Qantas Systematic Cancellation of Flights

[BD1959]

Well, Qantas' strategy of maximising profits to the detriment and inconvenience of its customers is working because you (and many others) are still flying with them.

This latest flight was booked November last year ... I have LTG and am seriously considering not using QF next EU trip.

Regards,

BD

 

[LondonAussie]

As abstract as this sounds, airlines with fewer flights get affected the least. It'll always be the large slot holders that get affected the most or first.

It makes sense and the same thing happens at LHR with BA.
Most EU261 claims are rejected because BA point to weather/ATC

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It makes sense and the same thing happens at LHR with BA.
Most EU261 claims are rejected because BA point to weather/ATC

Weather can be a reason to deny 261 claims, but the weather must be extraordinary in nature. It can’t just be ‘regular’ rain or wind. A torrential downpour in Cairo might be extraordinary. The same in Singapore might not.

 

[LondonAussie]

Weather can be a reason to deny 261 claims, but the weather must be extraordinary in nature. It can’t just be ‘regular’ rain or wind. A torrential downpour in Cairo might be extraordinary. The same in Singapore might not.

Try telling BA that. They put WEAN as the reason code and deny the claim.

Basically any slot reduction or flow rate management due to rain, winds or visibility at an overcapacity airport means they can cancel flights without compensation, but duty of care still applies.

 

[Himeno]

It makes sense and the same thing happens at LHR with BA.
Most EU261 claims are rejected because BA point to weather/ATC

My case with BA was that 1 - they had a delay to my flight due to a tech issue and subbed aircraft to another inbound and 2 - they refused to check me through to my connection (same ticket/PNR).
This lead to a 24 hour delay as because of BAs actions, I missed the connection.
If either of the issues had not happened, I would have made the connection. Because both happened, both within the control of BA, I was stuck at the connection port.
This happened when QF was flying through DXB. BA>QF. Was left to EK to sort out on behalf of QF as BA (flight operator that caused problem) and CX (ticket issuer) wouldn't answer EKs phone calls.
When contacting BA about EU261, BA claimed that technical issues were not foreseeable and the airline didn't have control over such failures and were not subject to EU261 compensation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Try telling BA that. They put WEAN as the reason code and deny the claim.

Basically any slot reduction or flow rate management due to rain, winds or visibility at an overcapacity airport means they can cancel flights without compensation, but duty of care still applies.

ATC restriction would be acceptable though!

 

[dajop]

Could it also be a product of long term fleet choices and the flexibility/efficencies of having largely a single type providing the backbone of mainline services?

About 15-20 years ago it wasn't uncommon to just have 2 services an hour on SYD/MEL using a 767 or A330, so still reasonable capacity, supplemented by third services during peaks using 738's. Yes, demand has grown, but now at peak hours it's 4x hour and sometimes even 5. The service provided by 4x738's could be served by 3 x 230 seat planes (A321's??). And not sure that having an xx:15 or xx:45 makes much a difference for many travellers.

 

[evanb]

Today's ATFM: perfect conditions in SYD, full staffing, no limitations on AAR ... sounds good, right? Wrong, MEL spending morning with reduced AAR due to IMC conditions. BNE reduced AAR due to ILS on 19L still being down. So even when SYD is in perfect operating conditions, it'll still result in some cancellations due to MEL and BNE issues. Yet the airlines are expected to plan for a system that is always at full capacity.

 

[evanb]

I would argue that the law is the law. If the EU wanted the legislation to focus specifically on overselling they would have framed the law that way. But they did not and through numerous decisions in European courts the full intent of EU261 was discovered - namely to reimburse and compensate passengers who face delays, cancellations and denied boarding in all but the most exceptional of circumstances which I would argue is fair.

Any scheme legislators put in place will be gamed by impacted parties. Airlines as you correctly pointed out, will figure out how to avoid having to pay out EU261 whereas clever passengers will book itineraries where the chances of receiving EU261 are greatly increased. The key question is whether the outcomes for stakeholders is better or worse under the new regime versus the old one and whether that is inline with the stated policymaking.

An argument could be made that the amount and length of delays has decreased since the introduction of EU261 when considering the fact that passengers are now being compensated for their time (whereas before they weren't). So sure, a passenger might be delayed by 4 hours but if they now must be provided with 600 Euros compensation, then the delay is effectively 0 hours (supposing you value an hour of an individual's time at 150 Euros which I suspect many would say is more than fair). Additionally, the requirement to provide meals and hotels (for overnight delays) means that passengers are not incurring any out of pocket expenses for the delay (whereas before they were).

-RooFlyer88

The system was entirely designed and framed for denied boarding. If you read the text of EU261 it even states this. The challenge is that the bureaucracy is always too slow to adapt and reform. While the EU is probably even slower than Australia, the airlines will always be far more adaptable in strategy than policy can catch up to them.

