How much is fair for a 7 hour delay?

[redwoodw]

Hello all,

Was recently on an extensively delayed QFi service (QF117). The A/C was on the inbound QF118 the previous day, so had a 4 hour turnaround time in SYD. The flight was originally delayed for 2 hours at ~1500 (from 1550 to 1750), citing engineering issue. At this point the CX flight departing around the same time won't take any pax anymore given the short timeframe. Further delay was announced at ~1650 and the departure time was pushed back to 1200 /+1 day by then. I was lucky enough to be transferred onto the redeye CX flight at night, but still arrived at my destination 7 hours late (plus the discomfort of being on a redeye in Y and landing at 0445). The delay certificate QF given out cities a "complex mechanical fault" as the cause of the delay, so the delay is definitely within QF's control.

What boggles my mind is how poorly QF has handled the delay. Had QF announced the delay earlier (they would've known whether it's fixable or not given they had a 4 hour turnaround), some pax could've been transferred onto CX100 flight departing at 1550. An alternative aircraft could've also been easily arranged given SYD is QF's base. OTOH, all the pax being transferred onto the night time CX flight had to return to landside to retrieve their bags and wait for CX check in to open for 2 hours in landside, a major inconvenience for the pax.
I've had a try at the QF social media team for compo for the extensive delay with no luck. So my question is this: How much is a fair ask for compo for a 7 hour delay?(Or is it fair to ask for compo?)

On a side note, I've brought some perishable goods with me on the flight, and despite having multiple ice bricks to chill the items, they didn't survive the 7 hour delay. Is it fair to claim compo from Qantas for this? TIA

TL;DR: QFi mechanical delay entirely within QF's control for 7 hours, day flight turned into redeye, is it fair to ask for compo/how much is a fair ask?

 

[33kft]

Is there any suggestion that European airlines compromise safety because of EU261?

No reason for it to be any different here in Australia.

Commercial realities don't exist in the aviation industry, I guess? I wonder where all the free money to pay claims comes from. Every decision that is made in day to day aviation operations straddles a fine line between safety and economics, and every time that needle moves, you are compromising one or the other.

The goal is to do so without breaching regulations or suffering bad publicity. If safety was really that important, you wouldn't have airlines selling exit row seats to 80 year olds would you? You'd have them given away to the most able bodied individuals on the flight.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>The goal is to do so without breaching regulations or suffering bad publicity. If safety was really that important, you wouldn't have airlines selling exit row seats to 80 year olds would you? You'd have them given away to the most able bodied individuals on the flight.

Whilst there is certainly the question of selling exit row seats as "extra space" seats diminishes their importance, at least here in Australia, I do not believe that any airline will sell an exit row seat to a pax who is not suitable, and I've met some pretty strong 80 year olds.

They make it quite clear when you purchase that seat that the pax must be physically able to preform the duties if required, and that the airline reserves the right to move the pax if in their opinion the pax is not suitable.

Of course this is only really relevant if the exit row doesn't have an FA manning that door.

Now having said that I've sometimes felt that it might be nice for airlines to place a mock up of an exit row at airports so pax can get a feel for the door, it's actual weight (if the type which falls away from the air frame), and how much effort is required to actually get that door open. Take me for example, I always choose the exit rows, and I'm pretty confident that I'd get it open if required, but unlike an FA who has had training on such things I have no real idea if I'm truly suitable unless "the unlikely event of" actually happens.

 

[33kft]

Whilst there is certainly the question of selling exit row seats as "extra space" seats diminishes their importance, at least here in Australia, I do not believe that any airline will sell an exit row seat to a pax who is not suitable, and I've met some pretty strong 80 year olds.

Oh come on. There is no reason for the airline to put elderly passengers in those seats other than revenue raising and it's not at all uncommon. I don't mind taking your point that it is the primary duty of the FAs to handle emergencies but the question was would airlines compromise safety at all and the answer is yes, oh hell yes, any day of the week for extra revenue (when it meets their risk profile, of course).

