



There is no acceptance that I can see that the event happened but that they offered ex gratia compensation

Dave

I'm happy to agree to disagree.
But first: What is the post numner? the little number in top right hand corner i.e. #6 or #23. If so post 6 and 23 are nothing like what you quote Dave.

The offer of the ex-gratia payment is an admission that the event could have occurred, especially given that they link it to the prepareness to make a Stat Dec. That implies they accept that he is telling the true. And it is not an ex-gratia payment, it is called compensation for inconvenience. That is not ex-gratia. At least in post #49 (my emphasis)

" however this situation is unique, and because you have stated you are prepared to submit a statutory declaration we are forced to compensate you in some regard....... Please accept the enclosed voucher as form of compensation for your inconvenience....."

 

[Dave Noble]

I'm happy to agree to disagree.
But first: What is the post numner? the little number in top right hand corner i.e. #6 or #23. If so post 6 and 23 are nothing like what you quote Dave.

I don't know where I picked those numbers from ... 16 and 49 seem to be the correct ones ..ooops

The offer of the ex-gratia payment is an admission that the event could have occurred, especially given that they link it to the prepareness to make a Stat Dec. That implies they accept that he is telling the true. And it is not an ex-gratia payment, it is called compensation for inconvenience. That is not ex-gratia. At least in post #49 (my emphasis)

it is ex-gratia since they are not admitting that it happened but are offering it voluntarily and , according to the post, stated that they do not accept that it happened

Dave

 

[harvyk]

Interestingly enough, the fact that QF has offered a $150 "refund" could be shown as evidence that QF is worried that the event did take place. It's rare that a company offers such a refund if they genuinely believe they are in the right. So the pax states they

Booked and paid for a J seat
Where provided with a J boarding pass
Entered the plane on a J calling
Was pushed back into the Y cabin with no compensation
Made a complaint to QF
Was offered a $150 "refund" after several complaints

QF would now be in the position that they would have to explain why the offer of $150. Considering the person is a frequent flyer, why this amount and now? They could respond "Good faith" or something like that, but the question of why did they feel the need to make a "good faith payment" would be a very interesting problem for QF.
In my experience, the actions you take after an event can have as much weight in the eye's of the law as the event itself. If your actions are not consistent with someone who knows they are in the right (and good faith payments or refunds can be enough to indicate you have doubts about your own side of the story), then that can be enough to unravel a defense.

 

[lovestotravel]

Interestingly enough, the fact that QF has offered a $150 "refund" could be shown as evidence that QF is worried that the event did take place. It's rare that a company offers such a refund if they genuinely believe they are in the right. So the pax states they

Sometimes it's easier to pay people to stop complaining and secondly that they return as a customer again of QF.

 

[JohnK]

It's possible that they asked to be both seated in J at check-in and were told no, so decided to try on board (or they already knew the FA would be on board so decided to get her to do that).

You may well be right. I know if I had a business class booking and my wife/partner had an economy class booking and we asked at check-in to be seated together in business class and told it was not possible and we really wanted to sit together then I would ask to be downgraded.

I feel a lot of people who are not seated together and want to sit together always try to get the better seat(s). It would be a lot easier to make the sacrifice yourself without asking someone to move to a worse seat to help you out. I know I would not make the sacrifice for someone else unless I was moving forward to a better seat and no middle seats....

 

[NM]

Given that the flight was full, I wonder if the person with the business class boarding pass (not the OP) was upgraded and travelling partner was not. So they may have originally been seated together and split up by an operational or points upgrade, the assumed the other could be "upgraded" on board by a favourable FA?

Pure speculation, however.

 

[Maca44]

If the OP pushes this allegation I think Qantas will want it to go away as quietly as possible, however, if they don't (and I mentioned this in a previous post) the onus of proof rests on the "balance of probabilities".

Dave refers to the Plantiff needing to "prove" that it occured whereas the Plantiff in civil proceedings does not have to "prove" something occurred they just have to show that on the "balance of probabilities" it did happen.

If the matter was to proceed to a civil hearing in the small claims court Qantas is required to produce documents/evidence, and this is done with the Plaintiff obtaining that additional evidence to support their claim by obtaining such things as the flight manifest, details of crew that worked the flight in question and other documents that are no doubt not of a safety sensitive nature. That documentation can be obtained by subpoena or through discovery, and the laws with regard to civil matters (legal privilige) changed several years ago where neither side is entitled to withhold evidence against another party irrespective of whether that evidence would support or refute an allegation.

I think QF would want this to go away and may offer something more substantial to the OP.

 

[Dave Noble]

If the OP pushes this allegation I think Qantas will want it to go away as quietly as possible, however, if they don't (and I mentioned this in a previous post) the onus of proof rests on the "balance of probabilities".

Dave refers to the Plantiff needing to "prove" that it occured whereas the Plantiff in civil proceedings does not have to "prove" something occurred they just have to show that on the "balance of probabilities" it did happen.

