Just lodged my first case with the ACA

[Legoman]

No wonder they wouldn't payout what you're asking.

Where have I said Qantas have refused to payout what I claimed? I actually said the opposite. I think you better re-read what I've written before you leap off the handle and think you've found how unreasonable you think I'm being. Dale from QCC has actually agreed to pay my claims based on my submitted unitemised receipts (including one which was nothing more than an itemised line from a credit card statement from the Pier Hotel Hedland because they were reloading the register machine with receipt paper when the transaction was made and they couldn''t reprint the receipt).

You're receipt isn't itemised. It could be for anything. It is up to YOU to get an itemised receipt. That is YOUR responsibility and legal right from the premises. Qantas are fully within the rights to not cough up if you can't provide itemised receipts.

You have clearly never been to Hedland and have no idea what you're talking about. Hedland is not your local cafe in Double Bay or wherever you get your skinny flat no whip, extra foam double decafe half-cafe soy latte with a twist each morning. You do not argue about the contents of what's printed on the receipt you get from the Pier Hotel in Hedland. Not if you don't want you're head punched in your don't! You're looked at bloody strange when you even ask for a receipt at all like you're some tosser from down south who needs a bloody good hard look at themselves in a room full of mirrors and who could do with a teaspoon of cement to harden the F up. Let's just say that Alan Joyce would not find the Pier Hotel in Hedland a very welcoming environment to be in. He would not be very comfortable there.

 

[Daver6]

Where have I said Qantas have refused to payout what I claimed?

You have clearly never been to Hedland and have no idea what you're talking about.

The amount of compensation they were willing to pay was less than the amount claimed and less than the sum of the receipts submitted,

That's where you said they didn't payout what you requested.

Actually I have. Want to get any other assumptions about me wrong?

 

[dajop]

You seem quite worked up about this, understandable. Too late now, but it probably better to avoid reference to the assumed (commercial) reason for the cancellation. The phrase that seems to be most used in the airline industry is "cancelled for operational reasons". With wink or two, many in the know would assume in circumstances such as your, that would mean not enough passengers in both directions (or in your case, not enough coming from ZNE or PHE, so let's combine them into one). But why not stick to plain facts that cannot be argued? It doesn't matter to the final outcome whether the cancellation for "operational reasons" was due to low loads, aircraft unavailability, staff unavailability, or whatever else. It was a decision of the airline, their motivation for the decision is completely irrelevant to the claim at hand, merely that they made that decision.

 

[mannej]

Whilst any well-season traveler wouldn't consider the situation ideal, it is hard to feel any sympathy if our posts are met with an aggressive response. There is more hyperbole than relevant fact in some of the posts, which is what invites the skepticism.

Regardless, it would be interesting to see what the final outcome is now that ACA have been involved.

 

[Legoman]

Actually I have.

Oh I see. Then your comment about fully itemised til receipts from a pub in Hedland at 10pm was just trolling for a reaction was it? I see, OK carry on then.

 

[Legoman]

their motivation for the decision is completely irrelevant to the claim at hand, merely that they made that decision.

I disagree and think it's ignorant to believe that motivation has no relevance at all. Of course motivation is relevant. If an airline can argue their motivations were completely innocent and out of their control, then they are less liable for compensation to affected passengers. The airline can say we're just as much victims in this as you are. We should all shoulder our own burden of the resulting costs and move on. If on the other hand the decision to fly the plane to the wrong location was deliberately chosen by the airline at great inconvenience to the passengers who were not informed of the change & not given the opportunity to make alternative arrangements for either themselves or their family members collecting them at the airport, then the motivation for that decision is EXTREMELY relevant and to suggest otherwise is almost unbelieveably immature and ignorant.

