IAN-UK

Well, that might be so where the final destination is within Europe, or the airline is a Community carrier.

There's quite a bit of information on delays caused by missed connections outside the EU.

e.g. http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the...004-mis-78825/


Where incidents at an airport outside the EU involving non-Community carriers have resulted in a delay arriving at a final destination (think CX and HKG to Sydney), courts in the UK have not been sympathetic to claimants.

The court has tended to look on the ticketed journey as separate flight units, each one required to answer to the scope of the Regulation. Clearly the second sector (e.g. HKG SYD on CX) is difficult to slot into EC261.

One judge observed that, otherwise, a round-the-world ticket would afford the opportunity for claims on each step of the journey. The nonsense of confusing consecutive but non-connecting flights (RTW) with a journey comprising a direct transfer between two flights eluded him.

mario

I just had a look at my booking for December and I've been automatically rebooked to SYD instead of AKL, albeit with a 23 hour stopover in DOH. Ticket also appears to have been reissued.

Anyone else had this?

babyg_wc

Same here, my DOH - AKL is now DOH - SYD.
But the DOH - SYD leaves before my PISA - DOH arrives!!
I rang Qatar they arent playing nicely. They gave 3 options
Leave it as is (arrive SYD)
Get a refund
Pay for any further changes

mario

Still don't know why is everyone pushing for EU261... There is no need to go that far, just have a look at Qatar's own Conditions of Carriage. They are the ones saying that they will rebook you on another carrier.

ARTICLE 10 - SCHEDULES, CANCELLATION OF FLIGHTS
1. Schedules
1.1 We undertake to use our best efforts to carry you and your Baggage with reasonable dispatch and to adhere to published schedules in effect on the date of travel, but no particular time is fixed for the commencement or completion of carriage, and times shown in timetables or elsewhere are approximate and not guaranteed, and do not form part of the Conditions of Contract. Schedules are subject to change without notice, and we assume no liability for making connections.
1.2 We may without notice, substitute alternative carriers, or aircraft.
2. Cancellation, Changes of Schedule etc.
2.1 If we cancel or delay a flight, are unable to provide previously confirmed space, fail to stop at a Passenger stopover or destination point, or cause you to miss a connecting flight on which you hold a reservation, we shall either:
(i) Carry you on another of our scheduled Passenger services on which space is available; or
(ii) Re-route you to the destination indicated on the Ticket or applicable portion thereof by our own scheduled services or the scheduled services of another carrier, or by means of surface transportation. If the sum of the fare, excess Baggage charge and any applicable service charge for the revised routing is higher than the refund value of the Ticket or applicable portion thereof, we will not require additional fare or charges from you and will refund the difference if the fare and charge for the revised routing are lower; or
(iii) Make a refund in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 and shall be under no further liability to you.
2.2 Upon the occurrence of any of the events set out in Article 10.2.1 except as otherwise provided by the applicable Convention, the options outlined in Article 10.2.1(i) through 10.2.1(iii) are the sole and exclusive remedies available to you and we shall have no further liability to you.

Dan1113

Did 'leave it as it is' involve changing your first flight so you can actually catch the flight to SYD?

I guess this means they are trying to charge you to add that extra leg to AKL - so they are offering just getting to SYD?

IAN-UK

The slight problem is getting them to follow those terms and conditions...

Hawes7701

I Am most definitely not an expert in this or indeed overly familiar but given that it states that......

"we shall either"

..,,could they not argue that they are offering option (iii)?

I hope I'm mis-reading this but anyone with a better understanding.......?

mario

Clause 2.2 to me reads as that these are the options available to you.

Hawes7701

Interesting. Nothing really reads too clearly to me. That part does seem to states it customers choice but in turn contradicts section 10.

Oh well, fingers crossed no one has to go down this route.

IAN-UK

Taking EC261 as an industry standard (and why not ?), then the interpretation of Qatar's fuzziness appears as customers' choice of the options.

But, there again, we are talking QR logic...

msm2000uk

IAN-UK,

You don't seem to be a fan of QR.

Everyone has their own opinions of course, but might I ask why you dislike them as much as it seems?

Purely curious,

M

1Aturnleft

I don't get the impression IAN-UK is not a QR fan from what he's posted in this thread. But even as a QR Ambassador yourself you have to admit the rebook guidelines in this situarion have ranged from the most generous to the most ridiculous in a matter of days. It's hardly a 5* experience from a customer perspective is it?

IAN-UK

I'm a hypocrite: I'll trade comfort at low fares against an organisation I'm uncomfortable with. I'm back with Lufthansa, Swiss and BA when fares are on par with those of Qatar.

I don't particularly "like" any carrier, but I trust BA et al: I have confidence in their culture of safety.

Currently QR's got up my nose with the nonsense about New Zealand. I'm in the fortunate position of not being too fussed about the outcome, but I hate getting messed about: I hate even more seeing others, more committed than I to a NZ trip, get pissed about after committing funds and their plans to the trip.

The airline has good people working for them, but they get bounced into loony actions: perhaps why there's such high management turnover.

intuition

Excellent information and excellently put.



Can anyone of you well-informed comment on the likelihood of FEB launch?
Is there a risk that QR would just simply abandon the idea of AKL altogether?

msm2000uk

I agree the shift from one side to the other, in terms of booking allowances, is rather strong.

However, I feel QR allowed themselves to be taken advantage of by releasing the first round of rebooking guidelines. When they realised what was happening, and what it was costing them, they backtracked to the sort of guidelines I had expected in the first place.

To give an example, there were passengers booked FRA-DOH-AKL, who were then rebooked LHR-DOH-HKG-PER-SYD-AKL - spending 23 hours in HKG and SYD en route to AKL. Now, call me harsh, but I think that was overly generous of QR.

My view, is simply that they should have offered passengers a refund in the first place, and have done with. If their services are not operating, then there is little then can do - as has been seen by rebooking passengers to SYD - and basically stranding them there (which I think it very wrong).

Should QR have loaded the fares, and then remove them a week later? No. It was a daft (and costly) thing to do. Will QR lose passengers through their current actions? Perhaps from FT (a micro percentile) yes, but not from the general public.

QR's customer service comes in for a lot of flak on FT, and while I have never had any issues with them worth starting a thread about, I have had interaction with them. In my issues, they were resolved swiftly, and very much to my satisfaction.

However, I am certainly in the minority on FT for CS on QR. I would be foolish to ignore the number of FTers who have had issues with QR, and I would hope it's an area they are looking at improving.

While QR is a 5 Star airline (according to Skytrax), the most recent reports on Skytrax do seem to be mostly negative.

That being said, you still get far more than you pay for on QR, and I strongly believe passengers will continue flying on them.

As always, purely my opinion.

M