It is still proof, just that the level of proof is different. Just that need to prove that on balance of probabilities that the event occurred; indeed do not have to prove beyond doubt though

Given that the difference in price between economy and business on SYD-AKL is $150-$400 , how much effort would it be worth spending for $0-$250 extra ( which I would assume would be the compensation )

Dave

 

[harvyk]

Take a look at this thread...

http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/com...program/not-happy-qantas-so-called-19876.html

This is what I mean about actions after the event speak just as loudly as the event itself.

In the above thread it took the OP months to get a small refund from QF (an overcharge which could be easily proved) and yet QF have offered a person a instant refund for an "alleged" J to Y downgrade? (No proof has been offered to QF except a he said, she said...)

Me thinks QF know that they are in the wrong with this, and they know (or highly suspect) that this event did take place and they are hoping that a $150 amount (how did they come up with this figure?) is enough to make the pax forget how he was treated.

Just out of interest I did some searching on the price for QF25 on some random dates - J seat ($1148) and a fully flex Y ($641) and discount Y ($258). Even J to fully flex Y is a $507 difference.

 

[Dave Noble]

For MEL-AKL, excluding taxes

The full fare Y fare is $1052
The D class business fare is $1072
The C Class business fare is $1202
The J class business fare is $1390

A refund from D-Y would be less than already offered, C-Y would be the same as offered

$150 would offer would fit in a refund from C-Y

Dave

 

[serfty]

The actual booking was MEL-LAX on QF25 which may complicate things somewhat.

Also, I believe there couple may have indeed been booked in Business class MEL - LAX, it's just that the aircraft from MEL to AKL only has 12 millennium seats.

 

[lovestotravel]

The actual booking was MEL-LAX on QF25 which may complicate things somewhat.

Also, I believe there couple may have indeed been booked in Business class MEL - LAX, it just that the aircraft from MEL to AKL only has 12 millennium seats.

Yet another reason to not fly QF MEL-AKL-LAX.

 

[NM]

For MEL-AKL, excluding taxes

The full fare Y fare is $1052
The D class business fare is $1072
The C Class business fare is $1202
The J class business fare is $1390

A refund from D-Y would be less than already offered, C-Y would be the same as offered

$150 would offer would fit in a refund from C-Y

Dave

My understand is that for involuntary downgrades, the refund due (in cash at the airport) is supposed to be the difference between the full J fare for the segment (not the D fare or the actual fare paid) and the price for which an economy seat could have been purchased on the day of travel. This may nor may not be a full Y fare on the route. But it would have to be a flexible fare with no pre-purchase requirements etc. However, as the flight was supposedly full, its likely a Y fare of some description would be used to calculate a refund due.

I understand that as soon as the word "involuntary" comes into the process, refund is supposed to be in cash.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

For MEL-AKL, excluding taxes

The full fare Y fare is $1052
The D class business fare is $1072
The C Class business fare is $1202
The J class business fare is $1390

A refund from D-Y would be less than already offered, C-Y would be the same as offered

$150 would offer would fit in a refund from C-Y

Dave

Would you personally accept $150 if this happened to you exactly as the OP describes?

 

[dajop]

My understand is that for involuntary downgrades,

"Sir can I ask you to swap seats with this gentlemans wife, so she can sit next to her husband?"
"Yeh, sure, no problems"

Downgrade accepted, voluntarily

... just being devil's advocate......

 

[Dave Noble]

Would you personally accept $150 if this happened to you exactly as the OP describes?

If it happened as described, I would have disembarked

As far as would I accept $150 for compensation, it would depend on what I was entitled to otherwise. The T&Cs do not spell out how the involuntary downgrade compensation is calculated. If it is the difference between fare in class paid (D) and Y , then yes since it would be more than entitled to; if it was between J and Y , then no.

If it had happened then I would have disembarked and required rebooking on another flight in busines or obtained an economy boarding pass and reboarded if time was important.

I would not have left without anything to substantiate the event happening. If it happened as described, I suspect that if someone had insisted on a new BP being issued that the swap may well have been reversed

Dave

 

[Dave Noble]

My understand is that for involuntary downgrades, the refund due (in cash at the airport) is supposed to be the difference between the full J fare for the segment (not the D fare or the actual fare paid) and the price for which an economy seat could have been purchased on the day of travel. This may nor may not be a full Y fare on the route. But it would have to be a flexible fare with no pre-purchase requirements etc. However, as the flight was supposedly full, its likely a Y fare of some description would be used to calculate a refund due.

I understand that as soon as the word "involuntary" comes into the process, refund is supposed to be in cash.

As I mentioned, I have not seen anything published that details the terms officially. The case as you describe could also have issues since the fare paid was to LAX and the price with a mix of economy and business would likely be pretty much as expensive

Do you have a link to a terms that details the official policy since the T&Cs seem lacking?

Dave