Qantas refused guide dog and stranded blind woman
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cant see anything wrong with the article......QANTAS check in staff stuffed the lady around.
The same article also bags TIGER for similar issues with the lady.
Guess the major difference is that QANTAS professes to be full service and TIGER admits to being low cost. The end result is that they both behaved the same
Seems that check in has let the QANTAS team down, doesn't it?
The same article also bags TIGER for similar issues with the lady.
Guess the major difference is that QANTAS professes to be full service and TIGER admits to being low cost. The end result is that they both behaved the same
Seems that check in has let the QANTAS team down, doesn't it?
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual ground,I understand we are relying on the media for the story but why exactly do you think QF initially refused her carriage?
Was it because she was wearing ugg boots?
Was it because she was a security risk?
Was it because she is visually impaired?
Or do you think it was because she had a guide dog?
The journo even said it
It was not because she was visually impaired but perhaps if it was not because of the guide dog you can give us a reason why?
Was it because she was wearing ugg boots?
Was it because she was a security risk?
Was it because she is visually impaired?
Or do you think it was because she had a guide dog?
The journo even said it
"QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight."
Despite at least 20 seats being available on a plane that evening, Qantas asked her to stand aside while they processed other Tiger passengers.
Qantas counter staff told her to call reservations, who told her dogs were not allowed in Adelaide airport.
Qantas counter staff told her to call reservations, who told her dogs were not allowed in Adelaide airport.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: AU
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the qantas staff may not have been upto date on the P&P manual about guide dogs.
How early did she turn up to the flight? My guess is not early enough for it to be sorted out there and then, and attention was passed to other persons so they all did not miss a flight.
just another theroy to the rumor network
How early did she turn up to the flight? My guess is not early enough for it to be sorted out there and then, and attention was passed to other persons so they all did not miss a flight.
just another theroy to the rumor network
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedTBar
Perhaps you can give me the quote from the article where Ms Purcell states that the Qantas staff said "Sorry, you cannot take a guide dog on board a Qantas aircraft"?
Can you? No you can't, because at no point is Ms Purcell quoted as saying that she was told this. Now if such a quote existed I guarantee you it would be in there to back up the story. This is what makes me so suspicious of the whole article. It is short off verified facts and attributable quotes, and very long on emotive padding. The dogs name,age ,breed and dietary requirements. What has that got to do with Qantas boarding policy?
So when the journo says "QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight." that, as far as I'm concerned, is pure supposition at the best, and intentionally misleading at the worst.
Once again I ask, were the Purcells the only people who had to contact Reservations? The reason, I suspect, that they did not get on the flight that evening is that other Tiger pax beat them to it.
In fact the quote should read "Tiger Airways left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night, because the airline cancelled a flight. The woman, her husband and guide dog flew home, the next day on Qantas"
Again I ask, why is Qantas getting the caning when Tiger caused the whole situation in the first place?
Perhaps you can give me the quote from the article where Ms Purcell states that the Qantas staff said "Sorry, you cannot take a guide dog on board a Qantas aircraft"?
Can you? No you can't, because at no point is Ms Purcell quoted as saying that she was told this. Now if such a quote existed I guarantee you it would be in there to back up the story. This is what makes me so suspicious of the whole article. It is short off verified facts and attributable quotes, and very long on emotive padding. The dogs name,age ,breed and dietary requirements. What has that got to do with Qantas boarding policy?
So when the journo says "QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight." that, as far as I'm concerned, is pure supposition at the best, and intentionally misleading at the worst.
Once again I ask, were the Purcells the only people who had to contact Reservations? The reason, I suspect, that they did not get on the flight that evening is that other Tiger pax beat them to it.
In fact the quote should read "Tiger Airways left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night, because the airline cancelled a flight. The woman, her husband and guide dog flew home, the next day on Qantas"
Again I ask, why is Qantas getting the caning when Tiger caused the whole situation in the first place?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisvegas
Age: 46
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we surprised?
Just another example of the pathetic levels of Journalism that exists these days. There is no longer any point in watching the news or reading the paper.
10% fact and 90% bulls*%t.
Journalists are in the same league as Real Estate agents.
Just another example of the pathetic levels of Journalism that exists these days. There is no longer any point in watching the news or reading the paper.
10% fact and 90% bulls*%t.
Journalists are in the same league as Real Estate agents.
Thread Starter
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAS MISSED THE POINT!
Which is very simple:
.....In the "old" QANTAS, which so many of us new and loved, the Qantas counter staff would have listened to her story compassionately, used their initiative as they were encouraged to do, immediately arranged a ticket, possibly even gratis, and maybe an upgrade to boot, personally escorted her on to the aircraft and made sure she and her dog were settled.
