Strict check in times

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a couple of things MEL_Traveller, in regards to their CoC, you always have discretion as to if you accept them or not. If you don't then you don't fly with that airline.

The example of retail having "No Refunds" signs isn't entirely accurate. Should the product or service being offered differ significantly from what it is advertised or the product or service is unfit for the purpose of which it was sold as, then "No Refunds" signs do not hold any weight. (There is a part about minimum warranties as well).

That said, an airline would get around this by offering a contract for carraige (your ticket) which specifies the origin and destination, as well as the critical times, (read the terms, not even class of travel is included, the class of travel basically reads as a best effort clause). Like with any contract there are terms which will void the contract for carraige (eg failure to arrive at the airport on time) and there are penalties for breaking this contract (which can include 100% loss of any monies paid).

As for taking an airline to court over you missing a flight due to something which is your fault would have you lose faster than you can blink. Because all they would have to do is say "this is the contract for carraige we offered you, and you accepted it"
 
The example of retail having "No Refunds" signs isn't entirely accurate.

As for taking an airline to court over you missing a flight due to something which is your fault would have you lose faster than you can blink. Because all they would have to do is say "this is the contract for carraige we offered you, and you accepted it"

My example of the 'no refunds' sign was only to demonstrate that just because something is written doesn't mean that it is necessarily valid as a statement in law. However since we are talking about the 'no refunds' issue, I did mention that cl5.9 says no refunds (unless in the very limited circumsatnces acceptable to TT). You say i have the discretion to fly another airline. Why should I? Why shouldn't I, the consumer, make the airline change instead?

Similarly for the visually impaired not being allowed to fly without a carer. Sure the visually impaired have discretion to fly someone else, but why should they? Make the airline accept its responsibilities in accordance with the law.

Regarding the other issue... if the amount you paid for your ticket made it worthwhile, you wouldn't be taking the airline to court for 'missing your flight'. You would be taking them to court for the loss of your fare (rather you would be seeking a full refund), arguing that term was somehow unfair.

mel-t
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

You say i have the discretion to fly another airline. Why should I? Why shouldn't I, the consumer, make the airline change instead?

If you don't want to agree to the terms of the contract which they are offering why should they change rather than your going to a company that is prepared to enter into an agreement with which you are happy

Subject to the contract meeting applicable laws, then pick a company that has the appropriate price and contract which is desired

Why should they change?

Dave
 
If you don't want to agree to the terms of the contract which they are offering why should they change rather than your going to a company that is prepared to enter into an agreement with which you are happy

Why should they change?

Dave

Because no one plans to be late, or to miss the deadline.

Consumer protection laws exist to protect the consumer and to ensure that consumers have a fair deal, especially when coming up against large corporations.

Common contracts (that is, standardised contracts which are applied to many consumers, such as those for mobile phones) are something the ACCC accepts are vital, but they say at the same time they must be fair.

So its not always a case of being able (or even thinking about or needing) to shop around for a set of terms you are happy with. In the ordinary course of business the conditions of carriage probably don't mean much to anyone. But it's too late to shop around once something has gone wrong, and that's why the contracts have to be made fair to start with.

My point is that I doubt all of TTs conditions of carriage are legally binding. For example their 'no refunds' policy (unless a flight is more than 4 hours delayed or cancelled).

If a flight is 3 hours delayed (through a TT fault) then good luck to them trying to get away without paying a refund.

10.4 of the CoC says that denied boarding will be compensated 'as per their policy'. I can't find that policy anywhere on the site - but maybe someone can remember it from the show the other night? Was a full refund an option?

mel-t
 
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.
yes, true his lack of years might have lead him to cave in. but really he would just have to stick to his story that it was his parents signature, TT most likely have no way to prove otherwise.
 
