ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

[Quickstatus]

That could have racked up quite quickly, easily eclipsing $120M

Well, you can make the sky the limit, but remember the ACCC can only ask for a fine, they can litigate it before the Court but the ACCC has no power to impose the fine. In the end it has to be signed off by the Federal Court. The Court is not going to allow a fine which puts the company at risk of bankruptcy as it would be manifestly excessive. Its a pecuniary penalty in a civil matter - a fine, not a measure to damage the airline

 

[Captain Halliday]

In the context of this discussion I thought the precedent set in this High Court ruling was interesting.

High Court ruling might mean corporate executives face 'lower bar' for prosecutions, and more of them

The article uses the Banking Royal Commission as an example and infers that in similar circumstances, this precedent might see executives prosecuted individually.

When reading it, far more recent examples sprang to mind.

 

[TomVexille]

In the context of this discussion I thought the precedent set in this High Court ruling was interesting.

High Court ruling might mean corporate executives face 'lower bar' for prosecutions, and more of them

The article uses the Banking Royal Commission as an example and infers that in similar circumstances, this precedent might see executives prosecuted individually.

When reading it far more recent examples sprang to mind.

That's a step in the right direction, executives should absolutely be held personally responsible.

 

[RooFlyer]

The article uses the Banking Royal Commission as an example and infers that in similar circumstances, this precedent might see executives prosecuted individually.

In the mining industry, the mine manager is personally liable to prosecution in the event of, say, a fatality on site. Been that way for years.

 

[TheRealTMA]

That's a step in the right direction, executives should absolutely be held personally responsible.

What? The ex-politicians who have never taken responsibility for anything in their careers, won't allow their future positions on boards to be liable or responsible! Sheesh.

 

[VPS]

What? The ex-politicians who have never taken responsibility for anything in their careers, won't allow their future positions on boards to be liable or responsible! Sheesh.

How can someone so young be so cynical

 

[AIRwin]

Ghost flights:

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Ghost flights:
View attachment 474200

This takes "bundle of rights" and not flights to a new level.

 

[CMA222]

And so as usual the mass changes to schedules for Qantas flights booked last year during DSC for this year have now started to hit my inbox.

But remember you only bought a "bundle of rights" not a flight on a particular date or at a particular time. The QF aspirational timetable is just that. The T's and C's you MUST accept to book say so !! With so much "unfair contract" legislation to protect consumers, which the politicians said would fix all the problems, back when it was introduced, is a joke and QF know it ! We need real competition to keep them honest - and it is never going to happen.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But remember you only bought a "bundle of rights" not a flight on a particular date or at a particular time. The QF aspirational timetable is just that. The T's and C's you MUST accept to book say so !! With so much "unfair contract" legislation to protect consumers, which the politicians said would fix all the problems, back when it was introduced, is a joke and QF know it ! We need real competition to keep them honest - and it is never going to happen.

Qantas is right, it is legally a ‘bundle of rights’. Of course the media gets hold of that and it’s a PR disaster. But nonetheless it’s still accurate.

Flight times have never been guaranteed, going back for like..l ever. Aussie consumer legislation works exactly as intended… if the product is no longer fit for purpose you can get a refund.

Problem is, when people have DSCs and other interests, they don’t want a refund.

 

[Quickstatus]

Aussie consumer legislation works exactly as intended… if the product is no longer fit for purpose you can get a refund.

It was much much more than that.

The consumer legislation worked as intended because Qantas admitted to:
Breaching the Australian consumer Law by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, making false or misleading representations about more than 82,000 flights between May 2022 and May 2024. specifically It sold tickets/bundle of rights for flights already cancelled, and also continued to display those flights in MMB as though the flights were still operating. Tickets/bundle of rights for cancelled flights were on average offered for sale about 11 days after cancellation and up to 62 days in some cases.

Qantas also submitted/agreed that a $100M fine was justified and agreed to an court enforceable undertaking that among other things agreed to:
not sell ghost flights within 24hrs of cancellation and inform passengers of a cancelled flight within 48hrs
Surely this "right" should have been in the bundle of rights in the first place especially when executives are paid very handsomely.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It was much much more than that.

The consumer legislation worked as intended because Qantas admitted to:
Breaching the Australian consumer Law by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, making false or misleading representations about more than 82,000 flights between May 2022 and May 2024. specifically It sold tickets/bundle of rights for flights already cancelled, and also continued to display those flights in MMB as though the flights were still operating. Tickets/bundle of rights for cancelled flights were on average offered for sale about 11 days after cancellation and up to 62 days in some cases.

Qantas also submitted/agreed that a $100M fine was justified and agreed to an court enforceable undertaking that among other things agreed to:
not sell ghost flights within 24hrs of cancellation and inform passengers of a cancelled flight within 48hrs
Surely this "right" should have been in the bundle of rights in the first place especially when executives are paid very handsomely.

That might apply to the specific case, but in the context of timetable and schedule changes, you always have the right to cancel and get a refund if the new arrangements aren’t suitable. It’s not just Qantas, most airlines with an international network make changes around the same time. And I’m not sure EU261 covers anything substantially more than the provisions in the contract of carriage? (which is either a re-route or a refund)

 

[Quickstatus]

That might apply to the specific case

Understand, but over 82000 specific cases and it really was not about the bundle of rights even though Qantas initially said it was but then relented.
While bundle of rights was Qantas's position - and generally correct if within the consumer law, customers of Qantas are not just buying a bundle of rights. They see a ticket, a flight, seat selection and a itinerary - in other words, a product. It was bad optics for the airline to sell their position as such.

