QF2 Passengers Stranded in Dubai

[bmam]

Thanks, MEL_Traveller for actually reading my post, unlike the prior dismissive comment.

I certainly have no idea of where real QF staff are located but I have flown a fair bit in the last 48 years with many airlines, some now defunct, and know the difference between good service and indifferent. I'm sure there are good and bad in both camps of casual and full-time employees but the service in HNL when I flew out of there in October left a lot to be desired, both at check-in and in the lounge. For example, being told the QF lounge was opposite gate 49 when it most certainly isn't. I had not been to HNL since 1973 (and then only in transit) so had no idea of the layout for departures. I'm only a lowly Gold though, not Platinum like Jock28, so what would I know?

 

[GoldCanyon340]

You really cannot compare a station like HNL with DXB.

The former is an outstation, the latter a transfer point. There are many further differences ...

What an interesting way to welcome a new member.

 

[coyote25]

Thanks, MEL_Traveller for actually reading my post, unlike the prior dismissive comment.

I certainly have no idea of where real QF staff are located but I have flown a fair bit in the last 48 years with many airlines, some now defunct, and know the difference between good service and indifferent. I'm sure there are good and bad in both camps of casual and full-time employees but the service in HNL when I flew out of there in October left a lot to be desired, both at check-in and in the lounge. For example, being told the QF lounge was opposite gate 49 when it most certainly isn't. I had not been to HNL since 1973 (and then only in transit) so had no idea of the layout for departures. I'm only a lowly Gold though, not Platinum like Jock28, so what would I know?

Hi bmam, welcome to the AFF.

 

[bmam]

Thank you to the members who have welcomed me to this site. Much appreciated.

For those of you who know (a moderator, perhaps?), may I ask a question about censorship on this site?

My comment currently showing in regard to Jock 28 is not what I originally said. Indeed Jock28's post which caused my response is also not the original. If my response to Jock28 was in breach of the rules then I apologise. Jock28's original comment was, in my mind, uncalled for, hence my response. It's not really a big deal - just curious as to the editing. Regards to all and thanks again.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

bmam... at the bottom left of each post is a little warning triangle (underneath the poster's avatar and other details etc). Hitting that will give you a screen to contact moderators. They usually have a pretty fast turnaround and can edit posts if necessary.

 

[bmam]

Many thanks MEL_Traveller

 

[MEL_Traveller]

bmam... I've just gone back throught the last couple of pages... looks like there's been some editing. The posts aren't as they were at the time of the original conversation.

 

[ermen]

really think there should not be partial censorship

either delete the whole post, or not at all.. otherwise it gets confusing to follow!

 

[bmam]

Hi, MEL-Traveller. Yes, that was the point of my enquiry re censorship. Both Jock28 and my original comments have been changed completely removing the sense of Jock28's original put-down of my post. Anyway, probably time to draw a line. This is a great blog and I, for one, have no wish to fan any ire. That's ire, not fire! LOL.

 

[sudoer]

QF's response: Daily Telegraph

There has been plenty of discussion about the long delay experienced by Qantas passengers flying from Dubai to Sydney over New Year’s.

We apologised unreservedly for the frustration and inconvenience this caused. It stemmed from a complex technical problem with one of our A380s that was magnified by how busy alternative flights were over the holiday period.

Most people have rightly pointed out Qantas will always put safety ahead of everything else. But there have also been misinformed claims that CEO Alan Joyce, who was caught up in the delay, received special treatment or skipped the queue (Sunday Telegraph, 8/1).

This is just not true.

The fact is that Alan Joyce didn’t take the “first flight out” of Dubai. He declined the option to fly out on another airline — which could have happened almost immediately — to stay with the group of passengers that he was part of.

He copped the same 24 hour delay as them. And he spent a lot of time talking to his fellow passengers about what was happening. That’s how so many people knew he was on the flight in the first place.

It’s disappointing that some reporting zeroed in on this false premise of a CEO who went MIA, without checking the facts. Here’s some of the detail they missed in the process.

