P1 Fail

[opusman]

BUT - if you're going to argue that "it's not a disruption", unless you fly Y TRANSPAC regularly, and have flown both 747 and 380 Y, then I consider your opinion to be an unqualified one.

If you want to debate what P1 should or shouldn't do - by all means.

But again - if you're not a P1, your opinion is an unqualified one.

I have opinions about CL matters, but as I'm not one, my opinion isn't qualified either.

If you're going to make that argument then you are not a P1 SST member, and so your opinion as to what the P1 SST should do in any particular case is also an unqualified one...

 

[dfcatch]

No I'm not a WP1 in Y on QF TPAC. I'm the man on the Clapham omnibus.



So if I've got this right, you informed the SST about the aircraft change, which wasn't even officially confirmed at that stage. Yet your complaint is that they hadn't proactively contacted you about something that hadn't officially happened yet and which they didn't know about?

No - they knew about it, but res was managing it, and P1 weren't proactively dealing with it (according to them), the Res team should have contacted me (according to them).

There's been a fair point made that the fault may not be with the SST specifically (I've said as much in post 2).

But they're the team in charge of managing P1 issues.

 

[eosphoros]

No I'm not a WP1 in Y on QF TPAC. I'm the man on the Clapham omnibus.

What is clear is that OP is clearly not like the man on the horse-drawn bus between Knightsbridge and Clapham.

 

[dfcatch]

If you're going to make that argument then you are not a P1 SST member, and so your opinion as to what the P1 SST should do in any particular case is also an unqualified one...

Now you're just being silly ...

I think I'm more than qualified and entitled to an opinion on what the SST should or shouldn't do (as is every other P1 in their own circumstances)

 

[dfcatch]

What is clear is that OP is clearly not like the man on the horse-drawn bus between Knightsbridge and Clapham.

No - because the man on the Clapham bus can't be me by definition.

It also, by definition, should be someone who is familiar with TPAC hauls on both the 380&747 in whY.

And preferably a P1.

So Anna's post is a little off - if you want to be semantic about it xx_ ðŸ

 

[Anna]

I'm not seeing the bit that says they're supposed to anticipate that you will want service from them - as opposed to providing service to you when requested

 

[dfcatch]

I'm not seeing the bit that says they're supposed to anticipate that you will want service from them - as opposed to providing service to you when requested

Fair question.

They DID know about the sub.

They were NOT acting on the sub.

They couldn't in fact do ANYTHING when I first contacted them (despite Res actively moving pax in real-time).

They are supposed to PROACTIVELY monitor and manage your travel. That is precisely how the SST service has been communicated. I won't name drop - but Red Roo's boss has even specifically stated that "word for word" to AFFers, and gathered P1s.

Does that help answer your question? Or are you still missing something?

 

[maninblack]

Long thread of reading but the OP is absolutely right except in one respect, that is, believing the marketing claptrap. Most of us including someone as experienced as the OP might know better by now.

For years QF advertised their international Business class Skybeds as being standard (except for in some microscopic fine print) even though nearly half of their international services were being flown by 743, 763 and 737 aircraft which certainly did not have this product. This actually persisted until last year. Of course it's not just QF who stand guilty of these sorts of things.

 

[opusman]

Now you're just being silly ...

I know people in your exalted position are not used to being argued with by their inferiors but I'm not sure stuff like this is really helpful.

 

[RichardMEL]

For clarification purposes only....

Fair question.

They DID know about the sub.

They were NOT acting on the sub.

They couldn't in fact do ANYTHING when I first contacted them (despite Res actively moving pax in real-time).

They are supposed to PROACTIVELY monitor and manage your travel. That is precisely how the SST service has been communicated. I won't name drop - but Red Roo's boss has even specifically stated that "word for word" to AFFers, and gathered P1s.

Does that help answer your question? Or are you still missing something?

I just went back to your first post on this thread and I quote:

Not one to wait for Tony Hancock to save the day, I call P1..... "Hey - so wassup with QF 11 fools?"

"Agh, hmmm, Let me check.... Oh umm.... Dunno, I can see it's been downgraded but res were supposed to contact people. We have no visibility until they update the aircraft in the system. "

Now, please do not take this query as me suggesting anything here (bluntly I'm NOT saying you're lying or anything of the sort) - I just want to clarify.

From that quote of your first post it sure reads that SST didn't know about it until you called, and then said well res were handling it.

From the context of the quote of whichever SST angel you spoke with that they couldn't do anything because of this "visibility" issue and that res was handling it.

