Banned from QF (for a few months)

[serfty]

When you buy a seat on QF that's all you are buying - A seat not a particular seat.

In pactice this is untrue when it comes to status based travel. Recently I flew QF to DFW and back; the days I booked related specifically to a certain seat.

On the other return, between departing the lounge and arriving at the gate to I was reallocated to PE .. but an inferior seat.

I went straight to be counter and after pleasantly discussing this I was reallocated back to m original seat.

I recently booked a long haul flight in Economy on CX because they make exit seats available to oneword elite at no additional cost.

I'll keep watching.

I will more than likely travel in the selected seat.

 

[JohnK]

It's an awful feeling to be left thinking how uncomfortable a flight of 24 hours can be. I'm sure most have been in that situation at one time or another.

It's an awful feeling and one of my greatest fears flying.

In saying that though I do not leave things to chance and pre-allocate seats on all my flights and where I don't get complimentary seat allocation I pay for seat selection.

I came across a funny situation earlier today. I need to book BNE-SIN-HKT//BKK-SYD-BNE in November/January and the flights early June were ~$1000 per person but now > $1100 per person. I've been looking at Scoot flights and the saving in the grand scheme of things is not that appealing but I did notice a warning at the booking stage for 2 adults and a child and there is a chance the family will be randomly allocated seats in the cabin. The cost to allocate seats for the 3 of us for all 4 sectors is $120 but surely you wouldn't risk been split up? Credit card fee is also $120. Oh the joys of component pricing.

 

[BAM1748]

Except that in the case of the OP, as presented, they do not appear to have been denied boarding due to a lack of seats or something due to the airline's change. They did not like the changed seat assignment (understandable!) and refused to fly and (for whatever reason) were denied boarding, most likely due to action.

In the case of, as I noted, an airline creating a denied boarding situation due to lack of seats (say an aircraft swap due to mechanical or something) then yes, full refund, upgrades, the airline is obliged to take care of the passenger. No question.

[quite]
If you get drink and punch an employee the police if called will sort it out. As we so often like to say on this board, there might be another side to the story.

The airline decides if you board regardless of what you do. The airline should have a consequence to deal with, a full refund.

If you do something to get yourself banned the consequence is the banning not a monetary penalty as well.

 

[RichardMEL]

The airline decides if you board regardless of what you do. The airline should have a consequence to deal with, a full refund.

If you do something to get yourself banned the consequence is the banning not a monetary penalty as well.

Well while I disagree with the idea that if I do something stupid/bad/whatever to get denied boarding that I should get a refund, actually a quick read of QF's Contract of Carriage (Conditions of Carriage | Qantas AU ) actually DOES state they will owe a refund. Now I know!

10.2 Notice of Refusal to Carry You
We will be entitled to refuse to carry you and your Baggage if we have notified you in writing that we will not carry you on our services. The notice will give details of the period for which it will apply and will ask you not to buy a Ticket or ask or allow anyone to do so for you. If you try to travel while the notice is in force, we will refuse to carry you and you will be entitled to a fare refund minus our reasonable administration fee.

right above this, 10.1 gives a very long list of reasons they can deny boarding including being threatening, abusive or considered a safety risk etc.


in principle I personally feel this is pretty generous IMHO, but I guess I'm just a heartless *#)*@*#)

but one who now stands corrected

in this case, the OP's suit of QF is quite reasonable given if they refused to refund they were in violation of the CoC.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

10.2 isn’t necessarily related to 10.1 in terms of guaranteeing a refund. 10.1 states the airline will have no liability and can cancel your ticket. There is no absolute right to refund contained in 10.1.

10.2 is different. This related to when qantas has written to you, informing you you cannot travel. If, in those circumstances, you buy a ticket, the ticket will be refunded.

An automatic refund in 10.1 wouldn’t necessarily make sense. If a person fails to board because they are intoxicated, the airline would lose revenue for the unsold seat. No reason to give that back to the passenger.

 

[RichardMEL]

yes, I did read the bit about no liability in 10.1 and was about to note that in the post, but read 10.2 and considered it related, even though it doesn't say anything about 10.1

Well, hey... so yeah no liability.. back to my original point then! (kidding)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

yes, I did read the bit about no liability in 10.1 and was about to note that in the post, but read 10.2 and considered it related, even though it doesn't say anything about 10.1

Well, hey... so yeah no liability.. back to my original point then! (kidding)

Whether or not 10.1 is legal is another question. Some of the reasons for refusal of carriage involve a subjective view by the airline, and the airline could be in error. The airline could not refuse refunds in those circumstances.

