QF9 turnback 8/9/18

[JohnM]

There was a thread about EU261 JohnM just recently - Will Qantas pay EU261 compo for QF2 LHR 4hr+ delays?

Perhaps a question to those affected may be in order, but I believe that QF are supposed to hand out an information sheet at check-in if the flight is affected by Eu261.

There were some sheets on the counter at one of the checkin desks (not the one I fronted) but another pax told me it was only the top sheet, not a claim form. My checkin ended up being messy as the cancelled BA re-booking seemed to cause a problem behind the scenes at ticketing that the checkin agent couldn't override. I didn't end up getting one of the sheets but it probably wouldn't have been much use. If I don't get a response to my logged incident, I'll phone.

 

[Saab34]

Do QF usually provide ‘goodwill’ compensation in these heavily delayed dramas? Or is it a matter of rebooking and just be greatfull?

Last year I had a BNE-LAX flight with Virgin delayed from 11am to 8pm due engineering. They offered all pax 40,000 velocity points and all Plats were bumped up a cabin.

 

[There'sOnlyOneJimmy]

— snip
Sure, a 737 isnt a Dreamliner but they dont promise you a certain plane or seat type, just that they will get you from A to B.

They might not *promise* a Dreamliner, but they do seem happy to create an expectation of one...
From the QF website, under Flights to London:

 

[Spongbob]

As an option, outside the box of just accepting the above, surely with these sorts of very long range flights, a reasonable alternative could be to fly an air marshal on the service to deal with trouble makers.

So the air marshal would keep the trouble maker in custody for the remainder of the 17 hour flight?

 

[mrsterryn]

Forgive me, but I disagree entirely with this angle. What exactly do you expect an "air marshall" to do with a difficult pax? Such a pax may be simply drunk and abnoxious, mentally ill, drugged up, or a combo of these factors. It is very unlikely the said air marshall can make a call on these exact attributes on-the-spot. Do you want the air marshall to simply pull a gun and shoot anyone who disobeys an air hostess? Or do you expect them to to be able to do movie stuff - like amazingly subdue them without harm to the baddie, the air marshal, or crew?
f.

Similar to juddles I do believe this may have been outside of Qantas capacity to assess
I have seen a petite little possibly 50 kilos female who had been talking rationally and coherently suddenly flip when a request was denied. She shoved one handed a computer monitor (when monitors were those big coughbersome things)
Towards my staff member and the only reason it didn't hit was the power cord did not leave the socket.
It took 4 big burly police from next door and our own security guard to subdue her.
Also from having seen people in this coherent one moment not the next (also not due to alcohol) I don't believe it is always possible to do a risk assessment prior to boarding as they can present as fine until something doesn't go their way

 

[justinbrett]

I see QF95 is cancelled tonight. That's probably the easiest to manage as PAX can be rebooked on other services.

You wonder if it would have been easier to cancel the original QF9/10 altogether rather than having these issues that go on for days - or perhaps fly them to SIN and rebook on other services (inc BA/SQ). Seems to the be airline principle to shaft a small number of people rather than moderately disrupt the masses. It's like when your QF BNE-SYD flight has been delayed for 4 hours and you watch 6 other QF flights on the same route go on time.

 

[RooFlyer]

While documents describing the EC261 policy are easily found, what QF seems to conveniently omit from their website is how to make a claim.

I'm shocked! Shocked I say! Why on earth would they do that?

 

[Saab34]

I see QF95 is cancelled tonight. That's probably the easiest to manage as PAX can be rebooked on other services.

You wonder if it would have been easier to cancel the original QF9/10 altogether rather than having these issues that go on for days - or perhaps fly them to SIN and rebook on other services (inc BA/SQ). Seems to the be airline principle to shaft a small number of people rather than moderately disrupt the masses. It's like when your QF BNE-SYD flight has been delayed for 4 hours and you watch 6 other QF flights on the same route go on time.

Probably a matter that Heathrow flights are usually full or oversold, usually hard to get a seat during the end of the Euro Summer. LAX flights not so much, in fact out of Melbourne especially the last few weeks it’s been fairly quiet. I just returned from LA last week. 1/3 full outbound, half on the way back.

 

[justinbrett]

Probably a matter that Heathrow flights are usually full or oversold, usually hard to get a seat during the end of the Euro Summer. LAX flights not so much, in fact out of Melbourne the last few weeks it’s been fairly quiet. I just returned from LA last week. 1/3 full outbound, half on the way back.

Awesome - I'm booked on QF95 on Friday in Y+, points upgrade in for J (SG). Still 7 seats left and inside 100 hours now. You've given me some confidence

 

[RooFlyer]

Similar to juddles I do believe this may have been outside of Qantas capacity to assess
<snip>
Also from having seen people in this coherent one moment not the next (also not due to alcohol) I don't believe it is always possible to do a risk assessment prior to boarding as they can present as fine until something doesn't go their way

Qantas could have, and I'm sure they have assessed the risk overall and airlines could do a risk assessment before boarding (beyond what I think they are doing as a mater of course - looking out for obvious intoxication) - its a matter of whether it will pick up enough extras to make it worthwhile.

