Shanye2233

I think as soon as my flight becomes a illegal connection which due to the time I'm required in Auckland MCT 55 mins and now with the delay a connection time 25 mins they can not put me on a flight on the one ticket that's is illegal . Well that's what I think anyway.

The senior officer in the Qantas lounge also said if I'm on the same ticket they have to get me ASAP. I'm glad I choose the later FJ flight because there's a big difference between the A330 and the 737.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

There was a 50 minute delay, so the revised arrival time would have been 1350. That would have been under MCT, therefore the pax was in their rights to seek alternative arrangements before departing SYD.

That the flight actually arrived at 1320 is neither here nor there. No one was to know for certain the flight would arrive early.

it is also common in the USA for airlines to take into account potential delays when rerouting passengers. If bad weather is expected in ORD or DFW for example, I have been proactively offered an alternative without any miss-connect actually taking place. It's good practice. Obligation? Maybe not, but if everyone knows there's going to be bad weather, might as well nip the problem in the bud.

thadocta

Funnily enough, there were recently complaints over on the BA forum when BA did exactly that, a passenger travelling from a European city connecting through LHR had their ex-LHR booking changed because the first flight was delayed and arrival would violate MCT rules, but the passenger would have quite easily made the flight in spite of the delay. The general consensus in that thread was that the original booking should have remained untouched, but the danger there is that the remaining seats on the later flight might have been sold in the meantime.

So it seems like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Dave

Dave Noble

No they were not; the MCT only applies to whether a booking can be made; is the scheduled time of flights meeting the published requirements

The passenger is only entitled to being reaccomodated once they have missed a connection. At that point in time no connection had been missed.

Once in Auckland and having missed the flight, then the passenger is entitled to rebooking

Also, in this case, EK would not have even become liable since the flight arrived in plenty of time for the passenger to connect to their onward flight

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Perhaps it would be useful to clarify on what basis you claim a passenger is only entitled to rebooking once they actually misconnect? The contract of carriage covers misconnects (once they have occured), but there is nothing as far as I can see that prevents a rebooking in the likely event of a missconect.

Dave Noble

An airline could choose to rebook a passenger if it wants to, but is only obligated once the passenger has misconnected

Just because there is a delay, it does not mean that the passenger will definitely miss the onward flight ( as in this case where the passenger would have made it ) and until that has occurred there is no requirement for an airline to rebook

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

I accept you hold that view, but I asked on what basis? it is an opinion, or supported by terms and conditions, consumer law or contract law?

if the EK flight had been delayed by 90 minutes, would your opinion change? or would you still require the passenger to travel to akl and misconnect rather than be accommodated on a suitable alternative direct from SYD?

Dave Noble

Can you find anywhere where it is stated that an airline is required to rebook in case of potential misconnect?

In contracts, one is only entitled to a remedy for a breach of contract when a breach has occurred, not just when a breach might occur

If the flight was delayed such that the other flight had already departed, then definitely would view it as due then or even if it was delayed such that it was impossible to connect ; in this situation neither case applied and the airport information confirms that no breach would have occurred if the passenger had taken the flight

This case is a clear example of where there would be no entitlement for rebooking since the passenger would have no reason not to have made the connection

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

this is going OT now, but anticipatory breach of contract seems designed to do exactly what you say doesn't exist (although I'm not saying that has application in this particular situation of the OP).

Airvan00

Just because a flight departs late doesn't mean it will arrive late. The "block" times are determined for the season. On numerous occasions, especially in the change over period between summer and winter schedules. We have been held in the lounge for an extra hour. On board the announcement was made not to worry as we are expecting favorable winds and we arrived 30 min earlier than the so called schedule.

Dave Noble

But it was not definite that a breach would occur and indeed , in this case, would not

On what grounds do you believe that in this case where there was still 55 minutes to get to the next gate ( which is pretty easy in Auckland ) that the passenger had an entitlement to rebooking when still in Sydney

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

there was not 55 mins to get to the gate. We only know that in retrospect. The scheduled arrival time (revised for the delay) would have been 1350.

Dave Noble

That would still not be the scheduled arrival time

The scheduled arrival time is that which the flight is scheduled to arrive at

Regardless, it can be evidenced that the OP would have made the connection; there was no breach , neither anticipatory nor actual, at all

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

1300 scheduled arrival, with a 50 minute delay gives me a new scheduled arrival time of 1350. That could not reasonably be expected to connect with another flight at 1420.

Once you establish the delayed flight will be under MCT it doesn't matter if the flight came in early... because you can't know or expect it will. You can only go on the block time for the flight, which would have given a 1350 arrival.

Therefore the passenger was right to anticipate the misconnect and have the airline make alternative arrangements, which they indeed did.

you cannot evidence the passenger would have made the connection in advance of departure from SYD. you could only do that after the event, and that may have been too late.

percysmith

Not sure if this is completely relevant.

I have an award tix on CX stock, going from CTS-HND on JL and NRT-HKG on CX on the same day.

As ticketed I had the required 3 hour 30 minutes MCT to get from HND to NRT. However a rescheduling of my JL connection made my transit time fall to 3 hour 25 minutes.

CX called me, offering a free rebooking on an earlier JL flight (normally would have cost US$25). After consulting other FTers I turned down the offer, since 3 hours 25 minutes is still ample time to get from HND to NRT. I am loathe to leave CTS on an earlier flight, and provided CX doesn't do anything to my booking I will leave it as is and take the risk of a misconnect.

But if the same principles apply to this case then it is *QF* who has to reach out to the OP and offer alternative arrangements. This is contrasted to the situation after OP has started travel, where the operating carrier was responsible for handling the misconnect (in my most recent case this was also Qantas).