Qantas Call Centre Long Wait Times

My understanding (from unofficial sources) is that there is a pool of priority phone numbers that airport staff give to passengers which rotates every few weeks.

I will attempt to publish the currently active number(s) in this post:

1300 304 318
1300 659 161
1300 025 396
1300 659 116

1300 024 715
1300 025 390
1300 659 115
1300 659 134
1300 659 502

 

[CaptainCurtis]

Can you imagine the debacle if O/S call centres could ticket your flights.....my goodness, you'd book Paris or Rome & end up in Timbuktu or Albuquerque.

If you think QF couldn't get any less match fit, give the O/S pros this ability.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. But if our confidence in them is so low, and their training so poor that they're unable to be trusted to ticket a booking, then perhaps they shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[CaptainCurtis]

I have (or had) an existing booking SYD-ADL-KUL-SIN-KUL-MNL-SYD in J, all on MH except for SYD-ADL and MNL-SYD on QF. Called through today to push out the KUL-SIN flight by one day. Again asked for it to be ticketed immediately, given MH remove legs that haven't been ticketed within 24 hours. After 2 hours on hold waiting for reticketing, the phone goes dead. I now check MMB, and all of the MH flights have been removed. Frustrating is an understatement. And the only solution? Another 2 hours on hold with this incompetent mob. How can it be that a simple change of date is so difficult...

I have a (hopefully final) update. I spent 7 hours on the phone with the Cape Town team today, across 10 separate phone calls, trying to get my booking ticketed. They have charged me 3 times for the taxes/fees, and still did not have my booking ticketed.

Each time the phone went dead and my AMEX was charged without processing a refund for the prior charges, I fired off an email to [email protected] and [email protected] outlining the latest developments, highlighting the poor service delivery. There were probably about 8 emails I sent throughout the day.

Well, I just received (9PM) a phone call from a private number, a local representative from Qantas. The call started with "Stephanie Tully has requested I give you a call to resolve your booking issues". He apologised for the saga from today, asked about my desired itinerary and the amounts that had been charged to my card. He's currently working on the booking and the refund, and has promised a call-back this evening.

A good outcome, yes, but entirely unsatisfactory that I only get my issue sorted after 7 hours because I had the audacity to email the CCO directly. Apologies for my barrage of negativity today, but it's simply not good enough. I have outlayed thousands of dollars for non-refundable upfront payments on this trip as the booking is during a peak period (F1 weekend), I don't need the stress and uncertainty about whether I have a valid ticket.

I've said it before on this forum, and I'll say it again, while Qantas continues to treat its customers with sheer comtempt, I will have no shame in continuing to email their ELT directly, until their call centres are equipped to handle my queries within a satisfactory timeframe.

 

[dylarr]

I spent 7 hours on the phone with the Cape Town team today, across 10 separate phone calls, trying to get my booking ticketed.

Just wow.

Glad that you seem to have a satisfactory outcome now but it should never have to get to that level in the first place.

 

[JohnM]

I phoned the WP line at about 1000h WST today wanting to get some changes made to a DOM U-bucket booking made some time ago for two PER-xMEL-CBR and CBR-xSYD-PER in September that QF has screwed with several times - with the main PITA being dumped into X on a Dash8 CBR-SYD from our initial U bookings on a B717.

I check EF and can see a B717 service is available 1h earlier - and showing 4U.

Only momentarily on hold before it was answered. I suspect Manila. Agent (Claire?) had a slight characteristic accent. Anyway, pretty definitely offshore.

I explain the issue. She indicates that we're in X, so claims we can't be changed to U. I protest that we originally booked in U and were involuntarily downgraded from U to X. I give her the number of the earlier B717 flight I'd like to change to.

She then claims there is no U available and gives me a list that indicates that EF is way offbeam or she's not looking at the right flight or right day. I protest that something is wrong, so she puts me on hold to go to a supervisor.

On hold for about 70 minutes. Just starting to wonder whether to HUACA when a emailed itinerary with the required change lobs in. I was checking through it for accuracy and wondering whether to now just hang up when Claire comes back on the line about 3-4 minutes after the email arrived apologising for the long hold and to inform me that the change had been made.

