Banned from QF (for a few months)

[serfty]

I realy think this whole seat assignment thing should be in a different thread
...

It has been, but people still have been posting about in this thread rather than the new thread here: Preselecting Seating leaving Open Seat between you. Is it gaming?

 

[hmmm]

Ooops - I must have lost that in the waffle amongst other things.

Kind of funny how others were able to find the relevant information, whereas you couldn't. Seems to indicate a particular bias.....

 

[hmmm]

I decided that he wasn't flying after the first post.

Which is totally fine. I actually asked them to move me to another airline that WOULD provide the published benefits that they seemingly couldn't or refused to do. Furthermore, Ive never argued against the merits of the ban. However.....the way in which it was handled leaves a lot to be desired. They initially moved me to the last Sydney departure, 2 or so hours later, and a few minutes before boarding, came to advise me that I was being denied boarding. Why not ban me at the start? I could have easily bought a new ticket on EK, SQ or any other airline at that point. IMHO, it was done to cause maximum inconvenience which just highlights the nastiness and petulance of the entire episode.

Bear in mind, This entire thread came about because I replied to one person who was upset about witnessing a QF FA refusing to accept a passenger from the priority boarding line in the regular boarding line that he was manning. That person was furious, despite not being personally affected or impacted by what he saw, and you sheep were in full support of his position. I, on the other hand was personally affected by something QF did, and you all seem to want to bully and blame me for the situation, accusing me of having anger management issues, some alluding to me being drunk, and god knows what other drivel they've cared to dream up. Im quite grateful to the people on here who have remained relatively neutral and have kept an open mind, as opposed to many others who have joked and laughed at my expense. Id like to ask them what they'd feel like if this was done to them? As it is, they were all "outraged" at the PB issue, but remain indifferent at what happened here. Now dont get me wrong, I dont seek or need anyones approval, but jumping onto a bandwagon without knowing all the facts or making up your own facts to suit your narrative, says more about them than I ever could.

 

[hmmm]

Exactly. There's a time and a place.. And there's a way to handle such things respectfully while still getting the point across.

And, unless I missed it amongst the vitriol, the exact nature of the seat change was never given.. as in.. bulkhead aisle or window to a middle down the back? to a similar seat just further back or even another seat in the same row?

Regardless of this though there's a way to approach staff and ranting and raving (one can only assume it's along these lines given the DB) isn't the way. Be assertive by all means and work with them given a situation has Happened to find an acceptable compromise. I would submit staing one would not get far by "refusing to fly" on the assigned seat. Remember that contract of carriage? It's about getting you from point A to point B. No where does it guarantee because you picked 24A you'll get 24A. Most of the tim eyes.. in fact the vast majority of the tme, but things happen. Is it good the seat was changed (for whatever reasons).. of course not. Does it suck? Definitely... but you pay for a seat in a class of service. Pouting up like a 54 year old saying "I own't go because of this seat you put me in".. and you'd be treated like that 5 year old.. and hey, they didn't go....

if it were me I'd ask what else was available and either pick the best of a bad bunch and live with it, ask for alternate flight options, or even chance of an upgrade or something else to work it out. Standing ground definiatly claiming rights I don't have? nah.

The difficulty with all of this comes down to two two things. Firstly, you lose leverage after the fact and secondly, what I consider misrepresentation.

Iv'e had more than enough situations where you complain about something after the fact, only to be given the good old, "we are sorry we didn't meet your expectations on this occasion and we hope to do better next time" BS excuse. Just prior to this Singapore event, I flew to HKG with no inflight entertainment whatsoever. Initially, i got the above BS apology. after escalating the complaint, i got a piddly 3,000 FF points. 3,000 points for 9 hours of boredom. I also had over 700,000 points, so the 3,000 was quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Had I known that the IFE didn't work (on the whole aircraft mind you), I would not have boarded. But alas..... we were intentionally misled about the nature of the failure. We were initially delayed by about an hour because they were fixing it. Then we were told that it couldn't be turned on until we were at altitude, because apparently it was overheating and we had to wait until we were in the colder air. Naturally, when the aircraft has departed, you no longer have a choice. Had they told us the truth, I think half the people would have refused to fly. Does that sound fair, reasonable, ethical or moral to you?

