Dave Noble

QR is the only one that is responsible under EC261. Qf had no responsibility at all other than to perhaps reissue a ticket once QR had done its requirements

The travel agent is not responsible for chasing airlines up - only for issuing the ticket

Anything that QF did was above and beyond what it was required to do.

Koru Flyer

Absolutely the travel agent is responsible for chasing up airlines when they have sold a ticket where they is a change or cancellation. The passenger cannot do this as the operating carrier is not authorised to make a change without the agent's approval of that change. This is the reason that we have travel agents to act on our behalf when there is an issue. QF just like any agent was absolutely responsible for following up with QR after receiving instructions from the pax, on what options that QR is offering for rebooking in accordance with EC261. Of course QF cannot act without authorisation, but is responsible for contacting QR for solutions under EC261.

To say a travel agents responsibility ends with the issuing of a ticket is bizarre.

This is pretty much the basis of consumer law. i.e. it is about the delivery of the product not the issuing of a ticket. If you buy a TV to collect in a a few weeks, the shops responsibility does not end at the sale, but at the delivery of the product as ordered. If it cannot deliver the product as ordered it needs to find a solution. Either from its own stock (i.e. QF flights) or from the supplier (QR flights). Yes I know airlines are not JBHifi but sometimes we make it way too complex.

And for where therefore QF agrees - admittedly I could not be bothered to search the QR website but I would imagine it says that same as it is pretty industry standard with cancellations.
"If your flights were booked through a travel agency or third-party website (for example Webjet or Booking.com), contact these companies directly to discuss your options."

So the operating carrier would expect you to go back to the originating carrier or who ever is acting as the agent to sort it out. Unless it has moved to under the airports control. I am not sure why this is new news, so contentious or why you are so passionate about this.

KF

Dave Noble

EC261 vrey specifically puts the requirement on the operating carrier. This is a specific consumer law in Europe that puts the onus on the operating carrier to fix the issue

In other regions, QR can just cancel flights and get out of it by just cancellimg the ticket and leaving the travel agent to refund or look for availability to rebook

QF went above and beyond what it was required to do in assisting the passenger and does deserve credit for doing so - it was not just doing its job

Koru Flyer

Having and continuing to live in Europe. I flatly disagree, as what you describe does not match any experience or what happens with other airlines in the same situation. Yes there are outliers and cases that go to MCOL, but those are the exceptions. EC261 has been around for 10+ years, everyone knows what is expected in 99% of cases.

I should also add that my experience of buying tickets in AU through a travel agent, when it has gone wrong, the agent steps in on my behalf and negotiates with the operating carrier to sort out any EC261 issue.

when booked through a third party the third party deals with the operating carrier on behalf on the pax. Period.

Given that from the other thread where experience QF flyers, do not even trust QF to make a simple change to a booking without stuffing it up, we could agree that managing to do something half way competent and standard for any other carrier is QF going above.

KF