So, a good outcome but an hour to make such a seemingly simple change?

 

[fpik2022]

Hi all. I’ve been having issues with a one of the seven bookings made all the way back in April that I am yet to see an e-ticket for. The rest were ticketed as expected bar one.

I have called multiple times to be told it was a payment issue, which I have then given CC details and told all was OK and I would be issued an e ticket. However after 15+ calls and seeing payment made twice on my bank statement, I am still being told my payment has been denied and an eticket has yet to be issued.

I am now being told by qantas agents to get my bank to reverse these charges and try again which seems very odd and I am nearing my wits end with dealing with the phone agents who refuse to transfer me to a billing or ticketing department.

My bank has advised me this is a merchant processing error from Qantas' end.

I have been told to get in contact with the Hobart qantas office however, in my 15+ calls I am yet reach to anyone outside of the Manila office. Does anyone have any advice on steps moving forward?

 

[paul66]

Hi all. I’ve been having issues with a one of the seven bookings made all the way back in April that I am yet to see an e-ticket for. The rest were ticketed as expected bar one.

I have called multiple times to be told it was a payment issue, which I have then given CC details and told all was OK and I would be issued an e ticket. However after 15+ calls and seeing payment made twice on my bank statement, I am still being told my payment has been denied and an eticket has yet to be issued.

I am now being told by qantas agents to get my bank to reverse these charges and try again which seems very odd and I am nearing my wits end with dealing with the phone agents who refuse to transfer me to a billing or ticketing department.

My bank has advised me this is a merchant processing error from Qantas' end.

I have been told to get in contact with the Hobart qantas office however, in my 15+ calls I am yet to anyone outside of the Manila office. Does anyone have any advice on steps moving forward?

Hi. I am in exactly same position. I just don't know what to do anymore as the phone calls are a waste of time as the problem never gets fixed. I have been told by every operator that I will get a call back when they get through to ticketing, but I have never had one call back which leads me to believe that they are trained to say this to get you off the phone. I have shot off a couple of emails to Qantas customer care but no response. I have had no luck getting through to Hobart call centre even after spending Saturday afternoon calling every 15 minutes but calls went everywhere but Hobart. getting reward flights ticketed at the moment is a massive risk and I don't know if Qantas cares. If anyone has any idea how to resolve please post as there are many of us at our wits end. I somehow wonder if Qantas has a motive in the way they are making us all sceptical of using points given the work involved.

 

[Daver6]

I phoned the WP line at about 1000h WST today wanting to get some changes made to a DOM U-bucket booking made some time ago for two PER-xMEL-CBR and CBR-xSYD-PER in September that QF has screwed with several times - with the main PITA being dumped into X on a Dash8 CBR-SYD from our initial U bookings on a B717.

I check EF and can see a B717 service is available 1h earlier - and showing 4U.

Only momentarily on hold before it was answered. I suspect Manila. Agent (Claire?) had a slight characteristic accent. Anyway, pretty definitely offshore.

I explain the issue. She indicates that we're in X, so claims we can't be changed to U. I protest that we originally booked in U and were involuntarily downgraded from U to X. I give her the number of the earlier B717 flight I'd like to change to.

She then claims there is no U available and gives me a list that indicates that EF is way offbeam or she's not looking at the right flight or right day. I protest that something is wrong, so she puts me on hold to go to a supervisor.

On hold for about 70 minutes. Just starting to wonder whether to HUACA when a emailed itinerary with the required change lobs in. I was checking through it for accuracy and wondering whether to now just hang up when Claire comes back on the line about 3-4 minutes after the email arrived apologising for the long hold and to inform me that the change had been made.

So, a good outcome but an hour to make such a seemingly simple change?

Why are you calling? QF tells us you can do all this stuff online....

 

[fpik2022]

Hi. I am in exactly same position. I just don't know what to do anymore as the phone calls are a waste of time as the problem never gets fixed. I have been told by every operator that I will get a call back when they get through to ticketing, but I have never had one call back which leads me to believe that they are trained to say this to get you off the phone. I have shot off a couple of emails to Qantas customer care but no response. I have had no luck getting through to Hobart call centre even after spending Saturday afternoon calling every 15 minutes but calls went everywhere but Hobart. getting reward flights ticketed at the moment is a massive risk and I don't know if Qantas cares. If anyone has any idea how to resolve please post as there are many of us at our wits end. I somehow wonder if Qantas has a motive in the way they are making us all sceptical of using points given the work involved.

