Tiger Airways: ‘Air Ways’ TV series premieres on Channel 7 on Tuesday, 14 July

[MEL_Traveller]

good point serfty.

however the point remains - the seat is still paid for, so there should be no excuse for overbooking by an airline which won't refund.

[odysseus]

good point serfty.

however the point remains - the seat is still paid for, so there should be no excuse for overbooking

As said, with the number of taxes only and $9 seats and similar they have sold, they're not really making much in the way of revenue from a fair number of seats. Their pricing would account for a number of people not taking up the seats.

by an airline which won't refund.

I expect they'd refund in such a situation. The thing is that as a traveller you want to get where you want to go, and getting a refund is unlikely to cover any alternative travel approach at the last minute.

[MEL_Traveller]

I expect they'd refund in such a situation. The thing is that as a traveller you want to get where you want to go, and getting a refund is unlikely to cover any alternative travel approach at the last minute.

This is why we're having the debate! The terms and conditions expressly say NO refund, even in the event of overbooking. All that you are entitled to is the 'compensation package'.

Based on this potential unfairness, amongst others, I have been arguing that the 'no refunds' clause is probably an unfair term.

[anat0l]

Based on this potential unfairness, amongst others, I have been arguing that the 'no refunds' clause is probably an unfair term.

Dare I be crass and ask, what are circumstances and/or examples by which the customer has no right to a refund of an airfare?

Perhaps its easier to answer this question than specify all the different scenarios where a refund is possible! So far by reading this thread it seems one can extract a refund for almost any reason, apart from the obvious that "you got to your destination as per the schedule and everything was fine" (and even that is pretentious, e.g. "I didn't like the cabin crew, they were ugly and rude, thus please refund my fare and I'll never fly you again").


This is a more vented way of saying, "I am so confused".

[oz_mark]

I expect they'd refund in such a situation. The thing is that as a traveller you want to get where you want to go, and getting a refund is unlikely to cover any alternative travel approach at the last minute.

My opinion that if an airline denies you boarding to to overbooking they should be liable for any additional expenses you incur. Any 'compensation' package they may offer is likely away to limit their exposure. However, in this case, it is the airline that has failed to deliver.

[serfty]

There is no direct indication in drron's post relating to the actual actions Tiger took for those PAX denied boarding.

For all we know, Tiger may have indeed rebooked passengers onto JQ flights.

The T&C simply have this clause:

10.4 Denied Boarding:
If we are unable to provide you with previously confirmed space on any flight as a result of over-booking, we shall provide you with compensation in accordance with our denied boarding compensation policy.

I cannot find what Tiger Airway's "denied boarding compensation policy" actually is.

It certainly should be available for reading by any passenger booked on a Tiger Airways flight.

In any case, when a booked passenger complied with Tiger's T&C and is still denied boarding, there are consumer laws to protect them which would override any (perhaps) less beneficial policy of Tigers.

[fortymilliondaggers]

My impression was that the airline paid the taxes based on number of seats they've filled rather than the number of tickets sold, so an airline would be making money on an unused ticket on an oversold flight.

[JohnK]

My opinion that if an airline denies you boarding to to overbooking they should be liable for any additional expenses you incur.

This should be the minimum offered if denied boarding due to overbooking. I would go as far as suggesting monetary compensation as well as covering additional expenses....

[MEL_Traveller]

Dare I be crass and ask, what are circumstances and/or examples by which the customer has no right to a refund of an airfare?

Perhaps its easier to answer this question than specify all the different scenarios where a refund is possible! So far by reading this thread it seems one can extract a refund for almost any reason, apart from the obvious that "you got to your destination as per the schedule and everything was fine" (and even that is pretentious, e.g. "I didn't like the cabin crew, they were ugly and rude, thus please refund my fare and I'll never fly you again").


This is a more vented way of saying, "I am so confused".

The flippant answer is 'probably very few'!

Being a bit more serious you will have picked up from all the consumer protection laws which have been posted and/or discussed in this and other threads that the balance on protection is towards the consumer.

