LHR/MEL/Europe FF

which is all fine... except that they continued to operate their code shares. if they genuinely believed it was in the best interests of passengers to not fly, they should also have withdrawn all code share tickets.

as for booking passengers on to other services... I have a strong belief that had an accident occurred then legal liability in the form of negligence would have arisien on qf's part... was there a duty of care? (yes) was there a breach of that duty? (maybe... all their advice was that it was unsafe to fly, therefore they should not have rebooked onto an 'unsafe' flight), was there damage? (that would depend on the seriousness of the accident)

there would also have been actions available for passengers against the operating airline... along the same grounds. the two actions could have been taken separately...

Dave Noble

I disagree... the liability would be with the operating carrier that believed it was safe to operate; the passengers , I assume, could have just waited for QF to restart operations rather than being protected across onto the other carrier

QF is liable for the safety of its own flights and not responsible for other airlines, regardless it is a moot point. I also fail to see that the ash cloud has any bearing on the events relating to the OP

vbroucek

+1 - Airlines are not charities...

Lonely Flyer

This dog dont hunt.

Globaliser

But your premise is unsound here. You actually have no way of knowing whether the other airlines were all in the wrong, or whether everyone was right because they were all acting on the advice that they were each individually given. This was a situation in which those whose job it is to give advice were divided (as they were during the earlier Icelandic event).

If QF breaks its contract with the passenger, the passenger has their remedy. QF can't break its contract with impunity.

Your complaint is really that QF's contract is written so that it's not in breach even when it's doing something with which you personally disagree. There are remedies for that too. In the UK, unfair contract terms are void; I'm sure there must be something similar in Australia and many other places. So if you persuade a court that QF's contract is unfair, you'll get a remedy too. The fact that no court has yet been persuaded of this might be a good indication that there's actually nothing wrong with QF's contract, even though it leaves many of these risks with the passenger who gets frustrated when they have to bear them.

ButFli

All this talk of contracts and breaking contracts is misguided. A ticket to travel on an aircraft is not a contract.

Globaliser

Of course it's a contract!

What do you think it is, if it's not a contract?

Often1

1. A ticket alone is not a contract. But, in conjunction with the COC and anything which the COC incorporates (fare rules) it's a contract. Pax always free to negotiate with the carrier to change COC (not likely to be accepted) and pax then has choice of accepting or rejecting the contract and flying or not, as s/he chooses.

2. The eventuality of improper or missing entry docs. for intl. flight is expressly covered under IATA convention in every intl. carrier's COC and provides for a refund so long as the pax shows up timely for doc. check. Thus, the example of the China-bound pax without a visa has nothing to do with OP's wife's situation.

3. Medical fitness to fly is ultimately up to the carrier. Here OP's wife may or may not have been fit to fly, but is apparently unable to complete the purpose for her trip, e.g., to run a race. This eventuality is dealt with through insurance and some people, such as OP do insure which is a sensible thing and others choose not to and shoulder the risk of a health condition themselves.

kangela

Ahem.... there is a lot of talk about rules and contracts and rights and all things proper.

It would seem that the OP was merely expressing a feeling about the lack of compassion from the carrier - in much the same way a parking attendant gets a similar label when he/she issues a ticket when you have parked on double lines to drop your grandma in front of the blue rinse place.

ButFli

A ticket is merely a receipt for a prepaid fare. It is a written offer capable of acceptance by conduct. Acceptance occurs when the passenger turns up at the airport and hands over their ticket as they board the plane. For this reason, the law of contracts cannot easily be applied to tickets.

Passenger must seek remedy under statutory consumer law.

Dave Noble

The booking of a flight is the entering in to a contract of carriage

*if* your assertion had validity, what would be the situation with airlines which do not issue tickets?

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

(my emphasis)

Yes but very few airlines are ever willing to let ticket cases get to court... most likely because it would open a can or worms.


Agree, but Qantas lists incorrect documents under a wide range of reasons why they may refuse carriage. Medical compliance is another. Qantas makes it look like they have no liability and no refund is due if you fall under any category of the 'refusal to carry' section. This is simply not correct, because, at least, if they make an error then they have to refund your fare.


This is in fact correct as far as i was taught. A purported contract such as an airline ticket would likely be considered void for uncertainty... (they don't guarantee to carry you at the time stated, or to the destination printed on the ticket).

There is considerable debate as to when the actual contract forms... which as ButFli points out, probably occurs some time at the airport. Actually sitting on the plane is one school of thought, the other is the time you check in... and that once you have checked in then the carrier is telling you that the xx service is going to fly at that time and to that place. And they assume responsibility for you at that point.

There was also some discussion (this is a big 'if' and this has not been tested as far as I know) whether it might be possible to form a contract at an earlier time, which could be, for example, if you ring the airline and say 'I need to be in Sydney/London (wherever) for a meeting/wedding (whatever) at 9am on 5th October, which service will get me there for that?'

If the agent then says 'our 630am service will be suitable for you' that may be grounds to form a contract. It certainly might be grounds to establish fitness for purpose.

however, this purpose would need to be documented in your PNR or somehow other recorded...

Dave... so not the act of handing the ticket over per se, but the act of checking in... or some would argue not until you are actually seated on the plane...

Often1

All - The COC is by definition a contract. And yes, there has been very real litigation around the world about this issue, usually in serious situations such as air diasters and so forth. In every one, the COC is a contract and it comes into full force and effect when the ticket is purchased.

All carriers do issue tickets, they simply do so in different ways. Legally, no difference between a handwritten ticket as in days of old or e-ticket sent over the Internet.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

not all carriers do issue tickets... some such as jetstar only issue receipts for travel... what the legal difference is I'm not sure, but they try and state they don't issue tickets...

no one is denying an airline ticket is a contract... eventually... it just depends on when that takes effect. clearly once a person is involved in an accident then they have gone past a point where a contract has formed.

in modern day air travel there are many things yet to be tested in courts (that airlines don't want us to either)... for example, if you have a non-refundable, non-changeable fare, then question whether the overbooking terms in a contract can still apply? in days of old passengers used to book multiple seats etc etc, but these days... if you have such ticket then I'm not sure overbooking would still hold up...

question today whether not using the return sector of a round trip would entitle an airline to charge the full one way (and possibly bill you extra). is that a penalty clause?

but I digress...

what this discussion was to try and do was look at perceptions of contracts. so many people quote airline cocs as being gospel. I don't know why

Globaliser

Apart from this being wrong, you (as the passenger) really do not want to be in this position.

The conditions of carriage, which form part of the contract, govern many things including the respective rights and obligations of the airline and the passenger before the passenger reaches the airport.

If, as you assert, there is no contract before the passenger presents himself for check-in, then the passenger cannot enforce any of the rights which the conditions of carriage or the fare rules give him before this point in his journey. So, for example, if you were right about this the passenger could not insist on being charged only the change fee specified in the fare rules, but would be at the airline's mercy as to whatever change fee the airline "offers" in negotiations about the contract which is to be formed when the passenger arrives at the airport. Or, in the case of fare rules that expressly provide for a right to free rebooking if the check-in deadline for the flight is missed by a small margin, the passenger could not enforce this right and it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

Statutory consumer law often gives the passenger virtually no rights in such cases.

So just a moment's thought will demonstrate why your proposition would lead to completely unacceptable results for the passenger. And, indeed, why your proposition is totally incorrect.

If you want to play pedant with the language, the ticket (paper or electronic) which is issued by an airline is generally evidence of payment and evidence of the existence of the contract which has been made, the full terms of which are found spread out in a number of places including the conditions of carriage and the fare rules.