News Article: Jetstar passengers kicked out of airport

[Dave Noble]

I agree with this in principle, but compare JQ and QF fares. There's not always that much difference between them!

There is a fair difference between JQ and QF's fares on the route from Sydney to Melbourne

The cheapest JQ fare is $69 with the next fares being $79 and $89 . There is a QF sale fare i(whichs ends today) of $95 with the normal red-e-deals being $127 and $147
[/quote]

I don't think it actually has anything to do with the fare level. It is more about how each company chooses to operate. Jetstar has been set up to exclude many of the "frills" offered by it's parent. The problem is that much of the travelling public don't know this. Not many people bother to read detailed T's & C's.

I think that jetstar has been around long enough that people should be aware that they are a low cost carrier, however they decide to ignore this and focus on the price

Like in the UK, people know that Easyjet and Ryanair are low cost carriers , yet get fixated on the low price and then whine when they don't get anything more than they are entitled to when things go wrong

If people decide to take a LCC and not have adequate insurance to cover such eventualities , then they should expect to have to sort themselves out

Even some full service carriers will not pay for accommodation with weather disruptions; the best that they will do is offer a voucher that entitles to a rate deal at a hotel

Dave

 

[futaris]

Watchdog to probe stranded passengers

The airline and airport bosses blamed each other for leaving the passengers marooned, forcing some to sleep in a nearby bus shelter and others on the floor of the international terminal.

Macquarie blames Jetstar and vice-versa. Hope that they both end up be slugged a fine by the watchdog.

 

[rhjames]

I think that jetstar has been around long enough that people should be aware that they are a low cost carrier, however they decide to ignore this and focus on the price

Dave

I agree. When travelling while overseas if I select a LCC while there as I often do, I know the risk I'm taking. I think there would be very few people flying Jetstar here who aren't aware it's a LCC. I suspect many haven't really thought about what LCC implies - low cost and low service. I remember flying Peoples Express years ago in Pittsburg USA - now there was no frills - the conductor collected the fares after we were seated.

 

[simongr]

Watchdog to probe stranded passengers



Macquarie blames Jetstar and vice-versa. Hope that they both end up be slugged a fine by the watchdog.

A fine for what? SHow me some breach of either their contractual or statutory responsibility and I will be there supporting the fine. No-one was forced to sleep in a bus shelter - they could have gone to a hotel or the other terminal.

 

[dajop]

On this whole bus shelter biz .... surely a load of bollocks. Media dramatisation or what? Last time I was at SYD, there was ample shelter around, don't both domestic terminals have rather large canopies? Isn't there shelter under the overhead roadway? What about the car park?

 

[JohnK]

Flying on a LCC, I would not expect accommodation etc, but some basic customer service, including advice on how/where to find accommodation (or even actually finding it for them) - and making it clear that it is at passengers own expense - could go a long way to helping out in these situations.

JQ firmly believes, and operates this way, that they do not have to provide any form of customer service because they offer low airfares.

It would not have cost JQ very much, a few hours overtime pay at most, to have one of their staff there reassuring people or offering advice.

 

[Yada Yada]

There is a fair difference between JQ and QF's fares on the route from Sydney to Melbourne

The cheapest JQ fare is $69 with the next fares being $79 and $89 . There is a QF sale fare i(whichs ends today) of $95 with the normal red-e-deals being $127 and $147

I'd disagree - in my view there is not much difference in fares. If you pay Flexi-saver or above then yes, there is quite a difference. But at the Red-e-deal and Sale end of the spectrum, the difference can be less than $10.00 and typically around $30.00. That's not much padding for QF to cover overnight accommodation when a flight is cancelled.

My point is that it is not about the fare - it's about the airline's policy/rules.

I think that jetstar has been around long enough that people should be aware that they are a low cost carrier, however they decide to ignore this and focus on the price

Again, I disagree. For those who are not regular air travellers, air ticket rules are just not interesting. My guess is that most equate LCC with no included meal/drinks, and most would expect the airline to help them when things go awry.

The fact that the airline does not include this and it is in their rules doesn't mean they won't continue to get bad press.

 

[rhjames]

For those who are not regular air travellers, air ticket rules are just not interesting. My guess is that most equate LCC with no included meal/drinks, and most would expect the airline to help them when things go awry.

The fact that the airline does not include this and it is in their rules doesn't mean they won't continue to get bad press.

When you book online with Jetstar, you must tick a box that says that you have read and agree to their conditions. Anyone ticking this without reading the conditions, interesting or not, only have themselves to blame.

I'm not much of a fan of Jetstar, but in this case I don't see a problem - what can you expect for $80?

 

[NM]

I'd disagree - in my view there is not much difference in fares. If you pay Flexi-saver or above then yes, there is quite a difference. But at the Red-e-deal and Sale end of the spectrum, the difference can be less than $10.00 and typically around $30.00. That's not much padding for QF to cover overnight accommodation when a flight is cancelled.

