Qantas refused guide dog and stranded blind woman
Thread Starter
Qantas refused guide dog and stranded blind woman
You would think Qantas would have learned something by now. This cannot be the first time such a situation occurred.
Qantas refused guide dog and stranded blind woman
Qantas refused guide dog and stranded blind woman
ANDREW HEASLEY
December 8, 2009
QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight.
Qantas is not alone. Tiger Airways two days earlier baulked at letting the same woman fly with her guide dog.
Donna Purcell and her husband, Ric, of Sydney, met a wall of resistance from Tiger Airways when they tried to fly return to Adelaide with her guide dog for a weekend away last month.
First, she was told that Tiger did not take dogs, then she would have to buy an extra ticket for it and even then could not be guaranteed to fly.
Eventually she convinced the airline to take her to Adelaide, but when Tiger cancelled the return flight, she approached Qantas.
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. The airline finally booked them on a flight the next day.
It left Ms Purcell and her husband stuck in Adelaide with no accommodation arranged or food for her seeing-eye dog, Hetty, a three-year-old black labrador on a special diet.
Ms Purcell has lodged complaints with both airlines and the Human Rights Commission. ''I was shunned because I had a guide dog,'' she said.
............................................................ .......................
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.
ANDREW HEASLEY
December 8, 2009
QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight.
Qantas is not alone. Tiger Airways two days earlier baulked at letting the same woman fly with her guide dog.
Donna Purcell and her husband, Ric, of Sydney, met a wall of resistance from Tiger Airways when they tried to fly return to Adelaide with her guide dog for a weekend away last month.
First, she was told that Tiger did not take dogs, then she would have to buy an extra ticket for it and even then could not be guaranteed to fly.
Eventually she convinced the airline to take her to Adelaide, but when Tiger cancelled the return flight, she approached Qantas.
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. The airline finally booked them on a flight the next day.
It left Ms Purcell and her husband stuck in Adelaide with no accommodation arranged or food for her seeing-eye dog, Hetty, a three-year-old black labrador on a special diet.
Ms Purcell has lodged complaints with both airlines and the Human Rights Commission. ''I was shunned because I had a guide dog,'' she said.
............................................................ .......................
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of sensationalist garbage.
"QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight."
Where specifically does it say she was refused travel because of the dog? It doesn't.
"Donna Purcell and her husband, Ric, of Sydney, met a wall of resistance from Tiger Airways when they tried to fly return to Adelaide with her guide dog for a weekend away last month."
"Eventually she convinced the airline to take her to Adelaide, but when Tiger cancelled the return flight, she approached Qantas."
She booked a RETURN flight with TIGER, not Qantas.
"Despite at least 20 seats being available on a plane that evening, Qantas asked her to stand aside while they processed other Tiger passengers."
Does it say that the flight departed with 20 empty seats? No it doesn't. Did the other Tiger passengers just walk up and get put on the flight or had they already contacted Qantas reservations and been accepted for carriage? I notice that isn't mentioned. Why I wonder?
"Qantas counter staff told her to call reservations, who told her dogs were not allowed in Adelaide airport. The airline finally booked them on a flight the next day."
The staff said dogs were not permitted in the AIRPORT, not that guide dogs were not permitted in the cabin. So where does the "journalist" get "the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight" from? Is it possible that the staff were not told, or perhaps misunderstood, that the dog in question was a guide dog and not a pet?
"It left Ms Purcell and her husband stuck in Adelaide with no accommodation arranged or food for her seeing-eye dog, Hetty, a three-year-old black labrador on a special diet."
And were they the only Tiger passengers who didn't get on the Qantas flight? Why should Qantas arrange accommodation for another carriers pax? And in what way is it Qantas's fault that the dog had no food? Surely common sense dictates that the Purcells should have taken a day or twos extra food for the dog on their trip, particularly as it requires a special diet?
"Ms Purcell has lodged complaints with both airlines and the Human Rights Commission. ''I was shunned because I had a guide dog,'' she said."
Can't comment on Tiger as a quick look at their website doesn't seem to give information on passengers travelling with guide dogs. Anyone know what their Terms and Conditions of carriage are, with regard to Guide dogs? Qantas website is very clear. But then the Purcells were not booked with Qantas were they?
.................................................. .................................
"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."
Seems to me that Qantas have been more than fair, considering that the couple in question weren't even their passengers OR responsibility anyway.
"QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight."
Where specifically does it say she was refused travel because of the dog? It doesn't.
"Donna Purcell and her husband, Ric, of Sydney, met a wall of resistance from Tiger Airways when they tried to fly return to Adelaide with her guide dog for a weekend away last month."
