"Airlines need to comply with consumer law" - ACCC

[MEL_Traveller]

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Airlines Terms and Conditions Report.pdf

The ACCC released on 20 December a preliminary discussion paper on terms and conditions in airline contracts, although mainly in the area of refunds for delays and cancellations.

But they also have some thoughts on unfair cancellation fees, particularly where the customer has to pay large fees for cancellation, but the airline can do so without penalty.

The ACCC will talk with airlines in 2018 to better understand the issues.

The scope is slightly limited... it doesn't cover things such as refunds for downgrades. But the implications could mean that the way those refunds are calculated could also be in for a change.

Over all this is a step in the right direction I think, provided airlines don't give the ACCC the run-around!

 

[serfty]

Airlines need to comply with consumer law

...
With over 10 million passengers flying last December and January, the ACCC has today released a report Airlines: Terms and conditions ahead of the busy Christmas travel season to remind travellers of their rights.

The ACCC received 1400 complaints about airlines from 1 January 2016 to 14 December 2017, largely concerning consumer rights, known as consumer guarantees. We analysed many of these complaints as part of our 2017 enforcement priorities. ..

Full report here: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Airlines Terms and Conditions Report.pdf

 

[UP4014]

What can I say. Good !

 

[Danger]

ACCC releases preliminary thoughts on airline terms and conditions

 

[Buzzard]

I have always thought it was all the airlines way. This could be a good move.

 

[OATEK]

I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Over all this is a step in the right direction I think, provided airlines don't give the ACCC the run-around!

I think it's without doubt that the airlines will try to give the ACCC the runaround. I live in hope that this will be a positive, but the banks have, over the years, proven that what the ACCC taketh on one hand, gives profit potential on the other!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think it's without doubt that the airlines will try to give the ACCC the runaround. I live in hope that this will be a positive, but the banks have, over the years, proven that what the ACCC taketh on one hand, gives profit potential on the other!

The positive take out, I hope, is that the ACCC might genuinely be interested in passenger protection? So far courts have agreed with airlines that things like overbooking are 'industry practice' and therefore allowed... but that fails to take in to account how air travel has changed over the last 30 years. Overbooking might have been accepted when fares were fully flexible and passengers made multiple bookings... but does the same apply today when fares are non-refundable?

In part that is related to the examination of hefty cancellation fees, and one-sided cancellation the ACCC is talking about. Perhaps they will argue flexibility is required on both sides? Or none at all, which would help to stem overbooking.

At least now it looks like the ACCC is getting an understanding of how the industry works. If someone was to go to them explaining the manifestly unfair downgrade compensation offered by Qantas, at least the ACCC might have an appreciation of the issues instead of just accepting the airline's explanation. (How can you downgrade someone on the day of travel but charge them the full walk-up fare for their new economy seat?)

 

[mannej]

I hate to be a cynic, but this is another case of be careful of what you wish for. Just like everything else the ACCC has touched...

 

[oz_mark]

I hate to be a cynic, but this is another case of be careful of what you wish for. Just like everything else the ACCC has touched...

While I think they favour education over enforcement a bit too much, I think they have done a reasonable job...

In the case of airlines, I've long thought that if they change a flight, they should be paying the relevant change fee to the consumer....

 

[annoyed]

Airlines need to comply with consumer law



Full report here: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Airlines Terms and Conditions Report.pdf

I think the Terms and conditions of the Frequent Flyers Program needs looking into also. Qantas uses the terms to justify deleting (stealing) our points for breaking the following inactivity clause ......
9.2.2 All Points held in a Qantas Frequent Flyer account will expire at midnight Sydney, Australia time at the end of the 18th consecutive month for which the Member has not earned Points or Status Credits or redeemed Points (excluding any transfer of Points to or from an Eligible Family Member and excluding any transfer of Points from Qantas Business Rewards). For this purpose Points earned in relation to:

Yet they deliberately do not send a warning or if they do, it is in tiny print hidden amongst larger advertising print sent via a bombardment of emails (in my case 120 in nine months). That is 13.333 emails every month and hidden in that lot is supposed to be a warning in tiny print that we are required to wade through and read.
The Terms and conditions clearly state that they will warn us 60 days before expiry in the following clause......

9.2.3 Within 60 days prior to the Points expiration date, Qantas Loyalty will notify Members of the number of Points that are about to expire and the expiration date as follows:

(a) Online activity statements display a warning to the Member;

(b) Members who continue to receive paper activity statements, will receive an activity statement which includes a notification that Points are about to expire; and

(c) Members who have opted to receive communications online and via email will receive a notification within their monthly electronic newsletter.

