Of course, we should not abuse airline staffor you will get banned by the airline. because its the wrong thing to do.
Fixed that for you
Of course, we should not abuse airline staffor you will get banned by the airline. because its the wrong thing to do.
I think thats the crux of of my problem here. From the outset of the poll the word, "entitled" is setup with both of its meanins.We are entitled to it!
A sense of entitlement means wanting special treatment that hasn’t been earned, or paid for.
If you pay, you’re entitled to all the benefits and perks that are advertised and come with the fare.
I surely hope I was not that rude PAX, given your background I would suggest we have been on the same flights however you were most likely well forward of any seat I would have access to.The rudest passengers that I’ve ever come across were almost invariably on points or an upgrade. Nobody is entitled to be entitled.
In my view this might be a reasonable expectation in business class.I expect what the seat purchase is advertised, promised as. The space/seat is the most important thing for us so happy to forgo some meals, drinks, nice to have as long as the seat is big and comfy.
Edit, oh and boarding priority. Yeah, Im not standing 100+ deep behind Y
*cough* Conditions of carriage *cough*But that's definitely not how J or F are sold for real airlines, so it's not what you're paying for. It may be the primary cost to the airline, but as the customer that's not all you're buying.
I reckon you'd be perfectly entitled to take personal offense to staff treating that customer preferentially so that you missed out.And on my only emirates first class flight, the Cabin maybe only had 2 or 4 ppl, the staff were deeply apologetic when they told me the Prawn entree they had given both portions to one customer, (which was the one I was going to order), I guess being able to order at least one of whatever you want, would be an expectation on a $10k+ flight, but i can imagine a diva losing their head over it
Don’t confuse the contract of carriage - your bundle of rights if you like - with the other contractual and consumer law provisions that sit alongside. If an airline advertises caviar and champagne, that’s also included. And as we saw from the Emirates case in NZ, pax can get remedies if they don’t receive them.Just entitled to a bundle of rights
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
So in order… I think #1 is a perfect ‘sense of entitlement’In my only trip on sia suites, I deliberately chose the room that had the divider , as I had heard that if no one was on the other side , they may open it up for you.
When I boarded they asked me , if I was wiling to swap to the single room to let someone else take the double room.
I politely declined, however got declined to lower the divider later in the trip, some ppl on here thought I was an entitled, and deserved what I got,
however , im paying big $, I only felt mildly guilty.....
It could have been worse if the other passenger was a kid, which i never found out
------------
And on my only emirates first class flight, the Cabin maybe only had 2 or 4 ppl, the staff were deeply apologetic when they told me the Prawn entree they had given both portions to one customer, (which was the one I was going to order), I guess being able to order at least one of whatever you want, would be an expectation on a $10k+ flight, but i can imagine a diva losing their head over it, i was more fascinated trying to work out how many portions they had of each dish
---------
On another singapore flight i requested a second portion of caviar which I got told they ran out, (if I recall they may have found another one and gave me it, not getting more caviar is the epitome of first world problems,
But consumer law can be very subjective and doesn't mean you must get caviar unless it's really expressed in your agreement. And the airlines know these loopholes and their own T&Cs cover these off.Don’t confuse the contract of carriage - your bundle of rights if you like - with the other contractual and consumer law provisions that sit alongside. If an airline advertises caviar and champagne, that’s also included. And as we saw from the Emirates case in NZ, pax can get remedies if they don’t receive them.
Section 18 Australian consumer lawBut consumer law can be very subjective and doesn't mean you must get caviar unless it's really expressed in your agreement. And the airlines know these loopholes and their own T&Cs cover these off.
But what's misleading? They clearly state that meals, seats and aircraft are not guaranteed. What they provide as an alternative is likely to be considered as fit for purpose.Section 18 Australian consumer law
Misleading conduct
Section 2 perhaps as well
First "misleading and deceptive conduct" doesn't require untruth.But what's misleading? They clearly state that meals, seats and aircraft are not guaranteed. What they provide as an alternative is likely to be considered as fit for purpose.
True, but perhaps that refers to a specific seat, a specific aircraft (type - although that is actually debatable), or a specific meal.But what's misleading? They clearly state that meals, seats and aircraft are not guaranteed. What they provide as an alternative is likely to be considered as fit for purpose.
In most cases the compensation is a few morsels of FF points.If an airline advertises caviar and champagne, that’s also included. And as we saw from the Emirates case in NZ, pax can get remedies if they don’t receive them
Yeah, but I accept that taste is subjective, and there are flavours specific to every region … hence, I get there will be a number of people who prefer something from Champagne, even if I’m not one of them.Well @Forg I will jump into the lions den by saying that some Tasmanian and Victorian wines are the equal of some French champagne.
