Jetstar criticised after boys' soccer team stranded

[needaholiday]

From ABC Newsonline

"No frills airline Jetstar has been criticised after its staff allegedly refused to help a group of Hobart schoolboys whose flight home from Melbourne was cancelled."

"Parents of the team are upset at the way the situation was handled by Jetstar staff.

They say staff called security and asked them to leave the terminal without offering accommodation for the night."


More..http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1687860.htm

and http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1687988.htm

 

[Dave Noble]

They probably treated the boys like any other customer. Why should they expect any special treatment?

Dave

 

[JohnK]

They say staff called security and asked them to leave the terminal without offering accommodation for the night."

If Jetstar is the future I think all other airlines flying to/from Australia will experience exponential growth in passenger numbers.

 

[Dave Noble]

There are 2 sides to the story. JQ claims that security was called due to some of the passengers being aggressive

The flight problems were caused by fog and so was weather related .Unsurprisingly, JQs policy is not to cough up compensation when it isn't required. I don't see the newsworthyness of the story unless it was "really slow news day".

Dave

 

[NM]

There are 2 sides to the story. JQ claims that security was called due to some of the passengers being aggressive

The flight problems were caused by fog and so was weather related .Unsurprisingly, JQs policy is not to cough up compensation when it isn't required. I don't see the newsworthyness of the story unless it was "really slow news day".

Dave

In my opinion, the newsworthiness of the story is that the soccer team management had not planned for this contingency. Anyone taking children on such a trip has a duty of care to ensure they are properly looked after. In my experience with children's activities, that includes considering possible disruptions to the plans.

Now this is a particularly sensitive issue as the team's management now needs to find appropriate accommodation for their charges. It news articles note that some parents were accompanying the team, but does not state of all children has a parent/guardian with them. So the team management has the problem of ensuring each child is safe and that is not easy when it comes to 12yo boys in hotel accommodation (who shares with who?).

As someone who works regularly with children of this age, I am very aware of the "duty of care" requirements imposed by our state law.

Now the soccer team's poor planning should not become Jetstar's problem. Jetstar is not a charity or child support agency.

 

[oz_mark]

Having slept in an airport terminal before, it is not the most comfortable of nights. However, I agree that the soccer team management should have been able to deal with the situation that arose.

One wonders if they were travelling with any kind of travel insurance.

 

[Dave Noble]

In my opinion, the newsworthiness of the story is that the soccer team management had not planned for this contingency. Anyone taking children on such a trip has a duty of care to ensure they are properly looked after. In my experience with children's activities, that includes considering possible disruptions to the plans.

Now this is a particularly sensitive issue as the team's management now needs to find appropriate accommodation for their charges. It news articles note that some parents were accompanying the team, but does not state of all children has a parent/guardian with them. So the team management has the problem of ensuring each child is safe and that is not easy when it comes to 12yo boys in hotel accommodation (who shares with who?).

As someone who works regularly with children of this age, I am very aware of the "duty of care" requirements imposed by our state law.

Now the soccer team's poor planning should not become Jetstar's problem. Jetstar is not a charity or child support agency.

If the tone of the piece was criticising the Association Football Team's organisers for not properly planning for eventualities like this in their risk assessment, I'd fully agree. At the minimum they should have ensured that the parents/guardians had taken appropriate insurance or were prepared to pay up expenses that could be incurred in such a situation

My thought, as you refer to, is it is nothing to do with Jetstar that there was a kids AF team booked.

I think it is great that QF does assist beyond the legal necessities when weather problems occur, but that is not a requirement and is quite common elsewhere for airlines to not provide accommodation et al when weather related problems occur

Book on an LCC and you cannot expect frills imo

Dave

 

[JohnK]

Book on an LCC and you cannot expect frills imo

Is it a concern that the Jetstar brand will be the future of QF?

 

[N860CR]

Unfortunatley when travelling to/from Tassie, LCC's are pretty much the only option. Hopefully people will smarten up and start flying DJ over this JQ thing. At least Virgin put you in a hotel when they cancel your flight and leave you stranded overnight.

 

[CO BNE]

At least Virgin put you in a hotel when they cancel your flight and leave you stranded overnight.

Are you actually speaking from experience of a Virgin Blue flight cancelled due to weather?

I'd like to refer you to the following and let you make assumptions on what the words mean.

8. The Guest acknowledges that the Carrier may need to cancel or delay and reschedule flights or services due to industrial action, landing restrictions, airport loading restrictions, unsuitable weather conditions, technical problems or any event beyond the Carrier's reasonable control, and scheduled flight times or destinations are not guaranteed. In no circumstances will the Carrier be liable for any Losses which a Guest may incur as a result of any such delayed or rescheduled flight or service.
full terms and conditions of carriage

 

[oz_mark]

For what it is worth, the Jetstar clause:

Jetstar does not guarantee it will be able to to carry you and your Baggage in accordance with the scheduled date and time of the flights specified. Schedules may change without notice for a range of reasons including but not limited to bad weather, air traffic control delays, strikes, technical disruptions and late inbound aircraft. To the extent permitted by law, Jetstar excludes liability for any costs, expenses, losses or Damages incurred by the Passenger as a result of failure to meet a schedule.

 

[Commuter]

I think everyone should be aware of the T&C and not whinge when the company does nothing above what they promised in their T&C.