Secondly, Qantas, or any airline for that matter, cannot have its cake and eat it too. It cannot espouse all these benefits that convince or persuade you to book with them, namely all of the relevant/appropriate status benefits, only to then not provide those benefits. So whilst they may not be "rights" exactly, they are published benefits that form what are legally referred to as implied terms. So, with with all due respect to conditions of carriage, they are superseded by actual consumer laws. So whilst the CoC form a substantial part of the contract, they do not constitute the entire contract.

If QF persuade people to book with them by telling them they will get Priority boarding, priority luggage, lounge access, additional luggage allowance or anything else they want to throw in, then guess what.... that forms part of the contract, and when those benefits are not provided, Qantas is in breach of that contract and it must make good. An apology simply doesn't cut it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sure, it you need to look at the materiality of the breach. IFE, food, other amenities... they’ve all been paid for and should be compensated if not supplied. But you’d want to check if a failure of IFE allowed you to terminate the contract (refuse to board).

The delay in advising you in Singapore about refusal to carry... it *may* have been designed to cause you maximum inconvenience. But equally, there are other things the airport and flight crew have to deal with in preparing for departure. The flight crew have to check the weather, flight notes, do pre-flight checks etc. They may not have been in a position to consider your case - and whether they would let you fly - until an hour before departure. That seems like the more likely scenario.

 

[hmmm]

Sure, it you need to look at the materiality of the breach. IFE, food, other amenities... they’ve all been paid for and should be compensated if not supplied. But you’d want to check if a failure of IFE allowed you to terminate the contract (refuse to board).

The delay in advising you in Singapore about refusal to carry... it *may* have been designed to cause you maximum inconvenience. But equally, there are other things the airport and flight crew have to deal with in preparing for departure. The flight crew have to check the weather, flight notes, do pre-flight checks etc. They may not have been in a position to consider your case - and whether they would let you fly - until an hour before departure. That seems like the more likely scenario.

Firstly, I didnt want to terminate the contract. I wanted to ENFORCE it. If that meant moving me onto a CX flight, or whatever they needed to do to ensure my contractual entitlements were met, then I would've been happy with that. but to arbitrarily amend the contract with no consent from me is fundamentally unfair. To unilaterally determine fair and appropriate compensation is also fundamentally unfair.

Regarding the denied boarding, to be honest, I have no idea who actually denied me boarding. But it was communicated by a person whom id not dealt with previously, who was not in uniform and refused to identify themselves, a few minutes before boarding. Does that sound transparent, fair or reasonable to you?

I was initially rebooked for the QF flight the next day, but forced to overnight at my own expense, several hours before that departure, I received an email from Qantas Security advising me that I'd actually been banned. Despite it being quite specific, it was also contradictory and quite "generic" in its overall tone:

"During your No Fly Period -Until Further Notice, restrictions stated in this letter will apply.


Restrictions during your No Fly period

You are not permitted to:

· travel on any flight operated by a member of the Qantas Group or the Jetstar Group;

· travel on any codeshare flight operated by another airline (including Emirates) that has a Qantas or Jetstar flight number, such as “QF” or “JQ”, on your ticket; or

· purchase any flights on a Qantas issued ticket, either through Qantas directly or through a travel agent acting on our behalf, or ask or allow any person to do so for you.


Your Qantas Frequent Flyer account will be suspended, which means you cannot have any activity on your account, including earning or redeeming any Qantas Points or access Qantas Lounges based on your Qantas Frequent Flyer status.


Despite the above, you are permitted to use any accumulated Qantas Points to make a Classic Award booking for travel on a flight that is operated by a partner. If you wish to make such a booking, you will need to contact Qantas Reservations (13 13 13), as you will not be able to make any bookings using your Qantas Frequent Flyer account via qantas.com.


You are also permitted to access a Qantas Lounge when travelling on another carrier, if that carrier has an agreement in place for its customers to access that Lounge and you are entitled to access the Lounge under that carrier’s rules and the Qantas Club terms and conditions.


