BA earn prior to 31 March?

[Downwind]

Hi everyone,

I had a flight booked MEL-SYD(BA codeshare)-SIN (BA operated) return with no stopover in Sydney.

Having read the T&C's, I noted it stated quite unambiguously that travel in discount Y between these city pair will earn a base rate of 1. My issue is that I travelled between Melbourne and Singapore, via Sydney, but according to QF,I travelled between MEL and SYD and then between SYD and SIN, meaning i earn 0.25 from MEL to SYD and then 1 from SYD to SIN. I think this is incorrect, as does the FF service centre agent I spoke to, but the powers that be have declined to award the 1320 (2x 660) additional points. FWIW I have close to 1 Million FF points, so im not desperate for 1300 points but rather, its the principle of the matter.

So the question I have is, given there was no stopover in SYD, does the "between these city pairs" clause apply to my trip or do you think QF is correct?

cheers,

DW

 

[Danger]

I agree with the principle part. However, I think you've been credited points correctly.

The "between city pairs" clause only applied to selected selected Australian cities to/from selected Asian points to/from LHR. I'm quite confident it never applied to BA domestic codeshares (eg. PER-MEL). And although you didn't have a stopover in SYD, you did change flight numbers, so the calculation of points is, I believe, correct.

 

[Red Roo]

I agree with the principle part. However, I think you've been credited points correctly.

The "between city pairs" clause only applied to selected selected Australian cities to/from selected Asian points to/from LHR. I'm quite confident it never applied to BA domestic codeshares (eg. PER-MEL). And although you didn't have a stopover in SYD, you did change flight numbers, so the calculation of points is, I believe, correct.

This is correct. Travel has been credited as two different flight sectors MEL/SYD and SYD/LON as there was a change of flight number in SYD.

 

[Downwind]

I agree with the principle part. However, I think you've been credited points correctly.

The "between city pairs" clause only applied to selected selected Australian cities to/from selected Asian points to/from LHR. I'm quite confident it never applied to BA domestic codeshares (eg. PER-MEL). And although you didn't have a stopover in SYD, you did change flight numbers, so the calculation of points is, I believe, correct.

In all fairness, I see what QF's intention was but quoting the T&C's directly (my bolding):

^Travel in Discount Economy in the Eligible Booking Classes between these city pairs will earn a base rate of 1:
-Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and London or Frankfurt via Bangkok or Singapore,
-Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Bangkok or Singapore and London or Frankfurt and Bangkok or Singapore.


My argument is that I travelled between Melbourne and Singapore, it just so happens that it was via Sydney. The T&C's make no mention of domestic codeshares but by my logic, IF I stopped in SYD, then I would have travelled between MEL and SYD and SYD and SIN, with the MEL-SYD leg clearly falling outside of the T&C's and earn a base rate of 0.25, but because my domestic flight connected in less than 24 hours (the definition of a stop over) I still maintain that I travelled between Melbourne and Singapore and should therefore earn a base rate of 1 in accordance with the T&C's......

What difference does it make if I changed flight numbers? The T&C's make no mention of changing flight number, unlike where QF explicitly state that if you fly 2 sectors with the same flight number, it is considered a direct flight. To be frank, I am not required to interpret what QF intended, I am only required to follow what is actually written.

This is correct. Travel has been credited as two different flight sectors MEL/SYD and SYD/LON as there was a change of flight number in SYD.

Thanks for your input RedRoo, but I dont see where the T&C's deal with a change in flight number. They just state, quite unambiguously, that travel between Melbourne and Singapore earns a base rate of 1. If QF wanted the T&C's to reflect what they intended, then they should have included the words "on direct flights" or "on a single flight number".

 

[Downwind]

Redroo's silence is deafening........

This is what I love about QF. They intend to do X, but actually do Y and then don't even have the decency to fess up and rectify the problem. They prefer the silent treatment and hope the the problem gets filed away in the "too hard basket" and just disappears.

Challenge accepted!

 

[Red Roo]

Redroo's silence is deafening........

This is what I love about QF. They intend to do X, but actually do Y and then don't even have the decency to fess up and rectify the problem. They prefer the silent treatment and hope the the problem gets filed away in the "too hard basket" and just disappears.

Challenge accepted!

As highlighted, travel must be between two city pairs with the base earn rate of 1. Changing a flight number means that you have booked two separate flights, one trip between MEL and SYD and one trip between SYD and SIN. This is not one flight segment between the city pairs of MEL and SIN. Apologies for stating LON in my last response; I did of course mean SIN.

