7-month Qantas saga

[Jack_OC]

Their T&C's basically states re-booking to next available flight, however I expect that you would be entitled to some degree of compensation for loses.

Where does it say that in the T&Cs? My reading of the T&Cs is that it's entirely the passenger's responsibility to get themselves to the airport on time.

 

[dajop]

17. You acknowledge that Chauffeur Drive services are provided by third party suppliers, and not by Qantas or Emirates. Qantas is not responsible for the acts or omissions of such suppliers, or for any deficiency in the facilities and services offered. In particular, Qantas has no liability for loss, personal injury, or death incurred during the use of such facilities and services unless:

a. such loss, personal injury or death is / are caused solely by Qantas' negligence; or

b. such liability cannot be excluded under law (in which case it is limited to the maximum extent permitted under the law). In some countries, services may come with a non-excludable guarantee or warranty that they will be provided with due care and skill. The nature and application of these guarantees or warranties will depend on the relevant country.

My read of this .... "we are only on the hook for stuff-ups if the country has strong consumer protection laws, if such laws are weak or non-existent all we will give you is the proverbial one-fingered salute"

 

[harvyk]

It basically boils down to T&C's can not override common law. A company can not delegate it's responsibilities under consumer law to a 3rd party. If you've purchased (as part of your ticket) any service then that service must be fit for the purpose that it's purchased. (Insurance is the only service which has an exclusion from this requirement).

No amount of exclusions in terms, conditions or contracts can override this basic requirement.

My read of this .... "we are only on the hook for stuff-ups if the country has strong consumer protection laws, if such laws are weak or non-existent all we will give you is the proverbial one-fingered salute"

Very good point, this is perhaps the reason why no jurisdiction clause has been used, that way they can get away with stuff in countries outside of Australia where consumer protection laws aren't so crash hot.

 

[Jack_OC]

It basically boils down to T&C's can not override common law.

I think that's correct, but you previously said "Their T&C's basically states re-booking to next available flight". I don't think the T&Cs say any such thing.

A company can not delegate it's responsibilities under consumer law to a 3rd party. If you've purchased (as part of your ticket) any service then that service must be fit for the purpose that it's purchased. (Insurance is the only service which has an exclusion from this requirement).

No amount of exclusions in terms, conditions or contracts can override this basic requirement.

I think that's also correct in principle, but I'm not sure if it's as black and white as you suggest. First of all, is Qantas actually selling this service as part of the ticket? I'm not so sure. They bill it as a complementary perk for people on certain flights. I've just looked at my QF e-ticket for the last time I travelled on QF9 (when chauffeur drive was included), and there is no mention of the chauffeur drive service in the ticket. In other words, my guess is that QF would argue that you are paying for the flights, and anything else is just a bonus that they offer only in accordance with the relevant T&Cs.

I also don't agree with you on whether the OP's costs were reasonable, plus I think it would be relatively easy for QF to argue that the OP failed to allow sufficient time to get to the airport, in accordance with the T&Cs, and that was a key factor.

 

[opusman]

It's the first thing they mention on the website in the description of business class.

International Business Class flights to and from Australia | Qantas

Your journey starts from the moment you leave your front door with Chauffeur Drive, a complimentary transfer service for Business customers on eligible international Qantas operated flights booked with a QF flight number

It would be quite reasonable to assume this is part of what you're paying for when you buy a business class ticket.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think that's also correct in principle, but I'm not sure if it's as black and white as you suggest. First of all, is Qantas actually selling this service as part of the ticket? I'm not so sure. They bill it as a complementary perk for people on certain flights. I've just looked at my QF e-ticket for the last time I travelled on QF9 (when chauffeur drive was included), and there is no mention of the chauffeur drive service in the ticket. In other words, my guess is that QF would argue that you are paying for the flights, and anything else is just a bonus that they offer only in accordance with the relevant T&Cs.

I also don't agree with you on whether the OP's costs were reasonable, plus I think it would be relatively easy for QF to argue that the OP failed to allow sufficient time to get to the airport, in accordance with the T&Cs, and that was a key factor.

I think it is part of the overall advertised product. The ticket doesn't mention meals, beverages, amenity kits or IFE either. But they're part of the ticket.

As for the OP's costs. I just wonder if there is a reasonableness test to be applied, even accounting for consumer protection laws. Can your expenses be uncapped?

 

[opusman]

As for the OP's costs. I just wonder if there is a reasonableness test to be applied, even accounting for consumer protection laws. Can your expenses be uncapped?

It would be quite easy to argue that driving to the airport and paying to park there was essential to mitigate further losses (i.e. missing the flight).

 

[Jack_OC]

It's the first thing they mention on the website in the description of business class.

International Business Class flights to and from Australia | Qantas

It would be quite reasonable to assume this is part of what you're paying for when you buy a business class ticket.

