ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

[Quickstatus]

Others may have access to other and better stories, with links.

The 19 page Statements of Agreed Facts is published on the Federal Court website which has also published all the submissions and to-ing and fro-ing in this case to date.

The Court has not signed off on the deal yet - that hearing is 8 October 2024

 

[Quickstatus]

It is interesting comparing QF's "Defence" statement with the statement of agreed facts

 

[AIRwin]

Fare hike after the Australia Red Tail sale ends tomorrow?

Federal Court orders Qantas to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers

Qantas has today been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers by offering and selling tickets for flights it had already decided to cancel, and by failing to promptly tell existing ticketholders of its decision. Qantas also gave an undertaking to the ACCC...

www.accc.gov.au

 

[RooFlyer]

Of course, because its not all the ACCC sought, this doesn't really count. Move on, nothing to see here ...

ACCC action re cancelled Qantas flights

I don't know about the current version of the airline, as Alan used covid to get rid of most of the staff, but, in my time you could probably have done away with everyone who was supposedly management, and nobody would have noticed their passing. True in most organisations. "Middle Management"...

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

 

[jase05]

Fare hike after the Australia Red Tail sale ends tomorrow?

Federal Court orders Qantas to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers

Qantas has today been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers by offering and selling tickets for flights it had already decided to cancel, and by failing to promptly tell existing ticketholders of its decision. Qantas also gave an undertaking to the ACCC...

www.accc.gov.au

Don’t need a substantial hike. Just by adding $2-3 per ticket they will recoup that in a year

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Don’t need a substantial hike. Just by adding $2-3 per ticket they will recoup that in a year

Call it a regulatory adjustment fee!

 

[Quickstatus]

Qantas carried 45M passengers in 2023.
$2.67 per passenger.

Though with AJ bonus clawback its $2.43 per pax

 

[DejaBrew]

Or in the form of a "Jeopardy" answer: "When is the next Qantas DSC offer?"

Sorted.

 

[anat0l]

Fare hike after the Australia Red Tail sale ends tomorrow?

Federal Court orders Qantas to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers

Qantas has today been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers by offering and selling tickets for flights it had already decided to cancel, and by failing to promptly tell existing ticketholders of its decision. Qantas also gave an undertaking to the ACCC...

www.accc.gov.au

How about nixing the executive bonuses, viz. performance (or lack thereof) incentives?

Seriously, is there no sense of honour or integrity in capitalist Australia? (No need to answer, it's either an obvious answer or rhetorical question)

 

[anat0l]

In theory, why couldn't the courts and/or the ACCC demand a more tangible monetary penalty, like $2B, even if that was paid over a set number of years?

Or, perhaps demand that the QF AOC is suspended for 6 months?

 

[p--and--t]

In theory, why couldn't the courts and/or the ACCC demand a more tangible monetary penalty, like $2B, even if that was paid over a set number of years?

Or, perhaps demand that the QF AOC is suspended for 6 months?

 

[RooFlyer]

In theory, why couldn't the courts and/or the ACCC demand a more tangible monetary penalty, like $2B, even if that was paid over a set number of years?

There is a 'tenor' of penalties for corporate malfeasance - same as for civil/personal crime. To ask for an exceptional penalty would risk not been seen as being serious (grandstanding) by the court.

Of course, you could ask for a measly 5% of turnover - in the case of tech giants, that's real money!

 

[Quickstatus]

In theory, why couldn't the courts and/or the ACCC demand a more tangible monetary penalty, like $2B, even if that was paid over a set number of years?

Sure but understand the $120M was an agreed settlement with QF admitting it broke the law. The ACCC could have pursued for much more but that would run the risk of litigating it in Federal Court with a chance it could lose.

The ACCC is unable to ask for suspension of AOC because that penalty does not exist in the legislation

 

[anat0l]

There is a 'tenor' of penalties for corporate malfeasance - same as for civil/personal crime. To ask for an exceptional penalty would risk not been seen as being serious (grandstanding) by the court.

Of course, you could ask for a measly 5% of turnover - in the case of tech giants, that's real money!

The way I see it is that there may be real remedies but then there are punitive damages, i.e. purely to punish in order to discourage future and other such crimes. That latter one should in theory have no limit and it is intended to be punishing.

I'm sure we all grew up on the premise that if you did something wrong, you were entitled in no part to comment or appeal how you were punished, irrespective of how harsh you thought it was. You were guilty, you deserve to be punished. In reality and as a society, the only real line we draw hard in the sand is physical punishment, i.e. injury or death.

With the exception of precedent cases (which I know is incredibly essential to operating the law), I'm struggling to think where Qantas' legal would start to argue in what way is such proposed penalties so frightfully unreasonable, unless they are actually trying to appeal their guilt.

What's so patently wrong with those proposed penalties?

 

[p--and--t]

What's so patently wrong with those proposed penalties?

Because it's patently rediculous.

Variously they are not available under legislation, excessive beyond any penalty ever threatened against any AU enterprise for any reason which would never be applied by the courts and would suspend all flying for 60% of air traffic with no other carrier with the capability to fill the gap.

 

[p--and--t]

There is a 'tenor' of penalties for corporate malfeasance - same as for civil/personal crime. To ask for an exceptional penalty would risk not been seen as being serious (grandstanding) by the court.

Exactly

 

[Quickstatus]

What's so patently wrong with those proposed penalties?

1) Not available under the legislation and 2)any penalty has to be aggreed to by the Court
3) its a civil case so only pecuniary penalties apply.

 

[anat0l]

Because it's patently rediculous.

Variously they are not available under legislation, excessive beyond any penalty ever threatened against any AU enterprise for any reason which would never be applied by the courts and would suspend all flying for 60% of air traffic with no other carrier with the capability to fill the gap.

...and we're basically back to the reasons why large corporations never feel they did anything wrong because penalties patently do not actually punish them. I suppose no politician is going to be brave enough to legislate in order to lay the groundwork to possibly dole out such possible penalties (i.e. increase or remove limits).

Why do we legislate limits for penalties?

 

[anat0l]

1) Not available under the legislation and 2)any penalty has to be aggreed to by the Court

View attachment 410653

Interesting that the text you quoted said "each breach". That could technically imply if there were a number of flights in question, each could be regarded as a separate breach. That could have racked up quite quickly, easily eclipsing $120M

 

[p--and--t]

...and we're basically back to the reasons why large corporations never feel they did anything wrong because penalties patently do not actually punish them. I suppose no politician is going to be brave enough to legislate in order to lay the groundwork to possibly dole out such possible penalties (i.e. increase or remove limits).

We already have alleged maximum penalties for various things the courts refuse to apply because they consider them manifestly excessive and the infringement reduced by a significant percentage or not at all.

Trying to set a precident in one industry out of line with all other industries won't fly nor will a penalty that would cause the business to cease to exist.

The penalty on the travelling public would be worse than the offence