|
Originally Posted by Anonba
(Post 32855812)
The option would have been take a voucher before check in closed, unfortunately op missed that deadline.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. |
If this was me OP, I would've immediately gotten on my phone and booked a one-way flight DOH-IST or DOH-FRA etc and shown it to the agents to say that see, I'm going to be transiting on a separate ticket.
|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 32855001)
Right now Dubai would be a better bet, albeit on a BA aircraft.
Again, that's largely down to my own misunderstanding about B2B (not) being transit, otherwise that was a reasonable option, and one I took in March this year. |
Originally Posted by Howard Long
(Post 32856029)
Indeed, the original check in agent had already spoken to me while I was waiting that she was going off to the gate and they'd try to get me on the next flight: I was about to get up and mention to her that I was 5 minutes away from T5 security compliance limit. About fifteen minutes later, her colleague gave me the news I was, by this time, half expecting. So yes, too late for any voucher, but I wouldn't have known that anyway. As mentioned I asked him to make notes on the booking addressing the situation, and I walked over to a BA rep to ask them to do a similar thing. Not that it made any difference.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. |
Originally Posted by nomiiiii
(Post 32856053)
If this was me OP, I would've immediately gotten on my phone and booked a one-way flight DOH-IST or DOH-FRA etc and shown it to the agents to say that see, I'm going to be transiting on a separate ticket.
Not to mention the obvious and morally questionable issue that I really would be operating in bad faith by doing that, and it would be obvious to the check in staff too. I wouldn't want to deliberately put someone in that situation. |
Originally Posted by nufnuf77
(Post 32855032)
I am sorry but no one is asking for your judgemental view of what people ought and ought not do. Human life does have monetary value as many assurance professionals would tell you and NO, life and travel will not just stop to save one person
Sadly your hostile response is exactly why there will likely be likely be laws instituted that are incredibly hostile to the frequent flyer community, and restricting flying. This lack of recognition both of environmental as well as corona impacts is going to have an exceptionally strong counter-response in the post-Covid world where it has become apparent travel for meeting is less essential than first thought. If you want to keep free travel at your whim you need to recognise and at least appear to respond to such concerns. |
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32855891)
I did not. My question was partially rhetorical. Another part was I really wanted to see how exactly this was a EC261 in case I was wrong.
I standby with my comments. While it seems it is moot for now, OP made a mistake. No big deal. The problem is OP claimed a complaint would be filed (which I doubt it is the case now). CS is about serving customers better. There is always a bottom line for CS, as you can't simply accommodate everyone. While I agree that many people are usually banned for life due to major incidents, it does not preclude an airline to "give up" a passenger on CS issue. In fact, this had happened before. as an aside I have no doubt the airlines get some really rubbish/inappropriate complaints... |
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32855891)
I did not. My question was partially rhetorical. Another part was I really wanted to see how exactly this was a EC261 in case I was wrong.
I standby with my comments. While it seems it is moot for now, OP made a mistake. No big deal. The problem is OP claimed a complaint would be filed (which I doubt it is the case now). CS is about serving customers better. There is always a bottom line for CS, as you can't simply accommodate everyone. While I agree that many people are usually banned for life due to major incidents, it does not preclude an airline to "give up" a passenger on CS issue. In fact, this had happened before. Plenty of people complain about care in hospitals. Some are legitimate, others ridiculous. However, none are banned. |
Originally Posted by Anonba
(Post 32856076)
Sorry wasnt having a go just someone asked what were the options.
No worries! |
HowardLong, hope you get the Avios back. I would be writing an e-mail to BA explaining the situation, that you made a misjudgement and whether there was any possibility of some discretion in getting the Avios reinstated.
Good luck! |
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32855891)
I did not. My question was partially rhetorical. Another part was I really wanted to see how exactly this was a EC261 in case I was wrong.
I standby with my comments. While it seems it is moot for now, OP made a mistake. No big deal. The problem is OP claimed a complaint would be filed (which I doubt it is the case now). CS is about serving customers better. There is always a bottom line for CS, as you can't simply accommodate everyone. While I agree that many people are usually banned for life due to major incidents, it does not preclude an airline to "give up" a passenger on CS issue. In fact, this had happened before. |
Originally Posted by wilko1
(Post 32856104)
This is a forum and that is exactly what you get: opinion. As this pandemic has shown you, governments are prepared to torpedo economies far more than the QALY cost of lives saved are worth. This is not simply an economics equation. This is politics: politicians aren’t prepared to let people literally die on the streets because there aren’t enough hospital beds.
