Strict check in times

[ksthommo]

I thought that her attitude to the 17 year old was remarkably helpful tbh. It may be a surprising policy ( though credits at end indicated that they have dropped the age of not needing a form to 15 ) but her approach of allowing virtually anyone to sign it was extremely helpful rather than disgusting

Pity the young bloke had to ask quite a few fellow passengers to sign the form before he found the gentleman that would. Good to see Tiger has changed there policy. Looks like it was policed by some but not all.

 

[UP4014]

The staff should treat the passengers as they would like their own mum and dad treated. They can still be low cost but not act low brow.

Perhaps I might start asking my customers if they have a relative working for Tiger, at which point I pull out the rule book........

Of course not, we're all bigger than the behaviour of the now confirmed low brow approach of this carrier.

Yes, I have been known to be late and had the plane held, nothing like stepping out of the taxi as they make the final boarding call.

 

[serfty]

If they say 45 minutes prior to departure, they mean 45 minutes prior to departure. Not 41 minutes. Not 42 minutes. If you something important to get to, make sure you are there on time.

... Infrequent flyers are likely to have no idea how long the check-in queue is likely to be. Do I allow 5 minutes, 15 minutes, or 45 minutes? With a 45 minute cut-off, I am being led to believe that 15 minutes (about 1/3 of the "lead" time) should be reasonable ...

... The show should ensure that TT passengers that see it will realise that 45 minutes means 45 minutes and not 44,43,42 or 41 minutes ...

Maybe TT should document a latest check-in time of -1 Hour and allow 15 minutes leeway.

 

[Dave Noble]

Maybe TT should document a latest check-in time of -1 Hour and allow 15 minutes leeway.

That is worse imo... at least with 45 mins published and actual there is no ambiguity; should they start having a fictional check in time of an hour and allowed an unpublished 15 minutes leeway then they will have people complaining even more if they get checked in if late one day and not the next

I think that telling the truth is good and then there is no confusion

Dave

 

[anat0l]

Interesting enough, this has an interesting allusion to JQ's incursion into NZ domestic operations.

QFNZ (Jetconnect) used to close check-in at T-20; T-15 if you had no baggage. Now JQNZ have a flat T-30 for check-in. Especially on the first day (and yes even though the CoCs on their tickets said otherwise), many people were denied check-in on the basis that they were late. Apart from all the accusations (true or otherwise - take note!) of people being in the line before T-30 but just not getting to the counter by then and thus not being able to check-in etc. etc., the issue here is that NZ domestic travellers are more conditioned to having very thin check-in cutoffs, so T-30 makes JQNZ look like a dinosaur (not helped by their compounding ineptitude in succeeding as a carrier in NZ domestic so far).

FWIW, Air NZ have a domestic check-in (viz. bag drop) cutoff of T-30 by book definition, however in practice I have heard they are a lot more flexible (down to sometimes T-10, esp. if no luggage, but some have reported that even with luggage they have succeeded), esp. at AKL D. Of course, if you have OLCI'd and have no baggage, then all you need to do is be at the gate; if you are a KC, NZ G or NZ GE member with no baggage, it's even easier with the ePass. There is measurable anecdotal evidence that QFNZ domestic also used to be slightly flexible (again, esp. if no checked bags; keep in mind that QFNZ had a horrible OTP...).

Of course, this is a natural human reaction at play, i.e. it's not (read, never) your fault, it's a failure of the system (or the b*tch who simply recited the rules in your face).

 

[odysseus]

Of course, this is a natural human reaction at play, i.e. it's not (read, never) your fault, it's a failure of the system (or the b*tch who simply recited the rules in your face).

Nah, that woman with the child was accepting of it and admitted it was her fault in getting the time's wrong.

I maintain though that systems work better when there is flexibility in them. We need to be flexible and adapt when the plane is late, there's been an accident or any other issue - and they expect us to do so. Equally, I contend that existing practice of other carriers where they facilitate boarding where it is actually possible is preferable to shielding themselves behind a blanket rule for their own convenience. If people see you are trying to do what's possible they'll normally accept it. If people just see you're making a wall of excuses as it's easier for you they're less likely to accept it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's not so much about flexibility, or needing to enforce the rules rigidly at 45 mins - it's about customer service, and being reasonable in any given situation.