That to me sounds like it's an internal QF issue as to who has "control" of the situation.

Now I would argue that, it would make sense, for the SST to then be able to interface with res, or whoever was running the irrops show and be able to say "Hey I have a P1 here who wants...." and work it from the inside. Did that happen? sounds like they passed the buck(almost) to Res, but that could be because that is an internal QF policy (I've been told before by SST that all res stuff has to be done via res) and not that particular SST member not wanting to do anything to help (and you hadn't suggested as such either)

so anyway to clarify - on the one hand you posted that, to my way of reading, the SST did NOT know about it until you phone them as per above quote) yet you're also suggesting they DID know (before you called) and did nothing (which again may be because of QF's internal stuff)

If they did know before you phoned, but could not do anything due to them having no visibility officially, then how can they have acted proactively - except maybe to have phoned and said "Look I can't actually do anything but..." would that help? Maybe there was also a hope that another 380 could somehow come from somewhere to do it, or a solution could be found to move you to QF93 and retain your upstairs bulkhead seat.

OR are you saying in #167 above that they DID know about the sub AFTER you phoned? If that's the case they can't act proactively since you told them and they had no visibility. yadda yadda yadda

to me, either way, seems the fail is in QF's internal systems or policies as to who can do what and when.

It may well be that SST folks are reading this thread and exclaiming to each other at the pub "but we KNEW and we WANTED TO DO SOMETHING!!" and just as frustrated as dfcatch

 

[maninblack]

Now you're just being silly ...

I think I'm more than qualified and entitled to an opinion on what the SST should or shouldn't do (as is every other P1 in their own circumstances)

View attachment 54734

It's only their "goal" they are not guaranteeing delivery of this service. Any of us (many of us) who were with Amex centurion know what utter baloney that was, and most people actually paid for it! Don't take it all too seriously.

 

[RichardMEL]

It's certain EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion - each one as valid as the next.

That's an opinion.

 

[medhead]

My understanding is that the promise reads "They will personally manage any flight changes or re-routes and provide support to help minimise any inconvenience.".

Your flight didn't change and it was not re-routed. It was a simple change of aircraft, something which happens all the time and is not one of the situations P1 promises to monitor for you.

If we read beyond "changes or re-routes", we see that the team will also provide support to minimise ANY inconvenience. I agree it depends on interpretation but there is nothing that seems to specifically limit that support to flight changes or re-routes. It is apparent that the OP considers the aircraft change an inconvenience.

BTW I still have other unstated opinions DFCatch, just in case you think there is too much agreement going on.

No - because the man on the Clapham bus can't be me by definition.

It also, by definition, should be someone who is familiar with TPAC hauls on both the 380&747 in whY.

And preferably a P1.

So Anna's post is a little off - if you want to be semantic about it xx_ ðŸ

So you're being unreasonable then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would — for example, in a civil action for negligence. The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.

As a reference to a specific legal test, not being the man on the clapham omnibus counts against you.

 

[dfcatch]

If we read beyond "changes or re-routes", we see that the team will also provide support to minimise ANY inconvenience. I agree it depends on interpretation but there is nothing that seems to specifically limit that support to flight changes or re-routes. It is apparent that the OP considers the aircraft change an inconvenience.

BTW I still have other unstated opinions DFCatch, just in case you think there is too much agreement going on.



So you're being unreasonable then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus



As a reference to a specific legal test, not being the man on the clapham omnibus counts against you.

No Medhead - I can't be the man on the Clapham Bus, because (in line with Anna's dig), the Clapham Bus test is measured against me.

Ie. Anna claimed to be the man on the Clapham Bus = Anna claimed to be the "reasonable man" against whom my views are tested.

In the example you've quoted - I'm the defendant, therefore I can't also be the "reasonable man". .

RichardMel - the quote from post 1 was a little tongue-in-cheek (if you couldn't tell from the "wassup").

When I called - I don't know if the agent had already read the "memo", was reading it as we spoke, or looked the flight up and then read notes.

The agent was quite nice (as they always all are), but didn't know what was going on. As we worked through the call, with her seeming to investigate the matter, the information that was communicated back to me was as per your description.

I agree - the issue is somewhere within QF, it's not necessarily that the SST were lazy, but from my perspective - they're supposedly proactively monitor our travel.

I would assume that an aircraft downgrade that displaces pax (including an entire F cabin) would be the business of the SST to know about very promptly. If not - it should be.