...And the following day in the newspaper you would be reading a story about how Qantas rescued a blind Lady and her dog from a rotten, uncaring, unreliable, foreign owned airline called Tiger, complete with photo of Labrador in cockpit with smiling Qantas pilot and Attendant.
....and the Adelaide counter staff would receive a "thank you" letter from the boss.
.... and all visually impaired people and their families would be making a mental note to only travel Qantas in future.
...and everyone else in Australia would be getting that warm feeling (not from something running down their leg) and thinking "maybe Qantas is a bit more expensive, but it's worth it to have people treated like that." The Qantas Icon would be a little bit shinier,and their market share a little more secure.
OK, so I may be a little over the top, but that's what a good marketer does when someone comes to them from their competitor in distress. You convert them to your way of doing things, not confirm that you are just as rude and stupid as your competitor.
Which is very simple:
.....In the "old" QANTAS, which so many of us new and loved, the Qantas counter staff would have listened to her story compassionately, used their initiative as they were encouraged to do, immediately arranged a ticket, possibly even gratis, and maybe an upgrade to boot, personally escorted her on to the aircraft and made sure she and her dog were settled.
...And the following day in the newspaper you would be reading a story about how Qantas rescued a blind Lady and her dog from a rotten, uncaring, unreliable, foreign owned airline called Tiger, complete with photo of Labrador in cockpit with smiling Qantas pilot and Attendant.
....and the Adelaide counter staff would receive a "thank you" letter from the boss.
.... and all visually impaired people and their families would be making a mental note to only travel Qantas in future.
...and everyone else in Australia would be getting that warm feeling (not from something running down their leg) and thinking "maybe Qantas is a bit more expensive, but it's worth it to have people treated like that." The Qantas Icon would be a little bit shinier,and their market share a little more secure.
OK, so I may be a little over the top, but that's what a good marketer does when someone comes to them from their competitor in distress. You convert them to your way of doing things, not confirm that you are just as rude and stupid as your competitor.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you can give me the quote from the article where Ms Purcell states that the Qantas staff said "Sorry, you cannot take a guide dog on board a Qantas aircraft"?
QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight.
the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight.
Qantas counter staff told her to call reservations, who told her dogs were not allowed in Adelaide airport
Ms Purcell has lodged complaints with both airlines and the Human Rights Commission. ''I was shunned because I had a guide dog,'' she said.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAS MISSED THE POINT!
Which is very simple:
.....In the "old" QANTAS, which so many of us new and loved, the Qantas counter staff would have listened to her story compassionately, used their initiative as they were encouraged to do, immediately arranged a ticket, possibly even gratis, and maybe an upgrade to boot, personally escorted her on to the aircraft and made sure she and her dog were settled.
Which is very simple:
.....In the "old" QANTAS, which so many of us new and loved, the Qantas counter staff would have listened to her story compassionately, used their initiative as they were encouraged to do, immediately arranged a ticket, possibly even gratis, and maybe an upgrade to boot, personally escorted her on to the aircraft and made sure she and her dog were settled.
Staff today are so worried about making decisions they fall back on the old favourite response of 'NO'.
This practice began in Darths reign and is a sad indictment of the airline today.I agree that in the old days there would have been someone who would have understood the situation and as well as helping the lady made full use of it as a PR exercise as well.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedTBar
I am more than capable of reading complete sentences thank you. I am also capable of distinguishing between attributable quotes and opinions. The sentence you highlighted is opinion, not a quote.
Answer this question if you would.
Why is there only one quote in the whole article? My opinion is that the journalist could not get anything "juicy" enough.
And that quote ''I was shunned because I had a guide dog,'' what question was asked of her to get that response? Maybe the reason the question does not appear is she is been quoted out of context?
Also I believe that the statement about "dogs are not allowed in the airport" has been covered already. The general consensus appears to be that this was down to a misunderstanding/lack of information passed that the dog in question was a guide dog.
I have been polite to you throughout this discussion, I would very much appreciate it if you would return the compliment. I apologise if my refusal to accept the journalists work as cold hard fact is frustrating you, perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you seem so convinced that it is?
I am more than capable of reading complete sentences thank you. I am also capable of distinguishing between attributable quotes and opinions. The sentence you highlighted is opinion, not a quote.
Answer this question if you would.
Why is there only one quote in the whole article? My opinion is that the journalist could not get anything "juicy" enough.
And that quote ''I was shunned because I had a guide dog,'' what question was asked of her to get that response? Maybe the reason the question does not appear is she is been quoted out of context?
Also I believe that the statement about "dogs are not allowed in the airport" has been covered already. The general consensus appears to be that this was down to a misunderstanding/lack of information passed that the dog in question was a guide dog.
I have been polite to you throughout this discussion, I would very much appreciate it if you would return the compliment. I apologise if my refusal to accept the journalists work as cold hard fact is frustrating you, perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you seem so convinced that it is?
