ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

[MEL_Traveller]

I would argue that any argument made about COVID is a moot point. It went away in 2021 and at worst is as bad as the flu. And if Qantas is gonna state with a straight face that common colds and influenza (which anyone can catch at anytime) is reason for them cancelling 8000 flights, then I've got a bridge to sell them on the moon.

Correct. Although I will point out that rarely does QF have the best fare when compared to the likes of Virgin or even luxury carriers like JétStar.

Let’s stop with the hyperbole?

Covid can kill. Many thousands of people died.

IIRC at the time in question there were still mandatory health protocols in place for people to stay at home and isolate to prevent the spread. (I think they ended in October 2022?)

Multiple pilots, crew and other aviation workers entering isolation would have had a major impact on operations.

But still, that doesn’t address the ‘not telling’ aspect. But I think it is a valid reason for the ‘why’ [cancellations occurred or schedules could not be maintained]

 

[mannej]

Whilst restrictions may have whittled down by that point, the State of Emergency ended officially on 4 November 2022 in WA as an example.

Let’s look at the issues hospitality had in trying to get moving again post the end of most of restrictions. Certainly wasn’t smooth sailing by any stretch of the imagination…

 

[Mr H]

Whilst restrictions may have whittled down by that point, the State of Emergency ended officially on 4 November 2022 in WA as an example.

And I remember travelling internationally in September/October 2022 and having to show proof of vaccines, making health declarations, having my temperature measures, having to wear a mask on some flights and in some public places, having to get pre-approval to fly to Delhi, having to check restrictions on blacklist countries, etc. India was on a blacklist for Qatar so I had to be mindful of the gap between leaving India and entering Qatar, for example. Although things were opening up, they were really not normal.

Oh, and I got Covid on the way home and had it pretty bad. It took months for me to get fully back to speed.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

2.”The competition watchdog also alleges Qantas failed to notify existing ticketholders their flights had been cancelled for an average of 18 days, and up to 48 days, for more than 10,000 flights set to take off between May and July 2022.”

Frankly the bag of rights defence only apply for Claim 2 and ACCC would always have to work hard to prove this case.

If we accept QF’s premise that customers are sold a bag of rights, wouldn’t one such right be timely notification of flights changes? Qantas argues they want to wait to notify so they can provide a reasonable alternate flight. Fair enough. But surely it shouldn’t take them on average the better part of 2 weeks to sort that out!

If anything Qantas using the bundle of rights argument repeatedly whilst not specifying what those rights are is an invitation for legislators to spell that one out for them. Perhaps the ACCC could post a reasonable bundle of rights all airlines from the luxury airlines like Jétstar to discount brands like Qantas must provide their customers. A particular bundle of rights that comes to my mind is:
- notifying customers of delays and cancellations within 24 hours of them occuring
- providing meals and accommodation in the event of cancellations or delays
- rebooking cancelled flights so they depart within 2 hours of departure for domestic flights or within 4 hours of departure on international flights. When that is not available on the carrier they must then look at all airlines including competitors to facilitate timely rebooking

-RooFlyer88

 

[MARTINE]

As a data point, QF cancelled a number of PER-SYD flights for 6/10 at about T-24 when the notification was received. Even though my flight was booked by a Corp TA, the process was pretty painless and ended up on a flight about 90 minutes earlier, all locked in about an hour or so after the initial cancellation.

Lost on on the 332 down to the 738, but better arrival time and choice or flight options. Seemed fairly well-drilled from my end.

Its good this worked for you.
However, a flight 90 minutes earlier can be a real problem for many pax whose plans are made with the (now apparently unrealistic) expectation that the flight was due to leave at the time on the ticket.
If this occurred because the actual flight they booked - which was due to leave at time X (not X minus 90) - but never existed in the first place how is this not a bait and switch?
I had a friend who travelled during the ACCC period of interest to see a relative interstate and see a show. She was told to front up six hours earlier for her departure flight - as the one she was booked on - was ‘cancelled’. Never went to the show

 

[MARTINE]

Domestic Flights resumed once States showed a 2Jab rate of at least 80% - for NSW it was 1st week Oct 2021. Palachuck wanted to keep it shut
Flights included preflight PCR and one week home quarantine

IIRC QF resumed international flights mid November (was Mid December but they brought it forward)

I took an SQ flight to Rome Sept 22 from MEL
No test
No mask
No restriction

 

[drron]

Let’s stop with the hyperbole?

Covid could kill. Many thousands of people died.

Fixed it for you. The chance of dying from the infection if you are under 50 is now a lot higher for the flu than covid.
So maybe QF could amend their defence and argue the flu is a reason for cancellations.

 

[Quickstatus]

I took an SQ flight to Rome Sept 22 from MEL

the Aus-Sing travel bubble?

