Warning: Jetstar seat selection fees

[Mattg]

I recently flew with Jetstar from Cairns to Osaka on the 787. On both the outbound and return flights we paid for "up-front" seats in row 10, which cost an extra $25 each. These are bulkhead seats in the first row of economy.

Our CNS-KIX flight was cancelled less than 24 hours before departure and we were re-routed via Tokyo. The seats we had originally paid for were no longer available on the CNS-NRT flight, so we ended up with inferior seats in row 26. I was initially promised a refund over the phone for the $50 in seat selection fees paid (for 2 passengers). So you can imagine my surprise when I received an email from Jetstar a few days later saying that they would not be refunding this fee because we had still received "equivalent" up-front seats! We then sent several emails back and forth, but Jetstar refused to budge.

When checking in at Osaka for our return flight, the exact same thing happened! Our row 10 seats mysteriously became row 13 as our original seats had somehow been allocated to someone else. The check-in agent originally said I would have to call Jetstar to get a refund, but knowing they would once again fob me off I insisted on getting a refund then and there - which they eventually did agree to as a "gesture of goodwill".

This morning I received a call from Jetstar Customer Care, where they basically just explained to me that seat selection fees are non-refundable - even if you don't get the seat you paid for. The rep explained that what you're paying for is just a preference. Further, there is no guarantee that you'll receive your seating preference, and if you don't, you are apparently not entitled to a refund! I mentioned that I thought this contravened Australian Consumer Law, to which I was told it was in the terms & conditions that I agreed to when buying the ticket.

I then asked if any refund would be provided if you were moved from, say, an aisle seat in row 30 to a middle seat in row 50. The answer was "no".

I'm not even sure if this policy is legal, but either way be warned: when Jetstar says that "you'll get what you pay for", they don't really mean it!

 

[RooFlyer]

.... and of course Jetstar's T&Cs are irrelevant if the Consumer Law says otherwise.

 

[JohnK]

Equivalent up front seats? Row 10 -> Row 26. Hahaha....

 

[moffat39]

This is from Jetstar T and C. In my view is ambiguous but Australian Consumer Law should allow a refund.

After my experience with Jetstar 787 to Bali I would avoid the 787. Going over had row 23 which has more legroom than row 10 and row 1 in business class coming back. Dreadful.

[h=2]Terms and conditions of paid seat requests[/h]

• Paid seat requests are non-transferable and non refundable. You can only transfer seat requests when you make a permitted name change to your booking.
• In the event of a flight disruption or schedule change, we will attempt to seat you in your requested or equivalent seat but we can’t guarantee the seat will be available on your new flight. You may also be required to move seats for operational reasons.
• If you choose to change your flight, you will be offered an equivalent seat when you change, subject to availability. If an equivalent seat is unavailable, Jetstar will not provide a refund of the additional amount paid.
• If you change your flight and a higher fee to change the seat applies, you must pay the difference.

 

[dajop]

Maybe worthwhile to book such seats separately from main flight booking and then attempt credit card chargeback?

 

[Mattg]

Well, after submitting a complaint to the Airline Consumer Advocate, Jetstar has decided to refund all of the seat selection fees paid as a "gesture of goodwill". However, Jetstar made it very clear in their response that they still do not feel I was ever owed a refund.

Nonetheless, a good outcome in this case.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Jetstar cancelled your flight, it is absolutely outrageous that they felt they didn't owe you a refund. They STUFFED you around. What the hell kind of business are they running? A gesture of goodwill????? Its just so pathetic of them.

 

[serfty]

I guess they are wary of the Airline Consumer Advocate making a decision and thus setting a precedent.

 

[eastwest101]

I guess they are wary of the Airline Consumer Advocate making a decision and thus setting a precedent.

Yes I would like to know the details of what exactly happened between the Airline Consumer Advocate and Jetstar were. If the ACA raised this to Jetstar then I suspect that Jetstar said to the ACA something like:

"We will refund Mattg but please close the case and we will contact Mattg and arrange refund and we won't be telling the ACA what our explanation is to Mattg"

This then gets the ACA off their back, doesn't set a precedent in a court and allows Jetstar to attempt to pocket the fees using its own T&Cs and the fact that not many people know about the ACA. Jetstar must know that as soon as this gets into a courtroom that they will have a good chance of losing, and a precedent being set. Hence why your complaint to the ACA changed their attitude to your original complaint.

