Scoot experiences

[williamsf1]

Because you wanted that outcome anyway, you latched onto the schedule change as a justification for your cancellation/chargeback. Otherwise known as 'wishful thinking'!

I have seen the charge back option been used / advised on AFF many times. Some a clearly justified, however some are very doubtful

 

[moa999]

I agree that the bank timeframes here are poor, but query if fault lies with Bank or Scoot.

What should have happened. Chargeback. Scoot cancels flight.

What I suspect happened. Flight never cancelled. Scoot lists OP as no-show. Some months later a reconciliation picks up the charge back which is challenged.

Note -- If the OP ever received formal notification of cancellation due to charge back, I would think he has a stronger argument

 

[Danger]

I agree that the bank timeframes here are poor, but query if fault lies with Bank or Scoot.

What should have happened. Chargeback. Scoot cancels flight.

What I suspect happened. Flight never cancelled. Scoot lists OP as no-show. Some months later a reconciliation picks up the charge back which is challenged.

The paperwork from Scoot to Bankwest has no dates on it which, given your point, makes me think the timing of Bankwest's or MasterCard's investigation is worth looking into.

Note -- If the OP ever received formal notification of cancellation due to charge back, I would think he has a stronger argument

No, nothing from Scoot with respect to a cancellation. In fact, the only correspondence I received from Scoot after 31 March was a reminder that my flight was seven days away and an offer to upgrade a couple of days out.

 

[williamsf1]

No, nothing from Scoot with respect to a cancellation. In fact, the only correspondence I received from Scoot after 31 March was a reminder that my flight was seven days away and an offer to upgrade a couple of days out.

Did you ever actually formally request scoot to cancel your flight ? receiving emails like above should have rang alarm bells that you still had a booking , and as scoot had a booking – you then technically have no showed

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

problems with schedule changes seem fairly common with scoot, and their terms and conditions don't provide for a refund, only a voucher or rebooking (common theme on various bulletin boards)

the only exception to this is for bookings made on the Australian website (for tickets ex Australia), Aussie consumer law applies and scoot's contract reflects that (ie allows a full refund).

 

[Danger]

Did you ever actually formally request scoot to cancel your flight ? receiving emails like above should have rang alarm bells that you still had a booking , and as scoot had a booking – you then technically have no showed

Well, no, I don't believe I did. But I'm not sure what the point of that would have been. If I'd requested Scoot to cancel the flight then I wouldn't have had any recourse through a chargeback.

 

[UP4014]

Regardless of if you are right or wrong, get some satisfaction. Change banks, and tell them because of this incident. They will say it's not their fault, but tell them you are the customer not Scoot so you expect them to fight for you.

It's not as hard as it used to be to change and I do so when I've had enough of one.

 

[eastwest101]

I receive a letter from Bankwest dated 23 November stating:

"MasterCard have [sic] now ruled for the merchant in this case. They have advised that the merchant did meet their terms and conditions . . .

Specifically, as the flight change to 5.55am instead of 3.45am [note, Bankwest has this around the wrong way, but that's irrelevant] was a change of less than 24 hours (only a change of 130 minutes before the scheduled departure time), the options set in section 9.2 of the merchant terms and conditions do not apply.

We will be reversing the above credit, which will appear on your next statement . . ."
​

A couple of quick questions, I assume the flight that left at 345am was a different flight number to your original flight booked? Or was the same flight number used just at an earlier less convinient time?

I am assuming you are quoting directly from the Mastercard email as quoted above? If it is written this way it seems highly likely that Mastercard have mis-interpreted the Scoot T&Cs 9.2 or that Scoot have misrepresented their own T&Cs to Mastercard during the dispute process.

