14yo PAX denied SYD-MEL using Oz PP as ID - needed School ID

[Kceips]

The Jetstar policy (actually a guide) applies to "children", with no definition of what ages this applies to. If we use airfares as an example (only applies to int'l) then people aged 2-11 are children. As 14 yo's then I don't think they should be considered children. Heck, if they were 2 x 15yo's they could act as a appropriate adults. If they are not children, then the guide should not apply.

I empathise with this problem. I got caught with this issue a couple of years ago. My son was 13 and in year 7 ( last year of primary school in SA). I booked him a ticket on Jetstar to meet up with my husband for an AFL match as my husband had been interstate. When I booked the ticket online he was booked as an "adult" as he was over 11 so no warning came up about unaccompanied minors. The day of his flight I checked him in online and as I did this check in I scrolled thro' important info and read the info about children travelling alone. I then realised he wasn't eligible to travel alone on jetstar. ...... I had two options - do nothing and cross fingers or not let him go. As he has travelled a lot, was tall and looked 16 or so we decided to plead ignorance and hope he could board. He sauntered up to the gate, smiled at the hostess, had his boarding card scanned and happily got on the plane. No questions were asked. I was very relieved when my husband called from the other end to say he had arrived. Why can't Jetstar ask for DOB for all passengers under 15 and then have a warning pop up about unaccompanied minors when booking?? At present it is very easy to book an older child on Jetstar and not realise that they can't travel under jetstar rules.

 

[Steelo]

As I posted on another thread, I had a similar experience with JQ. When putting my grandchildren on flight from Cairns to Melbourne where their father was waiting for them, I realised my granddaughter was actually just short of her 15th birthday (5 days). JQ was not willing to let her and her brother fly. After trying to convince them to let them fly unaccompanied, JQ offered me a discounted return companion fare to accompany them, they then rebooked them for the following morning at the same fare (even though the existing fares for the following day were quite higher than what we had paid). As a LCC you can't assume any value adding but the response was very considerate. But I agree, they should be much clearer about their conditions of carriage for teenagers.

 

[burmans]

Au contraire, OBB has a great deal of experience in dealing with passengers from a number of airlines who have been "misled" by a number of various sources.
It is in your opinion that any further discussion is moot, however considering that JQ do provide the information on their website (and no it isn't hidden) that those children not attending secondary school can not travel unaccompanied, it is NOT a moot point.

My objection is not with OBB's view here, it's with the definition of "children". Jetstar publishing a rule about how children need to be attending clearly relies on them being children, adults don't need to be attending secondary school. This guideline only comes into play if someone can be determined as being children. The term "children" is not defined by Jetstar, therefore most courts would look to how Jetstar in its usual behaviour looks to categorise adults vs children. There is only one such as I am aware, which is the categorisation of them being 2-11 as children, if you can point me to another please feel free.

The fact that they discuss whether a child is a secondary student is only relevant if they are a child, pointing me to this clause is therefore moot unless you have some alternate evidence Jetstar regards them as children and there has been no such evidence provided. That's not an opinion, you have not provided such evidence.

 

[medhead]

I don't think people should forget that the law defines a minor as someone under 18 years of age. Jetstar also don't exclude children from travelling alone, they exclude children who are not at secondary school. Or to put it another way they only let children at secondary school travel alone. That doesn't seem to depend on the age of said children. In any case, we all know that the 2-11 years old thing is solely about eligibility for a certain type of fare, there is no implication that children are only in that age range.

OBB - I actually had a few teachers pictured on my mind when reading your description. No offence possible - it is what it is.

 

[burmans]

I don't think people should forget that the law defines a minor as someone under 18 years of age.

This would be relevant if the Jetstar actually refers to unaccompanied minors, but it doesn't. As an experienced frequent flyer you are implying this based on the fact that other airlines do mention unacompanied minors, but not relevant to Jetstar as they do not seek to relate "children" and "minors". In fact their rules seem to specifically differ to other airline rules so any attempt to suggest they should be assessed as similar would seem to be misplaced.

