Does Qantas maintain its aircraft??

[drewbles]

With all du respect, I didnt bring up McDonalds or Burger King.

And yes, after this episode, i will be spending my money elsewhere, the it begs the question.... You buy you ticket in good faith, and in the case of international, you don't actually see what you've bought until you have "left" the country. In my situation, where "some dirt and dust" is not agreeable, what do you suggest? That I offload, ask for a refund (which they'd probably knock back) and then have to book with another airline at the last minute and pay top dollar? or do I attempt to enforce my existing contract with the airline in question?

In any case, I did not enter the aircraft looking out for the dirt and dust and it was not immediately obvious. My attention was drawn to it when i adjusted the reading light and found that my fingers were left feeling sticky/tacky and it was then, on closer inspection that the true extent of the dirt and dust became apparent, approximately 1 hour north of Fiji. So I ask you, what would you have me do? because I couldnt have exactly gotten off now could I??

If the dirt and dust doesnt bother you, thats great news for you. It does however, bother me, and it is not your place to question that.

The logic that seems to be missing in all of this seems to be, were these flights up to Qantas's own standards?? It has been admitted to me both verbally and in writing that they were not, which to me is an admission that I was not provided with what I should ordinarily expect on a Qantas flight, which is therefore a breach of contract. You are entitled to disagree but the consequences are that you will continue to fly in filthy, dirty and dusty Qantas aircraft and I will not.

Well i'm sorry for thinking it was a forum in here:

forum |ˈfôrəm|noun ( pl. forums )1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged :

I'm not disputing that it may have been dirty or dusty. It bothers you, fine. It's also my view that it's really not important. Different strokes and all that.

Considering how often I fly QF, you appear to have had an isolated incident. Yes, some will be dirty, and as others have stated, they've seen equally or worse 'disgusting' things on other carriers.

I'll leave it at that because I don't want to get into a slanging match at nearly gin-o'clock.

 

[goldy]

What I think is the thing here is that is it an isolated incident? I believe it is as I have not been in a dirty aircraft at all. and I am sure if the a/c were dirty people would have posted sooner.

It should also be mentioned that the 744's are all getting a refit as well starting this year IIRC so they will have new interiors..

and you will still be hard pressed that it is a breach of contract.. i hope your solictor bill isn't too high at the end..

Have you read my previous replies? 2 aircraft, 2 different routes on different dates does not IMO make it an isolated incident. I am also happy for you, that you have not had the displeasure of being in an aircraft for 15 hours and wondering what the hell you are sitting in (has someone previously wee'd or vomited in my seat, and if so, has it been cleaned) and what on earth you are breathing in.

The 744 refit is no excuse to not clean them properly.

and that is your opinion, which I respect, but the matter would be for a court to decide and not members on this forum.

 

[drewbles]

and that is your opinion, which I respect, but the matter would be for a court to decide and not members on this forum.

I'm sorry I have one more question...

If it's a matter for the courts, why have you bought it up on the forums? We're all entitled to our opinions and I 100% respect yours, that's a little contradictory.

Perhaps it's time for a little mod-eration in here to clean it up (pardon the non-intended pun).

 

[nlagalle]

Have you read my previous replies? 2 aircraft, 2 different routes on different dates does not IMO make it an isolated incident. I am also happy for you, that you have not had the displeasure of being in an aircraft for 15 hours and wondering what the hell you are sitting in (has someone previously wee'd or vomited in my seat, and if so, has it been cleaned) and what on earth you are breathing in.

The 744 refit is no excuse to not clean them properly.

and that is your opinion, which I respect, but the matter would be for a court to decide and not members on this forum.

Yes I did.. and out of 44 flights this year alone I have not had 1 dirty aircraft.. Hence it is still isolated. and I have worse fear on sitting on a seat for 15 mins on public transport than i ever would sitting on a Qantas seat.

I never said it wasn't - merely pointing out they are getting a new fit out.

I guess if you can get it to court.. I still cannot read anywhere what legal basis you'd have to have the matter heard in a civil court. It would be an utter waste of time.

By your reckoning I could take Metro to court over the state of the seats in the trains too, and the dust and rubbish.. Seriously you cannot think it will land anywhere near a judge.

 

[goldy]

Well i'm sorry for thinking it was a forum in here:



I'm not disputing that it may have been dirty or dusty. It bothers you, fine. It's also my view that it's really not important. Different strokes and all that.

Considering how often I fly QF, you appear to have had an isolated incident. Yes, some will be dirty, and as others have stated, they've seen equally or worse 'disgusting' things on other carriers.

