Baby's death sparks Jetstar policy review

[Hvr]

Jetstar will review its compassionate fare policy following a complaint from a family forced to pay $600 for a flight home from their Gold Coast holiday after their baby died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.


A friend of the Sydney family, Barry Phillips, told 3AW's Neil Mitchell the family found their baby dead in their holiday accommodation on Sunday and were keen to return home sooner then their scheduled return date of Tuesday.

I think this comment says it all

It is normal procedure that you have to provide evidence of death for compassionate fares. Otherwsie anyone of us could rock up at a counter with a weepy story, and no doubt people did, hence the requirement to provide evidence. Check any airline in the world. This 'news' story lacks substance.
Elisa - December 07, 2010, 3:38PM

Also mentioned on 3AW:

The baby died of SIDS and when they advised the airline of their plight, they were told they would need proof the baby had died, or would face a penalty.

Again a well thought out comment from a listener.

I feel sorry for the family but as a business owner i can understand the need to verify this information. Could you imagine the excuses people will pull to get out of paying a fee to change flights. It happens 1000s of time per day. You have to verify death in many circumstances in life, closing accounts, cutting off utilities. I can't understand why Jetstar have been singled out.

Simon Westaway who posts here has intervened and resolved the situation. Well done, great to see a proactive response, pity the media don't acknowledge the real issues.

I do agree with the comments posted above that sadly there needs to be proof or there would be a free for all by people trying to scam the airline.

 

[nlagalle]

I read this before and I have to side with JQ on this.

Every airline will ask for proof, and understandably so. Unfortunately people trying to get around paying change fees are the ones who should be to blame.

Some of the comments left behind left me in fits of laughter.

 

[VHOEJ]

nlagalle - I agree with you. I was about to rip into JQ but then when I read some of the comments, they have a point.

I agree with compasionate circumstances and many airlines offer it. But at the same time, people would use it to thier advantage to save money. Think about most workplaces - if you are taking bereavement leave, your employer can ask for a death certificate.

 

[turtlemichael]

I have great sympathy for the family who must have been incredibly stressed. When people are stressed they sometimes do not react logically. No doubt what Jetstar did was fair and reasonable. But yet again the Press, who do not have the excuse of acting under stress, react and create an issue where there should not be one. Shame on them for this beat-up.

 

[Mal]

Shame on them for this beat-up.

Indeed. And the family will have to endure more stress by reading about their plight (including some VERY negative comments) for some time to come.

It's not news, it's gutter press at it's finest. But hey, it's what we've come to expect from such trashy websites.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I read this before and I have to side with JQ on this.

Every airline will ask for proof, and understandably so. Unfortunately people trying to get around paying change fees are the ones who should be to blame.

Some of the comments left behind left me in fits of laughter.

I also agree with you. Something sounds not quite right about this story and whilst I have every sympathy with the family the agency needing to look at their policies is most likely Queensland Health and Social Services and not JQ. The usual practice for dealing with the bereaved following SIDS ( SUDI in NSW) involves access to ED or Forensic Department Social Work. Amongst other things they can and do deal with travel arrangements. I would be very surprised if the family were not given access to such help

 

[simongr]

I too side with JQ on this - it is very hard but people do lie and cheat and use the most deplorable excuses.

 

[Justinf]

I don't blame Jetstar one bit, even though it is a tragic occurence and I do realise that it would have been incredibly difficult for everyone. I can only put myself in those poor people's shoes to realise that it would have been horrible.
I really cannot fathom how anyone could use the false death of an infant in order to travel a day earlier though. The old 'grandmother died' excuse maybe, but the sudden, tragic death of an infant? Maybe I am too gullible?

 

[Mal]

Maybe I am too gullible?

You are! Some people will use any and every excuse to try and avoid a financial outlay or to accept blame for something that occurs.

 

[markis10]

This story is absolute rubbish, if you cannot afford travel insurance (which covers this) then you cannot afford to travel, if you want to take the risk that something might go wrong then don't complain when it does! Whilst those comments may seen harsh in the circumstance, it comes from someone who has had a SIDs death in the family, and while I feel for the family and their loss, I suspect the $600 was a minor problem in the scheme of things.

The more rubbish like this that's gets printed the less chance we will see the more important things published, and more often we will see common sense policies thrown out the window for fear of bad publicity.

 

[NYCguy]

I really cannot fathom how anyone could use the false death of an infant in order to travel a day earlier though. The old 'grandmother died' excuse maybe, but the sudden, tragic death of an infant? Maybe I am too gullible?

I am never surprised by the unconscionable depths to which some people will stoop in the interests of gaining what is may turn out to be only a slight financial advantage. I'll have to side with OneStar in this instance.