But they describe it as "a complimentary transfer service" - i.e. something you get "for free", not something you are directly paying for as part of your ticket. By contrast, they don't say, "buy a business class fare and we will offer you a complementary flight", because the flight is what you are paying for, and therefore clearly not "complimentary". I could be wrong, but I suspect the characterisation of the chauffeur drive service as "complimentary" is quite deliberate.

 

[Jack_OC]

I think it is part of the overall advertised product. The ticket doesn't mention meals, beverages, amenity kits or IFE either. But they're part of the ticket.

Again, I'm not so sure. For example, if you don't get an amenity kit or your IFE is broken, I'm pretty sure that is not grounds for alleging that the airline has failed to deliver the service you paid for (i.e. you can't ask for a refund because of those things - even though the airline might offer you some form of compensation if you complain).

As for the OP's costs. I just wonder if there is a reasonableness test to be applied, even accounting for consumer protection laws. Can your expenses be uncapped?

Without question there would be a reasonableness test. And let's not forget that QF did actually provide compensation, which they may be able to argue was reasonable - even if they are actually required to provide accommodation in the first place, but as I said I'm not sure this is as black and white as some believe.

 

[harvyk]

As for the OP's costs. I just wonder if there is a reasonableness test to be applied, even accounting for consumer protection laws. Can your expenses be uncapped?

My understanding is that no, your expenses can not be uncapped. Using an example of a flight delay where you arrange a hotel and then seek reimbursement through an airline, if you book at a 5 star resort you'd better make sure that it was the only accommodation available in that location at short notice, if it wasn't and there was say a 3 star option available the airline would be well within their rights to say "sorry, but you didn't attempt to limit your expenses therefore we won't be paying.

The reason why I see this as different is because of the time factor, there was no guarantee that a taxi would arrive within time. The explanation that short term parking was quicker to get to also somewhat makes sense. Even if it wasn't one could argue that a reasonable person simply wanted to get a car park in what they felt was the shortest amount of time given the stress of the situation.

Long story short, for such a major failure on behalf of QF, I don't think what the OP is asking for is too much.

 

[Jack_OC]

It would be quite easy to argue that driving to the airport and paying to park there was essential to mitigate further losses (i.e. missing the flight).

I don't think you could argue that it was "essential" to take that option. An alternative option would have been to take a taxi, which apparently would have been about 85% cheaper than parking at the airport. While time was clearly short, that seems to be largely down to the OP not allowing any margin for error, despite the T&Cs explicitly stating that it is the passenger's responsibility to ensure they allow enough time to get to the airport and to accept the risk of "unforeseen circumstances".

Anyway, I'm not saying that QF shouldn't have offered a bit more in the way of compensation, but I'm not convinced they are legally obliged to do so.

 

[harvyk]

But they describe it as "a complimentary transfer service" - i.e. something you get "for free", not something you are directly paying for as part of your ticket. By contrast, they don't say, "buy a business class fare and we will offer you a complementary flight", because the flight is what you are paying for, and therefore clearly not "complimentary". I could be wrong, but I suspect the characterisation of the chauffeur drive service as "complimentary" is quite deliberate.

"Complimentary" is a meaningless advertising word. The fact is that with certain types of tickets they have chosen to include certain features, and for this ticket that includes chauffeur drive.

Just some interesting reading from the ACCC website -> Consumers' rights & obligations
Some points of interest include...

"fit for any specified purpose (express or implied)"

"If you sell a customer a service that fails to meet one or more of the consumer guarantees, he/she is entitled to a remedy – for example, a refund, a further service to rectify the problem and in some circumstances compensation for consequential loss. The service provider must then provide the appropriate remedy."

 

[RoMambai]

Are you sure that there is no legal requirement in an uber? There 100% definitely is a legal requirement when travelling in an uber in Victoria.

You could be right about uber. As I'd researched the law for taxis I assumed it was the same for rideshare folk. Either way it's never stopped me for plonking the seraphs in the backseat and heading for the airport. And drivers have never spoken up about it. My laissez fair approach may have something to do with arriving in Darwin many years ago on a leaky boat without a single lifejacket, EPIRB or trained Captain for that matter, so an infant capsule for a 10 minute journey isn't a major preoccupation for me. But of course I respect those for who it is.

I think you've got that the wrong way around. Everyone (even adults) is at far higher risk of injury and death due to a road traffic accident than an air accident. An unrestrained infant in a car would be at an even higher risk. The fact that the law does not require a child restraint in a taxi does not make it any safer than travelling unrestrained in a normal car.

Again you could be right. I was going off an old billboard near the exit off Tullamarine circa the late 80s which cajoled motorists to buckle up on the road ride home noting they had just endured the more riskier segment of the journey from wherever they came.

