msm2000uk

It appears that QR have realised their original policy was too lenient, and now changed it.

I'm not an expert on EU261 (there is a truly excellent thread about it on the BA Forum), but I would have thought QR have the right to make changes to the booking within a certain period (perhaps 14 days) before anything is due.

As most of the bookings are circa 5-7 months away, that surely must come into play too.

I presume QR realised that it's cheaper for them to refund customers, than pay for them to travel on alternative carriers.

I will try and get more info on Thursday when I'm at HIA again.

Dan1113

Out of curiosity, I phoned QR and the lady explained what has been said, that the policy is:

You get 3 options:
1. Rebook for free on the AKL flights after 06 Feb.
2. Re-route via SYD/HKG but pay the difference.
3. Refund

I asked if the rebooking would be free if you wanted the trip to just finish in SYD, and book the rest (to AKL) yourself (or stay in SYD obviously), and she said no - this would be an normal paid changed booking.

I mentioned EC261 but she just repeated the above without addressing it directly.

1Aturnleft

My thought process is this new rebook policy is designed to encourage as many people as possible to cancel. It does not take into account the directive laid down in EC261 regarding flight cancellation that states:

If a flight is cancelled, passengers are automatically entitled to their choice of
(a.) re-routing to the same destination at the earliest opportunity (under comparable conditions);
(b.) later rerouting, at the passenger's convenience, to the same destination under comparable conditions (subject to seat availability); or
(c.) a refund of the ticket. Any ticket refund is the price paid for the flight(s) not used.

I'm imagining the revised policy comes form QR HQ where there isn't a complete understanding of the obligations required under EU law for EU departing passengers.
I would like to think that further revision will be made in due course.

I also concur the QR Euro Reservations Team have no clout to overturn or manipulate this latest directive. The best that can happen now is a revised policy will be released overruling the current inadequate and in my view illegal one. Good luck everyone affected

And yes I am affected with an ex EU QR AKL itinerary departing in December so have a very vested interest in this forum at present.

alex350

When I called them earlier today the new policy was reconfirmed to me. Really gutted as was ready to rebook the flights yesterday but was not sure on the best routing.

They said there was nothing they could do but that I should submit a complaint to their Customer Service address ([email protected]). Should there be a lot of complaints perhaps they will have to rethink it soon enough... Or perhaps that's me being too optimistic

ft101

I don't think QR will give anything on the EU261 approach. Their stance (similar to that of the other Gulf carriers) is that the flight affected is DOH-AKL which is outside the scope of the regulations.

I know the argument is that the flight booked is EU-DOH-AKL, but there have been no test cases to my knowledge where the airlines' interpretation has been challenged. It would need someone to take it to court to get a ruling, though the airline might cave in before then as it would expose them to paying many more claims.

bdm82

Do we think that QR will back track on those who took advantage of their generous initial re-routing options? Do QR have form for cancelling bookings that have left the revenue department reeling in their seats?

1Aturnleft

The way I'm feeling right now, I'm quite prepared to take that ruling on!

1Aturnleft

Reroute fees/lost revenue that no doubt QR can pin against Airbus for late delivery of A350's and get compensated for. I doubt they would interfere with bookings already changed and reissued.

bdm82

I like that perspective

highlandguy

Not sure QR can pin costs on Airbus for flights in Dec & Jan which were sold at a time when it was already known the planes would not be available.

Lefly

It was too good to last...

At this point I hope the route start date will not move too far into the year, as I have no intention to ask for a refund. Price and departure point were too much convenient.

remdk

My reading of EC261 is that
1 EC261 is valid until the Final destination. It does not mean just DOH. No wriggle room. I seem to remember a judgement by the EU courts to this effect about last November.
2 Passengers, NOT QR must be presented with a number of different choices. Articles 5 and 8.

I hope this rather disjointed post helps to clarify the position for those where EC261 applies;

The following extracts of EC261 document the points. (My bold)

Article 2 h) ‘final destination’ means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected;

Article 5 Cancellation
1.
In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and
(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and

Article 8
1.
Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
(a) — reimbursement within seven days, by the means
provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or
parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any
purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,
— a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.

IAN-UK

Leniency suggests clemency and forgiveness: that its putative passengers were somehow in the wrong, tricksters taking advantage of an unintended opportunity.

In fact, the airline promoted the fares and happily took customers' cash, issued the tickets. Then immediately after the sale, found out they won't have enough aircraft to follow through with their contractual obligations. An odd way to do business....

It acted stupidly, rather than generously, in issuing those original, barmy, guidelines for rebooking. It has now compounded that stupidity with an incomprehensible volte face.

This has the hallmark of al Baker's rule by whim. Perhaps a decision fuelled by lawyers and insurers warning that the cost of the cock-up can't be shifted onto Airbus. But again, odd: for an airline losing as many millions of dollars a day/month/year as Qatar, the sums involved must be peanuts.




Qatar has a contractual obligation to get ticket-holders to their final destination; and with a minimum of inconvenience. Simple as that.

msm2000uk

To those who have PM'ed me both on and off-site, please give me 24 hours to respond...I do have a day job too

M

ft101

That would be most interesting.