The practical reality of what was happening on the ground in Dubai tells you everything you need to know about how Qantas treats its customers. The work around-the-clock to fix the aircraft; flying a specialist engineer from London to Dubai to assist; making sure all passengers had a hotel room to spend the night despite Dubai being almost fully booked over New Year’s (which meant the accommodation bill would have been higher than many of the airfares themselves). And the fact the last 80 passengers — those who had been delayed the longest — were all upgraded on the flight home.

None of this makes up for not being where you’re supposed to be. And we know it’s our job to get you there, safely — which is the first priority of everyone at Qantas.

Olivia Wirth

Qantas Group Executive — Brand, Marketing and Corporate Affairs

 

[moa999]

About 2wks too late from Ms Worth, and strange that none of the social media posts mentioned talking to AJ

 

[rtyuiop]

It also doesn't address the actual suggestion that AJ was treated differently (although I don't think he was, I think it was just a dumb cough decision that cost them some good PR) - nobody is saying AJ got treated differently to other passengers on this flight, they're saying that this delayed flight was treated differently to others, by delaying passengers on the next flight in favour of the ones initially delayed.

A politician-worthy effort to answer a different question to what was asked, it seems!

 

[Solid]

Seems like an overly aggressive response to me with some of the wording used.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Wow. My first thought is that there must be some serious negative publicity for the airline to think it needs to respond in that way.

The response leaves many unanswered questions... for example why the second plane was comandeered for the first. But overall it's a confusing message... it's not to the point and attempts to address too many issues (safety, the CEO, flying out an engineer, the cost of hotel rooms).

It attempts to turn around the issue by highlighting the inconvenience on qantas (how hard they tried) rather than acknowledging the inconvenience suffered by the passengers.

 

[Pleb Status]

I do not know why QF want to 'pick the scab' on this one. The main stream media had let them off the hook on this debacle and even the social media (AFF for example) had almost let it go.

As MEL Traveller ​stated above, the response by QF is not complete and just raises more questions that QF may not want to answer.

 

[jb747]

Whilst the logic of making any change to that affected the passengers from the second aircraft is questionable, I did find out the other day, that at the time the decision was made, that the aircraft that had been u/s was basically fixed, with the expected delay being 2 hours. The problem didn't rear its head again for a couple of hours.

So, there was never a decision to share 24 hour delays, but rather one to reduce the issue for the first group, with a minor delay for the second.

 

[OATEK]

Whilst the logic of making any change to that affected the passengers from the second aircraft is questionable, I did find out the other day, that at the time the decision was made, that the aircraft that had been u/s was basically fixed, with the expected delay being 2 hours. The problem didn't rear its head again for a couple of hours.

So, there was never a decision to share 24 hour delays, but rather one to reduce the issue for the first group, with a minor delay for the second.

Well this may sound reasonable. But why go to the trouble of unloading an existing flight, and reloading from an earlier flight, when the delay for the original pax might only be a further few hours? There must be more to it surely.

 

[jb747]

Well this may sound reasonable. But why go to the trouble of unloading an existing flight, and reloading from an earlier flight, when the delay for the original pax might only be a further few hours? There must be more to it surely.

Not at all. The entire AJ thing is just a furphy and an opportunity to sling some mud.

Someone thought they were doing the right thing, but it simply didn't work out that way.

Fixing aircraft, especially digital ones, can be a very black art.

 

[Pleb Status]

Not at all. The entire AJ thing is just a furphy and an opportunity to sling some mud.

Someone thought they were doing the right thing, but it simply didn't work out that way.

Fixing aircraft, especially digital ones, can be a very black art.

I assume you are getting your information from a source inside QF (or you work for QF). How confident are you they are not being fed the QF company line currently being given to the media?

They would have needed to have been in DXB at the time to actually know what happened without the QF corporate spin.

 

[mannej]

I assume you are getting your information from a source inside QF (or you work for QF). How confident are you they are not being fed the QF company line currently being given to the media?

They would have needed to have been in DXB at the time to actually know what happened without the QF corporate spin.

The Ask The Pilot thread will give you the information you require on JB's background.