Legality of seat charges being nontransferable/nonrefundable?

[epicpilgrim]

Hi all

First of all, I am not accusing Qantas of doing anything illegal But I am wondering... just HOW legal is the nontransferable/nonrefundable nature of seat charges on bookings? I am Platinum, often book fully flexible tickets... I buy exit row seats - often $190 on SYD <-> LHR for example. That's non an insignificant amount of money.

Now, imagine, months out from my booking, I change my flight. The same seat is available on that new flight. But can I transfer that seat booking? No! I have to pay $190 again. Even though that premium seat will definitely sell on that booking, because it ALWAYS sells. You know what? If it didn't sell, I'd happily sacrifice my $190 and say "my fault, I changed, you couldn't sell it, I'll suck up the cost". But that's not how it works. Surely in this era where banks are being done for "fee for no service", things like this should be able to be challenged? How is it legal? I sent them an e-mail months ago and never heard back, so here I am asking others who maybe have more knowledge or experience than I!

 

[sudoer]

Surely in this era where banks are being done for "fee for no service", things like this should be able to be challenged? How is it legal?

Now, imagine, months out from my booking, I change my flight.

The difference between "fee for no service" and these exit row fees is that you would have willingly forfeited the fee when changing your flight, as per Qantas T&C which you agreed to when booking the flight.

I agree it is a bullshit clause, but that's how it's legal.

If you have been in this situation I would suggest a concise email to the ACCC explaining the issue, with receipts to show you had to pay twice. You may not get your money back but bringing it to their attention may bring change in the long term.

 

[epicpilgrim]

The difference between "fee for no service" and these exit row fees is that you would have willingly forfeited the fee when changing your flight, as per Qantas T&C which you agreed to when booking the flight.

Totally makes sense. I am not a lawyer but surely just because a company writes something in T&Cs, doesn't mean it will actually stand up in court? Banks used to "legally" charge overdraft fees that were $20+. Now, banks are a heavily regulated "industry" and the government has a lot of interest in that area... But now those fees are typically much lower, because the banks were penalising their customers more than the cost of doing business. I see a parallel here, albeit the number of people that would be willing to get together and put a class action together about seat charges is probably very, very small compared with overdraft charges!!

 

[rock86]

Totally makes sense. I am not a lawyer but surely just because a company writes something in T&Cs, doesn't mean it will actually stand up in court? Banks used to "legally" charge overdraft fees that were $20+. Now, banks are a heavily regulated "industry" and the government has a lot of interest in that area... But now those fees are typically much lower, because the banks were penalising their customers more than the cost of doing business. I see a parallel here, albeit the number of people that would be willing to get together and put a class action together about seat charges is probably very, very small compared with overdraft charges!!

You raise some very interesting points on the charge.

 

[woodborer]

Totally makes sense. I am not a lawyer but surely just because a company writes something in T&Cs, doesn't mean it will actually stand up in court?

But by the same token, saying you don't like a clause doesn't make it unfair either

Banks used to "legally" charge overdraft fees that were $20+. Now, banks are a heavily regulated "industry" and the government has a lot of interest in that area... But now those fees are typically much lower, because the banks were penalising their customers more than the cost of doing business. I see a parallel here, albeit the number of people that would be willing to get together and put a class action together about seat charges is probably very, very small compared with overdraft charges!!

Weren't all those fees ultimately rules legal?

 

[odysseus]

Totally makes sense. I am not a lawyer but surely just because a company writes something in T&Cs, doesn't mean it will actually stand up in court? Banks used to "legally" charge overdraft fees that were $20+. Now, banks are a heavily regulated "industry" and the government has a lot of interest in that area... But now those fees are typically much lower, because the banks were penalising their customers more than the cost of doing business. I see a parallel here, albeit the number of people that would be willing to get together and put a class action together about seat charges is probably very, very small compared with overdraft charges!!

Actually - and unfortunately - it probably will.

It is just as you say regulation that prevents them, so in the banking comparison there are limitations to what can be done. Similarly with credit card surcharges – which changed when the then ACCC changed regulation, so as you can see sometimes regulation is loosened that enables extra charges.

So yes, if it is defined in the terms and conditions, and there is no other regulation to prevent it (which I don’t believe there is in this case) they are entitled to charge it, as annoying as that is.

 

[albatross710]

Looking at the ACL it seems this paragraph provides the airlines (They all do it, which doesn't make it right)

The unfair contract terms laws do not apply to the upfront price payable under the contract provided it was disclosed before the contract was entered into.

So it's not a law that we can get them on. Consumer pressure, royal commission, university ethics lecturers.

I think the basis for the forfeit of the charge is for the gross profit that is foregone.

For me, when I am travelling on LCC I leave all of the seat and extra baggage charges until the the last possible moment.

ALby

 

[burmans]

Totally makes sense. I am not a lawyer but surely just because a company writes something in T&Cs, doesn't mean it will actually stand up in court? Banks used to "legally" charge overdraft fees that were $20+. Now, banks are a heavily regulated "industry" and the government has a lot of interest in that area... But now those fees are typically much lower, because the banks were penalising their customers more than the cost of doing business. I see a parallel here, albeit the number of people that would be willing to get together and put a class action together about seat charges is probably very, very small compared with overdraft charges!!

I agree with this, T&Cs don't override the law and not sure this would stand up to a Consumer law case. But the regulators are fairly toothless and reluctant to prosecute, and if the regulators are running scared what chance for an individual?

But I do think we are entering an era where individual consumers have a little more power ( sometimes for good, sometimes for bad).

 

[opusman]

I am not a lawyer but surely just because a company writes something in T&Cs, doesn't mean it will actually stand up in court?

It may very well not stand up in court, but someone would have to actually take it to court to find out. Are you prepared to?

 

[burmans]

It may very well not stand up in court, but someone would have to actually take it to court to find out. Are you prepared to?

This is what I think many companies count on!