poor recognition of Oneworld status and pathetic response from Qantas CS

[Austman]

You took a risk and lost. Did UA reaccomodate you on the next days flight at no charge?

Yep. I get it too. But really, if a pax arrives very early to check-in for a notified delayed flight, when they can show a 'connecting' flight that they need to catch, why oh why can't QF bend their rules and move them to an earlier flight? Especially if it, as it seems it was, possible to do? The pax is not playing games here - their connection would have been fine if QF had been on time.

Perhaps legislation is needed? Airlines just don't get it.

Pathetic Qantas! This is major reason why people have issues with you. And you could fix it if you wanted to.

 

[serfty]

...

Pathetic Qantas! This is major reason why people have issues with you. And you could fix it if you wanted to.

Would virgin Australia have done the same thing?

As a WP, I have been denied an earlier flight to a connection QFd to QFi on the same ticket.

I don't expect such accommodation, but will, if on the same ticket, ask and if denied accept pleasantly.

With separate tickets, different, non allied carrier it gets interesting.

FWIW, I regularly travel on separate tickets with different carriers/alliances. I know the risks and accept that.

In the OP's situation I would have asked given the delayed flight, but upon denial and subsequent Failure to catch the flight booked on a separate ticket would never blame Qantas in any way.

 

[Austman]

Would virgin Australia have done the same thing?

As a WP, I have been denied an earlier flight to a connection QFd to QFi on the same ticket.

I don't expect such accommodation, but will, if on the same ticket, ask and if denied accept pleasantly.

With separate tickets, different, non allied carrier it gets interesting.

FWIW, I regularly travel on separate tickets with different carriers/alliances. I know the risks and accept that.

In the OP's situation I would have asked given the delayed flight, but upon denial and subsequent Failure to catch the flight booked on a separate ticket would never blame Qantas in any way.

Yes I know the risks too. But airlines could and should bend their 'rules' when, due to no fault of the passenger, they cause a problem to the travel plans of that passenger, that can be easily remedied by breaking a 'fare class' re-booking restriction. That's my point. The pax hasn't plannned to get advantage - they only want to get to their 'connection' on time.

If the airline couldn't get the pax to their 'connection' any quicker, then fair enough. But in this case they could have done so, but refused to do so.

 

[amaroo]

A rule like: "If a passenger's flight is delayed by more than an hour, the airline must make their best efforts to transport the passenger according to the original schedule." might be needed.

As others have already stated....if it was booked on the same PNR - the airlines would have sorted it.

If you want to chop & dice a ticket....you run the risk!

 

[Austman]

As others have already stated....if it was booked on the same PNR - the airlines would have sorted it.

If you want to chop & dice a ticket....you run the risk!

But why when the airline could have so easily have fixed it? It was their fault (or an act of God) that caused the problem after all! Either way they should try to fix it, if they can. Fair enough if they can't - but in this case they could have!

 

[amaroo]

But why when the airline could have so easily have fixed it? It was their fault (or an act of God) that caused the problem after all! Either way they should try to fix it, if they can. Fair enough if they can't - but in this case they could have!

If the OP purchased a flexible ticket - he/she would have been sorted.

Buyer beware....no different for me or you as a QF Plat.

Airlines are not charities or run as a not for profit!

 

[mannej]

Yep. I get it too. But really, if a pax arrives very early to check-in for a notified delayed flight, when they can show a 'connecting' flight that they need to catch, why oh why can't QF bend their rules and move them to an earlier flight? Especially if it, as it seems it was, possible to do? The pax is not playing games here - their connection would have been fine if QF had been on time.

Perhaps legislation is needed? Airlines just don't get it.

Pathetic Qantas! This is major reason why people have issues with you. And you could fix it if you wanted to.

Even on different tickets?

To your second post, if the OP was on separate tickets (which is not clear), then the only obligation QF has is that they deliver the pax to their destination on the ticket, nothing about making the connection. That is the risk you take having separate tickets.

Then again if the OP was on the same ticket, I'd be a little intrigued.

 

[Austman]

If the OP purchased a flexible ticket - he/she would have been sorted.

Buyer beware....no different for me or you as a QF Plat.

Airlines are not charities or run as a not for profit!

Nope! But do airlines have a duty to get you to your destination when they said they would?

This is what's its about.