Being 'reasonable' will vary from situation to situation.

If someone is 4 mins late and has no luggage, then the reasonable thing to do is to allow that person to board. If an A320 isn't carrying enough fuel to cover an extra 80kgs of weight then CAA needs to have a close look at operations.

If a passenger turns up 10 mins late and has baggage to check then the liklihood is that they would accept it is too late to make the flight.

At least Easyjet make the effort to call dispatch to ask if it is too late to accept another passenger. TT didn't seem to do this.

Discretion is not some magical thing. The staff should be allowed to use it.

It wasn't clear from the show how the 17 yr old got down to Melbourne in the first place. Did TT fly him without the need for a signed consent form?

If they did then TT was clearly responsible for getting him home. Even if that meant transferring him to another carrier.

If they did give him a form in BNE then they should have had the foresight to give him a form for the return as well.

mel-t

 

[Dave Noble]

At least Easyjet make the effort to call dispatch to ask if it is too late to accept another passenger. TT didn't seem to do this.

On Airline, have you ever actually seen dispatch actually accept the passenger? I have only ever seen it refused so effectively the same as saying no but making a pretence to check

Discretion is not some magical thing. The staff should be allowed to use it.

Their policies are quite well written, why shouldnt people be expected to follow them. Discretion leads to expectations by the customer that the discretion be applied to them

It wasn't clear from the show how the 17 yr old got down to Melbourne in the first place. Did TT fly him without the need for a signed consent form?

If they did then TT was clearly responsible for getting him home. Even if that meant transferring him to another carrier.

I don't know how he got there either , however the argument that they were responsible to get him back seems to me as flawed as the argument that people use if getting charged excess baggage fees of the "but I didnt get charged them on the way here"

imo, to let anyone sign the form was being as flexible in the rules as possible

Dave

 

[dajop]

If someone is 4 mins late and has no luggage, then the reasonable thing to do is to allow that person to board.

This is where OLCI is ideal, and it's a shame TT don't have it. This removes the need for any flexibility for pax without luggage. If someone is 4 minutes late to the gate and the door is closed it is obviously too late, and the vast majority of people (except the DYKWIA types) accept it. And chances are the DYKWIA types will be busy trying to get an upgrade at the QP or CL anyway .... not slumming it on TT.

 

[straitman]

It wasn't clear from the show how the 17 yr old got down to Melbourne in the first place. Did TT fly him without the need for a signed consent form?

If they did then TT was clearly responsible for getting him home. Even if that meant transferring him to another carrier.

If they did give him a form in BNE then they should have had the foresight to give him a form for the return as well.

mel-t

It was stated that they did not require him to have a form signed for the trip down. IMHO it then falls back to TT to sort out their own s**t and not selectively enforce the rules at the least opportune time.

Letting anyone sign the form was a good but not a great option.

 

[medhead]

Letting anyone sign the form was a good but not a great option.

Actually, letting anyone sign the form was the worst possible outcome. It basically says that the form is meaningless. A consent form is about getting consent from someone who is actually responsible for the person/minor. A random stranger has no ability to sign away the rights of the parents or guardian. Effectively, in this case TT have no protection from whatever circumstances they are trying to protect by getting the consent form signed. Strictly getting a random signature on a bit of paper doesn't actually enforce the rule about the form. If they are going to have a rule about a form they need to actually enforce it. No doubt this is why TT dropped the need for the form.

As for that 17 yr old, what is wrong with that boy? He should have just walked away and forged a signature.

 

[odysseus]

As for that 17 yr old, what is wrong with that boy? He should have just walked away and forged a signature.

That thought crossed my mind but given the attention that had already been applied to him and had said his parents weren't available, if he presented himself at another queue, the supervisor may well have challenged him on who gave approval.

Although it had been said that he'd flown down, I don't think he actually said it was with Tiger. There was the possibility it was with another airline, but it also may have just been overlooked by the initial check-in agent.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Actually, letting anyone sign the form was the worst possible outcome. It basically says that the form is meaningless. A consent form is about getting consent from someone who is actually responsible for the person/minor. A random stranger has no ability to sign away the rights of the parents or guardian.

