Jetstar complain

[mannej]

Zarine, it is unfortunate that your daughter's mode of transport broke down. Jetstar and other low cost carriers such as Tiger are very strict in terms of their cut off times. The ticket would say Check-in closes 1 hour before flight departure. I interpret that you arriving at 1Hr before the flight, the check in is already closed or very very close to being closed. I seem to remember that a gentlemen on here being denied check-in by Singapore Airlines in similar circumstances http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/community/singapore-airlines-krisflyer/i-will-never-fly-singapore-12002.html so it is not a JQ/TT only problem.
The terms and conditions label the penalty for a no-show. You would be very hard pushed to find due reason for Jetstar to issue a refund. Only the most flexible tickets give any room to move. By failing to arrive at check-in prior to closing times leaves you almost no room to move. You may be lucky to get your taxes back, but then again don't hold your breath.
If you want to try and get a response from JQ, remove any personal emotion. Personal emotion can water down your argument. By adding insults such as JQ hire lazy racist etc. staff, you lose any credibility you may have had. The same goes for your ranting. You have accused the ground staff of things that may or may not have happened. That does not achieve anything. State the facts, warn the people and be done with it.
It does not excuse JQ's accused poor treatment, but then again your daughter (through no intention of her own) was not at the airport in time and has to accept some responsibility

 

[Dave Noble]

Don't bother trying to get in to[/FONT][/SIZE]uch with jetstar people. They are extremely rude and I suspect their counter staff at Australian airports are mostly selected for "qualities" such as rudeness, racism, laziness and ignorance.

My daughter got to the airport in Perth ONE HOUR before flight departure, with only carry on bag because our car broke down on the highway and we had to wait for a taxi to come get us and take us to airport. The counter staff refused to check her in. The airport customer service staff she approached, a guy, was too busy trying to score with the girlies at the counter. No-one helped her at all. We had to go home and she took an SIA flight back to Singapore the next day.

Your being late at the airport is not their fault and the policy , which they clearly state, is that they close checkin at the designated time. Their not checking someone in after that time is not rude nor racism nor laziness nor ignoramce. The only ignorance seems that the traveller had not read the T&Cs

This is a situation where travel insurance comes in which would hopefully cover *your* problems of a car breaking down

Dave

 

[medhead]

Your being late at the airport is not their fault and the policy , which they clearly state, is that they close checkin at the designated time. Their not checking someone in after that time is not rude nor racism nor laziness nor ignoramce. The only ignorance seems that the traveller had not read the T&Cs

This is a situation where travel insurance comes in which would hopefully cover *your* problems of a car breaking down

Dave

I totally agree regarding the comments about reading the T&C and that applying the rules is not any of the things mentioned. I think a number of people have made similar somments.

But I wasn't able to make the conclusion that they tried to check in after the cut off time. I found the whole question of timeing to be confused, such that it is very hard to know what happened. The post does say that the daughter was there 1 hour before the flight. Maybe they got there exactly 60 minutes before the flight or 62 minutes and but the staff just decided to cut it off at 63 minutes and get a head start on sending the flight. Maybe this was the case and the staff decided to be bloody minded about it. Or maybe they got there 58 minutes before the flight.

I can't tell either way from the post without making assumptions. And experience of these types of posts means that I'm not bothered to waste time asking the questions required to fill in the gaps.

 

[Dave Noble]

But I wasn't able to make the conclusion that they tried to check in after the cut off time. I found the whole question of timeing to be confused, such that it is very hard to know what happened. The post does say that the daughter was there 1 hour before the flight.

And check in closes 60 minutes before the flight for JQ international iirc. If she arrived at the airport 1 hour before the flight, then check in will have closed

I can't see any reason to assume that the person arrived > 1 hour before the flight and that JQ just decided to not allow a valid checkin.

As far as the rant goes from the poster, it doesn't matter the reason why the person was late ... the car break down is quite irrelevent

Dave

 

[anat0l]

I will agree that JQ customer service is pretty ordinary. People from QF are far more switched on (and yes I am also relating to the times when I had to call QF as a NB). I'm also concerned by the various complaints on AFF towards JQ that never get any redress or acknowledgment. I think QF are faster or at least provide acknowledgment, but there are cases that show otherwise. In addition, both are known for various (good and bad) speeds and quality of providing appropriate redress/remedy.

As for zarine's complaint, a lot of people will say that if she arrived at T-60 and check-in closes at T-60, one would complain about being "unreasonable" to deny check-in just because they are being so rigid. Several such complaints are made every day; indeed, when JQ NZ domestic started their T-30 grinded very much with the former QF NZ's T-20 policy and NZ's even more generous T-20 but often T-10 check-in policy. The furore against JQ NZ apart from their late and cancelled flights was profound. People to this day still abhor the repercussions of TT's draconian T-45 check-in policy.

