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

[medhead]

How many repeats of Location, Location, Location or Law and Order SVU can you watch ??
Dont forget the relentless 'ShamWOW' ads!

If that was what i was watching then I'd switch to airways australia.
If you like sham WOW then you'll like the followup "slapcut" (or something like that)


BTW got foxtel to watch the rugby in the AFL heart land plus things like gavin and stacey

 

[Must...Fly!]

Just watched this weeks episode...

Amazing what you can do for people if you just put in a little effort hey...re: wedding problem.

However to fly same day as wedding...something I would not risk!

Indian family...well, no opinions about that to be honest, a little bit funny how they played the racism card, but at least they came back to apoligise (if there was anything to apoligise about...TT staff have zero PR skills and seem to get very pissed off very quick).

Felt bad for the 2 women who spent >24 hours in the terminal...a delay they certainly did not need, oh well.

Two Indian guys going to ADL - well, 5 minutes late is 5 minutes too late on TT...though I find it funny that the staff member used the "we can't get you on, the papers are done its all legal"...can't wait for the episode when someone catches them out on that, should be a really good fight.

And for the wives crashing the footy trip...can't say I approve :!:

 

[Aussie_flyer]

However to fly same day as wedding...something I would not risk!

Definitely not Tiger anyway! If I have something on same day I tend to choose Qantas

Indian family...well, no opinions about that to be honest, a little bit funny how they played the racism card, but at least they came back to apoligise (if there was anything to apoligise about...TT staff have zero PR skills and seem to get very pissed off very quick).

Pulling the racism card was RIDICULOUS. I think it made her lose any credibility she may have had, INSTANTLY, once she tried that. I was very disappointed, made her look quite foolish. I agree about the zero PR skills from Tiger staff.

Felt bad for the 2 women who spent >24 hours in the terminal...a delay they certainly did not need, oh well.

There comes a time when they should have gone over to one of the 3 airport hotels and just got a room, there is even a cheap Formula 1 hotel there at tullamarine.

Two Indian guys going to ADL - well, 5 minutes late is 5 minutes too late on TT...though I find it funny that the staff member used the "we can't get you on, the papers are done its all legal"...can't wait for the episode when someone catches them out on that, should be a really good fight.

Indeed, the legal phrase was obviously a load of rubbish, otherwise Qantas and Virgin must be breaking the LAW every flight they operate!

 

[markis10]

Indeed, the legal phrase was obviously a load of rubbish, otherwise Qantas and Virgin must be breaking the LAW every flight they operate!

Why is that, once a manifest is done and the load sheets sent to the aircraft they cannot change.

 

[rwatts]

Why is that, once a manifest is done and the load sheets sent to the aircraft they cannot change.

Yes, I'm sure they have no problem changing them if they need to remove a passenger at the last moment.

Richard.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Its the way she says it implies some kind of law that they would be breaking

 

[rwatts]

Its the way she says it implies some kind of law that they would be breaking

I took her comment to mean that their refusal to accept the passengers was legal (and particularly as they had done all the paperwork to "close" the flight) - not that it was a legal requirement they not accept them.

Of course Tiger do have to draw the line somewhere. I've been on a QF flight out of CBR, the tug had been disconnected after push-back and we had just started taxiing when we abruptly stopped. The Captain then announced that we were returning to the gate for another passenger. Said passenger got an "interesting" reception from the other pax when they boarded. I'm sure they were important but I didn't see who it was.

Richard.

 

[Dave Noble]

Indian family...well, no opinions about that to be honest, a little bit funny how they played the racism card, but at least they came back to apoligise (if there was anything to apoligise about...TT staff have zero PR skills and seem to get very pissed off very quick).

Conversely it seems that they have been well trained in dealing with a complaining customer. They seem to generally keep to the point in question and avoid allowing the conversation to be driven down other tracks. The person kept simply returning to the "you were late" comment.

May not come across as cuddly feely, but is a good way of dealing with argumentative customers

The passengers could have stopped at the 1st time they were told that they had missed the flight

Dave

 

[ejb]

Dave,

I agree that she did a good job of "keeping on message" and I think that is one very important thing in dealing with the public, have a rule and stick to it.

