Qantas Horror Story (and AA heroes)

[tdimdad]

Yeppers, and it is the customer's responsibility to identify any passport/visa issues that a rerouting might throw up. E.g. I need a visa to go to the USA; if an airline offered me a reroute to Europe going east rather than west (hypothetically) it would be down to me to spot that, not the airline.

And this is where it seems to fall down. QF made a change which rendered the routing invalid from the customer's viewpoint (but not in general). On cross-checking whether the change is acceptable, the OP finds out they can't make the connection (due to lack of a suitable visa).

I see two elementary problems - both firmly in QF's control - which snowballed this into a mess it became.
1) QF call centre agents not understanding the situation and/or not being capable to find a solution (i.e. reroute the passengers). I'd hazard a guess that many of the agents don't really travel themselves so may not have a real-life experience of what they are talking about.
2) Lack of QF internal escalation paths (2nd/3rd tier specialist teams). Assuming #1 is true, the bare minimum they should do is for the agent to grab all the relevant facts and escalate the query.

Either #1 or #2 alone would have saved the day as QF could have been helpful in this case (and many others). The cost to QF to have them is also negligible compared to the lost opportunities and business (and brand erosion) this kind of service causes in the long run.

It's great to hear AA stepped up to the rescue and wrangled you onto a valid routing and back home. That's service with a capital S from them and deserves to rewarded with repeat business when possible.

 

[jpp42]

I don't understand why there's all this focus on the "illegal connection" business - that was fixed before the travel - the actual flights that OP was trying to check-in to at Miami were, apparently, MIA-ORD-NRT-MEL, presumably on AA then JAL for the next two segments (since as noted, QF doesn't fly NRT-MEL). This involved no entry to Japan except for the fact that for some reason AA wasn't able to check the bags all the way to MEL. To me the root cause of the problem lies in this part of the story:

The AA rep told us we would simply need to clear customs at Narita airport and collect our bag, then check it for the final leg of the journey back to Melbourne. We explained that we couldn’t do that because Japan wouldn’t allow us through to get our bag without a VISA.

It was at this point we realised we had a major problem. There was no way that Japan Airways would allow us to board that flight.

Was this really correct that JAL would not allow the passengers to board? I think not, we have seen many other cases where transit at NRT was allowed in similar situations even when tourists could not enter the country. So unless the OP is deliberately obfuscating the story by telling porkies about NRT vs HND after the first rescheduling, I tend to think that they overreacted in the stress of the situation by assuming that they couldn't travel through NRT, without properly checking, and then demanding the alternate routing. OP made the whole situation much harder for themselves by not at least proceeding to ORD where JAL staff, who would be much more knowledgeable about the situation, might have sorted out the luggage issue.

 

[jpp42]

I see two elementary problems - both firmly in QF's control - which snowballed this into a mess it became.
1) QF call centre agents not understanding the situation and/or not being capable to find a solution (i.e. reroute the passengers). I'd hazard a guess that many of the agents don't really travel themselves so may not have a real-life experience of what they are talking about.
2) Lack of QF internal escalation paths (2nd/3rd tier specialist teams). Assuming #1 is true, the bare minimum they should do is for the agent to grab all the relevant facts and escalate the query.

I don't disagree with this assessment in general, especially #2. But I also am second-guessing the OP in terms of why they though they needed a re-routing, since ORD-NRT-MEL should have been fully valid despite the Japan border closure. The problem seems to be that no one properly explained that to them, or focused on the issue of why the bags couldn't be checked through all the way to MEL. I'm also not sure why AA couldn't contact JAL as the operating carrier for advice on whether they'd be allowed to board at ORD - this shouldn't have needed to involve QF. QF was only involved, apparently, because OP insisted on the re-routing, and I guess AA needed approval from QF to open up the seats on DFW-SYD to make the re-routing work.