My thoughts as well - why have the form if anyone was able to sign it? (Although there may be more to it than we saw, it did look like the new 'guardians' stayed with the kid for the flight and handed him over to the grandparents at the other end.)

The arguments by some here that allowing 1 minute, or 5 minutes will set an unreasonable expectaion and 'oh my gosh where will it all end? where do you draw the line?' is a bit misleading.

There comes a point even for Qantas and Virgin where they have to finally close a flight. Most people accept that. We are Aussies - we believe in the 'fair go'.

As for the 45 minute check-in - I just made a dummy booking on the Tiger site and at no stage before the final payment page does it clearly show me that 45 minutes is the deadline.

It is burined in the fine print that TT reserves the right to not accept you for travel, but that is not sufficiently clear in my opinion. 'Reserves the right' implies discretion. Otherwise it would have been worded 'will not accept you for travel if you are later than 45 mins'.

If the 45 minute rule is subsequently printed on the confirmation that may be too late to include as a contractual term - unless there is a right to cancel the ticket for a full refund at that point (that is, within a reasonable time after completing the booking). (After that time you may be considered as having accepted the term.)

TT relies on getting away with things such as overbooking as being 'standard-airline-practice'. As a passenger I would argue discretion at check-in (4 mins late) is 'standard-airline-practice' in Australia.

 

[drron]

The show did actually show the fellow who signed the form walking with the boy at Mackay and meeting the grandparents.that fellow came out best of all-he not only signed the form but took his obligation seriously.

 

[anat0l]

It is burined in the fine print that TT reserves the right to not accept you for travel, but that is not sufficiently clear in my opinion. 'Reserves the right' implies discretion. Otherwise it would have been worded 'will not accept you for travel if you are later than 45 mins'.

If the 45 minute rule is subsequently printed on the confirmation that may be too late to include as a contractual term - unless there is a right to cancel the ticket for a full refund at that point (that is, within a reasonable time after completing the booking). (After that time you may be considered as having accepted the term.)

This is a fairly accurate wording. It is not absolute, but it does state that TT are in their full rights to refuse to check you in if you arrive late. They might let you off, fine. In any case, you have no right of complaint, because that is the rules.

Yes, this is the so-called 'discretion' you talk about. However, this 'discretion' does not have any rules attached to it, nor should it (otherwise, it is no longer 'discretion', it then becomes policy (or amendment to policy)).

In any case, most other airlines don't make this wording loud and clear to the degree you'd probably appreciate it. All of them, however, have it written somewhere in the booking process, but not in big letters or the like. You can also obtain the same information by going to the 'Check-in'/'At the Airport' information for any of the domestic carriers (i.e. it will tell you when you need to be at the airport).

If we redesigned the booking process such that we put the entire CoC in big type (i.e. rather than in a separate link) and forced all pax to scroll through the lot before continuing with a booking, I think you will still not see any difference in behaviour. Even if you made them read and check off boxes corresponding to their acceptance of key terms, that would be both ineffective and annoying. What next? We make customers print off a form that contains the CoC with key agreement terms (including, but not limited to, minimum check-in times), make them sign it on paper, then send it back by fax/post before they are given their e-tickets??


Pax should not be relying on any discretion if they break the rules. It's a pretty simple statement: be there on time to check-in or you will probably be refused. It's the difference between a (relative) guarantee and a (weak) chance. Simple enough?

Oh, and airlines probably didn't cause the traffic accident that turned your 20 minute trip into a 60 minute one. Just remember that.

TT relies on getting away with things such as overbooking as being 'standard-airline-practice'. As a passenger I would argue discretion at check-in (4 mins late) is 'standard-airline-practice' in Australia.

That key word again is 'discretion'. The exercising of discretion changes the possibility of an outcome from 'impossible' to 'probable'. In this case, TT has the discretion to check someone in at 4 mins late (rather than flatly refuse them), but discretion still implies that they can still say 'no'.

