Qantas arrrrgh...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am especially grateful that Qantas values its safety record, and would rather have my family delayed than dead.

I'm not sure I truly understand the logic behind this statement.

While it may hold true for some where a problem is genuinely only manifested at the last minute, what about the circumsatnces where a problem has been noted but engineers decide the aircraft can fly on its redundant systems?

My argument would be that proactive (early) maintenance might avoid some delays.
 
... The legislation wasn't written to penalise airlines for aeroplanes getting faults ...
Are you sure of that?

In any case; an aircraft getting a fault is generally not considered 'extraordinary circumstances'.

Of course, the airlines do endeavour to do so, procrastinating and filibustering in the hope the claimant gives up.

Generally, a determined claimant will succeed. See here: Airline Passenger Rights & Compensation, Cancelled & Delayed Flight Claims, Lost Airline Luggage Refund, European Flight Compensation
 
Are you sure of that?

Pretty much; my understanding it was designed to discourage commercial decisions to inconveniance passengers not to penalise them for not flying aeroplanes which become unairworthy

Is an aeroplane getting a fault an ordinary situation or an extraordinary one?

Regardless, neither the US nor Australia have such provisions for this so is moot anyway :)

Dave
 
Yes, the point is moot in the OP's case. 261/2004 is only pertinent when it's an EU carrier or a carrier departing from a (EU) member country.

The pre-amble is quite mind numbing - it certainly indicates that "it was designed to discourage commercial decisions to inconvenience passengers".

No mention of unserviceable aircraft.

Also, on review the delay compensation is not €600 in any case; being over 5 hours, if under the umbrella it could be up to the full cost of the ticket depending on circumstances.

Here's the regulation: EUR-Lex - 32004R0261 - EN

The full text of the pre-amble is here:
Whereas:

(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.

(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.

(3) While Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport(4) created basic protection for passengers, the number of passengers denied boarding against their will remains too high, as does that affected by cancellations without prior warning and that affected by long delays.

(4) The Community should therefore raise the standards of protection set by that Regulation both to strengthen the rights of passengers and to ensure that air carriers operate under harmonised conditions in a liberalised market.

(5) Since the distinction between scheduled and non-scheduled air services is weakening, such protection should apply to passengers not only on scheduled but also on non-scheduled flights, including those forming part of package tours.

(6) The protection accorded to passengers departing from an airport located in a Member State should be extended to those leaving an airport located in a third country for one situated in a Member State, when a Community carrier operates the flight.

(7) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.

(8) This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.

(9) The number of passengers denied boarding against their will should be reduced by requiring air carriers to call for volunteers to surrender their reservations, in exchange for benefits, instead of denying passengers boarding, and by fully compensating those finally denied boarding.

(10) Passengers denied boarding against their will should be able either to cancel their flights, with reimbursement of their tickets, or to continue them under satisfactory conditions, and should be adequately cared for while awaiting a later flight.

(11) Volunteers should also be able to cancel their flights, with reimbursement of their tickets, or continue them under satisfactory conditions, since they face difficulties of travel similar to those experienced by passengers denied boarding against their will.

(12) The trouble and inconvenience to passengers caused by cancellation of flights should also be reduced. This should be achieved by inducing carriers to inform passengers of cancellations before the scheduled time of departure and in addition to offer them reasonable re-routing, so that the passengers can make other arrangements. Air carriers should compensate passengers if they fail to do this, except when the cancellation occurs in extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

(13) Passengers whose flights are cancelled should be able either to obtain reimbursement of their tickets or to obtain re-routing under satisfactory conditions, and should be adequately cared for while awaiting a later flight.

(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

(16) In cases where a package tour is cancelled for reasons other than the flight being cancelled, this Regulation should not apply.

(17) Passengers whose flights are delayed for a specified time should be adequately cared for and should be able to cancel their flights with reimbursement of their tickets or to continue them under satisfactory conditions.

(18) Care for passengers awaiting an alternative or a delayed flight may be limited or declined if the provision of the care would itself cause further delay.

(19) Operating air carriers should meet the special needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them.

(20) Passengers should be fully informed of their rights in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, so that they can effectively exercise their rights.

(21) Member States should lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and ensure that these sanctions are applied. The sanctions should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

(22) Member States should ensure and supervise general compliance by their air carriers with this Regulation and designate an appropriate body to carry out such enforcement tasks. The supervision should not affect the rights of passengers and air carriers to seek legal redress from courts under procedures of national law.