 

[encryptededdy]

I don't understand why there's all this focus on the "illegal connection" business - that was fixed before the travel - the actual flights that OP was trying to check-in to at Miami were, apparently, MIA-ORD-NRT-MEL, presumably on AA then JAL for the next two segments (since as noted, QF doesn't fly NRT-MEL). This involved no entry to Japan except for the fact that for some reason AA wasn't able to check the bags all the way to MEL. To me the root cause of the problem lies in this part of the story:

Was this really correct that JAL would not allow the passengers to board? I think not, we have seen many other cases where transit at NRT was allowed in similar situations even when tourists could not enter the country. So unless the OP is deliberately obfuscating the story by telling porkies about NRT vs HND after the first rescheduling, I tend to think that they overreacted in the stress of the situation by assuming that they couldn't travel through NRT, without properly checking, and then demanding the alternate routing. OP made the whole situation much harder for themselves by not at least proceeding to ORD where JAL staff, who would be much more knowledgeable about the situation, might have sorted out the luggage issue.

I agree with you here. It would make much more sense to check the bag through to ORD, then talk to JAL staff there. There should be no reason why a bag cannot connect JAL to JAL on the same ticket through their home port (heck, even on different tickets I'd expect them to do it).

With that said, if so many AA agents were involved, I would also say that they should be the ones more knowledgeable here and informed OP better instead of allowing this very odd re-route. Of course, it's hard to say without knowing what the exact conversation at AA check-in was.

Personally, I think the only horror story here (and I do agree it's unfortunately a very common Qantas call centre horror story), is the pain OP had to go through to fix the involuntary change that caused them to need to change airports in Tokyo.

 

[ShrinkWrapped]

Reading it several times and then actually checking current JAL schedules (even though not accurate possibly for the time the OP was flying) raises one very obvious issue.

ORD - NRT throughout november 2022 for example is once daily on a monday or tuesday (I think 2 x M and 2 x T)
NRT - MEL is 3 x weekly ish

I’m actually wondering when the OP still alluded to a 30 hour layover, that was still the case when moving all flights to NRT once I re-read it. Effectively they had created a stopover inadvertently rather than a transit, with a connecting time of > 24 hours, hence AA would only check luggage through to NRT at thIs junction in the journey.

In this case, it sounded like the OP couldn’t enter Japan (before things opened in October?) which meant that the flight connection was unsuitable, especially as NRT is not 24 hours airside from what I recall.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

There was a similar thread earlier this year in relation to the root cause of your issues - Unlawful Tokyo transfer. Essentially, you're responsible for ensuring a connection is lawful. Ideally this would be before you book the tickets.

Yes and no. I mean if you originally booked something where you had to change airports from Haneda to Narita (or vice-versa) then yes, shame on you. However, there have been instances where airlines have rebooked people from legal connections (i.e. Haneda-Haneda transfer) to unlawful ones (i.e. Haneda-Narita) due to flights being cancelled, etc. In which case it is really up to the airline to make it right.

-RooFlyer88

 

[encryptededdy]

I’m actually wondering when the OP still alluded to a 30 hour layover, that was still the case when moving all flights to NRT once I re-read it. Effectively they had created a stopover inadvertently rather than a transit, with a connecting time of > 24 hours, hence AA would only check luggage through to NRT at thIs junction in the journey.

That's an excellent point I didn't consider. I think you're probably correct here. Although if OP knew at the time of their last call that they couldn't enter Japan, then surely they wouldn't have accepted a 30h stopover?

 

[djkelly69]

Some good points @jpp42 .

Not sure about NRT, but in my research for what would have been a 1hr INT-INT transit at HND early next year (now 12hrs due to a schedule change), you don't need to clear customs for that, you just go to an international transfer desk. Seems likely to be the same process for NRT.

Given for the US you would have to clear customs at the first point of entry even if only transiting, perhaps the AA check-in desk got it wrong and confused their country's requirements with another's?

Edit: or the inadvertently-created stopover theory seems plausible as well.

 

[jpp42]

Not sure about NRT, but in my research for what would have been a 1hr INT-INT transit at HND early next year (now 12hrs due to a schedule change), you don't need to clear customs for that, you just go to an international transfer desk. Seems likely to be the same process for NRT.

Yes, but in order for that to work seamlessly the bags should have been tagged through to the final destination previously. There are some airports where they can find/intercept your bags and re-check them without the passenger needing to go "landside" but I don't know specifically if NRT can do this.

