QF social media team being really vindictive

[Danger]

but the OP specified at the time of booking they were WP and were assured that they could put further requests in and (I presume) be treated as WP even if the status later dropped....

I think the problem is that QF told them they could make a request later even as SG because it would be taken into account that they were WP when the booking was made. ie they were lead astray by incorrect infomation.

I agree. As I said, apart from the service from QF and whether or not they were initially told to keep trying for a seat release, even after dropping to SG, the fact remains (unless I've misunderstood) subsequent requests, as SG, to release seats were attempted, although obviously not successful.

 

[RichardMEL]

Of course really all you have is what the various agents have said (up to and including the note in the PNR from the social media team). I have no idea and I'm not trying to deliberately throw oil on a fire, but some agents (at any airline/customer service role) can say anything that may not relate to policy. Rules can be bent, or not, on an individual basis.. either within the (internal) policy of that organisation or not (one would think that telling a customer there's a note saying "don't do this.." from specific folks in their profile would NOT be something desired by the employer, but the agent may well have felt they were being helpful to reveal this when it seems a more tactful answer may have been more appropriate for all concerned).

My basic point being that being told that a request may be put through when status has lowered due to "time of booking" status may be either a discretionary thing as a courtesy to a (then) WP, perhaps with the intent of garnering future business even if the seat would never be released(which isn't up to the CSR's anyway), or it may have just been a "make nice and get them off the phone" ploy as others have suggested.

Either way, it probably doesn't reflect any change in official policy really but more a specific instance.

I'd also like to note that we only have the OP's description of what they were told by an agent (not suggesting any lies here) but that CSR was interpreting whatever was written in the PNR. What if, for example, the note was more along the lines of "Customer is liasing with social media team re this issue and we are handling it, not res" then that would seem more reasonable (but could be interpreted as "don't put in another request") as opposed to a note that says that specifically. Again I have no insight or idea (and if I had a way to I'd probably not be able to say!) but just a thought that there's human factors involved here in a number of instances and wording can sometimes be misinterpreted, or sometimes it can be very clear.

Either way it doesn't really matter because right now the OP has had a very soup experience with QF regarding this issue because, regardless of any facts, they clearly feel pretty upset over the situation as they understand it. RR is watching, I can imagine there should be some form of recovery here one would hope. Maybe not the requested J seats, but hopefully more positive interaction from customer service (of one sort or another).

just my 2 cents.

 

[UP4014]

Over many years or you could say decades flying, It's not done until it's done.

If I can't get the seat/flight I want when I book I either make a decision on the spot and accept something or wait and accept something later which might be different to what I need.

If I want a rewards seat and I can't get it now I either accept an alternative or change my plans, but I never just hope things will work out because someone told me it will or might.

If QF don't want to release seats it is completely up to them, it is after all their seats to do with as they wish.

As for staff attitude and actions, that needs to be dealt with at the time with prompt feedback, time, date, and the name of the person you spoke to. I have never lost an argument if I have the facts especially the name of the person.


Matt

 

[MrJetset]

Anyone can request their data held by any organisation. Frankly, I would contact QF and tell them you want your file and see what is written.

This is why front line facing agents are always told to never write anything offensive in customer notes.

As others above, QFF will tell you to keep checking, but I have never found this advice to hold true. If the droid says no, IME, it has never said yes later, indeed I've concluded the opposite.

In these situations I plan the entire trip around availability of the cabins I want.

Now I would relax, let it go and enjoy the month long trip rather than let it be soured by this experience.

 

[RichardMEL]

I shudder to think what's in my file!!!

 

[Daver6]

UPDATE:

I just received a phone call from QF to apologise for this whole debacle. As a gesture of goodwill, they have upgraded (not sure if that's the correct term given it is what was paid for) us to J for the SYD to JNB sector. The lady apologised for the way it was handled, for the comments from the social media team being passed on to us etc. I was extremely grateful to her and QF for admitting things went wrong and rectifying the situation.

Also, had an the seats been released we would have been up for more in taxes as well as the points change fee. QF have waived that for us too, which I think is a nice and unexpected gesture. I would have happily paid. Perhaps my love is easily bought?

The lady also advised that the initial operator was incorrect to suggest we could get seats released once status had dropped. I'm not sure about this though given other operators were willing to give it a go.

Thank you to Red Roo who has obviously seen this and been proactive about service recovery.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

Also, had an the seats been released we would have been up for more in taxes as well as the points change fee. QF have waived that for us too, which I think is a nice and unexpected gesture. I would have happily paid. Perhaps my love is easily bought?

<snip>

Yeah, reckon you are easily bought. I would have held out for the flowers.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

My thinking on this is that QF points represent a contingent liability for Qantas through their FF program which I understand is quite massive if you were to quantify it in $$ terms (don't ask me for numbers because I don't have any).

So I think of it as a wasted opportunity when QF has excess supply but (seemingly) makes no effort to reduce that contingent liability by getting FFers to cash in their points for seats that otherwise will go empty.

Although on this occasion there was no additional points to be deducted should they get J seats released as the pax had paid the points for a J award but were travelling PE on the SYD/JNB sector hence no further reduction on airline contingent liability.

Anyway the dilemma has since been resolved so pax is now in J so the situation is a win/win for all concerned.

 

[Captain Halliday]

Yeah, reckon you are easily bought. I would have held out for the flowers.