 

[straitman]

That key word again is 'discretion'. The exercising of discretion changes the possibility of an outcome from 'impossible' to 'probable'. In this case, TT has the discretion to check someone in at 4 mins late (rather than flatly refuse them), but discretion still implies that they can still say 'no'.

The real difference is that the seasoned traveller will expect a no and an occasional traveller will expect a yes.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is a fairly accurate wording. It is not absolute, but it does state that TT are in their full rights to refuse to check you in if you arrive late. They might let you off, fine. In any case, you have no right of complaint, because that is the rules.


If we redesigned the booking process such that we put the entire CoC in big type (i.e. rather than in a separate link) and forced all pax to scroll through the lot before continuing with a booking,

Two things:

Your 'no right to complaint' because 'it is the rules' has no bearing on the law of contract!

Lots of shops have signs saying 'no refunds' which are of course illegal.

The pop-up on page one of TT's website site says they will not carry a visually impaired person without a carer. We know that that is not allowed. (That policy is amended elsewhere but it goes to show that just because it is written doesn't mean it is right.)

The same will apply in this case until a determination is made (if anyone can ever be bothered to get it in front of a judge). Just because TT claims something doesn't mean it carries legal validity. It all depends on how well the terms of a contract were drawn to an individual's attention. A frequent flyer is far less likely to be able to argue they didn't know something than a once-a-year flyer.

The second thing is I don't understand why everything has to be all or nothing? We don't need the whole conditions of carriage in bold on the booking page, just the key ones.

I stated that the 45 minute rule is not made clear anywhere (including in the supposed conditions of carriage). I believe for the 45 minute rule which is not industry standard for domestic flights (at least in Australia), that it should be brought to someone's attention at the crucial booking stage. It's one line.

I would probably put about 4 important notices - one about the 45 mins, one about the excess baggage charges, one about no 'connecting' flights, one about 14 yrs or under not being able to travel alone.

This could be done in three lines with a separate check-box.

mel-t

 

[anat0l]

Two things:

Your 'no right to complaint' because 'it is the rules' has no bearing on the law of contract!

In that case, let me step back. Do you lose the right to complain? Fundamentally, no. Is complaining going to get you anywhere? Probably not. If you take your case to a court, are you likely to win? Except for clearly exceptional circumstances, probably not, and might even have your case (or yourself, for that matter) marked as frivolous/vexatious.

The same will apply in this case until a determination is made (if anyone can ever be bothered to get it in front of a judge). Just because TT claims something doesn't mean it carries legal validity. It all depends on how well the terms of a contract were drawn to an individual's attention. A frequent flyer is far less likely to be able to argue they didn't know something than a once-a-year flyer.

If you are implying that all aspects of the conditions of carriage are completely invalid unless defensible in a court of law, then I cannot imagine what a precedent this will set for the airline industry (in Australia, for one thing). The amount of legal and political movement required to make the operations of any airline operating in Australia would be time-consuming and ludicrous. All of this just because we have to cater for the contingency of dealing with the lowest common denominator lazy idiot (irrespective of whether they fly 100 times a year or this is the first time in their life). What a crock!

The second thing is I don't understand why everything has to be all or nothing? We don't need the whole conditions of carriage in bold on the booking page, just the key ones.

I stated that the 45 minute rule is not made clear anywhere (including in the supposed conditions of carriage). I believe for the 45 minute rule which is not industry standard for domestic flights (at least in Australia), that it should be brought to someone's attention at the crucial booking stage. It's one line.

I would probably put about 4 important notices - one about the 45 mins, one about the excess baggage charges, one about no 'connecting' flights, one about 14 yrs or under not being able to travel alone.

This could be done in three lines with a separate check-box.

Check-in times are not industry standards because such standards do not exist.

This is your opinion as to what you consider are the key notices of the CoC, plus your opinion as to what is a sufficient "gate-keeper" check that the customer understands this. I think you will find people will just tick the boxes and that is that, without real regard for what the notices mean.

And there will still be people who "forgot" about signing those terms, turning up at the airport "late" and asking for "discretion" and then claiming that "we were only x minutes late; stupid airline is being tight-a*** unreasonable" (followed by the usual media having a field day), even if you can wave evidence in front of them that they clearly accepted the CoC. Plus, if we take your argument of before, none of what the airline says in a CoC actually holds weight unless they can say that it is legally binding.

