ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

[MEL_Traveller]

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 ?

Because you have a reservation on one of the more popular flights. Under ACL they still have to take due care and skill, etc. More often than not that’s going to fly as planned.

I wonder if you could ask for a refund if the new flight was less expensive at the time of booking. That would be the interesting question!

 

[SeaWolf]

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.

I have a hunch that the reason Qantas settled that case was because it effectively couldn't win. If it lost the case it was going to get hit with a massive fine and potentially have to completely rethink its T&Cs. If it won the case there would have been a public uproar and demands for a comprehensive overhaul of airline consumer protections would have become impossible for the gov to ignore.

By settling the case it managed to avoid both. (Well, it did still cop a massive fine)

 

[Quickstatus]

By settling the case it managed to avoid both

Except that Qantas made admissions to the court that it
Offered for sale tickets for flights after it had cancelled the flights and for flights already sold continued to display flight details even after the flights were cancelled
And admitted to contravening the various sections of the Australian consumer law

 

[Quickstatus]

Qantas settles $105M with no admission of liability

 

[RooFlyer]

Probably will be viewed as a win because it’s not as much as it might have been

 

[Quickstatus]

it’s not as much as it might have been

Possibly.
Dont forget, the story is ongoing. The Court as to approve it, and there might be additional entitlements for the class action plaintiffs.
And the similar class action against Jetstar is continuing.....

Total so far is $315M.....

 

[mel-world]

Probably would have been cheaper to pay the refunds, after offering credits, and bank the goodwill they lost.

 

[Greg555]

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.

An excellent reminder of what a reprehensible organisation Qantas is.... It's list of abominable corporate behaviour is so long I had nearly forgotten about this particular issue. What also continues to amaze me is how many cheerleaders they still have out there....