Yield management have nothing whatsoever to do with Duffa's flight being overbooked and this has been explained clearly and logically by ozbeachbabe who has first hand experience of airport operations.
The trouble is that OzBeachBabe's explanation may well be logical but it is not what Duffa reported.
In the LAX thread you and others repeatedly downplay Q's handling of the situation. Some in excusing Red Roo accusing EmilyP & parents of misrepresenting but not saying what about, trying to point the finger at an agent 'paid two weeks ago' but only notified parents this morning, or interpreting no update from EmilyP as a sign that Q has done the right thing and there is a confidentiality clause.
Why did Red Roo stay silent and not simply post an update to clarify the situation that it was still in process rather than allow a series of posts lauding the 'glass is 99% full goodness of Qantas'? No contact was made with the parents until after EmilyP posted an update, why?
As you say OzBeachBabe is knowledgeable about operations then she would know about the billing cycles and refund processing - which clearly shows the disingenuous nature of Red Roo's response.
Similarly Red Roo was asked by me to provide a copy of the compensation policy. The Q web site states it will be provided on request. I have requested but it has not been provided. Why? Do you think that Q does not need to live up to what is professes are its procedures and policies or those required by the statutory authorities?
If its staff are not sufficiently well trained then that is a senior management failing. If they are adequately trained but fail to fulfill their obligations that again it is a senior and also middle management failing.
In this case perhaps a mistake was made.
Mistakes happen, what is important is whether the organisation is honest about what happened or not.
How do you know that the explanation given by the Lounge staff to the OP was a lie?
Well as Duffa was told two different stories then one of them must not be true? Either there were plenty of seats available or there were not. Pick which one appeals to you. Both cannot be true. Duffa has clarified that the CSM had his details and was checking in the system so there should have been no issue over seating class - would you concede that point?
It seems that you have some serious issues with Qantas as a company and with their customer service but to continually accuse QF employees of lying on this forum does both them and yourself no favours.
When credible posters report being told conflicting information that is not true then I do call a spade a spade. It is a fact that AJ & Board have shifted fuel surcharges from JQI to QI - it is always a problem putting out a media release too quickly because once released it exists.
The 2012 MR revealed what a number of people knew and could prove but it was the first admission by Q that fuel surcharges had nothing to do with the fuel used on a certain route per passenger capacity. Something that Q Mgmt and Board had previously claimed in results briefings under questioning was how fuel surcharges were levied. In a previous thread I provided a couple of examples where the JQ plane used more fuel per passenger on the identical route yet the fuel surcharge was a fraction of Q's. All the data was sourced from the IATA database.
I have serious issues with any organisation that is not honest with its customers.
Luckily I am in the position that I can and do take it to board level. In more recent years that has been very successful in getting procedures changed for major banks and retail organisations. In a couple of cases it has resulted in compensation being paid to others.
With Q I have had individual success but not succeeded in getting procedural change.
It is very telling that virtually no institutional fund managers hold Q shares other than a few index funds. It is about the only top 100 company in this position. As some sages say, Q is a value trap - it destroys it.