International Flex Fare = Saver Conditions For Changes

[opusman]

I mean, this would disappear as a problem if airlines stopped making one way international trips so much more expensive than returns...

This. It is so irritating.

 

[equus]

I mean, this would disappear as a problem if airlines stopped making one way international trips so much more expensive than returns.

That is never going to happen.

Airlines need to fly the planes both ways, and need to sell the seats. Internationally, they tend to have a distinct advantage selling in one direction over the other. Be it local brand recognition, home port lounge advantages, better domestic connections to a hub, whatever it is, they can command a premium in one direction. International competition tends to be between airlines on a route by route basis - with the exception of some of the fifth freedom routes, typically carriers from "home" at either end. These differ by route, so each airline is competing with a whole lot of different airlines flying to and from their home country.

If they had to sell both directions independently, then they would be forced to discount the non-preferred direction to a greater extent. By selling one way fares much higher than as a return leg, they encourage people to book both ways with them, gaining more revenue on their non-optimum (normally return) direction than they would be able to make selling them just one-way. You can already see some of this when you look at the differential pricing of return fares depending on which way you buy the trip (e.g. price a SYD-LHR return on QF, vs a LHR-SYD return). By selling return fares, they ensure for the most part that loadings are similar in each direction (timing differences aside) and revenue is managed by the pricing of returns. If lots of one-way fares were sold, then it would be much easier for greater imbalances in each direction (imagine if everybody decided to fly QF SYD-LHR, but BA LHR-SYD), which would then lead to more discounting - and loss of revenue. Much easier to simply encourage sale of return fares by making one-ways more expensive.

These considerations tend to be much less for domestic - as the competition is with the same domestic competitors over multiple routes. There is also much more scope for planes being routed other than out and return, and less restrictions about who can be flown (no cabotage or other considerations). This makes it much easier to just sell single sectors, and price returns as the sum of two sectors (not that it was always this way, remember the days of Apex fares, and requirements to stay a Saturday night).

 

[bullerdude]

Agree that’s it’s quite misleading for them to sell you a flexi fare on one segment and then apply the fare rules from another segment. The system should prevent you from purchasing as flexi unless all lower fare classes have sold out. I wonder if this could run foul of consumer protections if ever tested…

 

[RichardMEL]

I woukd agree that some sort of a pop up prior to confirmation reminding of the restriction would make it unambiguous. QF woukd, of course say, it is noted in the fare rules that one can view prior to booking - and so it is - bit it doesn't pass the pub test for sure.

Many of us who are experienced in this caper know this is a thing with many airlines, but that's not fair to the average punter who sees "Flex" only to find that it isn't quite that when push comes to shove.

Definitely should be made clearer if this is a policy they will enforce imo.

 

[bullerdude]

I’m not a lawyer so only taking a guess, but I would have thought the practise of applying the most restrictive terms via a disclaimer / fare rules could be considered misleading.

Any advertising material or statements made by a business must be truthful and accurate. This includes any impressions created by what is said or displayed. Businesses cannot rely on small print or disclaimers to justify a misleading overall message.

Given the primary message / impression when selecting a flexi fare (along with the big green ticks saying you can change the. booking), is that it is flexible, and you are paying a higher price for the flexibility. The fare rules then indicate a different set of rules from the more restrictive fare on another segment apply to the flexi fare you have selected. Again, I’m not an expert, but it seems misleading.

Furthermore, when you click on the fare class to show the fare rules, you have to go past all the flexi fares rules, and read the note at the bottom of the fare rules that specific when the fare is combined with another fare the most restrictive rules apply.

Again, I see that as misleading, as the small note at the end changes the primary message/impression you get from selecting a flexi fare. It could easily not be misleading if the booking engine auto displayed the fare rules that were being applied based on the fares selected…. Which is definitely possible from a technology perspective.

 

[elanshin]

I would say this is a case of no-one has taken QF to the courts on this point. If they had, it may have been updated already to reflect the poor position of the fare t&c.

The simplest solution would have been a pop up warning that you're flex fare is still subject to your saver fare restrictions. Even if it's not a consumer friendly solution.

 

[TheInsider]

I’m not a lawyer so only taking a guess, but I would have thought the practise of applying the most restrictive terms via a disclaimer / fare rules could be considered misleading.

It's not small print though. It's the actual rules of that fare.

 

[elanshin]

It's not small print though. It's the actual rules of that fare.

That is one of those legal interpretations as to what constitutes "small print" and having to "scroll to the bottom" to figure out a key point. One where lawyers and judges work out what those statements mean and their interpretations with this specific application.

 

[bullerdude]

It's not small print though. It's the actual rules of that fare.

I’d call the fare rules fine print as you have to open them seperate to what the booking engine shows - I.e., a table of the basic features of the fare selected.

Even if the fare roles were not considered fine print, I would think the “note” at the very bottom of the fare rules that negates the entire set of fare rules, would be considered fine print.

 

[RichardMEL]

I would say this is a case of no-one has taken QF to the courts on this point. If they had, it may have been updated already to reflect the poor position of the fare t&c.

