Just lodged my first case with the ACA

[Legoman]

Update: Two replies now from Qantas via the ACA in one day. Things are progressing much faster than expected. Second response from them:

"Dear ACA

I have totalled the invoices for the cab fares (we cannot cover alcohol) ant the total is AUD 118.17.

Can Mr Legoman please complete the attached form so that we can issue a refund.

Regards Qantas"

Two things about this. 1) The receipt with the amount claimed for drinks is completely unitemised (as are all the receipts in fact), so there is no evidence at all that can be drawn upon to conclude the drinks were alcoholic in nature apart from the name of the venue (which is on the receipt) being The Pier Hotel.
2) Even if the amount on the receipt Qantas are assuming was alcoholic drinks is discarded, the sum of all the other receipts is $118.37 not $118.17.

This is the second time Qantas CC staff have illustrated their inability to accurately add numbers together and I have helpfully pointed this out for the ACA. So not only do Qantas make assumptions about their passengers' proclivities with no evidence to refer to whatsoever, they also exhibit a recurring deficiency in understanding of how basic mathematic arithmetic works.

At this point, I think I'm very lucky to even be alive still after the birdstrike with this level of incompetancy on display. Regardless, it is looking like progressing in the right direction so far. The agreed sum to be refunded has gone from $100.53 "as a gesture of goodwill" on 12 June by Dale, the first member of their staff with an 'F' in arithmetic, to now $118.17 via the ACA from the second member of their staff to fail high school maths. It is staggering the lengths an organisation will go to to try and weasel out of such a trivial amount of money to be refunded.

 

[Pushka]

Qatar cancelled a flight from Adelaide a few weeks ago. We were given accommodation but lost $500 on a pre booked hotel that was too late to cancel. Upsetting at the time but stuff happens. Over it now.

 

[VPS]

Qatar cancelled a flight from Adelaide a few weeks ago. We were given accommodation but lost $500 on a pre booked hotel that was too late to cancel. Upsetting at the time but stuff happens. Over it now.

Were you able to claim that from TI?

 

[Pushka]

Were you able to claim that from TI?

It’s a bit tricky. I haven’t got that far yet. Might try a credit card claim but need to check what card I used for the flight booking. Which is different to the card charged.

 

[Isochronous]

Legoman is a ruthless fighter. Keep up the good work!

 

[N860CR]

I don't really get the "we cannot cover alcohol". Do Qantas not serve alcohol on the plane? With our stupid RSA rules, we are quickly moving down the path of the USA when it comes to childish approaches to alcohol. You were stuck a long way from where you are meant to be (an expensive place at that). Qantas is responsible for that. Simply covering your actual costs is not actually good enough. What is ones time worth? If I was stuck in PHE when I needed to be elsewhere (and potentially missed a presentation), I could potentially be out of pocket by thousands of dollars. I don't see why Qantas feel they are not at all responsible for the damages they caused.

 

[snabbu]

Stories of big business running over people and doing what they like is all too common these days, great to see someone stand up and hold QF accountable for their actions
Keep it up Legoman.

 

[Daver6]

I don't really get the "we cannot cover alcohol". Do Qantas not serve alcohol on the plane? With our stupid RSA rules, we are quickly moving down the path of the USA when it comes to childish approaches to alcohol. You were stuck a long way from where you are meant to be (an expensive place at that). Qantas is responsible for that. Simply covering your actual costs is not actually good enough. What is ones time worth? If I was stuck in PHE when I needed to be elsewhere (and potentially missed a presentation), I could potentially be out of pocket by thousands of dollars. I don't see why Qantas feel they are not at all responsible for the damages they caused.

My belief is Qantas is responsible for providing some of the basic necessities. Somewhere to sleep, meals, toiletries etc. Alcoholic drinks do not fall into that category IMHO. Plus, where do you draw the line? I'm a total wine nerd. I've ordered some pretty expensive bottles of wine with dinner in the past. If I'm stranded because of a flight delay and need a meal, should Qantas pay for that $500 bottle of wine I have with it?

Maybe a better way would just be to pay out the ATO rates for meals in this situation. What you do with the money is up to you.

 

[Legoman]

I don't really get the "we cannot cover alcohol". Do Qantas not serve alcohol on the plane? With our stupid RSA rules, we are quickly moving down the path of the USA when it comes to childish approaches to alcohol. You were stuck a long way from where you are meant to be (an expensive place at that). Qantas is responsible for that. Simply covering your actual costs is not actually good enough. What is ones time worth? If I was stuck in PHE when I needed to be elsewhere (and potentially missed a presentation), I could potentially be out of pocket by thousands of dollars. I don't see why Qantas feel they are not at all responsible for the damages they caused.

Probably because if you were really forced to read them, you'd find the terms & conditions of carriage (those last 5 pages written in micro-print of your booking reference document) actually state that the carrier is entitiled to make any changes they see fit at any time they see fit and for any reason whatsoever without disclosure. Furthermore, by accepting the fare and boarding the aircraft in the first place you are deemed to have agreed to each and every one of these ridiculous terms in their entirety.