I think if you read the reports I linked, it's pretty clear that the outcome is worse - coughulative delay times (in relative terms) have increased a lot, it's just that the distribution of them has changed to limit/minimise compensation paid. The incentive is for airlines to reduce individual delays below a fixed threshold (3 hours), but there is no incentive to reduce coughulative delays (in fact by not putting a cost on this it's giving airlines a free trade-off). If I'm an airline with 100 flights in the day and 5 were going to be delayed beyond the threshold of 3 hours and everything else on time, my coughulative delay is just 15 hours x (say 150 pax per flight) = 2250 hours. But now if I can play around with my network and get that down to 2 hours (no compensation due), but this will now affect 10 flights, my coughulative is now 3000 hours. Ultimately, there is a strong incentive for airlines to trade-off like this. Furthermore, there is also a strong incentive to just cancel a flight in advance for a similar reason since 2 weeks out no compensation is due, and 1 week out the delay window is wider. But even if you start playing with the thresholds, airlines just work around it. At the end of the day, the delays are not by design.

A challenge in your assertion is that you're basing it on subjectivity with a fixed penalty (and the airline optimises around this). How do you (or an EU bureaucrat) know whether my time was worth Euro 600? And an individual gets no say in this. But now the system is placing an explicit value on my time instead.

 

[evanb]

Could it also be a product of long term fleet choices and the flexibility/efficencies of having largely a single type providing the backbone of mainline services?

About 15-20 years ago it wasn't uncommon to just have 2 services an hour on SYD/MEL using a 767 or A330, so still reasonable capacity, supplemented by third services during peaks using 738's. Yes, demand has grown, but now at peak hours it's 4x hour and sometimes even 5. The service provided by 4x738's could be served by 3 x 230 seat planes (A321's??). And not sure that having an xx:15 or xx:45 makes much a difference for many travellers.

Has nothing to do with this. A slot is a slot. If QF or VA flew a bigger gauge on SYD-MEL they'd use the slots elsewhere. They're not suddenly going to give up those slots. And even if they did, another airline would seek to use them. It's a slot constrained airport and so is the system. Demand for slots exceeds the supply. However, if slows are more fragmented, it'll make it more random and some other airlines may have less redundancy than QF and VA.

We've already seen both QF and VA increase gauge anyway. For example, QF's B738s are bigger than the B734s, and the A321s will be bigger than the B738s.

Post automatically merged: Nov 2, 2023

Weather can be a reason to deny 261 claims, but the weather must be extraordinary in nature. It can’t just be ‘regular’ rain or wind. A torrential downpour in Cairo might be extraordinary. The same in Singapore might not.

Sure, but if the weather affects the ATFM and they are directed to delay or cancel a slot by ATC, then the nature of the weather becomes irrelevant.

 

[BD1959]

Today's ATFM: perfect conditions in SYD, full staffing, no limitations on AAR ... sounds good, right? Wrong, MEL spending morning with reduced AAR due to IMC conditions. BNE reduced AAR due to ILS on 19L still being down. So even when SYD is in perfect operating conditions, it'll still result in some cancellations due to MEL and BNE issues. Yet the airlines are expected to plan for a system that is always at full capacity.

I've always judged an airline on its ability to handle IROPS - so an airline that recognizes its ability to work when there are extenuating circumstances. That may mean having capability to switch airframes, offer alternative routes. The advent of a 7hour delay on a trunk domestic route says to me that QF has relinquished its care with respect to J passengers, regardless of capacity constraints.

Regards,

BD

 

[evanb]

I've always judged an airline on its ability to handle IROPS - so an airline that recognizes its ability to work when there are extenuating circumstances. That may mean having capability to switch airframes, offer alternative routes. The advent of a 7hour delay on a trunk domestic route says to me that QF has relinquished its care with respect to J passengers, regardless of capacity constraints.

For sure, and this is an area where Qantas really let themselves down (similar to some European carriers). Compared to the US where airlines have invested a lot in technology to allow pax to have greater control and transparency makes their handling of IROPS quite a bit better. What's probably hit Qantas and Virgin is the relatively rapid increase in IROPS events post COVID. It's not something that they anticipated. Not just ATC, but also challenges with parts supply chains have been brutal.

 

[justinbrett]

I've always judged an airline on its ability to handle IROPS - so an airline that recognizes its ability to work when there are extenuating circumstances. That may mean having capability to switch airframes, offer alternative routes. The advent of a 7hour delay on a trunk domestic route says to me that QF has relinquished its care with respect to J passengers, regardless of capacity constraints.

Regards,

BD

On AA, you miss your (domestic) F flight, you're probably going in coach - since they upgrade their members 24 hours before to fill the cabin. Same reason same day flight change is useless because there's never any F seats.

Only way around this (inc QF) is for them to proactively downgrade people when this occurs. Maybe they should - but that would certainly create a new thread of people downgraded involuntarily.

 

[evanb]

On AA, you miss your (domestic) F flight, you're probably going in coach - since they upgrade their members 24 hours before to fill the cabin. Same reason same day flight change is useless because there's never any F seats.

Only way around this (inc QF) is for them to proactively downgrade people when this occurs. Maybe they should - but that would certainly create a new thread of people downgraded involuntarily.