 

[Downwind]

As highlighted, travel must be between two city pairs with the base earn rate of 1. Changing a flight number means that you have booked two separate flights, one trip between MEL and SYD and one trip between SYD and SIN. This is not one flight segment between the city pairs of MEL and SIN. Apologies for stating LON in my last response; I did of course mean SIN.

Redroo, no problem with the LON error, i understood what you meant.

I'm also well aware that I travelled on BA7446 (QF430) and BA16 but what is in dispute is whether this constitutes one trip or two. If I stopped in Sydney for more than 24 hours (the very definition of a stopover), then it would be exactly as you describe, but given that I did not, IMHO it can only be described as one trip.

The T&C's dont make any reference to the word trip, single flight number/s or even one flight segment/s. They dont even mention the word "flight" but instead use the term "travel" and it is my submission that I "travelled" between Melbourne and Singapore, city pairs that ought to be eligible for the higher base rate of 1.

To further illustrate my point, the T&C's also make mention of several other city pairs where no single flight number or direct flight (on BA, BA codeshare operated by QF or even QF themselves) exist. These include Adelaide to Bangkok, Perth to Bangkok, Brisbane to Bangkok, Melbourne to Bangkok (QF codeshare on the JQ flight, but BA can not given JQ is not a part of OneWorld) and Bangkok to Frankfurt. All of these flights would require a transit via another port that would cause them to fall foul of the T&C's. What is the point of specifically listing flights between city pairs, where no such flight exists?

Im sorry that the T&C's dont accurately reflect what QF intended them to, but I can not and will not be held responsible for them being so poorly constructed. In any case, it is clear to me that we will have to agree to disagree on this and I thank you for your input. This matter needs to be clarified by an external authority and it is for this reason that I will escalate the matter to VCAT. Not for the 1300 points but for the principle.

 

[markis10]

A couple of points:

To further illustrate my point, the T&C's also make mention of several other city pairs where no single flight number or direct flight (on BA, BA codeshare operated by QF or even QF themselves) exist.

Codeshares have existed in the past as have BA services as some stage, making your point invalid, T&Cs must take into account historical as well as todays circumstances.

The T&C's dont make any reference to the word trip, single flight number/s or even one flight segment/s. They dont even mention the word "flight" but instead use the term "travel" and it is my submission that I "travelled" between Melbourne and Singapore, city pairs that ought to be eligible for the higher base rate of 1.

Yes, they do, in fact they specifically state points will only be paid via flight segment:

9.3.3 Points may be earned for each Flight Segment travelled on Eligible Flights by a Member

'Flight' means one way travel (without a Stopover) on a scheduled air service with a single flight number (even if the travel includes a change of aircraft). If travel includes a change of flight number, each change is a new Flight even if there is no change of aircraft;

 

[Downwind]

Codeshares have existed in the past as have BA services as some stage, making your point invalid, T&Cs must take into account historical as well as todays circumstances.

I know that both airlines had a far more extensive network in the past, but I think codeshares are a relatively more recent concept, certainly more recent then when some of these sectors were last flown. Off the top of your head, might you happen to know when BA or QF operated flights between ADL/BNE/PER/MEL and BKK or between FRA-BKK? I know that MEL was the last destination to be axed by BA and replaced with the codeshare on QF10, which I think may also now be discontinued due to BA's realignment with CX.

Surely its not too much to ask that T&C's be updated to reflect, say the last 5 or 10 years? I see no point in taking into account flights that may have existed 20 years ago as they are simply no longer relevant. 9.3.5 has already been amended to remove BA flights from the minimum points guarantee, a change that only took effect 5 or so weeks ago, so I dont understand or accept why they would leave in flights that haven't existed for a number of years. The fact that there is no current or recent way to get to BKK from ADL/BNE/DRW/FRA or PER other than via a port that would fall outside of the airline earning table, indicates to me that they had no regard for how you got there other than that your origin and destination must form a "city pair"

Yes, they do, in fact they specifically state points will only be paid via flight segment:

9.3.3 Points may be earned for each Flight Segment travelled on Eligible Flights by a Member

'Flight' means one way travel (without a Stopover) on a scheduled air service with a single flight number (even if the travel includes a change of aircraft). If travel includes a change of flight number, each change is a new Flight even if there is no change of aircraft;

Sorry, that was my mistake. I was actually referring to the Airline Earning Table and not the T&C's. I agree with 9.3.3 and have no issue with the fact the points were issued as MEL-SYD-SIN. What is in dispute is the base rate. 9.3.4 states that "Points for air travel will be accrued at the applicable Base Rate as specified in the Airline Earning Table". This table makes no mention of the words I listed above or the reasons explained by RedRoo but rather refers to "travel" between city pairs. The T&C's make no distinction with regards to route, flight number or sectors, but only with city pairs and it is my argument and my ticket reflects that my "trip" started in Melbourne and ended in Singapore and I had no business being in Sydney, other than to connect to BA 16. I really fail to see how it can possible be interpreted any other way.

