7-month Qantas saga

[opusman]

But they describe it as "a complimentary transfer service" - i.e. something you get "for free", not something you are directly paying for as part of your ticket.

Very easy to argue that the average consumer would interpret that to simply mean "at no extra charge". Throwing the word "complimentary" in doesn't absolve QF from their responsibility under the consumer law.

 

[serfty]

Qantas are gambling that the OP will accept the offered compensation.

If the OP heads to ACCC or NSW Small Claims tribunal it is going to cost Qantas far more than what is being asked for; win, lose or draw.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If the OP heads to ACCC or NSW Small Claims trubunal it is going to cost Qantas far more than what is being asked for; win, lose or draw.

This is true. But often airlines will either (a) then settle or (b) decide to fight it as a matter of principle. In the latter it might cost them a whole lot more than the OP is asking for, but they might feel it validates their position to use against future claimants.

 

[serfty]

IMHO, in relation to the OP's situation, b) is unlikely.

I'm thinking more like c) the OP can't advise what happened (i.e. non disclosure)

 

[davidj]

Loving the amount of armchair judges here in this thread. More than my bag of popcorn.

 

[Jack_OC]

Very easy to argue that the average consumer would interpret that to simply mean "at no extra charge". Throwing the word "complimentary" in doesn't absolve QF from their responsibility under the consumer law.

Even if you're correct about that, what do you think their responsibility under consumer law would be?

According to the ACCC website:

If the problem is major or cannot be fixed, the consumer can choose to:

• terminate the contract for services and obtain a full refund, or
• seek compensation for the difference between the value of the services provided compared to the price paid.

(let's assume that the problem meets the definition of "major").

The customer did not choose to terminate the contract for services - i.e. they chose to fly to Europe and back in business class. So that leaves the option of seeking compensation for the difference between the value of the services provided compared to the price paid. The compensation already provided by Qantas would appear to be commensurate with that.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Qantas are gambling that the OP will accept the offered compensation.

If the OP heads to ACCC or NSW Small Claims it going to cost them far more than what is being asked for; win, lose or draw.

I don’t think so unless info relating to a similar case I read elsewhere on SM tonight is inaccurate and I have no reason to believe that it is.

 

[serfty]

What is "SM tonight"? I presume a TV show?

(I rarely watch commercial FTA other than some sports.)

 

[Princess Fiona]

What is "SM tonight"? I presume a TV show?

(I rarely watch commercial FTA other than some sports.)

Check your Messenger

 

[serfty]

Thanks, however in regard to costs and NSW small claims tribunal:

If your case is in a tribunal you are unlikely to be ordered to pay legal costs to the other party, even if you lose the case. In tribunal cases, the general rule is that each party will pay their own legal costs whatever the outcome of the case. This is also the general rule in family law cases. You may be ordered to pay costs in a tribunal or a family law case in exceptional circumstances. Examples of exceptional circumstances are:

• if you caused delays in hearing the case, because you failed to turn up or were not prepared, and did not have a good explanation
• if you made it difficult for the other party to prepare for the hearing because you failed to file documents when you were directed to.

Legal costs

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don’t think so unless info relating to a similar case I read elsewhere on SM tonight is inaccurate and I have no reason to believe that it is.

I thought Serfty was referring to in-house costs both customer service and legal? (which would perhaps exceed the $800 being asked for by the OP.)

 

[opusman]

Loving the amount of armchair judges here in this thread. More than my bag of popcorn

A conversation forum where conversations take place, how outrageous!

 

[DaveB]

I would review how I conveyed the matter to Qantas to make sure it comes across that I had no other choice. Given QF has dug its heels in, taking a loss and sharing your costs with QF seems your best outcome.
I would not feel comfortable using any system that doesn't provide contact with the driver. We use TBR Global (Citi) and Penguin Limos for our airport trips with both providing an SMS providing driver contact details the day before followed by one that day 30 minutes before arrival.

 

[nickfromeastryde]

Completely irrelevant... If this does go to NSW fair trading I can not imagine that QF arguing that "well you shouldn't have considered your child's safety" as a very convincing point.

Plus regardless of the taxi driver exemption there is still an obligation for the child to be in a "properly fitted" restraint. Common sense would dictate that this would not be the case using a normal seat belt on such a young child and actually much more likely the use of the seat belt in this case could be a greater risk to the child passenger than not wearing the seat belt at all, though surely none of you are arguing for that

 

[nickfromeastryde]

I beg to differ. It speaks to the views (if not prejudices) of the OP which resulted in the decision they took that can be construed over and above that which a reasonable person would have made in the same circumstances. If the issue came down to child safety as you suggest, the laws wouldn't be what they currently are.

Or are you suggesting the regulations governing the transport of infants above 12 months is unsound. If that's the case I'd like to your grounds for this.

Clearly it is unsound otherwise the rules would not be in place for everyone else including Uber drivers. More likely, push back from the taxi industry due to the (probably reasonable) difficulties in meeting this requirement

And don't forget, at least 10% of a taxi network are required to provide the appropriate seating for children

 

[Princess Fiona]

I would review how I conveyed the matter to Qantas to make sure it comes across that I had no other choice. Given QF has dug its heels in, taking a loss and sharing your costs with QF seems your best outcome.
I would not feel comfortable using any system that doesn't provide contact with the driver. We use TBR Global (Citi) and Penguin Limos for our airport trips with both providing an SMS providing driver contact details the day before followed by one that day 30 minutes before arrival.

The QF Chauffeur companies contact customers the day before to confirm their travel pick up details.

 

[DaveB]

Only being contacted the day before is poor given QF don't provide the driver's mobile contact. With both services I use, I know the day before the driver contact and also just prior that the service is still on schedule including one received before 5am last week. This keeps passengers fully informed.
Another issue was the rather lame excuse that they assumed QF1 would be delayed because QF2 was late arriving? My drivers always track departure and arrival schedules along with flight radar and adjust accordingly.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Only being contacted the day before is poor given QF don't provide the driver's mobile contact. With both services I use, I know the day before the driver contact and also just prior that the service is still on schedule including one received before 5am last week. This keeps passengers fully informed.
Another issue was the rather lame excuse that they assumed QF1 would be delayed because QF2 was late arriving? My drivers always track departure and arrival schedules along with flight radar and adjust accordingly.

My impression is that the companies (Carey, Brunel etc) that EK and QF use often allocate jobs on the day for Airlines. The contact the day before is from the company office. The number isn’t blocked, it’s readily identifiable. The driver usually but not always calls me just prior to pick up advising that they are en-route.
As others have mentioned if you are paying for your own service directly with the car company then it seems to be far more reliable and communication is better.

 

[offshore171]

As others have mentioned if you are paying for your own service directly with the car company then it seems to be far more reliable and communication is better.

To that end, I've had some recent experiences with Evoke, whose entire fleet is electric (Tesla S and X). If the driver arrives after the nominated time, the trip is free. Hence they arrive on time!

Recommended.