Australian frequent flyers overwhelmingly want a European-style airline passenger compensation scheme. They’d also like to see the Airline Customer Advocate replaced by an independent airline ombudsman in Australia with real teeth.
This was the strong feedback from AFF members who responded to our call for feedback on the government’s Aviation Green Paper.
Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) has lodged a submission to the Australian government’s 2023 Aviation Green Paper on behalf of our community of frequent flyers. Our submission centred around three key questions posed by the Green Paper relating to airline consumer protections. This is something that affects all of us as a community of Australian travellers.
The three questions we responded to were:
- Should the Australian Government look to revise current consumer protection arrangements and, if so, through existing or new mechanisms?
- Would an expanded remit for the Airline Customer Advocate to educate customers on their legal entitlements be useful?
- Would policies pursued in other jurisdictions – such as a Passenger Bill of Rights or a stronger ombudsman model – deliver benefits to Australia’s aviation sector?
Our submission was based solely on the feedback given by AFF members in the dedicated forum thread.
You can read our full submission here.
AFF members want the Airline Customer Advocate replaced by an independent ombudsman
Australia’s major airlines fund the Airline Customer Advocate. The industry set it up itself in 2012, after the federal government threatened greater regulation if airlines didn’t improve their complaints handling.
Unfortunately, the organisation has no real power. It’s merely an intermediary that tries to get eligible complaints resolved. In 2021, CHOICE gave the Airline Customer Advocate a “Shonky Award” because it “is not able to genuinely help most people”.
The Airline Customer Advocate’s own annual report states that it was able to resolve less than half (43%) of the complaints it received in 2022. Last year, just 24% of complaints relating to Qantas were resolved to the satisfaction of the customer, with an average time to finalise complaints of 110 days.
Overwhelmingly, AFF members believe the Airline Customer Advocate should be disbanded and replaced by an independent ombudsman.
An Australian airline ombudsman should not be funded by the airlines it regulates. It should also have the power to make legally binding decisions.
As one AFF member said:
The effectiveness is absolutely useless. I have tried to use them a few times – first instance, they just forwarded my complaint back to the airline (without chasing it up), and the second time they didn’t even respond to my complaint.
It appears it is staffed by one or two team members, who don’t have the capacity or empowerment to do anything. The entity is an absolute farce, paid for by the airlines to avoid a proper oversight.
Another member opined:
I don’t know why they bother with the Airline Customer Advocate – it has no power and is complicated and bureaucratic. The easy answer is to simply adopt every line from EU261, just as the UK did on leaving the EU by creating UK261. It will be easy for the airlines to administer because they are all familiar with it. And then the Airline Customer Advocate could be terminated completely because AU261 would do the job by law!
Australians want a European-style compensation scheme
In the European Union, airlines are required to pay mandatory compensation amounts if they cancel or delay a flight, and the passenger arrives at their destination more than 3-4 hours late (depending on the length of the flight). They must also compensate for involuntary downgrades or if they deny boarding to a passenger due to overbooking.
Under the law known as “EU261”, airlines must also provide minimum standards of treatment in the event of disruptions. This includes things like clear communication and meal vouchers during delays. Airlines don’t have to pay compensation if the disruption is due to extraordinary circumstances beyond their control.
The vast majority of AFF members support the adoption of similar laws in Australia that require airlines to:
- Provide monetary compensation to passengers who are affected by delayed or cancelled flights, and are not offered a replacement flight that gets them to their destination within a reasonable time (e.g. within 3-4 hours of the scheduled arrival time), unless the disruption was caused by extraordinary, unforeseen circumstances
- Provide monetary compensation to passengers who are involuntarily bumped off overbooked flights
- Provide fair and defined compensation to passengers who are involuntarily downgraded to a lower cabin than originally booked
- Provide minimum standards of treatment in the event of irregular operations, including clear communication during delays/cancellations and information in plain English that passengers can access about their legal rights.
Some people on our forum have dubbed such a model as “AU261”.
AFF member comments on “AU261”
Here are just a few of the comments provided by AFF members on this subject:
An “AU261” would likely go a long way towards fixing many of the problems currently existing in Australian commercial aviation. As long as there is some kind of oversight mechanism that can break through airline attempts at stonewalling and avoiding paying the compensation.
Absolutely – especially the duty of care sections (must provide meals, accommodation and transport) and the right to choose a refund or rebooking (customer’s choice to be fully refunded within 7 days OR to be rebooked/rerouted to their destination or back to departure point – again at customer’s choice, and can be on another airline or even a high speed train in UK/EU).
These sections are often overlooked as the focus of discussion is always on the compensation payouts, but EU261 provides much more than that, including refunds for downgrades and bumping/overbooking.
On the topic of an “AU261” I think this would absolutely go a long way in better aligning the incentives of airlines to do the right thing by their customers. Late flights, cancelled flights and downgrades should be a rare occurrence, not a free tool airlines can use without consequence. The airlines will argue it will make flights more expensive – the European aviation market begs to differ.
Next time you read a horror story on here of someone getting to the airport and being mistreated by their airline, look up the applicable law in Europe for that scenario. My experience is that more often than not, the customer would have been entitled to significant protection or compensation had they been in Europe and not Australia.
We are long overdue in Australia to have a compensation system such as they have in the EU and the US where compensation must be paid by law not the situation we have where we are totally at the mercy of the airlines. In what other industry or business can you sell a product that down the track you cannot or will not provide as per the contract and then hold on to the customers money, and that’s legal. We don’t need half measures or a government whitewash that sells out the consumers.
The adoption of consumer rights / protection as per the EU must be the base. Anything less is showing disregard for consumers
Thank you to all of the AFF members who provided feedback. Our submission is based wholly on your thoughts and comments. We hope this will make a difference and improve consumer protections for Australian flyers into the future.
You can read the full range of responses to the Green Paper on the AFF forum.
