Strict check in times

[whereishome]

I notice that the only time people complain about the check-in cutoffs are people who have missed that cutoff.

 

[wandering_fred]

While JQ and TT may not have the following issue, I think it is one of the reasons that (perhaps) QF allows a great deal more discretion. In any case part of the discussed issue is the apparent exercise of the rules without any allowances for potential breaches from the air carrier side.

I am thinking of the scrum that is known as Perth checkin on a Friday evening (domestic or international). I would propose that it would be very easy to arrive at the airport - say an hour before the flight - yet not be able to get checked in by the normal deadline. The USA or Heathrow at various times have been excellent examples of the same.

So I would argue that the airline needs to guarantee that if you are in the checkin line xx_ minutes BEFORE the cutoff - you will be checked in - independent of the time you front up to the checkin agent. If you are not in line - well you could/should have read the T&C and known better.

My other suggestion is that the published cutoff must apply with respect to the probable departure time as at checkin cutoff. So if the plane is known to be delayed at checkin cutoff (ie it is still in the air inbound) a modified cutoff must be applied. Airlines can apply any cutoff they wish - but it must reflect actual operations - rather than wishful thinking.

Fred

 

[harvyk]

MEL_travller, we're not against consumer rights. My personal belief is that TT has a long way to go in regards to looking after it's customers (the recent mid air cancellation of their MEL - PER flight is a classic example), however minimum check in times is not one of those areas, as if you follow the contract terms, they will carry you, or if that's not an option they will provide compensation to cover the broken contract.

 

[medhead]

I've only skim read the last three pages and I think Mel_traveller has a pretty fair (no pun intended) point.

Without getting hung up of whether we believe in consumer rights o0r not. Did anyone notice those list of examples of unfair practices. They are all seem to be around the consumer having all the olbigations but the business having no obligations. This is pretty much the situation with check in cutoffs on TT.

Not that this means (i'm saying) TT can't set a check in cutoff. Just that to strictly enforce that cut off is unfair and disadvantages the consumer. So take the example of the delayed flight (anecdotally a pretty normal occurence). Someone turning up before the scheduled take off time but after the cutoff. If the flight doesn't actually leave for another 2 hours it isn't going to cost TT anything to put him on the flight. But TT would avoid fulfilling their side of the contract, by enforcing an obligation on the pax when they haven't managed to do what they contracted had the pax arrived on time (hence meeting the pax obligations). In that case it does seem unfair that the pax would loss their money - when TT were not in a position to provide the flight in the first place.

Just some thoughts really

 

[anat0l]

I've only skim read the last three pages and I think Mel_traveller has a pretty fair (no pun intended) point.

Without getting hung up of whether we believe in consumer rights o0r not. Did anyone notice those list of examples of unfair practices. They are all seem to be around the consumer having all the olbigations but the business having no obligations. This is pretty much the situation with check in cutoffs on TT.

Not that this means (i'm saying) TT can't set a check in cutoff. Just that to strictly enforce that cut off is unfair and disadvantages the consumer. So take the example of the delayed flight (anecdotally a pretty normal occurence). Someone turning up before the scheduled take off time but after the cutoff. If the flight doesn't actually leave for another 2 hours it isn't going to cost TT anything to put him on the flight. But TT would avoid fulfilling their side of the contract, by enforcing an obligation on the pax when they haven't managed to do what they contracted had the pax arrived on time (hence meeting the pax obligations). In that case it does seem unfair that the pax would loss their money - when TT were not in a position to provide the flight in the first place.

Just some thoughts really

IMO even if a flight is delayed a pax should still endeavour (and an airline should not differ in policy) to meet the original check-in cutoff (e.g. 45 mins before scheduled departure) else risk forfeiting the fare.

In reality, I'd like to think that, as you said, some positive discretion is exercised in the case of delays. Still, I'd like to think it unlikely that there will be a pax who has turned up at T-0 scheduled time to check-in for a flight which has been delayed 2 hours; the mind boggles to contemplate what would be the outcome of such a scenario.

The keyword is discretion - as has been said - and the key message is that discretion doesn't necessarily mean a positive outcome for the customer. Whether it is fair or not is an entirely different thing, and that is for the customer to decide in action. In saying that, I can vouch for myself as a customer of various airlines' services, that I would prefer to make sure I do all I can to avoid violating my side of the contract so I can avoid potential conflicts. In a sense, prevention is better than the cure. Just like going to a job interview: you might get stuck in traffic and arrive at your interview 5 minutes late; if you're in a stack of applicants, your deciding criteria might be that you are not punctual and someone else was; not necessarily your fault and you might think that grossly unfair (after all, you just might be slightly better skilled than the other applicants), but so there.