On the subject of consequential damages, when I lodged the claim with the ACA, I decided $135 wasn't enough of a claim, so I also chucked in the change of flight fee as well, which was another $704.10. My original booking had me flying on May 31, but the site work completed one shift earlier, so my flight was changed to May 30 instead for which there was a change booking fee to be paid. The original ticket cost was $336.09. The change fee was a totally ridiculous $704.10 on top just to go 24hrs earlier.

I argued that due to Qantas changing the flight last minute and then hitting the bird as a result, that the service for which the $704.10 fee had been paid (ie. to get home 24hrs earlier) was now not being delivered and therefore should be refunded. Simple logic by my thinking. I still believe this, but as I did not pay for the change fee in the first place, I have more or less decided that is not worth fighting for, especially since my employer who did pay it, is now no longer my employer. I don't feel an overwhelming urge to go into battle on my former employer's behalf, when they had no hesitation in discarding me once I had completed their job for them.

Update from the ACA: They have forwarded on my reply to Qantas' declaration they won't cover alcoholic drinks and correction of their mathematics and await a response from them to my submitted claim form. Still all heading in the right direction and I'm pleased so far with the speed of response and actions of the ACA.

 

[Legoman]

should Qantas pay for that $500 bottle of wine I have with it?

That's the extreme example, so allow me to illustrate the level of Qantas' pettiness on this subject for you so you can have a better idea of the degree to which Qantas are willing to spend their employee's time penny pinching.

The receipt I submitted specifically for drinks only (the Pier Hotel billed the drinks and meal separately because the ordering was at different locations and with different members of staff) was for $16.60. Not talking about a $500 bottle of chablis here. $16.60. That's what Qantas are willing to go back & forth with about arguing over.

Allow me to put that in perspective for those who have never suffered the bill shock of eating out or heaven forbid drinking in WA and particularly the Pilbara and even more particularly Port Hedland. A pint of James Squire 100 Lashes is $13 and in many cases it's not even a pint either. It's called a 'pint' but the volume can actually be the 473ml of a US pint or sometimes even the 425ml volume of a Schooner. It just depends on how wanky the venue is and how much they feel like ripping off their patrons and how long they think they can get away with it for. Trust me when I say $16.60 is an extremely small drinks bill in WA. If you get any change from a $20 note from a barman for ordering literally anything in WA, you should chalk that up as a significant win.

 

[burmans]

That's the extreme example, so allow me to illustrate the level of Qantas' pettiness on this subject for you so you can have a better idea of the degree to which Qantas are willing to spend their employee's time penny pinching.

The receipt I submitted specifically for drinks only (the Pier Hotel billed the drinks and meal separately because the ordering was at different locations and with different members of staff) was for $16.60. Not talking about a $500 bottle of chablis here. $16.60. That's what Qantas are willing to go back & forth with about arguing over.

2) Even if the amount on the receipt Qantas are assuming was alcoholic drinks is discarded, the sum of all the other receipts is $118.37 not $118.17.

Pot, Kettle, black.

It's a bit rich to be calling Qantas penny pinching when you are spending time here complaining about 20c discrepancy in their accounting and you yourself have gone to this effort to get a grand sum of about $17.50 extra out of them. I'm no fan of Qantas but think your response to some of this is WAY over the top.

 

[Legoman]

Pot, Kettle, black.

There's a difference of scale here you're not considering. I am not a multi-billion $$$ company arguing about $16.60. Calling out their inability to add numbers together correctly further reinforces my position that Qantas are far too blasé and haphazard in their actions without due consideration to the inconvenience this causes their passengers. I have been endlessly lied to by them and their staff in this matter and I intend to illustrate this fact as much as I possibly can to reinforce the justification for my claim and that includes pointing out that they can't even be trusted to add the figures on five receipts together correctly. It follows logically that if they can't be trusted to add together numbers, then why should anything else they claim be trusted either? Ergo, I am more likely to be right.

I wholeheartedly agree and concede that for many, the majority even, $135 is not an amount worthy of the time spending to claim. Qantas and the banks and indeed most big organisations know this, which is why they try it on. 99% of the time they get away with it because it's too trivial an amount to bother arguing over. I get that. It's how Elon Musk has become a billionaire because he understood how trillions of micro-payment rip-offs via his PayPal platform still add up to billions of $$$ in clear profit with little to no downside because no-one is going to argue over 0.1c loss in an exchange rate or rounding error. But for me, $135 is worth arguing over. I'm not ashamed of that.

 

[juddles]

That's the extreme example, so allow me to illustrate the level of Qantas' pettiness on this subject for you so you can have a better idea of the degree to which Qantas are willing to spend their employee's time penny pinching.

The receipt I submitted specifically for drinks only (the Pier Hotel billed the drinks and meal separately because the ordering was at different locations and with different members of staff) ......

Am getting confused - must have to re-read the thread - is this a change? I thought the Pier Hotel bill was not itemised????

.... due to Qantas changing the flight last minute and then hitting the bird as a result....

Legoman, you constantly refer to the bird incident. A bird strike can happen any time. Maybe by changing their flights they were able to avoid hitting a dragon. Seriously.....

