excess baggage - class action lawsuit?

[Happy Dude]

Just been pinged $40 for 4kgs excess on Jetstar. The thought just occurred to me that the amount charged can't possibly reflect the actual costs inccurred by the airline. I say that because when I booked the flight two hours before showing up at the airport, I took the option to pay an additional $10 to upgrade from the "handluggage only" fare, meaning I could check in 20kg. So on that basis, Jetstar are selling weight at 50c a kilo, but penalising punters $10 a kilo at the gate. A large discrepency you'll agree.

I believe this could be the basis for a lawsuit, a la Maurice Blackburn v the banks over their fees (which were clearly stated in T & C's - like Jetstar).

 

[samh004]

I’m not sure, surely as a company they can set the prices as high or low as they like. If it was public transport, like a bus company funded by the government, then it’d be different.

 

[Dave Noble]

It is not a service fee for processing excess baggage, it is a fee for the service purchased. You have a choice when quoted the cost to accept and check in the item or not to do so. Quite different to auto service fees after the event

Just dont take 4Kg over the allowance

 

[Fantic125]

4kg is 20% over the 20kg allowed for.

If you were 1kg over, maybe you might have a cause for complaint. Even 20kg is a lot to lug around. How many weeks are you travelling for?

 

[v8Statesman]

I don't run an airline, but I would think (IMHO) being able to predict weight ahead of time allows for more accurate loading of fuel and freight. Having luggage show up at the last second that they are not aware of can cause problems. Problems cost money.

 

[v8Statesman]

Another reason I love flying CX. 2 x J tickets as OWE 60KG baggage limit. Show up with 3 bags totalling 72KG and they didn't bat an eyelid! (SWMBO went nuts shopping!)

 

[markis10]

Whats the cost to the airline for having to carry your bags which they could not have expected to take up so much room versus the freight revenue they now have to possibly offload? Last minute freight is around $100 a KG SYD-BNE for instance, so there is an opportunity cost involved, thats different to the banks situation so I doubt any lawyers would bite!

 

[JetLagged]

Another reason I love flying CX. 2 x J tickets as OWE 60KG baggage limit. Show up with 3 bags totalling 72KG and they didn't bat an eyelid! (SWMBO went nuts shopping!)

And of course your OWE status sure didn't hurt there - an extra 10kg allowance if 1 person - QF have the same tolerance - even BA when they were directly advised that we were on-going International on a domestic route.

 

[Alanslegal]

So on that basis, Jetstar are selling weight at 50c a kilo, but penalising punters $10 a kilo at the gate. A large discrepency you'll agree.

It is not a discrepancy at all. You were given an offer to purchase 20kgs at 50cents a kilo at the time of booking and that offer expired once you proceeded to the purchase of that ticket (without the 20kgs).

A unilateral new offer (in a sense) is now given at the gate, where x kgs charged at $y, where x = your total weight minus the maximum allowed free weight.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Just been pinged $40 for 4kgs excess on Jetstar. The thought just occurred to me that the amount charged can't possibly reflect the actual costs inccurred by the airline. I say that because when I booked the flight two hours before showing up at the airport, I took the option to pay an additional $10 to upgrade from the "handluggage only" fare, meaning I could check in 20kg. So on that basis, Jetstar are selling weight at 50c a kilo, but penalising punters $10 a kilo at the gate. A large discrepency you'll agree.

I believe this could be the basis for a lawsuit, a la Maurice Blackburn v the banks over their fees (which were clearly stated in T & C's - like Jetstar).

It's no great secret that your checked baggage allowance with JQ is 20 kilos so why are you so surprised they charged you when you were 4 kilos over? In order to complete a booking online you must acknowledge the terms and conditions which stipulate the 20 kilo checked baggage allowance.

JQ allow a generous 10kg of carry on baggage allowance. Was your carry on that full that you couldn't squeeze 4 kilos out of your checked bag into your carry on?

It's a case of the airline being prepared to charge you 0.50c per kilo for the first 20 kilos and $10.00 per kilo thereafter. It's that simple. As they say in Thailand "if you like you buy - if you don't like don't buy".

What would happen if you travel QF where checked baggage allowance is included in your fare so the airline is charging you 0.00 per kilo for the first 23kilos. In that instance do you feel like you're being pinged if you are charged more than 0.00 for every kilo over 23 kilos?

I'm sure if you asked Fatty Vautin this question he'd answer "turn it up are you fair dinkum". Speaking of which 'Go the Maroons'!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

alanslegal is correct.

having to acknowledge the 20 kilo baggage allowance at time of booking, or saying that it is a private company and they can set their prices as high (or low) as they like is a bit of a red herring - because even with the banks you acknowledged and even 'agreed' the late/overdue (etc) fees would be $35/40/50 (or whatever). That in itself does not prevent them from being considered as a penalty (not allowed) rather than liquidated damages (supposed to represent a fair estimation of the actual loss incurred). (Well - we see what happens with the current legal action anyway!)

a lot of people seem to be greatly tied to the terms and conditions (see it in lots of discussion on AFF). The terms and conditons are only binding to the extent they comply with the law. They do not themselves represent the law! Your first question should always be 'are these legal?' (or is the particular section legal), rather than 'oh, you checked a box to say you agree to them therefore you are strictly bound by them'.

However - even with Alanlslegal answer - I would still question if, as a pure example, the airline had allowed you to carry the excess weight free of charge on the outbound sector (without a warning), and then attempted to charge you on the return. There are all sorts of considerations to be taken into account.

 

[trooper]

I am not surprised many people are, as you describe "greatly tied to the terms and conditions"...