I have only missed two flights, one from AKL-SYD about 15 years ago when the departure time was shown as 1430, and due to not looking closely prior to going to lunch that day I naturally thought 4.30pm and arrived at the airport to see the plane departing. The next missed flight was when I was three minutes late arriving for a J* flight and was denied boarding because I had missed the cut off time. On this occasion I had been caught in heavy traffic, but it was still my fault for not allowing sufficient time for these problems.

TT has their own specific conditions of carriage that you must have checked in x amount of minutes before departure, it's not an industry condition, it's TT's conditions so if you can't abide by those conditions for whatever reasons then accept the consequences. Who wears the brunt if they miss their slot because of a late checking pax, and I appreciate the argument about time it takes to check in carry on only or check bag pax, but rules are rules for appropriate reasons.
 
Regarding the other issue... if the amount you paid for your ticket made it worthwhile, you wouldn't be taking the airline to court for 'missing your flight'. You would be taking them to court for the loss of your fare (rather you would be seeking a full refund), arguing that term was somehow unfair.

mel-t

How is it unfair? To put it bluntly, you have a contract with TT, and your part of the contract states that you will be present at the airport no less than 45 minutes before take off. So technically you where the one who broke the terms of the contract, not TT.

You also make the point that not all terms in a contract can be enforced. This is why airlines put in a severability clauses, to cover themselves if a clause can't be enforced.

Your also right, there are consumer protection rules out there, however they exist to protect a consumer from preditary behavour of companies (such as long term contracts with one way exits, clauses which allow the company to withdraw services for no reason without adequate compensation, clauses which do not fall in line with minimum warranty periods etc...) not to protect the customer if they fail to do something simple, such as be at an agreed location before a specific time.

In either case, the onus is on you to read the contract (which most people don't do) and accept it, or find another airline (or fare class) which has a contract you agree on, and given most people will click the "I Agree" button without reading the contract they don't really have a leg to stand on. The only time you'd have any sort of case would be if they actually falled foul of the law (eg some of their disabled policies I believe could be challanged) or they added in or changed clauses without adequate notification (eg change of departure time, without notification, and then denied boarding and did not offer alternative service or refund).
 
MEL_Traveller,

Whilst you are fully entitled to your opinion on this all I can say is you are talking a load of ***** that is not practical in the real world :!:

Try running a passenger check-in system and the realities will soon come home to bite you. The warm and fuzzy theories versus the practicality are quite different. :shock:

Out of courtesy I will agree to disagree with you. ;)
 
My point is that I doubt all of TTs conditions of carriage are legally binding. For example their 'no refunds' policy (unless a flight is more than 4 hours delayed or cancelled).

If a flight is 3 hours delayed (through a TT fault) then good luck to them trying to get away without paying a refund.

10.4 of the CoC says that denied boarding will be compensated 'as per their policy'. I can't find that policy anywhere on the site - but maybe someone can remember it from the show the other night? Was a full refund an option?

The problem is, until someone whips them off through the court system to find our whether they are legally binding or not, you can't know an answer. Having said that, I think in the case of denied boarding there may be a case to pursue the airline for damages to recover any extra costs incurred by their breach of contract.
 
MEL_Traveller,

Try running a passenger check-in system and the realities will soon come home to bite you. The warm and fuzzy theories versus the practicality are quite different. :shock:

Out of courtesy I will agree to disagree with you. ;)

thanks :)

You will note that I said above that you're not going to be taking action for missing your flight, but rather, potentially, for the loss of $ paid. It is still possible to close your check-in 45 mins prior - I'm just saying the loss of the whole fare may be an issue and may be unfair.

'Buyer beware' is fairly outdated these days. Consumer protection laws are in place particularly to help those who are more vunerable in society. Understanding the conditions of carriage could well be beyond a lot of people.

I quote here for the CAV annual report 2007-8:

“A term in a consumer contract is to be regarded
as unfair if, contrary to the requirements of good
faith and in all the circumstances, it causes a
significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and
obligations arising under the contract to the
detriment of the consumer.”​
Part 2B,​
Fair Trading Act 1999

Warm and fuzzy might not always be practical, but it is where we have ended up!

mel-t
 
Looks like I started a great discussion...