Sadly your hostile response is exactly why there will likely be likely be laws instituted that are incredibly hostile to the frequent flyer community, and restricting flying. This lack of recognition both of environmental as well as corona impacts is going to have an exceptionally strong counter-response in the post-Covid world where it has become apparent travel for meeting is less essential than first thought. If you want to keep free travel at your whim you need to recognise and at least appear to respond to such concerns. |
Originally Posted by nomiiiii
(Post 32856053)
If this was me OP, I would've immediately gotten on my phone and booked a one-way flight DOH-IST or DOH-FRA etc and shown it to the agents to say that see, I'm going to be transiting on a separate ticket.
|
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 32856449)
The destination of the ticket would still be Doha and v likely that the requirements to arrive in Doha would have been enforced. Having a separate ticket does not turn it into a transit
|
Originally Posted by ISTFlyer
(Post 32856455)
There were reports on the QR board that people were able to transit at DOH with two separate tickets post-COVID.
Having the returned flight booked from DOH-LHR scheduled to depart at a time where it would be impossible to catch , combined with already having indicated an intent to travel on that flight - I would be surprised if the staff allowed something so obvious an attempt to circumvent the country's requirements |
Originally Posted by Howard Long
(Post 32856151)
No worries!
|
Originally Posted by Newbtravelle
(Post 32857124)
OP just to reiterate what others have mentioned. If staff had sorted things faster (if I understand the FTV) you could have cancelled for a voucher. This is a good point if you make a complaint.
|
Originally Posted by Jed
(Post 32856146)
Any airline that bans a customer for putting in a single complaint arising from an issue such as this risks facing a PR disaster.
Originally Posted by Jed
(Post 32856146)
Plenty of people complain about care in hospitals. Some are legitimate, others ridiculous. However, none are banned.
Originally Posted by itsmeitisss
(Post 32856387)
There is a MASSIVE difference between a lifetime ban and deciding that a customer is beyond helping. If a customer gets a complaint wrong, by ranting and by convincing the CSR that they will "never fly with the airline again" then the CSR may see the customer as being beyond the point of placation. So it is important as a customer to not overplay your hand. But that isn't what the OP is doing, nor is it a ban. If you banned every customer who makes a complaint you would end up with very few customers remaining.
|
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32857303)
If you review the posts again, you should be able to see OP talked tough, insisting that he/she was incorrectly IDBed. And OP intended to file a complaint because of that.
|
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 32857173)
The OP could have thrown the towel in earlier - trying to blame the staff for trying to help seems particularly poor
|
Originally Posted by Newbtravelle
(Post 32857431)
Well it's an awkward one, since the QR staff would likely not have known that cancelling the ticket with BA immediately for an FTV was actually the best option. So they did not do the best thing for the OP at the time, while they may have intended to.
This may be annoying for the OP, but I cannot see any reason to try and blame the staff for what he tried to do |
I think there's a slight irony in that the OP seems to have been extremely polite to everyone at QR, and perhaps this is why they spent 90 minutes doing everything to get him onto the flight. It's conjecture, but if the OP had been rude or unpleasant I imagine they would have sent him away swiftly, which would have meant him having enough time to cancel and claim an FTV.
Could the OP's politeness have cost him the FTV? You may say it's super unlucky for the OP. |
Originally Posted by nomiiiii
(Post 32856053)
If this was me OP, I would've immediately gotten on my phone and booked a one-way flight DOH-IST or DOH-FRA etc and shown it to the agents to say that see, I'm going to be transiting on a separate ticket.
|
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32857303)
Irrelevant. Airlines can create PR disasters even they are doing the right thing.
Hospitals are very different from airlines. If you review the posts again, you should be able to see OP talked tough, insisting that he/she was incorrectly IDBed. And OP intended to file a complaint because of that. |
Originally Posted by itsmeitisss
(Post 32860270)
I keep my view. If you were a company that banned customers for making a complaint you would be out of business in very short order. Rightly so too.
|
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32861131)
That means you really know nothing...Really...
|
Originally Posted by LondonElite
(Post 32861141)
Would you care to elaborate?
I understand many don't believe that 1 complaint/negativity can trigger a ban. But whether an event or incident is sufficient enough to trigger the blacklist is impossible to know. One thing for sure - what itsmeitisss has claimed is definitely meritless, as many companies utilizing blacklists are still standing despite COVID-19. FWIW - even FT here has a blacklist as well, and it is not even a "business". |
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32861183)
The majority of companies, airlines or not, do have blacklists as a matter of fact. It is a matter if you know that and how exactly the lists work.
