Originally Posted by
Dave Noble
It does sound like, that in this case, Qantas themselves only really became aware of the issue of distinction recently, so what they may have been suggesting could well have been in completely good faith
That may well be the case, but it wouldn't absolve Qantas of responsibility.
Indeed, it would be hard for Qantas to say "our T&Cs never offered this to you" if Qantas itself thought for several years that their T&Cs
did offer this to Club members.
Originally Posted by
Dave Noble
With bait and switch you would be missing out on something that was promised, here nothing promised has been refused.
The latter is, as I have said, arguable - that depends on the meaning of the words in the promise which may be something other than their literal meaning.
After all, Qantas may themselves have thought for several years that the words in their promise meant something other than their literal meaning, as you yourself have just pointed out.
Originally Posted by
Dave Noble
By this argument, Qantas enforcing the 4 flight rule would be a "bait and switch"
Actually, our one big complaint about Qantas was precisely the enforcement of the 4-flight rule - or, more precisely, the decision to start enforcing the 4-flight rule for the first time in the middle of a member's membership year, so that flights already credited to Qantas in the membership year to date, in accordance with a plan drawn up before the membership year began on the strength of many years of established contrary practice by Qantas, were wasted for the purposes of earning status.
There was a solid legal route for a complaint, but eventually we obtained our remedy differently by in effect withdrawing our business from QFFF.