Mattg - is it possible for you to copy and paste or screenshot the exact words that Jetstar use in their last communication to you. Because how I understand it they are still breaking the law by attempting to maintain that somehow their T&Cs over-ride Australian consumer law or that somehow you aren't entitled to a full refund for services that the service provider couldn't provide.

I know that you've got your money back and that's the important thing, but would you consider taking that email back to the ACA now and see what they make of it, or take that email to your State Dept of Fair trading and see what they think about it?

Its not a "gesture of goodwill" to follow consumer law. Its a legal requirement for Australian companies to follow the law.


I know that other people suggested purchase the JQ upfront seat selection fee separately from the fare ( is this even possible?), and then, if allocated a normal seat then the credit card chargeback mechanism would be interesting approach if the customer could prove that the service wasn't provided. I would bet that Jetstar would try the same bluff and bluster with their T&Cs and would not co-operate in assisting to prove or disprove that the service wasn't provided as grounds for the chargeback.

 

[yohy?!]

theres little point paying the fees on the JQ 787 as the seats are all atrocious, next time i pick up a bargain basement fare I'll just try and make sure it's a half empty flight on a Tuesday to get more space otherwise it is what it is...

 

[**TBA**]

i think some are missing the point. Row 26 is an Upfront Row and costs the same to book as Row 10 - it's not a normal seat.

Are you sure they didn't originally deny a refund because you were "technically" (I know leg room is very different) still in an upfront seat?

I had had similar on an A320. Somehow lost my seat in Row 1, and the phone agent didn't understand that my new allocation in Row 3 wasn't equivalent despite still being upfront.

 

[samh004]

I guess they are wary of the Airline Consumer Advocate making a decision and thus setting a precedent.

I'd rather they weighed in, along with the ACCC to implement rules that put the consumer first in these cases. Qantas and Virgin Australia already do well, but Jetstar is repeatedly a shocker when it comes to issues and a rule similar to EU261 would be just what Australia needs.

 

[Mattg]

Yes I would like to know the details of what exactly happened between the Airline Consumer Advocate and Jetstar were. If the ACA raised this to Jetstar then I suspect that Jetstar said to the ACA something like:

"We will refund Mattg but please close the case and we will contact Mattg and arrange refund and we won't be telling the ACA what our explanation is to Mattg"

This then gets the ACA off their back, doesn't set a precedent in a court and allows Jetstar to attempt to pocket the fees using its own T&Cs and the fact that not many people know about the ACA. Jetstar must know that as soon as this gets into a courtroom that they will have a good chance of losing, and a precedent being set. Hence why your complaint to the ACA changed their attitude to your original complaint.

Mattg - is it possible for you to copy and paste or screenshot the exact words that Jetstar use in their last communication to you. Because how I understand it they are still breaking the law by attempting to maintain that somehow their T&Cs over-ride Australian consumer law or that somehow you aren't entitled to a full refund for services that the service provider couldn't provide.

I know that you've got your money back and that's the important thing, but would you consider taking that email back to the ACA now and see what they make of it, or take that email to your State Dept of Fair trading and see what they think about it?

Its not a "gesture of goodwill" to follow consumer law. Its a legal requirement for Australian companies to follow the law.


I know that other people suggested purchase the JQ upfront seat selection fee separately from the fare ( is this even possible?), and then, if allocated a normal seat then the credit card chargeback mechanism would be interesting approach if the customer could prove that the service wasn't provided. I would bet that Jetstar would try the same bluff and bluster with their T&Cs and would not co-operate in assisting to prove or disprove that the service wasn't provided as grounds for the chargeback.

I received an email yesterday from the Airline Consumer Advocate (not Jetstar). Attached to the email was a two-page document, most of which contained a detailed response from Jetstar.