They can upgrade 24 hours before and do, but they generally hold seats back and upgrade on boarding if available. When I was in the US, we had explicit algorithms to limit complementary upgrades based on anticipated positive space. While this is ostensibly available for sale (often full fare), it's also available for IROPS, but it's in the airline's interest to hold back some complementary upgrades - not for IROPS although it's helpful - but for a full fare revenue pax.

Just looking at AA flights right now on the west coast, they're holding back first/business on most flights out of LAX, and almost every flight tomorrow as well.

 

[justinbrett]

They can upgrade 24 hours before and do, but they generally hold seats back and upgrade on boarding if available. When I was in the US, we had explicit algorithms to limit complementary upgrades based on anticipated positive space. While this is ostensibly available for sale (often full fare), it's also available for IROPS, but it's in the airline's interest to hold back some complementary upgrades - not for IROPS although it's helpful - but for a full fare revenue pax.

Just looking at AA flights right now on the west coast, they're holding back first/business on most flights out of LAX, and almost every flight tomorrow as well.

It depends on the route & season, I've never had any success. Looking at LAS-DFW tomorrow (a route I travel often), out of 12 flights, 7 have zero F seats (of any class), and most of the ones with seats are at unpopular times.

The same day flight change policy allows any domestic F class to be booked into any available F seat - so with your LAX example anyone holding an F booking (including award) can same day change into those full fare F seats.

 

[evanb]

It depends on the route & season, I've never had any success. Looking at LAS-DFW tomorrow (a route I travel often), out of 12 flights, 7 have zero F seats (of any class), and most of the ones with seats are at unpopular times.

The same day flight change policy allows any domestic F class to be booked into any available F seat - so with your LAX example anyone holding an F booking (including award) can same day change into those full fare F seats.

Just because you've never had success doesn't mean it's systematic. But also, why the assumption that F is full due to complementary upgrades? They do sell these seats, and they do have other mechanisms of upgrading (with net revenue impact). The assumption that F0 means that complementary upgrades were given T24 is simply not correct and would really be horrific revenue management (and we know AA are pretty good at this).

In terms of same day change, what one giveth, one taketh away ... so when one moves, it open up a seat as well. Also, and this is where there isn't transparency, just because a GDS says F0, it doesn't mean there are no seats available ...

And yes, it depends on the route and the season, but that applies to revenue earning too. There are times of year that they may sell more F seats than others.

 

[justinbrett]

Just because you've never had success doesn't mean it's systematic. But also, why the assumption that F is full due to complementary upgrades? They do sell these seats, and they do have other mechanisms of upgrading (with net revenue impact). The assumption that F0 means that complementary upgrades were given T24 is simply not correct and would really be horrific revenue management (and we know AA are pretty good at this).

In terms of same day change, what one giveth, one taketh away ... so when one moves, it open up a seat as well. Also, and this is where there isn't transparency, just because a GDS says F0, it doesn't mean there are no seats available ...

And yes, it depends on the route and the season, but that applies to revenue earning too. There are times of year that they may sell more F seats than others.

No you're right, this is just my POV, but I have many data points as I travel AA F a lot in the US and often look at same day changes. Just like the 7 hour delay in this thread is one person's POV and a single data point.

Back to my experience -
<24 hours before I see lots of F seats.

Once 24 hours hits, it's zero.

My argument with the same day change is it's relatively useless because you are locked in - nobody can change, therefore nothing is gained or lost. And yes, I see people with gate upgrades on flights that I knew was sold out - but if the GDS is saying no seats, the website won't let you change your flight (same deal with re-accommodation, unless they are going to proactively get in there - which is what I was suggesting they do in my first post).

 

[docjames]

Given the slot restrictions in SYD, one wonders about the economics (operating costs and by implication, airfares) and CO2 created by

0700. 738
0715. 738
0730. 738
0745. 738


vs

0700. 330

0730. 330

Releasing two slots at both SYD and MEL in peak times as just a really basic example.

Note this applies equally to any route and any airline where there is sub 1hr frequency - one larger aircraft would surely be a better use of resources (on a variety of levels).


I know, it’s never that simple (fleet, non-peak usage, config of aircraft etc all plays a part)………

 

[MEL_Traveller]

On EC261, preamble is pretty clear it covers long delays and cancellations as well as denied boarding.


Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) - Commission Statement

 

[wenglock.mok]

Given the slot restrictions in SYD, one wonders about the economics (operating costs and by implication, airfares) and CO2 created by

0700. 738
0715. 738
0730. 738
0745. 738


vs

0700. 330

0730. 330

Releasing two slots at both SYD and MEL in peak times as just a really basic example.

Note this applies equally to any route and any airline where there is sub 1hr frequency - one larger aircraft would surely be a better use of resources (on a variety of levels).


I know, it’s never that simple (fleet, non-peak usage, config of aircraft etc all plays a part)………

They would argue the A330 was never designed (and is not economical) to run on these short one-hour domestic hops and they would probably be right, except that perhaps doesn't take other operational constraints into account.

In any case, aren't they running a little short on widebody capacity at the moment? They likely won't have a spare A330 lying somewhere to swing onto SYD-MEL at short notice as they would probably be needed on an international or transcon route.