I'll leave it at that because I don't want to get into a slanging match at nearly gin-o'clock.

No need to apologise, nor is a slinging match necessary. We are all entitled to different opinions and that is the reason for the post. To gauge others opinions.
Im not trying to change your mind, and as you say, different strokes for different folks. If your happy with QF, then continue to fly with them. Im not and probably wont.

And whatever has been seen on other carriers is, in my view, irrelevant. Firstly because my beef is with QF and secondly, just because another airline did it does not make it OK.
Id really like to know, if those people flew with those airlines again like Qantas would like us to do?

I get the whole concept of voting with your feet, but like I said, that was impossible to do, 1 hour north of Fiji. I contacted QF and told them I had no intention of flying back to Australia based on my displeasure with the previous flight, they were sorry my expectations were not met, but there was nothing else they could do. Thats where they were wrong. They could have cleaned the stupid plane!!

 

[goldy]

Yes I did.. and out of 44 flights this year alone I have not had 1 dirty aircraft.. Hence it is still isolated. and I have worse fear on sitting on a seat for 15 mins on public transport than i ever would sitting on a Qantas seat.

I never said it wasn't - merely pointing out they are getting a new fit out.

I guess if you can get it to court.. I still cannot read anywhere what legal basis you'd have to have the matter heard in a civil court. It would be an utter waste of time.

By your reckoning I could take Metro to court over the state of the seats in the trains too, and the dust and rubbish.. Seriously you cannot think it will land anywhere near a judge.

Doesnt make any sense to me but lets just leave it at that.

I do not take public transport (excluding commercial air travel, which is public) for the same reason.

If you felt that you were not getting what you paid for on Metro, then yes you could sue. Id like for you to also understand that court is not my first avenue in attempting to resolve this matter. As you may appreciate, this situation is significantly more complicated than what has been detailed here. But the point id like to make is that Qantas have made certain promises and admissions, which when considered within the scope of the law, lead me and my legal advisors to believe that there are grounds on which to bring this matter to court, and if you knew anything about the law, you'd know that anything and everything lands before judges but thats not to say that they will always succeed.

 

[ozmille]

well I think most of the people on this forum do a fair amount of flying on QF and it appears that your case is rather exception then rule

 

[goldy]

well I think most of the people on this forum do a fair amount of flying on QF and it appears that your case is rather exception then rule

Doesn't mean its acceptable, nor does it matter if its the exception or the rule. Do you get let off a speeding fine, because you've only done it once?? unlikely. You speed and get caught. you pay the fine. Qantas must also be held accountable when they except the rule.

 

[nlagalle]

Doesnt make any sense to me but lets just leave it at that.

my point is you have an isolated case. Between the people on there there are hundreds of QF flights taken yearly and no one has reported what you are saying in terms of cleanliness of the plane.

If you felt that you were not getting what you paid for on Metro, then yes you could sue. Id like for you to also understand that court is not my first avenue in attempting to resolve this matter. As you may appreciate, this situation is significantly more complicated than what has been detailed here. But the point id like to make is that Qantas have made certain promises and admissions, which when considered within the scope of the law, lead me and my legal advisors to believe that there are grounds on which to bring this matter to court, and if you knew anything about the law, you'd know that anything and everything lands before judges but thats not to say that they will always succeed.

I can tell you now it would never get into a court room. I also can't see how it is complicated. You said the plane was dirty (which is your main gripe) and you had some bad connections and upgrades that were promised by someone didn't happen. I can't see why you think pursuing court action is going to achieve anything.

And no, not everything and anything lands in front of a judge.

 

[nlagalle]

Doesn't mean its acceptable, nor does it matter if its the exception or the rule. Do you get let off a speeding fine, because you've only done it once?? unlikely. You speed and get caught. you pay the fine. Qantas must also be held accountable when they except the rule.

Actually in Victoria you can.. no speeding fine in the last three years and you can get a caution if it is under 10km/hr.

 

[goldy]

Actually in Victoria you can.. no speeding fine in the last three years and you can get a caution if it is under 10km/hr.

Are u serious?? try not taking the example so literally but see that it is analagous to the topic being discussed.

But to be more specific...... If you got caught speed in Victoria, 2 years and 11 months ago, and just got caught again, meaning there was a 2 year and 11 month gap between your speeding offences, which by definition, mean they are "one off's" and that you're not a habitual speeder, you'd still have to pay the fine!!!

or if you were caught doing 11km/h over the limit, either within 3 years or outside 3 years, you'd still have to pay the fine!!

