I wasn't going to contribute again, then I typed up a response but decided to give myself a few days to calm down and think this through.
I really cannot believe the personal attack given that you don't know me, know even less about my education and business knowledge, and seem to miss the point that my original post was intended to give some further reasoning as to why you may have been shifted at OOL. Let me politely point a couple of things out:
Where to begin with your diatribe?
If the AFL contract has specific requirements regarding player comfort (observe, your English needs some remediation), then should such be provided for whilst disregarding commitments made to other customers?
You are correct, I missed the s and for that I apologise. The AFL is a dynamic business and needs travel at short notice on a regular basis. Virgin may be obliged (and again I'm not 100% sure of this just repeating what was stated on a Channel 7 TV show) to provide the extra legroom seats to AFL Travelers. If that is the case I would imagine that Platinum passengers would be shifted for AFL travelers given that the AFL contract is in the many millions per year, against a spend of $10k for Platinum. While I don't know your business, and I'm not going to assume that you're any less worthy than an AFL staff member or player, the odds are that given 2 of the three passengers you were travelling with hold less or no status the AFL contract would win in this game of seat allocation poker.
If flight crew are displaced, this happens for a number of reasons - faulty aircraft, weather, family emergencies and illness. All are completely reasonable and able to be communicated, however you are contradicting yourself in assuming that being placed in a different seat is done for any of those reasons. If any seats in the economy cabin are adequate for any paying customer, then they are clearly adequate for all customers needing to travel with the stated conditions.
VA, to their credit, don't put the Flight Crew in J. They do put them in the extra legroom seats though. I have often wondered if this is a requirement of the EBA for duty travel? It's hard to get good pilots, and to keep them happy. You only have to see the immense pressure that the IAPA, AFAP and VIPA place on the business when they are negotiating the EBA. Perhaps that is a reason for this? If it was simply a member of staff enjoying the benefits of staff travel, I would agree with you that any seat should do the trick, but I do wonder if there isn't some mechanism that gets the flight crew the front rows when on duty travel? (and for what it's worth, and I should have disclosed this earlier I was shifted from Row 3 to Row 4 last year on an ERJ. All of Row 3 had dressed for duty pilots in the seats and there wasn't any apparent weather issues or cancellations of services etc
Regarding Row 3 being a benefit when available, it was offered because it was available at time of inquiry. Again, your basis is flawed.
I don't think that my basis is flawed at all. If the seating is available at the time of booking, it is allocated. It's not confirmed and that is clear throughout the booking, seat allocation, and check in processes that passengers follow. Just because something was offered doesn't mean it was confirmed. Seating is never confirmed until your backside is planted in the seat, and even then it can be changed by airport control or the Captain.
If something untoward was done by a staff member, why would the company seek to deny themselves a reputation of transparency? Given your assertion regarding staff conduct and policy, I suspect your understanding of business is terribly limited.
You suspect wrong. The staff members have a right to privacy, as does the business have an obligation to protect staff. One would imagine that transparency as you see it would lead to a thread on AFF "The OOL lounge staff changed my seats". An internal matter is just that.
Your "thought" is not at all appropriate nor relevant to the situation. If I ask why my displayed loyalty to a loyalty program offered by an airline as a USP (unique selling point - I suspect you may need a definition) is confirmed as made available and then retracted without communication or reason then that is clearly justified within the basis under which said business conducts itself. The idea that a commercial transaction under reasonably expected terms could be compared reasonably to the health of human beings in a medical practice is one of ignorance and folly - you really need some perspective.
Again you suspect wrong, I'm fully aware of the term USP, but thank you on behalf of anyone who may not be aware of it reading the thread.
As mentioned above the seat is allocated not confirmed. The travel is confirmed, the seat you sit in may change so this wasn't retracted for it wasn't committed in the first place.
Perspective on the other hand is interesting, an appointment time at a health care practitioner is allocated, not confirmed. Health Care, like Aviation has a lot of things that can change at short notice that can have significant impacts to individuals or groups. I suggest you try reading Dick Karl's articles in the US edition of Flying Magazine. He is an Oncologist who now in semi retirement fly's Citation jets for a Part 135 operator instead of working the operating theatre. He often draws the parallels between Health Care and Flying (especially when working in Health Care full time in his articles a few years back). That was the perspective I was using.
If you'd not demand an answer, why did you even attempt to contribute?
To try and help you understand some of the reasons why this may have happened.
Where did anyone in this thread propose or contend that contribution would result in a change in behaviour on the part of
Virgin Australia?
Your original question:
Am I being overly optimistic in expecting a straight answer from Virgin? Failing that, is it unreasonable to expect that recognition of the airline's conduct actually occur?
Would suggest you were seeking a change in behaviour to get an answer as VA's policy is to state that it's due to operational reasons.
If you're sick of writing in this thread about a seat selection issue you consider trivial, then you're both applying your interpretation of the situation and your ignorance of the facts.
It's a remarkably simple basis - over 30 days before travel 3 passengers were given confirmed seating on two flights. On the second flight, none of these arrangements were honoured and no communication or justification was offered before the event or upon inquiry.
The trivial part came from the constant inference that the seat selection was confirmed.
If you're having trouble grasping this set of facts and deciding to exclude yourself based on entering the discussion and then finding the discussion too hard to continue, the only person that speaks of is you.
The discussion is most certainly not too hard for me to continue. Arguing about a change of seat, when everything published by the operator clearly states that the seat allocated is subject to change, is what is difficult when the other party wants to argue contrary to the published facts.
Regards,
Boof