Qantas Platinum One experiences?

[Princess Fiona]

The "medical issue" of a leg splint and making the pax more comfortable is an invalid reason.. if that is the case then that indicates QF's stance is to provide greater comfort to non/low-status pax over higher status pax.

Nothing invalid about it IMHO.
If that's QF's stance then I think it's a good one.

 

[mannej]

Nothing invalid about it IMHO.
If that's QF's stance then I think it's a good one.

Some people can be quite selfish when it comes to making things slightly more bearable for others.

 

[boomy]

Nothing invalid about it IMHO.
If that's QF's stance then I think it's a good one.

Some people can be quite selfish when it comes to making things slightly more bearable for others.

Loosing shadow to pax with medical conditions is a rare event. I'm sure that if it was the ONLY reason a non-status could be moved forward, no one would have complained.

 

[Kangol]

Nothing invalid about it IMHO.
If that's QF's stance then I think it's a good one.

If there's a valid medical reason which is related to pitch, they shouldn't be in Y, or flying at all.
I would like to see a copy of an actual diagnostic report stating that a passenger must be seated in a bulkhead economy seat to make them "more comfortable" and not in the interests of safety. If anything, some bulkhead Y seats (not on the 737) have less under-seat leg room.
How about very tall people that aren't "medically compromised", do you shun them in favour of the person with a leg cast (or whatever you are referring to)? The very tall person would be in a worse off position to begin with and this "medical reason" you bring up isn't related to safety. It appears to be someone milking the system for "comfort".

 

[Princess Fiona]

Loosing shadow to pax with medical conditions is a rare event. I'm sure that if it was the ONLY reason a non-status could be moved forward, no one would have complained.

Yes it will be very rare. However it seems that if this did happen some people would complain or at least feel that they would have a reason to complain.

 

[boomy]

Yes it will be very rare. However it seems that if this did happen some people would complain or at least feel that they would have a reason to complain.

I suspect P1s are frustrated by loosing their shadow to mostly unreasonable circumstances such as non-status pax being allocated in the first row at check-in although there are plenty of middle seats left in the back.
If shadow would be lost only once or twice a year due to pax having medical issues I really can't see anyone complaining about it.

 

[TonyHancock]

I suspect P1s are frustrated by loosing their shadow to mostly unreasonable circumstances.

It is not so much losing the shadow as QF proactively trying to find someone to sit next to me. I swear there is a note line in my profile and an alert that pops up at QF when I select a seat with no one next to me.

 

[Kangol]

I suspect P1s are frustrated by loosing their shadow to mostly unreasonable circumstances such as non-status pax being allocated in the first row at check-in although there are plenty of middle seats left in the back.
If shadow would be lost only once or twice a year due to pax having medical issues I really can't see anyone complaining about it.

The issue is identifying the actual medical issue, as documented by a doctor (doesn't have to be a real one ), which specifically entails that a passenger who is fit to fly (Y or otherwise) must be seated in a bulkhead Y seat because if not, it will create a significant functional impairment and seriously endanger that patient's life.
For QF staff (who have no medical qualifications) to "make the call" once boarded is completely absurd.

I am yet to be shown any documentation by those people here who are championing such a situation.

I forsee that those in support of the (as yet) imaginary medical condition being a valid reason for the above, will read this post and choose not to reply because they have nothing.

I actually am interested in seeing if such a condition exists for that matter.

On a slightly related note, a colleague of mine seriously injured himself (shoulder dislocation resulting in motor and sensory impairment in that arm) whilst in Europe and the doctors that saw him, along with consulting his travel insurance, said that he had to fly home in J - which he did on EK.
My late uncle also suffered a stroke whilst visiting NZ (he was English). The travel insurance and doctors stipulated that he had to fly in F to get home to England, which he and my aunt ended up doing (and getting a cab from LHR to Cornwall but that is another story!).
Now those are examples for valid medical reasons dictating travel arrangements - none of this "must sit in row 4 Y on a 737" fabrication.

 

[nlagalle]

On a slightly related note, a colleague of mine seriously injured himself (shoulder dislocation resulting in motor and sensory impairment in that arm) whilst in Europe and the doctors that saw him, along with consulting his travel insurance, said that he had to fly home in J - which he did on EK.
My late uncle also suffered a stroke whilst visiting NZ (he was English). The travel insurance and doctors stipulated that he had to fly in F to get home to England, which he and my aunt ended up doing (and getting a cab from LHR to Cornwall but that is another story!).
Now those are examples for valid medical reasons dictating travel arrangements - none of this "must sit in row 4 Y on a 737" fabrication.

Yes but they were away and travelling.. bit different too if it's on travel insurance don't you think?

