Goodbye Qantas

[Austman]

If you tell a pax you cannot do something it avoids an argument whether you really cannot do that something or just do not want to do it.

But when you genuinely want to help the pax and then have to tell them that you can't in many QPs at many times - I don't believe it's just avoiding an argument.

I know enough to know that the sentiment was genuine.

 

[katiebell]

QED definition of 'flexible': Able to be easily modified to respond to altered circumstances

Given the Aussie tendency to abbreviate everything this would be the expected definition of 'flex'. If the fare does not live up to its moniker then the discrepancy should be clearly stated without extra clicks/pages/windows etc etc. It is quite reasonable to expect a flex fare to be easily changed and, if this is not the case then the name should be changed to reflect reality.

It makes no business sense to have a plane take off with 30 empty seats: an empty seat in the air is revenue lost for ever. An empty seat on the ground is potential revenue.

 

[boomy]

QED definition of 'flexible': Able to be easily modified to respond to altered circumstances

Given the Aussie tendency to abbreviate everything this would be the expected definition of 'flex'. If the fare does not live up to its moniker then the discrepancy should be clearly stated without extra clicks/pages/windows etc etc. It is quite reasonable to expect a flex fare to be easily changed and, if this is not the case then the name should be changed to reflect reality.

It makes no business sense to have a plane take off with 30 empty seats: an empty seat in the air is revenue lost for ever. An empty seat on the ground is potential revenue.

Good point. The OP bought the most expensive Y fare, there was nothing else they could do to ensure flexibility and yet when so many seats available still denied a move to an earlier flight. Sounds to me there was a lack of common sense by the J lounge agent, not something unusual in SYD.

Regarding the authority of lounge staff, they can change Flexi and non-Flexi bookings, just need an excuse to do that.
Recent example, traveled on same Dom flight with business partner who is OWE (CX Diamond). We were on separate PNRs, each made their own booking. When he asked to FlyAhead was told by the QP agent: "I'm not supposed to do it but since you're traveling together..."
Don't know how many seats were vacant on that flight but it didn't depart full in Y. It was all down to the positive attitude of that QP agent who wanted to help.

Going back to the OPs case, from my experience, SYD J lounge staff can be hit and miss. While they are mostly nice people, some can be impatient when it comes to special requests. I suspect the OP just got unlucky with an agent who couldn't be bothered and decided to stick to the rules no matter what.

 

[Austman]

Regarding the authority of lounge staff, they can change Flexi and non-Flexi bookings, just need an excuse to do that.
Recent example, traveled on same Dom flight with business partner who is OWE (CX Diamond). We were on separate PNRs, each made their own booking. When he asked to FlyAhead was told by the QP agent: "I'm not supposed to do it but since you're traveling together..."
Don't know how many seats were vacant on that flight but it didn't depart full in Y. It was all down to the positive attitude of that QP agent who wanted to help.

By linking the two bookings so that the P1 benefit then applied to both?

 

[boomy]

By linking the two bookings so that the P1 benefit then applied to both?

It's a valid theory. The agent didn't say anything about linking and it took similar time to change both bookings (I checked in first, then my partner) plus they did say "I'm not supposed to do it..." but I didn't look at the screen so can't say for sure what was done.

 

[TomVexille]

It's a valid theory. The agent didn't say anything about linking and it took similar time to change both bookings (I checked in first, then my partner) plus they did say "I'm not supposed to do it..." but I didn't look at the screen so can't say for sure what was done.

And "I'm not supposed to do it..." is very different to "Computer says no" or "I can't do that"

 

[Austman]

And "I'm not supposed to do it..." is very different to "Computer says no" or "I can't do that"

Probably not supposed to link two bookings to just to allow a benefit, print the boarding passes and then un-link them?

We know that once linked, the higher status benefit can apply to both.

It has for me many times.

 

[TomVexille]

Probably not supposed to link two bookings to just to allow a benefit, print the boarding passes and then un-link them?

We know that once linked, the higher status benefit can apply to both.

It has for me many times.

Either way, it was possible to be done...

 

[Austman]

Either way, it was possible to be done...

But hardly under the circumstances we are discussing.

And I suppose it could be argued that lounge staff should just keep making phone calls until they get someone to authorise a change that they are not themselves allowed to make. Because, eventually, that authority does exist.

It's the system, not the staff's discretion!

But if they can get around the system (eg by linking to a P1 making the same request), they probably will.

 

[boomy]

But hardly under the circumstances we are discussing.

And I suppose it could be argued that lounge staff should just keep making phone calls until they get someone to authorise a change that they are not themselves allowed to make. Because, eventually, that authority does exist.

It's the system, not the staff's discretion!

But if they can get around the system (eg by linking to a P1 making the same request), they probably will.

We can argue that the authority does exist, within reason and common sense. The system is the same everywhere but somehow there are different outcomes to similar situations so in the end it's down to staff and management decisions on the spot.

 

[Austman]

We can argue that the authority does exist, within reason and common sense. The system is the same everywhere but somehow there are different outcomes to similar situations so in the end it's down to staff and management decisions on the spot.

