Thankyou. The whole booking is on one booking reference from Hobart to NYC. Started monitoring because Q flight from Hobart to Syd arrives late 50% of the time.
Sadly, the problem is Qantas has too small a fleet of 787s to operate the promised schedule. As soon as an aircraft has a technical issue, the entire schedule can be thrown into disarray for days. This is compounded by their lack of engineering labour / spare parts shortages. It’s been like this for months and shows no signs of letting up. They’ve become an extremely unreliable airline.
Quite amazing. The response of Qantas Vs BA Vs United shows huge contrast in my recent experience. Q and BA minimalist Vs United that set up a heap of options for me to choose. The money is irrelevant as the opportunity of the tennis is irreplaceable!
This isn't helped by the weather related delays at Sydney airport, which has been happening more frequently lately. Often closing 2 of the 3 runways.
They don’t need travel insurance, since the Montreal convention on air transport 1999 clearly states that airlines which deliver you late to your final destination are liable for up to $7000 US in reimbursement related to things like activities booked during your travel.
Telling people they don’t need TI is very bad advice IMHO
For things like baggage and IRROPs no insurance is needed since that's completely on the airlines and is what the Montreal Convention is all about. Now for things like travel medical insurance, sure it would make sense to have that, although many credit cards these days include such coverage provided you book your travel on their card.
And again if you rely on that for something like lost baggage you will be woefully under compensated.
Qantas may be obligated, but the timing is the issue. Your alternative arrangements could arrive too late. Note too that the Montreal Convention is far from being as strict as EU261.Extraordinary circumstances exceptions can include weather.
It is unclear if weather is considered extraordinary circumstances for Qantas (or OneWorld for that matter). I know in the case of Star Alliance, weather is considered a controllable event for the purposes of IRROPs when you are dealing with inter-continental travel in J or as an elite.
Believe it or not, I have not encountered a situation travelling internationally where I was left stranded. The only times I have encountered IRROPs leaving me stranded have been domestic flights, namely HBA > SYD on JQ, ORD > YYZ on UA, YYZ > YSJ and YUL > YSJ on AC. In each of these cases the airline put me up in a hotel and covered meals (or in the case of JQ allowed me to book the hotel and order the meals needed and then claim it back for reimbursement). For the YYZ > YSJ I am in the process of collecting from AC since that IRROP should trigger APPR as it was crew scheduling that was in their control.
It might be but it isn't bullet proof either. Different policies have different rules on what is versus isn't covered. For instance, some travel insurance policies might claim that the airline offering an overnight layover is appropriate given the circumstances (i.e. you aren't stranded).
But the Montreal Convention - which you are arguing is the backstop - is clear on the exception for weather. And the test is one of ‘taking reasonable measures’ when it comes to recovery. Did the airline act reasonably? Compare that to the EU’s test of whether the airline did took *all* reasonable measures. That’s a huge distinction.
I'm not familiar with VCAT/NCAT but surely the tribunal has some authority to interpret laws? After all the Montreal Convention is a treaty and as such has no effect in Australia. What gives the treaty power is the fact that Parliament in Australia passed legislation that (mostly) conforms to what is spelled out in the treaty. So the Montreal Convention as a matter of law is a domestic piece of legislation. You can point to specific law on the books in Australia that enforces it and is something that at a minimum the courts can handle and possibly the tribunals as well (if they have the capacity to deal with the law, which I reckon they do).