Are these example more acceptable for you?? or would you like for me to try and dream up 10,000 more so that I cover every possible permutation and variable? quite unbelievable really....

 

[nlagalle]

Are u serious?? try not taking the example so literally but see that it is analagous to the topic being discussed.

But to be more specific...... If you got caught speed in Victoria, 2 years and 11 months ago, and just got caught again, meaning there was a 2 year and 11 month gap between your speeding offences, which by definition, mean they are "one off's" and that you're not a habitual speeder, you'd still have to pay the fine!!!

or if you were caught doing 11km/h over the limit, either within 3 years or outside 3 years, you'd still have to pay the fine!!

Are these example more acceptable for you?? or would you like for me to try and dream up 10,000 more so that I cover every possible permutation and variable? quite unbelievable really....

you made an example, i provided an answer.. Police also have means to let you off for speeding too if they so wish.. my point on that is that there are exceptions

Here is an answer back to yours. QF operates several hundred flights per day. over the course of a month it is around 18,000 from memory. You landed twice in aircraft (was it the same perhaps) that wasn't that clean (bad run). What percentage is that to the overall number of flights taken? less than 1%. You see where your argument is lost?

There is no evidence of QF running dirty aircraft. For a start it would have been posted here. Plenty have posted on the number of flights taken and none have reported it.

Do you also realise how quickly aircraft dust up due to the environment (dry and static)?

Given these basic numbers, I fail to see where your arguments are justified. 2 flights out of how many thousand in that timeframe? there is no contract broken, and all you will do is tie up some solictors/lawyers who will laugh as they will be the winners.

 

[goldy]

you made an example, i provided an answer.. Police also have means to let you off for speeding too if they so wish.. my point on that is that there are exceptions

Here is an answer back to yours. QF operates several hundred flights per day. over the course of a month it is around 18,000 from memory. You landed twice in aircraft (was it the same perhaps) that wasn't that clean (bad run). What percentage is that to the overall number of flights taken? less than 1%. You see where your argument is lost?

There is no evidence of QF running dirty aircraft. For a start it would have been posted here. Plenty have posted on the number of flights taken and none have reported it.

Do you also realise how quickly aircraft dust up due to the environment (dry and static)?

Given these basic numbers, I fail to see where your arguments are justified. 2 flights out of how many thousand in that timeframe? there is no contract broken, and all you will do is tie up some solictors/lawyers who will laugh as they will be the winners.

I have since provided a more detailed example for you to sink your tooth into and look forward to that enlightened response or will the cat finally get the tounge?
I think we all know that there are exceptions to any rule, but how many fines get revoked in the way you described? id bet my house its not that many.

i dont care about how many flights QF operate. I only care about the ones I'm on. Ive told you twice already that the aircraft were different, but for some reason this fails to register. The overall % may be 1% (your figures), but I can also 'fudge the books' by stating that on that particular trip that included 18 flights, 3 of which were on QF metal, 2 flights, or a MASSIVE 66.66% of the aircraft on which I flew were dirty. I can fudge them even further by saying that out of 2 QF international flights, both or 100% were dirty. In fact, it is this statistic I find most concerning.2/2 aint good!!

I do realise how quickly aircraft get dirt (for the reasons you've given), but the question you should be asking is, Do Qantas?? They should have the best idea of all, and put systems in place to counter it. The dirt and dust I encountered was not "fresh", it was caked on and stuck to a greasy like substance, which indicated to me that it hadn't been there for a few weeks, but more likely several months.

You don't need to see where and how my argument is justified, as much as I dont need to convince you of it. You have your opinion and I have mine and they are allowed to differ. simple as that really.....

I dont see why my "entertainment" of some solicitors/lawyers would be any concern of yours, given that the outcome has no impact on you, nor are you paying for it.

 

[nlagalle]

i think we all know that there are exceptions to any rule, but how many fines get revoked in the way you described? id bet my house its not that many.

I hope you are ready to lose your house..

i dont care about how many flights QF operate. I only care about the ones I'm on. Ive told you twice already that the aircraft were different, but for some reason this fails to register. The overall % may be 1% (your figures), but I can also 'fudge the books' by stating that on that particular trip that included 18 flights, 3 of which were on QF metal, 2 flights, or a MASSIVE 66.66% of the aircraft on which I flew were dirty.

you may not but it would be taken into account overall.