"Eventually she convinced the airline to take her to Adelaide, but when Tiger cancelled the return flight, she approached Qantas."
She booked a RETURN flight with TIGER, not Qantas.
"Despite at least 20 seats being available on a plane that evening, Qantas asked her to stand aside while they processed other Tiger passengers."
Does it say that the flight departed with 20 empty seats? No it doesn't. Did the other Tiger passengers just walk up and get put on the flight or had they already contacted Qantas reservations and been accepted for carriage? I notice that isn't mentioned. Why I wonder?
"Qantas counter staff told her to call reservations, who told her dogs were not allowed in Adelaide airport. The airline finally booked them on a flight the next day."
The staff said dogs were not permitted in the AIRPORT, not that guide dogs were not permitted in the cabin. So where does the "journalist" get "the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight" from? Is it possible that the staff were not told, or perhaps misunderstood, that the dog in question was a guide dog and not a pet?
"It left Ms Purcell and her husband stuck in Adelaide with no accommodation arranged or food for her seeing-eye dog, Hetty, a three-year-old black labrador on a special diet."
And were they the only Tiger passengers who didn't get on the Qantas flight? Why should Qantas arrange accommodation for another carriers pax? And in what way is it Qantas's fault that the dog had no food? Surely common sense dictates that the Purcells should have taken a day or twos extra food for the dog on their trip, particularly as it requires a special diet?
"Ms Purcell has lodged complaints with both airlines and the Human Rights Commission. ''I was shunned because I had a guide dog,'' she said."
Can't comment on Tiger as a quick look at their website doesn't seem to give information on passengers travelling with guide dogs. Anyone know what their Terms and Conditions of carriage are, with regard to Guide dogs? Qantas website is very clear. But then the Purcells were not booked with Qantas were they?
.................................................. .................................
"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."
Seems to me that Qantas have been more than fair, considering that the couple in question weren't even their passengers OR responsibility anyway.
Last edited by Dual ground; 7th Dec 2009 at 21:27. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lord Howe
Age: 44
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 
sake if you have a guide dog you should get priority- Full Stop.
and for those who do not understand why go see what the guide dog association does. They are fantastic.
In 2009 our airlines/airports should know by now how to do the right thing.
sake if you have a guide dog you should get priority- Full Stop.and for those who do not understand why go see what the guide dog association does. They are fantastic.
In 2009 our
airlines/airports should know by now how to do the right thing.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't doubt that The Guide Dog Association do fantastic work, but in what way does that relate to any of the points that I made in my post?
How did QF "strand" a passenger who wasn't even booked on their service?
And for arguments sake should a blind passenger who is travelling with an able bodied companion and a guide dog be given priority over say, a mother travelling with an infant, or two?
How did QF "strand" a passenger who wasn't even booked on their service?
And for arguments sake should a blind passenger who is travelling with an able bodied companion and a guide dog be given priority over say, a mother travelling with an infant, or two?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No they should not egt any special treatment at all.
What should happen is ALL the Qantas/Jetstar/Virgin/Tiger etc ticketing staff be it check in or telephone sales or whoever has anything to do with processing these enquiries should be fully briefed on what all the requirements are, and be authorised to make decissions as need be.
End of the argument really.
What should happen is ALL the Qantas/Jetstar/Virgin/Tiger etc ticketing staff be it check in or telephone sales or whoever has anything to do with processing these enquiries should be fully briefed on what all the requirements are, and be authorised to make decissions as need be.
End of the argument really.
Thread Starter
And for arguments sake should a blind passenger who is travelling with an able bodied companion and a guide dog be given priority over say, a mother travelling with an infant, or two?
Tiger screw around a punter with a return airfare on both legs of her flight, eventually leaving her in Adelaide. Qantas don't/won't carry her (regardless of her special circumstances) and yet our unbiased media, looking for a headline, place the blame squarely at Qantas's feet.
To cap it off, Qantas, not Tiger, pay for her expenses in order to offset the negative publicity.
To cap it off, Qantas, not Tiger, pay for her expenses in order to offset the negative publicity.
Last edited by C441; 8th Dec 2009 at 01:30.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight."
Where specifically does it say she was refused travel because of the dog? It doesn't.
Where specifically does it say she was refused travel because of the dog? It doesn't.
The problem here is that everyone is too worried to make a decision lest they lose their jobs.How on earth can an organisation work if it's employees are too scared to make decisions.
Qantas counter staff told her to call reservations, who told her dogs were not allowed in Adelaide airport.
Dual Ground,to help your level of comprehension,try reading the sentence more than once and without blinkers on.Generally if you are visually impaired and require a guide dog then the dog travels with you
Did she simply say my Tiger flight was cancelled and I want to travel with my husband and my dog?
