Qantas faces court test over duty of care to customers

[SYD]

Sounds like a long bow to point the finger at QF when it‘s LA codeshares - the first flight being delayed and causing a cascade of missed connections.

Most TI would kick in at that point.

I’m scratching my head a bit on the 12 day delay also. Although, it’s not like planes are empty anymore!

 

[BD1959]

haven't been able to get this to work - says I have my cookies turned off - which I definitely do not.

Same here - over multiple browsers ...

Regards,

BD

 

[TRS123]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-faces-court-test-over-duty-of-care-to-customers/news-story/d8b0bdae957f269da919bd5db888d84f

<redacted article content>.
Mr Hassett was on his way to the airport in Bogota, Colombia when he learned a flight delay would make him too late for a connecting service in Santiago, Chile.
When he contacted LATAM airlines about the delay, he was told it was a matter for the carrier through which he had booked, which was Qantas.
<redacted article content>.
Mr Hassett took matters into his own hands and booked a five-sector flight home, via Spain, Italy, Qatar and Perth.
The trip cost the couple $10,177, plus almost $300 in accommodation along the way, on top of the $3980 they had already paid for the Qantas flights.
<redacted article content>.
After spending more than 13-hours on the phone to Qantas call centres in an effort to recover the funds, Mr Hassett filed a claim in the Federal Circuit Court of Victoria.
Although ... reimbursed the cost of the Qantas flights Mr Hassett believed the airline should also cover the cost of the additional flights.
<redacted article content>
Adam Glezer from Consumer Champion said the case highlighted why Australia’s consumer laws needed to be strengthened to give people more options in these situations.
He said no reasonable person would consider it acceptable to have the date of their return flights pushed back by 12-days.
<redacted article content>.
... said almost anyone taking on Qantas in the Federal Court system faced an uphill battle, given the airline’s access to top legal representation.
<redacted article content>

 

[TheInsider]

As I've said before somewhere, it's generally up to the delayed carrier (metal) to rebook their delayed connections as per IATA resolution 766. So will be interesting if Qantas once again gets the blame for it legally.

Misconnection IATA Resolution 766 (Interline Passenger Reservation Procedures) states that whenever a passenger arrives at an interline point too late to make his connection, it is the responsibility of the delivering airline to cancel any continuing space that cannot be used and rebook the passenger as necessary.

https://www.iata.org/contentassets/e7a533819be440edbb1e49da96e0f2a8/guidance-document-interline-irops_25june2020.pdf

 

[bladeau1981]

I am confused about this whole thing (and not being able to access the entire story isn't helping). So the PAX was on their way to the airport when they found out about a delay. They didn't get Qantas to fix it but instead decided to just book flights themselves and then ask Qantas to pay for them? Where did the 12 days delay come into things? If the flight hadn't left yet then it is up to Qantas to sort it out, if they had got on the plane then LA would have had to fix it on the other end.

 

[TheInsider]

I am confused about this whole thing (and not being able to access the entire story isn't helping). So the PAX was on their way to the airport when they found out about a delay. They didn't get Qantas to fix it but instead decided to just book flights themselves and then ask Qantas to pay for them? Where did the 12 days delay come into things? If the flight hadn't left yet then it is up to Qantas to sort it out, if they had got on the plane then LA would have had to fix it on the other end.

It's actually up to LA to sort out as it was their delay and not a schedule change (which is usually done 72+hrs out), regardless of codeshares. Seems to me LA refused to help out referring to QF, QF said nothing avail for 12 days, they found a way out and want QF to pay.

 

[MrJetset]

As I've said before somewhere, it's generally up to the delayed carrier (metal) to rebook their delayed connections as per IATA resolution 766. So will be interesting if Qantas once again gets the blame for it legally.

https://www.iata.org/contentassets/e7a533819be440edbb1e49da96e0f2a8/guidance-document-interline-irops_25june2020.pdf

If I was to guess what happened, I would say they misconnected and LA or QF advised there was no award availability for 12 days. I would also guess they then asked QF for a partial points refund back (given a sector was flown).

Still doesn't make them responsible.

 

[TheInsider]

If I was to guess what happened, I would say they misconnected and LA or QF advised there was no award availability for 12 days. I would also guess they then asked QF for a partial points refund back (given a sector was flown).

