Red Roo gone?

[Pushka]

Admittedly I call 131313 as WP via MrP's account but my calls are usually answered within a couple of minutes.

 

[marki]

Admittedly I call 131313 as WP via MrP's account but my calls are usually answered within a couple of minutes.

Same here never had to wait! ( as WP)

 

[amaroo]

Love an Opera. This has the hallmark of an Aussie classic ... with parts 1,2 &3

[video=youtube;lPveBD6WWXc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPveBD6WWXc[/video]

 

[exceladdict]

Late to the party, but echoing others' thanks to the red roo who assisted me over the last few years.

It is that type of person who is genuinely good at their job that should be able to waltz in to VA or SQ and be handed a position in a heartbeat.

I had been genuinely impressed by Qantas's willingness to dedicate resources to this and other forums and while I don't doubt they will keep an eye on us, without a dedicated CSM, I can see it becoming less personal. Let's hope I am proved wrong.

 

[QF WP]

Have found this thread, and its various twists and turns very interesting - especially the recent posts by QF WP.

I've never been inclined to call upon RR's help (in any of its forms) and I probably wouldn't - my view (stated previously) is that its not appropriate for Qantas to provide help for a select few on an internet forum that they wouldn't for any mug punter (I guess I'm a socialist at heart ), although I don't begrudge the number of individual cases where material help has been given to a Member here.

That is exactly QF's ethos - any forums that QF staff frequent (Facebook, Twitter, et al) must be "open" forums, thus they cannot be part of (for example) some of the Facebook FF groups that are "closed".

I'm oblivious to the 'recent' RR individual; by the sound of it she was an absolute asset to Qantas and her going reflects badly on the company and the fact that many are missing her personally speaks volumes. But going back a few years, I was critical of the RR handle (not any individual) for handing out sweeties in the form of lunches & prizes while never responding to the more difficult queries, even when genuinely seeking information and not 'having a go'. I never thought that RR, no matter how nice personally, could or would go against some higher managerial-set policy and objectives - that RR is a way to promote Qantas and to influence the 'influencers' in certain ways and isn't a general customer service. By the sound of it, the recently departed RR went 'above and beyond'.

There will always be threads where Red Roo is able to co-ordinate things (as this is their role) between the relevant QF departments and the questioning public [as is also with Facebook and Twitter]. The former Red Roo certainly was actively online out of hours and that's part of the "above and beyond" that I certainly felt she achieved regularly. There were also times where Red Roo, because of the privacy constraints between an aggrieved pax and QF, was completely unable to advise details that pertained to individual cases. Some people here (and on other forums) couldn't grasp that fact. I believe medhead said it well:

I hope people learn the meaning of the word discretion.

I saw what I think was the first post by the new RR team - and it was strictly out of Qantas customer relations 101 (awful). I hope they grow into the role and they can interact positively with those that seek help here, remembering that help is sought here nearly always in the face of a stuff-up by Qantas operations, or non response via other channels, not anyone looking for a freebie.

I'm sure that because of the different methods of posting here (and that of Facebook and Twitter) that Red Roo will grow in knowledge. A little bit of personalisation, within the corporate terms of engagement, will go a long way...

Yes, well the new RR team aren't off to a good start if you ask me.
I PM'ed before the news, asking about J/F Award Policies/Procedures - no state secrets... in fact the info I was after should be readily accessible on their labyrinth of a web site... but this is the response I received 2 days ago:

"Hi Paddy55,

Sorry I can't assist further on this channel however this one is going to be best handled by our Reservations team on 13 13 13 who can talk through the options with you.

Cheers,

Red Roo"

Absolutely no help whatsoever.
By the way I'm trying to speak to 131313 now about a flight change - they estimated a 30 min callback over an hour ago

Red Roo is in Social Media space, their job isn't to supply that information (it's out of their remit) but to co-ordinate the connection between the relevant department and you, which should be the quickest way to resolve your issue. They are new to AFF, so please give them some time to work their way into the role. Nobody who is new to any role had all the knowledge and wisdom - we all started at the beginning in our jobs or relationships...

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip for space>


Red Roo is in Social Media space, their job isn't to supply that information (it's out of their remit) but to co-ordinate the connection between the relevant department and you, which should be the quickest way to resolve your issue. They are new to AFF, so please give them some time to work their way into the role. Nobody who is new to any role had all the knowledge and wisdom - we all started at the beginning in our jobs or relationships...

