LATAM ticket buggered up by QF

[markis10]

And then I just realised that LA could just send QF the funds it would've allocated to itself for the LA801 flight but then again I'm not in the industry/space so am just spitballi

LA don’t owe QF anything if they didn’t get permission to change flights.

 

[madrooster]

So did QF effectively "steal" that component of the fare from LA?

Yes.

The rules are they aren't supposed to if there was no real impact to the onward segment. In this case, there shouldn't have been any impact to the LA810. So by the rules, QF shouldn't have done that.

Since QF took the SYD-SCL coupon they'll send LA the bill for the value of that specific coupon. Ordinarily on automated billing LA will then pay QF for the coupon value of that coupon, whatever that value is. LA can always stop that manually in their interline settlement if they wish to...if they do.

It's not always in a carrier's interests to take a coupon unnecessarily. LA for example, charges a lower fare overall ex-AU than QF. That means that coupon value will be lower than QF's average fare. But, if QF27 originally wasn't full anyway then it's free money. There are pros and cons.

 

[MathNerd]

Great Info MathNerd, thanks for that. I heard your mate almost got caught out because he was smashing beers at the airport!

Oh, wouldn't you know it! So dodgy

Yes.

The rules are they aren't supposed to if there was no real impact to the onward segment. In this case, there shouldn't have been any impact to the LA810. So by the rules, QF shouldn't have done that.

Since QF took the SYD-SCL coupon they'll send LA the bill for the value of that specific coupon. Ordinarily on automated billing LA will then pay QF for the coupon value of that coupon, whatever that value is. LA can always stop that manually in their interline settlement if they wish to...if they do.

It's not always in a carrier's interests to take a coupon unnecessarily. LA for example, charges a lower fare overall ex-AU than QF. That means that coupon value will be lower than QF's average fare. But, if QF27 originally wasn't full anyway then it's free money. There are pros and cons.

Thought as much, thanks so much @madrooster for your very valuable insight. What you've posted above is exactly what I assumed happened in the background (I can't imagine QF would fly a pax [actually, multiple pax who commenced their journeys in MEL all having SCL as part of their itinerary, who got hit with this IRROPS] across a full transpac (?) for free, there has to be something in it for them financially).

You're right though, QF would "earn" a lot less than their own coupon value for that segment as LA would be setting the "price".

I'd love to know what exactly happened for him to get offloaded off LA810 in the first place, was it QF IT algorithms or an actual manual change? I guess I'll never know without an insider at QF or LA.

Thanks heaps, I love how an unfortunate situation such as this has collectively increased the knowledge base of the community especially with interline settlements between carriers (in this case OW, I presume it would be similar for *A or ST).

Thanks again.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes.

The rules are they aren't supposed to if there was no real impact to the onward segment. In this case, there shouldn't have been any impact to the LA810. So by the rules, QF shouldn't have done that.

Since QF took the SYD-SCL coupon they'll send LA the bill for the value of that specific coupon. Ordinarily on automated billing LA will then pay QF for the coupon value of that coupon, whatever that value is. LA can always stop that manually in their interline settlement if they wish to...if they do.

It's not always in a carrier's interests to take a coupon unnecessarily. LA for example, charges a lower fare overall ex-AU than QF. That means that coupon value will be lower than QF's average fare. But, if QF27 originally wasn't full anyway then it's free money. There are pros and cons.

If QF rebooked on the LA code wouldn’t that solve this?

 

[opusman]

I'd love to know what exactly happened for him to get offloaded off LA810 in the first place

I wonder if whoever handled rebooking the first leg had an oopsie and cancelled the whole booking accidentally rather than just that leg. So "fixed" it by booking him on the QF flight but either hadn't noticed the onward flight to Cusco or did notice but decided to leave it for LA to fix.

 

[madrooster]

If QF rebooked on the LA code wouldn’t that solve this?

They can't - it's a blockspace codeshare.