 

[RichardMEL]

Of course they do. The airline can change seats as they see fit for all sorts of reasons. They usually don’t but it’s their plane. Whether it’s polite or moral to do so, and whether you like it is not relavent. No seating is “guaranteed” it’s a condition of the travel. You can chose to not accept their change and you can chose not to travel, apart from that a pax has very few “rights”.

and this is part of what got the OP in trouble (it seems) for making a big deal about their "rights" to their allocated seat.....

or at least part of it I'm sure.

 

[Flying_man]

The OP has not reply in long time, so I think he’s not just ban from Qantas but maybe also ban from this forum!

 

[davidj]

You can disagree with me but an airline really has no right to change seats for anything

Its their airline, a business, and they can do whatever they like with their business, including banning people as we've seen in this thread.

At best, its a privilege to select a seat, or to receive any service, full stop.

 

[Happy Trails]

It's the airline that's privileged when I deign to travel with them.

 

[davidj]

It's the airline that's privileged when I deign to travel with them.

Sure, whatever it takes to give us that nice warm fuzzy feeling. Precisely the attitude that business tries to bestow upon its customers. Status anyone?

 

[juddles]

Sure. But if we're going down this 'zen' travel path, .....

Careful Mel-traveller, I thought I had the ZEN term trade-registered in this forum.

 

[juddles]

All this talk about seat selection has, IMHO, morphed into what should be a separate thread.

I always review seatmaps for my flights and try to guess the best position to take. Call it gaming or whatever, it is fun and sometimes brings happiness.

But it is so far from the OP and the concept of the initial thread.

 

[burmans]

But it is so far from the OP and the concept of the initial thread.

Well the OP seems to be long gone!

 

[juddles]

Well the OP seems to be long gone!

Scared of the "posse"?

 

[hmmm]

.....If they refused to carry you they should refund the full fare paid.

Not every airline is suitable to every passenger, if QF are no good for you then please use someone whom for you is better.

I disagree... they should only refund the portion of the flight that remained unused. Its hardly fare to expect a full refund when id used approximately 80% of it. Alternatively, they should refund the cost of replacing the flight on which they denied me carriage, which is what ultimately happened.

And as for your last comment, I have definitely moved on. Im not sure if its that other airlines are actually better, but the key for me seems to be that they they meet the expectations they set. Qantas promise you the earth, fail to deliver and then wonder why you get upset. Tiger charge you next to nothing and they promise you nothing. I seem to get treated the way id expect to be treated and therefore there is no issue.

 

[hmmm]

Two things JohnK

1) The tone of the OP invites the response. There are a lot of digs coming and the OP isn't a saint.

2) It is incorrect to state that the OP took QF to court, as VCAT is a tribunal.

Clearly you cant read. I initially took them to a "tribunal" and they successfully argued that VCAT, as a tribunal, didn't meet the requirements of the Act, that a claim be brought in a "court". Hence I had to discontinue one portion of the VCAT action, and recommence it in the Magistrates Court.

But thanks for your valuable input.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I disagree... they should only refund the portion of the flight that remained unused. Its hardly fare to expect a full refund when id used approximately 80% of it. Alternatively, they should refund the cost of replacing the flight on which they denied me carriage, which is what ultimately happened.

I think the issue of refund is a bit tricky. If a passenger breaches the terms and conditions such that they are deemed not fit to fly, that’s potentially lost revenue to the airline (who could have sold the seat to someone else). Why should the airline be out of pocket?

However, the decision to refuse carriage may be subjective. If the airline want to rely on that there should perhaps be the requirement for an independent third party opinion, for example the police, who could confirm the facts (for example use a breath test for intoxication, or have witnessed aggressive behaviour, or viewed it on CCTV).

 

[straitman]

I think the issue of refund is a bit tricky. If a passenger breaches the terms and conditions such that they are deemed not fit to fly, that’s potentially lost revenue to the airline (who could have sold the seat to someone else). Why should the airline be out of pocket?

However, the decision to refuse carriage may be subjective. If the airline want to rely on that there should perhaps be the requirement for an independent third party opinion, for example the police, who could confirm the facts (for example use a breath test for intoxication, or have witnessed aggressive behaviour, or viewed it on CCTV).

I fully agree with this post.