Suing QF over failed upgrade bid

[Anna]

Wloszczowski v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2021] VCAT 883 (10 August 2021)

The claim was dismissed in VCAT but the Tribunal member was not wholly complimentary about QF

I'm feeling too lazy to check for any appeal proceedings

 

[Matt_01]

I am not a lawyer and on occasion have read rulings, I am just amused that they tried to sue QF as they were not upgraded.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Wloszczowski v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2021] VCAT 883 (10 August 2021)

I would say interesting case, but frankly the applicants don't understand how upgrades work on airlines. This assumption that Bid Now Upgrades and Classic Upgrade Rewards come from the same buckets is misconceived. My understanding is Qantas uses two buckets for those upgrades, the classic award bucket being put out first for Qantas Frequent Flyers prioritized by frequent flyer status (i.e. Platinum Ones get upgrade requests approved several days out from an international departure). The once that bucket is exhausted but somewhere close to check-in Qantas uses another bucket to process bid now upgrade requests. Lastly, the first classic reward upgrade bucket comes back between check-in and at the gate to liquidated any remaining business class seats that go unsold (since it's better to get anything for the seat than nothing). I understand the process for upgrading to business is slightly different between domestic and international flights. Is my understanding here correct?

The claim was dismissed in VCAT but the Tribunal member was not wholly complimentary about QF

I reckon neither was QF complimentary to the Tribunal member when it came to seating though. How many times have any of us had to pay out of pocket for an extra leg room seat which we as valued Qantas Frequent Flyers know should've been complimentary?

I'm feeling too lazy to check for any appeal proceedings

What would the appeal be? That it was worth the points for the upgrade? Such a frivolous claim would be dismissed by me in an instant had I been the judge!

-RooFlyer88

 

[Princess Fiona]

Wloszczowski v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2021] VCAT 883 (10 August 2021)

The claim was dismissed in VCAT but the Tribunal member was not wholly complimentary about QF

I'm feeling too lazy to check for any appeal proceedings

Lol total chancers

Which is clearly what QF legal thought the tribunal would assume until they threw a wobbly.

I would be interested to see some compo faces in a Daily Fail article though

 

[justinbrett]

The elephant in the room - why the hell did VCAT rule in their favour initially? For 12K!

It seems obvious this was bogus from the start.

 

[MJHoops]

The elephant in the room - why the hell did VCAT rule in their favour initially? For 12K!

It seems obvious this was bogus from the start.

Qantas did not appear at the initial hearing. So effectively the matter proceeded undefended the first time around. presumably the VCAT member didn’t interrogate the merits too much in such circumstances

 

[Matt_01]

My understanding is Qantas uses two buckets for those upgrades, the classic award bucket being put out first for Qantas Frequent Flyers prioritized by frequent flyer status (i.e. Platinum Ones get upgrade requests approved several days out from an international departure). The once that bucket is exhausted but somewhere close to check-in Qantas uses another bucket to process bid now upgrade requests. Lastly, the first classic reward upgrade bucket comes back between check-in and at the gate to liquidated any remaining business class seats that go unsold (since it's better to get anything for the seat than nothing). I understand the process for upgrading to business is slightly different between domestic and international flights. Is my understanding here correct?

From the outset I have no idea how the bid for upgrades work, I have never put one in with QF. The international classic flight rewards I am more familiar with and it is based on status and when the date request if there are 2 or more with the same status. P1s requests are normally confirmed at T-7 days and others from about T-48 or 24hrs, not sure of the exact times. For domestic it is just first in served and if there U seats available they are approved on the spot, once exhausted any upgrade request are normally confirmed from T-24hrs.

 

[Rich]

This assumption that Bid Now Upgrades and Classic Upgrade Rewards come from the same buckets is misconceived.

I have no doubt you are right, but why did Qantas "(send) them an explanation that its sending of the Bid Now Upgrade offer to the applicants had been an error caused by a computer glitch."
What does that mean? No wonder the applicants weren't satisfied. Not that I would have bothered taking Qantas to VCAT.

Edit: the implication from that response is that there were no bid now upgrades and if there were, all Classic requests would have been successful.. QANTAS' terms also imply this although they are open to interpretation.

 

[j_brisbane]

but why did Qantas "(send) them an explanation that its sending of the Bid Now Upgrade offer to the applicants had been an error caused by a computer glitch."
What does that mean?

Maybe just a customer service rep saying whatever needs to be said in the hope of making them go away?

Also, the punters' request for "proof that other passengers had not received a benefit that they were entitled to" is interesting. On what basis do they assert they were entitled to have that information?

I can certainly understand their disappointment though.

 

[Rich]

On what basis do they assert they were entitled to have that information?

Absolutely not entitled to that info. I don’t know if you read the ruling, but it said as much.
They must have pretty chuffed when Qantas didn't turn up to the first hearing. $13k for taking the flights as booked. A shame for then that Qatas appealed.

 

[docjames]

Interesting it ever got that far.