Otherwise we'd never see extra rows jammed in, exit row seats sold for money, maintenance offshored and outsourced etc. Yes you can sit there and defend each of those things, or tell me that it doesn't matter that maintenance is offshored because the quality is the same, the oversight is the same and the cost is less, but who would pursue such a race to the bottom if it wasn't for revenue? It's quite frankly bs that there are no compromises made to safety, there are plenty.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Of course this is only really relevant if the exit row doesn't have an FA manning that door.

It has a much broader relevance. Passengers seated at exit doors with crew still need to be able to assist in the evacuation, if required.

This could be assisting the crew member in keeping the door clear while the door is opened, keeping passengers back while the slide inflates (7 or 8 seconds may seem like quite a long time if there’s bad smoke or fire), or assisting passengers at the end of the slide to get up and move away from the aircraft.

 

[jb747]

If we are talking safety....any time anyone in an airline, who is not part of flight operations, says that safety is their first priority...they are lying.

Now having said that I've sometimes felt that it might be nice for airlines to place a mock up of an exit row at airports so pax can get a feel for the door, it's actual weight (if the type which falls away from the air frame), and how much effort is required to actually get that door open.

They won't ever, for lots of reasons. But one simple one is that people are regularly injured at EPs training how to use the doors and other gear.

 

[Gold Member]

If we are talking safety....any time anyone in an airline, who is not part of flight operations, says that safety is their first priority...they are lying.

But Qantas’ safety record and their ‘safety first’ mantra is their biggest marketing weapon. Without it you’d have just an overpriced full cost carrier. Wait, hang on...

Please don’t tell me their lying about ‘Simpler and Fairer’ too?

 

[33kft]

But Qantas’ safety record and their ‘safety first’ mantra is their biggest marketing weapon. Without it you’d have just an overpriced full cost carrier. Wait, hang on...

And a lot of banks don't really invest in IT security either. That doesn't mean that because Banco Central de Venezuela offers you a better deposit rate, you should go and put all your money there. They haven't been hacked by the way, nor has Qantas had many safety concerns, ultimately it is all of the information that is in the public domain that we use to gauge risk and not just marketing material or past performance.

 

[Gold Member]

And a lot of banks don't really invest in IT security either. That doesn't mean that because Banco Central de Venezuela offers you a better deposit rate, you should go and put all your money there. They haven't been hacked by the way, nor has Qantas had many safety concerns, ultimately it is all of the information that is in the public domain that we use to gauge risk and not just marketing material or past performance.

I think my attempt at sarcasm may have been lost on you given your reply.

 

[33kft]

I think my attempt at sarcasm may have been lost on you given your reply.

Your parody was pretty spot on, it looked a lot like the rest of this thread

 

[jch]

Had a ~24 hour delay (on one of those cheap Etihad $2k J tickets Jakarta to Rome on the return leg over Easter. 11am flight moved to 4am (put up in the Airport Hilton) then just missed my connection, so another 15 hour in Abu Dhabi at a hotel with a 3am departure. Had to push my SQ flights back to Sydney by a day with $550 in change fees and downgrading from discount business to full price premium economy. I called my credit card insurance company, but they said their systems were down to properly check what I'm entitled to so I took the safe option and didn't rebook a higher business fare for ~$1,500+.

I guess since the layover was so long they forgot to put my bag on the flight so someone came up to me once the carousel was empty in Jakarta to tell me my bag is on the next flight arriving at 11pm. I had a nap in the $29 T3 capsule hotel, then got my bag but couldn't sleep as checkin for Jakarta-Singapore was 3am! My original plan was to cut Jakarta out on the way home as my original Etihad flight routed through Singapore on a Dreamliner, but still had a return ticket in case this scenario happened.

I ended up back at work a day late and even that day I worked from home as I was pretty tired after being in transit for four days. I did my insurance claim and compensation request as well. Etihad got back to me within a week with the option of EU 600 cash or EU 700 travel bank. As I'm not sure when I next go to Europe (next Easter will be USA), so probably go the cash.

A United flight Rome to Washington was also delayed (and had actually started taxiing out) until the following day due to a fuel pump issue, and those passengers were also at the Hilton. At least it was interesting talking to all the stranded travellers at the hotel bar!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Take the cash! Maybe wait a few days and it will be worth more in AUD