Yes it is incredibly frustrating, for me this is a paid business class ticket - not that it seems to make an ounce of difference to Qantas.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

It's just a Monday so I figured why not ruin the day more than by calling QF.

I followed-up on a ticketing issue for a flight booked with a combination Travel Pass/credit card last week. That took ~6 hours through the call centre to finally get ticketed, at which point I noted my credit card had been charged four times in slightly different amounts for the remaining amount (clever way to diminish the value of the Travel Pass? ).

Qantas had insisted those were just pre-authorisations that would drop off, which of course they didn't. I called in today and after being put on hold for 45 minutes, was told the card was only charged once. When I pressed this wasn't correct -- particularly given the slightly varying amounts -- I received the telephone equivalent to a shrug.

I gave up and called AMEX, who asked me to send in a copy of the e-ticket receipt and Travel Pass balance, but said they'd get it sorted. I have more trust in them than QF, so we'll see.

Weirdly they left $1.50 on the Travel Pass. Alan can keep it. I booked Virgin for a last minute work trip to Melbourne tomorrow.

 

[spade1686]

Hi. I am in exactly same position. I just don't know what to do anymore as the phone calls are a waste of time as the problem never gets fixed. I have been told by every operator that I will get a call back when they get through to ticketing, but I have never had one call back which leads me to believe that they are trained to say this to get you off the phone. I have shot off a couple of emails to Qantas customer care but no response. I have had no luck getting through to Hobart call centre even after spending Saturday afternoon calling every 15 minutes but calls went everywhere but Hobart. getting reward flights ticketed at the moment is a massive risk and I don't know if Qantas cares. If anyone has any idea how to resolve please post as there are many of us at our wits end. I somehow wonder if Qantas has a motive in the way they are making us all sceptical of using points given the work involved.

I made changes to a reward booking which required re-ticketing. After 48hrs and still no ticket (despite being told by two agents that it would happen), on the 3rd call, i politely refused to hang up until it was ticketed which meant about 2 1/2 hours on the phone but the ticket finally came through

it does sound like any manual ticketing (especially anything involving classic rewards flight changes) takes longer and from what i was told by the agent, some of the teams only work Monday-Friday (not sure if this is true) which holds things up even further if you make changes over the weekend

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Slightly off-topic but given how often the final ticketing issue seems to be the motivation for having to call in, is the consensus that QF simply doesn't trust their own staff to do something as menial as issue a ticket, or is their IT system that broken that this manual step truly can't be done by said staff?

 

[Mr H]

Slightly off-topic but given how often the final ticketing issue seems to be the motivation for having to call in, is the consensus that QF simply doesn't trust their own staff to do something as menial as issue a ticket, or is their IT system that broken that this manual step truly can't be done by said staff?

I presume this is the bit of the process where a corrupt agent could bypass the payment bit and issue a ticket on their own initiative. If this is done offshore there is little Qantas could do about it apart from sacking the agent. If done onshore then Qantas could have the corrupt agent prosecuted and seek to recover lost money.

 

[jpp42]

Slightly off-topic but given how often the final ticketing issue seems to be the motivation for having to call in, is the consensus that QF simply doesn't trust their own staff to do something as menial as issue a ticket, or is their IT system that broken that this manual step truly can't be done by said staff?

It's been said somewhere upthread that the Manila call centre was stood up so fast because those staff are in fact, agents who used to have a back-office role working on ticketing, and some of them may have been re-trained to take customer calls. This seems to explain how the Manila agents are a bit more understanding of backend processing compared to Cape Town or Fiji, but it doesn't seem to change their level of access unfortunately.