I do realise how quickly aircraft get dirt (for the reasons you've given), but the question you should be asking is, Do Qantas?? They should have the best idea of all, and put systems in place to counter it. The dirt and dust I encountered was not "fresh", it was caked on and stuck to a greasy like substance, which indicated to me that it hadn't been there for a few weeks, but more likely several months.

I am pretty sure they do because all 44 flights I have done on QF this year have been on clean aircraft.. so i am guessing they do. There is no evidence of systematic failure in cleaning planes.

You don't need to see where and how my argument is justified, as much as I dont need to convince you of it. You have your opinion and I have mine and they are allowed to differ. simple as that really.....

I dont see why my "entertainment" of some solicitors/lawyers would be any concern of yours, given that the outcome has no impact on you, nor are you paying for it.

well it does have an impact - our society ends up being like america as vexatious litigants. A situation I hope we don't end up.. It simply costs us all more in the long run.

It's cases like this that leave me shaking my head - it rivals with sueing because the coffee was too hot..

 

[goldy]

I hope you are ready to lose your house..

so why dont you enlighten us with the percentage of all fines issued that get revoked in the way you describe (and im not talking about when a road side caution was issued instead of a fine)?

Governments are addicted to fine revenue as much as Amy Winehouse was to heroi_. And neither it seems can/could give it up, so it begs belief that a government would forgo a few hundred dollars to the general coffers just because you only sped once in the last 3 years.

you may not but it would be taken into account overall

By whom? and for what purpose? I can tell you now, a judge would not be interested in the other 17,998 flights that QF operate, but only the ones in dispute.

I am pretty sure they do because all 44 flights I have done on QF this year have been on clean aircraft.. so i am guessing they do. There is no evidence of systematic failure in cleaning planes.

all my other flights with them this year have been fine too... but i fail to see your point?

As has been mentioned, it seems that the International 744 fleet suffer most from the dirt and dust. how many of your 44 flights have been on these aircraft?

well it does have an impact - our society ends up being like america as vexatious litigants. A situation I hope we don't end up.. It simply costs us all more in the long run.

Your damn right it does.... so there is the incentive for companies to do the right thing in the first place and not treat their "highly valued" customers with such indifference and contempt.

you do know what vexatious litigants are don't you?? One meritless or frivolous case does not make someone a vexatious litigant. I am also not in a financial or other position to subdue of harass a behemoth like qantas, so you'd might want to scrub up on your knowledge before throwing wild accusations about.

It's cases like this that leave me shaking my head - it rivals with sueing because the coffee was too hot..

and what was the outcome of this case?? oh yeah... SHE WON!! $640,000 to be precise.

Seeing as the second flight originated in the US, perhaps I should list the matter in their jurisdiction where I too could get significant punitive damages. Now theres a thought!

 

[munitalP]

Im aghast that this thread has gone as far as it has with personal attacks regardless of how eloquently worded. As drew said - about time it was mod-erated...

Goldy - theres a little button at the bottom right to multi quote posts...

Goldy - I would suggest you are wasting your time, regardless of how you conceive the law of contracts. I have a commercial law 101 book if you wish to borrow it...

As with nlagalle and others, of the one or two QF flights I have done, I have never been in a dirty AC. I have been sitting in Karratha watching dust gather due to static inside the AC - thats the environment, not a dirty AC.

 

[nlagalle]

so why dont you enlighten us with the percentage of all fines issued that get revoked in the way you describe (and im not talking about when a road side caution was issued instead of a fine)?

Governments are addicted to fine revenue as much as Amy Winehouse was to heroi_. And neither it seems can/could give it up, so it begs belief that a government would forgo a few hundred dollars to the general coffers just because you only sped once in the last 3 years.

See this is where you are wrong. I'm not going to put in for an FOI request to see the percentages.. but if you don't believe me here is the official link:

Victoria Police - Official warnings

I've also yet to hear of a person not getting off.. I've tried it once before and received a caution..

By whom? and for what purpose? I can tell you now, a judge would not be interested in the other 17,998 flights that QF operate, but only the ones in dispute.

they'll look at past history. you think they won't take into account prior history either?

all my other flights with them this year have been fine too... but i fail to see your point?

As has been mentioned, it seems that the International 744 fleet suffer most from the dirt and dust. how many of your 44 flights have been on these aircraft?

I've done 4 flights on 744's in the last 12 months. none were dirty. Will happily travel in one tomorrow if i had the chance.