It's really nothing much to do with flexible tickets or two PNRs with 'connecting' flights. It's if you are on a flight that is delayed and the airline has other operating flights that will get you to the same destination closer to your originally scheduled time, the airline should be compelled to accommodate you, if they can.

Simple. Fair. And no stupid fare rules (after all, the airline couldn't get you to your destination on time anyway).

 

[mannej]

Nope! But do airlines have a duty to get you to your destination when they said they would?

This is what's its about.

It's really nothing much to do with flexible tickets or two PNRs with 'connecting' flights. It's if you are on a flight that is delayed and the airline has other operating flights that will get you to the same destination closer to your originally scheduled time, the airline should be compelled to accommodate you, if they can.

Simple. Fair. And no stupid fare rules (after all, the airline couldn't get you to your destination on time anyway).

The contract does state that times are a guide only.

If airlines were to do as you say, you'd need larger aircraft, as it would be a case of moving everyone onto other flights.

Once again, once we find out if the OP was on the same or different tickets (it is totally relevant to the answer here) we can say whether or not QF were being reasonable or not.

 

[Princess Fiona]

It would be good if the OP could confirm that this itinerary was on two separate tickets. If it was then I don't understand how it is reasonable to expect QF to ensure that a OWE (QF/BA/AA whatever) makes his own non-OW connection in SYD.

 

[Mgjdubs]

It's really nothing much to do with flexible tickets or two PNRs with 'connecting' flights. It's if you are on a flight that is delayed and the airline has other operating flights that will get you to the same destination closer to your originally scheduled time, the airline should be compelled to accommodate you, if they can.

I don't agree with this. QF shouldn't have to move around flights for people when they're not on a flex ticket. The OP was travelling from BNE-SYD on a QF booking, and as far as they airline was concerned, that was it - the fact that the OP was connecting to a UA flight on a separate ticket is irrelevant to QF. This is the risk you take when you book restricted fares that don't allow you to change flights (all this operating under the assumption that the OP had two separate tickets. If they had one ticket, then yes, absolutely, they should have done something).

I hope the OP had travel insurance, and that any outlay that the OP had to make is covered by that travel insurance.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Nope! But do airlines have a duty to get you to your destination when they said they would?

This is what's its about.

It's really nothing much to do with flexible tickets or two PNRs with 'connecting' flights. It's if you are on a flight that is delayed and the airline has other operating flights that will get you to the same destination closer to your originally scheduled time, the airline should be compelled to accommodate you, if they can.

Simple. Fair. And no stupid fare rules (after all, the airline couldn't get you to your destination on time anyway).

Do you think these rules should extend to all passengers on the delayed flight on non-flexible tickets? What about passengers connecting to CountryLink trains? Connecting to a hire-car to attend a function in SYD?
How does the airline decide which passengers on non-flexible tickets it moves to the earlier flights? Status, connecting transport, family function, fare paid? What about passengers who have connecting flights on the same itinerary with the same airline / alliance ?

 

[amaroo]

Simple. Fair. And no stupid fare rules (after all, the airline couldn't get you to your destination on time anyway).

Fare rules are exactly the same as fare for class......

F is better than J....

Flexi is better than non-flexi....

 

[serfty]

It would be good if the OP could confirm that this itinerary was on two separate tickets. ...

The OP's subsequent post indicates separate tickets (see the red part), otherwise they would have checked their bags through:

I should have clarified that.
The transpac flight was on United - our goverment policy at the moment.
Needless to say, I did not ask for my bags to go thru to the UA only to SYD.

.. The pax hasn't plannned to get advantage - they only want to get to their 'connection' on time. ...

I have no doubt the OP planned to get some sort of an advantage by flying QF before being forced to fly UA ("our government policy at the moment") - how such would an advantage I know not, nor why they did not book to SFO ex BNE in the first place.

I presume they assessed the risk of using any such advantage when booking separate tickets.

 

[Austman]

Do you think these rules should extend to all passengers on the delayed flight on non-flexible tickets?

Yes I do. It's about punctuality. It shouldn't have to do with the passenger's plans at the arrival point at all - although having ongoing flights is a compelling reason to expect punctuality. Qantas does have a Customer Charter regarding punctuality. But there's no absolute commitment to offer flight alternatives after a certain amount of delay. They just say "we will do all we can to fix the problem and keep you informed of developments and the choices that are available to you."