Thanks again QF WP It would be handy if you could pass onto your contacts that maybe they might like to come on and introduce themselves (as the new team) and tell us what they can and cannot do and how they wish to interact with the forum.


AT the moment I just see Red Roo is labelled as the 'authenticated company representative' and so open to all sorts of interactions. Personally, I don't know what 'social media space' means in general, let alone for a Red Roo.

 

[timster]

There were also times where Red Roo, because of the privacy constraints between an aggrieved pax and QF, was completely unable to advise details that pertained to individual cases. Some people here (and on other forums) couldn't grasp that fact.

Whenever organizations trot out the privacy argument these days, one needs to ask "Whose privacy ? Your's or their's ?". Otherwise one is left with the suspicion that certain situations may have only been resolvable under a non-disclosure agreement - at the stipulation of the organization not the aggrieved party - to prevent such resolutions becoming a precedent for future ones .... as might be a highly desirable outcome for customers ... but not the organization.

Anyone heard from Emily lately ?

 

[Sdtravel]

A really good sign
http://www.australianfrequentflyer....e-status-credits-sc-75580-68.html#post1453366

Also who is Emily? Did i miss something? Was that the name of our previous Red Roo?

 

[Pushka]

A really good sign
http://www.australianfrequentflyer....e-status-credits-sc-75580-68.html#post1453366

Also who is Emily? Did i miss something? Was that the name of our previous Red Roo?

Not that I met.

 

[Daver6]

RR will be missed. She looked at the issues from a human perspective, and for me personally righted some wrongs done by their call centre and Twitter social media team.

 

[Princess Fiona]

A really good sign
http://www.australianfrequentflyer....e-status-credits-sc-75580-68.html#post1453366

Also who is Emily? Did i miss something? Was that the name of our previous Red Roo?

No she was the daughter of a couple who were downgraded from J-Y on a QF Flight from LAX.

EDIT: It eventuated that one of them was downgraded, the other re-instated to J and the passenger downgraded offered some woefully inadequate compensation.
Long acrimonious thread, likely resolved by an NDA from QF

 

[Flying mermaid]

I never asked Red Roo for help, but on two occasions she picked up on whines of mine on here and did something about them. She seemed a very dedicated person, as are Ashley Bayer in the FF area and Fiona Morris in Customer Care. I think if the passion they all clearly feel for providing a quality service could permeate to the frontline no-one could touch Qantas as an airline.

 

[grussellt]

We'll know if it's real Red Roo that has returned if he/she gives you an occasional like.

 

[timster]

No she was the daughter of a couple who were downgraded from J-Y on a QF Flight from LAX.

EDIT: It eventuated that one of them was downgraded, the other re-instated to J and the passenger downgraded offered some woefully inadequate compensation.
Long acrimonious thread, likely resolved by an NDA from QF

Indeed, NDA was my best guess too. Hence my facetious "Anyone heard from Emily lately ?" ... ie assuming that she was muzzled, and that the only "privacy" being protected was QF corporates'. Probably at the behest of QF legal. Nothing to do with pax privacy. And hence QF's woeful involuntary downgrade compensation "rules" remain.

 

[QF WP]

I will guarantee you that it won't be the previous person who acted as Red Roo who may like any members' posts in the future. Redundancy will stymie that thought...

We'll know if it's real Red Roo that has returned if he/she gives you an occasional like.

 

[medhead]

Whenever organizations trot out the privacy argument these days, one needs to ask "Whose privacy ? Your's or their's ?". Otherwise one is left with the suspicion that certain situations may have only been resolvable under a non-disclosure agreement - at the stipulation of the organization not the aggrieved party - to prevent such resolutions becoming a precedent for future ones .... as might be a highly desirable outcome for customers ... but not the organization.

Anyone heard from Emily lately ?

Indeed, NDA was my best guess too. Hence my facetious "Anyone heard from Emily lately ?" ... ie assuming that she was muzzled, and that the only "privacy" being protected was QF corporates'. Probably at the behest of QF legal. Nothing to do with pax privacy. And hence QF's woeful involuntary downgrade compensation "rules" remain.

