Downgraded from Business Class.

[OATEK]

I appreciate your concerns..,. [cut for brevity]

I know it may seem that there is an attack on you RedRoo as a representative of QF, but if you cut through the hyperbole there is an underlying concern that what happened to EmilyP's parents could happen to any loyal QF customer. This has led to many on this forum feeling that there is no guarantee of travel in J when buying what are expensive seats for the vast majority, where you believe you are paying for just that guarantee of service that was not delivered.

And as regards the selection process, if everyone does OLCI, then there will still be someone who suffers if like circumstances arise. Its not that QF is worse than the rest of the industry, its just they they are now likely to be considered run of the mill, and loyalty will suffer accordingly.

So hopefully you won't take the posts too personally, but you do recognise the depth of feeling this has aroused amongst QF status holders about how they might be treated in the future. Particularly those like myself who are low on the status tree.

 

[Pushka]

<snip>
So hopefully you won't take the posts too personally, but you do recognise the depth of feeling this has aroused amongst QF status holders about how they might be treated in the future. Particularly those like myself who are low on the status tree.

And this I totally agree with. I'm sure that almost all of your passengers would be extremely concerned that having paid significant sums of money for a business class seat could mean that according to T&C's they might not get those seats. And that such a small amount of compensation could be legally offered.

Thankyou for updating.

 

[DC3]

This thread will make 1,000 posts by mid November, by the look of things.

If fairness had prevailed at the start, it would not have made 100 posts, and they would have mostly been glowing praise for QF.

 

[bam71]

Its the absurd compensation that annoys me.

 

[get me outta here]

I suspect that there is a concern from QF that if a 'fair' approach had been taken by QF toward the OP's parents in the first place, that fair precedent would be a big liability for QF for when it happens again.

This may not be a rare stuff up, but a coming trend. It does seem that controlling the whole chain is too hard for this type of occurrence.

 

[Rebekkap]

But Red Roo can't say "we stuffed up". Because they actually didn't. That's the problem!

Apart from the "rude" supervisor who walked away from a customer "who kicked up a stink at check in (but not too much as she didn't want to be thrown off the flight altogether )", (EmilyP's words), Qantas did more than what they say they will do.

No-one seems to have quoted the actual QF Customer Charter:



And like it or lump it, that's the official policy and they are doing more than that.

Don't blame Red Roo. It's Qantas policy and customer charter that would need to change first.

Changing those might well have merit but I expect it's not going to happen just because of this incident.

Sure, Qantas didn't stuff up in terms of whether they followed their charter. Where they arguably did stuff up was in applying the charter to Gold FF members in these circumstances rather than to members with no status. I think what a lot of us are worried about is that - if this is how they treat their most loyal customers, that's us and could happen to any of us.

"We're really sorry, we should have looked at other options rather than downgrading two of our Gold FF members. We will review our processes to make sure we are treating our most valued customers in a way that shows we value their continued loyalty."

 

[straitman]

I guess some wouldn't call taking the money and not providing what was paid is not a stuff up, but it would seem that view is in the minority.

There is no one posting here called "policy and charter", I didn't blame Red Roo personally but they are the designated poster on all things offical from QF. This is not a QF run forum, it is a forum for people to post opinion, experiences and views and sometimes they are not aligned with an airline media/PR department. (which is terrific)

Red Roo, and I do say this in a balanced way, comes here with a bias and with instruction on what can be said and what cannot be said. I think we all accept and take it as so. Unfortunately no business can do everything in a perfect manner as they employ humans like every other business and cough ups happen. However, everyone has choices, QF have choices and Red Roo has choices. In this case their choice has been not to admit to any wrong either morally or in not calling for volunteers or short changing on the refund.

Plenty of business do admit to problems, sometimes reluctantly and sometimes because they did indeed stuff up and take it on the chin and sort it out.

