Excessive fees by Airlines

[darrend]

In recent news seems the ACCC is taking Virgin and Jetstar to the federal court over excessive credit card fees on bookings. My immediate reaction to this is "good" - they do charge too much especially on International Bookings - $33 I believe with Virgin per person. What do others think ?

 

[Jousams]

Considering I probably pay $350 of these fees a year, good.

 

[Mr_Orange]

Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

About time too: ACCC takes Virgin Australia, Jetstar to court over card payment fees - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller.

Note that it applies to VA too.

 

[markis10]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

I welcome the action but question the inconsistency, what about QF and TT?

 

[Mr_Orange]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

I welcome the action but question the inconsistency, what about QF and TT?

Indeed. QF is the same as VA domestically at $7 per pax. Internationally, the $30 per pax is in some circumstances not too bad, but the percentage is dependent on the price of the ticket.

 

[darrend]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

I checked the fees on some recent award bookings done on line. One booking the charges came to $76.02 + $30 fee to pay by credit card and to make matters worse I could not readily see an alternate for paying the fee - around 40% credit card fee. Another example - again award booking - $21.02 in charges and fee was $30 so a credit card fee in excess of 140%. The ATO takes less blood.

I emailed Velocity to complain about same and the silence was deafening.

 

[desiredusername]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

After 5 years, the ACCC is playing catch up to other regulators' thinking. The whole 'surcharging' gouging industry is under the microscrope with prosecutions against executives. Qatas execs were charged, fined and imprisoned when the US caught them ....the ACCC rode coattails back then. Maybe they're workng harder these days. This might be the start of something. You're welcome to google this case. I dare not: the tin foil hat are on the 5k/5t thread as they bemoan surcharges on snowglobes.

 

[Happy Dude]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

Won't the airlines simply argue that it's not a fee for using credit cards, it's a service fee - a la cabcharge?

 

[Mr_Orange]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

Won't the airlines simply argue that it's not a fee for using credit cards, it's a service fee - a la cabcharge?

But what is the service being provided? i would say the ability to pay by credit card for which the merchant pays roughly 1-3%, so the only surcharge the customer should be expected to pay is the exact surcharge the merchant pays. Cabcharge is no different IMO and needs whipping into line too.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

Won't the airlines simply argue that it's not a fee for using credit cards, it's a service fee - a la cabcharge?

Why don't they go after Webjet while they're at it as this mob not only charge their own excessive fees but pass on airline merchant fees when Webjet are the merchant!

 

[amexmerchantsettlement]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

I'm sick of levies, deficit levies, and 'we're in a fiscal emergency' levy. I say abolish the carbon tax and bring in the Just A Gouge Levy!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

Won't the airlines simply argue that it's not a fee for using credit cards, it's a service fee - a la cabcharge?

there is no service - the fee only applies if you pay by credit card.

if airlines are to argue it is a service fee, it would need to apply to all bookings, no matter how payment was made. And then included in the fare as advertised.

 

[nick.wall]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

I've never thought much of the ACCC and the cynic in me seems to think they saw a need for some good PR and this seemed like a good way to get it, given there is this bizzare perception out there that we are all being ripped off by airlines.

Perhaps the question is, what is this going to achieve? At the end of the day the airline industry in Australia is hardly a good news story as far as profits are concerned at the moment. Thus it would seem extremely unlikely that such action will make the final cost of a ticket any less regardless of the outcome.

What are the alternatives? The airlines just incorporate their booking fees into ticket prices and then offer a discount if you pay via certain methods? Or do they just increase ticket prices across the board and make it more expensive for everyone regardless of payment method? - what a win for the consumer that would be!

Surely if someone was that concerned about price they'd step themselves through the booking process up to payment with each prospective carrier anyway to get a final "quote" on their ticket! Surely we don't need nannying by the government because we couldn't be bothered shopping around?

Given I don't see that such action is of any great benefit to consumers, it seems like rather disappointing behavior for a government agency that should be tightening the purse strings due to that so called budget crises.

 

[Mwenenzi]

In recent news seems the ACCC is taking Virgin and Jetstar to the federal court over excessive credit card fees on bookings.

The action is not about excessive fees. It is about non disclosure of the fees (on the first screen). The ACCC makes no claim about about if the fees are excessive or not.

 

[JessicaTam]

The action is not about excessive fees. It is about non disclosure of the fees (on the first screen). The ACCC makes no claim about about if the fees are excessive or not.

Correct, the news report tonight made mention of 'drip pricing'. That is the number of add ons that are not disclosed in the original price quote.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

I've never thought much of the ACCC and the cynic in me seems to think they saw a need for some good PR and this seemed like a good way to get it, given there is this bizzare perception out there that we are all being ripped off by airlines.

Perhaps the question is, what is this going to achieve? At the end of the day the airline industry in Australia is hardly a good news story as far as profits are concerned at the moment. Thus it would seem extremely unlikely that such action will make the final cost of a ticket any less regardless of the outcome.

What are the alternatives? The airlines just incorporate their booking fees into ticket prices and then offer a discount if you pay via certain methods? Or do they just increase ticket prices across the board and make it more expensive for everyone regardless of payment method? - what a win for the consumer that would be!

Surely if someone was that concerned about price they'd step themselves through the booking process up to payment with each prospective carrier anyway to get a final "quote" on their ticket! Surely we don't need nannying by the government because we couldn't be bothered shopping around?

Given I don't see that such action is of any great benefit to consumers, it seems like rather disappointing behavior for a government agency that should be tightening the purse strings due to that so called budget crises.

The point is not to make the price of the ticket cheaper - it is to protect consumers who think they can rely on the advertised price, but find there are all sorts of extras that need to be added in.

Nannying by the government? Absolutely! That is one good area where governments get involved. Without consumer legislation, each and every one of us would potentially have to take manufacturers or retailers to court every time a product wasn't fit for purpose, or broke down, or was not the same as it was advertised.

That would be a far from acceptable situation.

 

[sampson]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

The point is not to make the price of the ticket cheaper - it is to protect consumers who think they can rely on the advertised price, but find there are all sorts of extras that need to be added in.

Nannying by the government? Absolutely! That is one good area where governments get involved. Without consumer legislation, each and every one of us would potentially have to take manufacturers or retailers to court every time a product wasn't fit for purpose, or broke down, or was the same as it was advertised.

That would be a far from acceptable situation.

Good on the ACCC. The ACCC pinged Amex's 'free' flights for a companion, which weren't free and the original bus class ticket was pricier. The ACCC is/was also looking at 'cheap' car insurance ads too where the premium alone doesn't compare apples with apples, but consumers assume all policies are much the same. The ACCC also got involved in the 5k/5t promo to help Amex 'chose' to apologise and keep people enrolled and keep the promo running the full 3 months (Amex wanted to turn it off). 3 cheers for the ACCC. Keep the bastoros honest as Don chipp used to say.

 

[smeacs]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

At least QF have Poli and bpay functions ( so you don;t actually have to pay these fees). But good on the ACCC.

 

[TomVexille]

Re: Jetstar's drip charges and the ACCC

At least QF have Poli and bpay functions ( so you don;t actually have to pay these fees). But good on the ACCC.

VA also offer POLi (not that I would use it)

 

[CMA222]

The action is not about excessive fees. It is about non disclosure of the fees (on the first screen). The ACCC makes no claim about if the fees are excessive or not.

I hope they have a look at AirAsia and Scoot as well. I expect there are others.