In any case, we all know that the 2-11 years old thing is solely about eligibility for a certain type of fare, there is no implication that children are only in that age range.

As an experienced frequent flyer we may all know that this is a way to charge more for flights however I think you will find legally people ARE entitled to rely on Jetstar's only publically stated position on what is a child. The legal definition of "knowledge" about such things doesnt refer to people like us who have extensive knowldege of such matters, but the average man on the street, for most of these the only definition they would be aware of (unless Jetstar made it obvious) would be this one.

 

[medhead]

This would be relevant if the Jetstar actually refers to unaccompanied minors, but it doesn't. As an experienced frequent flyer you are implying this based on the fact that other airlines do mention unacompanied minors, but not relevant to Jetstar as they do not seek to relate "children" and "minors". In fact their rules seem to specifically differ to other airline rules so any attempt to suggest they should be assessed as similar would seem to be misplaced.

As an experienced frequent flyer we may all know that this is a way to charge more for flights however I think you will find legally people ARE entitled to rely on Jetstar's only publically stated position on what is a child. The legal definition of "knowledge" about such things doesnt refer to people like us who have extensive knowldege of such matters, but the average man on the street, for most of these the only definition they would be aware of (unless Jetstar made it obvious) would be this one.

Jetstar's definition of a child cannot change the law. All people know children are people under 18 years of age. They cannot rely on some supposed jetstar definition that would not be legal. People are also very experienced in other areas where price for children does varies from the legal definition of a child, for example public transport.

 

[burmans]

Jetstar's definition of a child cannot change the law. All people know children are people under 18 years of age. They cannot rely on some supposed jetstar definition that would not be legal. People are also very experienced in other areas where price for children does varies from the legal definition of a child, for example public transport.

You are making the assumption that minor and child are interchangeable terms, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

 

[Austman]

It's curious that Jetstar Asia (3K) (not to/from Australia), Valuair (VF), Jetstar Pacific (BL) and Jetstar Japan (GK) all specify age as the requirement for children to travel alone and that one method of proving that age is a passport.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

No domestic 3K flights ex SIN no they'd need a passport anyway for an international flight.

 

[medhead]

You are making the assumption that minor and child are interchangeable terms, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

I assume nothing. They are interchangeable terms.

In law, a minor is a person under a certain age—usually the age of majority—which legally demarcates childhood from adulthood.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

Also definition:

1.
a person under the age of full legal responsibility.
"the court would take account of the minor's wishes"
synonyms:child, infant, youth; More
antonyms:adult

 

[burmans]

I assume nothing. They are interchangeable terms.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

Also definition:

Thanks, but I will rely on the advice of lawyers rather than wannabies and Wikipedia.

 

[Ric]

An interesting read...

but what if the flight is a QF code share and the girls are on QF issued tickets with QF flight numbers but on JQ metal? Would they have been allowed to fly?

 

[ozbeachbabe]

An interesting read...

but what if the flight is a QF code share and the girls are on QF issued tickets with QF flight numbers but on JQ metal? Would they have been allowed to fly?

Doesn't matter if the flight is sold or marketed as a QF flight, if the flight is JQ metal it's their rules.

QF did remove a lot of wholly domestic code share flights in an effort to prevent misunderstandings however IMHO the end result is no different as pax still go to QF checkin because they assume they're flying QF as they have a Qantas itinerary, have booked on the QF website or have used QF points.

They never notice it's a JQ flight number or the wording underneath that says "flight operated by Jetstar".

 

[medhead]

Thanks, but I will rely on the advice of lawyers rather than wannabies and Wikipedia.

Wannabes?? I guess that is some kind of insult at me. Pretty weak to throw insults when I have comprehensively addressed the claim that the 2-11 year thing from Jetstar is the only definition that people can rely on. Or that people have to be airline fare experts. Both are wrong. People know that children/minors are people under 18 years of age, that is common knowledge that does not rely on a jetstar website or some legal advice from a guy at a dirty mall.