My own view on a 60 page thread; I think there is some weariness with QF telling us all about new beaut changes and how fair things will be in the new world then go to ground when they mess passengers around. Only ever wanting to tell the good story is setting themselves up for a fall instead of it being routine to admit problems and fix them. Do they see the AFF forum as another way of pushing the PR or do they join in here for the betterment of all passengers? (they would tell us for the passengers but that's not how it appears to look)

I am a strong supporter of QF and since the demise of Ansett have used QF exclusively since September 2001 unless they don't fly the route I need. I have felt disillusioned about my beloved QF since we started seeing Red Roo posts with the rose coloured glasses.

Thanks for reading and sorry to go on so long.

Matt

Not making any comment other than to ask if you actually read Red Roo's post before making yours as some of your post seems to directly contradict what Red Roo said :?:

 

[BD1959]

Its the absurd compensation that annoys me.

It's the implication that status counts for nothing that concerns me.

Without having to delve into the personal circumstances of this case Red Roo should be able to outline the policies regarding selection of downgrade candidates in the "unlikely event" of both a downgrade being required and no volunteers to travel next day arise.

Regards,

BD

 

[get me outta here]

I think the OP said way back that they are gold. I think they should now be considered WP at least.

Edit, yup, post 1.

 

[Red Roo]

Once again, due to privacy reasons I'm not in a position to verify the customer's Qantas Frequent Flyer tier status.

 

[moa999]

I appreciate your concerns, and by way of an update I can advise that our discussions with the customers are ongoing. However as would be the courtesy extended to any AFF member, I cannot share details due to privacy reasons...

Many thanks to Red Roo for the update.

My only comment in response to this.
As suspected, we haven't been (and won't be) told both sides of the story.
One should always check in online if they are likely to be late at the airport (you do not want to risk being the last passenger to check-in, no matter what your status.

 

[RAM]

From a AFF point of view, we know there are times when a LAX-rtn can be purchased in Y for around $1,000 or so in cash out of SYD, not necessarily Q but sometimes. We also know the cost of J rtn and it is multiples even with considered purchasing.

What triggers the 'nerve' here for most people is not so much the over-booking but the cash-cost to customers through an overtly revenue enhancement measure used by Q (and other airlines). From the outpouring with this thread - it would appear that the particular departure - LAX to OZ is a regular source of trouble for Friday departures - not irregular.

I suspect many people have rattled the cage when they're been impacted and not able to stay overnight. For some people it may mean the difference in taking unpaid leave etc at short notice, or missing some appointment on the Sunday/Monday. It is a very real cost to people on top of the loss in fare paid vs compensation 'bound' to pay. It really is a revenue enhancement technique as was proven earlier in this thread.

Given the repeated nature of this route's issues does raise serious questions about Q's priorities. If really 'to be fair' then the over-selling of J on the Friday departure flights would be cut back in response. It does not appear to have been given this latest incident and the time frame of earlier incidents reported here. Reputations take many years to build up but minutes to destroy.

That is where companies using too many 'outsourced' consultants/contractors face dysfunctional behaviour. It is in the interests of the out-sourced PR consultants, for example, or out-sourced call centres (even in Aust by several top 15 companies I was surprised to find) for problems to reoccur and not be addressed. Someone in a Qantas shirt or with a Qantas name tag is not necessarily a Qantas employee but may be a contract worker or consultant.

At the end of the day it comes down to being seen to be done.

We would prefer 'seen to be done well'.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Many thanks to Red Roo for the update.

My only comment in response to this.
As suspected, we haven't been (and won't be) told both sides of the story.
One should always check in online if they are likely to be late at the airport (you do not want to risk being the last passenger to check-in, no matter what your status.

+1 I very much appreciate that Red Roo has read through the thread and shared as much information as they are able to. I for one have every confidence that this incident is a very rare occurrence for Qantas premium passengers and will remain so.

 

[BD1959]

Once again, due to privacy reasons I'm not in a position to verify the customer's Qantas Frequent Flyer tier status.

RR, the individual's status is irrelevant to the actual policy (except in the circumstances of this particular case, on which - understandably you cannot comment).

Back to the downgrade policy: when selecting passengers who are "candidates" for a downgrade, does Qantas - or Qantas' algorithm - take status into account?

