Firefly FY2081 PEN-SZB delayed & pax transfer to MAS

[liza 1]

This morning, 0715am FY2081 Firefly PEN-SZB was delayed due to technical problem. As first, check-in counter informed that the flight delayed to 12noon. After further discussion, they agreed to put all the pax on MAS MH1137 0800am.

 

However, we have to fork out the cost from KLIA back to city centre, one the other hand, it was a relieve with fast action by Firefly to accommodate to such situation which most of pax are traveling to attend business meetings etc etc. One familiar face was Dato' Seri Dr Hilmi Yahya(State members - Teluk Bahang)

 

I myself was so frustrated as I really looking forward for this trip as I never fly with firefly before!

[affendi osman 0]

Been in that situation before. To make thing worst, my firefly flight was cancelled and all of us were transferred to MH.

 

Think positively, yes....KUL is far from city centre. At least, you made it to KUL, rather than spending your time at PEN. 45 minutes delay compared to 4 hours, which one would you prefer?

[flee 5]

They shud have bussed the FY pax from KUL to SZB. Otherwise they are in breach of contract.

[Mushrif A 3]

Eaxctly! Unless the pax signed a waiver, FY is actually in breach of contract if it fails to deliver pax to Subang, whether by air or surface modes. The pax is not ticketed to KUL. The pax should have insisted FY to pay for transport to Subang.

[Pieter C. 5]

Eaxctly! Unless the pax signed a waiver, FY is actually in breach of contract if it fails to deliver pax to Subang, whether by air or surface modes. The pax is not ticketed to KUL. The pax should have insisted FY to pay for transport to Subang.

 

Is this true ?

What is stated on your (E)-ticket ?

Kuala Lumpur Subang or only Kuala Lumpur ?

[flee 5]

Is this true ?

What is stated on your (E)-ticket ?

Kuala Lumpur Subang or only Kuala Lumpur ?

Pieter,

 

Flights headed for Subang carry the SZB code while flights into KLIA will be showing KUL on tickets.

[liza 1]

exactly, they should deliver to SZB, as stated in the ticket. No doubt, their arrangement to transfer pax to KUL as immediate actions been welcomed in ensuring the pax arrived "nearest" to the actual port, the extra arrangement pax have to do in last minute were quite troublesome and not to mention extra cost incurred.

 

Somehow, due to time constraint, seems like everybody is happy with arrangement, "at least we'll reach there slightly late, rather than too late". Even though the full rights as users not been utilized!

[Tim Lee 6]

Eaxctly! Unless the pax signed a waiver, FY is actually in breach of contract if it fails to deliver pax to Subang, whether by air or surface modes. The pax is not ticketed to KUL. The pax should have insisted FY to pay for transport to Subang.

 

Please read the Conditions of Carriage which can be found below before making erroneous statements about breach of contract.

 

http://www.fireflyz.com.my/conditions-of-carriage/clause-9

 

Been in that situation before. To make thing worst, my firefly flight was cancelled and all of us were transferred to MH.

 

Think positively, yes....KUL is far from city centre. At least, you made it to KUL, rather than spending your time at PEN. 45 minutes delay compared to 4 hours, which one would you prefer?

 

Yes if on another airline, you would have ended up being delayed for many more hours or have had to cancel the trip entirely.

[Mushrif A 3]

Dear Tim Lee,

 

Please start with Clause 4.1 of the Conditions of Carriage, before u venture to clause 9. FY did not satisfy clause 4.1.

[Lim ML 0]

You guys are lucky to have made your trip in the end. no matter what. A colleague of mine who booked tix from Firefly from Senai to Penang and return in October got a call from Firefly telling him that the flight has been cancelled!

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Dear Tim Lee,

 

Please start with Clause 4.1 of the Conditions of Carriage, before u venture to clause 9. FY did not satisfy clause 4.1.

 

Point of destination can be interpreted differently. Does it mean the destination airport, or just the destination in general?

[Tim Lee 6]

Dear Tim Lee,

 

Please start with Clause 4.1 of the Conditions of Carriage, before u venture to clause 9. FY did not satisfy clause 4.1.

 

Read it again and you will find that Clause 4.1 refers to the fare and not Firefly's obligation and limitations of carriage. 4.1 imposes upon you of Firefly's limits on your entitlement for the fare you paid. 4.1 is a one way clause.

 

Whereas 9.2.b states that Firefly can alter the schedule.

[Mushrif A 3]

Point of destination can be interpreted differently. Does it mean the destination airport, or just the destination in general?

 

It actually says "[...] airport at the point of destination." Not just "point of destination" as you claimed.

 

Which is why Pieter in post #5 asked a pertinent question...did the e-ticket say Subang or just Kuala Lumpur? If the latter, then FY would have fulfilled its obligation if pax were delivered to KUL, as KL is served by SZB and KUL. If the former, i.e. Subang, which is more specific, then it has to be SZB.

 

Evidence suggests that FY's e-ticket explicitly states Subang/ SZB as opposed to just KL.

 

 

Whereas 9.2.b states that Firefly can alter the schedule.

 

Nobody is disputing the alteration in schedules.

 

The fact is FY failed to deliver pax to the ticketed destination, which a fare has been paid for.

[flee 5]

In my experience, when airlines divert their flights, they do not usually tell the pax to get off at the diverted destination. They will inform them that arrangements are being made to deliver them to their final destination (usually the one stated on the ticket).

 

It would be interesting if someone sues FY one of these days. Then we get a clarification from the courts!

[affendi osman 0]

One situation.

Let say I am on my flight to LHR, and the plane was diverted to STN, and my destination is Central London.

So, do the carrier must bus me to STN even I am heading to Central London?

 

And I think the same rule applies here in FY case.

[Mushrif A 3]

One situation.

Let say I am on my flight to LHR, and the plane was diverted to STN, and my destination is Central London.

So, do the carrier must bus me to STN even I am heading to Central London?

 

And I think the same rule applies here in FY case.

 

Nobody cares where "your" destination is. What is pertinent is the ticketed destination.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

The fact is FY failed to deliver pax to the ticketed destination, which a fare has been paid for.

 

That maybe the case, but they flew the pax on a MH flight at no extra cost (aside from transportation cost from KUL, that is). That must account for something. Maybe they passengers involved could forward their receipts to FY and claim for reimbursment?

Edited September 8, 2009 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[flee 5]

That maybe the case, but they flew the pax on a MH flight at no extra cost (aside from transportation cost from KUL, that is). That must account for something. Maybe they passengers involved could forward their receipts to FY and claim for reimbursment?

Actually whether they flew by MH or Timbuktu airways is not really important. MH is just another contractor for FY. So unless you sign a release to say you are happy to terminate the flight in KUL, FY has an obligation to transport you to SZB.

Edited September 8, 2009 by flee