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?
