Involuntary seat change

[zachary.august]

Apologies for any offence, but I don't think it could be reasonably construed as a comment upon " the men and women of the public service" - maybe those who get CL privileges only by virtue of their position ( not their flying) perhaps !!! May I enquire how one "maintains ones own CL status" ? I assume this means you qualify for invitation under your own capital?

Yes you assume correctly. There are very few people in the Public Service with CL and I assure you they are not status freeloaders. What's wrong with someone who works hard and receives a perk that they can enjoy with their family?

 

[Flying mermaid]

Having initially worked in the Public Service and now having retired and gone into the private sector (and maintaining my own CL status) I find that comment to be so insensitive to the men and women of the public service. We all went into the public service to serve our nation and it's people and for much less pay than we all would have gotten in the private sector with our qualifications. I was not a status freeloader nor are the people who worked in our departments.

As a private employer who has tried to compete for 30 years with the public service for admin personnel, I have to say that at the lower levels (say under EL1), the public service seriously overpays.....While I admire your reasons for having entered the Public Service - they do you great credit, in my experience that is not something most people think of when trying to get a job there. In fact I have heard people say that getting a job in the public service in Canberra in liking winning lotto.....You must now run a large company with a big budget (or work for one), as I thought that was the only way to maintain CL? Congratulations on making a good career change - hope you are enjoying it.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm re-reading this calm and rational post of yours, but I'm still unable to find the explanation of why your family's requirements trump those of anybody else's.

I'm also guessing that there's no part of AFF's terms and conditions that mentions personal attacks?

My families requirements in no way trumps yours or anyone else's We book and arrange ahead, always. See above when I have been aggrieved re having been trumped at check in by CL or otherwise.

Again, I merely refer you to your own post above that queried, inter alia, the need for families sitting together per chance on the evil of immolation?

Can you add anything to that contention?

 

[jamesatfish]

On the matter of getting bumped by a CL.

When you enter the CL they take your boarding pass plusthey already have your preferred seat and seat number in their system meaning that they will bump someone else out of their seat to give it to you.To all of you who are outraged that you were bumped I am afraid it's just how it works.

I assume that this only extends to the CL themselves and not the other pax travelling on their booking? That would explain how I ended up in my (preselected) 1C on a MEL-CBR flight sitting next to then-minister Simon Crean in 1A, who was quite annoyed to find a random stranger as his seat mate (probably because I wasn't going to help him write a speech for the function he was going to that evening...).

I'd also hope that if I was bumped from my preselected seat because of the preferences of a CL member that Qantas would have the decency to tell me that straight up, rather than giving the 'operational reasons' cough that BA were guilty of a few posts above.

 

[JohnK]

Why is it such an issue to be moved for a family? I have been moved for a family and I'm happy for that. At the end of a day a seat is a seat. Most people do not have the same obsessive compulsion to check Expertflyer or the Qantas website every day for seat assignments. Why is it wrong for a parent to want to be able to supervise their child on a flight?

Are you saying that a family is more important?

Not to me. I do not appreciate being inconvenienced and a child can just as easily be supervised from any row the family is seated.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Yes you assume correctly. There are very few people in the Public Service with CL and I assure you they are not status freeloaders. What's wrong with someone who works hard and receives a perk that they can enjoy with their family?

The problem I have with CL for the public service is the inconsistency with procurement guidelines. Qantas is not a charitable institution - they don't give out CL to people to recognise they have worked hard - they give it to someone who is influential or controls big budgets/staff and can send business their way. What is the value of CL - maybe a couple of thousand $ per year? However when I deal with a contracts area, I can't even give a $10 box of chocolates at Christmas to say thank-you for their hard work. Even though they aren't the actual decision makers in whether I get the contract or not - just the grunts shuffling the paper. Just doesn't seem right or equitable to me.....

 

[RooFlyer]

Yes you assume correctly. There are very few people in the Public Service with CL and I assure you they are not status freeloaders. What's wrong with someone who works hard and receives a perk that they can enjoy with their family?

Jolly good; I am envious of course. My own humble enterprise aspires to such an invitation! Perhaps I needed some precursor position?

As I understand it, CL invitation is not based on ' hard work' but a position of either status ( eg pollie or senior public servant) or controlling a large QF spend budget or CEO / Chairman or a significant corporation. All of which would 'work hard' ( as I do), but that's not the criterium.

As I understand it. Yes?

 

[mannej]

Are you saying that a family is more important?

Not to me. I do not appreciate being inconvenienced and a child can just as easily be supervised from any row the family is seated.

You obviously aren't a parent John.
I am sorry but that comment is ignorant an selfish.
I would much prefer to supervise my son by sitting next to him and I am sure the majority of other parents on here would agree (Harvy has already mentioned it on here)

 

[BadgerBoi]

Are you saying that a family is more important?

