Qantas arrrrgh...

[JohnK]

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.

So I am dumb enough to purchase flights on different carriers and itineraries just because I can do it and it is much cheaper doing it that way.

When is an a carrier obliged to get a passenger to their destination? On time? Within a few hours? Within a few days? Whenever they feel like it? What is happening is an absolute joke. I just wish people would stop justifying what the airlines are doing.

Ultimately this is the governing rule... Is the carrier protected by their T&C's?

And who protects the customer or passenger in this case?

 

[Dave Noble]

So I am dumb enough to purchase flights on different carriers and itineraries just because I can do it and it is much cheaper doing it that way.

if you do it without putting decent allowance for late arrival and misconnecting then yes. If allowing ample time to handle delays et al then it can be a good way to save money

When is an a carrier obliged to get a passenger to their destination? On time? Within a few hours? Within a few days? Whenever they feel like it? What is happening is an absolute joke. I just wish people would stop justifying what the airlines are doing.


And who protects the customer or passenger in this case?

Why should people stop explaing to people the difference between a through ticket and 2 separate tickets. Buy a ticket from A-B and then all that the airline is responsible for is A-B ; why should the airline take any responsibility if the passenger is not prepared to pay the through fare?

 

[harvyk]

And who protects the customer or passenger in this case?

As you have selectively quoted me, I'll elaborate.

The T&C's for just about any business, exist only to protect that business, not the customer. The business has offered a service at a price with certain terms and conditions attached to that service. You as the customer has the option to purchase that product with those terms and conditions and you have chosen to proceed.

Of course if you don't like the terms and conditions attached to that product YOU have the ability to either find a different product without the terms and conditions attached, request the company provides an altered set of terms and conditions (yes you do have that option, and sometimes companies will agree to this), or chose not to deal with the company. This of course needs to be done prior to purchasing the product, as with very limited exception, once you have purchase the product in question you have agreed to be bound by those terms and conditions.

Of course the only exception is if you where not given the oppurtunity to read the full terms and conditions attached to the purchase of the product prior to purchase, you may on receiving the full terms and conditions ask for a full refund if you don't agree with them. That said, all airlines (AFAIK) give you the option to read terms and conditions prior to purchase.

 

[davidj-bell]

So I am dumb enough to purchase flights on different carriers and itineraries just because I can do it and it is much cheaper doing it that way.

It's only dumb if you don't build in enough contingency for when something goes wrong. I normally allow 24 hour stop over, which is enough time to sort out any changes to tickets if a flight gets cancelled/delayed.

When is an a carrier obliged to get a passenger to their destination? On time? Within a few hours? Within a few days? Whenever they feel like it? What is happening is an absolute joke. I just wish people would stop justifying what the airlines are doing.

A carrier is always obliged to get passengers to their destination (except Ryanair), but they have no obligation beyond what is on that current itinerary. If you've missed your connection that is on a separate itinerary because the current flight is late, tough. It's your responsibility to allow some contingency time if you're going to cobble together itineraries.

 

[dajop]

So I am dumb enough to purchase flights on different carriers and itineraries just because I can do it and it is much cheaper doing it that way.

Some insurance will cover for non-airline caused delayed if you onward travel is to get you to "preexisting travel arrangements" - so for this reason always have some nonrefundable accommodation booked in your arrival destination! SO if you say fly SYD-LAX and separate ticket with LAX-MIA with prebooked travel arrangements in MIA and there is a weather delay out of SYD you may be covered by travel insurance (however if the delay was mechanical - airline's fault - then bad luck no one will cover you). And for many travel insurance policies it will only be for "special events", such as weddings etc, not pre arranged travel.

It would be nice if there was a specific simple travel insurance product that just covers missed connections on separately ticketed flights, surely actuarally it would not be too difficult to calculate the risk?

 

[RB]

Some insurance will cover for non-airline caused delayed if you onward travel is to get you to "preexisting travel arrangements" - so for this reason always have some nonrefundable accommodation booked in your arrival destination! SO if you say fly SYD-LAX and separate ticket with LAX-MIA with prebooked travel arrangements in MIA and there is a weather delay out of SYD you may be covered by travel insurance (however if the delay was mechanical - airline's fault - then bad luck no one will cover you). And for many travel insurance policies it will only be for "special events", such as weddings etc, not pre arranged travel.

It would be nice if there was a specific simple travel insurance product that just covers missed connections on separately ticketed flights, surely actuarally it would not be too difficult to calculate the risk?

I suggest not difficult to calculate the risk but I wonder if the premium would be accepted?

 

[Mr Ed]

Lost cost travel is like lost cost health care ..........

You risk it.

 

[harvyk]

Lost cost travel is like lost cost health care ..........

You risk it.

I'd say the problem is more that people book trips without understanding the full implications if something goes wrong. Once apon a time if you wanted to travel on a plane, you'd have to go to a TA, who would go over all the options and make sure that every connection was valid and if there where problems there where plans in place to deal with them.

These days I can jump on my computer and make very complex bookings without placing in any of the safe guards which a good TA would know is required. (eg booking connecting flights on the one ticket, allowing ample time for clearing of customs etc...)

The problem is that people book their own flights online (and this includes myself for simpler bookings) as it saves the dollar or two that a TA may charge and then wonder why they get stranded somewhere.

 

[JohnK]

It's only dumb if you don't build in enough contingency for when something goes wrong. I normally allow 24 hour stop over, which is enough time to sort out any changes to tickets if a flight gets cancelled/delayed.

Unfortunately 24 hours is a long sacrifice some of the time.