Regards,

BD

 

[Quickstatus]

In summary...

full flight
unsuccessful recruitment of volunteers to fly another date
J pax downgraded to Y leaving one in J
Pax concerned tried to negotiate
Pax unable to fly another date

QF offered compensation over and above IATA guidelines

We all understand this is an extremely rare occurence
But it has happened
Sure QF tried according to RedRoo to accomodate everyone sans QF employees
But it has happened.

The injustice is the quantum of compensation being the balance between cost of fare and full fare Y

The vast majority will agree quantum of compensation should be: balance between cost of fate and cheapest discount Y at the time of purchase, and then as goodwill points.

Cruise liners will do the following: Refund cost of cruise (compensation) and then free cruise next time (goodwill)

Compensation is not goodwill

As it is extremely rare, it would not cost that much

 

[BAM1748]

Not making any comment other than to ask if you actually read Red Roo's post before making yours as some of your post seems to directly contradict what Red Roo said :?:

Red Roos post was not there when I started typing mine.

But I do wonder if there would have been a post at all unless AFF'ers kept harking on about it. Shamed into responding? I don't know.

Matt

 

[Pushka]

One should always check in online if they are likely to be late at the airport (you do not want to risk being the last passenger to check-in, no matter what your status.

I believe it is the case the parents were there early....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thanks for the update, but I am struggling to understand some of the issues. My questions and comments in red:

Our internal guidelines are beyond the minimum IATA requirements to allow individual, overall experiences to be considered by way of discretionary goodwill gestures. What does this actually mean?

The goodwill offered by Customer Care on this occasion was in addition to any fare differential offered by the agent, and the cash payment received at Los Angeles airport at the time. What are the rules applying to fare differentials? Is it the paid business class compared to the lowest available economy class at time of booking?

Our yield management team is recognised as one of the best in the industry, however they don’t always get it right due to various operational reasons. A call out was made earlier in the day looking for volunteers to either downgrade or travel on the following day with the same offer of compensation. Were there any operational reasons? Or did everyone just turn up? Were seats actively sought on the CX departure from LAX to HKG leaving a couple hours after the QF departure? This would have returned passengers to australia a day earlier.

For those suggesting that IATA regulations should not allow airlines to overbook flights, please note that fares would significantly increase to allow maximum flexibility across all airlines, in all fare buckets. IATA regulations may allow overbooking, as do most governments around the world. But just because overbooking isn't illegal, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not a breach of contract. EU261 contains strict provisions for events such as these, would Qantas be happy to adopt EU261 worldwide?

The refund via Flight Centre is following normal, documented procedure to be followed by all agents selling our products, but this process can take time. While we’re keen to maintain consistency, we have limited visibility over agent’s transactions. Was a contact at Qantas provided to personally process the refund calculation as soon as possible provided Flight Centre was willing and able to submit the refund application immediately? (Much in the same way as the other 'generic' waiting periods have been expedited?)

 

[Quickstatus]

And the worry is that though extremely rare , it might happen to another J fare pax and it could be you or me and we will get screwed.

QF might have done everything to mitigate the incident but the passenger is not "made whole". The deep sense of injustice remain

Spirit of Australia - the Australian spirit is enunciated by the phrase - "a fair go" or as Rudd put it "fair shake of the sauce bottle"

Qantas - nothing fair here

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No-one seems to have quoted the actual QF Customer Charter:

If there are insufficient seats in the class in which you booked, for example due to a change of aircraft, we will offer you the option to travel in a lower class or on the next available flight to your destination in the same class. If we cannot offer you suitable alternative arrangements, we will fully refund the fare for your affected flight.

And like it or lump it, that's the official policy and they are doing more than that.

It's Qantas policy and customer charter that would need to change first.

Changing those might well have merit but I expect it's not going to happen just because of this incident.

Qantas could easily provide some clarity around the customer charter - one additional line would do it, with something like:

If you travel in a lower class we will refund the difference between the fare you paid for that sector, against the lowest fare charged to any passenger for that sector in the class you were accommodated.

Qantas policy and customer charter are modified by EU261. EU261 is accepted by QF for departures from Europe, why not extend it if they are indeed recognised as having one of the best yield-managements in the world? It's not like it is going to cost them much, but would give some peace of mind to its passengers.