Here's an extract of Jetstar's response:

To clarify, row 10 (upfront seating) was pre-selected by the customer for both flights, while they received rows 26 and 13 respectively on each flight (both of which are also classed as upfront seating). The customer has been advised previously that a) seat selections are requests only and not guaranteed and b) if an equivalent class of seat is provided, no refund will be forthcoming.


Of course, if a higher class of seat is pre-purchased and a lower class provided, Jetstar would happily provide a refund as per Australian Consumer Law overriding its Conditions of Carriage in this respect (as per clause 2.7 These Conditions of Carriage do not apply to the extent that they are inconsistent with any laws that apply to your carriage).


In this instance, however, Jetstar's position has been (and remains) that upfront seating was requested and upfront seating was provided. It recognises that [Mattg] perceives row 10 as superior to the alternative upfront rows, but this is not how the seating allocations are classified (they are divided into standard, upfront, and extra leg room, with no additional distinction made between other variables such as aisle, window, near-bulkhead etc).


As such, Jetstar disagrees with [Mattg]'s assertion that it 'owes' him a refund. In the interest of maintaining a positive relationship, however, Jetstar will reconsider its position and refund the additional seat fee. It reiterates that this is a once off gesture of goodwill only, as its position remains that seat fees are subject to change and are not refundable (unless a lower class of seat is provided in place of the one purchased).

I find it interesting that they actually acknowledge that Consumer Law overrides their T&Cs in some cases. Just goes to show that their T&Cs/conditions of carriage are not the be-all and end-all.

But I think they made it pretty clear that they still felt I was not entitled to anything.

i think some are missing the point. Row 26 is an Upfront Row and costs the same to book as Row 10 - it's not a normal seat.

Are you sure they didn't originally deny a refund because you were "technically" (I know leg room is very different) still in an upfront seat?

I had had similar on an A320. Somehow lost my seat in Row 1, and the phone agent didn't understand that my new allocation in Row 3 wasn't equivalent despite still being upfront.

Yes, this is precisely why Jetstar had refused to offer a refund. I did say in my original post that Jetstar considered my new seats to be "equivalent up-front seats".

I guess they are wary of the Airline Consumer Advocate making a decision and thus setting a precedent.

My thoughts exactly...

Interestingly, I did actually say that I would take this to the Airline Consumer Advocate in prior discussions with Jetstar. But they didn't seem interested in providing any "gesture of goodwill" until I actually did.

I was hoping the Airline Consumer Advocate would make an independent ruling here and set a precedent...

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

Well done for Standing your ground, although I'm flabbergasted you had to go to such lengths to get your money back and JQ spent so much time fighting it.

 

[eastwest101]

I received an email yesterday from the Airline Consumer Advocate (not Jetstar). Attached to the email was a two-page document, most of which contained a detailed response from Jetstar.

Here's an extract of Jetstar's response:



I find it interesting that they actually acknowledge that Consumer Law overrides their T&Cs in some cases. Just goes to show that their T&Cs/conditions of carriage are not the be-all and end-all.

But I think they made it pretty clear that they still felt I was not entitled to anything.



Yes, this is precisely why Jetstar had refused to offer a refund. I did say in my original post that Jetstar considered my new seats to be "equivalent up-front seats".



My thoughts exactly...

Interestingly, I did actually say that I would take this to the Airline Consumer Advocate in prior discussions with Jetstar. But they didn't seem interested in providing any "gesture of goodwill" until I actually did.

I was hoping the Airline Consumer Advocate would make an independent ruling here and set a precedent...

Thanks for getting back to us, a few different things to mention, firstly my apologies for not understanding about the the Row 10, Row 13 and Row 26 Upfront Seating issue. If I remember your case correctly your flight got disrupted/rerouted from CNS-KIX to CNS-NRT and two B787 services became one, so they probably had pax whom had already selected Row 10 for the CNS-NRT flight - I expect this is why your Row 10 seat selection got "lost", a fairly unusual set of events but not unheard of.

