'The Age'/'SMH' are reporting that Federal Labor Minister for Transport, Catherine King, says Australia is "too small" for an EC261/UK261 style compensation scheme for delayed or cancelled flights.
She says the Consumer Aviation Ombudsman would "still be effective" despite its inability to force airlines to pay up when things go awry.
There will be some sort of (effectively toothless) aviation consumer protection authority with a separate consumer (i.e. traveller) consumer Ombudsman scheme to handle individual complaints.
She claims fares would rise if the government introduced a compensation scheme, and says that unlike Australia, Europe is able to spread the cost of compensation because it has so many airlines operating, much bigger airports and a far bigger (overall) population.
But these are red herrings.
Population size is irrelevant. Airlines tailor their offerings to (hopefully) match demand and are price makers, not price takers, because the distances in Australia and the complete lack on the lower east coast of any meaningful competition (such as high speed rail) means the airline duopoly can charge what the market will bear.
Do the airlines operate as altruists when there's a major concert/cricket match/AFL/NRL/Australian Open/school holidays/Easter/Christmas? We all know the answer.
The airline duopoly of QFd/VAd is making good profits,. It isn't travellers' fault that VA previously went broke or that Alan Joyce refused to invest in sufficient new aircraft such that both, especially QF, are now playing catch-up.
Fares are arguably very high: ask any business traveller who doesn't know his or her schedule much in advance and so must book close to the intended day of travel.
Australia is 'big enough' for railways to have compensation schemes, such as introduced years ago in Melbourne for what's now Metro (trains) and V/Line, as well as Yarra Trams and contracted bus operators. Why should the airlines be any different?
Australia is 'big enough' to have compensation schemes for consumers using telcos and electricity and gas retailers. Again, why should the duopoly airlines be exempt?
This forthcoming decision by the Federal Government is evidence as to why all politicians should be barred from accepting Qantas and Virgin Oz Chairman's Lounge and the equivalent access. Of course, pigs might fly. We all know they love being away from the general public and will cite 'personal security' as one justification even though all of us are searched before entering 'sterile' major airport areas.
This is corruption, because it's hard to discount these cushy arrangements that arguably influence decision making.
Interestingly, 'The Age' implies international airlines may be a part of this rubbery yet to be finalised scheme. I don't know what that means in practice.
