Qantas seating revisited - a failed system

[Platy]

As personal experiences and earlier posts attest there are too many times when the Qantas seating allocation system just doesn't deliver.

Gold and Silver members take heart, it's happening to us Platinum members as well!

And I don't mean a few rows out, I'm talking about being given rows 37, 42, 51 etc against a forward preference on a 767 (where the front row of economy is usually row 23)!

I asked some questions of the check in person recently and was told they couldn't see my preference nor had the computer system automatically generated an allocation from the stored preference.

This suggests that there may be an issue with the seating allocation system itself, let lone any logical process used (why can't they simply keep a few rows at the front pre-reserved for premium flyers???).

Conclusion - always ask for what you want - the check in staff are usually very amenable to assist and stories about balanced loading just don't wash if you're a gold or platinum member (unless of course you're on a dash 8!).

 

[straitman]

This suggests that there may be an issue with the seating allocation system itself, let lone any logical process used (why can't they simply keep a few rows at the front pre-reserved for premium flyers???).

I guess the counter argument is that I have had my preference fulfilled on every single occasion and I'm SG not Plat.

 

[NM]

The only time I have missed my prefered seating type is when I make a last minute change to me flight. Even if I book on the same day (ie missing the overnight auto-allocations), I still get something that resembles my preference for forward aisle. So from my experience, the system consistently works.

 

[mbeder]

Since joining QC 2 years ago, my seat preference (window, wing) has always been allocated, and the same for my wife. We'd been QFF members for about 7 years prior to taking out QC membership and hadn't always got our preferences, eg Row 75 on a 747 to JHB - our silver membership quickly sorted that one out, though! My take on it, is that the more layers you "add" to your membership, the greater your status and therefore the priority you are given

 

[thadocta]

I wasn't aware that there was provision for a "window, wing" preference to be stored - I thought it was either "forward window" or "rear window" (and so on).

Dave

 

[ashleyn]

My preference is for a safe trip every time. Sometimes, posters here seem to forget that. I've had some good seats and some very average seats but so far, my first preference has always been delivered.

 

[Platy]

My preference is for a safe trip every time. Sometimes, posters here seem to forget that

Very interesting - any chance of some elaboration? How do you make such judgments? What makes you feel a trip will be safe? How do you know what is in the mind of other posters (for example, some people I know have a strong seating preference based on survivability of a crash, which would appear quite "obsessive" if you didn't appreciate the reason behind their preference)?

 

[simongr]

I read this last night and was not sure how to comment. Personally I don't even think about the aircraft crashing on my flights. This isnt the 1920's-1950's - I have no fear of flying at all. I am not "thankful" that the aircraft landed safely in the same way that I amnot thankful that the taxi driver taking me home after a long dinner out doesnt knock me unconcious, steal my wallet and leave my body to picked over by vultures - something that doesn't my thoughts at all.

There seems to be creeping in again some views of "can't you just be grateful you got there and stop worrying over little things" - personally if you fly a lot the little things matter.

 

[turtlemichael]

I'm wondering at the thought process of raising a thread last posted to over 3 years ago, making a posting as if it was yesterday and that posting being very capable of interpretation as provocative.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck, if you get my drift.

One for the moderators I would have thought.

 

[Dave Noble]

I'm wondering at the thought process of raising a thread last posted to over 3 years ago, making a posting as if it was yesterday and that posting being very capable of interpretation as provocative.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck, if you get my drift.

One for the moderators I would have thought.

I think you might be right

Dave