If this is the case then could still be followed up with Mastercard/your bank. Someone has misinterpreted or misrepresented the Scoot T&Cs as meaning that a 'significant change' to your departure time is a change of greater than 24 hours in planned departure time. Its not - for clarity I think the T&Cs should have said:

"If Scoot has to make a significant schedule change/cancellation of your scheduled departure time AND Scoot are aware of this change more than 24 hours before your schedukled departure time THEN we or our authorised agent will notify you blah blah and provide the following options: etc"



So I would dispute the whole process as they are relying on an vague and undefined term 'significant' to deny the chargeback and the T&Cs are poorly written and unclear.

Looking at the T&Cs again it does look like Scoot were only obliged to rebook you on another day plus or minus 7 days or offer you a voucher but no cash refund, thats nasty and a good reason to book on the Scoot .au website as you would think that you have a greater chance of being protected by Australian consumer law and hence the rufund could have been paid via the method that you paid for the fare.

 

[Danger]

A couple of quick questions, I assume the flight that left at 345am was a different flight number to your original flight booked? Or was the same flight number used just at an earlier less convinient time?

I don't have the revised schedule change in front of me but will check and post later. I do know that I had a schedule change (later and separate to this) on the SIN-MEL leg which did involve a change of flight number so it's possible the same thing that happened here. I'm not sure the relevance of that, though.

I am assuming you are quoting directly from the Mastercard email as quoted above? If it is written this way it seems highly likely that Mastercard have mis-interpreted the Scoot T&Cs 9.2 or that Scoot have misrepresented their own T&Cs to Mastercard during the dispute process.

I'm quoting directly from the letter I received from Bankwest. A Bankwest agent read their advice from MasterCard this morning and it reflects exactly what is included in my letter and outlined here.

If this is the case then could still be followed up with Mastercard/your bank. Someone has misinterpreted or misrepresented the Scoot T&Cs as meaning that a 'significant change' to your departure time is a change of greater than 24 hours in planned departure time. Its not - for clarity I think the T&Cs should have said:

"If Scoot has to make a significant schedule change/cancellation of your scheduled departure time AND Scoot are aware of this change more than 24 hours before your schedukled departure time THEN we or our authorised agent will notify you blah blah and provide the following options: etc"

I completely agree. Putting the "significant" part aside for a moment, the interpretation is very clear: if a change is made and that change is made more than 24 hours from departure, then s. 9.2 applies. Your suggested wording clarifies it, but only in my favour which is clearly not what they want. It appears what Scoot is trying to say is "If Scoot has to make a significant schedule change/cancellation that results in your new scheduled departure time being more than 24 hours before your originally scheduled departure . . ." Oddly, under their reading, there is no recourse if the new scheduled departure is more than 24 hours after the originally scheduled departure time. So if, for example, you're scheduled to fly on Monday at 4pm and that daily service suddenly becomes twice weekly, on Fridays and Saturdays only and you're rescheduled to Friday at 4pm, your SOL because your revised departure wasn't "more than 24 hours before your scheduled departure time".

Furthermore, as it's currently written, how can a "cancellation" be reconciled with the "more than 24 hours before" bit? That is, Scoot is apparently trying to say that only if a schedule change results in a new flight time that is more than 24 hours prior does s. 9.2 apply. But take out "significant schedule change" and it reads "If Scoot has to make a cancellation more than 24 hours before your scheduled departure . . ." Under their apparent interpretation of the clause, the entire clause would be irrelevant - the flight was cancelled and so the 'new time' is not more than 24 hours prior to the original departure time. Basically, the clause doesn't make sense in that area either, under their interpretation.

It's very poorly written either way.

So I would dispute the whole process as they are relying on an vague and undefined term 'significant' to deny the chargeback and the T&Cs are poorly written and unclear.

I have. The first agent handballed to my call to a supervisor who said they can't do anything because it's MasterCard's decision. What a load of rubbish. I followed the advice from BAM1748 above and told them my contract is with Bankwest, I'm their customer and I expect them to go into bat for me. The matter has been escalated (or so they say).