We don't know the answers so get over it.
Doesn't matter which airline it was.
Its POOR customer service, particularly when they should all be on red alert for this issue at the moment.
I'm sure if those of you defending it lost your sight your point of view would change very quickly. It might be a bit rough on Q when T started it but it would have been a good chance for Qantas to save the day (with no PR but thats not what you do it for is it?).
Renurpp ..... I'll just let your defence go through to the keeper.
Its POOR customer service, particularly when they should all be on red alert for this issue at the moment.
I'm sure if those of you defending it lost your sight your point of view would change very quickly. It might be a bit rough on Q when T started it but it would have been a good chance for Qantas to save the day (with no PR but thats not what you do it for is it?).
Renurpp ..... I'll just let your defence go through to the keeper.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not exciting when Tiger do it because thats what we have come to expect from them however we don't expect to hear such stories from Qantas.
The counter staff are used to everything being booked in advance and the special service request for the dog being organised prior, however if they can't process it themselves why didn't the counter staff call reservations direct and ask them to process the booking for Ms Purcell ... To me that would of been customer service.
The counter staff are used to everything being booked in advance and the special service request for the dog being organised prior, however if they can't process it themselves why didn't the counter staff call reservations direct and ask them to process the booking for Ms Purcell ... To me that would of been customer service.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 
sake if you have a guide dog you should get priority- Full Stop.
sake if you have a guide dog you should get priority- Full Stop.
There were 20 other seats and probably 20 other passengers who needed to get home to be at work the next day.
This woman and her dog and her husband did NOT have reservations, and probably no compelling need to be home that night, so the airline prioritised appropriately.
Just because she's blind, there is no reason to give her special treatment. In the circumstances, she got the appropriate service, and was offered a seat (or 3) the next day, and those more in need of an immediate trip home got it as well.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She's not "really" disabled is she?
As she would have no urgent requirement to be home that evening, there is no reason she should get priority over those who DO need to be home that night.
SHEESH! people, grow up, this is nothing more than another media beatup and she would have been less inconvenienced than many others by not getting home that day! Just because she's blind doesn't mean she MUST get priority in everything in life.
SH&T happens, she's not a Qantas customer, there was ZERO reason to give her priority over other stranded passengers.
Look what happened - she got bumped for one day AND SHE SURVIVED!, Who would have guessed?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective
Dual Ground has pretty much summed up the 'truth' in this case.
I cannot understand why QF should cop a hiding for a situation that falls at the feet of Tiger in this case.
This thread should be locked, QF left out of the 'bashing' and a new thread opened with Tiger placed in the firing line.
I cannot understand why QF should cop a hiding for a situation that falls at the feet of Tiger in this case.
This thread should be locked, QF left out of the 'bashing' and a new thread opened with Tiger placed in the firing line.
No it shouldn't, because it happened, Q admit in this case it could have been handled better. Tiger should also rate a mention in the title.ANY other airline should be named as well that drops the ball like this.
Having heard her briefly in an interview and what appears to have happened is that she was given LESS priority than 'able' body people. (You listening here PJ?).
ie. Other passengers from the Tiger flight were processed at the Qantas check in. BECAUSE she had a guide dog she was told she had to ring reservations and deal with them (a cruel and inhuman punishment in itself .... sarcasm by the way). So instead of being treated equally or with more compassion she was treated with less.
Now I know some people here have an issue with the jetstar incident with the Wheelchair incident. That was a bit of a beat up IMHO. Having heard this lady on Radio she seems very reasonable.
Having heard her briefly in an interview and what appears to have happened is that she was given LESS priority than 'able' body people. (You listening here PJ?).
ie. Other passengers from the Tiger flight were processed at the Qantas check in. BECAUSE she had a guide dog she was told she had to ring reservations and deal with them (a cruel and inhuman punishment in itself .... sarcasm by the way). So instead of being treated equally or with more compassion she was treated with less.
Now I know some people here have an issue with the jetstar incident with the Wheelchair incident. That was a bit of a beat up IMHO. Having heard this lady on Radio she seems very reasonable.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ ozbiggles
"Other passengers from the Tiger flight were processed at the Qantas check in. BECAUSE she had a guide dog she was told she had to ring reservations and deal with them"
Was this said in the interview with Ms Purcell? I admit the only thing I have to go on is the original article. But as I asked before, is it not possible that the pax who were boarded had already contacted reservations by this point and been accepted? Maybe the Purcells just "missed the boat" so to speak?