.........................


This is interesting.....
Z fare bucket

 

[anat0l]

It was much much more than that.

The consumer legislation worked as intended because Qantas admitted to:
Breaching the Australian consumer Law by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, making false or misleading representations about more than 82,000 flights between May 2022 and May 2024. specifically It sold tickets/bundle of rights for flights already cancelled, and also continued to display those flights in MMB as though the flights were still operating. Tickets/bundle of rights for cancelled flights were on average offered for sale about 11 days after cancellation and up to 62 days in some cases.

Qantas also submitted/agreed that a $100M fine was justified and agreed to an court enforceable undertaking that among other things agreed to:
not sell ghost flights within 24hrs of cancellation and inform passengers of a cancelled flight within 48hrs
Surely this "right" should have been in the bundle of rights in the first place especially when executives are paid very handsomely.

I'm still surprised Qantas wasn't sued and fined into oblivion for this and its other major sins in the last five years.

Had it been any other company, there wouldn't even be a Royal Commission or a Senate inquiry - the company would close and the bosses would all be in prison. Just goes to show that when you've reached "too big to fail" status, you are above the law.

 

[CMA222]

Understand, but over 82000 specific cases and it really was not about the bundle of rights even though Qantas initially said it was but then relented.
While bundle of rights was Qantas's position - and generally correct if within the consumer law, customers of Qantas are not just buying a bundle of rights. They see a ticket, a flight, seat selection and a itinerary - in other words, a product. It was bad optics for the airline to sell their position as such.

But the bundle of rights is more expensive for exactly the same service at different times of day ? When the airline cancels a flight and offers an alternative on a flight that could have been purchased more cheaply, and which no longer meets the expectation or plans of the passenger, the airline says "we win - and no adjustment", but you can have you money back and stuff up all the plans that are in place based on the original planned "bundle of rights" that was promoted to entice the initial purchase.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But the bundle of rights is more expensive for exactly the same service at different times of day ? When the airline cancels a flight and offers an alternative on a flight that could have been purchased more cheaply, and which no longer meets the expectation or plans of the passenger, the airline says "we win - and no adjustment", but you can have you money back and stuff up all the plans that are in place based on the original planned "bundle of rights" that was promoted to entice the initial purchase.

But bundle of rights is High Court law: Is an air ticket a right to fly or only a bundle of rights to fly?

That article provides you with a good overview.

Consumer law does come in to play, as stated in the article. The case being discussed there is from 1975 - but still holds. In the case with the ACCC, the issue of the ‘bundle of rights’ did not come in to play. What was important was that Qantas had cancelled flights in their system, but continued to sell seats on those flights. That could be considered deceptive or misleading, and something you can’t do under consumer law.

But even today, your ticket is still a bundle of rights. Provided the airline provides the service in a timely manner, provides a product that is fit for purpose, and isn’t being misleading… like selling tickets on flights that don’t exist, nothing much has changed. And it’s not just qantas, it’s every airline.

 

[Quickstatus]

That could be considered deceptive or misleading, and something you can’t do under consumer law.

The problem , again, is that Qantas tried to use BoR as a defence in the cases mentioned. It was not sustainable as a defence and Qantas quickly relented. All the BoR defence did was highlight how poor and in many cases illegal Qantas' service is.

The BoR has always been strongly in Qantas's favour, never in the passenger's favour.

Cancellation of flights but they then get to charge more for last minute flights.
J seats changed to Y seats and the difference in fares calculated against most expensive Y sear

 

[CMA222]

But bundle of rights is High Court law: Is an air ticket a right to fly or only a bundle of rights to fly?

That article provides you with a good overview.

Consumer law does come in to play, as stated in the article. The case being discussed there is from 1975 - but still holds. In the case with the ACCC, the issue of the ‘bundle of rights’ did not come in to play. What was important was that Qantas had cancelled flights in their system, but continued to sell seats on those flights. That could be considered deceptive or misleading, and something you can’t do under consumer law.

But even today, your ticket is still a bundle of rights. Provided the airline provides the service in a timely manner, provides a product that is fit for purpose, and isn’t being misleading… like selling tickets on flights that don’t exist, nothing much has changed. And it’s not just qantas, it’s every airline.

My comment was not meant to be in any way a legal analysis. It was my observation that QF chooses to charge different prices for an identical bundle, depending on the time of day the flight is inspirationally going to operate, even though they have no obligation to operate the flight at the time they are charging the premium for. How can they lose ?

 

[serfty]

...
And I’m not sure EU261 covers anything substantially more than the provisions in the contract of carriage? (which is either a re-route or a refund)

While in instances where you are entitled to a refund or a rebooked service, with EU/UK261, it's your decision, not the airlines'.

Moreover, such rerouting needs to be under comparable transport conditions; if Qantas were subject to 261 regulation they could not simply push a passenger to a Jetstar flight, since that would not be considered "comparable transport conditions".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The problem , again, is that Qantas tried to use BoR as a defence in the cases mentioned. It was not sustainable as a defence and Qantas quickly relented. All the BoR defence did was highlight how poor and in many cases illegal Qantas' service is.

The BoR has always been strongly in Qantas's favour, never in the passenger's favour.

Cancellation of flights but they then get to charge more for last minute flights.
J seats changed to Y seats and the difference in fares calculated against most expensive Y sear

Neither of those last sentences are true.

Qantas has always accommodated pax on cancelled flights on the next available service, free of charge.

For the second, the new guidelines provide for a 75% refund of the flight in question in the case of an involuntary downgrade.