Qantas status - help please!

[BAM1748]

Hindsight is great isn't it. Yes should've just booked the those last couple of flight with QF which would have got her over the line without question. So if there were two calls made did she get the name of each person, if you did you might be able to start the argument with QF. As someone else pointed out if she phoned a couple of times was she sure she was doing the right thing, doesn't look like it.

As you say yourself the QF web site is short on information, so why take the risk.

I think it's gone this time around which is not what you want to hear but probably reality.

Matt

 

[BAM1748]

It's not a strategy I would have used either, but as a general rule, members of the public should be entitled to rely on what Qantas's agents tell them, and should not have to read 100+ pages of an obscure booklet that you can only find by googling in order to find the definition of an eligible sector. She's been a frequent flyer member for more than 30 years - her FF number has an unfeasible number of zeros in front of it - they misled her, and they should make it right.

Qantas FF program has only been running 30 years this year. The other side of the table if she's been a FF member for this long then she knows the rules.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Just because we know telephone agents are often wrong and have learned to live with it/work around it, doesn't make it right! A business should have to take responsibility for information given to customers by its employees.

While I would have taken the safe option myself and booked with Qantas, if someone takes the trouble to phone a business twice to verify they are doing the right thing, they should be able to rely on that information.

Good luck with trying to get this escalated and fixed, hope it doesn't prove too frustrating.

 

[Pushka]

Agree. It doesn’t make it right. But it’s the reality that people make mistakes. If one makes the mistake the first time then that doesn’t lessen the risk of a mistake the second. If one had said Yes, the other No, what would that have meant to Aunty? A third call? Unless I see something in writing I tend to treat verbal info as just that. Perhaps a Chat through the website and then take a screenshot of the chat. That’s what I do when I think there is a contentious issue. I did exactly that with a discussion recently on an insurance website.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Of course people make mistakes, but surely the business who employs them should wear it, not the customer

 

[Pushka]

Of course people make mistakes, but surely the business who employs them should wear it, not the customer

Well, if you can prove the conversation then yes.

 

[BAM1748]

Of course people make mistakes, but surely the business who employs them should wear it, not the customer

Of course they should but, it's the old "don't tell me, show me".

But, there is nothing to show. Hearsay arguments will just give you grief without a result.

Matt

 

[OzEire]

24 posts and counting... if experienced and interested frequent flyers can't sort this out then what hope does the public have in the face of contrary advice from QF ?!?

@Rebekkap i hope QF accepts it could have provided better advice and gives your Aunt a comp this time...but i don't like her chances the way QF has been treating customers recently. Whatever the outcome im sure we're all interested to know how it turns out.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Well, if you can prove the conversation then yes.

Of course the hard part.....

 

[RichardMEL]

I think most of us here would know to book whatever the bundle is that earns SC's to be sure (Max? I dunno.. I don't do the Orange)

and the problem is one (or both) of the agents may have actually said "If you book a Jetstar flight that earns points and status credits" or even "If you book an Max Bundle on Jetstar" which will be correct but the detail may have been a bit lost somewhere (this is not any comment about the OP's aunt in any way!!) ... then QF could say well they were informed.

I would think submitting the eticket receipt and/BP's showing the flights having been taken *may* solicit some common sense... hopefully. It is very frustrating.


And for the record I had exactly this happen to me about 5 years ago with UA. I'd done a huge RTW trip and ticked every box but did not have enough UA~ - so I got no status. So it can sometimes befall even the more experienced of us
(It was UA status so I didn't cry too much about it )

 

[juddles]

I tried doing that and went round and round in circles. And all I found was text relating to status credits and points.

Using google maybe this:
http://www.qantas.com.au/img/page_g...yer/pdf/Frequent_Flyer_benefits_guidebook.pdf

Buried on page 13 is this

View attachment 106718

Then on pages 102-103 there is more detail

What class was booked? Jet flex, Star class or higher?

Thanks for finding that Pushka, but it doesn't actually seem say anything in the terms and conditions (that I could find) that related specifically to the 4 segment rule. And that footnote you highlighted isn't pointed to by the corresponding "^" symbol anywhere in the text????? The second footnote with the "#" symbol is pointed to in the text.

 

[Pushka]

24 posts and counting... if experienced and interested frequent flyers can't sort this out then what hope does the public have in the face of contrary advice from QF ?!?

@Rebekkap i hope QF accepts it could have provided better advice and gives your Aunt a comp this time...but i don't like her chances the way QF has been treating customers recently. Whatever the outcome im sure we're all interested to know how it turns out.

Well, I had booked a flight that would renew my SG but then because of a DVT could not fly for 3 months. This was last year. Qantas didn’t even respond to email enquiry and not much more to a telephone conversation.

 

[Pushka]

Thanks for finding that Pushka, but it doesn't actually seem say anything in the terms and conditions (that I could find) that related specifically to the 4 segment rule. And that footnote you highlighted isn't pointed to by the corresponding "^" symbol anywhere in the text????? The second footnote with the "#" symbol is pointed to in the text.