I understand many don't believe that 1 complaint/negativity can trigger a ban. But whether an event or incident is sufficient enough to trigger the blacklist is impossible to know. One thing for sure - what itsmeitisss has claimed is definitely meritless, as many companies utilizing blacklists are still standing despite COVID-19. FWIW - even FT here has a blacklist as well, and it is not even a "business". Yes, companies have blacklists for crazies who repeatedly complain about minor things in an aggressive manner, or who go off the rails and threaten. They don't blacklist people for making legitimate customer service complaints. I'm not sure I know where to begin, but no business is going to blacklist someone for providing feedback on a situation deemed not to have played out in an ideal way. |
banned for life blacklists
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32857303)
OP talked tough
|
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 32851794)
I think you are confusing the two scenarios in the thread now.
Howard Long (OP) who had LHR-DOH-LHR booked and was denied as he did not have any right to enter Qatar and it was not a transit. nufnuf77, whom Tobias-UK was replying to, and had LHR-DOH-VIE booked and was denied boarding since QR staff incorrectly believed he did not have a right to enter Austria, a clear mistake in his case and therefore gives rise to a claim for denied boarding under Art. 4 EC261. |
Originally Posted by Howard Long
(Post 32856029)
Indeed, the original check in agent had already spoken to me while I was waiting that she was going off to the gate and they'd try to get me on the next flight: I was about to get up and mention to her that I was 5 minutes away from T5 security compliance limit. About fifteen minutes later, her colleague gave me the news I was, by this time, half expecting. So yes, too late for any voucher, but I wouldn't have known that anyway. As mentioned I asked him to make notes on the booking addressing the situation, and I walked over to a BA rep to ask them to do a similar thing. Not that it made any difference.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. ARTICLE 14: ADMINISTRATIVE FORMALITIES 1. General You are solely responsible for complying with all laws, regulations, orders, demands and travel requirements of countries to be flown from, into or over, and with our regulations and instructions. We shall not be liable for any aid or information given by our agents or employee to you in connection with obtaining necessary documents or visas or complying with such laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements, whether given in writing or otherwise; or for the consequences to you resulting from your failure to obtain such documents or visas or to comply with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, requirements. 2. Travel Documents Prior to travel you are required to present all exit, entry, health and other documents required by laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements of the countries concerned and permit us to take and retain copies thereof. We reserve the right to refuse your carriage if you have not complied with applicable laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements or your documents do not appear to be in order, or if you do not permit us to take and retain copies thereof. 3. Refusal of Entry You agree to pay the applicable fare whenever we, on government order, are required to take you to your point of origin or elsewhere, owing to your inadmissibility into a country, whether of transit or of destination. We may apply to the payment of such fare any funds paid to us for unused Carriage, or any of your funds in our possession. We will not refund the fare collected for carriage to the point of refusal of entry or deportation. 4. Passenger Responsible for Fines, Detention Costs If we are required to pay or deposit any fine or penalty or incur any expenditure by reason of your failure to comply with laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements of the countries concerned or to produce the required documents, you will on demand reimburse to us, any amount so paid or deposited and any expenditure so incurred. We may use towards such expenditure any funds paid to us for unused carriage, or any of your funds in our possession 5. Customs Inspection If required, you will attend inspection of your Checked Baggage or Unchecked Baggage by customs or other government officials. We are not liable to you for any loss or damage suffered by you through failure to comply with this requirement. 6. Security Inspection You are required to submit to any security checks by government or airport officials or by us. ARTICLE 7 - CHECK IN You must arrive at our check-in location and boarding gate sufficiently in advance of flight departure to permit completion of any government formalities and departure procedures and in any event not later than the time that we have indicated. If you fail to arrive in time at our check-in location or boarding gate or appear improperly documented and not ready or fit to travel, we may cancel the space reserved for you and will not delay the flight. We are not liable to you for loss or expense due to your failure to comply with the provision of this article. For Tickets purchased through Qatar Airways website or contact centres, we may require you to present the credit card used to purchase the Ticket at the time of airport check-in. ARTICLE 8 - REFUSAL OF AND LIMITATION ON CARRIAGE 1. Right to Refuse Carriage We may refuse carriage of a Passenger or a Passenger’s Baggage for reasons of safety or if, in the