ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

[kangarooflyer88]

Irrespective of what Qantas does with wifi be it deploying it on international flights thanks to StarLink or sticking with a domestic “made in Australia,” solution one thing is clear here. Qantas misled passengers when it sold those tickets they were unwilling to honour. It would be one thing if they cancelled a flight because they had a maintenance issue. I get it stuff does happen. Even schedule changes I can understand. But selling tickets you know full well you won’t honour, misleading and deceiving customers to snatch away business from rivals, that’s plain wrong. How many people made plans in reliance of Qantas honouring its commitments to them?

I think it is episodes like this which remind of us the need for consumer protection legislation here in Australia. The sad truth is consumers are better protected flying internationally than they are domestically. At least internationally, Australian consumer law’s Montreal Convention comes into play. There is no equivalent for flights domestically. If Qantas or Virgin cancels a flight on you, you are at their mercy. There is no requirement for them to put you on the next flight which often is the case under Australia’s Montreal Convention on international flights. And to be quite frank, I would have preferred to see an EU261 type legislation be the outcome of this whole fiasco rather than a token of remediation to a handful of customers.

-RooFlyer88

 

[RSVKanga]

Even schedule changes I can understand. But selling tickets you know full well you won’t honour, misleading and deceiving customers to snatch away business from rivals, that’s plain wrong.

That behaviour is definitely wrong. No questions about that. It’s great that the new management have abandoned the Joyce administration’s intent to fight the ACCC, and have admitted misconduct.

How many people made plans in reliance of Qantas honouring its commitments to them?

I think now that QF is the most scrutinised airline in the world when it comes to their booking system, they’d be the most reliable in guaranteeing their commitments to you, as opposed to other Australian or international airlines who haven’t been under scrutiny and legal threats and might be doing the exact actions that QF did as we speak. In fact Bonza was caught out doing the exact same thing last week before they collapsed.

I think it is episodes like this which remind of us the need for consumer protection legislation here in Australia.

QF’s actions are being met with the appropriate civil punishment and the airline is reimbursing all the victims of this scheme. Not sure what else is needed?

 

[jase05]

It’s great that the new management have abandoned the Joyce administration’s intent to fight the ACCC, and have admitted misconduct.

The same new management that has their fingerprints all over the misleading and deceiving conduct? When AJ’s loyal lap dogs are still pulling the strings not much will change. The whole lot should’ve been cleaned out

 

[RooFlyer]

the airline is reimbursing all the victims of this scheme.

No, the airline has not said they will re-imburse victims - it's "remediation".

And at this stage its a vague promise - no definition of who's eligible other than this:

The Qantas Customer Remediation Program will compensate Qantas customers who made a booking on a flight for travel from May 2022 and were impacted by Qantas’ delayed flight cancellation processes.

But "impacted by processes" could mean it includes those who were cancelled, but eventually re-accommodated, which as far as I can tell from what they've said elsewhere, this isn't covered.

but then they say this

The Qantas Customer Remediation Program is not about compensating customers for the cancellation of their flight. The Qantas Customer Remediation Program provides remediation for all customers who made a booking on a flight two or more days after a cancellation decision had been made.

That's pretty broad then.

How will I know if I am entitled to remediation?
Impacted customers will be notified via email and SMS from June 2024.

If you receive a notification, you will be entitled to remediation and will be provided instructions on how to lodge a claim via an online portal.

So they decide who's included. No contact back, no remediation and no way to lodge a claim.

Not sure what else is needed?

How about some transparency? They should publish all the flights that are eligible for remediation AND the date and time the cancellation decision was made, to be transparent. But they won't.

 

[drron]

Bonza's behaviour was nothing like QF. your link is a disgruntled ex employee.
here on the Sunshine Coast most employees say they were told the night before the collapse.
However they did know things weren't exactly normal with several cut backs to their perks in the couple of weeks before the collapse.

The only way you can say that Bonza was caught doing exactly the same thing if you can show QF management thought that they were about to collapse.

 

[RSVKanga]

your link is a disgruntled ex employee.

I think a disgruntled ex employee should be a valid source.

Because members on this forum post AFR/Crikey links featuring disgruntled QF employees and ex employees and those links are perceived as 100% valid and reliable by the majority of the forum.

So I don’t see why a 9news video featuring a disgruntled Bonza employee should be dismissed!

 

[drron]

I think a disgruntled ex employee should be a valid source.

Because members on this forum post AFR/Crikey links featuring disgruntled QF employees and ex employees and those links are perceived as 100% valid and reliable by the majority of the forum.

So I don’t see why a 9news video featuring a disgruntled Bonza employee should be dismissed!

I knew you would object.
But it is not a 9News item. A big logo for a Current affair should tell you that. That is much easier to dismiss than a genuine news item.
There are many more disgruntled QF employees especially the ground handlers sacked illegally by qf. So i suppose you agree they are valid commentators on the ethics of QF.

 

[RSVKanga]

But it is not a 9News item. A big logo for a Current affair should tell you that.