Given for the US you would have to clear customs at the first point of entry even if only transiting, perhaps the AA check-in desk got it wrong and confused their country's requirements with another's?

I doubt it, with so many senior AA people involved, they would have had experience with plenty of similar itineraries in the past. MIA is not a small port and has many international departures itself. I think the more likely situation is what @NZJuniorDoc pointed out above, that it might have been a 30-hour layover in NRT, which would have precluded the bags being checked through (and it would have certainly been uncomfortable to sit in NRT for 30 hours without being able to even use a transit hotel, as the situation was back then).

 

[encryptededdy]

The other thing I'm wondering is what was the first flight change that made the connection no longer possible? If it was a JAL flight change, then I think even if OP contacted Qantas earlier, nothing would've been able to be done, since Qantas was likely not operating flights to/from Japan at that time, so can't open inventory on their own flights, and any request to get JAL to open up space would have likely been unsuccessful.

 

[ShrinkWrapped]

Yes and no. I mean if you originally booked something where you had to change airports from Haneda to Narita (or vice-versa) then yes, shame on you. However, there have been instances where airlines have rebooked people from legal connections (i.e. Haneda-Haneda transfer) to unlawful ones (i.e. Haneda-Narita) due to flights being cancelled, etc. In which case it is really up to the airline to make it right.

-RooFlyer88

Though this is the individual’s responsibility, not the airlines responsibility. The haneda - Narita transit remains a LEGAL connection …. If you were a Japanese national. They have sold you a ticket from A to B, you now just can’t get through the itinerary. They have still reticketed you A to B.

While it does inconvenience the individual, I don’t see it as the airline’s responsibility to accommodate you based on your passport (aside from denying you boarding if you don’t meet entry requirements on the day of flying). This was always the risk of trying to transit through a closed country over the last two and a bit years

Though this is another debate not really relevant here since I’m wondering if my guess about accidental stopover may be correct

 

[encryptededdy]

and it would have certainly been uncomfortable to sit in NRT for 30 hours without being able to even use a transit hotel, as the situation was back then).

Isn't Narita T1/T2 not open 24/7 anyway?

 

[jpp42]

The other thing I'm wondering is what was the first flight change that made the connection no longer possible? If it was a JAL flight change, then I think even if OP contacted Qantas earlier, nothing would've been able to be done, since Qantas was likely not operating flights to/from Japan at that time, so can't open inventory on their own flights, and any request to get JAL to open up space would have likely been unsuccessful.

I mean, if you re-read the original post, after much prodding Qantas DID change OP's flights to connect at the same airport , so it wasn't like nothing was done. We don't have clarity over the length of the layover in NRT, but OP said, "Finally, on one of the many calls and after an hour or so of being told this was not their responsibility in any way, that were no other options for flights, we managed to get a change made that added in an additional leg to Chicago. This had us leaving Chicago and arriving to Tokyo, Narita instead of Tokyo, Haneda. This was even into the same terminal as the departing flight to Melbourne (T2). We confirmed with the Qantas representative multiple times that our bags would be checked through to Melbourne and we would not have to leave the terminal to clear immigration in Japan; thus, be OK to land without a VISA and transit in Narita."

All of that seems like a correct outcome, despite the time it took them to get to it. It's not clear whether the above was still in business class or not, but regardless I don't actually see that Qantas has done anything wrong with this part of the story.

 

[ShrinkWrapped]

Isn't Narita T1/T2 not open 24/7 anyway?

I recall T1 might be 24H with some benches and stuff for seats but not T2, but this was pre-covid

 

[jpp42]

Isn't Narita T1/T2 not open 24/7 anyway?

Perhaps not officially, but they were allowing travellers to stay there when forced to by inability to enter Japan. See this thread: Australians stuck in Tokyo Narita Airside after JQ delays flight 24h

 

[encryptededdy]

I mean, if you re-read the original post, after much prodding Qantas DID change OP's flights to connect at the same airport , so it wasn't like nothing was done.

I more meant if it was a 30h transit, it's possible that Qantas couldn't do anything about it either way.

