The TA has come back surprised because they checked a "Qantas page" that suggested it was valid. Its clear on the Qantas table I looked at that Q is not valid.
The TA probably used the
Earning Points & Status Credits Calculator, without noting that "Qantas Points and Status Credits may not be earned on some Fare Types and booking classes", and without realising the need to consult the partner airline tables. A common pitfall.
If so, the business has attempted to fulfil the customer's instruction in good faith, but was otherwise unable to fulfil the instruction. Without consulting the
Australian Consumer Law, I suspect good faith probably does not change the outcome with regard to "fit for purpose" as specified by the customer.
I would suggest focusing on what you think a fair resolution is given the fundamental scenario (business unable to fulfil the instruction).
You might consider in your own line of work/expertise, if a customer had requested and paid for something that you thought you could deliver, but you failed to meet their requirement, how would you approach offering compensation? (Assuming that you would.)
So flightcentre by the sounds of it? Not that that really makes much of a difference but I'm not sure how experienced those agents are.
While I avoid TAs, the FC TA I know is a very good one and I would be comfortable if they were managing a complex itinerary with short connections and multiple modes of transport.
But minimal knowledge of frequent flyer programs, and apparently many or most FC TAs are likewise.
AFF is always here to help you with your SYD-LON booking. Cut out the agency and book direct.
Indeed. Or use one of the TAs on AFF - who should be across this stuff