Pre-flight Acknowledgement

[RooFlyer]

"I agree to the Conditions of Carriage". What is the significance here?

It’s pretty obvious. They want you to acknowledge by a positive action that you have been informed of their conditions of carriage before you proceed with your booking. If you later complain or dispute something, they can legally point to the fact that you have acknowledged the conditions of carriage and the rules which you booked under.

You can’t legally say oh, they didn’t tell me about that.

Same with major software upgrades. You’ll always be asked to click the box to say "I accept" but of course we never read that and we just hope that everything is okay and we’re not screwing ourselves in the process.

Not to say I like any of that, but you did ask the question "what the significance" and there it is.

 

[Lynda2475]

his is part of the reason why it's important to wear something like an N95 respirator (something that was invented during COVID to protect yourself).

This is blatantly incorrect, N95 masks existed well before covid; as did data re their protection against airborne viruses and irritants.

Just because you were not aware of them earlier does not mean they were hidden. They were actually very popular for anyone who has asthma whenever there are bushfires; and also used in many industries/workplaces where there are superfine particles that are dangerous if inhaled.

If you are unwell with anything that may be contagious (so not allergies or a migraine) then right thing to do is not fly; proper travel insurance will cover this scenario.

 

[justinbrett]

And I think equally important is why they also place the "I agree to the Conditions of Carriage" this is the first airline I have flown with where OLCI has in big bold letters, "I agree to the Conditions of Carriage". What is the significance here? Has something changed recently? For instance, suppose when you booked your Qantas flight 6 months ago there was a different Conditions of Carriage, would such a an agreement bind you to this new condition of carriage? It seems unenforceable that they could change those conditions after making your booking especially if you must agree to it in order to check-in for the flight you booked.

-RooFlyer88

If you book with a TA or another airline, you don't accept the conditions of carriage. That's only if you book on QF directly.

I agree this is not a thing on other airlines, perhaps they have their reasons for this. Then again, if you check in at the desk, will they verbally ask you? I have my doubts.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

It’s pretty obvious. They want you to acknowledge by a positive action that you have been informed of their conditions of carriage before you proceed with your booking. If you later complain or dispute something, they can legally point to the fact that you have acknowledged the conditions of carriage and the rules which you booked under.

As opposed to them illegally pointing to the fact that you wouldn't agree to their bundle of rights?

You can’t legally say oh, they didn’t tell me about that.

Try telling Qantas that (with baggage workers)!

Same with major software upgrades. You’ll always be asked to click the box to say "I accept" but of course we never read that and we just hope that everything is okay and we’re not screwing ourselves in the process.

Not to say I like any of that, but you did ask the question "what the significance" and there it is.

I get that point, but I do find it out that they would be explicitly calling this out. There has to be some reason behind it, although I suspect it would take some sleuthing to compare QF's contract of carriage over time to see what's up. Whether such an "agreement" during check-in is binding remains to be seen in the courts (particularly if terms changed between when you booked and when you checked-in). I am not a lawyer, so I cannot comment either way, although I would love to hear from any lawyers on AFF if they could tell us why this trend is now being bucked?

If you book with a TA or another airline, you don't accept the conditions of carriage. That's only if you book on QF directly.

But presumably the airlines CoC is baked into your bundle of rights with the TA. As for other airlines, well I think you would be agree to that airline's conditions of carriage which presumably QF is fine with (otherwise they wouldn't have allowed them to sell a ticket on their behalf).

I agree this is not a thing on other airlines, perhaps they have their reasons for this. Then again, if you check in at the desk, will they verbally ask you? I have my doubts.

At the check-in counter today for QF I noticed they had a sheet that had that acknowledgement as well (although it said something to the effect of I agree I do not have a respiratory illnesses (including COVID)).

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Another thought, and I don't have the answer here is whether the I agree to the conditions of carriage language was added after the ACCC pursued them for alleged "ghost flights". I don't have the answer here either way (perhaps someone with a better memory or travels more could provide a definitive answer here). I do recall seeing a pre-flight acknowledgement with the language of respiratory illnesses (including COVID) but don't recall the language about agreeing to the CoC.

It certainly would be interesting if Qantas elected to spell that out to customers after the ACCC action, particularly if they plan on using this as a defence in court.

-RooFlyer88

 

[justinbrett]

But presumably the airlines CoC is baked into your bundle of rights with the TA. As for other airlines, well I think you would be agree to that airline's conditions of carriage which presumably QF is fine with (otherwise they wouldn't have allowed them to sell a ticket on their behalf).

At the check-in counter today for QF I noticed they had a sheet that had that acknowledgement as well (although it said something to the effect of I agree I do not have a respiratory illnesses (including COVID)).

The Conditions of Carriage are not just conditions of purchase/ticketing; they go into detail about conduct on flight etc.

Pax booking through another airline/TA would not expressly acknowledge these conditions if it wasn't for the check in prompt.

 

[SCM]

Pretty stupid, if I pay 10k for return flights, I am not going to miss them because I have a cough or a sniffle.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

The Conditions of Carriage are not just conditions of purchase/ticketing; they go into detail about conduct on flight etc.