Still doesn't make them responsible.

Still odd. Even being in points in a disruption or missed connection situation, it makes no difference if it's a points ticket.

 

[muppet]

Yes agreed LA is responsible and Qantas should be able to explain that in a coherent manner to its customers - people shouldn’t have to bring with them a copy of IATA’s resolutions and a copy of QF’s interline agreements in case of a flight delay.

Unless there’s more to the story, I can’t see the complainant being successful.

 

[MrJetset]

Still odd. Even being in points in a disruption or missed connection situation, it makes no difference if it's a points ticket.

Oh, I agree.

I am trying to work out why QF are the defendant and this is the best I can hypothesise.

 

[SYD]

<redacted post>

Yeah, some “” probably could have come in handy along with a mention that they were snippets but a bunch of peeps were complaining that they were paywalled from The Oz article and/or couldn’t open the other link to the article. Lucky them TBH.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Yeah, some “” probably could have come in handy along with a mention that they were snippets but a bunch of peeps were complaining that they were paywalled from The Oz article and/or couldn’t open the other link to the article. Lucky them TBH.

The entire article is on Reddit

 

[Anna]

It’s not even a great article. For example ‘the Federal Circuit Court of Victoria’ doesn’t exist. Presumably they meant the Vic registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

 

[RooFlyer]

As I've said before somewhere, it's generally up to the delayed carrier (metal) to rebook their delayed connections as per IATA resolution 766. So will be interesting if Qantas once again gets the blame for it legally.

It's actually up to LA to sort out as it was their delay and not a schedule change (which is usually done 72+hrs out), regardless of codeshares. Seems to me LA refused to help out referring to QF, QF said nothing avail for 12 days, they found a way out and want QF to pay.

We've done these rounds before, so perhaps you can clarify.

If a customer books & pays for a flight on, say, LATAM through Qantas (ie uses their Qantas points, or even cash), does the passenger have any 'standing' with LATAM? Can they call LATAM and make/request changes to the ticket, IRROPS or no?

I believe the answer is no, they must go through the ticketing entity, which will enforce its T&Cs at its discretion.

If that's not correct, I'd be happy to know.

Extract from the Oz story (and yes, there may be some salt required in respect of both the complainant and the journalistic portrayal):

In early July, Mr Hassett was on his way to the airport in Bogota, Colombia when he learned a flight delay would make him too late for a connecting service in Santiago, Chile.

When he contacted LATAM airlines about the delay, he was told it was a matter for the carrier through which he had booked, which was Qantas.

After hours on the phone, Mr Hassett was told Qantas would not be able to re-accommodate him and his husband on an alternative flight home for 12-days.

Despite offering to travel separately and on indirect routes, the answer was the same, much to the couple’s frustration.

With some important meetings scheduled in Melbourne in that time, Mr Hassett took matters into his own hands and booked a five-sector flight home, via Spain, Italy, Qatar and Perth.

My own takeout on the OP story is that Qantas, as ticketing/selling entity (counterparty to the customer) failed to make a reasonable effort to re-accommodate the passenger when he operating entity changed the flight; put more directly, Qantas failed to engage enough with LATAM to get their customer a reasonable outcome. I guess its now up to a court to decide if that constitutes a failure of a 'duty of care'. And, separately, if the expense the passenger self-incurred is refundable by the ticket seller when failing to 'reasonably' re-accommodate the passenger.

We know Qantas and other airlines sometimes engage third party carriers to transport their customers when a second party fails to fulfill their obligations. So its not as if they never 'look after' customers in the story-type of situation.

 

[muppet]

We've done these rounds before, so perhaps you can clarify.

If a customer books & pays for a flight on, say, LATAM through Qantas (ie uses their Qantas points, or even cash), does the passenger have any 'standing' with LATAM? Can they call LATAM and make/request changes to the ticket, IRROPS or no?

I believe the answer is no, they must go through the ticketing entity, which will enforce its T&Cs at its discretion.

If that's not correct, I'd be happy to know.