Regards



Head of Security – Qantas Airways"

So as you can see.... it also states my frequent flyer account will be suspended, despite the terms and conditions of the frequent flyer program not allowing for this and qantas security having no authority or jurisdiction over the FF program. It states that I cant have any activity on my account, specifically earning or redeeming any points, but then says im allowed to use (redeem) my points for classic award bookings on partner airlines. Now forgive me, but wouldnt anyone be slightly confused by this?
"you cant earn or redeem points", but then "you can redeem points on partner airlines". The whole debacle was a complete and utter joke!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It seems relatively straight forward... but that’s me looking at it from an objective point of view. It probably looks different to you, subjectively.

It simply states that your account is suspended, but can be unlocked - by calling - for the purposes of using any existing points to book partner awards. Anything Qantas related... flying, lounge access, points earning or redemption... all temporarily suspended.

 

[FL360]

"Qantas head of security" - it is just a blunt instrument for the legal department of Qantas simply not to serve HM anymore because HM seems to be a lawyer and costing Qantas legal more "billable time" - for nothing.

guess what, even F,J class nowadays is a mass production product !

 

[hmmm]

It seems relatively straight forward... but that’s me looking at it from an objective point of view. It probably looks different to you, subjectively.

It simply states that your account is suspended, but can be unlocked - by calling - for the purposes of using any existing points to book partner awards. Anything Qantas related... flying, lounge access, points earning or redemption... all temporarily suspended.

Are you kidding me??

you can earn points by flying with partner airlines... you can also redeem points on other airlines. but this letter, to me at least, reads as though the account is suspended and I cannot earn or redeem any qantas FF points. I dont accept that I should be expected to read between the lines and interpret whatever they are trying to convey, given this is presumably a legally enforceable letter.

Secondly, Qantas Security has no authority to act over the frequent flyer program, which is effectively a separate company. Only Qantas "Loyalty" has that authority as per their own terms and conditions.

'Qantas Loyalty' means the Qantas Group Company that is responsible for administering Qantas Frequent Flyer.

8. Suspension or Termination of Membership
8.1 If a Member has committed a material breach of any of the Terms and Conditions or has failed to pay any money due under Qantas Frequent Flyer, or Qantas Club or Qantas Business Rewards by the due date, whether intentionally or otherwise, then Qantas Loyalty may do any one or more of the following:

(a) suspend or terminate the Member's Membership and/or the right of the Member to use the Card;
(b) reverse or cancel the Member's Qantas Points or any part thereof; or
(c) cancel or refuse to honour any Rewards (including ticketed Reward Flights), Benefits or both, that have been redeemed by or provided to the Member.

8.2 If Qantas Loyalty intends to take action under clause 8.1, it will notify the Member of its intention and the reason for that action. The Member will then have 21 days to respond to this notice by rectifying the breach (where possible) and providing any reason why Qantas should not take action (provided that Qantas Loyalty may suspend the Member's account until any review is completed). Qantas Loyalty will review the response and advise the Member of its position.

8.3 Membership will terminate automatically on the death of a Member. Qantas Points earned but not yet redeemed or transferred prior to the death of the Member will be cancelled. Qantas Loyalty will close the Member's account on notification of the Member's death. Qantas Loyalty will not be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever suffered by any person as a result of such cancellation.

Looks very cut and dry to me. but maybe im just not being objective enough.......

 

[drron]

Thanks for coming back and providing this extra information hmmm.It really does suggest that it was poorly handled by QF and indeed that someone was being vindictive.
I certainly feel that this is not as cut and dried as many have tried to paint.
But there is a bright side.Now you have cut the bonds that held you to QF you can fly and appreciate other fine airlines that are out there.I have found it brings great pleasure.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Are you kidding me??

you can earn points by flying with partner airlines... you can also redeem points on other airlines. but this letter, to me at least, reads as though the account is suspended and I cannot earn or redeem any qantas FF points. I dont accept that I should be expected to read between the lines and interpret whatever they are trying to convey, given this is presumably a legally enforceable letter.

Secondly, Qantas Security has no authority to act over the frequent flyer program, which is effectively a separate company. Only Qantas "Loyalty" has that authority as per their own terms and conditions.

'Qantas Loyalty' means the Qantas Group Company that is responsible for administering Qantas Frequent Flyer.

