ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

[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?

 

[Lynda2475]

There are already separate class actions in play.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

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.

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?

Sure, what you’re saying is technically accurate. In practice, however, the time and cost involved actually pursuing these disputes is substantial and unrealistic for most individual consumers (and while a consumer can complain to the ACCC, the ACCC cannot grant an individual a remedy. They have to go to court for that; have fun).

That’s why the ACCC exists: to monitor and enforce these protections in an effort to correct and achieve better corporate behaviour, thus avoiding the need for individual consumers to pursue their own costly actions one by one in a system that makes doing that look simple enough on paper and yet which is anything but in reality.

 

[sww199]

Relevant to QF's treatment of pax during the mass cancellations in 2022: cancelling a flight booked as a Y award fare, and then refusing to accommodate a passenger on the next available flight, because only Y revenue seats are available. I appreciate it is not the most egregious scenario, and it all worked out in the end. But it is another example of woeful customer service, and a modus operandi of hoping the customer simply gives in.

I have used approximate times but story goes something like this:

* 6 months in advance, family member books CBR-SYD-ARM. Y award. CBR-SYD arrives into SYD circa 9am. SYD-ARM departs SYD circa 11am.
* 1 week before, QF reschedules the SYD-ARM flight to depart SYD at 9am. This meant she would miss that flight on the original connection from CBR. However, instead of putting her on an earlier CBR-SYD flight, QF offloads her from the 9am SYD-ARM, sticks her on an afternoon CBR-SYD, and an evening SYD-ARM. This would see her arriving about 8 hours later than originally planned.
* On 5 occasions, QF customer service refused to put her on an earlier departure CBR-SYD, so that she could then make the 9am SYD-ARM. The reason? The CBR-SYD flights only had revenue Y seats available, not Y award seats. Even though there were plenty of Y seats left on the CBR-SYD connection (including red e deal fares), they said they could only accommodate her on Y award seats. To this we said that, had they not cancelled the flight 1 week out, there might well have been award seats available. The response? In many instances, the agent said they would put us on 'hold', and then just hung up.

* Finally, a QF agent 'overrode the system' and booked her on a revenue seat CBR-SYD, so she could then make the 9am SYD-ARM.

I am at a loss to explain how it is an acceptable customer service policy, for QF to cancel a service for operational reasons, and then refuse to put the customer on the next most convenient flight where seats are available (in the same cabin class), because the same fare bucket is not available.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

The whole point of consumer protection law is to cut through ordinary court processes, and make remedies easily accessible.

Consumer laws that provide for a replacement of refund for faulty good is basically taking ordinary contract law and making it accessible… saving you from having to take vendors to court in lengthy proceedings with lawyers involved.

EU261 does exactly that. Us having to go employ a lawyer, go to court, have an extended case, and possibly lose is not a viable option for the vast majority of people.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

I am at a loss to explain how it is an acceptable customer service policy, for QF to cancel a service for operational reasons, and then refuse to put the customer on the next most convenient flight where seats are available (in the same cabin class), because the same fare bucket is not available.

I suspect Qantas would be too.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Relevant to QF's treatment of pax during the mass cancellations in 2022: cancelling a flight booked as a Y award fare, and then refusing to accommodate a passenger on the next available flight, because only Y revenue seats are available. I appreciate it is not the most egregious scenario, and it all worked out in the end. But it is another example of woeful customer service, and a modus operandi of hoping the customer simply gives in.

Qantas' own fare conditions state that in the event of a cancellation they must put you on the next available flight. It doesn't matter what fare you booked, and it doesn't matter what fares are available, so long as there is a seat in the cabin you booked they owe you that flight. With that being said, agents either don't know this or are trained to play dumb when it comes to what your rights are as a consumer. Most people would simply accept what Qantas has provided. In my case, I would hang up and try again. I'd try online rebooking, and if everything fails I'd simply buy the ticket and bill it back to Qantas. So far I haven't had to do that, but is something I would consider doing if push came to shove. After all, so far as I'm aware you can always record phone calls you have with Qantas and use that as evidence later on in a tribunal hearing.

To the earlier point that people won't take the time and energy to pursue Qantas at tribunal or court, well that's exactly what Qantas is counting on. If enough people had enough and pursued Qantas, the numbers would quickly turn out of Qantas' favour. After all, they need to hire legal representation when you take them to tribunal and I can guarantee you that often costs more than the reimbursement, even if they do have in house counsel.

-RooFlyer88

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Consumer laws that provide for a replacement of refund for faulty good is basically taking ordinary contract law and making it accessible… saving you from having to take vendors to court in lengthy proceedings with lawyers involved.

EU261 does exactly that. Us having to go employ a lawyer, go to court, have an extended case, and possibly lose is not a viable option for the vast majority of people.

You are correct here but again, it is unclear whether we have EU261 style laws in Australia. Yes you can make the argument that technically there has been no legislation passed that is modelled after EU261. However, I would point to the fact that we have broad consumer protections like the Australian Consumer Guarantee that do offer this protection. And if enough people go to tribunals to fight for their rights, eventually Qantas will learn that they need to do the right thing at the beginning, especially if some of us are willing to take it to court to seek punitive damages.

-RooFlyer88

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

To the earlier point that people won't take the time and energy to pursue Qantas at tribunal or court, well that's exactly what Qantas is counting on. If enough people had enough and pursued Qantas, the numbers would quickly turn out of Qantas' favour. After all, they need to hire legal representation when you take them to tribunal and I can guarantee you that often costs more than the reimbursement, even if they do have in house counsel.