This is not an assumption on my part, it is what happened. Everyone I spoke to on the aircraft and on the ground in the terminal indicated this is exactly why the plane was flown in the opposite direction to where it was supposed to go. Qantas thought they could get away with killing two birds with one stone so to speak. Instead of running a separate PER-PHE-PER flight and a completely discrete PER-ZNE-PER flight as per their normal weekly scheduled FIFO service to these two mining hubs, they looked at the booked seats they had occupied for those two flights (28 from Newman + only approximately 12 from PHE at my best estimate from seeing the number of people waiting to board my disabled flight in PHE terminal when we disembarked) and determined they could risk pissing off such a small number of passengers from Newman and get away with running only one plane instead and doing the round robin of both centres before coming back to Perth. This is what happened. It makes perfect sense from an accounting perspective. I would have even done the same thing myself if that was my call and I wasn't the one getting on the plane in Newman. It was a gamble, but probably a good gamble that was worth taking because it would have paid off if they hadn't hit a bird on landing in PHE.

If they hadn't hit the bird, I would have still been inconvenienced and a bit miffed at worst, but no way would I be going after them for compensation. That would be ridiculous. But they did hit the bird and that meant they lost the gamble and now they must pay the price. That's the reality of risk vs reward. Anyone who doesn't understand that is living in a fantasy world.

 

[dxwell]

Sometimes things happen to us, sometimes compounding things that we feel terrible frustration with.
We all need to find a way to deal with this emotion - through exercise, meditation, a long chat with a friend over a nice bottle or two.
But it is never ok to deal with this emotion by saying or doing things that hurt others.
We have a forum of people with incredible life and travel experience, experience that is to be respected, people with generosity that is to be commended.
Pause and find peace within yourself first.
Then return to this forum to talk as friends.

 

[JohnK]

Good luck with ACA but I wouldn't hold my breath they will be able to do anything for you.

Technically, none. But it does serve to illustrate just how aggressively Qantas can be expected to defend the claim. Put yourself in Qantas' shoes. They were operating a flight they were contracturally obliged to, but that was clearly going to be extremely marginal on a cost justifcation basis with only 28 passengers on a what… 100 seat plane? Is a F100 100 seat? I really don't know, but that sounds about right for a 3-isle-2 seat aircraft of that size. They were clearly penny pinching to try and make the flight at least pay for itself and break even. They cancelled and redirected it, they forewent catering knowing that FIFO workers would be the majority of passengers and they don't matter. They were pulling all the luxuries out of the flight and willing to operate it on a shoestring with no regard for customer inconvenience to limit their losses as much as possible without incurring all the negative publicity and possible social media backlash a full-on last minute cancellation would have risked.

A few years back I was on a QF flight AYQ-PER that had 5 passengers. They don't always cancel flights as aircraft would then be out of position.

 

[Happy Trails]

Not so much recently, but a year or two ago it was not uncommon for the last ZNE flight of the day to be cancelled and the corresponding KTA flight being diverted to to pick up those pax.

The rumour mill was consistent about flight consolidation, but perhaps crew shortage had a bearing too.
It happened simply too often on that route to be purely 'technical'.

 

[dajop]

I disagree and think it's ignorant to believe that motivation has no relevance at all. Of course motivation is relevant. If an airline can argue their motivations were completely innocent and out of their control, then they are less liable for compensation to affected passengers. .... then the motivation for that decision is EXTREMELY relevant and to suggest otherwise is almost unbelieveably immature and ignorant..

It may be a matter of terminology .... but really there are only two reasons for delays. Those within the control of the airline (all of these are most definitely "operational reasons") , and those that are beyond the airlines control (sometimes often called "operational reasons", but usually airlines will blame something if they can and avoid using such a vague term, so will blame weather/air traffic control etc if they can).

For the first set which are within the airlines control, I stand by my position that SPECIFIC motivation for this type of delay/cancellation is irrelevant, especially if it is just speculation (albeit well-informed speculation). Whether it is commercial re-scheduling due to light loads, lack of crew availability, mechanical issues, aircraft late out of servicing - it doesn't really matter. It is an airline caused delay and you have a claim irrespective of what type of delay has caused it. Keep it simple, and avoid the speculation in correspondence (but it's OK to speculate here on AFF of course). Think of the person reading your claim. If you want to complain about this practice of last minute cancellations, complain, but in a different complaint from your financial claim.

With other delays (outside the airlines control, such as weather related delays) then airlines usually will do everything possible they can to avoid being liable for meal/accommodation etc. Although to be fair to QF they do cop these sorts of delays on the chin and usually try to assist passengers. In some parts of the world, you will get nothing, even for delays caused by bird strikes (out of their control).