Row 4 is also the most logical place - not allowed to put someone in an emergency row.. i don't see why you are getting so uptight about it. do you really honestly think they are looking after the non status pax over WP's? really???

 

[Kangol]

Yes but they were away and travelling.. bit different too if it's on travel insurance don't you think?

Row 4 is also the most logical place - not allowed to put someone in an emergency row.. i don't see why you are getting so uptight about it. do you really honestly think they are looking after the non status pax over WP's? really???

"slightly related" ... "examples for valid medical reasons dictating travel arrangements"

When did I say I was getting uptight about it? If anything I am doing the opposite and discussing the actual topic, which was the first line of the post that you quoted part of. You obviously failed to read it. Please don't create an emotive straw man argument to try and overshadow the topic at hand.

 

[nlagalle]

"slightly related" ... "examples for valid medical reasons dictating travel arrangements"

When did I say I was getting uptight about it? If anything I am doing the opposite and discussing the actual topic, which was the first line of the post that you quoted part of. You obviously failed to read it. Please don't create an emotive straw man argument to try and overshadow the topic at hand.

no strawman arguments.. you seemed to be upset asking for proof.. I was offering alternate scenarios when you would possibly be travelling on your own coin. TI is totally different.

but you still claimed earlier that QF was looking after non status pax over WP's.. I am sure that was rather emotive rather than based on any real evidence don't you think?

 

[boomy]

The issue is identifying the actual medical issue, as documented by a doctor (doesn't have to be a real one ), which specifically entails that a passenger who is fit to fly (Y or otherwise) must be seated in a bulkhead Y seat because if not, it will create a significant functional impairment and seriously endanger that patient's life.
For QF staff (who have no medical qualifications) to "make the call" once boarded is completely absurd.

I am yet to be shown any documentation by those people here who are championing such a situation.

I forsee that those in support of the (as yet) imaginary medical condition being a valid reason for the above, will read this post and choose not to reply because they have nothing.

I actually am interested in seeing if such a condition exists for that matter.

I would use the honesty card in that matter.
If someone says they have a medical condition and ask to sit in the first row middle seat (not exactly best seats in the house) the FAs should take their word for it and help them.
Same goes for emergency exit seats which are much more in demand. You can't expect the FAs to give pax English tests or check their fitness before they let them sit there.

 

[Happy Trails]

Same goes for emergency exit seats which are much more in demand. You can't expect the FAs to give pax English tests or check their fitness before they let them sit there.

Isn't that exactly what the check-in agent does when you have an exit row seat allocated?
And again on board when the FA runs through the exit row briefing?

 

[Princess Fiona]

I suspect P1s are frustrated by loosing their shadow to mostly unreasonable circumstances such as non-status pax being allocated in the first row at check-in although there are plenty of middle seats left in the back.
If shadow would be lost only once or twice a year due to pax having medical issues I really can't see anyone complaining about it.

There's at least one person on here disagreeing with this view and advocating medical certification to prove it all be it not a P1

 

[boomy]

Isn't that exactly what the check-in agent does when you have an exit row seat allocated?
And again on board when the FA runs through the exit row briefing?

The only thing they do is asking if you are capable of helping in a case of emergency. They trust you to give an honest answer.
I saw pax who don't know English (except basic yes/no words) or pax who were so drunk they wouldn't even be able to help themselves in a case of emergency but most of the times people are honest.

 

[boomy]

There's at least one person on here disagreeing with this view and advocating medical certification to prove it all be it not a P1

That's ok, I'm not expecting everyone to agree with my views. I'm always open to hear different options as long as the discussion is done in a civilised manner

 

[Happy Trails]

The only thing they do is asking if you are capable of helping in a case of emergency. They trust you to give an honest answer.
I saw pax who don't know English (except basic yes/no words) or pax who were so drunk they wouldn't even be able to help themselves in a case of emergency but most of the times people are honest.

Then I am genuinely surprised; that's not been my experience and I hope that wasn't with QF.

 

[boomy]

Then I am genuinely surprised; that's not been my experience and I hope that wasn't with QF.

It was with QF but only a few isolated cases in hundreds of flights I took in emergency exit (before becoming P1) so it's really not a serious issue IMO.
You can't expect the FAs to police the pax, they are already very busy with preparing the aircraft for departure.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Someone I know broke their leg in Shanghai. Leg was placed in a cast at the hospital. Naturally, the airline moved this person to a bulkhead aisle seat for their journey back to Australia. Anyone suggesting that this should not happen has no grasp on reality.

 

[Hvr]

Well I got an email today reminding me that I need to obtain 2,700 QF SCs to requalify for P1. Only have 1,500 to go by end November.

I won't be able to retain it.