The ruling commentary about more usual claim for loss (in section 18) is interesting and makes you wonder about potential success or otherwise in claiming for a more realistic involuntary downgrade refund (if able to prove discount / cheapest Y price at time of purchase versus Y+/J fare paid). Would be interesting if that aspect ever got tested (usual refund is to full Y bucket).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I can understand their point. If ‘bid for upgrades’ are only processed after classic award requests, why would someone ‘bid for upgrade’ if they already have a classic award request in place? Their bid would seem to serve no purpose.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting it ever got that far.

The ruling commentary about more usual claim for loss (in section 18) is interesting and makes you wonder about potential success or otherwise in claiming for a more realistic involuntary downgrade refund (if able to prove discount / cheapest Y price at time of purchase versus Y+/J fare paid). Would be interesting if that aspect ever got tested (usual refund is to full Y bucket).

IIRC in the USA airlines are required to use the lowest paid fare in economy that day as the measure of compensation for downgrades? Full fare economy can’t be used.

In Australia I think it would be a good idea to take a screenshot of economy fares at the time of making any premium booking. That way, in the event of a downgrade, you have evidence that you could - would - have paid the lower fare applicable at the time.

 

[docjames]

IIRC in the USA airlines are required to use the lowest paid fare in economy that day as the measure of compensation for downgrades? Full fare economy can’t be used.

Lowest fare of the day on day of travel may well be full Y - but in any event, the consumer passed up a low-fare bucket to buy the premium cabin and then to be refunded even to BFOD (let alone full Y) is outrageous.

THere is also the return airfare pricing / refund one segment meaning low refund (eg. Pay $6000 return in J, but one-way Y prices at $4500 on day of travel, so “refund” on a major change/cancellation like that when a downgrade involved is negligible/nil.

It’s a total mess, and the consumer laws haven’t kept up with “modern” airfare pricing structures.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Lowest fare of the day on day of travel may well be full Y - but in any event, the consumer passed up a low-fare bucket to buy the premium cabin and then to be refunded even to BFOD (let alone full Y) is outrageous.

THere is also the return airfare pricing / refund one segment meaning low refund (eg. Pay $6000 return in J, but one-way Y prices at $4500 on day of travel, so “refund” on a major change/cancellation like that when a downgrade involved is negligible/nil.

It’s a total mess, and the consumer laws haven’t kept up with “modern” airfare pricing structures.

If I read it correctly it’s the lowest fare paid by any revenue passenger flying on that aircraft that day. I believe they use CC information to confirm. So if someone paid $100 ORD-LGA six months before, that’s the basis for the compensation, ie the difference between $100 and the fare paid by the downgraded passenger.

It should be the same for australia. The passenger should take the screenshot of the lowest fare for their sector, and use that as a similar basis for any claim if they are downgraded. The EU has 75% of the sector fare as standard compensation… recognising that overbooking or equipment changes do happen.

 

[justinbrett]

Absolutely not entitled to that info. I don’t know if you read the ruling, but it said as much.
They must have pretty chuffed when Qantas didn't turn up to the first hearing. $13k for taking the flights as booked. A shame for then that Qatas appealed.

It was a stupid initial ruling that lacks basic legal training.

There was an opportunity loss, there was no financial loss. The 12/13K was the value of the service they wished to buy (with points) and were prevented from doing so. How does giving them the cash value for the flights make up for the situation? Makes absolutely no sense.

If I go to a car dealer and want to buy a car and they sell it to someone else, I can't sue them for the cost of the car, because I never paid for it.

At best, I can sue for expenses incurred on the assumption I would get the car, but even then that's a false analogy as the upgrade was never guaranteed.

 

[Rich]

L

It was a stupid initial ruling that lacks basic legal training.

There was an opportunity loss, there was no financial loss. The 12/13K was the value of the service they wished to buy (with points) and were prevented from doing so. How does giving them the cash value for the flights make up for the situation? Makes absolutely no sense.

If I go to a car dealer and want to buy a car and they sell it to someone else, I can't sue them for the cost of the car, because I never paid for it.

At best, I can sue for expenses incurred on the assumption I would get the car, but even then that's a false analogy as the upgrade was never guaranteed.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting otherwise! I wonder what the couple thought though, given they took it to VCAT in the first place.

 

[MrJetset]

Just because you're angry and feel aggravated doesn't mean your case has merit!

 

[justinbrett]

L

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting otherwise! I wonder what the couple thought though, given they took it to VCAT in the first place.

No no, I was expanding on your comments, not opposing them. I think we're all on the same page!

 

[Brissy1]

It was a stupid initial ruling that lacks basic legal training.

There was an opportunity loss, there was no financial loss. The 12/13K was the value of the service they wished to buy (with points) and were prevented from doing so. How does giving them the cash value for the flights make up for the situation? Makes absolutely no sense.

If I go to a car dealer and want to buy a car and they sell it to someone else, I can't sue them for the cost of the car, because I never paid for it.

At best, I can sue for expenses incurred on the assumption I would get the car, but even then that's a false analogy as the upgrade was never guaranteed.

(Edit...regardind the 1st ruling)
I'm not a lawyer, so if it's undefended to what extent does the tribunal member or judge do the defendant's case for them or despite them; or do they make a decision presuming that the defendant accepts that the case has merit?