My first flight in FIRST by QANTAS was such a let-down, it certainly won't happen again!

[Princess Fiona]

<MOD HAT>

Thread has been reopened. We are watching this closely. Please be civil to each other.

<MOD HAT>

 

[jb747]

Well Mr. HERO PILOT … If I found you did that me ( for what's been my experience ), you would be answering some questions in someone's office ( eventually ).

Seriously. I would not have been. I would not have even been contacted...no matter who you are.

Actually , not very smart, are you ?

Probably not. My son doesn't think so. But, on the other hand, I was smart enough to hold a pretty decent job for a long time, so perhaps in some peoples' judgement I was smart enough. I'm sure there will always be a few dissenting views.

Even after clarifying that there was NO ACTUAL HOLD-UP of the flight …. the likes of you still want to sensationalise, and add your own interpretation.

You tell someone that you're going to be the last to board. Well, if that's within the normal boarding time frame, then absolutely nobody cares. It would have saved you from having to drink any of that horrid champagne.

But, if you're going to grandstand by being a tad late (and I don't care how many seconds that may be), then by removing your luggage, I've made good use of the warning, as I can simply close the door and leave.

God help the pax on your flights … if you mis-interpret information supplied to you in the air !!

God did help them. I had a pretty good record on picking the right people to leave behind too.

BTW, which branch of the ADF ( or foreign service ) were YOU in ?

Does that mean that you are claiming such membership? And does that have any relevance?

 

[DC3]

None? I know that "Mr HERO PILOT" you were so rude a few messages ago was in the RAAF if that helps?

Mods - perhaps this thread has had its day?

Agree.

Well, I also thought that this thread had run its course, but not yet it seems.

However, I keep coming back to check. I feel that there are bits that border on being offensive, certainly showing dis-respect. Not to meantion the SHOUTING. Oh well.

 

[samh004]

Agree.

Well, I also thought that this thread had run its course, but not yet it seems.

However, I keep coming back to check. I feel that there are bits that border on being offensive, certainly showing dis-respect. Not to meantion the SHOUTING. Oh well.

The reality is that neither side has engaged in this discourse well. Because of this, we have a 183-post thread that is mostly infighting instead of discussing the actual perceived flaws of the flight in question that the OP wrote about.

I'll concede that the OP was not as eloquent as they could have been, but the thread quickly descended into chaos with some of the attacking responses. Those attacks only furthered attacks the other direction, and so on, and so forth. No one wanted to take a step back, and pretty soon we were at each others throats.

If you think the thread has run its course, coming back is only likely to re-open wounds if you feel something deserves a response. I'm not singling you out, I am sure all those who have engaged here are going to open this thread, I just hope they think about whether their responses are appropriate.

Edit: No surprises who rates me 'funny'.

 

[JohnK]

The OP has just confirmed everything that all indications pointed to... - and then some .

I think this thread has again shown what's been occurring on AFF for quite a while and that is attacking the OP or the person whinging.

The way the OP has behaved is irrelevant. I may have behaved worse given the same circumstances. As @samh004 has mentioned there was an opportunity to discuss the concerns raised by the OP yet most responses have written them off.

 

[The man with no name]

I think this thread has again shown what's been occurring on AFF for quite a while and that is attacking the OP or the person whinging.

The way the OP has behaved is irrelevant. I may have behaved worse given the same circumstances. As @samh004 has mentioned there was an opportunity to discuss the concerns raised by the OP yet most responses have written them off.

Is it such a surprise that others would "attack" (your word, I'd disagree) the OP given the somewhat incoherent arguments put forward to support his claims of being hard done by? Clearly there were some failings by Qantas in this case however there appears some doubt on AFF as to other claims, for example the claim he should have received a bottle of whatever as compensation for these failings. Real or imagined failings.

By the fact that the OP posted to a public internet forum he should have expected some debate for and against his version of events. Surely you can understand the way the original post was delivered left open enough ambiguity that some of the events that occurred could be explained by alternative versions as put forward by subsequent posters.