Then MEL_Traveller also has raised a point before about whether loss of fare is a reasonable "penalty" just because you failed to check-in on time, again in a thread of similar grounds of complaint.

Of course, there is always the argument, "if you don't like it, don't fly them". A weak argument at best, but probably just as weak as some of the "use discretion/be reasonable" pleas.


Finally, I'm not sure about lazy or racist, but in all my dealings with JQ, I haven't been subjected to any of the said attitudes. I am Asian by appearance (but no Asian accent), so from various anecdotal evidence that makes me a ripe racism target for not only JQ but also QF, especially when flying premium classes. So far I have experienced none of it on either airline, no matter what status I am or how much I paid for the ticket. That is not to say it does not happen, but to blanket generalise that JQ is racist and/or lazy is more than likely just as false.

 

[Cocitus23]

I have just browsed through the previous 65 posts on this thread, and found them to be interesting, even amusing in a certain way. Some of them were quite difficult to read, because the English was so poor. This was especially the case for a couple of the complainants. Clearly English was not their mother tongue, so we should not be too critical of them because of their linguistic skills (or lack of them). But what annoyed me in the discussion was that so many of the responses, from people whose mother tongue would appear to be English, were so appallingly expressed. Lots of well-meaning advice was marred by clumsy expression, faulty spelling, reliance on slang, and hopeless punctuation. I doubt if the complainants would have had any hope of understanding some of the replies.
I feel that commentary on this site is often reduced in value by excessive reliance on industry abbreviations, and especially by inarticulate use of language. Let me conclude, though, by saying that my gripe is not directed at everyone. Some of the regular posters express themselves concisely and excellently.

 

[anat0l]

I have just browsed through the previous 65 posts on this thread, and found them to be interesting, even amusing in a certain way. Some of them were quite difficult to read, because the English was so poor. This was especially the case for a couple of the complainants. Clearly English was not their mother tongue, so we should not be too critical of them because of their linguistic skills (or lack of them). But what annoyed me in the discussion was that so many of the responses, from people whose mother tongue would appear to be English, were so appallingly expressed. Lots of well-meaning advice was marred by clumsy expression, faulty spelling, reliance on slang, and hopeless punctuation. I doubt if the complainants would have had any hope of understanding some of the replies.
I feel that commentary on this site is often reduced in value by excessive reliance on industry abbreviations, and especially by inarticulate use of language. Let me conclude, though, by saying that my gripe is not directed at everyone. Some of the regular posters express themselves concisely and excellently.

[off topic]

A list of abbreviations can be found on this forum and by doing some searching other abbreviations can be explained. Even by asking, an abbreviation's definition will be given.

Abbreviations are used for their first purpose, which is to lessen verbosity. This isn't a secret society that we rely on abbreviations for the purpose of being secretive.

Finally, I hope you are just having a slow day. Not only does your post add nothing to the discussion at hand, but having a look at your past posts it is rather brash of you to be assuming the moral high ground.

[/off topic]

I think most people here are not being critical of any poster for their command of the English language. Not even in say zarine's post, of which you are probably directing your comment. If you had followed the link to another thread in mannej's post, this complaint was expressed by someone who clearly does have a command of the English language. Yet the advice was the same: do not allow the complaint to be diluted by emotional remarks; stick to the rational argument and fact.

 

[medhead]

And check in closes 60 minutes before the flight for JQ international iirc. If she arrived at the airport 1 hour before the flight, then check in will have closed

I can't see any reason to assume that the person arrived > 1 hour before the flight and that JQ just decided to not allow a valid checkin.

Only based on the assumption that one hour means 60 minutes and/or a strictly technical interpretation of what one hour means. Many people don't use the term "one hour" in this way. But whatever, I really don't see the point in following up on this point with the poster. Too late now nothing they can do.

As far as the rant goes from the poster, it doesn't matter the reason why the person was late ... the car break down is quite irrelevent

Agree. part of the reason I don't see any point in following up on the circumstances of the rant.

After a number of these complaints it seems to me that the best response is to direct people to whatever, contact details are available and be done with it. I don't think there is any point telling people how they are wrong to complain, because it is everyone's right to follow up even if they are wrong. Of course, that doesn't mean we need to agree with the people making the complaint.

 

[mannej]

I don't think there is any point telling people how they are wrong to complain, because it is everyone's right to follow up even if they are wrong. Of course, that doesn't mean we need to agree with the people making the complaint.

Agreed, however I think the point that some of us are making is that there are ways to construct a complaint and there are ways not to construct one. Airlines are more likely to take notice to a well structured letter than a messy rant. Accusations will not get people far with airlines (or anyone for that matter).

I think that is more what people were hinting at rather than a persons right to complain

 

[anat0l]

I am getting on every travel blog to complain about you.

Well, she wasn't lying.