Pax booking through another airline/TA would not expressly acknowledge these conditions if it wasn't for the check in prompt.

Presumably the action of you booking the flight means you are bound by the terms set forth by the airline. I am not a lawyer but it's my understanding that a physical contract or signature isn't the exclusive proof of the existence of a contract and the agreement thereof. When a party takes an action (i.e. paying money to QF either directly or indirect via a Travel Agent) in return for something else (i.e. a ticket for a specific QF flight or a bundle of rights depending on who you ask) you have formed a contract. Whether you explicitly decided to read that contract which might I add Qantas and most major airlines make publicly available to my knowledge, is your option. It doesn't excuse you from your obligations to that contract no more than claiming ignorance of the law in a foreign country. And again, I must point out that to my knowledge this is the first airline that puts this agreement of contract of carriage right at the check-in.

Pretty stupid, if I pay 10k for return flights, I am not going to miss them because I have a cough or a sniffle.

If we can step aside from the discussion of COVID for a moment, and consider this remark. Some may agree with what they said, others may not. But what is unclear is whether Qantas has the ability to detect communicable diseases, a right to deny boarding to someone with a cough or sniffles? For the first point, sniffles or a cough could be many things, it could be benign like a seasonal allergies or medical condition to something like a communicable respiratory disease. However, unless said passenger goes through medical testing it is difficult to say one way or another what's going on there. If we suppose for a moment that Qantas could indeed determine that a passenger has a communicable disease like the flu, would that give them the right to deny boarding of a passenger? And if they do deny boarding, what duty of care must they provide the passenger? Will they rebook them on the next available QF flight when they are deemed, "recovered"?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It’s pretty obvious. They want you to acknowledge by a positive action that you have been informed of their conditions of carriage before you proceed with your booking. If you later complain or dispute something, they can legally point to the fact that you have acknowledged the conditions of carriage and the rules which you booked under.

You can’t legally say oh, they didn’t tell me about that.

Same with major software upgrades. You’ll always be asked to click the box to say "I accept" but of course we never read that and we just hope that everything is okay and we’re not screwing ourselves in the process.

Not to say I like any of that, but you did ask the question "what the significance" and there it is.

But this is at the checkin stage. You’ve already bought your ticket and entered into the contract. Too late to spring something on you by the time you get to checkin.

What they meant to say was ‘I acknowledge the CoC’, or ‘I have reviewed the CoC’.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If we can step aside from the discussion of COVID for a moment, and consider this remark. Some may agree with what they said, others may not. But what is unclear is whether Qantas has the ability to detect communicable diseases, a right to deny boarding to someone with a cough or sniffles? For the first point, sniffles or a cough could be many things, it could be benign like a seasonal allergies or medical condition to something like a communicable respiratory disease. However, unless said passenger goes through medical testing it is difficult to say one way or another what's going on there. If we suppose for a moment that Qantas could indeed determine that a passenger has a communicable disease like the flu, would that give them the right to deny boarding of a passenger? And if they do deny boarding, what duty of care must they provide the passenger? Will they rebook them on the next available QF flight when they are deemed, "recovered"?

They can do this with a whole bunch of things…if they ‘suspect’ you are under the influence of alcohol, or that you ‘might not’ have the appropriate documents to enter a country’. It’s a bit one sided, but I don’t know how often these things are actually invoked.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

They can do this with a whole bunch of things…if they ‘suspect’ you are under the influence of alcohol, or that you ‘might not’ have the appropriate documents to enter a country’. It’s a bit one sided, but I don’t know how often these things are actually invoked.

I would argue that the two examples you provided (i.e. alcohol intoxication and travel documentation) are easily defensible on the side of the airline. After all, if crew can smell alcohol, you were stumbling about the airport and were belligerent, that's certainly more than enough evidence to prove that you are a hazard to the flight. Similarly, with travel documentation that's again a straight forward evidentiary matter: do you possess a passport and/or visa to enter the country you are travelling to? Indeed, there are systems like TIMATIC that can provide guidance on whether someone can enter a country given such details.

What is different about being infectious or feeling unwell is it is a much more subjective measure. Sniffles on its own could mean many different things including communicable disease. And look I've had allergies where it was constant runny nose until I started taking Nasonex to settle it down. Suppose we could demonstrate that a passenger is infectious with something (i.e. COVID for the sake of argument), does that by itself give the airline the right to deny boarding? My sense on this matter is no since they don't pose an immediate threat to the flight. Now certainly someone could argue the morals of taking a flight when you are knowingly sick with something, but what matters here and which was why I started this thread was looking at understanding what "rights" such an acknowledgement provides the airline.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen this acknowledgement during check-ins during the pandemic from a number of different airlines not just QF. But those acknowledgements disappeared sometime last year. This was likely because governments no longer imposed the same pandemic restrictions on businesses and individuals and likely also because airlines made the commercial decision that they didn't want to worry passengers who were scared off flying by their governments for the better part of 2 years. That Qantas sticks on with this acknowledgement not only including language around being unwell but critically this new language where you explicitly agree to the CoC makes me wonder that perhaps something more sinister is afoot.


