Qantas faces court test over duty of care to customers

[serfty]

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

Via their GDS; all fare rules can be looked up using the fare code. Within a PNR the fare code is stored against each individual segment (as these can vary from segment to segment).

Also, there is a difference between schedule change and IRROPS being disruption/delay/misconnection.

This was the latter ... and fare rules basically go out the window.

In this case post #24 is relevant.

Qantas faces court test over duty of care to customers

 

[MrJetset]

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?

Irrelevant when it comes to misconnect and IRROPS.

 

[TheInsider]

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

Fare rules, fare catagories and fare prices are irrelevant in disruption/delayed/misconnection scenarios.

 

[Cheatah]

Fare rules etc may be irrelevant when it comes to misconnect and IRROPS but can the operating carrier change the ticket/make amendments before the day of intended departure?

If flights were cancelled a few days before departure, is it up to the operating carrier or ticketing carrier(agent) to sort and fix? As opposed to delays/cancellations on the day.

 

[serfty]

...
If flights were cancelled a few days before departure, is it up to the operating carrier or ticketing carrier(agent) to sort and fix? As opposed to delays/cancellations on the day.

Generally no.

While it’s not the case in this situation, the agent (in this case Qantas) is supposed to do the rebooking and reticketing, working with operating airlines to achieve a resolution.

None of that relates to the situation being reported as it was day of travel IRROPS.

As per post 24 it was LATAM who needed to find a solution.

Qantas faces court test over duty of care to customers

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!

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

 

[GDale]

Throwing in my 2c.

@RooFlyer makes an interesting legal argument, if nothing else, in that was LATAM ever a party to the contract between the passenger and Qantas? If not, what right does the passenger have to ask LATAM to do anything?

The only reason why LATAM needs to do anything at all for the passenger (including flying them) is because there's (1) a bilateral carrier agreement and/or (2) a multilateral carrier agreement (i.e. the OneWorld alliance agreement) involving LA and QF. Those agreements stipulate rules between the carriers as to who is responsible for irrops, schedule changes, etc., and one of those rules is the fact that the operating carrier causing a misconnect is the carrier responsible for reorganising onward connections.

If the operating carrier refuses to make these arrangements, does the passenger really have a right to pursue that carrier? I would've thought the only way they can do that is by suing for enforcement of rights as a third party beneficiary in the intercarrier agreement, rather than through the agreement between the passenger and the ticketing carrier - but that gets very very messy. Based on that, I would've sued Qantas rather than LATAM too, even if it was LATAM who failed to observe standard operating procedures. Qantas could then join LATAM into the action/subsequently pursue LATAM if required.

I think @muppet is right in saying that the passenger should have taken the flight from BOG to SCL (if they didn't) even if they knew there'd be a misconnect, as it would've forced LATAM ground staff to do something to rebook the irrops, plus ground agents would've been far better versed on irrops options than phone agents. Not sure if LATAM would've paid for any accommodation/transport/meal costs associated with the delay, but those would've been a far smaller cost to pursue or even claim under travel insurance than what's on their hands now. Of course, it's understandable too that the passenger did what he did, as most would just want solutions and certainty in such a situation, especially when the phone agents are unhelpful.

 

[Anna]

enforcement of rights as a third party beneficiary in the intercarrier agreement, rather than through the agreement between the passenger and the ticketing carrier

I think from the headline that the point is supposed to be that the pax is suing in tort not contract. But I can't read the filed application and affidavit to check if that's actually what's happening (they weren't accessible on Federal Law Search when I looked, only the case details were) nor to check if the pax is even cluey enough to know the difference between tort and contract.

 

[oz_mark]

The only reason why LATAM needs to do anything at all for the passenger (including flying them) is because there's (1) a bilateral carrier agreement and/or (2) a multilateral carrier agreement (i.e. the OneWorld alliance agreement) involving LA and QF. Those agreements stipulate rules between the carriers as to who is responsible for irrops, schedule changes, etc., and one of those rules is the fact that the operating carrier causing a misconnect is the carrier responsible for reorganising onward connections.

I don't know what the OneWorld alliance has got to do with this.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I don't know what the OneWorld alliance has got to do with this.

Me neither but it may not be common knowledge that LA is no longer in OW

 

[_TheTraveller_]

I can sympathise with them. Being a seasoned traveller I've also had experienced where the operating carrier wanted to wash their hands when their misconnect caused me to stay 24 hours at LAX. No accommodation or rebooking and asked me to deal with the ticketing carrier.