This is the usual comment that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of privacy. In the context of QF WP's post about privacy limited a company from providing information related to a specific situation; there is a clear, unequivocal requirement for Qantas to not release details specifically related to individual customers. That is a privacy constraint. That limitation applies at all times. Any talk of there being some sort of cover up is complete nonsense. Australian companies are legally prevented from publicly releasing information related to individual customers.

An NDA prevents the customer from talking.

 

[timster]

This is the usual comment that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of privacy. In the context of QF WP's post about privacy limited a company from providing information related to a specific situation; there is a clear, unequivocal requirement for Qantas to not release details specifically related to individual customers. That is a privacy constraint. That limitation applies at all times. Any talk of there being some sort of cover up is complete nonsense. Australian companies are legally prevented from publicly releasing information related to individual customers.

An NDA prevents the customer from talking.

Can you point us to the relevant legislation that you are presumably referring to ? In particular, any provisions around its agreed waiving by the parties involved.

But regardless of any legislation, privacy is still a red herring here. There is no need to refer to any individual case. What prevents QF from saying "We now recognize that our involuntary downgrade policy is unfair to passengers, and - in the spirit of 'simpler and fairer' - we are therefore revising it". Resorting to a privacy argument to avoid doing that - if QF were to do so - would be simply disingenuous.

And IIRC we never heard from the very vocal Emily again. Speculation admittedly, but that strongly suggests an NDA was imposed. Would that have been by QF, or by some privacy legislation ?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is the usual comment that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of privacy. In the context of QF WP's post about privacy limited a company from providing information related to a specific situation; there is a clear, unequivocal requirement for Qantas to not release details specifically related to individual customers. That is a privacy constraint. That limitation applies at all times. Any talk of there being some sort of cover up is complete nonsense. Australian companies are legally prevented from publicly releasing information related to individual customers.

An NDA prevents the customer from talking.

The 'privacy' screen is all too frequently raised by airlines.

Looking at the downgrade compensation calculations, airlines will tell us they are unable to discuss the matters of a particular case because it would breach privacy. The problem is that I can't recall a case where anyone has actually asked for specifics, but rather they have asked for a general overview of how refunds are calculated. This has never been forthcoming.

Requesting the general overview doesn't breach privacy.

 

[medhead]

Can you point us to the relevant legislation that you are presumably referring to ? In particular, any provisions around its agreed waiving by the parties involved.

But regardless of any legislation, privacy is still a red herring here. There is no need to refer to any individual case. What prevents QF from saying "We now recognize that our involuntary downgrade policy is unfair to passengers, and - in the spirit of 'simpler and fairer' - we are therefore revising it". Resorting to a privacy argument to avoid doing that - if QF were to do so - would be simply disingenuous.

And IIRC we never heard from the very vocal Emily again. Speculation admittedly, but that strongly suggests an NDA was imposed. Would that have been by QF, or by some privacy legislation ?

The 'privacy' screen is all too frequently raised by airlines.

Looking at the downgrade compensation calculations, airlines will tell us they are unable to discuss the matters of a particular case because it would breach privacy. The problem is that I can't recall a case where anyone has actually asked for specifics, but rather they have asked for a general overview of how refunds are calculated. This has never been forthcoming.

Requesting the general overview doesn't breach privacy.

You two are conflating two entirely different issues. Timster you cracked up about privacy in relation to a specific comment as below. that comment clearly refers to the details of individual cases. There is very much a legislative restriction on the airline releasing details related to individual issues. That fact has nothing to do with the issues around discussing general policy. At no stage QF WP refer to privacy as a restriction on such information. The objection to the privacy flag in reply to the quoted comment is nonsense. The only red herring is to conflate individual case discussion with general policy information as you've done.

You might have a point about general information, but that wasn't being discussed.

Individuals are always free to release their own information, but companies can't release their information. As for legislation:

Let me google that for you

There were also times where Red Roo, because of the privacy constraints between an aggrieved pax and QF, was completely unable to advise details that pertained to individual cases. :

As an aside, I love all this conspriacy theory about NDAs and such. But who's to say that Emily didn't just read some of the mindless "Thems the rules" comments and decided not to share further?

 

[trippin_the_rift]

As an aside, I love all this conspriacy theory about NDAs and such. But who's to say that Emily didn't just read some of the mindless "Thems the rules" comments and decided not to share further?

I didn't know NDAs were still a thing these days... almost nobody uses them anymore.