-RooFlyer88

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I would argue that the two examples you provided (i.e. alcohol intoxication and travel documentation) are easily defensible on the side of the airline. After all, if crew can smell alcohol, you were stumbling about the airport and were belligerent, that's certainly more than enough evidence to prove that you are a hazard to the flight. Similarly, with travel documentation that's again a straight forward evidentiary matter: do you possess a passport and/or visa to enter the country you are travelling to? Indeed, there are systems like TIMATIC that can provide guidance on whether someone can enter a country given such details.

What is different about being infectious or feeling unwell is it is a much more subjective measure. Sniffles on its own could mean many different things including communicable disease. And look I've had allergies where it was constant runny nose until I started taking Nasonex to settle it down. Suppose we could demonstrate that a passenger is infectious with something (i.e. COVID for the sake of argument), does that by itself give the airline the right to deny boarding? My sense on this matter is no since they don't pose an immediate threat to the flight. Now certainly someone could argue the morals of taking a flight when you are knowingly sick with something, but what matters here and which was why I started this thread was looking at understanding what "rights" such an acknowledgement provides the airline.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen this acknowledgement during check-ins during the pandemic from a number of different airlines not just QF. But those acknowledgements disappeared sometime last year. This was likely because governments no longer imposed the same pandemic restrictions on businesses and individuals and likely also because airlines made the commercial decision that they didn't want to worry passengers who were scared off flying by their governments for the better part of 2 years. That Qantas sticks on with this acknowledgement not only including language around being unwell but critically this new language where you explicitly agree to the CoC makes me wonder that perhaps something more sinister is afoot.


-RooFlyer88

I used real life examples where airlines have wrongly denied boarding based on ‘suspicion’.

Pax who have had a stroke for example but it’s misinterpreted as being under the influence. With visas, checkin staff incorrectly reading timatic to deny boarding… for example China’s transit without visa policy. Lots of airlines can get that wrong. And do.

 

[AFF Editor]

@AFF Editor on topic but without discussing COVID, it would be interesting to ask Qantas what the official position would be if someone says "no" to this declaration.

Are they able to change date free of charge, for example, move to the next day without any change fees or fare difference, to avoid travelling while "infectious"? What proof is required?

That's an interesting question which could also be applied to all airlines in general, not just Qantas.

I'll look into it.

 

[Flyfrequently]

What is different about being infectious or feeling unwell is it is a much more subjective measure. Sniffles on its own could mean many different things including communicable disease. And look I've had allergies where it was constant runny nose until I started taking Nasonex to settle it down. Suppose we could demonstrate that a passenger is infectious with something (i.e. COVID for the sake of argument), does that by itself give the airline the right to deny boarding? My sense on this matter is no since they don't pose an immediate threat to the flight.

@kangarooflyer88 just noting here my godson (12 at the time) in 2019 was denied boarding SIN to MEL with his parents.
FA noticed he had a cough.
Sent to airport medical centre and they had to remain in SIN for 24 hours to make sure no fever developed.
TI kicked in for their delay.

 

[Quickstatus]

The simplest path to take is to just follow the simple instructions on the screen - it is one of 2 outcomes.

1) If you are not infectious or feel unwell (by whatever definition you choose to use) - click confirm
2) If you agree to Conditions of Carriage irrespective whether it has changed or not since your booking - click confirm

If you are - not sure/don't know/don't agree/think there is a conspiracy/ click cancel

Clicking cancel does not mean you can't travel. It just means you should not check in at the moment and you should clarify with Qantas.

 

[SCM]

In reality they probably won't do much of anything - but if they do, it would be a huge controversy, and would likely speed the introduction of consumer protection laws.

I agree that the airline cannot just not allow a passenger for reasons beyond their own control and not compensate them for it. If they do this, there will be even less demand for QF.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Well it looks like we’ve got our answer now: QF has changed their contract of carriage earlier this month to include additional language on unacceptable behaviour. What is unclear is whether Qantas is allowed to make such changes, how much notice should be provided to those who agreed to the prior terms and what their recourse is. For instance, if I don’t agree with the new CoC can I request a refund ? Seems like a great way to make red e-deals refundable!

source: https://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/qantas-bans-filming-without-consent/

 

[Lynda2475]

I would think requesting a refund on the basis of not being able to film other people without their permission is extremally tenuous. This change does not impact QFs ability to deliver the service you paid for which is to get form A to B in the class paid for.

No where did they previously state it was ok to film other passengers and crew without their permission. You'd be hard pressed to prove you only booked the flight with express purpose of filming strangers and crew.

 

[RichardMEL]

I get the feeling someone is rather triggered - and now doubly so....

 

[oz_mark]

Well it looks like we’ve got our answer now: QF has changed their contract of carriage earlier this month to include additional language on unacceptable behaviour. What is unclear is whether Qantas is allowed to make such changes, how much notice should be provided to those who agreed to the prior terms and what their recourse is. For instance, if I don’t agree with the new CoC can I request a refund ? Seems like a great way to make red e-deals refundable!

source: https://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/qantas-bans-filming-without-consent/

I guess it depends on whether you'd like to fly Qantas again.