Clearly, Qantas have accepted liability by providing accommodation, so it seems prima facie your claim is justifiable. However, if you resubmitted your claim on June 12 to meet their requirement, the way the corporate world works these days, I would be more surprised if they had paid out within a week, than if they hadn't.

 

[Legoman]

Sometimes things happen to us, sometimes compounding things that we feel terrible frustration with.
We all need to find a way to deal with this emotion - through exercise, meditation, a long chat with a friend over a nice bottle or two.
But it is never ok to deal with this emotion by saying or doing things that hurt others.
We have a forum of people with incredible life and travel experience, experience that is to be respected, people with generosity that is to be commended.
Pause and find peace within yourself first.

Thanks for the laugh. Now back to reality…

I have had a response from Qantas CC to my telling them the case has been referred to ACA:

"Apologies for the insight. Kindly send us a receipt of your expenses in order to assist us regarding your claims and for investigation purposes."

By the grammar used and the name of the person, this has clearly come from Manila again and just illustrates the appalling state of QCC today. These receipts have been provided to Qantas twice so far under the same reference number they gave and told me to use for all subsequent correspondence on this issue so I wouldn't have to repeat myself. To date, the receipts have been forwarded to them on 2 June and then again when following up their complete lack of action on 12 June.

I have also had a response from the ACA less than 24hrs after lodgement of the case, which is impressive so far.

"Dear ACA

Please pass on my apologies for the disruption to Mr Legoman’s travel.

Can he please provide the invoice for the hotel the meal and the cab to and from the hotel."

Honestly, what is the point of Qantas issuing reference numbers for correspondence when they clearly have no way of tracking them?

 

[serfty]

Honestly, what is the point of Qantas issuing reference numbers for correspondence when they clearly have no way of tracking them?

They are tracked, otherwise the CC contracting company could not justify their service. However, it is likely they can increase profit from greater throughput of new Service Requests than revisiting previous ones.

 

[juddles]

Legoman, after re-reading through this whole thing, I want to highlight two things, which I suspect are the most important things here for you.

First up, I get that you had a cough experience, compounded by the after-incident claims process. I really do get that. From what you describe (and I believe given your experience), the QF FIFO services are a tad below par.

Second, and this is a But!, you have focused much energy on your crusade. Again, I get this, as to feel wronged is horrible. But I offer you the advice that it is highly unlikely you will get full satisfaction from the process. Even less so going through the waste that is complaints through ACA etc.

We have heard your ordeal, we feel for you. You are unlike so many airing grievances in that you have stuck to the thread and enthusiasticly continued to add. But don't let this continue to waste your time. There have been a million crusades before, there will be many more, but I do not recollect many (any) where the aggrieved person eventually was made to feel right and at peace.

 

[Legoman]

Good luck with ACA but I wouldn't hold my breath they will be able to do anything for you.

A few years back I was on a QF flight AYQ-PER that had 5 passengers. They don't always cancel flights as aircraft would then be out of position.

I'm not holding my breath. Of course I have never suggested that flights from all destinations are regularly cancelled for load factor commercial reasons, but in this region of the world there is only one hub - Perth from where all FIFO flights commence or terminate and all the destinations are only a few degrees East or West off being directly North of Perth. All the flights are heading in the same narrow corridor up-down-up-down. It's dead easy from an organisational perspective to consolidate flights together to save on fuel and aircraft movements if the passenger loads don't demand discrete planes for each route.

Not so much recently, but a year or two ago it was not uncommon for the last ZNE flight of the day to be cancelled and the corresponding KTA flight being diverted to to pick up those pax.

The rumour mill was consistent about flight consolidation, but perhaps crew shortage had a bearing too.
It happened simply too often on that route to be purely 'technical'.