( I deleted my post that you replied to)

 

[RooFlyer]

Peeps, Covid is irrelevant to the ACCC action and this thread. ACCC action is not that flights were cancelled (or the reason), but that the airline didn't notify the customers of the cancellations in a timely manner and also kept selling bundles of rights on the cancelled flights such that the customers could have been deceived/misled.

Covid has been introduced as an issue by the airline to muddy the waters.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Peeps, Covid is irrelevant to the ACCC action and this thread. ACCC action is not that flights were cancelled (or the reason), but that the airline didn't notify the customers of the cancellations in a timely manner and also kept selling bundles of rights on the cancelled flights such that the customers could have been deceived/misled.

Covid has been introduced as an issue by the airline to muddy the waters.

Agree here with COVID being a red herring. The fact of the matter is Qantas cancelled flights and did not notify customers. They also continued to sell tickets for flights they had zero intention of operating. If this was any other business the public would be pursuing them through civil court to collect damages for material misrepresentation and likely the commonwealth would be pursuing criminal charges for such misrepresentation. To the first point, whilst some on the forum may argue about how much time airlines should be given to notify customers of a flight change, I think everyone here would agree that more than 18 days on average is excessive irrespective of what is happening in the background. Similarly, knowingly selling tickets for flights you knew you wouldn't be operating ceases to have any defence when that behaviour persists not for a couple of hours or days but weeks on end. Sure Qantas can point to systems errors or something else, but that doesn't relieve them of their responsibility as an airline and a merchant.

-RooFlyer88

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If we accept QF’s premise that customers are sold a bag of rights, wouldn’t one such right be timely notification of flights changes? Qantas argues they want to wait to notify so they can provide a reasonable alternate flight. Fair enough. But surely it shouldn’t take them on average the better part of 2 weeks to sort that out!

If anything Qantas using the bundle of rights argument repeatedly whilst not specifying what those rights are is an invitation for legislators to spell that one out for them. Perhaps the ACCC could post a reasonable bundle of rights all airlines from the luxury airlines like Jétstar to discount brands like Qantas must provide their customers. A particular bundle of rights that comes to my mind is:
- notifying customers of delays and cancellations within 24 hours of them occuring
- providing meals and accommodation in the event of cancellations or delays
- rebooking cancelled flights so they depart within 2 hours of departure for domestic flights or within 4 hours of departure on international flights. When that is not available on the carrier they must then look at all airlines including competitors to facilitate timely rebooking

-RooFlyer88

To be fair… most of these things are already stated in the conditions of carriage or associated customer charters or policies relating to disruption.

But… it’s the enforcement which is hard. How many people have the knowledge, resources and ability to lodge a claim at a tribunal or court?

Any sort of EU-type scheme should be designed to simplify the enforcement of rights.

 

[mannej]

Its good this worked for you.
However, a flight 90 minutes earlier can be a real problem for many pax whose plans are made with the (now apparently unrealistic) expectation that the flight was due to leave at the time on the ticket.
If this occurred because the actual flight they booked - which was due to leave at time X (not X minus 90) - but never existed in the first place how is this not a bait and switch?
I had a friend who travelled during the ACCC period of interest to see a relative interstate and see a show. She was told to front up six hours earlier for her departure flight - as the one she was booked on - was ‘cancelled’. Never went to the show

Just a data point, but we had options on a whole range of flights that day and/or refund. I’m aware it wouldn’t work for everyone

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Any sort of EU-type scheme should be designed to simplify the enforcement of rights.

I have long maintained that Australia already has an EU261 type scheme it’s just that no one has bothered to exercise it: it’s called the Australian Consumer Guarantee (ACG). What would be interesting is to see someone who is delayed on a long haul Qantas flight (I.e. SYD to LHR) pursue Qantas in court for $1000 in compensation + reimbursement for hotels and meals in line with the ACG. The onus would then be placed on the airline to prove in court that the ACG does not provide such protection. And of course the plaintiff can appeal if they don’t like the decision. To my knowledge not a single court in the land has determined whether the ACG is equivalent to EU261

 

[oz_mark]

I have long maintained that Australia already has an EU261 type scheme it’s just that no one has bothered to exercise it: it’s called the Australian Consumer Guarantee (ACG). What would be interesting is to see someone who is delayed on a long haul Qantas flight (I.e. SYD to LHR) pursue Qantas in court for $1000 in compensation + reimbursement for hotels and meals in line with the ACG. The onus would then be placed on the airline to prove in court that the ACG does not provide such protection. And of course the plaintiff can appeal if they don’t like the decision. To my knowledge not a single court in the land has determined whether the ACG is equivalent to EU261

Because it's not. ACG is a general set of guarantees that apply across the board, but it doesn't define specific compensation amounts for specific events. It also requires a lot of legal rigmarole to enforce.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Because it's not. ACG is a general set of guarantees that apply across the board, but it doesn't define specific compensation amounts for specific events. It also requires a lot of legal rigmarole to enforce.