I can handle dealing with rules, even misguided ones, the only thing that annoys me is when rules are constantly changing and TT seem to have this pretty well sorted with the checkin rules 45 minutes no arguments.

ejb

 

[pauly7]

I'm such a fan of this show, I think Qantas should buy it and put in ON-Q as a part of their entertainment offering. Then everyone can sit back, relax onboard and be happy they aren't flying Tiger!!

By the way - to the person who posted the people who fly Tiger are bogans, I'd say their staff give the passengers a run for their money. I've never heard so many 'youse' in my life

All for fantastic vicarious viewing!!

 

[markis10]

Yes, I'm sure they have no problem changing them if they need to remove a passenger at the last moment.

Richard.

Removal of weight does not require the FMS to be reconfigured, adding weight does, even if its a few 100 kg. Flights are closed off when there is no possibility of further weight being added, and I think thats what they were alluding to, whether the final load had been sent to ACARS is irrevelent IMHO, tiger know they have just scored $70 per pax unless the pax can find an alternate flight for less, which would be unlikely.

 

[odysseus]

I'm such a fan of this show, I think Qantas should buy it and put in ON-Q as a part of their entertainment offering. Then everyone can sit back, relax onboard and be happy they aren't flying Tiger!!

By the way - to the person who posted the people who fly Tiger are bogans, I'd say their staff give the passengers a run for their money. I've never heard so many 'youse' in my life

Hehe! Great marketing strategy!

I've also noticed the speech patterns you refer to...

 

[ejb]

Hehe! Great marketing strategy!

I've also noticed the speech patterns you refer to...

The high pitched voices drive my dogs crazy

ejb

 

[medhead]

Removal of weight does not require the FMS to be reconfigured, adding weight does, even if its a few 100 kg. Flights are closed off when there is no possibility of further weight being added, and I think thats what they were alluding to, whether the final load had been sent to ACARS is irrevelent IMHO, tiger know they have just scored $70 per pax unless the pax can find an alternate flight for less, which would be unlikely.

But all of what you said does not make it a legal requirement. The fact that they choose not to change the information in FMS to add weight, doesn't mean that they can't change it if they choose to change.

Of course, the choose not to change these things because it costs heaps of money to do the change. But the point is until that aircraft is rolling down the runway there is nothing in that paperwork that cannot be changed due to legal reasons.

 

[samh004]

But all of what you said does not make it a legal requirement. The fact that they choose not to change the information in FMS to add weight, doesn't mean that they can't change it if they choose to change.

Of course, the choose not to change these things because it costs heaps of money to do the change. But the point is until that aircraft is rolling down the runway there is nothing in that paperwork that cannot be changed due to legal reasons.

True, but you change it once for a passenger and they’ll tell everyone, then the precedent has been set and more will ask than they do now. Simply drawing a line in the sand and not crossing it is a good strategy.

However I don’t quite agree with original check-in times for delayed flights, but that’s a different fight altogether really.

 

[markis10]

But all of what you said does not make it a legal requirement. The fact that they choose not to change the information in FMS to add weight, doesn't mean that they can't change it if they choose to change.

Of course, the choose not to change these things because it costs heaps of money to do the change. But the point is until that aircraft is rolling down the runway there is nothing in that paperwork that cannot be changed due to legal reasons.

Unless your privy to the AOC requirements for Tiger then you cannot say its not illegal, its likely their AOC and the procedures written in terms of the ops manual to comply with that AOC specifiy a final load sheet must be uploaded to ACARS at t-??, so that the crew can do their calcs etc in an unrushed manner. Without access to those details, who are we to question the reasons given unless we have proof otherwise?

Keep in mind tiger checkin crew perform ground handling and despatch requirements at remote ports, its these sort of procedures that get cloase scrutiny before a new airline is given its AOC, and we know what happens when load sheets are rushed or wrong......there have been a few TV shows on it.

