"Airlines need to comply with consumer law" - ACCC

[CMA222]

I noticed the following words as I completed a domestic QF booking this morning:

"I acknowledge that flight times are not guaranteed and do not form part of my contract of carriage. Qantas may need to change or cancel flights or schedules – travel insurance is recommended."

If I do not accept this I cannot make a booking for a flight time that may or may not operate at sometime around the time I hope it will, based on the estimate that QF put in its non-binding timetable. This looks like an unfair contract term intended to give QF an answer to any request for compensation or maybe to support refusals for any assistance (hotels, taxis, meals) when a flight is substantially delayed or cancelled and passengers are told to "come back tomorrow" when the flight may or may not operate, at a time QF will decide but not be bound to.

I understand that delays are not uncommon and operational circumstances might cause a cancellation but if the flight times are being excluded from being a contractual term then does that not make us all standby passengers as the airline can potentially operate services to suit itself and not the passengers because departure and arrival times are just a non-binding guide.

The passengers inability to refuse to accept this clause will presumably eventually be an issue, which the ACCC hopefully will look at the impact of.

Maybe QF is establishing its position if an equivalent to EC261/2004 is imposed in Australia, after the current enquiry is completed.

 

[Quickstatus]

I understand that delays are not uncommon and operational circumstances might cause a cancellation but if the flight times are being excluded from being a contractual term then does that not make us all standby passengers as the airline can potentially operate services to suit itself and not the passengers because departure and arrival times are just a non-binding guide.

Yes that’s correct. Self loading freight upstairs and other freight downstairs

Is there a travel mode where the departure and arrival times are contractually guaranteed by the carrier?

 

[OZDUCK]

Yes that’s correct. Self loading freight upstairs and other freight downstairs

Is there a travel mode where the departure and arrival times are contractually guaranteed by the carrier?

Well, I have been looking at using rail travel in Spain for my upcoming trip and they seem to have a pretty good policy. If the high speed train, AVE, is 15 - 30 minutes delayed you get a refund of 50% of the fare and if it is more than 30 minutes a 100% refund is mandated. I have not researched Japanese high speed trains but I seem to remember that they have strict guarantees?

 

[Quickstatus]

Mandated refunds are not guarantees, and generally do not entirely compensate for time lost or lost opportunities.

Even the Japanese train system is never guaranteed even though they are far more timetable conscious than most with robust internal accountability if late and I think if early as wellness

I agree that it is terribly one sided that if the passenger is late the fare may be forfeited but if the airline is late compensation tends to be exgratis

 

[Himeno]

Well, I have been looking at using rail travel in Spain for my upcoming trip and they seem to have a pretty good policy. If the high speed train, AVE, is 15 - 30 minutes delayed you get a refund of 50% of the fare and if it is more than 30 minutes a 100% refund is mandated. I have not researched Japanese high speed trains but I seem to remember that they have strict guarantees?

The Japanese timetables are much tighter on what is considered "late".
A western bus or train might only be considered late if it's 15 minutes past the time listed on the timetable. In Japan, that's more like 2 minutes.

There are connections timetabled into the Japanese train network that allows for a train to pull in on one side of a platform and people are able to make their connection to the train on the other side of the platform within 30 seconds. If either train was late, the connection wouldn't work.

Most Japanese carriers post public notices about delays, locations of delays and reason for said delay. That's somewhat lacking elsewhere. During peak times, if the train is late, which would then make you late to work/school, the train carrier will give you a note for your boss to explain why you are late.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I noticed the following words as I completed a domestic QF booking this morning:

"I acknowledge that flight times are not guaranteed and do not form part of my contract of carriage. Qantas may need to change or cancel flights or schedules – travel insurance is recommended."

If I do not accept this I cannot make a booking for a flight time that may or may not operate at sometime around the time I hope it will, based on the estimate that QF put in its non-binding timetable. This looks like an unfair contract term intended to give QF an answer to any request for compensation or maybe to support refusals for any assistance (hotels, taxis, meals) when a flight is substantially delayed or cancelled and passengers are told to "come back tomorrow" when the flight may or may not operate, at a time QF will decide but not be bound to.