Well I think what encompasses the ACG is open for interpretation particularly by the courts. For instance, reimbursement for damages and loss are considered part of the ACG. Well out of pocket expenses like meals and hotels occasioned by a delay/cancellation seem like an obvious reimbursement consumers should receive under the ACG. One could also argue that travellers suffered an economic loss from the delay (e.g., missed time at work) and that should be reimbursed at a rate that is consistent with wages in Australia. In Australia the minimum wage, that is to say the lowest amount of remuneration you can legally be paid is presently set to $23.23/hour. So I should think a multi-hour delay would also come with potentially hundreds of dollars in reimbursement for lost time

 

[Seat0B]

if QF wins the case with that argument it’ll be bad news for them because I can book whatever flight I want with Qantas and show up to whatever flight I want. After all, I didn’t book a specific flight, rather just a promise to travel at some point and presumably at the time that ultimately works best for me

whilst I agree with you whole heartedly, and wish this could happen, in real life the power imbalance between me/you and Qantas is so great, that I cannot imagine that working. Plus they already have your money, and, based on my own recent lived experience, it often proves very time consuming and difficult to get a refund even when it is dead obvious that the issue lies with QF (eg they outright cancelled the flight and you want a refund, or they rescheduled flights making connections on the same PNR impossible). So I'm pretty sure they will just hold onto your money from now to kingdom come if you try this. And they might even blacklist you as a troublemaker. That's why we need better legislated consumer rights.

 

[Seat0B]

Exactly - so next Friday the same (red e-deal) bundle of rights from Melbourne to Sydney costs between $155 (05:45) and $553 (13:00). QFs current defence seems to be that that is indeed the case as departure time isn't one of the things you are buying so how can you have missed the flight time you had never actually purchased anyway?. So buy the cheapest set of rights and turn up when you want to fly.

or at least they need to reund you $400 when they cancel the 1300 and put you on the 0545. I have tried this once, and they literally did not even understand the question I was asking. - "what's the problem, you got a flight to where you wanted on the same day with (in my case) only 4 hrs time difference - why should we give you a refund?"

Post automatically merged: Nov 3, 2023

Exactly - so next Friday the same (red e-deal) bundle of rights from Melbourne to Sydney costs between $155 (05:45) and $553 (13:00). QFs current defence seems to be that that is indeed the case as departure time isn't one of the things you are buying so how can you have missed the flight time you had never actually purchased anyway?. So buy the cheapest set of rights and turn up when you want to fly.

I mean surely the court will appreciate exactly how ridiculous this argument is?

 

[Seat0B]

Its good this worked for you.
However, a flight 90 minutes earlier can be a real problem for many pax whose plans are made with the (now apparently unrealistic) expectation that the flight was due to leave at the time on the ticket.
If this occurred because the actual flight they booked - which was due to leave at time X (not X minus 90) - but never existed in the first place how is this not a bait and switch?
I had a friend who travelled during the ACCC period of interest to see a relative interstate and see a show. She was told to front up six hours earlier for her departure flight - as the one she was booked on - was ‘cancelled’. Never went to the show

Same thing happened to us in the relevant time period, travelling to QLD but fortunately only to see family, so the delay had no real impact - other than cutting our visit short by the best part of a day. And it was already only a short visit.

 

[anat0l]

Vanessa Hudson torches last sliver of goodwill defending 'ghost flights'

A change in leadership at Qantas and the ACCC has led to more of the same from both, which is a looming disaster for the airline and a credit to the regulator, writes business editor Ian Verrender.

www.abc.net.au

Sometimes you think what is required is for the Qantas board and their pithy immoral excuse for legal counsel to be chained up to a seat and be blasted at 200 dB with full contempt. Maybe then they'll start to see straight and act contrite?

An underlying premise of operating business in a capitalist society is to concede as little as possible. A bit funny now how capitalist shareholders have actually changed their tune on that.

I got a better idea. Why doesn't the government force Qantas to shut down?

 

[Princess Fiona]

Vanessa Hudson torches last sliver of goodwill defending 'ghost flights'

A change in leadership at Qantas and the ACCC has led to more of the same from both, which is a looming disaster for the airline and a credit to the regulator, writes business editor Ian Verrender.

www.abc.net.au

Sometimes you think what is required is for the Qantas board and their pithy immoral excuse for legal counsel to be chained up to a seat and be blasted at 200 dB with full contempt. Maybe then they'll start to see straight and act contrite?

An underlying premise of operating business in a capitalist society is to concede as little as possible. A bit funny now how capitalist shareholders have actually changed their tune on that.

I got a better idea. Why doesn't the government force Qantas to shut down?

Say what ????