ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

[levelnine]

Is anyone else looking forward to all the free gifts Qantas are going to have to hand out to try to rebuild its reputation?

Here's hoping I'll be able to renew Platinum for 2024-25 at a steep discount with all the SCs coming my way.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Is anyone else looking forward to all the free gifts Qantas are going to have to hand out to try to rebuild its reputation?

I for one am. But I do wonder at some point they'll need to "recoup" all that good will they spent. Most likely they'll do that when no one is paying attention. Perhaps introduce basic economy fares that earn no status credits? Or perhaps increase the number of status credits required to earn status?

Here's hoping I'll be able to renew Platinum for 2024-25 at a steep discount with all the SCs coming my way.

One can only hope.

 

[jrfsp]

Qantas is very lucky that BITRE only tracks domestic flights in their statistics, because if they tracked international flights then Qantas' numbers would be a blood bath compared to most international carriers flying a large number of flights to/from Australia.

They will certainly track it internally - its just not publicized. There are other sources to compare QFi performance such as the UK CAA stats.

 

[oz_mark]

I find Qantas statements in response to this type of thing typically very hawkish...this one isn't...says it all.

As far as I can see, they are just saying 'we were busy'.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

One key consideration is when the cancellation notices were given. If it was a couple days before that would be one thing, if it was literally that I'm at the airport that would be another. Also, it is my understanding that for international flights, Qantas and other airlines are subject to MC99 and should they the cancel the flight, it is on them to put you on the next available flight be it with a partner like Japan Airlines or even a competing airline like United. They would also need to cover things like meals and hotel accommodation should they cancel.


In those instances, I would think that Qantas would find you whatever non-stop flight is available next and book you onto that. If it's with a competitor so be it. If they are unwilling to do that, simply walk up and buy the ticket, fly the segment and claim the funds back from QF. If they refuse take them to tribunal for not honouring the Australian Consumer Guarantee.

-RooFlyer88

Among the allegations is that Qantas took too long to advise passengers of cancellations. When QF cancelled my SYD-SFO flights, for example, it still took weeks for QF to formally cancel my flight, even though they'd been effectively zeroed out for weeks, and they refused to touch it until then.

Consumer law exists in large part because it's understood that the average consumer for any given product isn't and shouldn't need to be an expert on things like, e.g., MC99 or even the Consumer Law itself.

Which is why, again, I don't think the ACCC should be allowing -- let alone encouraging -- behaviour whose consequences will be a net negative to most, even if the well-informed punter here and there can use it to their advantage.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

As far as I can see, they are just saying 'we were busy'.

Indeed. Even during the midst of it, the best excuse I ever heard was, "Well, if we cancel all these flights all at once, it will break our already broken systems even more, so we need to stagger it."

But that fell flat, because automatically giving affected passengers who'd at least booked direct the easy online option to choose alternative flights or receive a refund wouldn't have done that, and the IT capability was there, because once flights were formally cancelled, those options were (eventually, in the case of the refund) given.

 

[RooFlyer]

I like what you are saying but just to be clear:

to cut costs as much as possible without directly doing illegal things.

The sackings were found to be illegal. Under appeal, but at the moment, found to have been illegal.

selling flights they intended to cancel;

The ACCC is alleging selling flights which HAVE been cancelled. Not just a few, either. Thousands!! Flights, not seats.

 

[RooFlyer]

But if the allegation was they are still on sale, that's another matter. I wonder how that's even possible GDS wise?

The allegations posted on the ABC website and my link above was that Qantas were selling the flights on their website. Does their website go through the GDS? I don’t know.

"The ACCC alleges that for about 70% of cancelled flights, Qantas either continued to sell tickets for the flight on its website for two days or more, or delayed informing existing ticketholders that their flight was cancelled for two days or more, or both."

 

[justinbrett]

Does their website go through the GDS? I don’t know.

Yes. You wouldn't get a PNR without it (it's an Amadeus PNR).