Going back to 'in-air security', again, I don't think the need is there now, but if intoxication / drug effects become more prevalent in the air, leading to more of these flight disruptions, what do airlines do? Just let it continue and hope for the best? I think like they have on the ground, they will react by increasing the security 'environment', this time in the air, probably by having some kind of additional security or 'subduing' capability (person trained) on board. And no doubt it will cost passengers extra in their ticket, just like ground security. An extra 'condition of carriage' would be slipped in saying that by flying, you accept that restraining measures, including the use of <tech term for pepper spray> may be used against you if the Captain deems it necessary. It may already be in there. So if you have a heart condition or are allergic, then on your own head.

In respect of the effects of the turn-back and its effect on the Qantas network, they were significant - for passengers and the airline. Again, I'm sure Qantas did the risk assessment before they launched the route, weighing having extra 'fat' in the system (pilots on 'call', greater leeway in scheduling of aircraft, with attendant costs) vs the absolute effects of a turn-back like QF9. It would just been a balance on how tight they manage things. If we get a few more of these incidents on this very prominent route, I dare say it may affect loads (rightly or wrongly) and the airline might then need to add some fat.

 

[RooFlyer]

So the air marshal would keep the trouble maker in custody for the remainder of the 17 hour flight?

Probably to next diversion within X hours. That way the flight continues in the right direction and the disruptive pax is 'looked after' by someone qualified, rather than by other passengers and FAs.

Will be interesting to hear how the pax was restrained on QF9 this time - tied to the seat etc.

 

[Daver6]

Will be interesting to hear how the pax was restrained on QF9 this time - tied to the seat etc.

No need for that. Just edge them into any narrow Y seat. Won't be able to get out

 

[dajop]

Probably to next diversion within X hours. That way the flight continues in the right direction .

In this instance, divert to LEA throw the passenger out of the front door and let them find their own way home so the flight can continue on its merry way to LHR

Oh if it were only that simple. I am sure logistics make it easier to return to PER.

 

[RooFlyer]

Every situation on its own merits of course, but if you could secure the pax adequately, ( considering their welfare and toilet requirements of course) I can't see why a flight couldn't continue to, say DXB, ditch the (edit: disruptive) pax, and continue. Close to Perth, sure, return. Point was, with a security person on board, more options present themselves.

 

[Himeno]

Every situation on its own merits of course, but if you could secure the pax adequately, ( considering their welfare and toilet requirements of course) I can't see why a flight couldn'tcontinue to, say DXB, ditch the pax, and continue.

Divert and land in Dubai. Complete pax removal requirements.
Crew are now out of hours and can't continue to LHR. Congratulations. Everyone is now stuck in DXB until the crew has had enough rest for the 7 hours to London.

 

[RooFlyer]

Divert and land in Dubai. Complete pax removal requirements.
Crew are now out of hours and can't continue to LHR. Congratulations. Everyone is now stuck in DXB until the crew has had enough rest for the 7 hours to London.

No need for facetiousness. Do you really think a flight would head back to Perth if it was, say within an hour or so of DXB and say 5 back to an Australian port? Mr Emirates might even be able to help out. I think its happened before.

If crew hours are that finely balanced, then it shows what a fine margin the whole route is working on. How many aborted trips do you think will take till they put some mitigation in, do you think?

 

[sudoer]

Do you really think a flight would head back to Perth if it was, say within an hour or so of DXB and say 5 back to an Australian port?

Even if they decided not to land at DXB, I think they would divert to SIN before going all the way back to PER. Gives QF far more options to recover on their own metal.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

If crew hours are that finely balanced, then it shows what a fine margin the whole route is working on. How many aborted trips do you think will take till they put some mitigation in, do you think?

Quite a few I reckon but it depends how margins change once Sunrise commences. QF International isn't betting the house on Ultra Long Haul but it's going to be high profile and if there isn't a decent level of redundancy then the whole thing could get ugly very quickly if several events combine (which of course always happens).

 

[jb747]

Any diversion on these flights will mean the flight will not make it to its destination. There are not enough legal crew hours to divert and continue. The only real option would be to divert, and then continue to yet another diversion point, in the hope that a crew can be positioned (to whatever point) in some reasonable time frame. So, say you diverted to Bali, you could possibly continue to Istanbul. In practical terms though, it's unlikely to be a tidy outcome.

 

[Mark213]

Divert and land in Dubai. Complete pax removal requirements.
Crew are now out of hours and can't continue to LHR. Congratulations. Everyone is now stuck in DXB until the crew has had enough rest for the 7 hours to London.

Which is exactly what they did in PER this trip and the flight departed 12.00 Sunday some 12 hours later. At least in DXB they are 2/3 of the way to LHR