That is because consumers are considered to be in a weak position when it comes to these sorts of transactions - they do not have the legal support that a major company has.

For serious contracts, such as a home loan, or a car loan, or for financial services the customer will always be advised to seek independent legal advice. This is a way of protecting the institution.

For smaller contracts such as mobile phones, gym memberships, airline tickets (etc) the consumer protection laws are there for when things go wrong.

But it really depends on whether the matter is ever pursued. In cases like Qantas and Virgin Blue (even Jetstar) they have policies in place whick are fairly flexible. Of course customers pay for that flexibility in ticket prices, but Qantas etc now offer a credit if you decide not to fly (and charge a small handling fee). 10 years ago you lost your money if you didn't show!

You will remember the cases where Jetstar stranded passengers in Bali and Honolulu. Initially they didn't help the passengers. After the first couple of times (and plenty of media attention) they now have procedures in place to accommodate and feed passengers who are stranded (I was on the end of a very nice extra stay in Honolulu myself with a fantastic room overlooking the sea and $75 for dinner!). Qantas also has these policies.

Where things start to go wrong and when the airline starts to rely on the Ts and Cs then they warrant close examination. Having a look at some if the scenarios I believe that the contract terms are potentially unfair. THe 'no-refunds' is pretty specific - and will allow a refund ONLY if they delay more than 4 hours.

That is an unfair term. If a delay occurs for two hours (let's make this easy by saying that it's their fault...) then if I asked for my money back I think I should be entitled to it.

Their clauses which say 'no liability' if you are stranded mid point through a double flight (or flight combo as they call them) are also potentially unfair. If you fly MEL-DRW-SIN and get stranded in DRW then your travel insurance may not cover you (as it is domestic). If the aircraft goes in-p because of their fault, should they be able to rely on the Ts and Cs to get out of looking after you?

The EU legislation is fairly extreme in protecting passenger rights. I doubt Qantas or Virgin Blue of Jetstra would want to see that introduced in Australia. Acing fairly is in their interest. If Tiger continues to act potentially unfairly then they may cause a push for all airlines to become subject to very strict rules. (In fact Tiger has now softened some of their policies such as allowing you to transfer if you are only a few minutes late.)

The other part of the equation is that you need someone with the will to take the matter to a tribunal. Most of the people caught up in this wouldn't even think of doing that - or they get told they shouldn't bother because the airline wil always win, or that it 'is their fault'. And the likes of Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin escape passengers taking them to court either because they have more flexible policies, or because they have better customer service.

There are circumstances where the airline can show that a passenger ought to have known the Ts and Cs. Usually this is if they can argue that the passenger is a frequent traveller - and has had ample opportunity to undertsand the Ts and Cs. But then these people (frequent travellers) are less likely to be in a situation where they are taking the airline to court anyway.

But a one off, once a year traveller who only has to 'check a box' to say they have read the terms and conditions, or in the other thread here where the customer didn't end up with a ticket that gave sufficient flexibility (and simply signed the standard form contract Ts and Cs) - it is more difficult to show a passenger has undertood the contract and accepted it (and is therefore bound by them).

All of the situations rely on the facts in an individual case. And you can rely on different parts of contract and/or consumer law. So it may be that someone can be proven to have accepted the contract, but then a certain clause in the contract could be ruled unfair. In another case it may be that the contract itself was never binding.

mel-t

Edited to add that in answer to 'when might a pax not get a refund?' Lots of times. Passenger buys ticket knowing refunds or ability to change ticket is severely restircted and still decides to not make flight... or, passenger turns up too late to check in (bearing in mind what is reasonable for check-in times... Tiger now claim 45 mins is clearly posted everywhere - I still can't see it any time before I hit 'send' on cc payment, my example would include where passenger turns up late for scheduled flight departure and the flight is delayed and they would now be there 30/45 mins before the new departure time).

[odysseus]

I was surprised to see some ads promoting the return of this series soon to Channel 7. Guess Tiger believe any publicity is good publicity, or that they like this 'education' of the public!

Channel 7 only vaguely say that it returns "after the tennis," but presumably that's not too far away.