Airlines, hire cars targeted over hidden fees

[AdMEL]

From The Age today:

Airlines, hire cars targeted over hidden fees

The travel industry is under scrutiny for the second year running as Australia tries to stamp out corporate behaviour that unfairly disadvantages consumers.

It would be nice if Australia could lead the world in forcing change by airlines and car hire companies to ensure fairness to consumers.

The ACCC says examples of potentially unfair terms in airline contracts include:
- Terms and conditions relating to rescheduled or cancelled flights, particularly in relation to consumer compensation.
- Use of consumer data for purposes other than those directly related to airline travel.
- Application of fees, charges and penalties to consumer transactions.
- Limiting the time period in which consumers can bring a claim for damages.

Notwithstanding this, airline travel is significantly cheaper and more accessible than it was only a decade ago!

The ACCC says issues of concern with car hire companies include:
- Clauses that allow the business, several weeks after the vehicle has been returned, to debit the consumer's credit card for damage without notification.
- Clauses about vehicle damage and specifications on what a consumer is responsible for.
- Limitations on what the consumer can use the vehicle for.
- Failure to adequately disclose insurance related-issues around consumers' liability.

Although I have managed to make car hire work to my advantage in many respects (e.g. using Westpac Platinum card to cover excess, rather than paying the excess reduction), some things still catch me out, particularly with how often car hire companies change their terms and conditions!

And some things still concern me, particularly some of the points noted above, e.g. limitations on use of the vehicle - the inability to take cars on ferries and drive on dirt roads is frustrating. As is the lack of cover for hail damage and the single vehicle accident excess.

Having said that, current terms are in many ways better than only several years ago - for example, most terms used to exclude cover for damage when reversing the car or when no other car was involved! And, in the case of Hertz, driving on dirt roads is no longer a breach of the agreement (although you are still not covered whilst driving on dirts roads, except short access roads to national parks).

But, unlike most other people, I have a pretty good idea of what the risks and consequences are and can therefore minimise them!

 

[Dalescott]

The hire cars may take a beating from the ACCC. But I can not see the Airlines, wearing this, they have far to much clout with the Federal Government. Besides this the Australian market is the only one in the world making them any money. I think you will find that Greame Samuels and the ACCC will be told to behave themselves

 

[harvyk]

I think we have a relatively fare airline system. (Ignoring TT's cancellation = your problem policy)

With exception to AVV, our flights actually go to the cities which they claim they will, it is possible to actually fly from point A to point B for $49 if the airline states that is the price (all advertised prices include mandatory charges \ taxes).

The other big bugbear is check in closing times. But even then I'm sort of on the airlines side with that. If you allow checkin to slide by 5 minutes (eg if check in closed T-45 minutes, and yet you allowed people to checkin at T-40 minutes, or T-35 minutes why not change your checkin policy for these new times), and of course you have the issue that if you let your checkin slide, you then start risking annoying your pax who have done the right thing.

 

[UP4014]

It's partly because of authorities like the ACCC we have such a good system (compared to other countries) and a regular check up by them is healthy.

It stops airlines and rent-a-car companies charges getting complacent and creeping charges up or further restricting conditions.

Matt

 

[medhead]

And some things still concern me, particularly some of the points noted above, e.g. limitations on use of the vehicle - the inability to take cars on ferries and drive on dirt roads is frustrating. As is the lack of cover for hail damage and the single vehicle accident excess.

Having said that, current terms are in many ways better than only several years ago - for example, most terms used to exclude cover for damage when reversing the car or when no other car was involved! And, in the case of Hertz, driving on dirt roads is no longer a breach of the agreement (although you are still not covered whilst driving on dirts roads, except short access roads to national parks).

I looked into the dirt road thing about 5 or 6 years ago. At that time what that really meant was non gazetted roads. i.e. real dirt roads, non-legal roads. Insurance still worked when driving on all state roads, dirt or otherwise.

 

[AdMEL]

I looked into the dirt road thing about 5 or 6 years ago. At that time what that really meant was non gazetted roads. i.e. real dirt roads, non-legal roads. Insurance still worked when driving on all state roads, dirt or otherwise.

This is no longer the case. Terms and conditions are currently as follows:

Hertz - driving on unsealed roads is permitted but you have no cover whilst doing so. It is not a breach of the agreement.

Europcar - driving on roads not sealed with tar, bitumen or concrete prohibited and doing so is a breach of the agreement which voids all cover, even if the car is subsequently damaged on a sealed road.

Thrifty - same as Europcar

Avis - driving on properly formed gravel roads allowed

Budget - same as Avis

 

[medhead]

This is no longer the case. Terms and conditions are currently as follows:

Avis - driving on properly formed gravel roads allowed

Budget - same as Avis

Well I didn't check as comprehensively as you have but it is allowed with Avis and budget as you say. Which would have been the companies that I did check back then