Getting a straight answer on forced seat changes

[medhead]

I wasn't going to contribute again,

I don't think you should've contributed in the first place. But that's just my opinion, no need to pay it any attention.

It is utter cough to suggest that a platinum velocity member who has selected seats months in advance should be moved for crew.

It is utter cough to suggest they should be moved for The Club members when there are empty seats in business. If The Club is so special put them in business. Don't F around the customers that are paying you lots of money. That is a simple, easy, win win solution.

But as I've said numerous times VA does not give a cough about status recognition. They'd much rather do special deals for their staff mates than worry after the paying customer. That's an excellent way to lose customers. I wonder how long an airline will last if they only have non-paying crew to fly around.

You are correct, I missed the s and for that I apologise. The AFL is a dynamic business and needs travel at short notice on a regular basis.

They plan the fixtures a WHOLE year in advance. The clubs know exactly where they need to be in 6 months time. And that does not change. Doesn't seem very dynamic to me.

VA, to their credit, don't put the Flight Crew in J.

My eyes must have been deceiving me.

 

[Boof1]

Jeepers you take a week off and come back to more...

The trivial part Boof is that you clearly don't believe that seat selection is an important status benefit.

At no point did I say that seat selecton isn't an important status benefit, in fact I belive quite the opposite and where I dont get it as a status beneft I actively pay for it, such is my desire to sit where I want.

Given your immense knowledge and expertise in airline T&Cs I'm sure you're aware that the airline basically has no obligation to do anything whatsoever.

They don't have to fly you, they don't have to fly you on time, they don't have to carry your bags on the same flight, and yes - they don't have to seat you together or in your preselected seat.

Now - the point is very simple.

If you're going to offer a status benefit - then pax have a reasonable expectation of it being delivered 99.99999% of the time except in extreme circumstances.

I was in row 24 the other day on VA. I promise you I am a higher status than most if not all the other pax on that plane. Despite the fact that my booking was last minute and I could only select from the remaining seats, according to your logic - I should have had the peeps in my preferred seats relocated to the lavatory.

Displacement should occur so infrequently that this thread should not exist.

The fact that multiple incidents are being reported means the benefit is not being delivered.

That you personally don't care about it - is your business.

The fact that others do - well, that's VA's business problem.

You are right (not so much about my immense knowledge, that is way off the mark!) the airlines under the T's and C's can get away with pretty much anything. I urge you to consider how many flights have you taken that have resulted in the seat you selected being changed? Given this thread I stopped and thought about it and I've had 3 moves in 12 months, of which 1 was an Op Up to J, one was a move further forward from 4F to 3F (They needed 4F for a wheelchair passenger, and I'm guessing the 3F pax flew ahead as it was blocked when I checked in only a couple hours prior), and once as I mentioned where I missed out on Row 3 and went back to Row 4. Over 80 sectors with VA I've had one move that was to my detriment so I'm sitting at a 98.75% strike rate. Not quite the 99.99% you expect but I'm happy with that as I would expect most would be.

Multiple incidents seems a bit of a stretch as there as been 3, including mine that I mentioned, in this thread. That's not a lot of noise in the forum.

I don't think you should've contributed in the first place. But that's just my opinion, no need to pay it any attention.

It is utter cough to suggest that a platinum velocity member who has selected seats months in advance should be moved for crew.

It is utter cough to suggest they should be moved for The Club members when there are empty seats in business. If The Club is so special put them in business. Don't F around the customers that are paying you lots of money. That is a simple, easy, win win solution.

But as I've said numerous times VA does not give a cough about status recognition. They'd much rather do special deals for their staff mates than worry after the paying customer. That's an excellent way to lose customers. I wonder how long an airline will last if they only have non-paying crew to fly around.

They plan the fixtures a WHOLE year in advance. The clubs know exactly where they need to be in 6 months time. And that does not change. Doesn't seem very dynamic to me.

Thanks for your opinion, you are welcome to share it. It may be utter cough to suggest that people be moved from selected seats for higher status passengers, or for carriage under contract, or for crew, but it does happen and it's been happening for as long as airlines have existed. The airline industry is one of the last bastions of the class and status system. The LCC model challenges it but legacy carriers embrace it.