 

[drron]

Have just watched the US version of the show featuring Southwest-certainly a vgreat contrast in staff attitudes towards pax.Still a fair share of ignorant pax-I particularly liked the drunk denied boarding who told the GA that Southwest wasnt the only airline so he would go and see if he could fly Eastern or TWA.just have a feeling his wait would be longer.

 

[medhead]

Unless your privy to the AOC requirements for Tiger then you cannot say its not illegal, its likely their AOC and the procedures written in terms of the ops manual to comply with that AOC specifiy a final load sheet must be uploaded to ACARS at t-??, so that the crew can do their calcs etc in an unrushed manner. Without access to those details, who are we to question the reasons given unless we have proof otherwise?

Keep in mind tiger checkin crew perform ground handling and despatch requirements at remote ports, its these sort of procedures that get cloase scrutiny before a new airline is given its AOC, and we know what happens when load sheets are rushed or wrong......there have been a few TV shows on it.

Sorry, I do agree that they aren't going to change their rules and I don't think they should change there rules.

Just making a pedantic point, not withstanding the AOC rules, they always have a choice. But there is, of course, consequences to making that choice. In this case, if there is a t-?? upload requirement, then making that choice will delay the aircraft and cost them money. I think it is safe to assume that the t-?? rule would apply to actual departure time rather than scheduled, in light of TT's multiple 12 hours + delays. Of course, if it did apply to scheduled time then that would answer the question on check in time for that 12 hour delayed flight.

Anyway, the point is the 45 minute check in cut off is not a legal requirement. It is just that if they check someone in late then they would have to redo the manifest and hence delay the flight due to AOC requirements. And they aren't going to delay that flight for a passenger.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Just goingback to an earlier comment in this thread about overbooking.

Just because it is 'standard practice' doesn't mean that it is the right or fair thing to do.

Airlines in the EU now pay extremely heavy penalties in the event of overbooking and where you can't get to your destination within a certain number of hours.

Overbooking was somewhat understandable 30 years ago when fares were high and flexible without penalty. Plenty of business flyers would hold a couple of seats on different flights 'just in case' they needed to change their plans.

Unfortunately this is one area where the law hasn't yet addressed a massive change in the way ticket contracts are made.

Today most fares on discount airlines are non-refundable. So it cuold be argued that a seat pruchased today allows the airline NO right whatsoever to overbook that seat. It is not like the airline can lose money by you not turning up (as it would have done 30 years ago).

It would be an interesting test case.

I'm not aware of any 'standard practice' clause which allows people to break contracts in other circumstances, so why should it apply to airline seats?

And as someone will raise the 'it's in the terms and conditions'... remember that terms and conditions are not binding if they contain an unfair clause(s). These can be struck out.

It could well be argued that overbooking a seat which has been paid for, with no chance of the passenger changing that seat or getting a refund, is unfair and not intentionally agreed to by the passenger.

Whether or not an airline would ever allow such a case to come before the courts would be another matter. The last thing they would want is an EU charter of rights.

 

[JohnK]

Genuine question because I don’t think it’s been asked here. If the flight was with Qantas, and there was a delay of the same sort and no other alternatives, and you had a red e-deal, and you arrived 45 minutes before when the flight would now leave, instead of when it was meant to leave… would they check you in with no problems, or would you be in trouble?

That would depend if the "official" departure time has changed or not. In my experience QF will normally close off check for a flight based on original departure time and not expected departure.

YMMV. By the way I did get checked into a flight late one time as I was in the queue at SYD airport when they made the announcement that the flight is closing. I was the first person in the queue but the person at the counter took a while (why do some people do that?). Anyway when I got to check-in the lady told me the flight was closed and I pleaded my case that I was first in the queue when I heard the announcement. Anyway she had to get a supervisor to re-open the flight and I was able to get on the flight with checked bags.

I just did a quick scan of the qantas check-in page which is silent on whether check-in times relate to scheduled departure times, except at the end of the table they say

Latest check-in without baggage closes 15 minutes before departure.
​

This would seem to indicate 'departure' (when ever that is) - not 'originally scheduled departure'.

Interesting point and not something I want to be arguing with the check-in staff while the flight is boarding.