This was a AS-FJ connection and I wasn't prepared to argue with them at midnight as to who was responsible to rebook me and provide me a hotel. Luckily I ended up calling FJ and they were happy to rebook me but if they palmed me off to AS, I would be out of luck. So I can see why the passenger would be proactive in dealing with it. Perhaps they didn't want to be stuck in SLC with no alternatives in a less familiar city.

 

[GDale]

I don't know what the OneWorld alliance has got to do with this.

Me neither but it may not be common knowledge that LA is no longer in OW

Yep understand that it's out of the alliance now, but transition out arrangements in agreements sometimes have a long tail so I wasn't sure if something may still be binding there.

An example of this is mileage crediting, which can happen for quite some time after termination (typically no more than a year since that's the usual lifespan of a ticket, but many airlines have been extending ticket validity periods due to Covid too so who knows). If the intent of these transition arrangements is to ensure passengers are not left out in the cold, I would've thought it's possible that things like irrops protection may still be in place too.

 

[RooFlyer]

Thanks @serfty . Re looking up the T&Cs of a ( foreign carrier's) fare via the GDS, How do you think an agent, such as in the Qantas MindPearl call centres would go with that? . I've dealt with LATAM's CCs and they are on about par.

It's cases like this that I'm glad I use a TA for all my overseas travel. When I first joined AFF I read all about different types of hassles people had flying. I thought " How do there people manage to get themselves into so much trouble?" Then I realised that my TA as often as not had fixed my problem before I knew there was a problem.

 

[MJHoops]

There were orders made today adjourning the matter for a further directions hearing on 25 November with the pleadings to be amended in the interim (available on federal law search)

Qantas is represented by Norton White, who specialise in aviation law

 

[UP4014]

There were orders made today adjourning the matter for a further directions hearing on 25 November with the pleadings to be amended in the interim (available on federal law search)

Qantas is represented by Norton White, who specialise in aviation law

Did it just cost them more leading up to and for this one day than talking to the passenger. from anecdotal evidence a corporate getting to the first day in court for something like this is $50K to $100K.

 

[TheInsider]

There were orders made today adjourning the matter for a further directions hearing on 25 November with the pleadings to be amended in the interim (available on federal law search)

Qantas is represented by Norton White, who specialise in aviation law

Assuming it's this one?

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/MLG2076/2022/3943832/event/31185057/document/2016001

 

[Danger]

There were orders made today adjourning the matter for a further directions hearing on 25 November with the pleadings to be amended in the interim (available on federal law search)

Qantas is represented by Norton White, who specialise in aviation law

I've been on the opposite side of Norton White in a case against an airline. It didn't end well for me on that occasion. Can't say I appreciated the firm's tactics.

 

[Happy Dude]

Not just incompetence they don't cover. When I was looking at travel insurance policies recently, all of them had a clause along the lines that they do not cover claims caused by transport cancellations.

For example from Covermore/Zurich:

We will not pay for claims caused by: ​

1. Transport Provider caused cancellations, delays or rescheduling other than when caused by strikes.​

​

Or Allianz:

2.1.2 What we do not cover​

To the extent permitted by law we will not pay your claim if:​

....​

caused by delays or rescheduling by a bus line, airline, shipping line or rail authority;​

Not sure of the circumstances of the article in the OP, but not sure travel insurance would have helped.

I assume those exclusions apply to travel delay, cancellation or inconvenience cover.

If so, those TI's don't seem like they're worth the paper they're written on then - especially in the new world of regular cancellations.

I can't see any such exclusions on the AmEx Explorer TI. Whether the amount of cover provided would be useful, $700 per 24hrs up to $2,800 for accommodations only, is another matter.

I would say that if the OP had AmEx Explorer TI, they'd have a good chance at coverage under the travel amendment cover - provided they jumped through the right hoops at the time.

 

[MJHoops]

Did it just cost them more leading up to and for this one day than talking to the passenger. from anecdotal evidence a corporate getting to the first day in court for something like this is $50K to $100K.

It was just the first directions hearing that was adjourned rather than the trial

Qantas may well have spent $5-$10K already to this point on lawyers

I think an estimate of around $50K to go through the interlocutory steps including pleadings, mediation and get to the first day of trial is reasonable

Legal costs can vary widely depending on various factors

 

[UP4014]

It was just the first directions hearing that was adjourned rather than the trial

Qantas may well have spent $5-$10K already to this point on lawyers

I think an estimate of around $50K to go through the interlocutory steps including pleadings, mediation and get to the first day of trial is reasonable

Legal costs can vary widely depending on various factors

Not just the lawyers direct costs I was thinking of, there would have been QF staff dealing with it, reviewing, sending to lawyers, decision making...

 

[MJHoops]

Case had settled as a notice of discontinuance has been filed. I have no personal knowledge I just checked the online court filing system