The simplest solution would have been a pop up warning that you're flex fare is still subject to your saver fare restrictions. Even if it's not a consumer friendly solution.

Knowing QF's website this level of sophistican might be beyond the WEKs ....

I also feel the way QF presents the fare rules, specifically this important information, to be fine print by most people's definitions. I kean you have a summary of Flex with all those green ticks for the flex stuff - which sends one message but then yiu heed to select fare rules abd drill down to the bottom.

It may technically meet a legal definition of disclosure - I have no idea - but I reckon 9/10 would think it's burried.

We do need to remember though that, in the main, most folks who buy a flex fare will do so for all sectors so this isn't an issue for both, but no doubt there are a fair number who do mix and match as in this thread's example.

 

[CaptJCool]

This mixing of fares is MORE LIKELY to be on international bookings as domestic bookings can easily be done as one ways.

And often given QF view on bad luck you booked too late, suck up the higher Flexi fare means Many had no choice but to have Saver/Flexi ticket combinations

 

[RichardMEL]

This mixing of fares is MORE LIKELY to be on international bookings as domestic bookings can easily be done as one ways.

Agree, thoigh I imagine majority of domestic customers book roundtrips in the one booking as standard. I often do on day return trips myself - incase things go sideways.

 

[dylarr]

I do think the way the Qantas and other airline/OTA websites sell combined fares is a bit iffy and unfair. I can absolutely see how a regular person (i.e. someone who doesn't frequent sites like AFF on the regular) would fall into this trap.

For example, if you book a return trip on the Qantas website and select a Sale fare for your outbound, when you're presented with options for your Return it shows all available fare types such as Flex and prominently advertises the features with Cancellations and Changes with big green checkmarks — which is not actually true would not be available to the customer due to the more restrictive fare being selected for the outbound leg.

It's only when you click the full fare rules and scroll right to the bottom that you see the clause around the most restrictive rules applying when fares are combined.

As for other websites and OTA's, they're even worse. I did a test booking with Expedia with combined fares and nowhere in the checkout flow were the full fare rules or this clause about most restrictive rules presented to me.

The fairer solution here would be for this to not be a rule in the first place and to apply the fare rules on a per sector basis so people get what they paid for. Could be a good one to add to the list of customer policies being reviewed to "ensure they are fair" that VH mentioned was happening last year.

 

[madrooster]

I booked a Saver (K) for the forward leg but paid extra for Flex (H) on the return.

Keen to hear from you experts…

What is the itinerary and what are you changing? This sounds like it is international as K class is flex on domestic.

For domestic...

Generally speaking, as an example, you can combine a e-deal SYD-MEL eg. Q class and a flex MEL-SYD eg. K class and change the flex MEL-SYD without a change fee.

I believe the QF website often does not handle this correctly and it tries to charge you a change fee as if you were also changing the SYD-MEL e-deal when you aren't. It's incorrect - if only the MEL-SYD flex is changing, then there is no change fee. Fare/tax difference if applicable, always applies regardless.

Domestic change rules:

          6. WHEN TWO OR MORE QANTAS FARES ARE COMBINED ON
          THE ONE TICKET AND A CHANGE IS MADE TO A TICKETED
          FLIGHT.
          -IF ONE FARE COMPONENT IS BEING CHANGED THE
          CHANGE FEE APPLICABLE ON THE FARE COMPONENT BEING
          CHANGED WILL APPLY.
          -IF MORE THAN ONE FARE COMPONENT IS CHANGED IN A
          SINGLE TRANSACTION THE MOST RESTRICTIVE - HIGHEST
          CHANGE FEE OF THOSE FARE COMPONENTS BEING CHANGED-
          WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLE JOURNEY.

Similarly for QF international fares, the change fee that applies to the fare component you are changing, is the fee applicable. If you mix a saver fare outbound and a flex fare on the return and only want to change the return, then no change fee is payable. Fare/tax difference if applicable, always applies regardless.

Again, I believe the website often gets this wrong.

International change rules:

          WHEN TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT FARES ARE COMBINED ON A
          HALF RT BASIS TO FORM A RT/CT/OJ JOURNEY AND ONE
          FARE COMPONENT IS BEING CHANGED THE FEE APPLICABLE
          ON THE FARE COMPONENT BEING CHANGED WILL APPLY.
          WHEN MORE THAN ONE FARE COMPONENT IS CHANGED IN A
          SINGLE TRANSACTION THE MOST RESTRICTIVE -HIGHEST-
          CHANGE FEE WILL APPLY TO THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION
          ACROSS THE ENTIRE JOURNEY.

In all cases, on most airlines, the most restrictive cancellation penalty applies on the whole ticket. On carriers that offer non refundable fares, if you pick a non refundable fare outbound and a flex fare on the return, be careful - the entire ticket becomes non refundable!

The fairer solution here would be for this to not be a rule in the first place and to apply the fare rules on a per sector basis so people get what they paid for. Could be a good one to add to the list of customer policies being reviewed to "ensure they are fair" that VH mentioned was happening last year.

That's already the case and has been the case for years with QF as per above. The issue is the website not doing what it should be doing... which we all know is another whole separate issue (or issues...).