In other words, the answer to your argument is in part that all aspects of airline operation need to be enacted into law somewhere. I swear that if this happens and the law intends to use the word 'reasonable', then I will go out and shoot someone.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Except for clearly exceptional circumstances, probably not, and might even have your case (or yourself, for that matter) marked as frivolous/vexatious.



If you are implying that all aspects of the conditions of carriage are completely invalid unless defensible in a court of law, then I cannot imagine what a precedent this will set for the airline industry (in Australia, for one thing).

Check-in times are not industry standards because such standards do not exist.

This is your opinion as to what you consider are the key notices of the CoC, plus your opinion as to what is a sufficient "gate-keeper" check that the customer understands this.

In answer to the first sentence above - that is what we have small claims tribunals for - small amounts. If someone lost their $200 fare to Perth (as an example) then it could be a matter heard by a small claims tribunal.

I am not saying that all elements of a contract are invalid unless tested by law.

I am saying that any aspect of a contract could become invalid when tested by law.

The quote you have made above was in reference to the 45 mins section of the CoC.

However more generally many elements of contracts (or indeed the contract themselves) have become invalid for all sorts of reasons and we have mountains of contract law which states what are and aren't valid terms.

But there is still more to be tested (because circumstances vary from contract to contract) and it happens every day.

TT is saying that their Conditions of Carriage form part of the contract that you the passenger have with TT.

My point is that just because they say so doesn't mean it is so!

If the conditions of carriage contain elements that are unjust or unfair or unreasonable then they can be excluded from the contract. It is for the tribunal/court to determine this.

The problem for TT is that harsh or rigid enforcement of the rules invites testing by passengers, let alone being bad for customer service.

(Probably the reason why TT is now changing its approach to customer service.)

As for my comment about industry standard - perhaps it would have been better if I had said 'industry practice'. Most of us would think a 30 min deadline for domestic flights and 60 min deadline for international flights as being a reasonable cut-off. I think that is the rule applied by JQ, DJ, QF and just about anyone else.

45 mins is outside the norm.

One example to draw on. Clause 5.8 of the CoC states that the passengers agrees to accept any seat made available to you on an aircraft by the flight crew. Now what happens if this turns out to be a jumpseat? Or next to an obese person that was taking up more than their seat and encroaching into yours? If I decided against this then I would argue I could deplane and travel on the next flight or get a refund. I would argue 5.8 is not always enforceable.

Let's say you do get off the plane. cl 5.9 then goes on to say 'no refunds' unless under the CoC (which only deal with delays of more than 4 hours).

Clearly cl 5.9 in not always enforceable - not least because it is inconsistent with all sorts of other laws.

In suggesting that certain elements of the CoC were highlighted I was actually providing TT with a possible solutuion to customer complaints - and providing a way for them to demonstate, much more easily, that they had highlighted the important terms of their conditions.

The rest of the conditions of carriage are pretty straight forward.

I've just spent a good deal of time looking for TTs contract of carriage but to no avail. The CoC say:


"Conditions of Contract" means those statements contained in or delivered with the Booking Confirmation (including these Terms and Conditions), and contained in the Website (including but not limited to the Tiger Airways “Help” page and other pages referred to herein), our Tariffs and notices available at our offices and check-in counters.

But the 'help page' doesn't contain such a link that I could see. It really is too late to send the terms of the contract with booking confirmation (that's after payment) unless you then allow a reasonable amount of time to cancel without penalty. (Which TT may well do.)

 

[Nigelinoz]

Discretion exists in many aspects of daily life,including the legal system,magistrates for example have discretion on many matters as to whether they impose a bond or custodial sentence so invoking the "because it's the rules" argument falls down there.
I would not for a minute argue that someone who turns up 10 minutes late to check in should be granted discretion and if I was that late I would not even be asking to be allowed to check in,however I really don't see the problem if,as I have mentioned in other posts,a passenger is a couple of minutes late and if they can easily get to the departure gate in time without delaying the aircraft.