As for your comment about the AFL and the rostering, perhaps you don't follow the game? If you dont it would be easy to think that it's all pre planned but it's not. Medical appointments with interstate specialists, tribunal appearances, media commitments, game day injuries resulting in players not flying home with the team, coaching clinics with kids through sponsorship, sponsorship appearances, can all be ad-hoc and can happen at short notice. It is a massive business and as a result has the need for both long term and last minute plans.


A comment regarding this thread:

A difference of opinion between us won't change VA's way of doing things. I've actually been quite offended by the uncalled for personal attacks in this thread. I dont post that often but when I do it's to offer some thoughts and the odd fact. In this thread I offered some thoughts, backed that up with some further explanations, and have done so again just now without singling out anybody for a lack of knowledge, understanding, or their opinion. It would be nice if that was reciprocated.

Play the ball, not the man.

Regards,

Boof

 

[medhead]

The point is that paying passengers should never be moved for crew. It may happen, but that does not make it right. Once staff take priority over the people paying their wage the business is a failure especially when it is a service industry.

As for the AFL, moving one or two AFL players is nothing compared to moving a whole team. The demand on the airline for a single player is nothing compared to moving a whole team with support staff. The teams know when they're going to need 30 to 50 seats on a plane, they can remove seats from available months in advance. Releasing a couple back closer to the date.

I don't agree your opinion that it is acceptable to routinely move passengers from pre-selected seats is a fact.

As for playing the ball. You seem to have commented about my knowledge, or lack thereof, about AFL. Is that not singling me out for a lack of knowledge? Re-reading my post, as quoted, I made 3 statements that addressed the validity of the points you raised. If that is attacking you personally, then I guess that takes us back to the opinion I stated up front.

 

[mannej]

Sorry Medhead, but your comments re the AFL (or any team based sport is quite ill informed). Whilst in theory the fixtures are out 6 months or so in advance, travel plans are very dynamic and can change very close to the actual fixture date, and this is at a whole squad level, not just a player or two.

Nothing is ever set in concrete in this environment.

 

[medhead]

Sorry Medhead, but your comments re the AFL (or any team based sport is quite ill informed). Whilst in theory the fixtures are out 6 months or so in advance, travel plans are very dynamic and can change very close to the actual fixture date, and this is at a whole squad level, not just a player or two.

Nothing is ever set in concrete in this environment.

I'll just refer you back to the issue raised, none of which seem to relate to the whole squad. Of course, I would have to agree it is possible that the whole squad might need to front the tribunal.

As for your comment about the AFL and the rostering, perhaps you don't follow the game? If you dont it would be easy to think that it's all pre planned but it's not. Medical appointments with interstate specialists, tribunal appearances, media commitments, game day injuries resulting in players not flying home with the team, coaching clinics with kids through sponsorship, sponsorship appearances, can all be ad-hoc and can happen at short notice. It is a massive business and as a result has the need for both long term and last minute plans.

As for the claims about being dynamic, it sounds like your over-egging the story - very dynamic. That defies common sense. They know they need to be at an oval at 2pm on any given Saturday. They know that that means they are going to start moving players at X days before Saturday, They know how many players/squad members they want to get on any one flight. They know how many flights are available. They know that they hold their final training run at home Y days before Saturday, they know when and how many training runs they will hold upto Z days before Saturday. All of these factors make for a very time constrained window where the majority of the team are going to move.

Still I don't believe I claimed anything was set in concrete.

In any case none of that means that Joe bloggs has to be moved out of row 3.

 

[mannej]

I'll just refer you back to the issue raised, none of which seem to relate to the whole squad. Of course, I would have to agree it is possible that the whole squad might need to front the tribunal.



As for the claims about being dynamic, it sounds like your over-egging the story - very dynamic. That defies common sense. They know they need to be at an oval at 2pm on any given Saturday. They know that that means they are going to start moving players at X days before Saturday, They know how many players/squad members they want to get on any one flight. They know how many flights are available. They know that they hold their final training run at home Y days before Saturday, they know when and how many training runs they will hold upto Z days before Saturday. All of these factors make for a very time constrained window where the majority of the team are going to move.

Still I don't believe I claimed anything was set in concrete.

In any case none of that means that Joe bloggs has to be moved out of row 3.

Sorry Medhead, but your over simplification of the AFL travel requirements have just proven the lack of understanding on the matter.

 

[Boof1]

The point is that paying passengers should never be moved for crew. It may happen, but that does not make it right. Once staff take priority over the people paying their wage the business is a failure especially when it is a service industry.