Also, I forgot to mention that none of my ramblings nor any CoC for that matter for any airline - in any way whatsoever - restricts the right of a customer to take legal action against the airline. People can file legal action for any reason they wish, but there are very obvious reasons why people do not, should not or will not simply take this course of action all the time when they are dissatisfied, even if severely so. The purpose of this forum is to inform, not to convert your religion or withhold your rights to litigation.

 

[Mr Ed]

I only wish the medical fraternity would adopt some of the airlines practices. Let me wait a couple of hours in a club lounge any day to waiting in a doctors waiting room.

 

[medhead]

IMO even if a flight is delayed a pax should still endeavour (and an airline should not differ in policy) to meet the original check-in cutoff (e.g. 45 mins before scheduled departure) else risk forfeiting the fare.

In reality, I'd like to think that, as you said, some positive discretion is exercised in the case of delays. Still, I'd like to think it unlikely that there will be a pax who has turned up at T-0 scheduled time to check-in for a flight which has been delayed 2 hours; the mind boggles to contemplate what would be the outcome of such a scenario.

The keyword is discretion - as has been said - and the key message is that discretion doesn't necessarily mean a positive outcome for the customer.

Everything you've written there is all rather reasonable. I guess I was just concerned that there is often a focus on what should happen or what the airlines tell you will happen, rather than putting that into perspective of boarder issues of fairness. This forum is very good and strong with informing of the rules and expectations in flying. But I think this thread goes to the broader issues, the background and the were and wherefores of this stuff. While the rules are very important sometimes it would be nice to discuss the broad "meaning of life" stuff around the rules. (perhaps without being constant referred back to the rules).

But as you say it would be nice to see some discretion exercised and unfortunately, I don't think TT have got to the point of discretion. Perhaps this is afunction of the youth of today, similar to how that 17 year old couldn't think to make up a signature, the youth behind the counter can't think to exercise discretion.

BTW T-0 pax on a delay flight - crucify them, delayed or not they were not going to make the original flight, fairness doesn't come into it.

 

[Moody]

BTW T-0 pax on a delay flight - crucify them, delayed or not they were not going to make the original flight, fairness doesn't come into it.

Why crucify them if it makes absolutely no difference to the airline? Maybe they overslept due to a massive hangover, or maybe they stopped to administer CPR at an RTA they witnessed. For whatever reason they have not complied with the fine print (and may not have complied with a reasonable check-in time either), but why deny boarding just because they can? One good thing about Qantas is that whilst they also have check-in guidelines they will try to get you on the plane if they can. I think the real issue here is that Tiger and other low-cost carriers operate a bit like insurance companies - maximise the premiums whilst minimising the claims. I think they deliberately tip-toe on the edge of consumer law and will happily step over it if they think most of the customers will be too unsophisticated to challenge them.

And is it my imagination or are some some of the Tiger apologists putting the boot into Mel the same people who bragged about being paged in the terminal for not boarding their flights on time and actually delaying departure? I hope not because that would be breathtaking hypocrisy.

 

[anat0l]

Why crucify them if it makes absolutely no difference to the airline? Maybe they overslept due to a massive hangover, or maybe they stopped to administer CPR at an RTA they witnessed. For whatever reason they have not complied with the fine print (and may not have complied with a reasonable check-in time either), but why deny boarding just because they can? One good thing about Qantas is that whilst they also have check-in guidelines they will try to get you on the plane if they can.

Once again you've highlighted a big set of words there - if they can. This is the same as discretion. Sometimes what the customer thinks is possible compared to what an airline thinks is possible does vary, thus the outcome which may or may not be favourable to the customer and/or airline (I emphasise 'thinks' here because it is impossible to assess whether something is possible or not unless it happens, but that is a post factum assessment - until a time machine is invented we can never know the answer...) So if it doesn't affect them one bit, then perhaps their ample judgement will allow a late pax to check-in. What you are wrongly implying is that the customer is always in a position to be best making that judgement.

The evidence does suggest that QF is markedly more generous than the LCCs, but that is that.

I think the real issue here is that Tiger and other low-cost carriers operate a bit like insurance companies - maximise the premiums whilst minimising the claims. I think they deliberately tip-toe on the edge of consumer law and will happily step over it if they think most of the customers will be too unsophisticated to challenge them.