 

[dajop]

With the points you have all raised, is the article all that bad? Sure it bags Jetstar, and the tone is a bit bleeding hearts (hey it's a wonder Naomi wasn't out there with a camera crew), but it serves the purpose of educating the public that Jetstar won't help you out in the case things go pear shaped. That way the public can make an informed choice whether or not they want to pay a premium in $$ (and in many cases time as well) to use QF services.

I know we can't expect to have our cake and eat it with low fares, but quite often these things are hidden in legalese that the vast majority of the public are not aware of.

 

[GDSman]

RE the T&Cs of the LCCs and the suggestion that 'you get what you pay for'....does QF commit that it will compensate for delay/accommodate delayed pax on Domestic services? It may do electively but I wasn't aware of either a commitment or a legal requirement to do so.

 

[Yada Yada]

They probably treated the boys like any other customer. Why should they expect any special treatment?

LMAO!!! So I take it that you do not work in any kind of role that intefaces with customers, Dave?

I agree Jetstar did not have to offer any help whatsoever according to their T&C's. Most companies have T&C's that are similarly quite strict. However in the interest of good customer relations, most companies are also flexible when it comes the application of their T&C's in order to maintain and build goodwill and loyalty, and avoid bad publicity.

I think that Jetstar could have handled this in a way that got the message across that they were not liable for the costs of accommodating the boys, but that would have provided some other basic assistance that would not have cost them much and stopped this becoming a nasty piece of publicity. For example, a few phone calls to arrange some local transport to a local hotel/motel, and perhaps arrange some discount overnight rates.

Aside from all that, I think that children actually do deserve some "special treatment". It is simple human decency. I find it hard to believe that anyone would barrack for JQ on this point. :-|

I'm a bit confused about some of the details reported:

"We arrived at Tullamarine to take our flight back to Hobart - they've just told us they've cancelled the flight and now they're evicting us all into Melbourne's rain," he said.
"They're offering nothing, absolutely nothing - not a shred of concern from any of the staff at all.
"There were about nine of them here, and not one of them has offered anything."

The group of 22 children and parents spent the night at another terminal at Melbourne airport and hope to be on a plane about mid-morning.

I thought that JQ only operated out of AVV. The story seems to refer to MEL. With respect to the comment about the terminal closing and them spending the night at another terminal, are they meaning that walked from T1 to T2?

 

[serfty]

... I thought that JQ only operated out of AVV. The story seems to refer to MEL. With respect to the comment about the terminal closing and them spending the night at another terminal, are they meaning that walked from T1 to T2?

JQ fly ex AVV for SYD, BNE, PER & ADL only.

All other destinations use MEL T1 (generally gates 6,8 & 10; other gates when necessary).

 

[dajop]

. However in the interest of good customer relations, most companies are also flexible when it comes the application of their T&C's in order to maintain and build goodwill and loyalty, and avoid bad publicity.

I think that Jetstar could have handled this in a way that got the message across that they were not liable for the costs of accommodating the boys, but that would have provided some other basic assistance that would not have cost them much and stopped this becoming a nasty piece of publicity. For example, a few phone calls to arrange some local transport to a local hotel/motel, and perhaps arrange some discount overnight rates.

You're probably right re the goodwill side ... it wouldn't be too costly to have a contingency plan for such situations that includes an offer to arrange for local accommodation at the customers expense (eg in this instance calls to the Hilton, Holiday Inn, Formula 1 and several of the nearby airport motels). Might also avoid a bit of angst and the need to call in a security guard.

Even without going this far, it would make sense to have a one page A4 sheet to hand to pax explaining the airlines positions and listing details of transport & accommodation options including approximate prices and phone numbers. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard ..... "Jetstar aims to provide consistent low fares blah blah. We strive to keep costs low so you can fly more often. As part of keeping costs and fares low, when factors beyond our control (such as bad weather) mean that we have to delay or cancel a flight to ensure your safety, we cannot provide accommodation and transport to you. If you do need here are details of accommoddation and transport options ....."

 

[Dave Noble]

Aside from all that, I think that children actually do deserve some "special treatment". It is simple human decency. I find it hard to believe that anyone would barrack for JQ on this point. :-|

If they were UMs , then I might well agree with you, however they were in an organised group. It is the organisers responsibility, not Jetstar's to plan and react to unexpected eventualities.

I'm not a great fan of Jetstar , but I can't find fault with them when they act in accordance to the T&Cs.

Dave

 

[Yada Yada]

If they were UMs , then I might well agree with you, however they were in an organised group. It is the organisers responsibility, not Jetstar's to plan and react to unexpected eventualities.

I'm not a great fan of Jetstar , but I can't find fault with them when they act in accordance to the T&Cs.

While I agree that JQ are acting in accordance with their T&C's and therefore have no responsibility to help, I maintain that they do themselves a huge disservice by not being helpful in such situations, and especially so when children of any age, accompanied or not, are involved. It is asking for bad publicity.

 

[Dave Noble]

While I agree that JQ are acting in accordance with their T&C's and therefore have no responsibility to help, I maintain that they do themselves a huge disservice by not being helpful in such situations, and especially so when children of any age, accompanied or not, are involved. It is asking for bad publicity.

Then that is completely unfair situation. Any family travelling get freebies from JQ if there's a problem whilst other groups are left to sort themselves out.

Have people not heard of travel insurance ?

Dave