Qantas arrrrgh...

[dajop]

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

But are customers to blame for thinking that an airline ticket with listed flight times is a promise to get people there at those times, whereas it is really nothing more than a vague arrangement to get someone from A to B? More consumer education is probably needed on this one, if the misunderstanding runs deep on AFF, it probably is more widespread in the community.

 

[lovestotravel]

But are customers to blame for thinking that an airline ticket with listed flight times is a promise to get people there at those times, whereas it is really nothing more than a vague arrangement to get someone from A to B? More consumer education is probably needed on this one, if the misunderstanding runs deep on AFF, it probably is more widespread in the community.

I was about to add that, JohnK should/does know better I would say, but he is annoyed at all those airlines "ranking in the profits" and he is grumpy at that and/or the world in general

What I do agree with is what is the timeframe for getting a customer from point A to point B. There are no set guidelines and it's basically up to each airline to get the customer there "whenever they can" That may be 2 hours late, 4 hours, 6 hours, 48 hours etc. Think Tiger.........:shock:

Separate tickets are bad, and I think that is fairly well known on here, but as for most other people they have no idea.

It is pretty much always cheaper to book international flights seperate to the follow on domestic flights, that or you cannot book the onward domestic flights on the same airline or on a codeshare.

As a result and as we have mentioned you have 2 separate tickets for A to B and then B to C.

Airline 1 doesn't care about B-C
Airline 2 doesn't care about you arriving late at B

I allow a minimum of 4 hours and usually 5 1/2 hours at the arrival airport before any onwards flights. That is of course unless the onward flights are a flexible ticket, but then the huge cost of these is prohibitive and usually a waste. Other than that I say a night or three at point B and then make my way from B to C later on.

Most times I just allow 5 1/2 hours at point B which usually end up being around 3 hours sitting around but that's better than trying to re-book flights at the last minute with can be worth more than $1000 due to the silly last minute fares that you need to pay.

I am yet to find travel insurance that covers missing a flight that is not on the same ticket! For obvious reasons I doubt that it exists!

 

[straitman]

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

.... and what a sad society we live in when businesses place blame on everyone else except themselves and still call it customer service :!:

 

[serfty]

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.

To get the terminology correct:

yes, but the point is that they're not guaranteeing to meet your connection if it is not on the same PNR. From a contractual point of view, if your follow-on flights are on separate PNRs, then these are separate contracts; the first carrier is not bound by any subsequent contract, as it's not a party to it. While an itinerary can comprise more than the one PNR, there is generally no protection should flights from different PNR's fail to connect as planned.

A TA will often book passenger on separate PNR's for the one itinerary but will allow plenty of time for such connection (> 24hours preferably).

 

[Dave Noble]

1 ticketed itinerary may have multiple PNRs depending on which carriers. e.g. my current trip has 3 PNRs, one for QF , one for CX and one for SQ. Even though there are 3 PNRs, they are part of the same ticketed itinerary and so there is protection should problems occur

Multiple PNRs does not mean that there is no protection should there be problems on a single itinerary

 

[serfty]

...
Multiple PNRs does not mean that there is no protection should there be problems on a single itinerary

Of course, but that is not in the context of these posts.

For example, I have a LONE4 booking which has a PNR with AA covering all the flights. That's who it's ticket through. However, there are possibly up to 4 additional PNR's covering one or more of these same flights (and any connections thereof) for the various carriers involved (BA, QF, IB and JL). This makes a total of up to 5 for the one itinerary.

 

[Dave Noble]

Of course, but that is not in the context of these posts.

Au contraire, I was referring to the comment

"From a contractual point of view, if your follow-on flights are on separate PNRs, then these are separate contracts; the first carrier is not bound by any subsequent contract, as it's not a party to it. While an itinerary can comprise more than the one PNR, there is generally no protection should flights from different PNR's fail to connect as planned. "

where it was stated that multiple PNRs on same itinerary that there is no protection

Dave

 

[serfty]

An itinerary can be composed of several different bookings with several different companies, including car hire, flights, hotels, tours etc.

 

[harvyk]

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.

The word product I think is perfect for what they offer. They offer travel from point A to point B, in accordance to a set of terms and conditions. Now I can pay $100 to $1000 and end up sitting in the exact same seat. The difference really is the terms and conditions I have paid for. For example, the terms and conditions for the $100 ticket may require me to travel or lose the fair paid, where as the $1000 ticket may allow me to recover all my money 24 hours after the flight has left even though I wasn't on it. Same seat on offer, two different sets of terms and conditions. This is the various products which an airline offers.