exercise of our reasonable discretion, we determine that: 1.1 Such action is necessary in order to comply with any applicable law, regulations or orders of any state or country to be flown, from, into or over; or 1.2 Your conduct, age or mental or physical state, including your impairment from alcohol or drugs is such as to: (A) Require special assistance from us; or (B) Cause discomfort or make yourself objectionable to other passengers; or (C) Involve any hazard or risk to yourself or to other persons or to property; or 1.3 Such action is necessary because you have failed to observe our instructions; or 1.4 You have refused to submit to a security check; or 1.5 The applicable fare or any charges or taxes payable have not been paid, or credit arrangements agreed between us and you (or the person paying for the Ticket) have not been complied with; or 1.6 You do not appear to be properly documented; 1.7 You may seek to enter a country through which you are in transit; or 1.8 You may destroy or otherwise dispose of your documentation during flight; or 1.9 You will not surrender a travel document to be held by the flight crew against receipt, when so requested by us; or 1.10 The Ticket presented by you: (A) Has been acquired unlawfully or has been purchased from an entity other than the issuing Carrier or its authorized agent; or (B) Has been reported as being lost or stolen; or (C) Is a counterfeit Ticket; or (D) Any Flight Coupon has been altered by anyone other than us or another Carrier or our respective authorized agents, or has been mutilated and we reserve the right to retain such Ticket; or 1.11 As the person presenting the Ticket you cannot prove that you are the person named in the “NAME OF PASSENGER” box in the Ticket and we reserve the right to retain such Ticket. 3. Refusal to Carry or Removal of Passenger We may, in our reasonable discretion, refuse to carry you, or remove you en route, due to your conduct, behaviour, physical or mental condition. In such a case, we may cancel the remaining unused portion of the Ticket, and you will not be entitled to further carriage or to a refund, either in respect of the sector, which was the subject of refusal of carriage or removal, or in respect of any subsequent sectors covered by the Ticket. We will not be liable for any consequential loss or damage alleged due to any such refusal of carriage or removal en route. We reserve the right to claim from you all reasonable costs of such removal as referred to in Article 12-2. |
Originally Posted by Prospero
(Post 32862350)
What is interesting is the CoC does not appear to contain any clause(s) stipulating an obligation to formally "land" or to use more precise wording, present oneself at border control at the destination airport.
|
Originally Posted by Jagboi
(Post 32862898)
I imagine the lawyers who drafted those clauses never contemplated that someone would fly to a destination they are ticketed for and not wish to enter the country; but rather remain in limbo in some sort of "no man's land". Doing what the OP contemplated is rather airport specific, as in many places you cannot remain airside without going through border control upon arrival from an international origin.
I am sure QR were pleased last year when Forbes included DOH in its nominated list of airports that are destinations in and of themselves |
Originally Posted by Prospero
(Post 32862967)
You are very possibly correct there, but then the CoC does contain several obscure clauses, such as a no show charge and conditions on the utilisation of empty seats, so why not an obligation to present oneself at Border Control?
I am sure QR were pleased last year when Forbes included DOH in its nominated list of airports that are destinations in and of themselves It would make an interesting court case: “Your honour, I never intended to enter the country, I simply wanted to visit the airport as I am an oversized-teddy-bear-statue enthusiast”. |
Originally Posted by Prospero
(Post 32862350)
I read through Qatar Airways Conditions of Carriage as I enjoyed my coffee this morning. What is interesting is the CoC does not appear to contain any clause(s) stipulating an obligation to formally "land" or to use more precise wording, present oneself at border control at the destination airport.
Article 14 should be read in conjunction with Article 7, Article 8.1, and Article 8.3 1.6 You do not appear to be properly documented; Not having the documents required to be able to enter the destination country, would seem to come under this |
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 32863068)
It does state
1.6 You do not appear to be properly documented; Not having the documents required to be able to enter the destination country, would seem to come under this |
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 32863068)
It does state
1.6 You do not appear to be properly documented; Not having the documents required to be able to enter the destination country, would seem to come under this |
Originally Posted by Prospero
(Post 32863080)
The clause doesn’t give specifics though. My thoughts are Howard Long did have the correct documentation for the purpose of his trip, unless there is something else I am missing
|
Originally Posted by Prospero
(Post 32863080)
The clause doesn’t give specifics though. My thoughts are Howard Long did have the correct documentation for the purpose of his trip, unless there is something else I am missing
|
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 32863092)
You are missing thr fact that Qatar does not all any foreigners to enter.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.