Tiger Airways: ‘Air Ways’ TV series premieres on Channel 7 on Tuesday, 14 July

[Hvr]

Clearly there was no good samaritan on the flight to the Gold Coast with the kids, as surely anyone (over 18) could have taken charge of the 9-year-old minor?

I would run a mile if someone asked me to assume responsibility for their child, especially on a flight.

I don't like children and have deliberately chosen not to breed and don't see why I should have to assume anything other than societal responsibility for anybody else. I pay enough in taxes and extra fees as a single person to that I feel justified in not wanting to assume and perform your parental role.

 

[odysseus]

Big rant there but kinda irrelevant to helping someone out.

 

[ChrisBNE]

Wow... This Mathematician is one strange man.... arguing over a $25 excess charge sounds quite strange, unless i'm not getting the full story behind this



Josh


Update: and he flew with another carrier up to the Gold Coast, I'm pretty sure that a last minute ticket on the same day would have outweighed the $25

Yeah I couldnt work out what his beef was, something to do with baggage allowance paid, and excess baggage charges.

 

[Dee Thom]

Yeah I couldnt work out what his beef was, something to do with baggage allowance paid, and excess baggage charges.

Just remember that the majority of TT PAX are loosers..........:mrgreen:

Cheers Dee

 

[Saab34]

Just remember that the majority of TT PAX are loosers..........:mrgreen:

Cheers Dee

With a comment like that I would say your a loser, although not expecting much from some high flyer... I dare you to say that out in public.

He paid for 4x10kgs all up, 20kgs each way, not 40kgs which he thinks.

 

[drewbles]

Just remember that the majority of TT PAX are loosers..........:mrgreen:

Cheers Dee

Who kan't spell rool good?

just one 'o' in losers

 

[drron]

He paid for 4x10kgs all up, 20kgs each way, not 40kgs which he thinks.

Yep not much of a mathematician-even if they accepted that the 4x $10 was for that leg and he paid again online for the return leg he would have saved all of $5-was that worth all that argument!

 

[Dee Thom]

Who kan't spell rool good?

just one 'o' in losers

Please cast the first stone

Cheers Dee

 

[ChrisBNE]

With a comment like that I would say your a loser, although not expecting much from some high flyer... I dare you to say that out in public.

He paid for 4x10kgs all up, 20kgs each way, not 40kgs which he thinks.

Thanks, ha, made me smirk last night.

 

[markis10]

With a comment like that I would say your a loser, although not expecting much from some high flyer... I dare you to say that out in public.

He paid for 4x10kgs all up, 20kgs each way, not 40kgs which he thinks.

Tiger dont allow you to pay for 10kgs, its either carry on or 15kgs at $15, 20kgs @ $20, 25kgs at $45, 30kg at $70. I got the impression that he was being charged because he pooled the luggage and they had 5 pcs, not 4, that the luggage had to be 1 pc at max 15kgs?

 

[samh004]

Are there many people that you randomly meet in an airport that you would ask to take on responsibilitty for a 9 year old and expect them to say yes?

Dave

I would run a mile if someone asked me to assume responsibility for their child, especially on a flight.

I don't like children and have deliberately chosen not to breed and don't see why I should have to assume anything other than societal responsibility for anybody else. I pay enough in taxes and extra fees as a single person to that I feel justified in not wanting to assume and perform your parental role.

Another family travelling, an older couple, there are plenty of nice people that I’m sure would be willing to take responsibility (on paper) for the 9-year-old to see her nan. The child would probably still be sat with the 17-year-old-i-lost-my-ticket brother anyway, so it’s not like you’re giving her away!

I’m not suggesting Dave or Hvr would be the right choice for that family though

And I wasn’t suggesting they asked either, the lady shouted loud enough that someone might have presented themselves.

Tiger dont allow you to pay for 10kgs, its either carry on or 15kgs at $15, 20kgs @ $20, 25kgs at $45, 30kg at $70. I got the impression that he was being charged because he pooled the luggage and they had 5 pcs, not 4, that the luggage had to be 1 pc at max 15kgs?

I was thinking similar, but Airways were pretty vague in helping the TV-watching public understand what was going on. I wonder why

 

[Blackadder]

Rather ironic, the person questoning the baggage fees would have paid alot more to fly on another carrier, than just paying the extra baggage charge to TT.

 

[DrJ]

I can't believe how good humoured the people in the queue were with that muppet arguing over a whopping $25, holding up the check in desk for that long!

 

[straitman]

I can't believe how good humoured the people in the queue were with that muppet arguing over a whopping $25, holding up the check in desk for that long!

They probably did not want to end up on the camera looking like a muppet also :!:

 

[markis10]

I can't believe how good humoured the people in the queue were with that muppet arguing over a whopping $25, holding up the check in desk for that long!

I think it was the principle that mattered, not the $$$, interestlingly the show really failed to get to the heart of the matter making it easy for us to misjudge what was happening, would you stand your ground if you thought you were being conned, even for just $25, I probably would.

 

[ejb]

I think it was the principle that mattered, not the $$$, interestlingly the show really failed to get to the heart of the matter making it easy for us to misjudge what was happening, would you stand your ground if you thought you were being conned, even for just $25, I probably would.

I would take the approach pay the money enjoy the holiday, rather than coming across as a muppet.

He could easily have paid the $25 then written to TT and tried to get it back, as it is he paid hundreds to fly on another carrier and lost the cost of his TT ticket.

ejb

 

[DrJ]

I think it was the principle that mattered, not the $$$, interestlingly the show really failed to get to the heart of the matter making it easy for us to misjudge what was happening, would you stand your ground if you thought you were being conned, even for just $25, I probably would.

Fair point (I know how editing on TV shows can give a completely skewed picture) but considering the queue behind me, I probably would have paid up, carefully gone over the T&Cs later, and if I was in the right, written an angry letter to management stating the facts and the name of the agent who stuffed up.

That said, I would only be flying TT if 1) the fare was less than a cab fare to MEL (and DJ and JQ weren't matching it 2) I was flying for leisure (not deductible) and had a LOT of time on my hands 3) had no checked luggage. 4) flight time of 90mins or less. Wouldn't dream of flying with them ex PER.

 

[samh004]

Not sure if this has been asked/answered, but can you refuse to be filmed? Do the T&C of your ticket include a clause that says you must consent to possible filming on your flight, or is it perfectly acceptable to demand they stop filming you.

 

[drewbles]

Not sure if this has been asked/answered, but can you refuse to be filmed? Do the T&C of your ticket include a clause that says you must consent to possible filming on your flight, or is it perfectly acceptable to demand they stop filming you.

It's pretty usual for TV networks to get you to sign a waiver/disclaimer to allow you to be aired on the show. I dare say most the 'participants' on Airways would willingly sign it, so they can 'tell the world how s*$t Tiger airways" is.

Anything for their 5 seconds of fame (and lifetime of laugher at them from us!).

 

[markis10]

It's pretty usual for TV networks to get you to sign a waiver/disclaimer to allow you to be aired on the show. I dare say most the 'participants' on Airways would willingly sign it, so they can 'tell the world how s*$t Tiger airways" is.

Anything for their 5 seconds of fame (and lifetime of laugher at them from us!).

I am not sure of the legalities but I think they operate on an opt out principle, the signs around SYD seem to indicate that is the situation with border security, I cannot imagine all those people caught by customs are "opting in" so to speak to have their faces shown on TV after being caught! I would have thought we would see more shots with smokey obscured faces otherwise.