New aviation industry ombudsman & customer rights charter in Australia

[Melburnian1]

Re last sentence… ‘so it should’!

Australian representatives flying overseas should be required to use - to the maximum extent possible - the services of Australian airlines.

This supports Australian jobs, and the advantages of Aussie crews.

But at what cost to taxpayers if, as is often the case, there's a huge price difference between Qantas (super expensive) and foreign competitors?

Let's not forget that Qantas itself is "about" 45 to 49 per cent foreign owned (the upper limit coming from the Qantas Sale Act).

Foreign airlines create jobs in Australia: check-in staff, baggage handlers, catering, trucks delivering air freight, couriers, Uber, Didi, taxis, bus operators and railways delivering passengers and crews to and from airports.

Qantas and Jetstar employ foreign airline crews. QF1/QF2 between SIN-LHR and return is one example.

Using a cheaper alternative than Qantas is good business sense, and magnified by how foreign airlines are often way superior to QF's service standards on board.

You're arguing for a form of non-tariff protection. Abolishing tariffs and quotas was one of the best trade-related moves by an Australian government ever. Keating did it with full support from then Opposition Leader Howard.

 

[dajop]

This also shows in other ways, such as Federal and State governments paying hugely over the odds for business class airfares, such as the very recent publicity about Federal Minister Anika Wells.

Yes, saw that, $34K is an impressive sum for return to New York, must have been first class. Although the stories probably missed the rebate that presumably applies to government travel spend, which could reduce that to $25-$30 K

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But at what cost to taxpayers if, as is often the case, there's a huge price difference between Qantas (super expensive) and foreign competitors?

Let's not forget that Qantas itself is "about" 45 to 49 per cent foreign owned (the upper limit coming from the Qantas Sale Act).

Foreign airlines create jobs in Australia: check-in staff, baggage handlers, catering, trucks delivering air freight, couriers, Uber, Didi, taxis, bus operators and railways delivering passengers and crews to and from airports.

Qantas and Jetstar employ foreign airline crews. QF1/QF2 between SIN-LHR and return is one example.

Using a cheaper alternative than Qantas is good business sense, and magnified by how foreign airlines are often way superior to QF's service standards on board.

You're arguing for a form of non-tariff protection. Abolishing tariffs and quotas was one of the best trade-related moves by an Australian government ever. Keating did it with full support from then Opposition Leader Howard.

To London BA is probably also acceptable. Likewise to the US, the US carriers. But I’m be more confident in Qantas to other destinations. Even on the QF flights into and out of London it’s Aussie flight deck crew.

 

[dajop]

To London BA is probably also acceptable. Likewise to the US, the US carriers.

And why are BA and the US carriers more acceptable than say SQ or EK?

 

[AuSammy]

Yes, saw that, $34K is an impressive sum for return to New York, must have been first class. Although the stories probably missed the rebate that presumably applies to government travel spend, which could reduce that to $25-$30 K

It has been recorded publicly that she didn't travel first class.

She couldn't explain why it was that expensive but speculated possibly due to the dates and flights being changed a few times due to Optus 000 outage.

I think the travel company that manages the gov bookings needs to answer some questions about how it got that expensive.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And why are BA and the US carriers more acceptable than say SQ or EK?

I have confidence in the culture and training, and the ability to handle emergencies + make the right decisions on flight safety vs commercial etc.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

A compensation scheme wouldn’t have covered the new $5000 airfares, but proper advice on who to turn to and who was responsible would have resolved the issue. United’s contract of carriage should have been the first stop… they will uplift you on the next service.

Article 19 of the Montreal Convention certainly would’ve covered them. New tickets for a cancelled flight is evidence enough that the airline did not take all reasonable measures to mitigate the delay under Article 19 of the convention.

Also the communication needs to advise pax to contact their insurance company, and look at avenues such as the Montreal Convention.

Insurance isn’t designed to cover the airline or travel provider dropping the ball. Talk to those who booked Marriott’s Sonder hotel only to be booted out because of a commercial decision made by the company. Many insurers have told their policy holders that these types of events aren’t covered and they should contact their credit card company to seek a remedy. The best thing in nearly every case is to go after the travel company that wronged you.

Where travel insurance does make sense is if you get sick or injured and can’t travel. In those cases that can save you a bundle in fees and costs you’d have to pay since it is you the traveller, and not the travel provider who is making the change

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Article 19 of the Montreal Convention certainly would’ve covered them. New tickets for a cancelled flight is evidence enough that the airline did not take all reasonable measures to mitigate the delay under Article 19 of the convention.

Insurance isn’t designed to cover the airline or travel provider dropping the ball. Talk to those who booked Marriott’s Sonder hotel only to be booted out because of a commercial decision made by the company. Many insurers have told their policy holders that these types of events aren’t covered and they should contact their credit card company to seek a remedy. The best thing in nearly every case is to go after the travel company that wronged you.

Where travel insurance does make sense is if you get sick or injured and can’t travel. In those cases that can save you a bundle in fees and costs you’d have to pay since it is you the traveller, and not the travel provider who is making the change

Again, it’s unlikely people are going to want to sink thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands, into following up a claim under Montreal. That’s why consumer legislation is gernerally preferred. New tickets, in an of themselves, are not evidence to show the airline didn't take all reasonable measures.

Travel insurance can cover cancellations, delays and disruptions, and pay for the rescheduling of travel after disruption. That’s why it’s a good idea to call your travel insurance provider. It might have saved the mother and daughter in the linked article some money.