@ fritzandsauce
"The counter staff are used to everything being booked in advance and the special service request for the dog being organised prior, however if they can't process it themselves why didn't the counter staff call reservations direct and ask them to process the booking for Ms Purcell ... To me that would of been customer service."
Yes it would, however don't you think the counter staff had enough to do with processing all the pax originally booked on the flight? I also would hazard a guess that the Purcells were not the only Tiger pax trying to get on the flight. The counter staff have to prioritise and quite rightly, in my opinion, the priority lies with pax who have originally booked with Qantas. For everyone else the "you have to contact reservations" seems to me to be perfectly fair and reasonable.
@ inandout
It seems to me that you refuse to see the bigger picture here. The only bit of the article you seem to have read is "blind" and perhaps "her seeing-eye dog, Hetty, a three-year-old black labrador on a special diet."
Why was it necessary to include the dogs name, age, breed and medical condition in this report? Answer, to suck in people like yourself and make the issue emotive and not rational.
@ RedTbar
I suggest you are the one wearing blinkers. Re-read my original post and the original article. Did I not mention that the Reservation staff maybe were not aware that the dog was a guide dog and not a pet? The staff were not "too scared to make a decision" as you suggest, but in fact "did not have the authority to make the seat allocation" as stated by the Qantas press release.
And once again I ask, at what point was it expressly stated that "we will not allow you on this flight because you are blind and have a guide dog"?
Answer, nowhere. So why does the journalist state categorically:-
"QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight."
I accept that everyone is entitled to their own point of view and so for the record here is what I think:-
Qantas have been done over by a sensationalist piece of garbage posing as journalism. The villain of the piece, Tiger, has pretty much gotten off scot free. In the article it mentions that Tiger gave her grief on the outbound sector but everyone is latching on to the apparently misleading headline. Qantas flew her the next day, probably on the first available flight. Before the story hit the paper.
Qantas have apologised and offered expenses. What have Tiger done? Taken the money and run. You notice that Tiger didn't fly her the next day, Qantas did. And yet people are still bashing Qantas. What ever happened to the "fair go" principle?
"Other passengers from the Tiger flight were processed at the Qantas check in. BECAUSE she had a guide dog she was told she had to ring reservations and deal with them"
Was this said in the interview with Ms Purcell? I admit the only thing I have to go on is the original article. But as I asked before, is it not possible that the pax who were boarded had already contacted reservations by this point and been accepted? Maybe the Purcells just "missed the boat" so to speak?
@ fritzandsauce
"The counter staff are used to everything being booked in advance and the special service request for the dog being organised prior, however if they can't process it themselves why didn't the counter staff call reservations direct and ask them to process the booking for Ms Purcell ... To me that would of been customer service."
Yes it would, however don't you think the counter staff had enough to do with processing all the pax originally booked on the flight? I also would hazard a guess that the Purcells were not the only Tiger pax trying to get on the flight. The counter staff have to prioritise and quite rightly, in my opinion, the priority lies with pax who have originally booked with Qantas. For everyone else the "you have to contact reservations" seems to me to be perfectly fair and reasonable.
@ inandout
It seems to me that you refuse to see the bigger picture here. The only bit of the article you seem to have read is "blind" and perhaps "her seeing-eye dog, Hetty, a three-year-old black labrador on a special diet."
Why was it necessary to include the dogs name, age, breed and medical condition in this report? Answer, to suck in people like yourself and make the issue emotive and not rational.
@ RedTbar
I suggest you are the one wearing blinkers. Re-read my original post and the original article. Did I not mention that the Reservation staff maybe were not aware that the dog was a guide dog and not a pet? The staff were not "too scared to make a decision" as you suggest, but in fact "did not have the authority to make the seat allocation" as stated by the Qantas press release.
And once again I ask, at what point was it expressly stated that "we will not allow you on this flight because you are blind and have a guide dog"?
Answer, nowhere. So why does the journalist state categorically:-
"QANTAS left a blind woman distressed and stranded interstate at night because the airline would not allow her guide dog on a flight."
I accept that everyone is entitled to their own point of view and so for the record here is what I think:-
Qantas have been done over by a sensationalist piece of garbage posing as journalism. The villain of the piece, Tiger, has pretty much gotten off scot free. In the article it mentions that Tiger gave her grief on the outbound sector but everyone is latching on to the apparently misleading headline. Qantas flew her the next day, probably on the first available flight. Before the story hit the paper.
Qantas have apologised and offered expenses. What have Tiger done? Taken the money and run. You notice that Tiger didn't fly her the next day, Qantas did. And yet people are still bashing Qantas. What ever happened to the "fair go" principle?
Last edited by Dual ground; 8th Dec 2009 at 09:50.