- Oct 1, 2012
- Platinum 1
Yet you keep including the compensation in as part of the refund. You can't have it both ways. The couple in this case have not received a fair refund. That is not changed by you trying to pretend the $700 cash and $500 voucher are part of the refund.
No, I have done no such thing. I have never said the total was a refund. Read my posts again (or perhaps I should say, read them properly for the first time). I have consistently referred to the total compensation. I have included the refund of $1,250 as part of the total compensation (which is reasonable, is it not?); but I have not attempted to describe the total compensation as a refund. See below.
So I came to this late and just read the entire thread today! Firstly, with parents who are getting on a bit, and who travel in paid J when they come to visit us in Aus, I can really empathise. I know that the same situation would be extremely upsetting for my folks (and by extension, for me).
I have to say though, I'm surprised that people think the compensation ultimately (if belatedly) provided was inadequate. I suppose it's a great example of the importance of getting customer service responses right as soon as an incident occurs. Once the customers get really upset, there is often no way of retrieving the situation, and it looks like that's what's happened here.
Just to explain why I think the compensation was fair: the affected flight constituted about 40% of the flying time on the itinerary, and the fare for the whole lot ticket was $7,500. As such I'd say it's reasonable to put a price of $3,000 on the fare paid for the affected flight. If I understand correctly, the cash compensation provided was $USD700 + AUD$1,250 = about AUD$2,100, or 70% of the fare paid. That in itself would probably have been seen as reasonable if it had been offered up front. Add to that a $500 voucher and 50,000 points (worth at least another $500), and the total value of the compensation is more than the cost of the fare paid for this flight.
I realise these people are now so irate with QF that they don't plan to use the voucher or points. I really hope they reconsider though, as if they don't use them, the only winner is Qantas.
But what is a reasonable fare difference between a very deeply discounted J fare and Y? As it is, he flew in Y for about $900 (ignoring non-cash compensation). That's about as cheap as Y gets. When you include the non-cash compensation he flew for free (or even less than free, actually).
Genuine question, what compensation do you think was warranted?
Those are sale fares though, aren't they? I thought saver fares start around the $1800 mark rtn. In any case, the point I'm making is this:
If QF had handled this properly and offered this compensation up front, and the first post read like this:
"They've been offered (a) J seats tomorrow, plus hotel, plus $700 or (b) the option of flying Y today, plus $2,100 in cash, plus 50,000 QFF pts plus a $500 voucher"
Would there have been a lot of outrage? I think not. But because QF handled it so badly, now they would need to offer something pretty dramatic to placate everyone.
I understood that perfectly well, thanks - they were given a total of about $2,100 in cash compensation.
Of course it was part of their compensation. So what if it was given to everyone similarly affected? Why shouldn't it have been?
I know in QF semantics it was two different payments, but so what? All I've referred to is the total amount of cash they received.