Tiger Airways: ‘Air Ways’ TV series premieres on Channel 7 on Tuesday, 14 July

[oz_mark]

Re: Strict check in times

Even with the ROK pax (who wasn't rude or abusive at all) Sarah seemed to take absolute pleasure in refusing to allow her to fly - and made it very clear to the customer that she was enjoying it. Her attitude to the 17yo (btw has anyone else never heard of such a policy??) and even Mr Kranium was equally disgusting.

Interesting. From my watching I was quite impressed by the way stayed composed.

 

[drron]

Re: Strict check in times

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielribo
Even with the ROK pax (who wasn't rude or abusive at all) Sarah seemed to take absolute pleasure in refusing to allow her to fly - and made it very clear to the customer that she was enjoying it. Her attitude to the 17yo (btw has anyone else never heard of such a policy??) and even Mr Kranium was equally disgusting.

I am another that thought she wasnt too bad handling this but i can understand where you are coming from.The agent smiled a lot-that does not mean she was enjoying what she was doing neccessarily-it could be she was trying to defuse a potential confrontation.
I am a fellow that smiles a lot and on many occasions i have been accused of enjoying peoples pain-that however is very definitely wrong.
Vive La difference!

 

[ksthommo]

Re: Strict check in times

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.

 

[BAM1748]

Re: Strict check in times

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.

 

[odysseus]

Re: Strict check in times

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.

 

[straitman]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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.

 

[Chrisd26]

Re: Strict check in times

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

 

[whereishome]

Re: Strict check in times

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

 

[wandering_fred]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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.

 

[medhead]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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]

Re: Strict check in times

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.