Your claim that the way the OP has behaved was irrelevant is just plain wrong. Now I'm not sure if you've read the thread from start to finish before the moderator stepped into edit the thread, but most of those that did read it would agree his behaviour is absolutely relevant. At the very least it has been defensive, at worst, abusive.

 

[Saltywings]

I think this thread has again shown what's been occurring on AFF for quite a while and that is attacking the OP or the person whinging.

The way the OP has behaved is irrelevant. I may have behaved worse given the same circumstances. As @samh004 has mentioned there was an opportunity to discuss the concerns raised by the OP yet most responses have written them off.

It's not easy to have a civil discussion when the online equivalent of shouting (caps lock) is used. I personally also had some difficulty parsing OP's comments due to unusual use of spacing, grammar, and ellipses. This is in addition to the fact that OP had to clarify his/her situation over multiple follow-up posts due to the initial post not providing full information, as well as usage of (by the OP's own admission) language that borders on hyperbole. This is not an attack on the OP, I am just pointing out facts and I suspect I'm not the only one given all the follow-up.

I imagine most people - even or especially those in customer service - would find it challenging to face someone behaving in such a way in real life*, so it isn't completely reasonable that you would expect people to fully excuse such behaviour simply on the grounds of having valid points (which I believe OP does have). To simplify, if OP was really clear in the beginning and used factual instead of descriptive (e.g. 'Mexican Standoff') language, this thread would have been a lot shorter.

*That said, I don't know how OP really did behave irl (notwithstanding indications), but I'm just focusing on the online conduct here.

 

[TonyHancock]

I think this thread has again shown what's been occurring on AFF for quite a while.....

I think you can substitute AFF with "the internet".

To be fair we haven't had any direct accusations of naz_sm.........yet, but it always a joy to see references to poor grammar, spelling, sense of entitlement, and my second most favourite one "first world problems". I'm hugely disappointed by the lack of references to self funding, I must reread the whole thread again in case I missed any. (and now we can add the poster who thinks by adding emoticons to his post it makes everything alright. )

You have to admit though it is a hugely entertaining thread.

To keep, almost, on topic I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I received a call from the First host, or whatever they are called, in my 20+ F trips out of Australia with QF.

 

[opusman]

The only thing I find hard to understand is the continued expression of surprise at the existence of alternate points of view on a public forum.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

I think you can substitute AFF with "the internet".

To be fair we haven't had any direct accusations of naz_sm.........yet, but it always a joy to see references to poor grammar, spelling, sense of entitlement, and my second most favourite one "first world problems". I'm hugely disappointed by the lack of references to self funding, I must reread the whole thread again in case I missed any. (and now we can add the poster who thinks by adding emoticons to his post it makes everything alright. )

You have to admit though it is a hugely entertaining thread.

To keep, almost, on topic I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I received a call from the First host, or whatever they are called, in my 20+ F trips out of Australia with QF.

I’ve had to self fund the stamina needed to get through this thread.

 

[straitman]

None? I know that "Mr HERO PILOT" you were so rude a few messages ago was in the RAAF if that helps?

Not that it has any relevance to the thread, I can assure you that "Mr HERO PILOT" (I like that terminology) was never in the RAAF.

 

[mrsterryn]

I’ve had to self fund the stamina needed to get through this thread.

Chocolate or whiskey ?

 

[samh004]

Clearly there were some failings by Qantas in this case however there appears some doubt on AFF as to other claims, for example the claim he should have received a bottle of whatever as compensation for these failings. Real or imagined failings.

I can't tell you – because I can't recall, but it is a lot – the number of times I've read about members receiving a bottle to take home with them... yet this has never happened to me and I've maintained status as high as P1 for years now. Therefore, I think when things do go wrong the readers of AFF start to expect these things, and that is where this confusion may have come from.