(23) The Commission should analyse the application of this Regulation and should assess in particular the opportunity of extending its scope to all passengers having a contract with a tour operator or with a Community carrier, when departing from a third country airport to an airport in a Member State.

(24) Arrangements for greater cooperation over the use of Gibraltar airport were agreed in London on 2 December 1987 by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in a joint declaration by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries. Such arrangements have yet to enter into operation.
 
I'm not sure I truly understand the logic behind this statement.

While it may hold true for some where a problem is genuinely only manifested at the last minute, what about the circumsatnces where a problem has been noted but engineers decide the aircraft can fly on its redundant systems?

My argument would be that proactive (early) maintenance might avoid some delays.
MEL_Traveller,

Your comments here show a lack of understanding of how the system actually works.

The engineers do not and cannot randomly 'decide the aircraft can fly on its redundant systems' This is controlled totally by the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) which specifies quite specifically what are go or no go items and even how many times and/or for how long and aircraft can continue with a known problem.

The MEL is controlled by a combination of the manufacturer and the certifying authorities. eg In the case of a Boeing aircraft operated in Australia the MEL is issued by Boeing after sign off by the FAA and CASA. Qantas cannot go outside the MEL without specific written approval from Boeing and approval of the FAA and CASA.

I hope that makes it clearer.
 
Taking point 15

(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

If an aeroplane goes unexpectedly unserviceable it could be hard to prove that the airline did not take reasonable measures to avoid the delay. QF doesn't have many 747s on standby just in case one aeroplane goes faulty

They also followed point 12 quite well by informing passengers in advance where they could. On that route , I would suggest that there are limited options for the airline to reroute many passengers

Dave
 
MEL_Traveller,

Your comments here show a lack of understanding of how the system actually works.

The engineers do not and cannot randomly 'decide the aircraft can fly on its redundant systems' This is controlled totally by the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) which specifies quite specifically what are go or no go items and even how many times and/or for how long and aircraft can continue with a known problem.

Straitman - your point is exactly my argument. I fully accept the minimum equipment list determines go and no go items, and aircraft can fly perfectly legally on redundant systems as per the MEL.

But if the main system is faulty and the aircraft is flying on a secondary system (perfectly legally as per MEL) and that second system then develops a fault, the aircraft can be delayed while it is fixed.

My argument is that there may be cases when the primary system should be fixed proactively and that would prevent a delay down the line.

I appreciate there are good cases when secondary systems are relied on - for example if the plane is at an outstation, however if you look at an aircraft flying the QF29 (MEL-HKG-LHR) - it only arrives on an incoming flight about 2 hours defore the next departure. Doesn't leave a lot of time to get things fixed - and i have seen big delays on the 29 when things need repair.

I am not advocating practive maintenance on the scale of Air Force One (which according to the programe I saw has never once had a mechanical fault delaying departure) but I would be interested to see the statistics on how many delays are caused by faults which come completey and utterly out of the blue.

My reference to the MEL was just an example. I was on a flight out of Perth last year when a 12 inch piece of fan blade came off just after takeoff and was ingested into the engine which meant an immediate return to the airport. Could have been caused by a birdstrike (but i was sitting over the engine and looking out of the window at it during the takeoff and didn't see anything unusual) - but what are the other possible causes? metal fatigue is one. and if it was metal fatigue, is this really something that just happened instantaneously? (It is pure speculation as to what happened but as the airlines don't make this information freely available then it is open for discussion.)
 
The fact that 'time' does not form part of the contract is indicative of the fact that these contracts are all one way streets. There is no negotiation on them and if you want to fly you have little to no choice but to accept the terms on which it is offered.

That does not make it right at all and QF advertise their flight to be leaving at X and arriving at Y and it should be their contractual obligation to deliver that service (within a tolerable allowance). If you read into these contracts generally there would be little obligation on airlines to do anything except in the most dire of circumstances. The way of the business I am afraid but Ozimax is perfectly entitled to be agrieved here!



Ozimax, Time does not form part of the contract. Most T&C's state that the arrival time is not guaranteed so therefore Qantas had fulfilled their part of the contract.

The lesson in situations like this is to pay the little bit extra and get everything booked on the same ticket.

As for travel insurance, only some policies cover mechanical delays, and even those ones cover mech. delays over a certain time (i.e ~6 hrs).
 