Assuming 1 in 10 flights is cancelled requiring accommodation, that is typically around $300 per person up the QF sleeve. Now I doubt the cancellation rate is anywhere near 1:10 or we would see nothing but these storing in the media. So if its more like 1:100 or 1:500 then there is quite a bit of funding available for the occasional cancellation.

 

[anat0l]

Is there anyone here who is just slightly disenchanted by the disgusting behaviour of some people that make you wonder how we can possibly live comfortably in the western democracy that we do?

Everytime we turn on the news or an ACA-look-alike, we get the same thing: some big company didn't deliver. The company says 'it's policy'. The little ones say its 'un-Australian'. Watchdog to investigate. Media fights for little guy and hence the resulting bashing press.

I'll concede that sometimes this could be warranted but in many cases consumers sometimes really do overstep their own rights and overlook their responsibilities. Such is the case here.

LCC models are not new - a lot of LCCs have been around before DJ and JQ ever started. LCC stands for Low Cost Carrier, who have a very specific business model (of which must be at least legal because our government - Lord bless them - must have had no qualms approving such a model when DJ and JQ set up operations here).

As many people have pointed out, if all the passengers agreed to pay for the flight they booked on JQ, they clearly agreed on the T&Cs of travel which accompanied the booking. How many people would sign off on a home loan or the like without reading the contract? Do you go wailing your two-bits if you violate one of the terms of your loan contract and the bank feels like pulling the plug on your loan? Who is to blame? So why is this booking a flight thing any different? Just thank your lucky stars that you don't actually need legal assistance to read one of those!

If there is any argument on the side of those passengers affected, it would probably be only that JQ (and possibly SACL) could have done something - something that would be beyond the call and in goodwill. Neither JQ nor SACL had any obligations whatsoever (apart from JQ to get the passengers to their destination and SACL to ensure that, whilst the airport was open, they provided all necessary services. [Aside: not sure whether the T&Cs of JQ flying include a clause that they will contractually get you to your destination on time (my gut says 'of course, not').]).

Of course, it didn't really matter what came out of all of this (except calling the regulators was clearly a waste of time); the end result is the same: disgruntled, ignorant passengers who are probably saying "I will never fly JQ again" ad nauseum and bad publicity for JQ/QF, no matter what they say or what they do, which is decidedly most unfair.

Honestly, if you want worse airports and LCCs, go abroad. My mum got delayed on an Air Asia flight once (supposedly to "coalesce" the number of passengers and save one plane) and they only get to carry 15kg. Of course, I do believe that in Malaysia the consumer rights are somewhat lower, or Asians (and I should know - I am one) just don't give two-bits so as long as the price is right. I also think about RyanAir, one of the world's most loved and hated airlines at the same time. I heard somewhere that you actually pay for your checkin bags weight, right from the first kilogram. (I could be wrong on this one, but as for the most loved and hated part, I think I'm fairly validated there). Not withstanding the US, probably one of the largest domestic markets in the world with more airlines than gates at Sydney Intenational Airport - cancellations, involuntary bumps, snow delays, etc. etc. (of course, they too have a similar consumer culture to this country - just tip in a generous pinch of litigation...)

And as a final retort: yes, this whole thing was no one's fault. Is that too hard for anyone to believe? If it is no one's fault then why should anyone be so hatched up about obligations which cannot possibly exist?

 

[Petch]

Neither JQ nor SACL had any obligations whatsoever (apart from JQ to get the passengers to their destination and SACL to ensure that, whilst the airport was open, they provided all necessary services. [Aside: not sure whether the T&Cs of JQ flying include a clause that they will contractually get you to your destination on time (my gut says 'of course, not').]).

I disagree.

Jetstar may have a duty of care, as well as other obligations under the law. Creating a contract in defiance of Federal or State laws, does not mean the contract wins, unless it goes unchallenged.

Weather related delays/cancellations are a standard part of operating an airline. A business operating in that industry has no reasonable excuse not to have contingency plans in place. (On my recently delayed Tiger flight, +3hours, the T4 operator in Melbourne [i.e. Tiger] kept the food outlet open until just before boarding, much to distress of the employee, but certainly to the benefit of passengers waiting in the terminal. For a cancellation/re-route the next day, involving +8hours, I would expect even more from an airline.)

These are not unforeseeable/out-of-ordinary events, I can predict, with 100% certainty, that weather will impact domestic flights again soon!

 

[anat0l]

I disagree.

Jetstar has a duty of care, as well as other obligations under the law. Creating a contract in defiance of Federal or State laws, does not mean the contract wins, unless it goes unchallenged.

Weather related delays/cancellations are a standard part of operating an airline. A business operating in that industry has no reasonable excuse not to have contingency plans in place. (On my recently delayed Tiger flight, +3hours, the T4 operator in Melbourne [i.e. Tiger] kept the food outlet open until just before boarding, much to distress of the employee, but certainly to the benefit of passengers waiting in the terminal. For a cancellation/re-route the next day, involving +8hours, I would expect even more from an airline.)