Last edited by Dual ground; 8th Dec 2009 at 20:09.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which I suspect is what the check in staff was doing - processing the 'regular' Tiger passengers first, and then the 'special needs' one upon completion, thus moving the others through quickly.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual ground,At no point have I been impolite even as frustrating as this is.
Why do you think the airline refused carriage?
I have asked you this several times and you have not answered.
If you read the airlines response you might begin to understand that this is all about the guide dog.
Airlines carry people with various disabilities all the time.Are you seriously suggesting that the seat allocation trouble was for the lady because she is visually impaired or her guide dog or do you think she was refused carriage because she was wearing an offensive t-shirt or some other reason.
I know that the media gets carried away at times but the problem here seems fairly apparent and if it not why then are they offering to pay expenses and review it's processes?
Why do you think the airline refused carriage?
I have asked you this several times and you have not answered.
If you read the airlines response you might begin to understand that this is all about the guide dog.
Qantas head of communication Olivia Wirth said the Qantas counter staff did not have the authority to make the seat allocation but the airline took the matter seriously and had apologised to Ms Purcell, offered to pay expenses and was reviewing its processes.
I know that the media gets carried away at times but the problem here seems fairly apparent and if it not why then are they offering to pay expenses and review it's processes?
Would the article have even appeared if Qantas had no seats or indeed no flight available for anyone?
No. Lazy journos find anything Qantas an instant headline.
( Why not "Singapore Airlines Group airline, Tiger today left a blind passenger stranded at Adelaide airport." ......I don't think so. Not punchy enough said the editor.)
No. Lazy journos find anything Qantas an instant headline.
( Why not "Singapore Airlines Group airline, Tiger today left a blind passenger stranded at Adelaide airport." ......I don't think so. Not punchy enough said the editor.)
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's no use sticking your heads in the sand and trying to pretend it didn't happen.....
It did happen and it did happen to QF....it does not matter that it first happened to Tiger.
All that matters is that it did and QF apparently handled it poorly....
At a time when airlines are trying everything to maintain market share let alone increase it and this happens....
Public perception is everything but even more so in a service industry....
It did happen and it did happen to QF....it does not matter that it first happened to Tiger.
All that matters is that it did and QF apparently handled it poorly....
At a time when airlines are trying everything to maintain market share let alone increase it and this happens....
Public perception is everything but even more so in a service industry....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Irrespective of who stuffed up first, IMHO Sunfish is correct in that a positive PR opportunity went a-begging.
I'd add to his scenario, that under pre-Darth administrations, the agent at ADL would probably have been some person of a certain age who had been given the opportunity of making a long-term career in customer service and, whilst not having the next day's newspaper headline in mind, was fully aware of the word-of-mouth consequences their actions would bring.
I'd add to his scenario, that under pre-Darth administrations, the agent at ADL would probably have been some person of a certain age who had been given the opportunity of making a long-term career in customer service and, whilst not having the next day's newspaper headline in mind, was fully aware of the word-of-mouth consequences their actions would bring.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedTBar
You may regard this as a matter of semantics but the crux of the matter is that at no point did Qantas REFUSE carriage. They asked the Purcells to contact reservations, iaw their procedures, so that they could be booked on a flight. In what way does that constitute refusal? Agreed it's not brilliant customer service but it is not a refusal of carriage. This is what is winding me up about this article.
Qantas's Terms and Conditions of Carriage are very clear when it come to the carriage of Guide dogs. Tiger's are not so easy to find, in fact I haven't found them on their web site, has anyone else?
Why have Qantas offered to pay her costs and apologised? Damage limitation, I would imagine, due to the unjustified bashing they are getting over a situation brought on by a lo-co doing what they do best, screwing punters.
P.S Agree with Sunfish, great PR opportunity wasted.
You may regard this as a matter of semantics but the crux of the matter is that at no point did Qantas REFUSE carriage. They asked the Purcells to contact reservations, iaw their procedures, so that they could be booked on a flight. In what way does that constitute refusal? Agreed it's not brilliant customer service but it is not a refusal of carriage. This is what is winding me up about this article.
Qantas's Terms and Conditions of Carriage are very clear when it come to the carriage of Guide dogs. Tiger's are not so easy to find, in fact I haven't found them on their web site, has anyone else?
Why have Qantas offered to pay her costs and apologised? Damage limitation, I would imagine, due to the unjustified bashing they are getting over a situation brought on by a lo-co doing what they do best, screwing punters.
P.S Agree with Sunfish, great PR opportunity wasted.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: FNQ
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Disabled Person who was not disabled until well into my 60's, I would like to add my two-bobs worth.
Firstly, Sunfish, is closer to the mark than any of you. Being disabled is NOT NICE. It means relying on other people, animals or equipment to assist you. You lose your independence, I lost my driver's licence, require assistance to dress, shower and eat. Can only use my left hand to type, can't sign my name and requie assistance to travel. I am severely disabled down my right side.