Exactly. You sound like you know how it works over here. This is common. This is not a once in a blue moon event on these FIFO flights over here. It happens all the time so regularly no-one is surprised when their flight is redirected somewhere else or cancelled altogether. When they make the announcement you can literally hear the groans of "oh, not AGAIN! - I wonder where we'll end up this time' echo around the terminal. Sometimes when the flight redirection is so minor as to not cause any delays or only minor disruptions, like a quick stop at another mine strip that is literally on the flight path in the same direction, the airline crew will openly tell the passengers they're just stopping at another strip to pick up some extra passengers. This happens more usually on morning flights though where any problems that result can be made up for with the afternoon flights. It is more unusual for them to risk these sort of antics on the very last scheduled flight of the day as they did in my case. The risk of the gamble grows the later in the day you try it on and is greatest of course on the last flight of the day. If anything goes wrong on the last flight if you've redirected it, then you're out of other options to correct it. You're stuffed with a large bill as in my case.

 

[juddles]

Legoman, I owe you a beer. My initial reaction to your first posts was the typical disbeleiving thing, but you have, with your ongoing posts, convinced me that things were not kosher.

 

[Legoman]

They are tracked, otherwise the CC contracting company could not justify their service. However, it is likely they can increase profit from greater throughput of new Service Requests than revisiting previous ones.

Tracking them is one thing, but if the staff completely ignore the tracking information recorded, then what's the point? A computer with an automated system can do the tracking completely automatically with no human intervention. That's easy. But if the humans tasked with actually cross-referencing the reference numbers to look up and collate previous correspondence don't do so, then the end result is exactly the same as not tracking anything at all.

Anyone can test it themselves. Send QCC anything. Just send them an e-mail about literally anything. You will immediately get an automated response with an assigned reference number. Add the reference number to the subject line of the e-mail you sent and then send it back to them again. You will get another different reference number. Rince and repeat as often as you like. I have the same inquiries to QCC here with 8 different reference numbers. Every reply, every piece of correspondence that comes back from Qantas has a new different reference number attached to it. Their reference numbers are completely meaningless and totally ignored by their staff.

There have been a million crusades before, there will be many more, but I do not recollect many (any) where the aggrieved person eventually was made to feel right and at peace.

I think I may be the exception to your rule. Whilst I am very new indeed to the efforts of ACA, I am very familiar with fos.org.au. I am yet to lose a single case I've started against banks and credit card providers and I feel enormous satisfaction when I eventually win and get all that I was claiming is rightfully owed me due to the deceptive antics of big corporations who act routinely act as if they make the rules that apply to them.

My most recent FOS case against my bank forced them to reduce my variable mortgage rate by over 50bp and fix it for the next three years as well after I forced them to hand over the recorded conversation "this phone call is being recorded for training purposes" whereby the junior consultant I was talking to mistakenly offered me the rate adjustment verbally, when strictly speaking the bank was only offering this special rate as a sweetener to attract new customers (of which I was not one). I agreed however right there on the spot when it was offered and the phone call was ended. I was quick enough to immediately request a copy of the phone call recording which I knew to be a legally binding request and when the bank then predictably tried to squirm out of and reneg on the rate deal I had agreed to, the fight began. It took nearly 5 months and got right to the threshold of enforced mediation with the bank staff before their senior management caved and gave me everything I wanted including $200 in compensation "as a gesture of goodwill" in a conference call. It's not for everybody, and I agree that most would not have the time to go to the lengths I do, but when you're right, you're right and I knew damn well they were going to have a very hard time arguing against a recording of their staff offer and me accepting it, which is precisely why they tried every trick in the book to prevent giving me the recording.

Call me petty if you wish, but that victory is going to save me well over $5,000 in mortgage interest payments assuming interest rates remain static for the rest of that fixed term and I think that was a worthwhile outcome. I unashamedly felt enormous satisfaction after that and I've had no further issues or arguments with that bank since because they are no longer raising my variable rate out of sync with the RBA every month like they were before. The stakes here with Qantas are no where near as high, but I see no reason not to apply the same defence of what's right.

 

[juddles]

Keep going hard!!

 

[burmans]

I think I may be the exception to your rule. Whilst I am very new indeed to the efforts of ACA, I am very familiar with fos.org.au. I am yet to lose a single case I've started against banks and credit card providers and I feel enormous satisfaction when I eventually win and get all that I was claiming is rightfully owed me due to the deceptive antics of big corporations who act routinely act as if they make the rules that apply to them.

