Cancellation of booking online

[crazydave98]

When the customer is hit up for 4 separate/extra fees, none of which they had a choice for and which were out of line with the costs associated, then I think the gouge statement is justified.

I see your point. I will suggest internally that we have a different level of credit card fee for smaller value transactions such as changing bookings and where a credit card surcharge has already been paid.

 

[LiamR]

Crazydave,

While we are on the subject.... what is the justification for charging/restricting name change on tickets?

I've never been caught out, but I'm wondering why you have to pay to change a name on a ticket, since the seat is still going to be used. I can't see any justification for not allowing it/charging... I'm not angry, just wondering why its like this? Is there a reason I can't see?

 

[notzac]

Crazydave,

While we are on the subject.... what is the justification for charging/restricting name change on tickets?

I'm not CD98, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer .. it's to prevent people from buying large numbers of tickets during a sale and on-selling them later for a profit when the prices are much higher.

 

[leemin]

dfcatch we would lose sales to airlines with a lower headline price (and maintaining fees) because headline fares is what drives the market

Very true. I see this as the only reason Tiger is still around.

Out of interest, I compared Tiger with Virgin Blue (note: before relaunch) on a couple of days on a few different routes late last year. Once it was 'standardised' with the same check-in method, roughly the same baggage allowance, credit card fees etc, Tiger actually ended up more expensive or only $20 or so cheaper than Virgin.

I suspect that if people actually calculated this for themselves, that Tiger would be out of business tomorrow and Virgin's market share (and profits!) would jump up too.

 

[oz_mark]

There already is a form of regulation by which, in order to be able to charge CC fees, the airline has to offer a no-cost alternative (such as Poli, direct transfer or Bpay).

I don't believe this statement to be true. Having a no cost alternative allows you to unbundle the fee, but does not, of itself, prevent you charging a fee. Singapore Airlines, for example, have a credit card surcharge on fares sold in Australia, but as there is no alternative, it is in the stated price.

You could also structure the fee such that it would not have to be included in the fare component. For example, a flat fee per booking would result in a case where you couldn't include it in the sector fares, as you wouldn't know how much would need to be applied per sector. This is why, for example, some restaurants have gone to flat dollar surcharges on weekends, in place of percentage surcharges - so they don't have to reprint menu's.

 

[leemin]

I'm not CD98, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer .. it's to prevent people from buying large numbers of tickets during a sale and on-selling them later for a profit when the prices are much higher.

Maybe I'm too honest..

That had never crossed my mind!

 

[dfcatch]

dfcatch you may very well be right. But until that happens we are in a competitive market where if we elected to lower our CC fees and increase our base fares we would lose sales to airlines with a lower headline price (and maintaining fees) because headline fares is what drives the market. There already is a form of regulation by which, in order to be able to charge CC fees, the airline has to offer a no-cost alternative (such as Poli, direct transfer or Bpay).

Crazydave,

Forgive my rant - but it is how I feel about DJ (and QF to a degree).

I would REALLY REALLY love to switch away from QF if given a truly viable alternative. But atm it doesn't exist. I am very much looking forward to the relaunch of velocity to see if it sways me.....

You have to understand that I'm self-funded, so no corporate travel budget for me.

I know "I" don't currently pay baggage fees, but I won't always be Gold either.

And I can't afford to pay Flexi-Fares just to get what should be "basics" in a true Premium Airline.

Especially when I already get a lot of those things in a QF red e-deal.

IMHO if you want to market yourself as a Premium Airline (like QF was before it just got awarded 4th for most ancillary charges in the world), then you need to include Premium items in your base product.

It seems to me that DJ wants to be a LCC, but simultaneously a "Premium Product" but only for those paying "Premium Fares".

Yes that sounds like having my cake and eating it too, but QF was able to do it fine, AND apparently was profitable.

Lack of competition and a LCC management mentality has changed the QF game, which leaves me and like-minded customers looking for a genuine alternative, but so far DJ has yet to win me over.

Sorry crazydave - just being honest!

I do however truly wish DJ luck in changing that.....

 

[crazydave98]

I don't believe this statement to be true. Having a no cost alternative allows you to unbundle the fee, but does not, of itself, prevent you charging a fee. Singapore Airlines, for example, have a credit card surcharge on fares sold in Australia, but as there is no alternative, it is in the stated price.

different regulations apply for domestic vs international

 

[oz_mark]

different regulations apply for domestic vs international

Hmm, of which regulations are we speaking then?

I am speaking of the component pricing provisions of the Trade Practices Act.