You see, a lot of people believe in honoring agreements they freely make.... they actually READ the T's & C's, and so know what they are getting into... Technical legal principles don't come into it.. You have agreed to them... and noone forced you to do so.

Doesn't that MEAN anything?

 

[Will]

In an attempt to answer your question, and not get tied up in the developing morality debate, I think v8statesman and markis have both made the important point: being that
- banks had essentially *no* cost when a fee was paid 2 days late,
- but airlines may well have significant costs with predicting loads, changing load distribution or even flight routing, offloading other freight, and of course the infrastructure and staff to make all these decisions. They may well charge more than is required, but it would be difficult to prove that it is indeed a "penalty" charge.

If you're prepared to give it a go, I'd love to see the outcome!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I am not surprised many people are, as you describe "greatly tied to the terms and conditions"...

You see, a lot of people believe in honoring agreements they freely make.... they actually READ the T's & C's, and so know what they are getting into... Technical legal principles don't come into it.. You have agreed to them... and noone forced you to do so.

Doesn't that MEAN anything?

No it doesn't :mrgreen:

All those signs in shops saying 'no refund' - everyone knows they don't apply in all sorts of circumstances - despite you entering into that agreement 'freely' at the time of purchase.

Same applies to terms and conditions for airline tickets. As with any contract, certain clauses may be deemed void if they do not comply with the law. And there's plenty of law - contract, consumer protection, international treaties. Doesn't matter whether you freely enter into those terms and conditions or not... if it's not legal then it's not going to be binding.

Like the faulty goods, which didn't show up until after you got home... there may be something in the terms and conditions of an airline agreement that you did not fully appreciate at the time you entered into the agreement and which later leads to an unfair result. This is why the sorts of protections (some mentioned above) are in place.

 

[trooper]

OK.. that last para is a fair point...

My cynical side however would still lead me to believe a great many folks who "did not fully appreciate" the terms agreed to (or so they might claim later) did not in actuality read ANY of them! :mrgreen:

(Come to think of it, that is a REALLY good reason for "not fully appreciating!! I just don't think it is worth much sympathy)

I really need to have more faith in people don't I!! :shock:

 

[Dave Noble]

There's a difference though. This is a purchase; no one is forced to make the purchase and can choose not to purchase it . I see no reason why there could be any contract issue since there is no contract until the purchase is made

 

[rwatts]

I'll probably regret it but let me put another point of view (it is 30 years since I studied any contract law).

When you purchase a ticket you have entered a contract for transport from A to B for yourself and up to a certain limit of luggage. When you front up to check-in with x kg of luggage over the limit then the check-in agent is inviting you to enter another contract ("offer") for the transportation of that x kg. its up to the passenger whether to complete the contract by accepting and handing over the consideration (payment). You do have the option to avoid the extra costs by removing the excess weight.

I would see the analogy to bank fees to be more akin to the airline accepting your luggage at check-in without comment and then when you reach the destination, imposing a penalty fee for the excess luggage. Unlike banks, airlines could possibly get away with it as they could identify the amount of freight foregone (at the considerable prices pointed out earlier).

Richard.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

dave noble et al - my comments were a 'side-pot' so to speak. Alanslegal had alreay given the response to this particular situation.

I was responding to claims that that because the 'terms and conditoions' state x,y,z - they must be right.

and just now as an aside to rwatts - it is unlikely that a contract is formed for carriage by air at the time you make payment. The contract would likely be void for uncertainty (terms and conditions do not guarantee to carry you on a particular time, date, or even to the destination stipulated on the ticket). The point at which a contract actually does form is the subject of much commentary - but probably from the time you check-in (when the airline and you, as the passenger, have a reasonable expectation that services can and will be provided). Certainly from the time you check-in it seems the airline ows you a duty of care...

but that is a whole separate discussion

 

[medhead]

a lot of people seem to be greatly tied to the terms and conditions (see it in lots of discussion on AFF). The terms and conditons are only binding to the extent they comply with the law. They do not themselves represent the law! Your first question should always be 'are these legal?' (or is the particular section legal), rather than 'oh, you checked a box to say you agree to them therefore you are strictly bound by them'.

Same applies to terms and conditions for airline tickets. As with any contract, certain clauses may be deemed void if they do not comply with the law. And there's plenty of law - contract, consumer protection, international treaties. Doesn't matter whether you freely enter into those terms and conditions or not... if it's not legal then it's not going to be binding.

I pretty much agree with the basic thrust of what you've written here, T&C can only be viewed as binding in terms of the law in total. However, the sentence that I've highlighted in bold is not exactly correct, what it should be is:

The terms and conditons are only binding to the extent that people are able to afford to go to court to test that they comply with the law.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I pretty much agree with the basic thrust of what you've written here, T&C can only be viewed as binding in terms of the law in total. However, the sentence that I've highlighted in bold is not exactly correct, what it should be is:

The terms and conditons are only binding to the extent that people are able to afford to go to court to test that they comply with the law.

Exactly right! Often however major airlines such as Qantas avoid these matters even coming to court because they have good customer relations and/or service recovery mechanisms in place so that passengers are kept satisfied.

Look at the JQ debacle a few years ago in HNL - only the first plane load of pax got stranded - the second plane (on which I was a passenger) were given hotels, food, phone calls you name it.

Where it will be interesting is with carriers such as TT where there is zero service recovery (they just don't have the fleet at the moment if things go wrong). The whole concept, for example, of 'no refunds' until 4 or 6 hours of delay is a bold idea. If your plane is delayed by two hours I'd be pushing for a full refund (if that's what I wanted and was willing to fly another carrier).

I guess it's not even the cost of going to court that is the major issue - you can go to small claims easily enough. It is the will to do it!