 

[Legoman]

Am getting confused - must have to re-read the thread - is this a change? I thought the Pier Hotel bill was not itemised????

No change. The bill is not itemised as previously stated. There is nothing on the receipt to say the items purchased were drinks. I volunteered that information to Qantas/ACA in the spirit of full disclosure of all the facts as best that I can remember them.

Legoman, you constantly refer to the bird incident. A bird strike can happen any time. Maybe by changing their flights they were able to avoid hitting a dragon. Seriously.....

Maybe, we'll never know, but I'm not going to enter into arguing scenarios that didn't happen. I'll stick to just arguing the factual ones that actually did happen, and the fact is that Qantas chose to alter the flight and that choice resulted in hitting a bird which left all the passengers to fend for themselves in Port Hedland. Extending this, let's say they didn't alter the flight destination, but still hit the bird on landing. Well that landing would have been in Perth, I would have got off the plane just as I did in Port Hedland but I wouldn't have cared less because Perth was the destination I wanted to be in anyway. What do I care about the damage to the plane or the bird? No claim required.

 

[juddles]

Legoman, you have so many correct / valid complaints. But when you refer to a bird-strike incident as something that is an airlines fault, you destroy your credibility. I mean that as a supporter of your crusade. So many real grievances get speared by an unncessary and / or incorrect part.

 

[juddles]

.... I'll stick to just arguing the factual ones that actually did happen.....

But you aren't! That is what will defeat any case you think you have. As others have said, lose the hype and insinuations, and just battle the basics, like flights changed / delayed, etc. Forget all that drivel about what you understood staff to agree with you regarding reasons for cancellation. Fluttering of the eyelids and so on. You may believe whatever from that, it could be real, but has it any weight? Nop!

 

[dajop]

But you aren't! That is what will defeat any case you think you have. As others have said, lose the hype and insinuations, and just battle the basics, like flights changed / delayed, etc.

I agree, but for the purposes of the financial claim, don't even need to battle the flight changed bit. It is a pretty clear cut case that Qantas have accepted some liability for the delay, by their actions to book and pay for accommodation (actually raising the bird strike could lead to questioning of whether QF has such liability). The easiest thing would be simply state:
1) Flight was delayed overnight
2) As a result Qantas, organised accommodation for the delayed passengers.
3) Qantas promised passengers meals at the hotel would be provided and paid for by Qantas, as seems to be normal procedure for delays that span overnight and meal times.
4) However, as this took some time to resolve, the hotel's kitchen had closed by the time passengers reached the hotel
5) Passengers therefore made alternative arrangements to eat
6) Attached are receipts for those arrangements made, which included taxi to/from nearby hotel operated dining room and costs of meal.

This does not preclude a separate complaint about the rescheduling.

 

[Legoman]

when you refer to a bird-strike incident as something that is an airlines fault

I've never said the birdstrike was the airline's fault. You are choosing to read that into it, but I've never said that. Birdstrike is always an unpredictable risk no matter what, but what Qantas did was to increase substantially the consequence of such a risk causing unnecessary passenger inconvenience. That is what they are guilty of. In simple parlance as I have already stated, they took a gamble. A gamble that I, in their position, probably also would have taken myself. I admit that. Birdstrike is sufficiently uncommon to take that risk even given it was the last flight of the day into an airport where Network Aviation have no engineering staff posted to inspect a birdstruck plane or a blown tyre or hydraulic leak or any of the other myriad things that can stop a plane from continuing on.

They knew it was the last flight of the day and that there was no backup plan available if that plane was disabled. Yet, even knowing that increased risk, they chose to redirect the flight for purely economic reasons as has previously explained at length. That was their choice. Fair enough. But when you accept that kind of a risk, then you must also accept the consequences of that risk when it goes bad and the gamble doesn't pay off. It is not right that you try and weazle out of the consequences of that failed gamble when you lose. This is what Qantas are doing to me because I've called them to pay up on their failed gamble. What they should be doing is quickly and quietly accepting that they've made a mistake, acknowledging that they've unfortunately got a customer who is willing to call them on their mistake and pay them out without further argument, to appease them and minimise any possible fallout or ill-feeling. That's what a 'gesture of goodwill' would actually be, but this is not what Qantas is doing. A 'gesture of goodwill' is more than just saying the words 'A gesture of goodwill'

 

[Legoman]

Update: Victory has been secured. Legoman vs Qantas: 1-0. Qantas have agreed in writing to pay me the full amount of my claim rounded up to nearest whole $. They're still calling it a 'gesture of goodwill' but I'll let them call it that if they need to.

They tried stonewalling for another week and then refused again to pay for the drinks bill. Stonewalled for another 4 days and then finally this morning under threat of a small claims tribunal case, have agreed to pay the full claim.

My experience is that the ACA is not a waste of time. Give them a go. They're worthwhile using if you have a claim against an airline.

 

[serfty]

Qantas have agreed in writing to pay me the full amount of my claim rounded up to nearest whole $.

So, they have agreed to pay $704.10 + $118.37 rounded up?