-RooFlyer88

That’s exactly why the ACCC is taking this step. To, if the allegations are proven, compel Qantas to stop engaging in this behaviour and save future consumers from its consequences with no other option but to engage in costly and time-consuming individual court actions (something most won’t do). Which leads us to…

And if enough people go to tribunals to fight for their rights, eventually Qantas will learn that they need to do the right thing at the beginning, especially if some of us are willing to take it to court to seek punitive damages.

-RooFlyer88

Because again, while I appreciate the intention here, in practice this is just not realistic as we just established.

And why try to make it so, when the ACCC may be able to succeed in getting Qantas to stop the alleged misconduct from the outset?

Separately: yes, we could benefit immensely from a proper set of air traveller rights as exists in Europe and Canada. Here, however, that’s not even necessary to pursue the issues alleged in this case. They’re already covered by the Consumer Law and, frankly in many cases, general contractual law and Qantas’ own conditions of carriage.

 

[wombatpatties]

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.

Well, maybe they just might. Hundreds of travellers are awaiting refunds, Qantas is immoral, devious, irresponsible and many more unprintable expletives. This is just the beginning yet Joyce will come through like all bigwigs, shining and smiling while clutching his millions. Good riddance to a smarmy piece of rubbish.

 

[Gary T]

Qantas have had my money for almost two years now, however $4300 with no interest just a lot of hurdles.

 

[RichardMEL]

Qantas have had my money for almost two years now, however $4300 with no interest just a lot of hurdles.

no interest to YOU that is.....

 

[kangarooflyer88]

This is just the beginning yet Joyce will come through like all bigwigs, shining and smiling while clutching his millions. Good riddance to a smarmy piece of rubbish.

I reserve my remarks on Uncle Alan until we've had the new CEO for a couple of years. Not all change is good. Just ask United frequent flyers who now have to spend mucho dinero on United fares to earn status.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Saab34]

I have noted there is certainly a lag when some airlines announce route changes, then spend a week or two before they pull a specific flight.

The recent Sydney-Bali A330 upgrade is a good example. They announced this, and due to bilaterals they needed to pull that capacity from another route. They continued to sell the soon to be abandoned Melbourne-Denpasar Jetstar service for 10 days before they pulled it from the site. This would have been well known before the announcement as to where the capacity was coming from.

 

[Pushka]

I reserve my remarks on Uncle Alan until we've had the new CEO for a couple of years. Not all change is good. Just ask United frequent flyers who now have to spend mucho dinero on United fares to earn status.

-RooFlyer88

Except while the new CEO was on the board, and CFO, she will have to clean up the mess left behind and that huge profit will sink her.

 

[oz_mark]

One month before July 2022, Qantas was saying it had got its act together. In the AFR

Travel nightmares put Qantas on notice

The Flying Kangaroo has promised flights will run more smoothly in the June school holidays. But some loyal customers are mulling whether to give up on the carrier for good.

www.afr.com

Tully says Qantas has the appropriate level of staff to run its schedule and will hire more workers as capacity grows. She is confident that Qantas will give customers the level of service expected this June school holidays and put to bed any questions about its ongoing strength and brand

 

[RooFlyer]

Qantas' own fare conditions state that in the event of a cancellation they must put you on the next available flight. It doesn't matter what fare you booked, and it doesn't matter what fares are available, so long as there is a seat in the cabin you booked they owe you that flight.

So, how does that work out?

And if enough people go to tribunals to fight for their rights, eventually Qantas will learn that they need to do the right thing at the beginning, especially if some of us are willing to take it to court to seek punitive damages.

Nonsense. Qantas will fight them all, out spend them all, out last them all. The ones who may last will get a quiet settlement.

You are correct here but again, it is unclear whether we have EU261 style laws in Australia.

No, it is clear. We don't.

I reserve my remarks on Uncle Alan until we've had the new CEO for a couple of years. Not all change is good. Just ask United frequent flyers who now have to spend mucho dinero on United fares to earn status.

And United once again makes an appearance.

 

[bussyboy]

Would have been much more useful for ACCC to take actions that corrected the problem, rather than this rather pointless action (from as consumer perspective) 18 months later

 

[Saab34]

I reserve my remarks on Uncle Alan until we've had the new CEO for a couple of years. Not all change is good. Just ask United frequent flyers who now have to spend mucho dinero on United fares to earn status.

-RooFlyer88

I do agree.

CFO to CEO transitions can be challenging for some, especially if they lack the customer mindset.

Previous mob I worked at, they promoted the CFO to CEO, but they never worked in the commercial or operational parts, purely a rusted on finance person. They got pushed out in a year, and the board appointed the Chief Commercial officer who did 5 years and a very successful 5 years might I add. For simple reasons, the CCO understood the customer and what they wanted, they understood the market and the competitors. They didn’t have a finance degree or ever work in finance, but they understood the customer.

Remains to be seen what will happen here, but I’m certainly skeptical.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

CFO to CEO transitions can be challenging for some, especially if they lack the customer mindset.

And my thought is the CFO will look at the numbers game. How do we extract more revenue from customers whilst cutting down on costs? We've seen that elsewhere in aviation, namely with McDonald-Boeing and the MD-737 fiasco so this wouldn't be a surprise.

If I was a bean counter I'd look into things like first class and say, do we really need any of that? We can eliminate the First class cabin and generate more revenue by filling that space with J seats. Close the Flounge since that's just a liability and passengers should be happy with the J lounge. Oh and why do we need three lounges? Let's close two of them and just leave a Qantas Club open. Oh and regional lounges are just costing us money too, better close that down. Oh and why are we so generous in awarding status credits with partners? We ought to exclude even more fares from accrual there. Why not also stop this madness of awarding status credits on our red e-deal flight, oh and while we're at it eliminate baggage and other benefits to make it a true basic economy fare. We're just following market trends after all.

-RooFlyer88