It would make it right if said staff are required for the operation of the business to continue. If you don't pax pilots to a destination that has none, how are you going to continue to operate the business on that particular day? Disrupt two passengers to save the disruption of 160 odd passengers?? That would make it better if not exactly right.

As for the AFL, moving one or two AFL players is nothing compared to moving a whole team. The demand on the airline for a single player is nothing compared to moving a whole team with support staff. The teams know when they're going to need 30 to 50 seats on a plane, they can remove seats from available months in advance. Releasing a couple back closer to the date.

We are not talking about a whole team. We don't know that the OT wasn't moved because of a single player, the point I'm making is that the AFL and it's teams have a need to move individuals and small groups at short notice everyweek.

I don't agree your opinion that it is acceptable to routinely move passengers from pre-selected seats is a fact.

To clarify, as I would hate anyone to confuse my opinion with fact, I don't always agree with the facts. However:

FACT: VA, like all airlines, are able to move passengers to any seat they need on any given flight under the terms and conditions.

MY OPINION: I think that is fair enough provided it doesn't happen every day, on every flight. The data sample from this thread and my experience would suggest it's not every flight.

As for playing the ball. You seem to have commented about my knowledge, or lack thereof, about AFL. Is that not singling me out for a lack of knowledge? Re-reading my post, as quoted, I made 3 statements that addressed the validity of the points you raised. If that is attacking you personally, then I guess that takes us back to the opinion I stated up front.

No I didn't single you out for a lack of knowledge. Asked the question, politely I might add, do you follow the game? Then offered some information about the needs of the AFL as a business. If you don't follow the game, you may not have known about the other travel needs of the AFL.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Thanks for the info. I don't disbelieve you, but FWIW I've seen VA employees on staff travel sitting further fwd than row 16. The people in row 3 may not have been on staff fares - just people known to agents who were happy to look after them. There's been reports of such behaviour on VA over the last few years, gate agents in particular care little for status or even common sense.

I'm assuming you knew they were VA employees as they were travelling in uniform. There may well be a rule about row 16 and aft for employees on staff leisure travel but possibly no such restriction on duty or operational travel hence crew seated between rows 3 & 15.

 

[JohnK]

Thanks to all who replied.

Virgin responded with a very direct "Unfortunately we can't tell you the specific reason for this change", however they have given me a goodwill gesture of some Velocity points for my enjoyment.

In the end, it was well worth asking about the situation.

I supect that someone has been naughty and you are not given a straight answer. Have seen it too many times in my travels.

 

[Muppet501st]

I have a family trip BNE-LST via MEL, so have 2 seperate PNR's, me being WP, have selected row 3 and row 2 on the MEL-LST leg (VA dont offer J on that sector so you can select row 1 or 2) Ive spoken over the phone with VA and have been able to get the rest of the family into row 3 and 2. Fingers crossed the seat selection sticks.

 

[theevilmuppet]

I supect that someone has been naughty and you are not given a straight answer. Have seen it too many times in my travels.

I suspect you're right. Actually complaining about these incidents is the only way that the conduct of staff is going to be addressed I would suspect.

 

[Arrow29]

Sorry to bring up an old thread, just didn't want to start a new thread unnecessarily..

Just looking to see people's experiences with Virgin and bassinets on domestic flights. We flew from PER-SYD on the A330 in Y last week, first trip with our 3 month old daughter (she was an angel and didn't make a sound, thankfully!). When she was born in July I called up to have her added to our booking and requested a bassinet at the time, a note was made against our booking that came up online. We were also advised at that time to do online check-in early (as row 10 where there are 3 bassinets were not available to be selected online) so that we would have the best chance of selecting a seat in row 10. We did that as soon as check-in opened 48hrs prior and row 10 remained completely blocked out. So we selected other seats and went to the airport a bit earlier and asked at check-in if there were any bassinet seats available. The lady old us that row 10 was all full, so we remained in the seats that we had selected prior.

When we got on the plane, row 10 was indeed full but there was not an infant in sight. There were, however, other infants on the plane in addition to our little one who also clearly missed out on a bassinet seat. Now I've got no issue with missing out on a bassinet if they're taken by others who need them or if we hadn't planned ahead and requested it in advance, but seems a bit pointless to have bassinets available on the A330s but then not have the utilised?