Digging deeper I've pulled up Bankwest's credit card account access conditions of use booklet which states if they are unable to resolve a dispute within 45 days they will provide monthly (or bi-monthly) updates. This means I should have been provided with at least five updates in that 229 day period.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The wording of 9.1 is pretty clear, and the response from MasterCard to bank west is neither here nor there.... the main issue is not the 24 hours, it's whether the flight time change gives rise to a refund. This isn't an option under. period. The only options for tickets issued in China are a voucher or another flight.

Although the reasoning behind the denial of the chargeback was messy and probably wrong, the outcome was correct, no refund is allowed.

If this was under Aussie law the question of a significant schedule change is probably worth considering, because the product might no longer be fit for purpose. Is two hours on a regional flight significant? probably not. unless there was a good reason why you couldn't make the revised departure time.

 

[Danger]

The wording of 9.1 is pretty clear, and the response from MasterCard to bank west is neither here nor there.... the main issue is not the 24 hours, it's whether the flight time change gives rise to a refund. This isn't an option under. period. The only options for tickets issued in China are a voucher or another flight.

Although the reasoning behind the denial of the chargeback was messy and probably wrong, the outcome was correct, no refund is allowed.

If this was under Aussie law the question of a significant schedule change is probably worth considering, because the product might no longer be fit for purpose. Is two hours on a regional flight significant? probably not. unless there was a good reason why you couldn't make the revised departure time.

Section 9.1 or 9.2? If the latter, then I don't believe it's clear at all.

I don't believe the issue is whether the flight time change gives rise to a refund; the issue is that I should have been afforded one of the four options. I wasn't. This, I contest, is a breach of their T&Cs and hence the reason for the chargeback.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Section 9.1 or 9.2? If the latter, then I don't believe it's clear at all.

I don't believe the issue is whether the flight time change gives rise to a refund; the issue is that I should have been afforded one of the four options. I wasn't. This, I contest, is a breach of their T&Cs and hence the reason for the chargeback.

you might not have been offered one of the four options, but you could have proactively asked. is their failure to offer the options grounds for you to breach the contract? that might be tricky.

anyway, they probably think they have it covered if the schedule change isn't significant, which means they aren't under any obligation to contact you or offer you one of the four options.

 

[Danger]

you might not have been offered one of the four options, but you could have proactively asked. is their failure to offer the options grounds for you to breach the contract? that might be tricky.

anyway, they probably think they have it covered if the schedule change isn't significant, which means they aren't under any obligation to contact you or offer you one of the four options.

I referred the agent I spoke with to the T&Cs but, just as Scoot is doing now, she claimed s. 9.2 didn't apply. (This was included in my letter to Bankwest disputing the charge back in April.) The issue of "significant" wasn't ever entered into because the agent (and, again, Scoot now) interpret that the T&Cs say that if the schedule change is anything other than bringing forward the departure time by more than 24 hours, s. 9.2 doesn't apply.

I'm also not sure how I breached the contract.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I referred the agent I spoke with to the T&Cs but, just as Scoot is doing now, she claimed s. 9.2 didn't apply. (This was included in my letter to Bankwest disputing the charge back in April.) The issue of "significant" wasn't ever entered into because the agent (and, again, Scoot now) interpret that the T&Cs say that if the schedule change is anything other than bringing forward the departure time by more than 24 hours, s. 9.2 doesn't apply.

I'm also not sure how I breached the contract.

whether or not scoot or bankwest have got confused about the 24 hours, ultimately the outcome is the same. the confusion (24 hours, more than 24 hours) doesn't affect the outcome, which is that a two hour change in schedule may not be considered significant. as it is not significant either they didn't have to offer you the four options, or even if they did, their failure to offer the four options is unlikely to be material.

maybe breach isn't the right word, but attempting to cancel payment for a contract you entered in to, possibly without valid grounds, would be a breach?

 

[RoMambai]

A cracking read this. Like peeling an onion. Eager to see what new plots arise. (for mine, the decision by Scoot and BW appears correct and whatever the misprint, typo and other obfuscation, a 210 minute delay is unlikely to be considered significant in the eyes of a reasonable punter. I suspect the OP was being a tad cute and interpreted the fine print in his or her own favour. It happens to the best of us!).