How is it legal for Qantas to break CLAUSE 9.2.3 yet penalise us for breaking CLAUSE 9.2.2 ???
I HOPE THE ACCC REALLY LOOKS AT THAT PROBLEM AND MAKES QANTAS REFUND EVERY POINT THEY STOLE FROM MEMBERS ILLEGALLY.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yet they deliberately do not send a warning or if they do, it is in tiny print hidden amongst larger advertising print sent via a bombardment of emails (in my case 120 in nine months). That is 13.333 emails every month and hidden in that lot is supposed to be a warning in tiny print that we are required to wade through and read.

Wow. I wish I could have your email frequency! I get one email a day from QF... whether it's health insurance, fit bit walking, wine, newsletter. Nine months it's been 270+ emails

 

[TomVexille]

Welcome aboard annoyed.

Probably a tough one as QF would argue that you have agreed to their terms and that they do notify you, and it's not their fault if you don't read your emails.

I'm not saying that it's right. But that we do need to be on top of our game as loyalty programs are designed to make companies money.

 

[CMA222]

ACCC should be congratulated for taking on the airlines in this way IMHO. We have all experienced the inequality of negotiating power that is a feature of dealing with airlines. I suggest something similar to the European compensation scheme (EC261/2004) could be introduced into Australia to re-balance the competing interests. AFF should consider making a submission (when the public are invited) including details (links) of the nightmares that are so often played out here. Compensation for downgrades is a topic that must be addressed.

 

[moa999]

But an EU261 will add to the costs of tickets. Just bake it into the fare.

That said I do think some protection bus needed against the LCCs who think cancelling a flight then telling you the next available flight is in 48hrs is ok.

Airlines are also somewhat different to most consumer companies in that they sell ostensibly the same product but with quite varying add-ons and t&c's (change fees, refund, cancellation policies)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But an EU261 will add to the costs of tickets. Just bake it into the fare.

That's the excuse heavily promoted by airlines. But I've seen zero evidence of that in any Euro airfare pricing. My recent trip in peak summer time in Europe had rock bottom fares... BA with bags included AMS-LHR was 52 euros. Cheaper for hand-luggage only.

 

[basso]

But an EU261 will add to the costs of tickets. Just bake it into the fare.

That said I do think some protection bus needed against the LCCs who think cancelling a flight then telling you the next available flight is in 48hrs is ok.

Airlines are also somewhat different to most consumer companies in that they sell ostensibly the same product but with quite varying add-ons and t&c's (change fees, refund, cancellation policies)

I tend to agree. Consumer Protection is needed against their dodgy contracts, but at the same time, I don't think it should be about offering windfall gains to consumers if they mess up.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I tend to agree. Consumer Protection is needed against their dodgy contracts, but at the same time, I don't think it should be about offering windfall gains to consumers if they mess up.

I'm not sure EU261 represents windfall gains? Short-haul the compensation barely covers the cost of a last-minute walk up. The donwgrade compensation (75% of the sector fare) is accurate and should discourage airlines from overbooking. The €600 for long haul should encourage airlines to run their planes to schedule or encourage the airline to rebook on alternatives. Six hours (before the compensation kicks in) is a long time for a delay. Much less than that and the airline might decide just to wear the costs.

For some reason airlines think it's ok to take your money but not have to wear any consequences if they don't deliver.

 

[Dalescott]

The Minister for Transport is also the Minister for Qantas. I will wait to see what happens, but I'm not holding my breath. Airlines are famous for writing their own rules. I can not see the ACCC getting around this one.

 

[annoyed]

Welcome aboard annoyed.

Probably a tough one as QF would argue that you have agreed to their terms and that they do notify you, and it's not their fault if you don't read your emails.

I'm not saying that it's right. But that we do need to be on top of our game as loyalty programs are designed to make companies money.

Thank you Tom for the welcome.

That is my argument right there, they DID NOT warn me. Yes they sent emails on the two dates they told me but those emails DID NOT CONTAIN ANY WARNING in them.
Apparently I have been told by some members on some that on occasions they do send a warning and the email is not labeled as WARNING it is just another Qantas email amongst hundreds and the warning is in the smallest type on the page hidden amongst larger type advertising. Fair Trading would consider this in itself to be what they term as NON TRANSPARENT.

On the 22nd December 2017 I forwarded the two emails to both Fair Trading and to Alan Joyce's office for their comment as to where the warnings are? To date no reply. Yes Qantas tell us that they sent warnings but it appears that the system has a glitch because for may that have had their points deleted they all claim that they never received a warning. Most people would have deleted old emails so they have no way of checking if they actually received a warning or it is just Qantas telling us this speil. I was fortunate enough to have the two emails in question still in my inbox and when i opened these emails I discovered that there was no warning. The proof of this lack of warning is in these two emails that I still have. The point I was making in my original post is that iif Qantas use the breaking of the terms as reason to delete the points should it not also take into account that they broke their own terms by not sending a warning. Placing that clause in the terms and conditions would give members a peace of mind knowing that if they were a bit lax they will get a warning. So in fact, Qantas is misleading us into a false sense of security.