And maybe a toaster.

 

[timster]

Thank you to Red Roo who has obviously seen this and been proactive about service recovery.

Is Red Roo a member of the "social media team" ?

 

[MrJetset]

Is Red Roo a member of the "social media team" ?

RR are the social media team.

 

[vetrade]

Although on this occasion there was no additional points to be deducted should they get J seats released as the pax had paid the points for a J award but were travelling PE on the SYD/JNB sector hence no further reduction on airline contingent liability.

Anyway the dilemma has since been resolved so pax is now in J so the situation is a win/win for all concerned.

Point taken, Ozbeachbabe, however I was making a general comment rather than referring specifically to the OP's case. Perhaps my post no.23 explains the context within which my comments were made.

 

[drron]

All classic awards, 280k or not, are not eligible for a points upgrade... in the commonly accepted sense of the word (ie. buying a revenue fare in a lower class and using points to upgrade).
Changing from a lower cabin award category to a higher cabin is technically "upgrading", but it isn't a points upgrade as above. My understanding is if availability opens up at a later date, the change can be made.

But in daver6's case and mine we had paid the points for a J award and downgraded for a sector.If J seats are available when the flight leaves you should get what you paid for.

 

[mannej]

I am glad to hear that Daver6 has had the situation rectified.

All the best for an enjoyable trip!

 

[JohnM]

But in daver6's case and mine we had paid the points for a J award and downgraded for a sector.If J seats are available when the flight leaves you should get what you paid for.

I think this goes back to the point I made upthread.

I suspect that once you choose the 'downgrade' option - which you do, obviously reluctantly, to ensure adherence to your planned itinerary, the system has put you in X (in your pre-PE case) or Z (In Daver6 & MrsDaver6's case) and it (the system) 'sees' it as a willingly-chosen option.

I very much doubt that the system can then 'put' you back into U - because U probably never existed, even up to departure. U is the class that you would have booked into at the beginning - had it been available.

I suspect that upgrade requests are granted close to departure, not by converting some unused J, C, D or I inventory into U first but rather by filling the available seats based on the status/PCV pecking-order - ie. the booking classes evaporate - to be superseded by something entirely different.

Put simply, once Z or X is chosen, anyone on a 280K U award is sitting in a Z or X seat and their original intention (viz. hope) to book a U class fare is merely a figment of that hope. It simply doesn't (and, I suggest, couldn't possibly) register in the system.

Th only way I can see it happening is by manual override - which, without debating the merits or otherwise of how it was achieved in this instance, is what has happened here.

This is all supposition on my part but I am suggesting that it is logic-based supposition.

 

[Alanslegal]

I am very glad that Daver6 had his issue resolved with extra benefits - I guess it's good to be here on AFF because they KWYA.

That said I feel saddened because to the regular John and Jane flyer, monumental stuff ups can still occur, people who complain legitimately can have their account 'tarnished' by Qantas unilaterally with no resolution, cabin downgrades to passengers without notice and Qantas not being pro-active about. Lucky we have Red Roo here who can very well assist on issues efficiently and follow up matters to completion, but to the regular flyer - I say good luck to them (or I say come to AFF and start a new thread because apparently that's the only way you would have your issue resolved).

 

[Princess Fiona]

I think this goes back to the point I made upthread.

I suspect that once you choose the 'downgrade' option - which you do, obviously reluctantly, to ensure adherence to your planned itinerary, the system has put you in X (in your pre-PE case) or Z (In Daver6 & MrsDaver6's case) and it (the system) 'sees' it as a willingly-chosen option.

I very much doubt that the system can then 'put' you back into U - because U probably never existed, even up to departure. U is the class that you would have booked into at the beginning - had it been available.

I suspect that upgrade requests are granted close to departure, not by converting some unused J, C, D or I inventory into U first but rather by filling the available seats based on the status/PCV pecking-order - ie. the booking classes evaporate - to be superseded by something entirely different.

Put simply, once Z or X is chosen, anyone on a 280K U award is sitting in a Z or X seat and their original intention (viz. hope) to book a U class fare is merely a figment of that hope. It simply doesn't (and, I suggest, couldn't possibly) register in the system.

Th only way I can see it happening is by manual override - which, without debating the merits or otherwise of how it was achieved in this instance, is what has happened here.

This is all supposition on my part but I am suggesting that it is logic-based supposition.

I think there may be more than a grain of truth there .....

 

[UP4014]

good to hear another QANTAS stuff made good.

While as I said it's not done until it's done, QF certainly bring some things on themslves..

Matt

 

[Kangol]

But in daver6's case and mine we had paid the points for a J award and downgraded for a sector.If J seats are available when the flight leaves you should get what you paid for.

That's not how award seats and tickets work.
In addition to JohnM's post, revenue and classic award systems are different. Paying points for the base fare vs paying cash for the base fare is different.
Don't forget the mixed class exclamation mark. This is no different to that.
eg. MEL-SYD-LHR priced as a J award all the way, with the label "your flight from SYD to LHR will be in economy". With MEL-SYD in J.

Sure, it's not nice and probably not fair, but the point is not whether the system is fair or not, the point is how the system works.

 

[MrJetset]

Other than the waiver of additional taxes, let's not forget the service recovery cost QF little. The OP is on a RTW FF redemption, meaning that, in a sense, they have already theoretically paid for the J seats (which they initially accepted to be downgraded).