Of course they do - that is why they are LCCs - the model is optimised only if they mostly ignore the need for support. It's like designing a piece of equipment without fail-safe checks on the premise that a "competent" operator in "typical" conditions operating the equipment will result in minimal if any downtime or failure. We know from experience that this is far from the truth.

If there was no real difference in the operating paradigms and models of a full cost carrier and a low cost one, then a sizeable proportion of people flying a full cost carrier in Y are pretty much suckers.

An old saying from when I worked in retail, "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys."

And is it my imagination or are some some of the Tiger apologists putting the boot into Mel the same people who bragged about being paged in the terminal for not boarding their flights on time and actually delaying departure? I hope not because that would be breathtaking hypocrisy.

I have been paged before, but it was a goof, and I know that as a fact because we had 10 minutes to get to the gate before it was supposed to be shut (I think we were just called because we were the last ones to board on a very lightly loaded plane, but since this is SYD they couldn't leave early anyway due to air traffic timing restrictions).

Apart from that, I have always turned up to the gate before the time of departure (i.e. flight closure), so I've held up my end of the bargain (irrespective of whether that is leisurely walking to the gate or running like crazy).

I'm not a fan of people who need to be paged at T-0 who are holding up the flight, as I sit (im)patiently on board whilst my flight gets delayed due to someone who couldn't time their bathroom breaks properly or couldn't help themselves to a "last drink" from the lounge bar. I'm not even particularly sympathetic to a plane being delayed due to someone misconnecting, but that's a bit more digestable (the airline has exercised discretion in this case to allow a late pax to connect rather than put them on a later flight).

Note that there is a big logistical difference between someone who is not checked in vs. someone who is but boards late. That is not a good precedent to exercise more favourable positive discretion to the latter case, however.

Tiger apologist? Hardly!...and I'll be caught dead before doing so. I don't think I'd be flying TT any time soon unless in a pinch (mainly because I can get a competitive fare on QF (all things considered), plus given TT's OTP/cancellation rate I'll stick to the more stalwart DJ if I need to).

This stance I'm making here is for any airline, and it touches on a very touchy subject that I know in my time in retail: the legal and moral balance (or imbalance) of company and customer obligations. The law and many bodies seeks to shift most - if not all - of that balance towards the company, which I think is wrong, although obviously shifting it all the other way is also not the solution.

Anyone here willing to read and confirm an airline's full obligations to you before you purchase your next air fare?

 

[drron]

Many seem to think TT does not show discretion if they are delayed but in the 1 instance I saw they certainly did.It was at MCY about 12 months ago.I was on a DJ flight scheduled to leave 45 minutes after the TT flight to MEL.It was still on the ground when we left.The problem was their computers were down.The last person joined the checkin line at 20 minutes prior to original schedule and was allowed to stay in the line.A minibus disgorged about 12 pax at T-30 with no problem.
In the show I dont believe it was mentioned that the TT flights were late.

 

[JohnK]

I don't object to an airline strictly enforcing check-in times. After all we all want to get away on time without delays.

I do object though if a passenger arrives at check-in at T-60 mins (assume check-in closes T-45 mins) and the airline turns them away at T-45 mins as they have not been processed and check-in now closed. That is a totally low and cowardly act. The passenger should not have to guess how long an airline takes to process passengers at check-in. So if a passenger has arrived to check-in before T-45 mins then the airline should allow then to check-in and not turn them away as they were not at check-in counter but waiting in the check-in queue.

I don't know what TT or JQ does, and don't particlularly care, but I do know that both QF and DJ call flights ~5 minutes before check-in is about to close and processes these passengers. If you turn up after this time then it is entirely your fault and you cannot blame the airline....

 

[odysseus]

I don't know what TT or JQ does, and don't particlularly care, but I do know that both QF and DJ call flights ~5 minutes before check-in is about to close and processes these passengers. If you turn up after this time then it is entirely your fault and you cannot blame the airline....

Tonight's episode indicated they did too, although whether that is consistent, and what time it is done (and how it is done) was not explained.

 

[serfty]

Tonight's episode indicated they did too, although whether that is consistent, and what time it is done (and how it is done) was not explained.

There was never any reference as to what was the scheduled flight departure time. The couple kept quoting 11:30 as the time they queued up.