8. Suspension or Termination of Membership
8.1 If a Member has committed a material breach of any of the Terms and Conditions or has failed to pay any money due under Qantas Frequent Flyer, or Qantas Club or Qantas Business Rewards by the due date, whether intentionally or otherwise, then Qantas Loyalty may do any one or more of the following:

(a) suspend or terminate the Member's Membership and/or the right of the Member to use the Card;
(b) reverse or cancel the Member's Qantas Points or any part thereof; or
(c) cancel or refuse to honour any Rewards (including ticketed Reward Flights), Benefits or both, that have been redeemed by or provided to the Member.

8.2 If Qantas Loyalty intends to take action under clause 8.1, it will notify the Member of its intention and the reason for that action. The Member will then have 21 days to respond to this notice by rectifying the breach (where possible) and providing any reason why Qantas should not take action (provided that Qantas Loyalty may suspend the Member's account until any review is completed). Qantas Loyalty will review the response and advise the Member of its position.

8.3 Membership will terminate automatically on the death of a Member. Qantas Points earned but not yet redeemed or transferred prior to the death of the Member will be cancelled. Qantas Loyalty will close the Member's account on notification of the Member's death. Qantas Loyalty will not be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever suffered by any person as a result of such cancellation.

Looks very cut and dry to me. but maybe im just not being objective enough.......

Qantas had, at the time, banned you from flying Qantas. They can’t ban you from flying other airlines. In that context, notwithstanding it might be a clumsy email, they are suspending your membership to the extent that involves earning any qantas points, or taking any qantas flights (including qantas group and codeshares).

But as you can still fly other OW airlines, they allowed the opportunity to redeem any existing points you have, which *could* have been a fairly generous provision in you favour, depending on the circumstances (for example if it had been something serious where they were going to terminate outright, although that didn’t turn out to be the case).

 

[FL360]

let's hope HMM saved a screenshot of his previous valid status !

could be a chance for status match with *A... ?

 

[songhost]

Their communication/customer care channels are hard to reach. That's really disappointing

 

[straitman]

Kind of funny how others were able to find the relevant information, whereas you couldn't. Seems to indicate a particular bias.....

It is very easy to miss an individual post in a thread of this length.

 

[RailFlyer]

This thread reminds me a bit of something I witnessed at MEL a few months ago. It was the day of the big storms in Auckland (that ended up cutting power to 33% of Auckland houses). I was due to fly MEL->AKL that afternoon, but had seen weather reports saying the worst of the storm would coincide with my landing there. So I decided to re-book onto the red-eye and get some extra time in the office, as I had firsthand witnessed a few too many roller-coaster flights in Europe a couple of weeks earlier.

While waiting at the gate for the red-eye, we were informed it would be delayed as the 737 that I had been booked on, had gone all the way to AKL and turned around and come back to MEL due to the weather (insert smug look on my face here!).

I happened to be sat just behind the gate desk. I was amazed to see the way the passengers off the earlier return flight treated the gate agents. Although 6 hours on a 737 to get nowhere, probably tests the patience... the number of DYKWIA's who came up, stating their WP status and demanding a business class seat on the red eye was amazing. All shapes and sizes (i.e. not just grumpy old men), but each of them had such a sense of entitlement and threw a hissy fit when it was explained to them that their would be riot if they issued out the few remaining J seats to only a few of the people who wanted them.

Off topic - all other flights to AKL also diverted that night and went to CHC except that one.

 

[jb747]

Nobody at the gate or in ticketing can ban anyone. That takes place appreciably higher up the feeding chain, and is not done lightly. I've seen many people refused boarding, and none, that I know of have been banned.

Had I known that the IFE didn't work (on the whole aircraft mind you), I would not have boarded. But alas..... we were intentionally misled about the nature of the failure. We were initially delayed by about an hour because they were fixing it. Then we were told that it couldn't be turned on until we were at altitude, because apparently it was overheating and we had to wait until we were in the colder air. Naturally, when the aircraft has departed, you no longer have a choice. Had they told us the truth, I think half the people would have refused to fly. Does that sound fair, reasonable, ethical or moral to you?

Oh, and exactly where were you misled? You are assuming that the IFE was never going to work, and that the people on the ground knew that.

 

[hmmm]

Nobody at the gate or in ticketing can ban anyone. That takes place appreciably higher up the feeding chain, and is not done lightly. I've seen many people refused boarding, and none, that I know of have been banned.



Oh, and exactly where were you misled? You are assuming that the IFE was never going to work, and that the people on the ground knew that.

