Qantas flyers bumped to Jetstar

[Wirraway]

Wed "Herald Sun"

Qantas flyers bumped to Jetstar
By John Masanauskas
March 3, 2004

THOUSANDS of people with Qantas bookings are being switched to new no-frills airline Jetstar.

Qantas has started telling more than 50,000 customers that their flights have been cancelled because Jetstar will begin service in May.

Scheduling clashes have forced the Qantas cancellations.

The passengers had booked full-service seats on Qantas to destinations including the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Hamilton Island, Newcastle and Hobart.

But those bumped to Jetstar will now have to pay for snacks and will not be able to earn frequent flyer points.

Qantas spokesman Michael Sharp said yesterday the airline's flight schedules would significantly change when its subsidiary Jetstar was launched on May 25.

Mr Sharp said Qantas was first trying to place affected customers on a Qantas flight at a similar time or offer them a service at a different time.

If this did not work, passengers were being offered an appropriate flight on Jetstar after the airline's no-frills service was explained.

Mr Sharp said customers transferring to Jetstar would get a partial refund based on the cost of their Qantas booking.

Passengers not able to get another Qantas flight and not wishing to fly Jetstar would be given a full refund.

"We are trying to explain this to everybody. It is a change, an education process," Mr Sharp said.

Mr Sharp said about a third of affected customers had been contacted and so far only a few had demanded a full refund.

He said the changes did not involve flights from Melbourne to Sydney and Brisbane, meaning no Qantas passengers would be forced to depart from Avalon airport instead of Tullamarine.

Rival carrier Virgin Blue swooped on the situation by offering disgruntled Qantas passengers the same fare if they cancelled their booking.

Virgin Blue commercial head Tim Jordan said passengers should get what they pay for.

"We would encourage travellers who booked on Qantas to look closely at the alternative they are now being asked to accept" he said.

Consumer Law Centre executive director Chris Field said Qantas had breached its contract with thousands of passengers.

"Consumers have rung up and booked expecting to fly Qantas but are then offered a service on a completely different airline," he said.

"It's not acceptable. They are legally obliged to give a full refund to these passengers."

Australian Federation of Travel Agents chairman Ian Carew-Reid said agents handling the Qantas bookings had received many complaints.

"People are concerned about the inconvenience and not being able to earn frequent flyer points on the Jetstar flights," he said.

Herald Sun

==========================================

[NAMPS]

It's a disgrace.

Of course it's a breach of contract, but who would bother pursuing it?

Another thumbs down for QF, I bet DJ are happy!

[The Voice]

Breach of contract .. that is very easy to say, however a contract is not such ie it can be varied until both parties have carried out some part of it ..

without knowing the full facts, it seems .. both parties are still in the offer/acceptance/counter offer stage ... until one party suffers detriment .. ie pays and the other has begun to perform ie accept the luggage could you begin to question the aspect of breach of contract ..

right this very minute, it is not that simple to prove .. and I'll bet the QF legal eagles have well and truly gone over this with a fine tooth comb ...

[Animalclub]

Check your ticket (if you get one nowadays) or conditions of carriage for within Australia...

there is no guarantee to carry you anywhere.

I argued this succesfully with a judge - or at least he gave in. So there is no contract broken.

[NAMPS]

Breach of contract .. that is very easy to say, however a contract is not such ie it can be varied until both parties have carried out some part of it ..

Generally, a contract can only be varied by agreement (ie both parties must agree to the variation). Clearly, this is subject to the terms and conditions upon which the ticket is sold (as Animalclub correctly points out). It is not a prerequisite for part performance of a contract in order for there to be a binding contract.

A contract exists because QF has 'offered' to carry the passenger on a particular flight at a particular time at a particular price. There is an acceptance of that offer by the passenger by the payment of money. A contract is then formed. The contractual relations between the parties is then governed by the terms of the ticket.



right this very minute, it is not that simple to prove .. and I'll bet the QF legal eagles have well and truly gone over this with a fine tooth comb ...

I wouldn't be too worried if I were QF. If the QF lawyers were not relying on the "terms and conditions" upon which the ticket was sold. They would be advising that it would cost more in legal fees for a punter to enforce "the contract" than it would just to accept the QF offer of refund. Anyway, what other damages would QF be liable for? Probably none.

[Animalclub]

Quote from NAMPS

"The contractual relations between the parties is then governed by the terms of the ticket."

This is correct.

The terms and conditions do not guarantee to get you from or to anywhere by any means. Your ticket is really just a receipt for monies paid and shows the restrictions on the Carriers' liability if they injure or kill you... although I believe this is under review.

[oldhasbeen]

Whether it's a legal contract or not, I bet it's gonna piss enough pax off that DJ and maybe the odd legal firm are gonna be the only winners here:\ ......by the way sorry to be so ignorant but what the hell is a "wibble ?"

