Re: Choice targets airlines over failure to provide full refunds
It's the words "non-refundable" that are the problem, because EVERY flight can be refundable, if, for example, the airline cancels the service. It's like the shops that have "no refund" signs up - of course, if the goods are "not fit for purpose", then you get a refund.
The airlines may just have to reword this - "non-refundable if the passenger changes their mind" or similar.
I guess airlines or the ACCC may have to define what is a "fit for purpose" flight purchase. For example, for a flight to be judged as fit for purpose, you must:
- Arrive at the destination stated on your ticket you initially purchased
- Arrive within a certain time as stated on your ticket you initially purchased or consented to exchange (e.g. flight time change)
- Travel in the class of service you have paid for (and been offered the opportunity to enjoy all the services in that class, e.g. a meal, a seat)
- Been offered the opportunity to enjoy all the services you specifically paid for (e.g. extra baggage allowance)
If any of those are broken, the product is deemed not fit for purpose and you get a refund. Then we would also need to have arguments about whether a full or partial refund is due in some cases of "not fit for purpose"; for example, you managed to successfully fly from BNE to MEL on time, but on board you did not receive a meal that was advertised by the airline.
There would also need to be definitions as to what constitutes a failure of fit for purpose on the part of the company or the customer. For example, if a flight is delayed due to weather, you may not make it to your destination on time. Are you entitled to a refund due to not being fit for purpose?
Finally, there is the issue that if a customer is due a refund, is it right to "penalise" them? Even if it is a change of mind refund? I remember that a handful of electronics stores charge a restocking fee (e.g. 15%) if a customer returned an item completely on a change of mind basis. Let's not also forget that the banks have recently been in the boiling pot for charging fees that were judged as being excessive of the costs they incurred, even though one can argue that a good customer could have veritably avoided these fees easily and under normal use of the product were under no compunction at all to incur that fee.
This is much easier for most other consumer products and services. For example, if you buy a phone, if it malfunctions in any way (as long as you didn't deliberately cause the fault), you can get it refunded, replaced or repaired. If you order to have your carpets cleaned, if you check and the carpets are still quite dirty without being advised by the cleaner, or your cleaner completely destroys your carpet, you can seek compensation of a minimum of not paying for the services you ordered.
I'm not confident that if the ACCC gets their way then fares will necessarily go up, or go up high. It'll come down to which of the two airlines will blink first and bump up prices, but if they do, won't the other one simply not do it and thus garner the majority of the market?
Also, I don't think Choice has ever complained about the prices of air fares themselves. They only complain about the fees and charges which surround the headline fares (e.g. credit card fees, cancellation or change fees, hidden insurances, award ticketing fees...). Choice is not going to get onto a soapbox and start throwing red paint around if, for some odd economic combination of reasons or institution of whatever consumer friendly regulation, the headline price of a Y fare on the MEL/SYD monorail rose to $300.
