Excessive fees by Airlines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stupid decision to allow credit card surcharges in the first place.

Airlines are afraid to adjust their airfares as the airfares will look too high.

And while we are at it get rid of fuel surcharges as well so we can get some value out of economy redemptions.
 
Stupid decision to allow credit card surcharges in the first place.

Cards had unfettered rights 'to gouge' merchants, and did. Indeed cards and regulators sued each other for price fixing their commissions. You should read the stuff between the ACCC and Reserve Bank as the thorny issue was tossed by fingerpointing cards (who were all vying the screw merchants or cardholders anyway).

Amex RBA Surcharge Submission 2008 australia.jpgamex fx surcharges october 2008 cid pg316062014.jpg

FX rates were allegedly 'fixed' too.
 
Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

The point is not to make the price of the ticket cheaper - it is to protect consumers who think they can rely on the advertised price

Airlines are afraid to adjust their airfares as the airfares will look too high.

Given this then, wouldn't it be better for the consumer and perhaps even for the taxpayer and supposedly a cash strapped government for the ACCC to get the governments support to call ALL airlines that operate within, into and out of the country into a room, provide a plate of sandwiches and a glass of water to everyone around the table and politely inform them they have 6 months to come up with an industry code on airfare advertising that avoids the (insert list of practices the ACCC doesn't like here) or the ACCC with the support of the government will write one and get it enshrined in law.

What really irks me about Lord Sims over at the ACCC is that this situation, at least in my eyes, is in part the ACCC's making. They value a competition at the expense of all else ideology that has, in recent times according to profit results in the newspaper, led to it bordering on impossible to run an airline profitability in Australia. While businesses will come and go in a competitive environment I'm not convinced it is a good thing, or a fair thing to those businesses and the people working in them that it is difficult and bordering on impossible to run a business, in this case an airline, with the prospects of a fair return thanks to an ideological agenda implemented by a government department.

This is the same ACCC that described the airline industry as a "cosy duopoly" ... I'm no expert at reading federal government budget papers, but it would seem that "cosy duopoly" is on track to loose more money than the ACCC's annual budget, perhaps even several times over. An interesting definition of cosy.

They, at least in part, created an environment that supports this race to the lowest common denominator advertising. Their solution then is to litigate to fix it. How imaginative.
 
Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

Europe has it right I think. You see all the un-avoidable charges up-front, by selecting payment method, and credit card charges are reasonable. Also incorporated in quote is any service fees, irrespective of method of payment (eg Easyjet charges a flat per booking service fee, regardless of method of payment or number of passengers on booking). They are not hidden in fee schedule or "finalise booking" screen. Of course still have to go to screen 2 to add luggage, but that's probably acceptable.

For example, from Ryanair:
BOOKING SUMMARYLondon (Stansted) → Ancona
Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:30 - 11:50
1 Adult,72.99 GBP
1 x Adult Fare 72.99 GBP
Fees 1.46 GBP
Credit Card Fee: 1.46 GBP
Discount Pay by debit card: 72.99 GBP
Pay by credit card: 74.45 GBP

Or Easyjet:

Tue 22 July 2014London Gatwick to Dubrovnik
Dep 15:55 - Arr 19:35
Flight EZY5427
1 Adult
1 x £143.99
Subtotal flights and options for all passengers: £143.99
Final Price £143.99 £14399
Pay by Credit Card: £146.87
Pay by Debit Card:£143.99
 
Last edited:
Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

This is the same ACCC that described the airline industry as a "cosy duopoly" ... I'm no expert at reading federal government budget papers, but it would seem that "cosy duopoly" is on track to loose more money than the ACCC's annual budget, perhaps even several times over. An interesting definition of cosy.

It should in theory be a "cosy duopoly", however management of the former dominant player was hell bent on losing as much money as possible to try and drive the young upstart out of the market, but underestimated the depth of the pockets of the young upstart had access to. That is definitely changing, and we are already starting to see capacity "readjustments", and probably a return to a probably not cosy, but certainly a duopoly - other than on routes like ABX, BNK and MQL where three completely independent airlines co-exist.
 
Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

Given this then, wouldn't it be better for the consumer and perhaps even for the taxpayer and supposedly a cash strapped government for the ACCC to get the governments support to call ALL airlines that operate within, into and out of the country into a room, provide a plate of sandwiches and a glass of water to everyone around the table and politely inform them they have 6 months to come up with an industry code on airfare advertising that avoids the (insert list of practices the ACCC doesn't like here) or the ACCC with the support of the government will write one and get it enshrined in law.

What really irks me about Lord Sims over at the ACCC is that this situation, at least in my eyes, is in part the ACCC's making. They value a competition at the expense of all else ideology that has, in recent times according to profit results in the newspaper, led to it bordering on impossible to run an airline profitability in Australia. While businesses will come and go in a competitive environment I'm not convinced it is a good thing, or a fair thing to those businesses and the people working in them that it is difficult and bordering on impossible to run a business, in this case an airline, with the prospects of a fair return thanks to an ideological agenda implemented by a government department.

This is the same ACCC that described the airline industry as a "cosy duopoly" ... I'm no expert at reading federal government budget papers, but it would seem that "cosy duopoly" is on track to loose more money than the ACCC's annual budget, perhaps even several times over. An interesting definition of cosy.

They, at least in part, created an environment that supports this race to the lowest common denominator advertising. Their solution then is to litigate to fix it. How imaginative.

The law is the law. And my tax payer $ goes to the ACCC to look after my consumer rights. I'm more than happy for them to spend the money doing that.

It is not impossible for businesses to run in Australia. The problem is that a lot of businesses don't produce what we want to buy. So they go out of business.

The majority of businesses should never forget one essential thing - which they all too often seem to overlook - they are here to serve us, the consumers. It is not a right for them to exist, and they don't have an automatic right or expectation for us to buy from them. They must produce what we want or tough cookies.

Qantas is losing money? Well i can't help it if they aren't employing smaller 787s with big business class cabins and small economy cabins in order to boost their profits. Not my fault they didn't select the 777 if that would have been beneficial. Not my fault they engaged in price fixing and pay huge multi million dollar fines, or ignore DOT rules and pay fines in America. Not my fault if they can't assure me they have trained staff to make sure baggage can be through checked to oneworld partners (and save my elderly parents having to claim their bags in Sydney and catch a taxi to international).

Those things have nothing to do with anything the ACCC regulates.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

The law is the law. And my tax payer $ goes to the ACCC to look after my consumer rights. I'm more than happy for them to spend the money doing that.

It is not impossible for businesses to run in Australia. The problem is that a lot of businesses don't produce what we want to buy. So they go out of business.

The majority of businesses should never forget one essential thing - which they all too often seem to overlook - they are here to serve us, the consumers. It is not a right for them to exist, and they don't have an automatic right or expectation for us to buy from them. They must produce what we want or tough cookies.

Qantas is losing money? Well i can't help it if they aren't employing smaller 787s with big business class cabins and small economy cabins in order to boost their profits. Not my fault they didn't select the 777 if that would have been beneficial. Not my fault they engaged in price fixing and pay huge multi million dollar fines, or ignore DOT rules and pay fines in America. Not my fault if they can't assure me they have trained staff to make sure baggage can be through checked to oneworld partners (and save my elderly parents having to claim their bags in Sydney and catch a taxi to international).

Those things have nothing to do with anything the ACCC regulates.

Well said, that man!
 
I have been working through the finer points of displaying prices correctly on our companies websites and wondered why we got slammed by the accc whilst other industries e.g. Airlines, concert tickets seemed to have a free reign.

To cut a long story short the law states (some small exceptions but...) that if you know the minimum total price then you must state it up front. If you mention $100 as a headline price then a consumer should be able to purchase for this amount. End of story. Anything else is drip pricing. We got fined. A lot.
 
We got fined. A lot.