I can see QF's point of view and what they were trying to convey, but unfortunately the airline earning table doesn't reflect this. They easily could have inserted words such as "direct flights", "single flight number", "non stop" or anything else to make absolutely clear that they intended the higher base rate to only apply to non- stop flights between those city pairs. Saying "travel between these city pairs" with no route or flight number details doesn't quite mean the same thing and that is what I will seek VCAT to clarify.

 

[markis10]

Sorry, that was my mistake. I was actually referring to the Airline Earning Table and not the T&C's. I agree with 9.3.3 and have no issue with the fact the points were issued as MEL-SYD-SIN. What is in dispute is the base rate. 9.3.4 states that "Points for air travel will be accrued at the applicable Base Rate as specified in the Airline Earning Table". This table makes no mention of the words I listed above or the reasons explained by RedRoo but rather refers to "travel" between city pairs. The T&C's make no distinction with regards to route, flight number or sectors, but only with city pairs and it is my argument and my ticket reflects that my "trip" started in Melbourne and ended in Singapore and I had no business being in Sydney, other than to connect to BA 16. I really fail to see how it can possible be interpreted any other way.

I can see QF's point of view and what they were trying to convey, but unfortunately the airline earning table doesn't reflect this. They easily could have inserted words such as "direct flights", "single flight number", "non stop" or anything else to make absolutely clear that they intended the higher base rate to only apply to no stop flights between those city pairs. Saying "travel between these city pairs" with no route or flight number details doesn't quite mean the same thing and that is what I will seek VCAT to clarify.

The airline earning table is part of the terms and conditions and both most be read together, the program pays you points per flight segment as per the clause already quoted, travel between places is via segment as per the governing clauses.

As far as codeshares are concerned, the term was in fact invented by QF and AA who first started using them in 1989, hardly recent.

 

[Downwind]

The airline earning table is part of the terms and conditions and both most be read together, the program pays you points per flight segment as per the clause already quoted, travel between places is via segment as per the governing clauses.

As far as codeshares are concerned, the term was in fact invented by QF and AA who first started using them in 1989, hardly recent.

I am well aware that they both apply, but it seems to me that QF is quite happy to invent its own meaning when it suits them. I fail to see anything in the T&C's that remotely comes close to defining "travel between city pairs" as being a single/direct/nonstop flight.

Regarding codeshares, you conveniently failed to read the word "relative". If QF and AA invented codeshares in 1989 (a fact i did not know or care to google), when did QF enter into codeshares with BA?

BA and QF (as Imperial Airways and Qantas Empire Airways) have been cooperating (not codesharing, as clearly this was only invented in 1989) on the "kangaroo route" since 1935, so I stand by my original point that 24 year old codeshares (with AA and NOT BA) are a relatively recent concept when you consider the 78 odd years of cooperation between BA and QF that saw them connect London with every Australian capital. Im still curious to know when QF or BA last operated non stop services between ADL/BNE/PER/MEL and BKK or between FRA-BKK and why those sectors still form part of the airline earning table?


But good on you for ignoring the main issue.....

 

[markis10]

Regarding codeshares, you conveniently failed to read the word "relative". If QF and AA invented codeshares in 1989 (a fact i did not know or care to google), when did QF enter into codeshares with BA? .

Qantas entered into a JSA which involved codeshares in 1995, again hardly recent being now 18 years old, and they had not been cooperating for as long as you state, as it was illegal since 1974 thanks to the TPA, hence the JSA. Good luck with taking things further, I would consider it a waste of time and resources myself.

 

[Downwind]

Qantas entered into a JSA which involved codeshares in 1995, again hardly recent being now 18 years old.

So the JSA is 18 years old.

When was the last time BA or QF flew non stop between ADL/BNE/PER/MEL and BKK or between FRA-BKK. Id bet my house that at least one of those sectors is more than 18 years ago, if ever!