Then we can argue as to what should or shouldn't reasonably occur.

 

[dfcatch]

I know people in your exalted position are not used to being argued with by their inferiors but I'm not sure stuff like this is really helpful.

If you were denied entry to the F lounge, or the domestic J lounge - would you be upset at your denial of benefits to which your status level entitles you?

 

[medhead]

Well, actually* it's not measured against you, it's measured against the party that is claimed to have failed. Which would be Qantas/Qantas P1 SST.

My point is that if you are not being the hypothetical reasonable person that counts against your assessment of Qantas' systems. Your assessment would not be reasonable. So you do, in fact, want to be the man on the clapham omnibus.

Edit: BTW I'm not say whether or not you're being unreasonable. Just that you should at least claim to be reasonable in your assessment of the failure.

* Well, at least in my opinion, so anyone can feel free to let rip against me.

 

[JohnK]

No, I don't do Y. But one or two seats aside, the seating is identical. They are sold as the same product. QF are not going to turn around and tacitly admit they're not (otherwise everyone who got bumped to a 747 could presumably ask for compensation).

Seating is not identical on any aircraft.

Take middle seats as opposed to aisle seats. Bulkheads or exit rows as opposed to ordinary seats with seat in front of you that can recline.

There is a difference in the international economy products offered by Qantas.

Everytime I am in an A330 I feel like I am flying Jetstar. Feels cramped. There's a reason I fly SYD-HKG-BKK and not SYD-BKK and it isn't all about SCs because I do this for award flights as well.

There is no doubt in my mind there's a difference in economy products. There is also a notable difference in premium cabins as well. The 787 is hoing to change that even further. Qantas needs to recongnise this and compensate accordingly.

 

[dfcatch]

Well, actually* it's not measured against you, it's measured against the party that is claimed to have failed. Which would be Qantas/Qantas P1 SST.

My point is that if you are not being the hypothetical reasonable person that counts against your assessment of Qantas' systems. Your assessment would not be reasonable. So you do, in fact, want to be the man on the clapham omnibus.

Edit: BTW I'm not say whether or not you're being unreasonable. Just that you should at least claim to be reasonable in your assessment of the failure.

* Well, at least in my opinion, so anyone can feel free to let rip against me.

I don't think that was Anna's point .

But I maintain my interpretation is that Anna is claiming to be the reasonable man - measuring against my conduct.

Otherwise her challenge is that we're both competing to be the reasonable man - and that I'm not.

Anna - who's the defendant - me or QF

 

[medhead]

I don't think that was Anna's point .

But I maintain my interpretation is that Anna is claiming to be the reasonable man - measuring against my conduct.

Otherwise her challenge is that we're both competing to be the reasonable man - and that I'm not.

Anna - who's the defendant - me or QF

All I'm saying is that it is a test of reasonability from a legal stand point. My interpretation is that Anna[SUP]*[/SUP] was saying that she can assess according to the test. I just think it isn't good to not claim to be the hypothetical reasonable man. I assume that in any legal action all parties would wish to claim they are the reasonable person, with the judge making the final determination, or something like that.


* Private joke But she should stick to the coffees [SUP]+[/SUP]
+ People outside the private joke best know that I look forward to the next time I see Anna IRL and am instructed in the multitude of my errors. Or possibly just laughed at.

 

[Anna]

They are supposed to PROACTIVELY monitor and manage your travel. That is precisely how the SST service has been communicated.

Does that help answer your question? Or are you still missing something?

Yes, I'm still missing the promise by QF "to proactively monitor and manage your travel". I can only find "Dedicated Platinum One Team - The dedicated Platinum One Team offers specialist support when you need urgent assistance or help beyond routine requests. They will personally manage any flight changes or re-routes and provide support to help minimise any inconvenience".

An aircraft change or a seat change is not a flight change. Saying that a seat change is just as important as a flight change, doesn't turn a seat change into something that QF have undertaken to manage for you.

QF say they will "provide support to help minimise any inconvenience" - it doesn't say they will do this proactively. In your case they did it by putting you in PE.

I think expecting them to proactively monitor "your travel" is akin to the people who translate VA's offer of "food on all flights" into "meals on all flights". It isn't what VA said. QF saying they will manage P1 flight changes and re-routes does not translate into QF proactively monitoring every aspect of your travel. But yes, if you are unhappy with an aspect of your travel then they should do what they can to alleviate it, when you ask. And they did, in this case.

But carry on you two, I'm most entertained by your discussion of the reasonable man