Fair point about waiving the $99 fee, but the benefit of that is greatest when the value of the ticket is low - which, granted, is probably a common scenario (eg people buying Sydney/Melbourne Red E-Deals).
What's galling about the "same or higher value" constraint is that the more you've spent, the more it hurts. So while comparatively fewer people might be affected by it, those people are badly affected by it.
Also galling is this statement: "Other major airlines have a similar approach." This does not seem to be borne out by the facts laid out in the article and its comments.
I agree that the fee is less of an issue on more expensive fares, but remember that domestic Flex & Business class fares and all international fares can be cancelled for a refund to the original form of payment anyway (less fees in some cases), so these restricted flight credits are really only relevant to domestic Red E-deal fares. What proportion of domestic Red E-deal fares are so expensive that a $99 fee wouldn't have a noticeable impact? A very small proportion, I would imagine, especially over the past few months.
That left me wondering how the guy in the ABC story had a $1,400 flight credit subject to the "same or higher value" rule in the first place. The story doesn't seem to make sense. It says the customer's original $1,400 credit was "received from previous flight cancellations in mid-2021". If that is the case, then surely the "same or higher value" rule would
not have applied?
Anyway, I do agree that the "same or higher value" rule can in some circumstances be very painful. Would I prefer if the rule didn't apply? Of course. However, it's not necessarily a major problem even if you have spent a lot on your original fare. It's only a problem if the original fare cost a lot
and you now have no intention of booking a similarly priced fare any time in the subsequent 12 months (which could be for travel up to almost 2 years later). I know that will be the case sometimes, but we really are talking about a small minority of bookings here. That's all I'm saying.
But on the same token, being forced to purchase from a higher valued fare bucket when there are cheaper fares available can equally wipe out the value of the original ticket ticket and also the $99 fee.
Yep fully agree. That has nothing to do with my point though, which is that for most people who have cancelled bookings, the waiver of this fee is a major benefit, which is why I felt it was unfair to describe this as only "slightly better" for the customer. I wasn't suggesting there are no reasons to criticise QF on this - in fact right at the start of my post, I said I agree that their policy can sometimes be quite unfair.