I understand that delays are not uncommon and operational circumstances might cause a cancellation but if the flight times are being excluded from being a contractual term then does that not make us all standby passengers as the airline can potentially operate services to suit itself and not the passengers because departure and arrival times are just a non-binding guide.

The passengers inability to refuse to accept this clause will presumably eventually be an issue, which the ACCC hopefully will look at the impact of.

Maybe QF is establishing its position if an equivalent to EC261/2004 is imposed in Australia, after the current enquiry is completed.

This 'exclusion' has been around since like, well, forever. I'd suggest checking a box is unlikely to have much of an effect on our rights. We're still protected by consumer laws etc.

I too would like to know the reason why they've decided to put this check requirement in.

The same exclusion can be found in almost every airline contract, including European carriers. But EU261 still happily operates as its based on the scheduled departure time. So an airline can change or cancel flights all it likes but is still on the hook.

 

[serfty]

But EU261 still happily operates as its based on the scheduled departure time.

To be clear EU261 compensation operates both on actual arrival time at final destination in relation to that originally scheduled and / or departure time when compared to that booked/scheduled. There is other provision for compensation for some early departures as well.

 

[Quickstatus]

The Japanese timetables are much tighter on what is considered "late".
A western bus or train might only be considered late if it's 15 minutes past the time listed on the timetable. In Japan, that's more like 2 minutes.

There are connections timetabled into the Japanese train network that allows for a train to pull in on one side of a platform and people are able to make their connection to the train on the other side of the platform within 30 seconds. If either train was late, the connection wouldn't work.

Most Japanese carriers post public notices about delays, locations of delays and reason for said delay. That's somewhat lacking elsewhere. During peak times, if the train is late, which would then make you late to work/school, the train carrier will give you a note for your boss to explain why you are late.

I wish our transportation modes had this attitude to on time performance:

Japanese train company issues official apology for “inexcusable” 25-second early departure
Tokyo train company’s apology for 20-second-early departure is one of the best things about Japan

 

[CMA222]

So it looks like Canada have bitten the bullet. Now we have to get our politicians and the ACCC to review the situation as compared to EC261.

Canada Strengthens Air Passenger Rights & Institutes Compensation Scheme For Delays/Cancellations/Downgrades

Canada is strengthening air passengers rights. Two new regulations will take place on July 15 and December 15, 2019.

loyaltylobby.com

 

[Quickstatus]

Unfortunately Canada aviation is not an open market

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The problem with the Canadia example is that mechanical delays are accepted as an excuse for the airline to deny liability. So cue the 'mechanical' argument for anything and everything. (In fact any 'safety related' event is covered IIRC. As is weather, and ATC.)

I don't even know if anyone will be able to claim under the Canada scheme.

 

[jakeseven7]

Be careful what you wish for... QF and VA will just merrily pass any increased cost straight onto consumers with their cosy duopoly!

 

[flydoc]

The legal proceedings launched by the ACCC last December against Jetstar for misleading passengers about their refund rights may have come to an end, with the Federal Court today fining Jetstar an agreed penalty of almost $2 million.

Jetstar fined $2 million for misleading passengers about refunds

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 797

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

 

[Isochronous]

I noticed the following words as I completed a domestic QF booking this morning:

"I acknowledge that flight times are not guaranteed and do not form part of my contract of carriage. Qantas may need to change or cancel flights or schedules – travel insurance is recommended."

If I do not accept this I cannot make a booking for a flight time that may or may not operate at sometime around the time I hope it will, based on the estimate that QF put in its non-binding timetable. This looks like an unfair contract term intended to give QF an answer to any request for compensation or maybe to support refusals for any assistance (hotels, taxis, meals) when a flight is substantially delayed or cancelled and passengers are told to "come back tomorrow" when the flight may or may not operate, at a time QF will decide but not be bound to.