The fact that 'time' does not form part of the contract is indicative of the fact that these contracts are all one way streets. There is no negotiation on them and if you want to fly you have little to no choice but to accept the terms on which it is offered.

That does not make it right at all and QF advertise their flight to be leaving at X and arriving at Y and it should be their contractual obligation to deliver that service (within a tolerable allowance). If you read into these contracts generally there would be little obligation on airlines to do anything except in the most dire of circumstances. The way of the business I am afraid but Ozimax is perfectly entitled to be agrieved here!


As I said - from at least the time you have checked-in, time IS likely to form part of the contract.

This does not mean that a flight must leave and arrive exactly on time.

If your flight is late then prima facie there has been a breach of contract and you could take an action for damages. Airlines providing food, accommodation, taxis or phone cards would go a long way to making sure that damages suffered by the passenger are limited.
 
<hijack>

Also, If on separate bookings, well before travel I contact Qantas and request "Information Segments" on the AA connecting flight be inserted into the PNR. (Qantas can even issue your AA BP's on check-in in Oz.)

Serfty, is this advisable even when booking with a non-One World carrier? I'm flying to LAX with QF this Friday, but then LAX-MSY-LAX on UA on a points flight. Am slightly freaking, as I flew this same combo of flights two years ago (but on one PNR) and my BNE-LAX was delayed by 4hrs, missing my original connection for LAX-MSY. Qantas rebooked it for me, so all OK then, except for getting to my hotel at midnight and a whole other saga there ..

</hijack>
 
So, given what a terrific, visible, talented and vocal community we have here; why don't we start a push for an Australian Charter of Rights?
 
<hijack>
...
Serfty, is this advisable even when booking with a non-One World carrier? ...
</hijack>
IMHO, it's advisable with any such bookings which relate to the one itinerary.
 
If Qantas had delivered their paying/legally contracted customers to the destination on time, there would have been no problem. That's the problem. A sale is a two way contract. The customer performs their part of the sale when they purchase the ticket. From then on, it's the service providers' responsibility to fulfill the contract. Why not deliver them 3 months from tomorrow? Or next year? Better still, why not have the customer pay for the trip when they arrive at their destination. Now that's a thought!:)



Nobody said it did, but it still is a good idea.

Umm.... read your T&Cs. Qatas's only obligation is to get the passengers to the final destination. They're not responsible if there are delays that cause inconveniences. that's what tavel insurance is for
 
If Qantas had delivered their paying/legally contracted customers to the destination on time, there would have been no problem. That's the problem. A sale is a two way contract. The customer performs their part of the sale when they purchase the ticket. From then on, it's the service providers' responsibility to fulfill the contract. Why not deliver them 3 months from tomorrow? Or next year? Better still, why not have the customer pay for the trip when they arrive at their destination. Now that's a thought!:)
Some people are truly convinced that an airline's responsibility is over once they have accepted your money.

One day airlines are going to be forced to behave like other businesses (and stop hiding behind terms and conditions favourable only to them) and treat customers like customers and not cattle. All customers are important.
 
Umm.... read your T&Cs. Qatas's only obligation is to get the passengers to the final destination. They're not responsible if there are delays that cause inconveniences. that's what tavel insurance is for

Have you ever read the T&C's of any document (except for a house sale)? There are only 24 in hours in a day and some of us work long hours...:)

I beg to differ here but after you have checked in, received a boarding pass and already completed one flight sector of an itinerary with the same airline, surely there should be a condition to provide at least half reasonable care for passengers?

Qantas has had a protected golden run for decades. It now has to compete and unfortunately is losing market share at a massive rate.
 
I beg to differ here but after you have checked in, received a boarding pass and already completed one flight sector of an itinerary with the same airline, surely there should be a condition to provide at least half reasonable care for passengers?

.

If your journey is on the same itinerary, then yes, the airline(s) has to get you to the end point. if you cobble together different itineraries, then you can't expect an airline to take responsibility for flights on the other itineraries.
 
Here is the ultimate thing ozimax, you may not have liked the full T&C's, but on the purchase of that ticket (and clicking the I Agree checkbox or signing your name on the dotted line at your TA's shop) you have agreed to be bound by them. Airlines (and other companies) often become unstuck with legal things when they start doing things their T&C's don't specifically cover, which funnily enough happens fairly frequently, either intentionally or otherwise.

Ultimately this is the governing rule... Is the carrier protected by their T&C's?
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top