If I deduct the 21 years between 1974 and 1995, it makes it 53 years of cooperation vs 24 years of codeshares of AA. What was your point again? As a moderator, I wouldn't have thought youd be so argumentative over such a minor issue that is tertiary to this post.

As for taking it further, why shouldn't I?
ReddRoo and yourself have failed to present compelling arguments that support QF's decision. All I've heard is one excuse after another, none of which are backed up by the airline earning table or the T&C's.

Don't take this personally, but its people like you that just cop it on the chin that makes companies like QF feel like they can get away with treating their "high value customers" like the proverbial. Where is Priority boarding? the discussion on here is over 200 pages long. Priority Luggage? Same deal. J lounge closure over xmas for refurbishment? What the frig? You honestly expect me to believe that QF did not know that they were contemplating a system wide refurb that would require them to close ALL the J lounges over xmas which we were told was the quietest time of year, with a 30-40% drop in business travellers? Funny how the MEL lounge manager told me that she personally expressed her concerns about this, given that it was a time when WP, P1 and CL members travelled for leisure with their families. So not only is the closure questionable in the first place, I don't accept they did not have more foresight to provide the 3 or 6 months notice required. Furthermore, if there is a 30-40% drop in J travellers, why not offer some SA upgrades to make up for the withdrawal of J lounge access? Why would that possibly be in the interests of Qantas, given the WP and P1 mugs will just suck it up in the inferior QP lounge, which for the record I was told was equivalent to the J lounge so my complaint was baseless. We are always expected to accept what we are given yet you still think taking things further is a waste of time? When will QF realise that when they publish benefits and T&C's, they also apply to them?

It seems to me that when something happens that is the passengers fault (like some poor chap who lost over 400k points due to account inactivity), QF throw the book at us and tell us its all in the T&C's that we were expected to read 10 years ago, but when they stuff up, you get a thinly veiled apology if you're lucky and are expected to let it slide. Well Ive had ENOUGH of this bollocks. I intend to hold QF accountable for each and every misrepresentation, failure to provide benefits and breach of contract. The do exactly the same to me, so its only fair!

 

[serfty]

Early this century I flew MEL-xSYD-KUL vv on BA, the MEL/SYD legs were BA flight numbers on QF metal.

It was quite a shock to get 110 qff points for the MEL/SYD sectors rather than the minimum 1000 for QF flight numbers.

I was diappointed, but got over it. I only did it to see what happens as I could have, at the same price, booked the QF flight numbers. Lesson Learned ...

 

[Downwind]

Early this century I flew MEL-xSYD-KUL vv on BA, the MEL/SYD legs were BA flight numbers on QF metal.

It was quite a shock to get 110 qff points for the MEL/SYD sectors rather than the minimum 1000 for QF flight numbers.

I was diappointed, but got over it. I only did it to see what happens as I could have, at the same price, booked the QF flight numbers. Lesson Learned ...

Im glad you shared my disappointed...

A few questions for you tho.

Do you recall if the airline earning table or the T&C's at the time included KUL? I only ask, as they clearly are no longer listed and Markis10 indicated that the T&C's need to reflect historical data.

Did you expect the QF 1000 point minimum point guarantee on a BA flight number?? Because I don't. The FF miles between MEL and SYD is 440, so with a base rate of 0.25 its reduced to 110. With the WP status bonus, its 220. If it earned a base rate of 1, as I think it should, then it should be 440 base miles, plus 440 WP bonus for a total of 880 each way. Thats 660 less each way than what was awarded and why I think I have been short changed 1320 points. Ive NEVER expected or asked for the QF minimum points guarantee, just a base rate of 1 and the appropriate WP bonus.

After a few redemptions, im back to about 600k FF points, so I clearly dont miss the 1320 points, but I simply disagree with QF's decision for the reasons I have outlined, ad nauseum. Ordinarily, this would be filed in the "too hard basket", but i've just about had a gutful of QF and their absolute disregard for their "most valuable passengers". This issue for me is the camel that broke the "priority boarding, priority luggage, J lounge closure over xmas under the guise of renovations" camels back.

I am sick and tired of QF making all of these (mis)representations and when it comes time to actually providing the benefits they advertise and promise, its just one excuse after another after another after another. ENOUGH!

I will challenge this decision in VCAT in the vain hope that it might actually force Qantas to rethink its interaction with the people/customers that keep it in business. I won't however, be holding my breath.