New aviation industry ombudsman & customer rights charter in Australia

[Saab34]

I’ve never understood the complexity airlines have with refunding money. You can get instant or next day refunds at a payment terminal at most retailers, even online refunds it only takes a day or two.

I’ll never forget Bonza. They apparently needed to do it all manual, someone literally transferring money from a Bonza CommBank account and back to the customer. Which explains why it took months to get a refund.

A few things I want and this is based off low expectations.

-Refunds within 7 days.
-While you are in the airlines care, I don’t care if it’s weather or engineering, they are responsible for you and need to wear hotel food costs. Getting out of reimbursement because of factors not in my control isn’t my issue.
-4/5hr Delays and longer an airline voucher needs to be provided. Alliance giving me a 5 hour delay due crewing, that is the COOs issue not mine.
-Cancellations they need to do everything they can to get you there, ie pushing via connections.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I’ve never understood the complexity airlines have with refunding money. You can get instant or next day refunds at a payment terminal at most retailers, even online refunds it only takes a day or two.

I’ll never forget Bonza. They apparently needed to do it all manual, someone literally transferring money from a Bonza CommBank account and back to the customer. Which explains why it took months to get a refund.

A few things I want and this is based off low expectations.

-Refunds within 7 days.
-While you are in the airlines care, I don’t care if it’s weather or engineering, they are responsible for you and need to wear hotel food costs. Getting out of reimbursement because of factors not in my control isn’t my issue.
-4/5hr Delays and longer an airline voucher needs to be provided. Alliance giving me a 5 hour delay due crewing, that is the COOs issue not mine.
-Cancellations they need to do everything they can to get you there, ie pushing via connections.

Agree in principle, except for cover for events outside their control.

If ATC can’t cover operations and flights are delayed or cancelled, why should the airline pay? It should be the government, or Air Services AU.

Do we want the taxpayer to foot the bill?

Same as weather. Genuine delays for weather shouldn’t fall on the airline. I think EU261 goes too far in that respect.

The caveat in that is that it must be a genuine weather delay. Like a ground stop. Not blaming weather in Hobart at 6am for a delay to the SYD-MEL at 4pm.

 

[Mwenenzi]

Latest PR spin - propaganda from AU federal govt.
EU261 type legislation would have been real consumer protection.
01 April 2026 (issued April fools day appropriately)

https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/new-aviation-consumer-protections-legislation-help-passengers-when-things-go-wrong

The Albanese Government is delivering stronger aviation consumer protections for travellers, today taking a critical step by introducing a package of bills to Parliament.

The war in the Middle East has highlighted how travellers can experience disruption and uncertainty domestically, and how important it is for them to have increased protections when they fly and a clear understanding of what they are entitled to.

This bill will legislate new reforms that reshape the way consumers interact with the aviation industry, providing them with the protections they need when things go wrong, while still supporting a competitive and affordable industry.

Today’s legislation will establish the new Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson. An independent body working with travellers, airlines and airports to resolve complaints.

The legislation also paves the way for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, an Australian first, which will set minimum standards expected from airline and airport services for aviation consumers.
<snip>

And last paragraph

In recognition of their role as critical community infrastructure and their limited financial and operational capacity, the Government intends to exempt airports with less than 1 million passengers per year from the framework, airports that are commonly council-owned in regional Australia.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the EU compensation scheme.

The Transport minister in an interview stated:

“Obviously, in Europe, there is a compensation scheme that is, of course, defrayed across millions of passengers and hundreds of airlines.​

They think it’s a central compensation scheme which all airlines contribute to, and compensation is paid out of that one pot.

Incorrect! Each airline is responsible for their own payouts. So it makes no difference. A small airline in Europe is the same as a small airline in Australia.

Source: ‘A better deal’: Aviation consumer protections put to Parliament

 

[dajop]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the EU compensation scheme.

Yes, and it's not really about compensating passengers either. It's about incentivizing airlines to make the right operational decisions to ensure they minimise the sort of passenger disruptions that are generally within their control.