Jetstar may consider the Upfront seats equivalent - then that's fine - you can hang onto that statement and show it to Jetstar if they ever move you from say Row 10 to Row 13, and you can then argue that the current people allocated to Row 10 should be moved from Row 10 to Row 13 as Jetstar consider them to be an "equivalent seat"! Just because Jetstar consider them to be equivalent seats doesn't mean that someone has to accept their word for it - if the complainant got overwhelming evidence together to show that they weren't equivalent.

As Jetstar say - they have been careful to describe Upfront seating as just somewhere near the front of the plane (and btw calling Row 26 on the JQ B787 as being upfront is stretching credulity ) and they are careful not to mention any extra legroom (even though in reality the originally selected seats in row 10 probably actually do have a little more legroom).

Maybe its got to do with the wording of the fee as being a "Seat Selection Fee" for Upfront seating e.g. the customer selects from a bunch of Upfront seats available and if that selection isn't honoured by Jetstar then why pay the fee and why not refund the selection fee? Or to take this further - its a Upfront seat selection fee - you pick the seat - not a vague non-refundable seat zone request? I haven't done a booking on JQ for a while but would be interested to see exactly how the fee is disclosed during booking and also how it appears on your invoice/ticket/statement, but we may be resorting to hair splitting by then.

Anyway - quite an effort to get a refund - I would expect that eventually the ACA will get sick and tired of doing these one-off disputes and request some sort of stronger regulatory oversight or get consumer law updated or request the ACCC and/or state depts. of fair trading to pull their finger out to get some of these sorts of issues more formalized.

My takeaway is the important word "equivalent" when describing a seat selection fee that isn't honoured for some reason.

Looks like it will take a visit to and a few emails to the ACA to get the "goodwill" out of Jetstar. Funny that they expended far more in staff time fighting this than the whatever it was that they charged you for the original Upfront seating fee.

Also interesting to hear your complaint wasn't taken seriously until after the ACA was involved, although I still would be interested in what their involvement is.

 

[Limewood]

We would not normally fly with JQ due to their ridiculous charges and rules, but wanting to get away for a week we booked JQ flights direct to DPS (Bali) as its only 4.5 hrs from CNS, as they have no J (PE) on this sector we booked and paid extra for row 13 exit as row 12 does not recline, if they try and pull the stunt like they did with Matgg wth me well the ammunition revealed here will come in handy :evil:

 

[samh004]

I would probably argue (if it happened to me) that I didn't want the equivalent seating and they could just re-seat me elsewhere on the plane and refund the fee. The front row, or front of a section of seats, is entirely different from the second and third rows of that section.

 

[Mattg]

I would probably argue (if it happened to me) that I didn't want the equivalent seating and they could just re-seat me elsewhere on the plane and refund the fee. The front row, or front of a section of seats, is entirely different from the second and third rows of that section.

In hindsight, that's probably what I would have done... except that I was promised a refund of the seat selection fee during the original phone call with Jetstar just after my CNS-KIX flight was cancelled!

There's no doubt that row 10 (which is at a bulkhead) is not even equivalent to row 11... let alone row 26.

 

[JohnK]

What a load of waffle.

Row 26 is not the same as row 10 and neither is row 13. Simply refund the money and move on.

I have paid both 3K and TT up front seat selection fees for where I want to sit not where they think I should sit. 7B and 7E are not the same as my preallocated 7D. That's why I pay to pre-allocate seats yet the airlines think all seats in that zone are the same. What utter rubbish.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I find it interesting that they actually acknowledge that Consumer Law overrides their T&Cs in some cases. Just goes to show that their T&Cs/conditions of carriage are not the be-all and end-all.

They actually state this in 2.7 of their conditions of carriage (as do most airlines). Terms and conditions are always subject to overriding law and should never be assumed to be binding. Unfortunately many pax seem reluctant to believe this.

There's no doubt that row 10 (which is at a bulkhead) is not even equivalent to row 11... let alone row 26.

The solution (to bring clarity) would be to charge extra for row 10 seats. But that's double edged... currently 99% of the time people get a bargain with this seat. I guess it depends how often people are moved out, and whether the majority would want to give up that bargain to give certainty to the people who might otherwise find themselves moved.