Pressure On Airlines to Stop Fleecing Customers

[Cruiser Elite]

I have no doubt they do have very competent legal departments... the problem appears to be that in many cases management seems to bypass the legal department.

Look at Qantas - massive fines for price fixing. Millions of dollars worth of fines. Plus fines for false advertising. Probably all avoided had they run matters by legal before acting.

Recently MEL or ancient history? Fines for misleading / deceptive pax tix pricing or cargo operations?

 

[harvyk]

Passengers who don't understand the LCC business model should stick to full service carriers.

Well actually....
Whilst I would normally agree with you on that, in this case the LCC's broke the law. It's illegal for them to make an offer of a product for a price, and then say "oh, by the way, here are some non-mandatory things you need to pay for as well to actually take up the offer."

If I was to offer you a flight from SYD airport to MEL airport for $50, I have to make sure that you can actually fly from SYD-MEL for $50, and not one cent more. I am more than welcome to charge you for meals / drinks / baggage / aka the things you get for free on full service carriers provided I did not actually state that the $50 flights was all inclusive.

What I am not allowed to do is offer you flights for $50, and then say "oh, that didn't include 'taxes'" or any of the other BS extra's which are really just part of getting a plane from A to B and are in no way optional.

Interesting thought - let me see - quick call to Airbus - please Sir can I have a 380? Sure can - but you do understand that our standard price can and does vary depending on your personal corporate requirements. Would you like all Y seating or would you like to option up with a bunch of J and a small premium F section up front? Showers or no showers? Bar or no bar?

What you are talking about is the base model, vs the fully kitted out version. If Airbus offered you an A380 for $350 million, provided they made it clear that it was for the aircraft alone, and that you would be responsible for the seats / galley's / other fitout in their advertisements, provided that you could write a cheque for $350 million and fly away in an A380 then there is no problems.

This is no different than when car dealers got themselves into a world of hurt by advertising a price for a car, and then adding on "dealer delivery" as a non-optional extra cost. These days you can get into the base model car for the advertised price, and if you want the extra features which don't come as standard (even if you see every other car having them) then provided they made it clear up front what is and is not included in the base price then they are in the clear.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

What you are talking about is the base model, vs the fully kitted out version. If Airbus offered you an A380 for $350 million, provided they made it clear that it was for the aircraft alone, and that you would be responsible for the seats / galley's / other fitout in their advertisements, provided that you could write a cheque for $350 million and fly away in an A380 then there is no problems.

But can't a customer go to JQ, VA, TT web sites - select the basics $50 seat - select ZERO add ons - then pay and off you go? Ok so you need pay CC fee - jeez are these 3 airlines the only companie's in Oz adding such a fee. Extra legroom - nah - cold stale sausage roll - nah - insurance - nah - just cheapest price please - this is impossible to achieve?

 

[RooFlyer]

I have no doubt they do have very competent legal departments... the problem appears to be that in many cases management seems to bypass the legal department.

Look at Qantas - massive fines for price fixing. Millions of dollars worth of fines. Plus fines for false advertising. Probably all avoided had they run matters by legal before acting.

Not necessarily. Remember lawyers don't give out the Law - they only offer their opinions on the Law. QF's lawyers could well have opined positively on the course of action.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Recently MEL or ancient history? Fines for misleading / deceptive pax tix pricing or cargo operations?

It was to illustrate the point. QF would have had an excellent legal team back then as well, but still allegedly engaged in illegal practices. The existence of a legal team often doesn't mean anything of and in itself.

QF's (any airline's) terms and conditions - just because they have an excellent legal department in place - doesn't mean several of their supposed terms and conditions couldn't be successfully challenged.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

I might have missed something in the headline - are Australian airlines continuing to 'fleece' customers? Kinda waste of bandwidth bringing up what has gone before.

 

[TomVexille]

I might have missed something in the headline - are Australian airlines continuing to 'fleece' customers? Kinda waste of bandwidth bringing up what has gone before.

As ric_melb pointed out. Old news

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I might have missed something in the headline - are Australian airlines continuing to 'fleece' customers? Kinda waste of bandwidth bringing up what has gone before.

I would argue 'yes'. Credit card fees that don't reflect the cost of recovery on an individual passenger basis stands out as the major one. Also look at the supposed QF 'compensation' for an involuntary downgrade... the 'refund' bears little or no relation to the actual fare paid/flown.

 

[Happy Trails]

This will all be resolved once peace is achieved in the Middle East.

Edit: I was going to reference priority boarding, but that seems more intractable.

 

[Happy Trails]

I have no doubt they do have very competent legal departments... the problem appears to be that in many cases management seems to bypass the legal department.

Look at Qantas - massive fines for price fixing. Millions of dollars worth of fines. Plus fines for false advertising. Probably all avoided had they run matters by legal before acting.

Genuine question 'cause I have no idea, but how many extra $$$ did QF (et al) make before they were called to account and did they outweigh the fines?