I know. My post got a bit scrambled as I deleted some of the screenshots and tried to delete them all. The only mention of sectors is on that page then all their *#^ thinggies only refer to credits and points not sectors. So it’s like they’ve simply bunged them all into the same reasoning/inclusion/exclusion but only refered to credits and points as those differ in amounts whereas the number of sectors stays the same.

But while I take the point that the Aunt rang twice to confirm, in my mind I wouldn’t book a flight with Jetstar that gave no credits or points. That just seems a risk too far. And as RichardMEL mentions, it may have been the case that significant details were left out of the conversation, assumptions made, or mishearing of relevant details may have been at play. A classic “he said - she said - he didn’t hear - she didn’t hear” conversation.

 

[cwphoto]

Well, if you can prove the conversation then yes.

The call would have been recorded - if you have the date/time it will be easy to find, I'd push for that.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Of course they should but, it's the old "don't tell me, show me".

But, there is nothing to show. Hearsay arguments will just give you grief without a result.

Matt

actually in commercial trials documentary evidence, such as diary notes made by the witness are accepted, although there is often a judgement call as to perceived reliability of the witness. I certainly made my staff diarise telephone conversations with clients. If the OP's aunt kept a record of who she spoke to and when and what was said, that would weigh in a commercial court case (not that it will get to that ). Also is it hearsay if it was said to the person? What we are getting here is hearsay, but I don't think a conversation is hearsay, if the person who it was said to repeats it. It has to be second hand. And now I am being really pedantic .

 

[BAM1748]

The call would have been recorded - if you have the date/time it will be easy to find, I'd push for that.

indeed, if the call centre did say this will get you over line then ask.

actually in commercial trials documentary evidence, such as diary notes made by the witness are accepted, although there is often a judgement call as to perceived reliability of the witness. I certainly made my staff diarise telephone conversations with clients. If the OP's aunt kept a record of who she spoke to and when and what was said, that would weigh in a commercial court case (not that it will get to that ). Also is it hearsay if it was said to the person? What we are getting here is hearsay, but I don't think a conversation is hearsay, if the person who it was said to repeats it. It has to be second hand. And now I am being really pedantic .

Yes if she kept a note of the conversation and who it was with that always wins the day. And i do it myself especially when talking to a call centre.

But, we have a person posting here about a third party conversation. We have seen no diary notes or evidence. All we have is a person describing a phone conversation they were not party too.

Based on what I read here there is no evidence just hearsay, but should a dairy be produced which shows this and also shows a history of this person keeping diary notes (as a one off note is not good enogh you'd agree) also if a recording is produced then we can say either way.

The voice recording giving a more definitive answer.

Matt

 

[basso]

Thanks for finding that Pushka, but it doesn't actually seem say anything in the terms and conditions (that I could find) that related specifically to the 4 segment rule. And that footnote you highlighted isn't pointed to by the corresponding "^" symbol anywhere in the text????? The second footnote with the "#" symbol is pointed to in the text.

Try this:

20.1.5 The travel required in each Membership Year to attain or retain Silver, Gold, Platinum and Platinum One status levels must include a minimum of four Eligible Flight Segments where Qantas, QantasLink or a Jetstar Airline is the Marketing Carrier.

With Eligible Flights being defined in 9.3.1

Basically 4 flights on Qantas or Jetstar that earn Points and Statis credits.

 

[Pushka]

actually in commercial trials documentary evidence, such as diary notes made by the witness are accepted, although there is often a judgement call as to perceived reliability of the witness. I certainly made my staff diarise telephone conversations with clients. If the OP's aunt kept a record of who she spoke to and when and what was said, that would weigh in a commercial court case (not that it will get to that ). Also is it hearsay if it was said to the person? What we are getting here is hearsay, but I don't think a conversation is hearsay, if the person who it was said to repeats it. It has to be second hand. And now I am being really pedantic .

It is hearsay when you quote what someone else said.

When I have an issue I usually want the call recorded but in reality I’m guessing it never is.

 

[juddles]

Try this:

20.1.5 The travel required in each Membership Year to attain or retain Silver, Gold, Platinum and Platinum One status levels must include a minimum of four Eligible Flight Segments where Qantas, QantasLink or a Jetstar Airline is the Marketing Carrier.

With Eligible Flights being defined in 9.3.1

Basically 4 flights on Qantas or Jetstar that earn Points and Statis credits.

Indeed.

I challenge anyone to show how that 9.3.1 and 20.1.5 specify that the flight must be both jetstar AND in a SC fare bucket to satisfy the four flights rule.... It would be easy to intrepret from those that any oneworld flight is an "eligible flight"

 

[Flying mermaid]

It is hearsay when you quote what someone else said.

When I have an issue I usually want the call recorded but in reality I’m guessing it never is.

Not quite. If the OP quotes what her aunt said was said to her, that is hearsay. If the aunt came on and said what was said to her it is not, It is a statement of what she remembers was said. That doesn't mean it is correct.

E.g. In a trial if a witness says xyz was said to me by person A, that is admissible (but not necessarily correct, as memory can be flawed, or the witness unreliable). . If a witness says I was told that xyz was said by person A, then that is inadmissible as hearsay. That's my understanding of the difference.