I would hardly describe your situation as similar to the OP's who doesn't appear to be P1.

And, unlike many here on AFF, I actually believe what I have been told, face-to-face, many times, by QF lounge and other check-in staff.

And that is that it's not at their discretion.

Else there are many Qantas staff who are prepared to lie, face-to-face, to a high status customer. I just don't believe that.

Of course anyone can try to escalate anything.

 

[boomy]

I would hardly describe your situation as similar to the OP's who doesn't appear to be P1.

And, unlike many here on AFF, I actually believe what I have been told, face-to-face, many times, by QF lounge and other check-in staff.

And that is that it's not at their discretion.

Else there are many Qantas staff who are prepared to lie, face-to-face, to a high status customer. I just don't believe that.

Of course anyone can try to escalate anything.

Off course my situation was similar to the OPs, otherwise I wouldn't bring it up in this thread. There was someone who wasn't entitled to FlyAhead and got it anyway. Any connection to my P1 status besides the agent knowing we are traveling together is mere speculation. The staff said nothing about linking our bookings and their words didn't indicate that either. It's an option you raised which may or may not be correct.

Bottom line is the staff said they did something "they shouldn't do" which proves they have the authority to override the system.

 

[Austman]

Off course my situation was similar to the OPs, otherwise I wouldn't bring it up in this thread. There was someone who wasn't entitled to FlyAhead and got it anyway. Any connection to my P1 status besides the agent knowing we are traveling together is mere speculation. The staff said nothing about linking our bookings and their words didn't indicate that either. It's an option you raised which may or may not be correct. Bottom line is the staff said they did something "they shouldn't do" which proves they have the authority to override the system.

Not even close IMO.

Travelling with a high status passenger can make a LOT of difference to the situation. It did for me personally just a week ago in similar circumstances.

Linking a booking (if that was even necessary) is probably something that's not supposed to be done just to circumvent a change restriction.

 

[boomy]

Not even close IMO. Travelling with a high status passenger can make a LOT of difference.

I'm not arguing that but the lounge staff could stick to the rules and say OWE (non QFF) is not entitled to FlyAhead or they could bend the rules and allow it. They chose the latter, this is the main point. If they did that because he was flying with P1 or for any other reason is irrelevant. They still did something that is outside the rules.

The OP isn't exactly a nobody as QF WP LTG who regularly flys on most expensive Y fare.

 

[Austman]

I'm not arguing that but the lounge staff could stick to the rules and say OWE (non QFF) is not entitled to FlyAhead or they could bend the rules and allow it. They chose the latter, this is the main point. If they did that because he was flying with P1 or for any other reason is irrelevant. They still did something that is outside the rules. The OP isn't exactly a nobody as QF WP LTG who regularly flys on most expensive Y fare.

But was it outside the rules?

If a P1 can change why can't P1 + travelling party also change?

I'm WP and have been for years and now LTG too. I have been knocked back many times. So I know WP alone is not enough to get around the restriction.

 

[boomy]

But was it outside the rules?

If a P1 can change why can't P1 + travelling party also change?

I'm WP and have been for years and now LTG too. I have been knocked back many times. So I know WP alone is not enough to get around the restriction.

I'm not disputing your personal experience. If there is something QF is most known for (besides safety) it's inconsistency.
One agent can say "computer says no" while the other can say "I'm not supposed to do it but...".

 

[Austman]

I'm not disputing your personal experience. If there is something QF is most known for (besides safety) it's inconsistency. One agent can say "computer says no" while the other can say "I'm not supposed to do it but...".

I guess so. But P1 probably made a lot of difference to the situation and allowed "computer to say yes". The "I'm not supposed to do it but..." might mean that the staff aren't really supposed to link the other booking (by one means of another) to the P1, at such a late stage, just to circumvent the rule.

As I said, I had a similar experience at check-in a week or so ago. My status and the fact that the other non-status pax was travelling with me, although on a separate booking, made a "not possible" situation, suddenly possible.

 

[Quickstatus]

The experiences of Airline love or unlove only prove these:

1)no one really knows why it occurred. There are so many variables that are in play, that it is really impossible to be certain why it happened.

2)for every positive story there will be many negative stories

3)the real story is likely to be somewhere between that told by a passenger and the airline

4)many will have an expectation that it will happen again and will assume it's due to one reason or another. If it does not happen then it's an escalation to complaints office.

5)Status or not in the end we are just self loading freight with toilet privileges.

 

[Austman]

I disagree with everything Quickstatus said, but I did enjoy reading it!

 

[CaptJCool]

So since Qantas are "gaming" the rules, so then are their customers.

The original point stands. Flexible fares aren't actually transparently flexible because "I'm not supposed to be doing this" tells me this.

AND under ACCC governance this becomes a case of crossing the border in which new lawless rules apply. Sure you can price gouge up-front, that's the point of our capitalist world, sell the same product at multiple different price points to customers willing to pay more than others, but a double dip on it "because" they have the relative bargaining power and the customer doesn't ?? That's sailing way over the line and acting like Mexican drug lords on Falcon International Reservoir - half way across (you leave USA and cross the border and) new opaque lawless "interpretations" apply.