My supposition - part of the reasons for increased delays in ticketing could be that they reassigned these ticketing processing agents to front-end calls in order to get the call wait times down and try to reduce the bad press - while things have gotten worse on the ticketing side due to lesser staff processing those queues. Makes a good story at least

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

I presume this is the bit of the process where a corrupt agent could bypass the payment bit and issue a ticket on their own initiative. If this is done offshore there is little Qantas could do about it apart from sacking the agent. If done onshore then Qantas could have the corrupt agent prosecuted and seek to recover lost money.

Does QF outsource call centre operations to third party contractors overseas? If so, I'd expect that agreement to include standard contractual language that the third party would be liable to indemnify QF for breaches by its employees. In theory a contractor could attempt to push back on that provision during initial negotiation, but in my experience, this is a pretty standard indemnity as ultimately, the contractor is in the best position legally to recover from a local rogue employee especially given QF wouldn't have a direct contractual relationship with them.

Contractual arrangements aside, I can certainly appreciate the commercial reasons why QF would be reticent to allow a contractor's employee to have this much authority. Then again, when "this much authority" translates to being able to do a basic function of the role and a function that most other airlines accept as a necessary risk to ensure efficient operations, I still think that even if the reason is purely commercial, it says a lot about QF's trust in its own teams.

 

[jpp42]

I'd expect that agreement to include standard contractual language that the third party would be liable to indemnify QF for breaches by its employees

If I were a call centre senior exec and knew the first thing about aviation IT systems, there's no way I'd accept liability for damages caused by employees. There are just too many ways things can go wrong, and it's too dependent on systems and training that's supplied by the airline, not the call centre operator. There would be too many fights over whether the mistake was due to poor systems or processes that made the error "understandable" or actual negligence. In most cases I tend to believe these are likely "understandable" errors once you realise how complex and difficult these systems are. On average the agents aren't actually trying to make your life difficult, they just aren't provided the correct training and tools.

Anyway, even if the agent clearly was negligent - failing to perform a task they were properly trained on how to do and should have done - there's no recovering damages from an employee in a low cost of living country, you just fire them. The cost would come out of the contractor's pockets if the contract allowed and I'm certain these call centres would not accept such risk. As others have mentioned above, the separation of reservations vs. ticketing is supposed to be one of the ways that Qantas mitigates their possible losses - if an agent has collected the wrong fare, for example, it will be picked up during ticketing. Qantas probably considers collecting an incorrect (too low) fare a much bigger risk to their business than the occasional lost reward ticket, etc.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

If I were a call centre senior exec and knew the first thing about aviation IT systems, there's no way I'd accept liability for damages caused by employees.

Yet in practice, even if that exec is as intelligent as you, they often have to take that risk on, not because they want to, but because the alternative is for the contracting party to wear that risk, despite being in an even worse position to mitigate it. A contractor can't control their employees' every move, but they at least have a contractual relationship with them in the form of an employment agreement that can be terminated (and, in cases of criminal activity, can refer to local law enforcement).

This is the case across most commercial agreements where a third party's service is purchased. For example, if Qantas purchases a customer relationship software for its onshore employees in Hobart to use when managing that call centre, and a rogue employee uses that platform to engage in illegal or unauthorised activity in a way that puts the software supplier at fault, you can bet the agreement between the software supplier and Qantas is going to include language that Qantas is responsible for indemnifying the software supplier for damages that result from "its" (and thereby its employees') use of the software.

The difference is that unlike the software example where it's either "accept the terms of use or don't use it," when it comes to the call centre, the call centre could conceivably call out issuing tickets out specifically as a risk they aren't willing to take on but still otherwise proceed with the service, leaving QF with no choice but to either walk away or proceed with the call centre without that "functionality." That could perhaps explain the apparent difference in ability to do so across different call centres. Hard to say, but that's certainly conceivable, if any rationality is to be found here.

 

[jpp42]

This is the case across most commercial agreements where a third party's service is purchased. For example, if Qantas purchases a customer relationship software for its onshore employees in Hobart to use when managing that call centre, and a rogue employee uses that platform to engage in illegal or unauthorised activity in a way that puts the software supplier at fault, you can bet the agreement between the software supplier and Qantas is going to include language that Qantas is responsible for indemnifying the software supplier for damages that result from "its" (and thereby its employees') use of the software.