A flexible ticket can give a passenger an option to change flights regardless of if their original flight is on time or not. But what I'm suggesting is that when a flight is significantly delayed, all passengers booked on that flight should have an opportunity to move to earlier flight, at their request, if they can be accommodated. The restricting fare rule under these circumstances should be waived.

And from re-reading post #1 it seems that Qantas did exactly that but only when the OP's flight delay went to 60 minutes. But the OP could not to take the earlier fight because their checked luggage could not be moved in time. Bad luck for the OP by 5 minutes!

The OP thought a 30 minute delay was enough to have the fare rules waived. And Qantas was prepared to waive them for a 60 minute delay. Qantas themselves say that a delay of more than 45 minutes is when they will notify passengers.

Perhaps some clarity about exactly how and when the Qantas Customer Charter on punctuality will be applied?

 

[mannej]

Out of curiosity, what is the close off for UA check in, as I am trying to work out the time between flights.

 

[oz_mark]

My experience with multiple airlines on delays affecting connections are this:

1) They prefer to deal with actual problems, rather than potential problems.
2) If travelling A-B-C, and a flight is delayed at A, their advice is nearly always to sort it out at B.

While I sympathise with the OP, there are risks associated with connections, and moreso if on separate tickets. If separate tickets are booked, then you are accepting a certain amount of risk yourself.

 

[drron]

Yes I do. It's about punctuality. It shouldn't have to do with the passenger's plans at the arrival point at all - although having ongoing flights is a compelling reason to expect punctuality. Qantas does have a Customer Charter regarding punctuality. But there's no absolute commitment to offer flight alternatives after a certain amount of delay. They just say "we will do all we can to fix the problem and keep you informed of developments and the choices that are available to you."

A flexible ticket can give a passenger an option to change flights regardless of if their original flight is on time or not. But what I'm suggesting is that when a flight is significantly delayed, all passengers booked on that flight should have an opportunity to move to earlier flight, at their request, if they can be accommodated. The restricting fare rule under these circumstances should be waived.

And from re-reading post #1 it seems that Qantas did exactly that but only when the OP's flight delay went to 60 minutes. But the OP could not to take the earlier fight because their checked luggage could not be moved in time. Bad luck for the OP by 5 minutes!

The OP thought a 30 minute delay was enough to have the fare rules waived. And Qantas was prepared to waive them for a 60 minute delay. Qantas themselves say that a delay of more than 45 minutes is when they will notify passengers.

Perhaps some clarity about exactly how and when the Qantas Customer Charter on punctuality will be applied?

First of all do you know that QF was responsible for the delay?Weather was a big issue in QLD.
Second do you know if the OP was the only person affected?Maybe QF was prioritising their own OWEs due to disruptions which would include those delayed from earlier flights as well as those connecting in BNE.Who is to say that they weren't expecting say a flight from CNS but only later realised that it would misconnect so seats then opened up?

I doubt anyone who wasn't associated with QF ops that day would have any idea of the situation.
As far as I am concerned the odds favour the problem being with a company that requires UA flights to Australia.

 

[Austman]

First of all do you know that QF was responsible for the delay?Weather was a big issue in QLD.
Second do you know if the OP was the only person affected?Maybe QF was prioritising their own OWEs due to disruptions which would include those delayed from earlier flights as well as those connecting in BNE.Who is to say that they weren't expecting say a flight from CNS but only later realised that it would misconnect so seats then opened up?

I doubt anyone who wasn't associated with QF ops that day would have any idea of the situation.
As far as I am concerned the odds favour the problem being with a company that requires UA flights to Australia.

I don't think the cause of the delay is important - and neither does Qantas in their customer charter. And the reason that Qantas initially refused to move the OP was due to fare rules (according to the OP) and not due to any operational or capacity reason (according to the OP). Perhaps Qantas does prioritise certain passengers in certain delay situations but that's not what was happening here (according to what the OP was told).

 

[drron]

I don't think the cause of the delay is important - and neither does Qantas in their customer charter. And the reason that Qantas initially refused to move the OP was due to fare rules (according to the OP) and not due to any operational or capacity reason (according to the OP). Perhaps Qantas does prioritise certain passengers in certain delay situations but that's not what was happening here (according to what the OP was told).

So it is a classic he said,she said situation where no one else really can come to a definite conclusion.