Re:YES JETSTAR CAN GET WORSE!! - Travel - Australian News Message Boards

Complaints success with Jetstar?? (merged thread) - FlyerTalk Forums (look a couple of posts previous to this one)

Can't seem to turn up more examples.

If I were her - possibly a bit smarter - I'd write to ACA or TT, or possibly to Ben Sandilands. Might be more effective than attempting to post to every travel blog.

 

[mannej]

It is funny that on the Yahoo message board, not one reply has supported her. I haven't read flyer talk but I would imagine it would not be too dissimilar.

I don't think there is much room for Zarine to move, so I don't see JQ taking too much notice of her posts on blogs.

 

[straitman]

It is funny that on the Yahoo message board, not one reply has supported her. I haven't read flyer talk but I would imagine it would not be too dissimilar.

I don't think there is much room for Zarine to move, so I don't see JQ taking too much notice of her posts on blogs.

The post was left up as an example of how not to post and the thread was closed by the moderator:!:

 

[medhead]

Well, she wasn't lying.

Re:YES JETSTAR CAN GET WORSE!! - Travel - Australian News Message Boards

That yahoo thread is good. Anyone see this post? Classic!

Always heard bad stories about Jet Star and had never flown them until a few weeks ago when my mate and I flew up to the goldie to watch the Tigers take on the Titans and fly back home after the game.

Another Tigers fan was sitting 2 rows infront of us and they were having an aisle discussion about the St George/Souths game (major upset) when a stewardess very loudly told both of them to shut up cause no body wants to hear their cough.

My friend didn't even realize she was talking to him, as she was standing behind him, so he continued to talk. She then yelled at him to shut up or else she will get the head steward down there.

My mate, confused at the idea of being told to shut up when people were still getting on the plane, wasn't being loud and had the right to talk told her to get the head steward.

She storms off and the head steward comes down and asks a few generic questions and asks if he can keep the noise to a minimum. My friend says he has been good, is not being loud and asked him to tell his stewardess to stop being a cough.

Now...according to the law calling a stewardess a cough is a security threat. So for the next 35 minutes the plane was delayed while Federal Police, the Aviation Authority, the pilot and the head steward discussed my mates threat level.

After this time the head steward came back and said that the Pilot has agreed to allow him to stay on but if he causes 1 more disruption federal police will be waiting for him at Sydney Airport.

I honestly don't get it. I don't drink and was obviously then completely sober. I have no biased towards friends who are obviously in the wrong. But this stewardess went out of her way to be a completely rude cough to my friend and when my friend called her on it, he is a major security threat.

The funniest part is my mate, in exacerbation to the head steward, asked if he had called the stewardess a cow instead would have that been okay and he said yes cause it's not an obscene word.

 

[anat0l]

That yahoo thread is good. Anyone see this post? Classic!

Insulting staff, or anyone for that matter, is grounds for refusal of carriage, at least according to JQ's CoC.

Conditions of carriage - At The Airport - Travel Information - Jetstar Airways (Clause 10.1)

In saying that (no pun intended), taking that story on face value, the FA was being quite unreasonable. That is, unless the definition of "loud" (or "boisterous") is the source of the conflict. And yes, two parties can believe two very different points on the scale as being loud or not.

The anecdote kinda reminds me of the "fair dinkum" episode in the US.

 

[medhead]

Insulting staff, or anyone for that matter, is grounds for refusal of carriage, at least according to JQ's CoC.

Conditions of carriage - At The Airport - Travel Information - Jetstar Airways (Clause 10.1)

Yes, and one would hope that in the case of insulting staff they wouldn't need to call in the AFP and have a 35 minute discussion to assess the threat.

I can just imagine the conversation, to have decided to let him stay on board, I suggest that at least one of the pilot or chief stewart has probably agreed with the passengers assessment, in a matter of fact kind of way.

 

[Mal]

(Not related to Jetstar, but on a similar vein about online complaints)

Sometimes people do have success:

Blogger wins Google victory against holiday firm Thomson - Telegraph

Andrew Sharman, 23, claimed he got nowhere with his complaints until he published the "rant blog", which was read by more than 10,000 people.

He said Google, the internet search engine, displayed his blog page at the top of its results when internet users typed in "Thomson Tunisia trip".

 

[anat0l]

(Not related to Jetstar, but on a similar vein about online complaints)

Sometimes people do have success:

Blogger wins Google victory against holiday firm Thomson - Telegraph

Eh.

Some people blog it (and possibly Google bomb).

Some people put up posters.

Some people write a song about it.

 

[Flashback]

If I were her - possibly a bit smarter - I'd write to ACA or TT, or possibly to Ben Sandilands. Might be more effective than attempting to post to every travel blog.

I'm not sure this is sound advice, as there is really no ground for complaint; check-in was missed due to late arrival so if they have travel insurance they should try and get something back that way (due to the car breakdown making them late):!:

 

[anat0l]

there is really no ground for complaint

Realised, hence my "advice"