These are not unforeseeable/out-of-ordinary events, I can predict, with 100% certainty, that weather will impact domestic flights again soon!

That is a very good point; all contracts as a matter of procedure I believe always have something that says "the terms in this contract does not inhibit your rights under the applicable statuatory laws" or the like. In any case, I believe the law would validate your view anyway: a contract cannot enforce something that would otherwise contravene that in applicable legislation.

Having said that, I think one of the things that this thread has raised is there must be some 'industry practice' (industry = LCC market) for such events which are beyond reasonable human control. (The Tiger example you gave confuses me a tiny bit because I am still unsure - Melbourne Airports, Tiger or both - who was required to maintain that kind of service. Moreover, what of the employee that was forced to stay behind - what if they refused, were not adequately recompensed - we may get another catch-22 situation. On face value, however, that is a meritable outcome.)

I wonder if non-LCC have a contingency plan in place, e.g. substitute QF for JQ in this story - what should (and, dare I ask it, would most probably) happen then? Can or should a similar standard be expected of LCCs even though they have a substantially different cost model?

 

[opusman]

Jetstar has a duty of care, as well as other obligations under the law. Creating a contract in defiance of Federal or State laws, does not mean the contract wins, unless it goes unchallenged.

There's no automatic legal duty of care in any situation. Duty of care arises because of legislation or common law doctrine-of-precedence. It's quite possible that a court would find a LCC does have a duty-of-care to its customers in these circumstances, but to my knowledge that's never been tested in Australia.

 

[rhjames]

I have a feeling that we could start to recycle all our comments again if we're not careful. For me, if I pay $80, all I want is a safe trip, hopefully on time. If weather stuffs up the schedule, it's my problem. If the issue is forced and the LCC are forced to offer anything more, goodbye $80 air fares.

 

[NM]

Jetstar has a duty of care, as well as other obligations under the law. Creating a contract in defiance of Federal or State laws, does not mean the contract wins, unless it goes unchallenged.

Is there a particular federal or state law that you believe has been breached by JQ in this case?

 

[Petch]

Is there a particular federal or state law that you believe has been breached by JQ in this case?

You & opusman are quite right, I have adjusted my original post to "may have"...

To anat0l, i don't see a difference between LCC/legacy carrier/full service transportation companies and their obligations, I see 1 industry; a scheduled passenger air-transport industry.

 

[acampbel]

A couple of points ....

I believe that the average Jetstar passenger understands that the level of service they will receive will be of the budget variety, but they do expect to actually fly from point A to point B on day C (and preferably at time D).

This is why they paid Jetstar the fare (well in advance) and arrived at the airport at the time demanded of them (no exceptions!) and queued up to check in their baggage (under all the T&C's), etc., etc., etc.

It then comes as a disappointment to most that Jetstar can for any reason they like say "Sorry - your plane is cancelled. Goodbye!" So after jumping through all the hoops of an LCC they have had the trapdoor open up beneath them. It may be perfectly within the rules, but it is unexpected and therefore catches people out.

But - I don't mind so much that Jetstar operates this way .... as long as they are transparent about it. This does not mean referring to line 546 of the T&C's that 99% of people just check the box for without thinking (this is what I always do and don't bother telling me you don't unless you are willing to post a picture of your raincoat collection). It means popping up a window when they decline the offered insurance that says "Are you really sure about this - because we will offer you absolutely no assistance or compensation if we can't/won't operate this service!"

They also shouldn't try to shift the blame onto the airport operator. "We didn't dump those passengers on the street - it was the nasty SACL!" Now I'm no fan of the Macquarie Group but do not expect them to keep an airport open all night when it is closed for aircraft, just because an LCC abandons its passengers to the night. How hard would it be for Jetstar to have a corporate rate pre-arranged with the local hotels so that at least you can tell interstate guests what their options are. Or maybe they could get a community spirit going by organising billets with the local passengers.

But no - they revel in their nastiness as if it was a badge of honour. What a pity .....


Cheers,

Andrew

 

[wallacej]

Were there other flights cancelled by other airlines on this same night?

How did they handle this?

 

[Mal]

Were there other flights cancelled by other airlines on this same night?
How did they handle this?

Qantas cancelled a whole heap of flights, but seemed to be able to move people around onto later flights/earlier flights etc (or at least that's what I read from the arrivals/departures website). They also managed to land a few planes at SYD after the curfew (arrival times of 11:07/11:05 etc).

Not sure what Virgin Blue did, or if Qantas cancelled flights and had displaced pax etc.

 

[simongr]

Not sure that it is relevant as to what QF/DJ did - they have different cost structures/fleets/business models.

I actually think that even if I had been flying QF I would not have expected them to fund an overnight stay in a hotel and would not really have expected them to provide a corporate rate.

The flight is just one part of the journey and I do not old the airlines accountable for every part of my journey...