[IIII IIII]

They should have a lottery licence, they garuantee nothing, just a chance of travel

[GA Driver]

I'm glad this has been raised, because I have always wondered how this works with all the new codeshare agreements.

I haven't booked an o/s flight that has been a codeshare for years, but if you do book say QF and want to go to a port that they don't service and end up on say an AA flight (for example) are they obliged to tell you that you WONT be on QF the whole way?

GA Driver

[Pedota]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Australian Financial Review - 6th December, 2003

And that raises the question Qantas has tried to deflect. Will Jetstar, under chief executive Alan Joyce, with its superior efficiency, cannibalise the main brand, causing it to turn over all domestic services to a low fare operation?

Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon says his airline won't allow that to happen "intentionally".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That makes the recent changes to Tasmanian flights “unintentional”?

[Icarus2001]

Of course QF knew this was a consequence. They also know that they will lose customers in the short term. Allan joyce this morning on CH 9 was espousing the virtues of the Airbus "product" wide seats etc. Still a long way off though Al.

The sound you hear is balls hitting the ground.

[RYAN TCAD]

Interersting to see Geoff and Allen with no tie and the top button of their shirts undone - in fine old Branson style - when they were launching js! - Very original.

Bo!

[regitaekilthgiwt]

“THOUSANDS of people with Qantas bookings are being switched to new no-frills airline Jetstar.”

How is this not a transfer of business? :mad: If that one doesn’t do it for you how about this:

“Qantas spokesman Michael Sharp said yesterday the airline's flight schedules would significantly change when its subsidiary Jetstar was launched on May 25.”

– Why? Because our business is going to Jetstar…

Now that this is actually happening before our eyes do we have a case for transfer of business AIPA?

[Animalclub]

And didn't Michael Sharp look concerned about the incovenienced passengers when he appeared on television!!! Did he really look down his nose?

takes tongue firmly out of cheek and exits stage left

GA Driver

Airlines can use whatever aircraft they chose (even if it belongs to and is operated by another airline) to operate their flights... so long as they operate the flight as per their government agreement regarding schedules etc.

In a code share situation, with say QF and AA, you may be booked on a QF flight to e.g. St Louis (with a QF flight number) therefore you are on a QF flight... even though it's an American Airlines aircraft. Your terms and conditions of travel are as for QF.

Hope this helps.

[Pimp Daddy]

Now that this is actually happening before our eyes do we have a case for transfer of business AIPA?

Sounds nice but given the majority of the routes are Qantaslink ones (ie: Impulse) which are going to Jetstar, especially Tassie, how would that affect AIPA regards a transfer of business?

Indeed mainline 737s are returning to Hobart and Launceston so additional routes are being added (returned if you want to be picky) to the current flying.

No hope I'd say. You have to get up pretty early to beat Dixon, 9 o'clock, no 7 o'clock.... AM!!!

[MoFo]

Dixon and Co. underestimate the intelligence and taste of the Australian public, as many have done in the past to their detriment.

People don't like being treated like this. They probably expect something better than the Jetstar product. Thats why they booked Qantas in the first place. After their first taste of sh*t they will go running to Virgin.

Dixon has had a dream run since taking over from the Bow Tie. A lot of it was to do with luck. Ansett collapse, Sep 11 and the cheap aircraft purchases, Impulse rolling over cap in hand, etc. The chances of hurting Qantas with this public turn off are high. They will need to be very careful and understand the Australian psyche ,taste and sense of fair play. If they don't their luck will turn.

Could be the time to buy Virgin shares.

[The Voice]

back to the when is a contract a contract discussion briefly:

a promise or agreement is not legally binding and enforceable as a contract unless the the requirements of contract formation INCLUDING consideration AND certainty of agreement are satisfied.

consideration is the price or detriment given as a value of a promise .. frequent flyer points are NOT deducted from the account until the time of the flight which means the pax has not suffered detriment, nor has the company received consideration (ie redeemed that points) therefore the contract is incomplete, ie it is not a contract, ie no breach of contract

from the company point of view all it has done has noted an interest in the pax using that service on that day, it has neither carried the pax nor has it received any consideration for that flight therefore it cannot allege a breach of contract

agreement, that is the stage in contract law at which the negotiations between the parties are considered complete.

The over riding factor in agreement is that of offer and acceptance.

At what time does it become a contract that can be breached is totally determined on that.

At any time until detriment is suffered or part performance can be proved, the contract is still in the offer and acceptance stage: ie if the carrier decides to offer an alternative (move from QF to Jet* then it is a counter offer, to the offer made by the pax) and that is where the fun begins... the negotiation of 'terms' or 'conditions' of the offer for consideration prior to acceptance conditional upon detriment or part performance .. in a nutshell of course


:\