A carrier is always obliged to get passengers to their destination (except Ryanair), but they have no obligation beyond what is on that current itinerary. If you've missed your connection that is on a separate itinerary because the current flight is late, tough. It's your responsibility to allow some contingency time if you're going to cobble together itineraries.

I understand a carrier does not have an obligation past their current itinerary. But I should also have high expectations that airlines will stick to schedules and maintain on time performance at all times. And no I do not believe that 75% on time performance is good enough.

Just to highlight my trip in a few weeks time. I have an SQ award flight SIN-BKK that is scheduled to arrive in BKK at 11:05am and then on a separate booking a KLM flight BKK-TPE departing BKK at 2:25pm. As far as I am aware 3:20 hours is more than enough for a valid connection in BKK and if I miss this connection then it is my fault because I have it on separate bookings? If I miss this connection then this stuffs up flights the next day as well.

If airlines want everything their way then they should have left things alone and only allowed travel agents to make bookings. Now that we live in the internet age and airlines wanting people to book on the internet they should get their act together and get people to the destination on time instead of looking for the easy way out when things go wrong.

What a sad society we have created when a company (establishment) does not take any risks and rakes in the profits and when something goes wrong the blame rests with the customer who should have read the terms and conditions in more detail.

 

[Dave Noble]

Why should the airline assist if the passenger deliberately books separate tickets ; the passenger tends to have to do this quite intentionally and so should accept the risks. When I do it, I know the risks and plan accordingly and tend to build overnight connections in .

Why do people want to refuse to take responsibility for their own choices? Book a through ticket and there is nothing to worry about

Flights get delayed from time to time; t'is a risk of travel.

 

[davidj-bell]

Unfortunately 24 hours is a long sacrifice some of the time.


I understand a carrier does not have an obligation past their current itinerary. But I should also have high expectations that airlines will stick to schedules and maintain on time performance at all times. And no I do not believe that 75% on time performance is good enough.

.

The biggest problem with expecting anything more than 75% reliability is that it will get exponentially more expensive the closer to 100% (eg, at worse, to give virtually 100%, airlines would need to schedule 2 aircraft for every flight, in case one goes unservicable). Unless everyone is prepared to pay double the fares, then 75% is about what we have to live with.

 

[harvyk]

So JohnK, I purchase a product from Company A, and then a product from Company B, neither company knew I had purchased the other companies product, neither company guarenteed their product was compatible with the other companies product, and yet we expect that Company A will help us out if Company B's product causes a problem with Company A's product, even though Company A had nothing to do with Company B?

 

[serfty]

That's why it's often better to purchase both product α and product β from company A keeping them compatible.

 

[ejb]

That's why it's often better to purchase both product α and product β from company A keeping them compatible.

Nice use of font serfty

I tend to have low expectations so when good things happen I am overjoyed.:mrgreen:

ejb

 

[straitman]

I tend to have low expectations so when good things happen I am overjoyed.:mrgreen:

ejb

..... and always remember that nice things happen to nice people :!:

 

[JohnK]

So JohnK, I purchase a product from Company A, and then a product from Company B, neither company knew I had purchased the other companies product, neither company guarenteed their product was compatible with the other companies product, and yet we expect that Company A will help us out if Company B's product causes a problem with Company A's product, even though Company A had nothing to do with Company B?

It sounds like you are describing PC software.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Company A to compensate me if they were the cause for me missing a perfectly valid connection on Company B. But yes they do hide behind their terms and conditions and tell you to purchase the flights on the same ticket and if you miss your connection you will still be stuffed but not feel so bad.

By the way Company A, Company B and Company C know about the other itineraries and also have interline agreements even if on separate tickets.

 

[davidj-bell]

It sounds like you are describing PC software.

By the way Company A, Company B and Company C know about the other itineraries and also have interline agreements even if on separate tickets.

yes, but the point is that they're not guaranteeing to meet your connection if it is not on the same itinerary. From a contractual point of view, if your follow-on flights are on separate itineraries, then these are separate contracts; the first carrier is not bound by any subsequent contract, as it's not a party to it.

 

[lovestotravel]

What a sad society we have created when a company (establishment) does not take any risks and rakes in the profits and when something goes wrong the blame rests with the customer who should have read the terms and conditions in more detail.

What a sad society we live in when customers place blame on everyone else except themselves.

 

[dajop]

So JohnK, I purchase a product from Company A, and then a product from Company B,

I think the word you have used here "product" is at the heart of the problem. Many people have a misunderstanding of the product that the airline offers - it is not a promise to get you from A to B at a certain time, nor is it even a promise to get you from A to B within a certain tolerance of a certain time. Should it be? I don't know.

What the "product" many airlines offers is really a promise to get you from A to B at a random time in the future - (if the weather is OK), and if you're Ryanair is a promise to get from somewhere near (near being within a few hours drive) A to somewhere near B, at a time most convenient for the airline (usually the time that is most convenient is actually the scheduled time, but not always).

Naturally market forces tend to warn consumers off of the airlines that do not deliver close to their scheduled promise and treat customers like cough when things go pear-shaped.

Personally - based on sample of >1000 flights, if I wanted confidence of connecting within 4 hours of landing (allowing 2 hours for connection formalities), I'd be Ok 99% of the time (although to be fair I could count with just my fingers the number of flights I've taken in the northern hemisphere in winter). More experienced travellers probably have a reasonable concept of the risk (for example I would never book separately ticketed flights on different airlines connecting through Canberra in winter before midday, although maybe as a WP I'd chance two separately ticketed QF flights!)

 

[Dave Noble]

What a sad society we live in when customers place blame on everyone else except themselves.

absolutely. The new mantra these days seems to be of the "I can't be held responsible for my own actions"