 

[Lemon_Party]

Interesting read and good luck Danger...

My small two cents, 130 minutes may arguably not be significant, but personally the original departure time is as early as I would want to take any international flight, and a shift to 3:45am requiring being at the airport for 2am is pretty significant. Particularly when the next 5 hours involve being sat on a scoot flight...

 

[Funky]

Agree with that. 2am at an airport would be no fun. Id call that 'significant'.

 

[eastwest101]

Agree with that. 2am at an airport would be no fun. Id call that 'significant'.

Especially if the departure airport is say miles out of town and does not have a regular train/bus/transport option to that airport at 2am in the morning. Not sure which airport in China the OP was departing from but just an opinion.

Its an ugly document in an awkward format but here is the current T&Cs with 9.1 and 9.2 - note that there does seem to be some allowance for a rufund in the original mode of payment. I don't know if it was picked up earlier in the thread or may have recently changed but there seems to be a definition of what a "significant" change in departure time which is defined as greater than 8 hours.



Should follow that a flight retiming of 7 hours and 59 minutes is not a significant change in flight timing - according to Scoots own T&Cs. just something to be aware of when booking flights with Scoot.

 

[UP4014]

The fall out of dealing with Scoot, a low cost option where they promote you save loot but the trade off is 2am at an airport. I rarely do pre 11am flights. I'm not a morning person when it comes to airlines.

 

[Danger]

Especially if the departure airport is say miles out of town and does not have a regular train/bus/transport option to that airport at 2am in the morning. Not sure which airport in China the OP was departing from but just an opinion.

The departing airport was Guangzhou. To Singapore the flight time is a little over four hours.

Its an ugly document in an awkward format but here is the current T&Cs with 9.1 and 9.2 - note that there does seem to be some allowance for a rufund in the original mode of payment. I don't know if it was picked up earlier in the thread or may have recently changed but there seems to be a definition of what a "significant" change in departure time which is defined as greater than 8 hours.

View attachment 84822

Should follow that a flight retiming of 7 hours and 59 minutes is not a significant change in flight timing - according to Scoots own T&Cs. just something to be aware of when booking flights with Scoot.

That definition has been added since my reservation.

Interesting. Someone's lifted their game. That is not a part of the T&Cs that govern my fare. It wasn't in the version included in the confirmation email from Scoot (below), nor was it in Scoot's paperwork provided to MasterCard and then to Bankwest and me.

View attachment 84771

The inclusion of the eight hour definition for "significant change" actually makes their interpretation of s. 9.2 even more messed up. When I referred the agent to the clause she told me that it does not apply as the time change does not result in the new flight time being more than 24 hours before the originally scheduled flight time. That information was reflected in Bankwest's letter to me ("Specifically, as the flight change . . . was a change of less than 24 hours"). But now Scoot has added in the eight hour definition. By their interpretation Scoot is actually giving themselves 24 hours leeway, not eight (remember I was told s. 9.2 didn't apply because the change was less than 24 hours difference). It actually reinforces the lay reader's interpretation of the section as it stood: if a change is made to a flight and that change is made more than 24 hours before the flight, then s. 9.2 applies.

I'm going around in circles a bit here trying to say what I want to but, now, the section can now be more clearly interpreted as 'If a change is made to your flight and that change is made more than 24 hours before your departure and the change is more than eight hours difference' then s. 9.2 applies. Of course, if Scoot's logic from March is applied to this clause, it would mean that 'if a change is made that results in your flight being brought forward by 24 hours and that change is more than eight hours' which clearly doesn't make sense. To put it another way, again applying their March interpretation, if the flight change was a departure of 10 hours prior, s. 9.2 still wouldn't apply because it's not more than 24 hours prior.

And as I've mentioned before, there's no cover, under their March interpretation, if your flight is put back; the clause, by their reasoning, only covers changes that result in the new departure being 24 hours or more sooner.