A friend of mine, a QF Captain has a disabled son in his teens. When he can't get a disabled park and someone parks in a disabled spot without a permit, he parks behind them, so they can't get out and then he goes shopping - no matter for how long.
Regardless of this blind person having her husband and guide dog with her, SHE WOULD HAVE NEEDED HELP, no matter which airline. How down right inhumane some of you young ones are!
She has entitlements under the DISABILITY ACT and EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT which companies (including Airlines) MUST conform to. One of those entitlements is the carriage of Guide Dogs, whether it be in a taxi, bus, train or an aircraft. If it was me, I would not take it up with the Airline(s), but refer it to the Equal Opportunities Commission for investigation and have the Airline(s) face the consequences.
Finally, although nothing to do with this thread, I believe all States should put up the parking fines for illegal parking in disabled parks to a minimum of $1,000.
The media had every right to publish the story and I, personally would encourage them to do so.
Firstly, Sunfish, is closer to the mark than any of you. Being disabled is NOT NICE. It means relying on other people, animals or equipment to assist you. You lose your independence, I lost my driver's licence, require assistance to dress, shower and eat. Can only use my left hand to type, can't sign my name and requie assistance to travel. I am severely disabled down my right side.
A friend of mine, a QF Captain has a disabled son in his teens. When he can't get a disabled park and someone parks in a disabled spot without a permit, he parks behind them, so they can't get out and then he goes shopping - no matter for how long.
Regardless of this blind person having her husband and guide dog with her, SHE WOULD HAVE NEEDED HELP, no matter which airline. How down right inhumane some of you young ones are!
She has entitlements under the DISABILITY ACT and EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT which companies (including Airlines) MUST conform to. One of those entitlements is the carriage of Guide Dogs, whether it be in a taxi, bus, train or an aircraft. If it was me, I would not take it up with the Airline(s), but refer it to the Equal Opportunities Commission for investigation and have the Airline(s) face the consequences.
Finally, although nothing to do with this thread, I believe all States should put up the parking fines for illegal parking in disabled parks to a minimum of $1,000.
The media had every right to publish the story and I, personally would encourage them to do so.
Last edited by fence_post; 9th Dec 2009 at 12:41.
and those more in need of an immediate trip home got it as well.
Michael
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm finding it difficult to see the part where Qantas REFUSED carriage as well. I understand why the lady is upset, but anyone travelling with an assistance dog is required to call, just as people with car seats, wheelchairs or oxygen bottles have to. It might have been because there were other Tiger pax around (says to me there is more to this issue than just Ms Purcell, such as a whole flight being canx)
Could it possibly have been that to carry them certain requirements must be met (i.e. the dog must be relieved- necessitating a trip outside the terminal), certain approvals have to be given, certain seats must be allocated (possibly meaning re-seating a whole row of people if the aircraft concerned was a 737) and finding a moisture-abosorbent mat (if the owners did not have one, I believe this is usually provided by the airline)
IF the flight was under time constraints (ADL curfew. anyone?) then it's quite reasonable to suppose that QF did not want to delay the flight for one or two pax (just as they won't delay it for Joe Bloggs who left his bag at security) and the passengers in question ended up on the next flight. Quite possible that while all this was being organised, other passengers had already bought the remaining seats and there was no room. Seeing as tickets are usually sold on a first-come, first served basis this doesn't seem such a far stretch to me.
I wouldn't be lynching Qantas just yet- there seems to me, a lot more to this episode than is in the article.
Could it possibly have been that to carry them certain requirements must be met (i.e. the dog must be relieved- necessitating a trip outside the terminal), certain approvals have to be given, certain seats must be allocated (possibly meaning re-seating a whole row of people if the aircraft concerned was a 737) and finding a moisture-abosorbent mat (if the owners did not have one, I believe this is usually provided by the airline)
IF the flight was under time constraints (ADL curfew. anyone?) then it's quite reasonable to suppose that QF did not want to delay the flight for one or two pax (just as they won't delay it for Joe Bloggs who left his bag at security) and the passengers in question ended up on the next flight. Quite possible that while all this was being organised, other passengers had already bought the remaining seats and there was no room. Seeing as tickets are usually sold on a first-come, first served basis this doesn't seem such a far stretch to me.
I wouldn't be lynching Qantas just yet- there seems to me, a lot more to this episode than is in the article.
Bottums Up
I think I've carried two guide dogs in my whole career. As best I can recall, the pax & dog were seated in row 1, which had extra leg room and allowed the dog not to impede any one, or, the pax were seated in a seat with a vacant seat adjacent, to allow room for the dog to sit/sleep on the floor.
Perhaps, in this instance QF were unable to provide space for the dog at short notice?
Perhaps, in this instance QF were unable to provide space for the dog at short notice?