In short, I think this whole unfortunate imbroglio boils down to the OP's own admission that his wife's views on child safety had a bearing on his decision to drive. That to me is a personal choice and therefore the costs associated with it are a personal responsibility and not one that Qantas should have to bear.

 

[harvyk]

Just because I'm enjoying quoting the ACCC website, -> this is from the point of view of QF, the supplier...

"If the problem is minor and can be fixed, you can choose how to fix the problem.
The consumer cannot cancel and demand a refund immediately. You must have an opportunity to fix the problem."

So the OP did that part of the equation by calling QF and attempting to get the problem solved before driving in. QF failing to call back pretty much took everything out of their hands.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>
In short, I think this whole unfortunate imbroglio boils down to the OP's own admission that his wife's views on child safety had a bearing on his decision to drive. <snip>

Completely irrelevant... If this does go to NSW fair trading I can not imagine that QF arguing that "well you shouldn't have considered your child's safety" as a very convincing point.

 

[Isochronous]

I think it is part of the overall advertised product. The ticket doesn't mention meals, beverages, amenity kits or IFE either. But they're part of the ticket.

As for the OP's costs. I just wonder if there is a reasonableness test to be applied, even accounting for consumer protection laws. Can your expenses be uncapped?

There is, but Qantas have the onus of proof to show that the complainant failed in their duty to mitigate. For example chartering a helicopter would be a blatant example. Driving to the airport and parking there at last minute notice seems reasonable due to the Qantas chauffeur not arriving and Qantas not calling back with its own options, since otherwise there would be a risk of missing the flight.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My understanding is that no, your expenses can not be uncapped. Using an example of a flight delay where you arrange a hotel and then seek reimbursement through an airline, if you book at a 5 star resort you'd better make sure that it was the only accommodation available in that location at short notice, if it wasn't and there was say a 3 star option available the airline would be well within their rights to say "sorry, but you didn't attempt to limit your expenses therefore we won't be paying.

The reason why I see this as different is because of the time factor, there was no guarantee that a taxi would arrive within time. The explanation that short term parking was quicker to get to also somewhat makes sense. Even if it wasn't one could argue that a reasonable person simply wanted to get a car park in what they felt was the shortest amount of time given the stress of the situation.

Long story short, for such a major failure on behalf of QF, I don't think what the OP is asking for is too much.

But the OP, by their own admission, doesn't say this is a reason.

They say the reasons for driving their own car was to have a car seat for the child. Or take a taxi and dump the $500 car seat at the airport.

The OP later stated that his partner would need some convincing to travel without a car seat.

At no time was it mentioned that a taxi might not have arrived in time. Only that they felt it was unsuitable.

 

[Jack_OC]

"Complimentary" is a meaningless advertising word. The fact is that with certain types of tickets they have chosen to include certain features, and for this ticket that includes chauffeur drive.

Is that a fact, or your interpretation of the situation?

Just some interesting reading from the ACCC website -> Consumers' rights & obligations
Some points of interest include...

"fit for any specified purpose (express or implied)"

"If you sell a customer a service that fails to meet one or more of the consumer guarantees, he/she is entitled to a remedy – for example, a refund, a further service to rectify the problem and in some circumstances compensation for consequential loss. The service provider must then provide the appropriate remedy."

So obviously, the first question here is whether this is relevant at all (i.e. was a customer sold a service that failed to met one or more of the consumer guarantees?). Even if it is, we need to consider what was the specified purpose? I would say the specified purpose is getting someone to the airport if they "allow enough time to get to the airport" and accept the risks of "local traffic conditions and unforeseen circumstances" affecting travel time.

Note that the ACCC website also states "Consumers’ rights are not limitless and the consumer guarantees do not require you to provide a remedy unless one of the guarantees has not been met" and "You do not have to pay for damages or losses that .... are not caused by your business or the goods you supplied". As I said previously, I don't think this is as black and white as you are making out. By all means the OP should take it further if he wishes, but I'd say it will come down to whether or not QF decides to offer an infamous "gesture of goodwill".

 

[RoMambai]

Completely irrelevant... If this does go to NSW fair trading I can not imagine that QF arguing that "well you shouldn't have considered your child's safety" as a very convincing point.

I beg to differ. It speaks to the views (if not prejudices) of the OP which resulted in the decision they took that can be construed over and above that which a reasonable person would have made in the same circumstances. If the issue came down to child safety as you suggest, the laws wouldn't be what they currently are.

Or are you suggesting the regulations governing the transport of infants above 12 months is unsound. If that's the case I'd like to your grounds for this.

 

[dajop]

At no time was it mentioned that a taxi might not have arrived in time. Only that they felt it was unsuitable.

Yes, error on part of OP I think. If you don't have time to go to long term car park, you probably also don't have the time to chance that a taxi booking might or might not turn up.