There can be some differences in inventory between the GDS and the internal QF system, but for it to be cancelled on one and on sale in the other, I don't know how that would be possible.

I take it ACCC are defining "cancelled" as something other than a formal cancellation in the GDS (ie, a decision to cancel a route like SFO but not having cancelled each individual flight). That said, in my experience QF are quick to zero out the flight whenever it's in question - which is really annoying when they leave it like that for weeks or even longer. They normally do this as the cost of reaccomodation can be higher, especially if another carrier is requried, so zeroing is the method to cut off any future liability before they work on reaccomodation. But again, if the flight was actually still for sale, that's not what happened.

I guess we'll have to wait to see the details.

 

[seritonin]

I see the allegations as anti competitive behaviour to steal business travellers. Most business travellers tend to care more about departure time then cost (within budget). They never intend to fly those flights at all but will advertise it to trap travellers with attractively timed direct flights between cities.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

I see the allegations as anti competitive behaviour to steal business travellers. Most business travellers tend to care more about departure time then cost (within budget). They never intend to fly those flights at all but will advertise it to trap travellers with attractively timed direct flights between cities.

I think this is where consumers need to be more aggressive on their rights. If an airline pulls a flight from under you like that, you should be able to book on whichever airline lets you get to your destination at the scheduled time. If airlines refuse to do that simply buy the ticket you need and claim the cost back to the airline. Again, this hasn't to my knowledge been tested in the courts and tribunals. It is unclear whether we have in practice EU261 legislation because no one is willing to put these questions to the courts and tribunal. We have this broad concept called the Australian Consumer Guarantee but it is to my knowledge unclear how that is applied to flights.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Peasant]

I think this is where consumers need to be more aggressive on their rights. If an airline pulls a flight from under you like that, you should be able to book on whichever airline lets you get to your destination at the scheduled time. If airlines refuse to do that simply buy the ticket you need and claim the cost back to the airline.

All good in theory, but it would seem you haven’t faced a Qantas cancellation before because the experience is nothing like that.

Case in point, I was booked in F on QF1 which was cancelled, due to a mechanical fault. The flight was eventually cancelled 5 hours after scheduled departure time due to an engine issue.

QF flatly refused to rebook me onto an alternative airline, until they offloaded me from the next day’s QF1 because they then discovered, after noon, that it was overbooked.

I was told point blank by airport staff and the contact centre that booking my own replacement flight would not be covered by QF unless they did it for me. When I asked about reimbursement and compensation, I was told I needed to contact my travel insurance provider. So, despite your suggestion on another thread that passengers do not need travel insurance, I can assure you Qantas will advise you to call upon it when they stuff up.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

All good in theory, but it would seem you haven’t faced a Qantas cancellation before because the experience is nothing like that.

I have experienced cancellations with Qantas and other airlines before. Now it is true, I haven't been screwed as other customers who are stranded for days on end, but I think the key here is I am proactive when it comes to bookings and rebooking. Often airlines would re-accomodate me on other airlines. For instance, a number of award bookings I had with Air Canada were cancelled and I was put onto other airlines no questions asked.

Case in point, I was booked in F on QF1 which was cancelled, due to a mechanical fault. The flight was eventually cancelled 5 hours after scheduled departure time due to an engine issue.

QF flatly refused to rebook me onto an alternative airline, until they offloaded me from the next day’s QF1 because they then discovered, after noon, that it was overbooked.

One key thing to think about is what does the OneWorld policy say about these cancellations? The reason I bring that up is that Star Alliance policy states that weather is considered a controllable IRROP for inter-continental itineraries involving passengers in J or who hold Gold status or above. Interestingly, OneWorld has their own document which covers how member airlines must treat customers during IRROPs (makes for an interesting nighttime read)

I was told point blank by airport staff and the contact centre that booking my own replacement flight would not be covered by QF unless they did it for me. When I asked about reimbursement and compensation, I was told I needed to contact my travel insurance provider. So, despite your suggestion on another thread that passengers do not need travel insurance, I can assure you Qantas will advise you to call upon it when they stuff up.