In terms of call centres, I agree that the contractor would be more likely to accept the liability for illegal/unauthorised activity by their employees; they can try to mitigate this risk with appropriate background checks, supervision, audits, etc. But there's a pretty big difference between that and accepting full liability for mistakes when booking flights or issuing tickets, which are much more likely to be made as a result of simple error, poor training, and poor systems, which for the most part aren't the fault of the contractor at all, but rather the airline's processes. As someone who is involved in similar contracts (not call centres but another business process outsourcing situation), I feel a more likely way of structuring it is a defined penalty if audited accuracy is below a certain percentage. This way there's still an incentive for the contractor to supervise their employees, but the losses are capped and reasonable. There are also likely a myriad of ways the airline can terminate the whole contract for poor service. Ultimately, the airline should want good service, not just to be reimbursed for mistakes, as the latter costs them customer goodwill - but the contractor is going to be very careful in how service levels are defined, in order to ensure they make money on the deal.

It would be a different story if the contractor were say, more like a travel agent and had full authority to choose their own systems and processes to book the tickets. In that case, travel agents do have to accept some liability for mistaken bookings (depending on details). But reservation agents are ultimately more similar to employees of the parent company , even if that relationship is extended through a services contract. They are never going to be personally liable for unintentional mistakes.

 

[dylarr]

Slightly off-topic but given how often the final ticketing issue seems to be the motivation for having to call in, is the consensus that QF simply doesn't trust their own staff to do something as menial as issue a ticket, or is their IT system that broken that this manual step truly can't be done by said staff?

Traditionally ticketing constitutes higher duties per the EBA so costs more to have an agent doing it. Domestic ticketing is a pay grade higher than a normal agent. International ticketing is another level higher. This is why Hobart based agents can't issue tickets directly and send bookings off to a droid to be ticketed automatically, with anything more complex going to a more specialised ticketing team if manual intervention is required. Qantas don't want to pay all of their call centre agents the extra $5-10k p.a. to perform ticketing duties when they can automate most of it and have a smaller specialised team handling anything that falls through the gaps.

The EBA obviously wouldn't apply to the Mindpearl staff as they are not Australian based so cost probably isn't a concern here, but would you really want them messing around with the complexities of ticketing when they haven't even been trained to handle basic reservation queries properly?

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

In terms of call centres, I agree that the contractor would be more likely to accept the risk of illegal/unauthorised activity by their employees; they can try to mitigate this risk with appropriate background checks, supervision, audits, etc. But there's a pretty big difference between that and accepting full liability for mistakes when booking flights or issuing tickets, which are much more likely to be made as a result of simple error, poor training, and poor systems, which for the most part aren't the fault of the contractor at all, but rather the airline's processes. As someone who is involved in similar contracts (not call centres but another business process outsourcing contract), I feel a more likely way of structuring it is a defined penalty if accuracy is below a certain percentage. This way there's still an incentive for the contractor to supervise their employees, but the losses are capped and reasonable.

Liability would be capped, certainly -- though I'd expect that short of any truly dodgy operation, you wouldn't expect to see absolutely obscene figures of damages to come from issues like ticketing-gone-awry. An "SLA" type of approach could also work as long as it's not structured to look too much like a contractual "penalty" which our legal system doesn't allow.

As you said, I suspect the real driver here is commercial risk management more than legal technicalities, though again, it makes me question Qantas' trust in its own operations and teams if the balance lands on removing this functionality from call centres that other airlines seem to have no problem managing.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

but would you really want them messing around with the complexities of ticketing when they haven't even been trained to handle basic reservation queries properly?

No, which of course leads directly to the question of training. The best response QF could manage would be that it takes time, and that may well be true, though you then start well and truly down a back-and-forth sparring match: Covid uncertainty, foresight, etc., etc.

If I had to guess, it really does come down to something as simple as many of these contracted employees not knowing the crude basics of the job, leading to either the call centre and/or Qantas understanding the risk of them issuing tickets, and thus preventing them from doing so.

Thus here we are. Surely you'd have to believe (especially given the negative press recently) that if simply enabling the ability to press "enter" at the end of completing a request could resolve so many of these problems, they'd have done it by now, which means their decision not to do so remains very deliberate.