Qantas Compensation Query

[Mal]

I'd have to agree with the op. I don't think telling a pax that they have to wait in a transit city for 21 days, at their own expense, is acceptable. If Qantas were unable to offer a suitable flight, they should have paid for the flight the op ended up taking. One or two days... That's ok, but 3 weeks??? Who here would sit around and wait?

I don't think a three week delay would have eventuated. I was very concerned about availability HKG-LHR (due to a trip of mine), and checked it during the incident. There was a reasonable amount < 3 weeks (esp in Y). I rebooked a trip using some of this availability - using the waiver in place.

I don't think anyone should ever accept what is told to them at face level. Call the call centre. Call them back and see what is said. Wait at the airport and see if standby travel happens. Check the carrier's website for more information etc. As noted above, Qantas did institute an accommodation policy above what they were legally required to do.

Re-routing without a carrier's permission will rarely end up being paid by them. This is what Travel Insurance is for (and of course you should check with them about how they want you to handle things before you book, as they may have special rates on certain carriers etc).

A carrier promises travel from A to B. Subject to legal requirements, they rarely have to provide more (or even promise when you'll arrive). Some carriers say "We don't care", others say "We'll look after passengers".

 

[JohnK]

This may seem harsh but why do people expect airlines to cover the cost of a volcano erupting.

QF/BA/EK et al did not cause the problem and they have been affected by this and people seem to think it is their right to be covered by them.

S&*t happens and lives get messed around but sometimes there is no one to blame and you just need to deal with it.

In a way I agree with your statement but it is also harsh to expect people to take responsibility for an event beyond their control.

The airlines always protect themselves against all kinds of acts of nature but no one ever protects the passenger.

 

[ejb]

In a way I agree with your statement but it is also harsh to expect people to take responsibility for an event beyond their control.

The airlines always protect themselves against all kinds of acts of nature but no one ever protects the passenger.

John,

Surely good TI would protect people somewhat from this event.

I look at it like people who don't have home insurance then in a bushfire/flood their house burns down/floods and they expect the government to step in and help them. People who have paid thousands in insurance get their house rebuilt by the insurance company and then the gov steps in to "protect" those who have no insurance. I say let them stay homeless as the tightar$e$ saved money by not insuring their house let them suffer and maybe next time people will take out insurance.

Harsh, I know, but people need to stop expecting that someone else will protect them if there is a problem and look after themselves.

ejb

 

[simongr]

I think the tricky one here is QF not flying until a day or so after other airlines - that was a conscious decision that they need to be accountable for.

I also agree that if you don't insure I shouldn't have to pay for your poor choices.

 

[ejb]

I think the tricky one here is QF not flying until a day or so after other airlines - that was a conscious decision that they need to be accountable for.

I also agree that if you don't insure I shouldn't have to pay for your poor choices.

I agree with that. Once airspace was open any delay by QF was operational and they should then cover the cost but while the airspace was closed they should not be liable for covering peoples costs.

ejb

 

[ozbeachbabe]

John,

Surely good TI would protect people somewhat from this event.

I look at it like people who don't have home insurance then in a bushfire/flood their house burns down/floods and they expect the government to step in and help them. People who have paid thousands in insurance get their house rebuilt by the insurance company and then the gov steps in to "protect" those who have no insurance. I say let them stay homeless as the tightar$e$ saved money by not insuring their house let them suffer and maybe next time people will take out insurance.

Harsh, I know, but people need to stop expecting that someone else will protect them if there is a problem and look after themselves.ejb

What would the average monthly premium be to insure one's house I wonder?

Bet it's less than the cost for a carton of smokes which some would buy every week!

Anyone who says "I can't afford to insure my house" shouldn't be in one. If you choose not to insure it, then ask yourself "could I afford to build another house plus replace all my household possessions if this one burnt down"?

They're really saying "I could afford it, however I choose instead to spend the money on cigarettes".

Would have thought that one's a no-brainer really!

 

[oz_mark]

I agree with that. Once airspace was open any delay by QF was operational and they should then cover the cost but while the airspace was closed they should not be liable for covering peoples costs.

My view is that any additional expenses (e.g. accomodation etc), should be borne by the airline. They have not delivered what they said they would, and the airspace closure preventing them from operation is a risk that should be borne by them. If, where and how they choose to recover their losses is their issue.

This is not really different to someone being late to the airport as they got caught up in a significant traffic snarl. Not really the passengers fault, but they are responsible for any additional expenses (that they mayor may not be able to recover).

 

[N860CR]

My view is that any additional expenses (e.g. accomodation etc), should be borne by the airline. They have not delivered what they said they would, and the airspace closure preventing them from operation is a risk that should be borne by them. If, where and how they choose to recover their losses is their issue.

This is not really different to someone being late to the airport as they got caught up in a significant traffic snarl. Not really the passengers fault, but they are responsible for any additional expenses (that they mayor may not be able to recover).

That is exactly right. Airlines make a lot of money each day through the misfotunes of their passengers (traffic delays etc), so during something like this (where the ball is in the other court for once), the airlines can't really complain about it. It would be just great if all our businesses were run without ever having any problems at all, but it doesn't work like that, and sometimes we have to wear the cost regardless of fault.