Your damn right it does.... so there is the incentive for companies to do the right thing in the first place and not treat their "highly valued" customers with such indifference and contempt.

so all companies must do everything 100% of the time or they can be sued? that's what you are claiming here. as i have tried to point out, you have an isolated case. there is no systematic failure here. you are basically saying if it isn't done 100% right all of the time, someone can sue.

you do know what vexatious litigants are don't you?? One meritless or frivolous case does not make someone a vexatious litigant. I am also not in a financial or other position to subdue of harass a behemoth like qantas, so you'd might want to scrub up on your knowledge before throwing wild accusations about.

I know exactly what it is and why I tagged society in front of it.

and where have I mentioned your finacial situation? I am merely pointing out where it costs everyone in the long run.

and what was the outcome of this case?? oh yeah... SHE WON!! $640,000 to be precise.

Seeing as the second flight originated in the US, perhaps I should list the matter in their jurisdiction where I too could get significant punitive damages. Now theres a thought!

And what does that do to us?? insurance premiums rise as a result! things end up costing more because of a few simple minded idiots. And how much of the $640,000 did she get and what did the lawyers get? you cannot for a minute believe that this case was worthy of going to court for any reason? Do you also know that many of these cases are also lost on appeal too?

 

[NSWhere]

Good luck to you buddy. While the majority of us here disagree with you the majority of us here are also shameless Qantas fans. More importantly, none of us are the judge ruling on your case (assuming it goes to court).

 

[goldy]

Good luck to you buddy. While the majority of us here disagree with you the majority of us here are also shameless Qantas fans. More importantly, none of us are the judge ruling on your case (assuming it goes to court).

And that is totally fine. At least you have to decency to highlight your conflict of interest (being qantas fans). It was never my intention for it to go to court, Qantas have been sitting on the complaint for over a month, and unless they resolve it to my satisfaction (and im trying to be as objective as possible) then there will be nowhere else for the matter to be resolved. It seems to me like people think I haven't given QF a chance to fix the problem, and gone straight for the throat, which is not the case.

 

[goldy]

I'm not going to put in for an FOI request to see the percentages..

Im not really fussed by the percentages and you did raise the point, so without any concrete evidence, I think its very difficult to establish whose right or wrong.

they'll look at past history. you think they won't take into account prior history either?

so what if they looked at past history and find that everything was in order. that only serves to reinforce my argument that everything on the flight in question was not. Next would be why not and soon after that would come, plaintiff received XYZ on previous flights which he came to expect as that is what the respondent has provided previously and does so currently, therefore plaintiff did not receive the same product as the respondent would normally offer, breach upheld!!

I've done 4 flights on 744's in the last 12 months. none were dirty. Will happily travel in one tomorrow if i had the chance

So would I... if it was clean!!

so all companies must do everything 100% of the time or they can be sued? that's what you are claiming here. as i have tried to point out, you have an isolated case. there is no systematic failure here. you are basically saying if it isn't done 100% right all of the time, someone can sue.

umm yeah, thats exactly what i'm saying. When you have a contract, you are legally required to execute the contract in its entirety and not the bits and pieces you choose to. When they don't, they are required to remedy the fault, and I have and continue to give Qantas the opportunity to do that, but if they don't, then I will seek the assistance of the courts in having the matter resolved.

and where have I mentioned your finacial situation? I am merely pointing out where it costs everyone in the long run.

im not saying you did. quite the contrary. Big companies with deep pockets often engage in protracted, expensive, vexatious litigation to subdue or harass a lesser party. I was just highlighting the fact that my pockets are no where near as deep as those of Qantas and so me taking them to court on one occasion can not be classed as vexatious, as I do not have the financial means to engage in such behaviour.

And what does that do to us?? insurance premiums rise as a result! things end up costing more because of a few simple minded idiots. And how much of the $640,000 did she get and what did the lawyers get? you cannot for a minute believe that this case was worthy of going to court for any reason? Do you also know that many of these cases are also lost on appeal too?

well im sorry, but i cant be held responsible for those matters by taking Qantas to court. I do get that you were offering a generalisation, and I actually agree with you on this point.

as for how much of the $640,000 the lady got, i have no idea, but that was the published settlement. Whilst I agree with you that, IMO, the case was not worthy of going to court, it clearly WAS, because it was successful, both in the first instance and on appeal. So all im trying to highlight here, is that despite something looking black and white to you or I, the Law is not always about right and wrong, but rather who's lawyer argues better, and that works in both directions. Guilty parties get off and innocent ones Dont.

So whilst you're all entitled to your own opinions, don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

IF ​the matter gets to court, ill let you know the outcome. But that is not my preferred method of resolving this issue.