Extract from the Oz story (and yes, there may be some salt required in respect of both the complainant and the journalistic portrayal):



My own takeout on the OP story is that Qantas, as ticketing/selling entity (counterparty to the customer) failed to make a reasonable effort to re-accommodate the passenger when he operating entity changed the flight; put more directly, Qantas failed to engage enough with LATAM to get their customer a reasonable outcome. I guess its now up to a court to decide if that constitutes a failure of a 'duty of care'. And, separately, if the expense the passenger self-incurred is refundable by the ticket seller when failing to 'reasonably' re-accommodate the passenger.

We know Qantas and other airlines sometimes engage third party carriers to transport their customers when a second party fails to fulfill their obligations. So its not as if they never 'look after' customers in the story-type of situation.

I think … just from the way the article is worded … the pax tried to fix his booking before it was disrupted. This may have been the error. Perhaps the best way would have been to fly the BOG to SCL sector and then LA would have had to do something once he actually missed his connection.

And this is where decent customer service comes into it, a suitable qualified agent would have said: “The delay is just forecast, you’re not actually disrupted yet so any change you make has to be within the terms of your ticket. If the LA flight does cause a mis connect, then LA will rebook you once in SCL.”

Instead they dish out this “nothing for 12 days“ nonsense (….based on the article, they may have in fact provided the correct advice).

EDIT: this is of course all based on my guesses not facts

 

[MrJetset]

We've done these rounds before, so perhaps you can clarify.

If a customer books & pays for a flight on, say, LATAM through Qantas (ie uses their Qantas points, or even cash), does the passenger have any 'standing' with LATAM? Can they call LATAM and make/request changes to the ticket, IRROPS or no?

I believe the answer is no, they must go through the ticketing entity, which will enforce its T&Cs at its discretion.

If that's not correct, I'd be happy to know.

Several of us have said this over and over.

The operating carrier responsible for the delay is responsible for getting the pax to their final destination.

If you fly AA domestic connecting to QF12 and you misconnect on a single ticket, then AA are responsible for reaccommodation.

That said, you can't get your points or cash back and be reaccomdated, otherwise its a free flight. I suspect they demanded a refund and got it at which they are "made whole" and LA and QF have washed their hands of the matter.

This line is telling 'Although he was eventually reimbursed the cost of the Qantas flights that were not taken...'

 

[oz_mark]

I guess this bit is definitely true

If successful, the case by Melbourne retail manager Christopher Hassett would set a significant legal precedent for the duty of care airlines show customers.

 

[RooFlyer]

Several of us have said this over and over.

The operating carrier responsible for the delay is responsible for getting the pax to their final destination.

If you fly AA domestic connecting to QF12 and you misconnect on a single ticket then AA, are responsible for reaccommodation.

Yes, I've read that over and over, but the question over and over is: how is that achieved ? Does/can the pax deal directly with the operating carrier and negotiate an outcome? I don't think they can, but I'm happy to be corrected. I think, as the person in the story experienced, that the operating carrier will refer you back to the entity that sold you the ticket and which would know the rights and entitlements under which the ticket was sold.

Put another way: How does the operating carrier know the T&Cs of the ticket and that the pax is in fact entitled to a substitute flight? Maybe the ticket seller sold a ultra-cheap ticket with an onerous T&C that "if you can't take take that exact flight, we'll re-accommodate you sometime in the next 2 weeks or, at our election, we'll simply give you a refund".

The pax talking direct to AA in your example would be interesting, as the pax would quote the Qantas PNR, which would be different from the AA PNR!

So, I think the way it operates (again, correct me if I'm wrong), the pax must contact the entity that sold them the ticket, and that entity must extract an outcome for the passenger - in your example, get AA to honour their apparent obligations. How hard the ticket seller tries and, if failing to get an outcome from the operating entity, what alternatives they should offer, is the gist of this court challenge.


But all that is moot if you can tell me that the pax can always deal directly with the operating carrier, not the ticket seller, for an outcome. I honestly don't know, as I always go through a Travel Agent for international flights

 

[MrJetset]

I’ve corrected you several times but you’re not listening.

Yes they contact the operating carrier who caused the delay as they are a customer.

 

[RooFlyer]

I’ve corrected you several times but you’re not listening.

Yes they contact the operating carrier who caused the delay as they are a customer.

Golly! Maybe it's because I'm reading and not listening , but I haven't seen where you've addressed me in this thread before post #36

So how does the operating carrier call centre know the T&Cs of the ticket issued by Qantas and so help accordingly?