Just curious on people's experiences thoughts. It wasn't a huge deal, we managed fine, but it would have been a bit easier with some additional space! The crew on board were all lovely and helpful, so no complaints there. I did send customer support and email to ask them about how they allocate the bassinet rows given our experience but they sent back a generic reply that did not answer my question unfortunately.

 

[Muppet501st]

Row 10 is the row 3 (737) so WP's are able to select these seats at time of booking, so they're hot property.

 

[Muppet501st]

I have a family trip BNE-LST via MEL, so have 2 seperate PNR's, me being WP, have selected row 3 and row 2 on the MEL-LST leg (VA dont offer J on that sector so you can select row 1 or 2) Ive spoken over the phone with VA and have been able to get the rest of the family into row 3 and 2. Fingers crossed the seat selection sticks.

all our seat selections stuck, and even managed to "fly ahead" for both myself and rest of the family on separate PNR

 

[Arrow29]

Row 10 is the row 3 (737) so WP's are able to select these seats at time of booking, so they're hot property.

I had assumed the WPs or the like must have priority in terms of selection of those seats. I just wasn't sure if they ever made some of them available for passengers with infants or if I should give up on any hope of getting a bassinet for the flight back! I'd assumed before having a baby that for planes with bassinets (like the A330), that they were allocated to those with infants based on youngest age first and if no one fitting that criteria, then reserved for those with status. Perhaps not!

 

[JohnK]

I have selected 25G on QF A330 for Christmas Eve flight and it is a bassinet. Flight is only BNE-SYD.

I would happily give up the seat to someone who needed to use bassinet as long as replacement seat is not a middle seat or down the back somewhere.

 

[Arrow29]

I have selected 25G on QF A330 for Christmas Eve flight and it is a bassinet. Flight is only BNE-SYD.

I would happily give up the seat to someone who needed to use bassinet as long as replacement seat is not a middle seat or down the back somewhere.

Yeah, I do understand and agree that those with status should enjoy benefits such as this. I've selected bassinet rows in the past and have just been prepared to be moved if required as well. Like I said, not a big deal for us it was fine, but was more curious as to Virgin's allocation policy for the bassinet row. Just seems a bit of a waste to have them available but not allocated to passengers with infants, if there are some onboard.
Perhaps there are different policies for international flights where the benefit of having a bassinet would be much more appreciated by those with infants.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Muppet501st]

Yeah, I do understand and agree that those with status should enjoy benefits such as this. I've selected bassinet rows in the past and have just been prepared to be moved if required as well. Like I said, not a big deal for us it was fine, but was more curious as to Virgin's allocation policy for the bassinet row. Just seems a bit of a waste to have them available but not allocated to passengers with infants, if there are some onboard.
Perhaps there are different policies for international flights where the benefit of having a bassinet would be much more appreciated by those with infants.

Thanks for the responses.

Not sure if there is any different policies for VA on the 777, my family of 5, had row 20 ( WP can select) and had a bassinet next to us. I don't recall seeing any other families with infants on that flight.

But agree, longhaul flights, families with babies should trump any others.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I had assumed the WPs or the like must have priority in terms of selection of those seats. I just wasn't sure if they ever made some of them available for passengers with infants or if I should give up on any hope of getting a bassinet for the flight back! I'd assumed before having a baby that for planes with bassinets (like the A330), that they were allocated to those with infants based on youngest age first and if no one fitting that criteria, then reserved for those with status. Perhaps not!

QF have exactly the same issue in that bassinet rows can be selected by status pax at the time of booking which of course trumps any non-status pax with infants who may have booked months in advance and requested a bassinet seat. Bassinet requests would only get looked at at about T-48 when the flight editing is done in the checkin system so it's highly likely that even prior to OLCI opening up that all these seats have been pre-allocated days, weeks or months in advancce so the families with infants have zero chance of getting them.

Yeah, I do understand and agree that those with status should enjoy benefits such as this. I've selected bassinet rows in the past and have just been prepared to be moved if required as well.

Not everyone is considerate as you and IMHO there are more pax who would decline a request to move that agree to it. I think the fairest way to all would be to block off all bassinet seats for airport use like they do on international flights. That way if a WP can't get eg row 25 if it's blocked they can at least get the row behind.

If it's a full flight and they've got the bassinet row and are asked to swap onboard chances are the seats available to be moved to will be a lot further aft which may make status pax reluctant to give up the coveted bassinet row.

 

[russ]

Just stick your kid in the bassinet and let the WP look after it!