Not to me. I do not appreciate being inconvenienced and a child can just as easily be supervised from any row the family is seated.

They can often be supervised just as poorly from a distance as close up - little Reign-Beaux or Tahylaah who is kicking the back of someone's seat is often seated right next to oblivious Mummy or Daddy. I hasten to add that Mummy or Daddy does not belong to AFF, as all members' children are perfection

 

[RooFlyer]

Are you saying that a family is more important?

Not to me. I do not appreciate being inconvenienced and a child can just as easily be supervised from any row the family is seated.

Wonderful! As mentioned above, I am happy to ' supervise" the 10 yo twins, seated either side if you, from 20 rows away, in J or F.

Win-win!!!

 

[legroom]

You obviously aren't a parent John.
I am sorry but that comment is ignorant an selfish.
I would much prefer to supervise my son by sitting next to him and I am sure the majority of other parents on here would agree (Harvy has already mentioned it on here)

I agree with the sentiment that family should be able to sit together.

Now, my mix is this suggestion: should the family be asked to take a "lower" common denominator or given the "higher" denominator ?

Say, one is row 5, while the other is in row 24....

Should they be asked to take row 24 together so that the displaced row 24 pax is now given row 5 instead ?

Or, would you prefer the other way around ?

Your thoughts ?

 

[Flying mermaid]

They can often be supervised just as poorly from a distance as close up - little Reign-Beaux or Tahylaah who is kicking the back of someone's seat is often seated right next to oblivious Mummy or Daddy. I hasten to add that Mummy or Daddy does not belong to AFF, as all members' children are perfection

That's OK then - recognition of the superiority of AFF children should stop the lynching party.

 

[mannej]

I agree with the sentiment that family should be able to sit together.

Now, my mix is this suggestion: should the family be asked to take a "lower" common denominator or given the "higher" denominator ?

Say, one is row 5, while the other is in row 24....

Should they be asked to take row 24 together so that the displaced row 24 pax is now given row 5 instead ?

Or, would you prefer the other way around ?

Your thoughts ?

My thoughts - you aren't always going to please everyone are you? It is a hard one and I don't disagree that it's not an easy one to action is it?

 

[RooFlyer]

They can often be supervised just as poorly from a distance as close up - little Reign-Beaux or Tahylaah who is kicking the back of someone's seat is often seated right next to oblivious Mummy or Daddy. I hasten to add that Mummy or Daddy does not belong to AFF, as all members' children are perfection

Their names are actually James IV and George VII and you will be meeting them soon

 

[BadgerBoi]

Wonderful! As mentioned above, I am happy to ' supervise" the 10 yo twins, seated either side if you, from 20 rows away, in J or F.

Win-win!!!

Your twins fly J while you sit 20 rows away in Y? That's certainly the way to breed an entirely new generation of entitled tots.

 

[BadgerBoi]

That's OK then - recognition of the superiority of AFF children should stop the lynching party.

Yeah, but what do we do about the parents? Coz they just suck

 

[RooFlyer]

Your twins fly J while you sit 20 rows away in Y? That's certainly the way to breed an entirely new generation of entitled tots.

Psst I'm the one in J or F.

Just quietly.

whY will not be so quietly, though.

Good luck.

 

[JohnK]

You obviously aren't a parent John.
I am sorry but that comment is ignorant an selfish.
I would much prefer to supervise my son by sitting next to him and I am sure the majority of other parents on here would agree (Harvy has already mentioned it on here)

Did you misread my post?

You can sit with your child and supervise them just as easily if you were seated in the last row of the cabin or somewhere in the middle of the cabin. Correct?

No need to inconvenience me by asking me to move from my pre-allocated bulkhead.

 

[straitman]

Are you saying that a family is more important?

Not to me. I do not appreciate being inconvenienced and a child can just as easily be supervised from any row the family is seated.

You obviously aren't a parent John.
I am sorry but that comment is ignorant an selfish.
I would much prefer to supervise my son by sitting next to him and I am sure the majority of other parents on here would agree (Harvy has already mentioned it on here)

Wonderful! As mentioned above, I am happy to ' supervise" the 10 yo twins, seated either side if you, from 20 rows away, in J or F.

Win-win!!!

I'm thinking a few of you should go back and reread the post from JohnK before you continue to jump down his throat.

He did not suggest that the family should be separated just that the family group could work in any seating ROW :!:

 

[JohnK]

Say, one is row 5, while the other is in row 24....

Should they be asked to take row 24 together so that the displaced row 24 pax is now given row 5 instead ?

That is the perfect answer as everybody is now happy including the family seated together, the person in row 24 now in row 5 and the person in row 5 not inconvenienced by the stuffing around.