My original post was prompted by the TV program but also from personal experience. I am an occasional Qantas flyer for work and would unlikely fly a budget airline for business with commitments but for a personal trip - yes I think so - I am fairly relaxed traveller!

I think having a set closing time for check-in is fair - maybe check in staff should then move away as while they are accessible there is the potential for arguments - and people will argue if given the opportunity.

From the TV program I was a bit concerned about the 17 year old and the search for a signature - instead could the Captain have intervened and approved his flight? If all goes well its fine but what if something had happened to him?

On my recent flights I have been seated at the rear and I think in all cases there were unaccompanied children on the flight - I assume the paperwork is similar but needs to be done well beforehand?

Maybe not all check-in staff have the experience to deal with a wide range of customer types - have you seen the Easyjet version?

I assume budget airlines also attract a lot of passengers who have not flown before.

Something that does annoy me a little is that all my recent Qantas flights have all left late - maybe 20+ mins- do they not lose their slot or pay a penalty?

Also on some occcasions there will be an announcement - we are just waiting for a passenger to join us - doors will be closed then..... - can I assume this person probably has checked-in but got a bit side tracked on the way to the gate?

Chris
 
I fail to see how a customer would be able to successfully argue how the check in time requirement acts to a level of detriment to a consumer that a court would view a check in time limit as being an unfair term

Dave
 
Just to extend on what you've just said there Dave, why should an airline be forced into providing a refund for a seat which was unoccupied due to something you've done, where if they had sold the seat to someone else they would have gained revenue from it?

If they made a mistake I think they should have to pay some degree of penalty (and they oftan do, not as much as they should sometimes however), however if the blame lies with yourself why should an airline have to reach into it's own pockets if the fault is with you?
 
Just to extend on what you've just said there Dave, why should an airline be forced into providing a refund for a seat which was unoccupied due to something you've done, where if they had sold the seat to someone else they would have gained revenue from it?

If they made a mistake I think they should have to pay some degree of penalty (and they oftan do, not as much as they should sometimes however), however if the blame lies with yourself why should an airline have to reach into it's own pockets if the fault is with you?
harvyk,

Absolutely. An airline seat is a totally perishable commodity that cannot be replaced. If it is the airline's fault then it is their issue to deal with. If you simply don't turn up in time then it is your fault. You still get your seat but just don't get to sit in it :!:

It's not rocket science. :shock:
 
I fail to see how a customer would be able to successfully argue how the check in time requirement acts to a level of detriment to a consumer that a court would view a check in time limit as being an unfair term

Dave

Because the argument is not that the check-in time is unfair.... but rather what happens after that which is the 'no refunds' clause.

That is the bit that could be considered unfair.

It is entirely possible that you arrive at t-44 and the paperwork hasn't been done. That could make the loss of the fare unreasonable.

What if the flight is delayed? You are asked under the CoC to check-in no later than 45 mins prior to the scheduled departure time. So if there is a 2 hour delay (and for example the plane is still in SYD) and you turn up 1.5 hrs before the revised departure time, you think it is reasonable to lose all one's money?

What about overbooking? If I arrive at t-44 and I lose my money... but the flight was overbooked and all the seats are filled anyway. It happens to be convenient for TT that I arrived at t-44. In this case there is no loss as the seat is filled, but I lose all my money?

These are some examples of how a 'no refunds' clause can be unfair.
 
Because the argument is not that the check-in time is unfair.... but rather what happens after that which is the 'no refunds' clause.

That is the bit that could be considered unfair.