 

[Mr_Tee]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the EU compensation scheme.

The Transport minister in an interview stated:

“Obviously, in Europe, there is a compensation scheme that is, of course, defrayed across millions of passengers and hundreds of airlines.​

They think it’s a central compensation scheme which all airlines contribute to, and compensation is paid out of that one pot.

Incorrect! Each airline is responsible for their own payouts. So it makes no difference. A small airline in Europe is the same as a small airline in Australia.

Source: ‘A better deal’: Aviation consumer protections put to Parliament

Politicians often take the position that if you repeat something often enough, even if it is false, it becomes a fact and the truth.

 

[LondonAussie]

As we’ve seen with the ME disruptions, the brilliance of the EU scheme is not about compensation, it’s about “duty of care” - forcing the airlines to take full financial responsibility to transport the customer to their destination, and to take care of any accomodation and meals until they do.

 

[eastwest101]

Latest PR spin - propaganda from AU federal govt.
EU261 type legislation would have been real consumer protection.
01 April 2026 (issued April fools day appropriately)

https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/new-aviation-consumer-protections-legislation-help-passengers-when-things-go-wrong

And last paragraph

The legislation also paves the way for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, an Australian first, which will set minimum standards expected from airline and airport services for aviation consumers.

I realise it's a bit off-topic, but I wonder what "minimum standards" the airports are required to provide and who the "consumers" are? For airports, the consumer is actually the airlines and the leaseholders of the retail inside the airport, right? Or is this a clumsy way of saying the airport can't just close its doors and shut overnight, kicking out disrupted passengers? The use of the word "airport services" is also pretty vague, is that basic services such as lights, air conditioning, fire safety, etc., etc Does it include parking? Does it include the airport control of transport services landside e.g. taxis, rideshare, public transport, etc., etc

I think the big thing that may come out of this might be additional regulation/oversight of airport security and passenger screening, which are contracted out by the airports, but are the pax the consumers or the airlines the consumers?

And what's the logic of this magical over 1M pax, and you have to comply with standards but airports with 999,999 pax are not subject to the legislation? The implication is that these things, whatever they are, are going to cost airports $$, so the intention is not to bankrupt local council-owned airports, fair enough, but I can see a lot of airports gaming the system/massaging their statistics to keep their passenger numbers at 999,999 per year. It would seem that Launceston and Newcastle Airports might have just over 1M pax per year, but Mackay, Rockhampton and say Karratha just fall under this threshold.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The legislation also paves the way for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, an Australian first, which will set minimum standards expected from airline and airport services for aviation consumers.

I realise it's a bit off-topic, but I wonder what "minimum standards" the airports are required to provide and who the "consumers" are? For airports, the consumer is actually the airlines and the leaseholders of the retail inside the airport, right? Or is this a clumsy way of saying the airport can't just close its doors and shut overnight, kicking out disrupted passengers? The use of the word "airport services" is also pretty vague, is that basic services such as lights, air conditioning, fire safety, etc., etc Does it include parking? Does it include the airport control of transport services landside e.g. taxis, rideshare, public transport, etc., etc

I think the big thing that may come out of this might be additional regulation/oversight of airport security and passenger screening, which are contracted out by the airports, but are the pax the consumers or the airlines the consumers?

And what's the logic of this magical over 1M pax, and you have to comply with standards but airports with 999,999 pax are not subject to the legislation? The implication is that these things, whatever they are, are going to cost airports $$, so the intention is not to bankrupt local council-owned airports, fair enough, but I can see a lot of airports gaming the system/massaging their statistics to keep their passenger numbers at 999,999 per year. It would seem that Launceston and Newcastle Airports might have just over 1M pax per year, but Mackay, Rockhampton and say Karratha just fall under this threshold.

I’m guessing the minimum standards for airports will be around disability services? (which is also part of the charter).

1M pax I guess because they’re local councils, and it might be too expensive? Some small airports don’t have security checking for example… might be along the same lines?