What the people on the phone or the airport staff tell you does not matter. They are not lawyers. They do not understand Qantas' own policies. One of the things Qantas has to do even to sell tickets to international destinations is to incorporate the protections of the Montreal Convention into their fare. If they don't do that, they can't fly internationally it's that simple. So I would think making alternate arrangements when QF is unwilling to do so and seeking reimbursement is possible and if they quibble bring it to a tribunal claiming a breach of contract.

 

[Peasant]

What the people on the phone or the airport staff tell you does not matter. They are not lawyers. They do not understand Qantas' own policies. One of the things Qantas has to do even to sell tickets to international destinations is to incorporate the protections of the Montreal Convention into their fare.

Maybe that’s a good business opportunity for you to explore…because quite frankly, most of us don’t have the time to devote our lives to this sort of stuff. We just want to get from A to B at the promised time.

And as an aside, I certainly wasn’t going to risk being $20k out of pocket by doing what I was told by two departments in the airline not to do.

 

[bcworld]

When I asked about reimbursement and compensation, I was told I needed to contact my travel insurance provider. So, despite your suggestion on another thread that passengers do not need travel insurance, I can assure you Qantas will advise you to call upon it when they stuff up.

And then they'll take 2 months to generate a letter detailing the circumstances required for travel insurance.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

The most wonderful agreements, consumer protection laws and regulations, and terms and conditions in the world don't mean diddly when the companies implementing them are staffed by employees who are not adequately trained to follow them or, worse, trained to avoid doing so.

It shouldn't take a lawyer to get companies to abide by their own terms and conditions, and yet, that's exactly why I'm employed.

 

[Saab34]

It shouldn't take a lawyer to get companies to abide by their own terms and conditions, and yet, that's exactly why I'm employed.

Bit like the big corporations and underpayments. They then spend millions on consultants and lawyers to get it all sorted out. If they followed its own agreements and paid legally, wouldn’t cost them a cent!

 

[dvb2000]

Presumably those being proactive, and trying to re-book their "zero'd out" flight had no status, so Qantas just treated them with their normal disdain and ignored them , business as usual.

If they had full fare flights they wouldn't have had to beg Qantas to allow them to change the date...

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Bit like the big corporations and underpayments. They then spend millions on consultants and lawyers to get it all sorted out. If they followed its own agreements and paid legally, wouldn’t cost them a cent!

Absolutely an own goal when they're caught. Trouble is, too often they're not, and even when they are, the statutory penalties of are often weak enough that too many will incorporate those costs into their risk assessment and keep taking the gamble.

Of all our regulatory agencies, however, the ACCC can be very effective when it wants to be and has more of the teeth it needs to do it (and will soon have even more as additional, more punitive measures come on board in November).

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Absolutely an own goal when they're caught. Trouble is, too often they're not, and even when they are, the statutory penalties of are often weak enough that too many will incorporate those costs into their risk assessment and keep taking the gamble.

If Qantas is found guilty in a Federal court, there is a good chance that class actions will be started around travel during this time. Knowingly selling a product/service you cannot provide seems like fraud and I suspect the doors could be open for compensation and reimbursement. I mean the ACCC clearly laid out the evidence, a Federal court has confirmed what they did was patently wrong, what defence would Qantas have? Then again, this is Australia and people aren't as litigious as those in other countries.

Of all our regulatory agencies, however, the ACCC can be very effective when it wants to be and has more of the teeth it needs to do it (and will soon have evn more as additional, more punitive measures come on board in November).

No one is faulting the ACCC here. What I think is necessary is for individuals to take what the ACCC found and run with it. If you pursue these companies under the substantiated claims of the ACCC what defence will the companies have?