All I can say is to knock yaself out in court and see whether you can successfully sue and set a precedent. Personally I doubt that a court will consider the term unfair and unless someone proves that it is unfair and unenforceable , I can happily believe it to be valiud

No different imo to turning up to a train station too late for a train and not being able to get a refund on a non refundable ticket which was valid for that train only

45 minutes is not an unreasonable time to require check in by and there are other places where such minima exist

Dave
 
So now the argument has shifted from one about the "fairness" of check-in times (and other terms, which we can argue for forever and a day whether they are clearly stipulated to the customer), plus the validity of airline contracts to the customer upon sale of a fare......to the fairness of the repercussions if the customer does not uphold their end of the contract (e.g. arrives late for check-in, has excess baggage weight, etc. which may lead to loss of fare).

I still think this holds little water. But if you really want to take an airline to court on the grounds that forfeiting your fare is an unfair consequence of your violating the CoC, then by all means go for it. One case of a "win" has been recorded on AFF here, although it should be known that the premise of that thread was that it was JQ who were prima facie at fault and not the customer.

I don't know exactly how commercial air transport sales are administered, because buying a ticket to fly can't be compared to other services, like getting your computer repaired or having your car serviced. (It is a bit similar to booking a hotel room). In any case, there must be specific reason why airlines have a range of fares of which some of them have stringent conditions and others not; one such condition is the ability to refund, i.e. typically, the cheapest fares are "non-refundable", whilst the more expensive fares are "refundable" to different extents (some only before a flight, some after a flight, some with administration fees for cancelling and others not). (Similar structures exist for the ability to change a flight.)

Assuming that having such a price structure is legal (and it must be since airlines have been doing this kind of fare structure for a very long time now), then the hopefully intelligent-enough lay person should understand that the price they are paying for a fare includes a set of conditions attached to it, one of them being their ability to claim a refund. The customer should be aware of the varying conditions because they are usually presented with a range of fares to select from (TT is a notable exception); surely these fares don't purely exist because the more expensive fares are only there to sucker people who think paying more is better even though they are getting the same seat for the same flown sector?

On the premise that people understand this, then their acceptance (and subsequent payment) of a particular fare must be their condoning that they accept that the conditions attached to it are fair. This includes the consequences of not meeting the conditions, which may include loss of fare.

Now, you are going to tell me that any intelligent lay person who goes through that process above, violates the contract in any way (e.g. by turning up at the airport late) is now going to argue post factum that consequences such as loss of fare are now unfair? If ludicrous had a (n+1)th definition, I think we've just written it.


Note that airlines are still entitled to discretion when you fail to uphold your side of the contract (just as much as any merchant who is not at fault for goods you wish to refund (e.g. because you changed your mind, got the wrong size or colour, chose the wrong item or maliciously damaged the item yourself) can legally either grant the refund, offer an exchange or not allow you to do anything). So hopefully this would mean that any "T-44" (or other appropriate amount) cases are handled appropriately, but keep in mind that you still violated your part of the contract, even if it is one minute. As for when the airline fails to uphold its end of the bargain, e.g. you arrive at check-in before T-45 but aren't actually checked in by the cut-off, cancellation, overbooking, delay, etc., then airlines are bound to fulfill their contract to carry you (obviously, they cannot do this with respect to time, since you can't go back in time...yet) - how this happens is a matter for law and what is practical, both of which I'm unable to comment upon (i.e. I'm not sure what the law says are practical means of dealing with an airline's outstanding obligations when it is at fault or it fails to deliver a service in its entirety to customer(s)).

Oh, and airlines enforcing the T-45 (or whatever) check-in rule despite late aircraft being unfair? Might be, but it's too complicated to regulate otherwise, e.g. what would happen if a flight is lightly loaded and can actually leave earlier? Would you be happy if the departure time was brought forward and the T-n rule applied to that? What if you checked an airline's website for departures at home, read that there is an expected delay, factor that into your schedule (because you're allowed to check-in up to T-45 before expected departure), but in the interim the airline manages to make up a good part of the delay (e.g. get another aircraft, incoming aircraft makes up time in the air), then you arrive at the airport "late" because the expected departure time has been brought forward? Having the check-in before departure pinned against expected times will delay any already-late flights even more than if all pax where checked-in before the scheduled time.