Unfortunately I think you will find the ACA is not FOS. Banks are quite scared of FOS because of the powers they have and will frequently settle a case because they would rather not go through the pain and expense of FOS (they get charged quite a lot even for a complaint and it escalates rapidly). From all I have read and from those who have tried I have yet to hear of any significant number of success stories with ACA.

 

[Legoman]

Unfortunately I think you will find the ACA is not FOS. Banks are quite scared of FOS because of the powers they have and will frequently settle a case because they would rather not go through the pain and expense of FOS (they get charged quite a lot even for a complaint and it escalates rapidly). From all I have read and from those who have tried I have yet to hear of any significant number of success stories with ACA.

I think you're right about this. The ACA does not seem as professional an institution with the same backing behind it as FOS. However, it's only my first case with ACA, so I'll see it through if only to see where it ends up going.

 

[serfty]

Anyone can test it themselves. Send QCC anything. Just send them an e-mail about literally anything. You will immediately get an automated response with an assigned reference number. Add the reference number to the subject line of the e-mail you sent and then send it back to them again. You will get another different reference number. Rince and repeat as often as you like. I have the same inquiries to QCC here with 8 different reference numbers. Every reply, every piece of correspondence that comes back from Qantas has a new different reference number attached to it. Their reference numbers are completely meaningless and totally ignored by their staff.

Tell me about it ...
Resolved: Double the Qantas Points you earn on the ground (up to 15,000 bonus points)

My timeline so far:

• 24th August - Crediting for promotion - approx 12K point less than expected. Decided to wait 30 days.
• 23rd September - My Initial Query
• 25th September - Reply from Qantas Loyalty asking for e-tickets
• 25th September - My response regarding the promotion and how e-tickets are not relevant.
• 6th October - Reply from Qantas Loyalty asking for my promotion registration information.
• 6th October - My reply including Promotion registration email and T&C's.
• 17th October - Reply from Qantas Loyalty indicating the points have already posted.
• 17th October - My Reply - no they haven't - there's a shortfall of 12K+ - detail supplied.

...

No I'm not waiting until Monday.

Shortly after posting that, I received another reply a form letter:

...
Dear <serfty>,
...
The points for the double points transactions you've submitted to us have been credited to your
account. And I've reviewed the number of Qantas points and Status Credits earned for the
travels in question and can confirm that they've been calculated correctly. The number of
Qantas Points and Status Credits you earn varies depending on the airline,membership
tier, how far you fly and the fare you choose. ...

So I called and after a short hold, nicely spoke to a sympathetic agent ... they would have a response for me within three business days. ...

Timeline Continuation:

• 19th October - Form Letter
• 19th October 'phone Conversation "reply within three business days"
• 20th November - Another attempt, referencing all previous SR's and with a new one being generated.
• 21st November - Reply "we're unable to investigate your claim for Double Qantas Points as we have not received any supporting document" - Bulldust!
• 21st November - Submit complaint with Airline Customer Advocate, reference number received.
• 1st December - Call from Qantas "Executive Relations" in Sydney - case to be referred to "Loyalty", 'phone contact provided.
• 4th December - Email from ACA, referring Qantas call/email from Sydney and to get back within 7 days if no further reply.
• 11th December - Called Sydney 'phone number - Qantas contact was going to chase up Loyalty; missed a 6pm call from Qantas Contact, voice message left saying to call next day.
• 12th December (Early Afternoon) - Called Qantas contactand left message to call back. Later an email from ACA enquiring as to status, emailed back status along with info re waiting for call.
• 12th December (Late afternoon) - Call from Qantas Contact, Loyalty had agreed to credit about 85% of claim - apparently due to 13th June Cutoff and discounting further credit. On checking my QFF account those points were there!
• I explained/referred to T&C which indicated both 13th June and 13th July in different ways.
• Finally, I was advised the remaining points would be credited.
• 13th December - Remaining points were there this morning! After some further email interaction with ACA, online the case is now showing as "Close" [sic].

Happy Dance!

In case anyone else needs it, attached is a text copy of the T&C's of the promotion - I don't have a screen shot.

In itself the promotion points (incorrect as they were) credited on 24th August indicate I had registered for the promotion properly.