But the problem with your insult is that I quoted references like the dictionary definition. Yeah, I guess the dictionary writers just make this stuff up. If you read wikipedia properly you'll also find that references are provided. Making a trite rejection of wikipedia a pretty weak response. There seems to be one wannabe around here.

Or is that just a way of deflecting from you being out of step with the rest of the world. That is the point, I'm talking about the everyday understanding of the term minor, Everyone knows a minor and a child is the same thing in common usage. This is not some legal definition.

What is your lawyer advising you about anyway? What specific aspect. Because if we refer to the Australian insitute of criminology for a legal definition they bang on about criminal responsibility, but even then we see that treatment as a child/juvenile is almost uniformly 18 years in Australia. Unless you think that the Australian Institute of Criminology are just some wannabes? http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_community/demographicgroup/youngpeople/definition.html

But while were talking about legal advice. The fact remains Jetstar conditions cannot change the law. That is exactly what I said. Perhaps you better seek better legal advice if they have told you that Jetstar conditions can override the law. Maybe move on from Lionel Hutz.

Edit: or perhaps we should reflect on the idea that people who fly jetstar aren't frequent flyers who are fully knowledgable of fare conditions but they all come armed with legal advice.

 

[Turbo-g]

Kind of makes my adventures across Australia unaccompanied with my younger brother from as early as 7 and 9 years on the old TAA and Ansett days a distant thing of the past. I distinctly remember advising the a new FA (accompanying with 6 other kids in tow) that her gate to gate route through Tullamarine was the long way. Nothing more frustrating than being proven wrong by an 11 year old at the time but having had lived in Melbourne I had explored the whole airport by then. Of course life is karma- i have 3 teenage daughters who continually remind me of what i should be doing with the constant comment of "that's so wrong".

 

[Rnwillia]

When will common sense ever be allowed by people in charge? Jetstar is the last airline I would ever fly with after they cancelled my flights with out any notice to me but to deny that two 14 yo girls would not be in secondary school shows very poor judgement and responsibility. Rules are there to be broken anyhow, aren't they? Even politicians do it regularly!

 

[mannej]

What an odd response to a thread 3.5 years old.

 

[Rnwillia]

What an odd response to a thread 3.5 years old.

Sorry Mannej, I'm new to this and was just reading the article but was blind to the date. Will be more careful in future. Thank you.

 

[Nank]

W

When will common sense ever be allowed by people in charge? Jetstar is the last airline I would ever fly with after they cancelled my flights with out any notice to me but to deny that two 14 yo girls would not be in secondary school shows very poor judgement and responsibility. Rules are there to be broken anyhow, aren't they? Even politicians do it regularly!

Each to their own I guess aye. My family have flown JQ and TT basically since they commenced operations (cheaper than QF which we used to fly religiously on holidays) and I can't remember a single major incident that put in my mind the thought of never wanting to fly with them again. I've had longer delays on full service carriers than I have on LCCs so I can't really talk.
I too am only just reading this thread now but makes for an interesting story. Never seen it happen before, perhaps they have rectified the issue since? I do think its silly though yes, given the behaviour I've seen some "adults" displaying at airports over time I reckon me as a 4 year old would be more reliable traveling unaccompanied than some as I kept to myself and didn't stuff around. Sit down, shut up, let the crew do their job and don't make an cough of yourself. Pretty simple in my eyes ;D

 

[tdimdad]

And we notice JQ has since sharpened the pencil and amended their requirements. The page now refers to passengers 12 years or more with the following ID's accepted. At some point someone was smart enough to make this clearer and easier for passengers (and themselves).

• Passport or birth certificate, (proof of age for passengers who are 12 years and over);
• School ID card from a secondary school (can be from a previous year and may be expired); or
• Letter from the secondary school on school letterhead stating the year and confirming current attendance or enrolment in current secondary school (including enrolment in secondary school for the coming year after graduation from primary school).