 

[medhead]

But can't a customer go to JQ, VA, TT web sites - select the basics $50 seat - select ZERO add ons - then pay and off you go? Ok so you need pay CC fee - jeez are these 3 airlines the only companie's in Oz adding such a fee. Extra legroom - nah - cold stale sausage roll - nah - insurance - nah - just cheapest price please - this is impossible to achieve?

Pretty much not impossible. It is entirely possible to book and fly according to the upfront, advertised price. Aside from Baggage and CC fee all the rest is optional, and will not prevent you from flying.

 

[smit0847]

Drip pricing is illegal ..... I hate it

The price shown at the beginning is what it should be at the end.

Like going to Woolies advertised specials don't go up as you shop and check out!

Woolies offer different products - they don't have various optional extras you may or may not want to add.

 

[basso]

I think JQ still do. Not sure about VA these days.

In the case of VA, the judgement was only against some prices on its mobile site. There was no finding against VA regarding its emails or website. Findings against Jetstar were with its website in 2013 and mobile site in 2014.

 

[marki]

Woolies offer different products - they don't have various optional extras you may or may not want to add.

Oh oh oh you don't get slugged a credit card fee ! Certainly don't want to add that.

 

[Milefest]

But can't a customer go to JQ, VA, TT web sites - select the basics $50 seat

What additional extras are there on VA that QF doesn't have?

Pretty much not impossible. It is entirely possible to book and fly according to the upfront, advertised price. Aside from Baggage and CC fee all the rest is optional, and will not prevent you from flying.

I actually like this model, I normally fly full service carriers but sometimes I don't need all the bells and whistles and just need a cheap flight somewhere.

As long as it's possible to buy the fare that's advertised, I'm happy, even if it means all I get is a seat on a plane, nothing else.

 

[harvyk]

But can't a customer go to JQ, VA, TT web sites - select the basics $50 seat - select ZERO add ons - then pay and off you go? Ok so you need pay CC fee - jeez are these 3 airlines the only companie's in Oz adding such a fee. Extra legroom - nah - cold stale sausage roll - nah - insurance - nah - just cheapest price please - this is impossible to achieve?

Pretty much not impossible. It is entirely possible to book and fly according to the upfront, advertised price. Aside from Baggage and CC fee all the rest is optional, and will not prevent you from flying.

The keyword there was having to add the CC fee.
For the advertisement to be legal it either needs to be inclusive of the CC fee, the CC fee needs to be wiped where the CC fee was not part of the advertisement, or you need to be able to pay via an alternate means which is free to do so (unless you make being a member of a certain payment program a condition of using the airfare in your advertisement).

QF can get away with advertising a $100 fare and then whack on a $7 CC fee because they offer paying with BPay as an option.
Where they don't allow BPay as an option, they waive the CC fee (as I discovered the other day doing a points booking).

Having to pay for things which used to be part of the base fare but are now extra's on LCC's (eg baggage and food), is perfectly legal, provided that their advertisements do not leave the impression that these things are included. (so photos showing everyone eating an airline meal would be a no-no if it was not included in the base fare)

 

[JohnK]

Regurgitating old news.

Can only be good for us.

Credit card surcharges. Fuel surcharges.

I hate component pricing or drip pricing as they refer to it in the article. You see an advertised airfare on Air Asia or Scoot to Thailand for $299 return. Once you go through the booking process and select luggage, golf clubs, choose a seat, a meal/drink and pay for it the actual cost is $700+. Meanwhile Qantas has a special of $599 return.

Please continue to regurgitate old news until the airlines stop fleecing customers.

 

[Milboo]

Not necessarily. Remember lawyers don't give out the Law - they only offer their opinions on the Law. QF's lawyers could well have opined positively on the course of action.

Bingo!

Internal counsel will advise the business on the legal position and risks etc however it is the commercial side of the business that makes the decisions, informed of the risks and consequences.

 

[Milboo]

Genuine question 'cause I have no idea, but how many extra $$$ did QF (et al) make before they were called to account and did they outweigh the fines?

This is currently on the agenda of the ACCC - whether the penalties under the CCA are actually sufficient given how much a company could actually make from a deal/ price etc vs a) the risk of coming under the scrutiny of the ACCC given their limited resources and b) the size of the either the infringement notice (which is a fixed amount) or the maximums a court can impose and c) a company's revenue.

This has come up as a result of the meagre fine Coles got ($2.5m) for it's very misleading freshly baked bread claims (noting it was actually par baked in Ireland!).

 

[Milboo]

In the case of VA, the judgement was only against some prices on its mobile site. There was no finding against VA regarding its emails or website. Findings against Jetstar were with its website in 2013 and mobile site in 2014.

This is the ACCC's release on the drip pricing - https://www.accc.gov.au/media-relea...ngaged-in-misleading-‘drip-pricing’-practices

ACCC has not yet indicated whether they were appealing.

Fines have not been handed down yet.