There was 12:20 flight to CBR on Saturdays earlier this year:

TT 516  	MEL  	12:20  	CBR  	13:25  	           [IMG]http://www.tigerairways.com/img/flight/6.gif[/IMG]	29 Mar 09...30 Jun 09

If this was the one, they were cutting it fine in any case.

 

[simongr]

I think I have been paged three times. All after I had checked in (once with two confused boarding times on two BPS, once due to BGI letting me through to departures even though I had been expected to collect bags and recheck in and once through misreading the board time). And that I think goes to the nub of part of the problem here. if I had missed my flight then it would have been my problem to deal with not the airlines.

I have a major issue now with QF going to OLCI that anyone should not be checked in on time - you can check in the day before for god's sake.

 

[odysseus]

I have a major issue now with QF going to OLCI that anyone should not be checked in on time - you can check in the day before for god's sake.

All well and good for us regular forum members, but not everyone has internet, and not everyone is based at home or with ready access, and some people may be flying from overseas on a 30 hour flight as it is.

 

[anat0l]

All well and good for us regular forum members, but not everyone has internet, and not everyone is based at home or with ready access, and some people may be flying from overseas on a 30 hour flight as it is.

This is why not every carrier suits everyone's needs.

Whether it is ethical for any given carrier to operate in this way is an entirely different argument. But people need to take more responsibility in the products and services which they purchase, and analyse whether they are fit for their purposes and circumstances.

Sheesh, buying an airfare all of the sudden sounds like applying for insurance...... :shock:

 

[anat0l]

Don't mean to open old wounds and old feuds, but there was a mentioning today on the news with the advent of banks being under pressure to drop fees for overdrafts on accounts that new consumer protection laws and processes will be coming into play soon which will allow customers to challenge penalties - both per se and the size of penalties - for various aspects of bank accounts, credit cards, loans and more.

If this sets a precedent - which I believe will be dangerous - we could see some interesting challenges for all kinds of situations where a contract - big, small, inherent or explicit - is being made and enforced. And don't you think it would be obvious that air fares will fall into that bucket, and LCCs just might be the first ones to get bitten......

 

[odysseus]

This is why not every carrier suits everyone's needs.

True, but it's assumptions like everyone should be able to are part of the problem. When service providers make assumptions like that, it neglects parts of their customer base.

Realistically, they do try to cut costs, but equally QF present themselves as a full service airline, and being in the travel industry, it's not that uncommon that their customers are away from home for a substantial period of time. To try the Ryanair path of making everyone change to fit their one model wouldn't be a good move, imo.

 

[anat0l]

True, but it's assumptions like everyone should be able to are part of the problem. When service providers make assumptions like that, it neglects parts of their customer base.

Sometimes this is deliberate. Sometimes it "succeeds" (i.e. profitability and repeat business ensues) and sometimes it does not (no one likes to use your services). Sometimes it is illegal or immoral. (For example, not having facilities for disabled pax to use your services, or disallowing unaccompanied pax of age 15 years or less.)

Realistically, they do try to cut costs, but equally they present themselves as a full service airline, and being in the travel industry, it's not that uncommon that their customers are away from home for a substantial period of time. To try the Ryanair path of making everyone change to fit their one model wouldn't be a good move, imo.

Bold section: What the???? If LCCs insist on that they need a real kick up the back side.

Probably wouldn't, but horses for courses (the right targets for the right markets). That is a bit of the problem too: best practice in the industry is a function of market as well as model. (The Australian market is very different to the European one and is different to the New Zealand one, hence different strategies required for each market.)


As much as I don't like them, Ryanair are still thriving like weeds in the EU even in the midst of the GFC.

 

[simongr]

All well and good for us regular forum members, but not everyone has internet, and not everyone is based at home or with ready access, and some people may be flying from overseas on a 30 hour flight as it is.

If flying on a 30 hour flight then there is a good chance that you can check through or grab internet access at an airport pretty easily.

You don't need to be at home to access the internet...

Don't mean to open old wounds and old feuds, but there was a mentioning today on the news with the advent of banks being under pressure to drop fees for overdrafts on accounts

I was fuming when I saw that last night. The banks are going to make their profit somewhere so now that NAB have dropped fees for people not managing their funds properly they are going to have find a new source of income or squeeze other sources like requiring higher minimum balances for no fees or higher ATM fees for non-bank ATMs. Basically now people who can manage their money will have to subsidise those that can't!

For the record I have had to live on a low income and only get out GBP10 at a time to put fuel in the car and if I paid unauthorised overdraft fees that was my fault not the banks!