Firstly, it seems odd to only hear one side of the story and then make a decision. I was never contacted or asked to explain myself. This lacks transparency and procedural fairness.

Secondly, what exactly am I assuming? I bought a ticket expecting to have access to their ‘award winning’ IFE. Clearly they knew it was broken because we were delayed an hour while they tried to fix it. I’m obviously not privy to wether or not it was actually fixed, all I can tell you is what I was told, which is that it WAS fixed but that it couldn’t be turned on until we were at altitude where the air was cooler and the system wouldn’t overheat. When they turned it on, every screen was blank. Seems odd to me that they fixed it on the ground only to not have it work in the air and the fact thy offered such a specific explanation leads me to believe they knew it wouldn’t work but they wanted the flight to depart and I know for a fact that IFE is not on the MEL.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

In a way it is inherently unfair. The passenger doesn’t get to give their side of the story. The most obvious example of this is a passenger who may be refused carriage because they appear intoxicated, but without a BAC reading the passenger might be under .02 for all the airline staff know.

And it’s inherently unfair because the automatic assumption is made that a passenger who appears stroppy on the ground will likely be stroppy in the air as well. Undoubtedly this will be the case sometimes, but it’s not a given.

Passengers being refused the right of redress is not uncommon. We saw it with the doctor removed from the United flight in the USA. The security detail accepted, without question, the word of airline staff. This also set off a chain of mainifestly unfair, and probably illegal, events.

Unfortunately for passengers the time for redress appears to be after the fact. It doesn’t make it right, but the bigger picture is the need to dispatch and aircraft, with 100-500 other passengers on board... before crew times out, and needing to make their intended departure slot.

You sued, you got your money back. Something however must have triggered the initial desire by the airline to deny boarding and refuse carriage. Without us being there, and without recorded evidence, it’s hard to know whether the airline was justified in their action.

 

[jb747]

Secondly, what exactly am I assuming? I bought a ticket expecting to have access to their ‘award winning’ IFE. Clearly they knew it was broken because we were delayed an hour while they tried to fix it. I’m obviously not privy to wether or not it was actually fixed, all I can tell you is what I was told, which is that it WAS fixed but that it couldn’t be turned on until we were at altitude where the air was cooler and the system wouldn’t overheat. When they turned it on, every screen was blank. Seems odd to me that they fixed it on the ground only to not have it work in the air and the fact thy offered such a specific explanation leads me to believe they knew it wouldn’t work but they wanted the flight to depart and ......

An assumption. "They knew it wouldn't work". Have a think. You were told that it had overheating issues on the ground, but that it would work in flight. It's actually a tad difficult for them to test that particular scenario, unless you're suggesting they take the aircraft out for a flight to have a look. Nevertheless, there is a real failure sequence that leads to exactly this outcome. You may not believe it, but then you have no technical knowledge of the aircraft

I know for a fact that IFE is not on the MEL.

Really. You're trying to tell me this. IFE per se might not be on the MEL, as it is not an airworthiness item. But, the systems that run it certainly are.

ECAM:
VENT IFE BAY VENT FAULT

IFEC - OFF
When, the IFEC pb-sw is set to OFF:
IFE BAY VENT AVAIL IN FLT


MEL:
On ground with both packs running and the CAB FANS pb-sw set to ON:
Set the IFEC pb-sw to Auto and wait for 5 min.
The alert appears with the INFO message IFE BAY VENT AVAIL IN FLT on the STATUS SD page:
Set the IFEC pb-sw to OFF on ground.
The IFE bay ventilation is insufficient on ground due to high ambient temperature. The IFE bay ventilation available in flight.

So, there you go. An MEL.

 

[Melburnian1]

An assumption. "They knew it wouldn't work". Have a think. You were told that it had overheating issues on the ground, but that it would work in flight. It's actually a tad difficult for them to test that particular scenario, unless you're suggesting they take the aircraft out for a flight to have a look. Nevertheless, there is a real failure sequence that leads to exactly this outcome. You may not believe it, but then you have no technical knowledge of the aircraft...

At least on some types of aircraft, QF is known for encountering frequent IFE failures. Efforts by the crew to reboot are frequently unsuccessful.

There are many online reviews from discreet sites stating this, so there was arguably a fairly good chance of it being as problematic in the air as it was being while stationary.