 

[Rebekkap]

This story is absolute rubbish, if you cannot afford travel insurance (which covers this) then you cannot afford to travel, if you want to take the risk that something might go wrong then don't complain when it does! Whilst those comments may seen harsh in the circumstance, it comes from someone who has had a SIDs death in the family, and while I feel for the family and their loss, I suspect the $600 was a minor problem in the scheme of things.

Really? I've never purchased travel insurance for a domestic trip - to me, the main point of it is to make sure you don't face huge medical bills overseas.

$600 might be a minor expense to some lucky people, but to others, particularly when facing other unexpected expenses like organising a funeral, it would be a big stress.

I also note that since infant deaths in any circumstances are generally subject to a coronial investigation, and a death certificate is not issued until after the coroner hands down findings, it could be quite difficult for the family to produce proof their child had died.

 

[markis10]

I also note that since infant deaths in any circumstances are generally subject to a coronial investigation, and a death certificate is not issued until after the coroner hands down findings, it could be quite difficult for the family to produce proof their child had died.

Copy of the police report available within hours would have sufficed, it's proof of death rather than cause of death that's required. At the end of the day travellers cannot expect special fares because they took a risk that did not work out, to offer such fares is above the normal obligations of a carrier and to require conditions to be met is only normal in order to avoid people trying to gain an advantage they are not entitled to.

You are contractually bound by your agreement you enter into with the airline and it's not news that you may have to pay a penalty when you cannot keep you end of the bargain. I think JQ have done well for a LCC, and gone above their call of duty!

 

[medhead]

Yeah, because people think rationally when their infant suddenly and unexpectedly dies.

I'd also question this idea of being contractually bound. The only obligation on the purchaser is to pay the agreed fee for the service. There may be conditions attached to provision of the service. Use of the service is subject to the conditions but the purchaser is not bound by those conditions.

 

[Rebekkap]

Copy of the police report available within hours would have sufficed, it's proof of death rather than cause of death that's required. At the end of the day travellers cannot expect special fares because they took a risk that did not work out, to offer such fares is above the normal obligations of a carrier and to require conditions to be met is only normal in order to avoid people trying to gain an advantage they are not entitled to.

You are contractually bound by your agreement you enter into with the airline and it's not news that you may have to pay a penalty when you cannot keep you end of the bargain. I think JQ have done well for a LCC, and gone above their call of duty!

Wasn't suggesting Jetstar had done anything wrong - was responding to a particular post, which in my opinion was lacking empathy. These people had just had their baby die, and $600 is not small change to most people.

 

[Rebekkap]

Yeah, because people think rationally when their infant suddenly and unexpectedly dies.

+1

Really, I don't think the first thing on someone's mind is going to be "Oh, must request a copy of the police report so I can give it to the airline."

 

[coyote25]

+1

Really, I don't think the first thing on someone's mind is going to be "Oh, must request a copy of the police report so I can give it to the airline."

I agree they are going to be incredibly upset and vent at anyone who doesn't show enormous compassion for this terrible situation. It's very understandable.

This doesn't mean JQ is wrong they are offering a refund on change fees with documentation. Some LCCs offer nothing.

What isn't justifiable is a journalist taking advantage to make a profit. It doesn't help our recovery / emotional health to be dragged into the public spot light especially when nothing will really change. Reporters should know this.

BTW I've dealt with a person who said they had cancer to get an unfair break plus a false sexual assault case. While luckily rare these people sc$ew it up for everyone else. A little proof isn't unfair this days.

 

[Rebekkap]

I agree they are going to be incredibly upset and vent at anyone who doesn't show enormous compassion for this terrible situation. It's very understandable.

This doesn't mean JQ is wrong they are offering a refund on change fees with documentation. Some LCCs offer nothing.

Once again, I didn't suggest JQ had done anything wrong.

 

[Princess Fiona]

+1

Really, I don't think the first thing on someone's mind is going to be "Oh, must request a copy of the police report so I can give it to the airline."

Again I agree, it is not something you would expect bereaved parents to do, however the Sydney home address and Hotel location in GC SHOULD have alerted the relevant authorities dealing with the family to help them organise alternative travel arrangements. This is the usual practice IMO.

 

[markis10]

Wasn't suggesting Jetstar had done anything wrong - was responding to a particular post, which in my opinion was lacking empathy. These people had just had their baby die, and $600 is not small change to most people.

There are programs and systems in place to help people in these circumstances, I have seem them in play as someone who has been involved in a SIDs death, pinging Jetstar as lacking empathy is wrong, I note there is no mention of the loss of accommodation and it's cost?

One has to wonder why this story is published and the bias in it's writing, what do the poor folks who lost their baby gain from it?