Furthermore I don't see why an airline should help you beyond what they said they would. If I go to someone and say "Could you drive me from MEL to CBR" and they agree but we get held up on the way I could then turn around and say, "oh my friend was going to drive me from CBR to SYD, but they have already left, could you please take me all the way to SYD" My friend who drove me from MEL to CBR might oblige, or they may say "I only agreed to take you to CBR, not to SYD, this is the first time I've heard that you actually want to go to SYD not CBR.", or they may turn around and say "I can drive you, but I'll need to get some fuel money off you"

Had my mate said "I can take you as far as CBR, and then a mate of mine will take you to SYD, then understandably I would be annoyed if the mate of a mate left for SYD before I arrived in CBR". It's the same sort of analogy.

 

[dajop]

The word product I think is perfect for what they offer. They offer travel from point A to point B, in

You understand that. My point was that MANY people misinterpret what the "product" that airlines offer. Many believe the product (with the various T&C) offered by an airline is a promise to get from Point A to Point B at a specific time, and make arrangements accordingly (sometimes those arrangements include onwards travel). Whereas the real deal is that the product is only getting from Point A to Point B, so any arrangements you make subsequent to arriving at Point B are at "at your own risk" (and in some rare circumstances at your insurers risk).

Of course some airlines (usually legacy carriers) do have service recovery procedures in place (particularly for valued customers) that may mitigate risk for individual passengers, particularly if the delay is not weather related - but this is purely customer service and not part of the purchased product.

 

[JohnK]

I was about to add that, JohnK should/does know better I would say, but he is annoyed at all those airlines "ranking in the profits" and he is grumpy at that and/or the world in general

An airline is in the business of carrying people from point A to point B (or C-D-E-F) and they publish a set of times for take-off and arrival. And I am naive enough to actually believe in these published times that are listed in the contractual agreement between the 2 parties.

Let's not kid ourselves that in good times most airlines are raking in the profits. They also penalise a customer heavily if they arrive late for check-in but if they fail to meet their end of the bargain to get you to your destination one time they shrug their shoulders go and hide behind their terms and conditions and wait for the next sucker I mean customer.

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

Hmmm. Just remember that a company needs customers to survive. Sad society indeed....

 

[oz_mark]

An airline is in the business of carrying people from point A to point B (or C-D-E-F) and they publish a set of times for take-off and arrival. And I am naive enough to actually believe in these published times that are listed in the contractual agreement between the 2 parties.

You mean, for example, this part of your agreement?

If travelling on Qantas, we will use all reasonable efforts to depart on time, but we do not guarantee flight times.

 

[JohnK]

You mean, for example, this part of your agreement?

That could be it but I was actually thinking of the itinerary that is sent out with the booking and the endless revisions to the scheduled departure and arrival times. Way to go for one sided contract agreements....

 

[reflector]

a most entertaining thread to be sure. I personally feel that the original issue was a storm in a teacup. (apologies for my upcoming straight shooting...)


So you had to rebook flights because you chose to book separately?

Caveat emptor.



So your daughter in law flew with a 4 month old baby?

I'm thinking evil thoughts right now... and anyone reading this probably is too, because we've all sat next to THAT person before...



So Qantas didn't supply you with a hotel because you missed a flight which wasn't booked with them?

As others have mentioned, if you'd booked everything in 1 booking, qantas probably would have spotted you a hotel. AA won't though (i speak from experience... 18 hours, and slept on LAX floor)



Is it a sign of the times?

Yes. Customers are stupid. They flock to cheap, unsafe (garuda anyone?) carriers, then the full service airlines have to cut costs where they can to remain competitive. Then the public complains that their airline is reducing services, when it's society itself that has caused the cuts with their fickle buying.



Can you do anything about it?

YES!!! Caveat emptor, be prepared, plan for the worst case scenario.

 

[davidj-bell]

AA won't though (i speak from experience... 18 hours, and slept on LAX floor)

AA make it clear in their in-flight magazine that these things happen, AA won't help you and to check your travel insurance for your options.

 

[serfty]

AA make it clear in their in-flight magazine that these things happen, AA won't help you and to check your travel insurance for your options.

Of course, any EU airline and any airline flying long haul out of the EU SHould be quite proactive with assistance in the even a flight would be more than 4 hours late.

That €600 per PAX can sting ...