I understand that delays are not uncommon and operational circumstances might cause a cancellation but if the flight times are being excluded from being a contractual term then does that not make us all standby passengers as the airline can potentially operate services to suit itself and not the passengers because departure and arrival times are just a non-binding guide.

The passengers inability to refuse to accept this clause will presumably eventually be an issue, which the ACCC hopefully will look at the impact of.

Maybe QF is establishing its position if an equivalent to EC261/2004 is imposed in Australia, after the current enquiry is completed.

If Australia legislated something like EC 261 the likelihood is that it would be worded in such a way that Qantas or any other carrier would be unable to contract out of its statutory obligation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

EC261 simply talks about the 'scheduled time of departure'.

 

[serfty]

EC261 simply talks about the 'scheduled time of departure'.

EU261/2004 in article 6 (Delay) refers to scheduled time of departure.

In article 7 (Compensation) it refers to scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked.

Case law has decreed that beyond the text of EU261/2004, a delay of more than three hours is to be treated as a cancellation in relation to compensation.

REGULATION] (EC) No 261/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights

 

[MEL_Traveller]

EU261/2004 in article 6 (Delay) refers to scheduled time of departure.

In article 7 (Compensation) it refers to scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked.

Case law has decreed that beyond the text of EU261/2004, a delay of more than three hours is to be treated as a cancellation in relation to compensation.

REGULATION] (EC) No 261/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights

Yes that’s right.

Was just noting that ‘scheduled departure time’ is a neat way of avoiding any issues around flight times not being guaranteed, or an airline trying to escape liability by revising a departure time.

 

[ozfflyer]

So it looks like Canada have bitten the bullet. Now we have to get our politicians and the ACCC to review the situation as compared to EC261.

Canada Strengthens Air Passenger Rights & Institutes Compensation Scheme For Delays/Cancellations/Downgrades

Canada is strengthening air passengers rights. Two new regulations will take place on July 15 and December 15, 2019.

loyaltylobby.com

don't think Canadas example has been well thought out. It will possibly lead to less overbooking, which is bad for consumers costwise as many cheaper fares will disappear. eg. say an average no show for a particular flight with 100 seats is 5%. So currently airlines will book up to 105 seats. Now in Canada they might only book 102 seats, meaning 3 cheap seats will go. Might not sound much, but multiply this by every flight & many aircraft have far more seats.

So in other words, to get this so called consumer protection, passengers will pay more on average, a sort of compulsory insurance.

 

[ozfflyer]

Yes that’s right.

Was just noting that ‘scheduled departure time’ is a neat way of avoiding any issues around flight times not being guaranteed, or an airline trying to escape liability by revising a departure time.

it will lead to more scheduled padding. A flight which was scheduled to take 2 hours, might now be scheduled to take 2.5 hours & if airlines challenged on this, all they have to say is congestion causes this.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

it will lead to more scheduled padding. A flight which was scheduled to take 2 hours, might now be scheduled to take 2.5 hours & if airlines challenged on this, all they have to say is congestion causes this.

Not really. Airlines make money by their planes being in the air. If a flight that takes only two hours is shceduled to take 2.5, it means the depature time for the return flight will be delayed by that extra .5 of an hour. This is wasted time. Over a full day's flying for a 737, this could add three or so hours of 'wasted' time the plane isn't flying. That's a return MEL-SYD. Too much lost revenue.

EU261 which has (argably) stricted conditions than Canada has not seen any decrease in cheap fares (at least that I have noticed). I'm getting rock bottom fares for as little as £29 for a Manchester-London-Paris flight. That inlcudes a stopover in London. £14.50 per sector including bags and drinks (BA cityflyer) is pretty unbeatable. The train is much more.

Not much good having cheap seats if you;re going to get bumped. So selling 102 insetad of 105 s probably the right answer, at least for the passenger.