That's my beef with, for example, Fos: As the Editorial in the SMH says

smh editorial cba fos systemic.jpg

smh editorial cba fos23052014.jpg

If we're kept in the dark like mushrooms how can we exercise rights against goliath? We have strength in numbers , as illustrated in 5k5t and the power of systemic complaints by many on social media and in the mainstream press. Otherwise we're David with a blindfold on and no real rocks to fire,
 
I have been working through the finer points of displaying prices correctly on our companies websites and wondered why we got slammed by the accc whilst other industries e.g. Airlines, concert tickets seemed to have a free reign. To cut a long story short the law states (some small exceptions but...) that if you know the minimum total price then you must state it up front. If you mention $100 as a headline price then a consumer should be able to purchase for this amount. End of story. Anything else is drip pricing. We got fined. A lot.
I don't know what company you work for, but I, too, have always wondered how some of the ticket type site (concerts etc), get away with what thay get away with. I also am not sure why they have picked on Jetstar and Virgin, over Qantas and Tiger, but I guess we have to wait until the case is outlined to get a better understanding of what the issue the ACCC has.
 
I had a look at the various websites - a couple of observations. Only Qantas seems to call a credit card surcharge for what it is, a credit card surcharge. The others seem to have 'Booking Fees', or 'Service Fees', that seem only to be paid when there is a card involved. I guess that is to try to work around the RBA rules. Tiger has a big escape hatch - that Australian Issues Debit Mastercards are fee free.
 
Oh, and I think all the airlines that play the pre-selected insurance scam should get a kick up their rears.
 
I had a look at the various websites - a couple of observations. Only Qantas seems to call a credit card surcharge for what it is, a credit card surcharge. The others seem to have 'Booking Fees', or 'Service Fees', that seem only to be paid when there is a card involved. I guess that is to try to work around the RBA rules. Tiger has a big escape hatch - that Australian Issues Debit Mastercards are fee free.

Memo Mafia Dons & Airline Executives: from 1st July we surcharge all brown paper bags with an "environmental levy". :(
 
how come I pay $1 for green airline petrol, but I never see the plane filled up with a green petrol tanker? :confused:
 
how come I pay $1 for green airline petrol, but I never see the plane filled up with a green petrol tanker? :confused:
Probably because putting petrol into a jet aircraft would not be a good idea. They run much better on Jet-A fuel rather than petrol, no matter what colour the petrol claims to be.
 

Interesting that in The Age article it seems to imply that VA and JQ are being targetted either because of 'inadequate disclosure' or they simply 'attracted more complaints' to the ACCC ('more' that QF and TT presumably).

I think its more interesting that the ACCC wants to look at Macquarie Airports re the current Mascot airport and the proposed Badgerys Creek airport. Can see that one being a lawyers picnic.
 
It's disgraceful. $7+ for paying by credit card on line for a domestic ticket - when there's no other way to pay!

But the worst was the $300+ i had to pay Flight Centre for buying a Business Class ticket to the US and paying with Amex. What a ripoff!

These airlines (and a whole lot of other businesses) seem to have forgotten why credit cards were invented, to save them the costs and risks of handling cash.

Why dont they just add 1% to every fare and have done with it.
 
And how can anyone justify add ing a surcharge for a debit card payment - that costs them NOTHING
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

The law is the law. And my tax payer $ goes to the ACCC to look after my consumer rights. I'm more than happy for them to spend the money doing that.

It is not impossible for businesses to run in Australia. The problem is that a lot of businesses don't produce what we want to buy. So they go out of business.

The majority of businesses should never forget one essential thing - which they all too often seem to overlook - they are here to serve us, the consumers. It is not a right for them to exist, and they don't have an automatic right or expectation for us to buy from them. They must produce what we want or tough cookies.

Qantas is losing money? Well i can't help it if they aren't employing smaller 787s with big business class cabins and small economy cabins in order to boost their profits. Not my fault they didn't select the 777 if that would have been beneficial. Not my fault they engaged in price fixing and pay huge multi million dollar fines, or ignore DOT rules and pay fines in America. Not my fault if they can't assure me they have trained staff to make sure baggage can be through checked to oneworld partners (and save my elderly parents having to claim their bags in Sydney and catch a taxi to international).

Those things have nothing to do with anything the ACCC regulates.

Completely agree. I mean what good does the old way of business of advertising $1 + taxes fare do for anyone other than the company? You go to the USA and never actually pay anything like an advertised price. I will always give my business to a company that is upfront over one that uses dodgy tactics to look cheaper.

While i understand charging for extra services on flights is legit, I'd like to see those prices more upfront also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top