Post-script: just did a dummy booking on the TT website, this notice next to a checkbox appears near the acceptance button on the page where one selects flights:
[CHECK BOX HERE] I/We have read and accept Tiger Airways' conditions of carriage and the above [KEY TERMS WERE PRINTED ABOVE THIS NOTICE] fare restrictions associated with the fare and will advise all other passengers travelling on this reservation. I/We confirm that I/we satisfy Tiger Airways' requirements and understand that if I/we do not, I/we may be refused carriage and will not be entitled to a refund. (Please check box to continue)
Now that could have been placed after the screening of the show, but I still think it's an ineffective instrument to ensure people truly understand the implications of purchasing a restrictive airfare.
 
Ok ok!

Not sure why you are all so against consumer rights... :D ...but have a look at this here from Victorian Consumer Affairs:


Under the new section 32X of the FTA, a court or
the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
will, in assessing whether a term is unfair, ask if it has
the object of or effect of one of the following.
• Permitting the supplier but not the consumer to
avoid or limit performance of the contract.
• Permitting the supplier but not the consumer to
terminate the contract.
• Penalising the consumer but not the supplier for
a breach or termination of the contract.
• Permitting the supplier but not the consumer to
vary the terms of the contract.
• Permitting the supplier but not the consumer to
renew or not renew the contract.
• Permitting the supplier to determine the price
without the right of the consumer to terminate
the contract.
• Permitting the supplier unilaterally to vary the
characteristics of the goods or services to be
supplied under the contract.
• Permitting the supplier to unilaterally determine
whether the contract has been breached or to
interpret the contract’s meaning.
• Limiting the supplier’s vicarious liability for its
agents.
• Permitting the supplier to assign the contract to
the consumer’s detriment without the consumer’s
consent.
• Limiting the consumer’s right to sue the supplier.
• Limiting the evidence the consumer can lead in
proceedings on the contract.
• Imposing the evidential burden on the consumer
in proceedings on the contract.
The link to the full document is here:

http://165.142.249.2/CA256902000FE1...nd_Services/$file/Preventing unfair terms.pdf

Most of the proposed CoC by TT are currently worded that the flyer (the consumer) has all the obligations. TT says effectively that it (TT) has none (doesn't even say it will carry you).

A lot of the clauses in the CoC could be reworded to make them more equal. Have a look at some of the general examples given. This is most probably why the CoC actually says 'TT reserves the right...' [to not accept you for travel] - however if it is rigidly enforced and there is actually no discretion then that is another matter.

mel-t
 
Not sure why you are all so against consumer rights... :D

Follow-up post to come when I have time, but consumer rights are fundamentally necessary but in this country are a farce. They are often misused and are written almost to absolve the customer of any responsibility whatsoever. Having worked in retail before in quite a few instances, I know this first hand; in any case, for businesses it is always a somewhat Phyrric victory even if they can demonstrate their adherence to the law. It exemplifies an attitude that customers should always complain, scream and wail and eventually they will get what they want.

Hardly a socially acceptable attitude, but farcically a socially acceptable right!

Not to mention that key bodies (esp. non-government) often emphasise that customers are in their full right to complain about anything they're not happy about (and they really mean anything); in fact, they say that people do not complain enough - they need to complain more! How sick is that attitude?

Of course the customer has most of the obligations when it comes to flying an aircraft. Although for every obligation on the side of the customer, there is almost always an equivalent obligation of the airline.
 
Ok ok!

Not sure why you are all so against consumer rights...

Nothing about being against consumers rights, just that the company and passenger into entering into a contract of carriage accept a set of terms

I do not see that the airline specifying a minimum check in time for a flight breaches any fairness of contract nor that non-refundable fares are unfair

if you really think that you can win such a claim, go do it and set a precedent that min check in times are unfair

The kranium obviously thought that if he threatened to scweam and scweam until he was sick , that TT would just do what he wanted. Quite reasonably imo, they stood their ground

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top