I stand corrected.

That is much easier to dismiss than a genuine news item.

Actually, the revelations being from A Current Affair make the allegations about Bonza’s behaviour even more credible than if it had been from 9News! ACA is much harder to dismiss than a general news item. Not sure why you think the opposite.

 

[Franky]

I stand corrected.



Actually, the revelations being from A Current Affair make the allegations about Bonza’s behaviour even more credible than if it had been from 9News! ACA is much harder to dismiss than a general news item. Not sure why you think the opposite.

I tend to put all TV shows in the same category - they are all the pushing their own agenda and should be taken with many grains of salt…

 

[drron]

I stand corrected.



Actually, the revelations being from A Current Affair make the allegations about Bonza’s behaviour even more credible than if it had been from 9News! ACA is much harder to dismiss than a general news item. Not sure why you think the opposite.

Sorry you just are so biased you really can't see the wood for the trees.
Bye bye. Keep up the laughs for us.

 

[Flyfrequently]

How will we know if we qualify for the compensation?

-RooFlyer88

Good point @kangarooflyer88

I believe that we were impacted but I suspect Qantas' interpretation thinks we were not.
If not contacted, I would like to think pax would have the opportunity to put forward their case.
But not holding my breath that we are in the 80,000!

 

[tdimdad]

ACA credible? Have they started to grow up in the journalistic sense? The few times I watched it after moving to Australia put me off for good. It was far from even just reporting, it was just opinionated sensationalism. A lot of huffing and puffing without an attempt to help you understand what's actually happening. Though, I stay off from Ch 7/9/10 news, as well, because the quality of their reporting is also rather light.

 

[Franky]

ACA credible? Have they started to grow up in the journalistic sense? The few times I watched it after moving to Australia put me off for good. It was far from even just reporting, it was just opinionated sensationalism. A lot of huffing and puffing without an attempt to help you understand what's actually happening. Though, I stay off from Ch 7/9/10 news, as well, because the quality of their reporting is also rather light.

So see my comments above….

 

[XWu]

What’s the difference between “misled” and “deliberate fraudulent deception“ (other than possibly another few hundren million)?

of interest, what is the most severe crime/misdemeanour/fraud ACCC would have gone for?

just interested about the gap between what QF ”acknowledged “ as opposed to what it could have hung for, in legalese speak please

 

[RooFlyer]

What’s the difference between “misled” and “deliberate fraudulent deception“

Sorry - not legalese; hope you don't mind. I don't think our helpful lawyer @Anna is around anymore, unfortunately.

Simple 'misleading' conduct may be inadvertent - but that's not necessarily relevant to the ACCC case, as I don't think intention comes into it - its whether consumers were misled, or not.

Deliberate fraud deception is obviously more serious - a malicious intent to commit a fraud on the customers.

what is the most severe crime/misdemeanour/fraud ACCC would have gone for

I don't think the ACCC goes after a 'crime'. If a crime is suspected, it would be referred to police.

The Trade Practices Act forbids "false and misleading" actions by corporations (at least). The ACCC can take to court anyone it seriously suspects of committing such.

After investigation, ACCC may press for a $$$ penalty commensurate with the nature and extent of the alleged false and misleading conduct. Many, many cases over a long period Vs just a few; demonstrably 'inadvertent' Vs demonstrably committed knowingly; large corporation Vs small one.

the gap between what QF ”acknowledged “ as opposed to what it could have hung for

As I understood it, Qantas initially flatly denied all wrong doing. In the course of subsequent back and forth, the ACCC withdrew one of its allegations, and Qantas admitted the other (each involving thousands of instances). There was a settlement, which means it didn't go to court, so the parties decided the penalties amongst themselves. If it had gone to court, and Qantas was found guilty on both types of allegations, then the fine would likely have been a lot more. If they could have disproved all allegations, there would be no penalty. But I guess there was a type of plea-bargain. Qantas admitted to one lot and ACCC withdrew the other, to get it done and dusted quicker, and for customers to get their 'remediation' faster.

 

[XWu]

@RooFlyer
thanks for you thoughts and opinion
I guess unless there is an email from a QF executive to another, flagging the ongoping fare sales of cancelled flights, otherwise there is No smoking gun

 

[Quickstatus]

I tend to put all TV shows in the same category - they are all the pushing their own agenda and should be taken with many grains of salt…

I take everything I read with a grain of salt. My leg cramps have disappeared.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

No, the airline has not said they will re-imburse victims - it's "remediation".

Oh great so now Qantas is treating its customers like asbestos, something that needs to be remediated.

 

[CMA222]

QF do not want to in any way be associated with 'compensating' anyone for anything. Remediation is restoring, rectifying or making right something that was incorrect. The lawyers are guarding against any suggestion that there are any circumstances for compensating - making amends, make up for or atone for their actions - perhaps preparing for the impending discussions to stop passengers getting (compensation) rights like in the UK, EU, USA and Canada.