Perhaps not officially, but they were allowing travellers to stay there when forced to by inability to enter Japan. See this thread: Australians stuck in Tokyo Narita Airside after JQ delays flight 24h

Yep, although that would've been T3 (the LCC terminal), which to my knowledge is officially 24/7.

 

[kpro]

So to those trying to blame the OP for not reviewing the need for a visa you need more lessons in detective work.
The OP said that they were flying into HND in the initial post and then catching a QF flight to MEL QF flies HND to MEL not from NRT therefore the original booking was legal and did not require a visa.

And this is where it seems to fall down. QF made a change which rendered the routing invalid from the customer's viewpoint (but not in general). On cross-checking whether the change is acceptable, the OP finds out they can't make the connection (due to lack of a suitable visa).

Yes and no. I mean if you originally booked something where you had to change airports from Haneda to Narita (or vice-versa) then yes, shame on you.

The issue is, in the OP's unedited original post, there was an indication that the original flight booked landed in Haneda and then departed in Narita.

The third paragraph mentioned this originally - The flights were from Miami returning home to Melbourne and went via New York to Tokyo (Haneda), transferring to Tokyo (Narita), then from there to Melbourne, Australia.

The new edited version of the paragraph is indeterminate on what airports were part of the original itinerary, it just says 'Tokyo'. The OP needs to clarify this.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Reading it several times and then actually checking current JAL schedules (even though not accurate possibly for the time the OP was flying) raises one very obvious issue.

ORD - NRT throughout november 2022 for example is once daily on a monday or tuesday (I think 2 x M and 2 x T)
NRT - MEL is 3 x weekly ish

I’m actually wondering when the OP still alluded to a 30 hour layover, that was still the case when moving all flights to NRT once I re-read it. Effectively they had created a stopover inadvertently rather than a transit, with a connecting time of > 24 hours, hence AA would only check luggage through to NRT at thIs junction in the journey.

In this case, it sounded like the OP couldn’t enter Japan (before things opened in October?) which meant that the flight connection was unsuitable, especially as NRT is not 24 hours airside from what I recall.

I think that’s right… the 30 hour layover meant bags couldn’t be through checked.

It would also be good to understand the original itinerary compared to the revised itineraries. In the original post it says the NY layover was shortened, meaning the connection in Tokyo was affected. It’s not clear how a *shorter* layover in NY would affect the Tokyo transit… unless it meant not being able to catch the original flight to Tokyo and having to fly a later service?

 

[drron]

The issue is, in the OP's unedited original post, there was an indication that the original flight booked landed in Haneda and then departed in Narita.

The third paragraph mentioned this originally - The flights were from Miami returning home to Melbourne and went via New York to Tokyo (Haneda), transferring to Tokyo (Narita), then from there to Melbourne, Australia.

The new edited version of the paragraph is indeterminate on what airports were part of the original itinerary, it just says 'Tokyo'. The OP needs to clarify this.

Except that the original post said that they were travelling New York to connect with a QF flight to MEL. These depart from HND.
It also says that they didn’t need a visa for the original award booking which strongly suggested that their New York to Tokyo flight was to HND.

Then came the QF changes and flying in and out of NRT.They did realise that they couldn’t go through Immigration at NRT so asked QF if the bags could be checked through to MEL and they were told that would happen. So what more could they have done then.
And when they noticed that the bags were only checked to NRT they realised the problem. In other words they had done all the checking that they could have t. So the blame for the situation rests squarely with QF.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Except that the original post said that they were travelling New York to connect with a QF flight to MEL. These depart from HND.
It also says that they didn’t need a visa for the original award booking which strongly suggested that their New York to Tokyo flight was to HND.

Then came the QF changes and flying in and out of NRT.They did realise that they couldn’t go through Immigration at NRT so asked QF if the bags could be checked through to MEL and they were told that would happen. So what more could they have done then.
And when they noticed that the bags were only checked to NRT they realised the problem. In other words they had done all the checking that they could have t. So the blame for the situation rests squarely with QF.

The OP states with the final itinerary they had a 30 hour wait in Tokyo. This might have raised issues around where to stay, and entry restrictions.

The OP was likely in a difficult situation regardless… if entry restrictions had been identified there were probably no alternatives to get back to Australia given the scarcity of seats via any route.