At the very least it has been defensive, at worst, abusive.

I'd counter that it was usually defensive and/or abusive after other members played the man, not the ball.

 

[JRR]

I can't tell you – because I can't recall, but it is a lot – the number of times I've read about members receiving a bottle to take home with them... yet this has never happened to me and I've maintained status as high as P1 for years now. Therefore, I think when things do go wrong the readers of AFF start to expect these things, and that is where this confusion may have come from.



I'd counter that it was usually defensive and/or abusive after other members played the man, not the ball.

The qantas staff are not robots. The attitude we as travellers bring has an impact on the service we receive. As we only receive one side of the story it is helpful to try and understand what the staff may have been faced with. So, in your words, the “man” is in fact part of the “ball”.

 

[samh004]

So, in your words, the “man” is in fact part of the “ball”.

About to be offtopic, but I was merely referring to members getting personal rather than discussing his attitude at the time of his issues. It is one thing to say that maybe if you had a different demeanour at the time of boarding you wouldn't have had such a bad experience and another to call someone names without actually discussing the issue. Meh!

 

[straitman]

[Mod Hat]
This thread was closed and reviewed then reopened about 18 hours ago. It is being watched closely so if people can stay with the topic the thread will with flourish or die of its own accord and without any further intervention.
Thanks to those who have seen fit to report the thread but let's now let it go its own way.
[/Mod Hat]

 

[Flying mermaid]

I can't tell you – because I can't recall, but it is a lot – the number of times I've read about members receiving a bottle to take home with them... yet this has never happened to me and I've maintained status as high as P1 for years now. Therefore, I think when things do go wrong the readers of AFF start to expect these things, and that is where this confusion may have come from.



I'd counter that it was usually defensive and/or abusive after other members played the man, not the ball.

I got a bottle of Tattinger Comptes once. Was on the last leg of an AONE4, Lax-SYD. Had a really lovely FA and I made the comment that I wasn’t looking forward to getting back to reality. She asked me what I meant and I said getting home and not swanning around having people like her look after me. At the end of the flight she gave me a bottle in a plastic bag “to ease the pain”. I think I was gold at the time, so it’s not always about status.

 

[jb747]

Not that it has any relevance to the thread, I can assure you that "Mr HERO PILOT" (I like that terminology) was never in the RAAF.

Most people aren’t aware that the RAN’s aircraft were not flown by the RAAF. Apart from the colour of the uniform, they were pretty much interchangeable.

 

[kermatu]

On my most recent QF F flight I was offered a bottle of wine just prior to descent as an apology for a stuff-up with my breakfast. I declined as I had duty free and would have been over my limit (including ability to carry) and the wines are average, but still a nice gesture for what was a pretty minor breakfast issue. Probably helped that the mistake was near the end of the flight. P1 status might have helped too.

On boarding from SYD F lounge. I think the OP simply left before the time boarding would normally be called. I am a very experienced flyer, including multiple times using the SYD F lounge, and even I get jittery sometimes when the scheduled boarding time comes and well truly passes, there's no indication of a delay etc. I appreciate lounge hosts don't want to be giving constant updates (and sometimes delays are at the gate and probably not well communicated to the lounges) but I think the F lounge could do a better job of perhaps explaining the boarding call process, if not for all flights then at least prior to the A380 services. Or explain when someone first arrives in the lounge.

Given there are no departure screens in the lounge, and the App is useless when it comes to boarding status, it is more of an issue for QF in the F lounges I think.

I vaguely recall the OP querying:
- if there's a special way to exit the SYD F lounge (not as far as I'm aware); and
- considering calling Qantas prior to the flight back to SYD (no point as there's no special F treatment in overseas lounges that would warrant receiving a call).

Apologies if these were already addressed.

 

[RooFlyer]

Or explain when someone first arrives in the lounge.

Yes, given you must front up to the desk and get your BP checked in, a " are you familiar with the services and other features of the lounge" wouldn't go astray.