New aviation industry ombudsman & customer rights charter in Australia

[Saab34]

I am a firm believer, one who purchases a ticket from A to B, should arrive at B not a cent out of pocket, and not been given the ‘dump and run’ approach by the airline.

Really annoys me that someone buys a fare, then when they get to the arrival point they are thousands out of pocket.

If you are in the airlines hands, weather issues not, they need to wear any cost.

 

[SeaWolf]

To describe this new charter as the "bare minimum" is almost overstating what's in it. There's nothing new here, just a restatement of obligations that the airlines already have that they've been shirking.

We need proper reform and a proper customer compensation scheme like the USA, Canada, EU and UK all have. This reads like it was drafted Qantas PR.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To describe this new charter as the "bare minimum" is almost overstating what's in it. There's nothing new here, just a restatement of obligations that the airlines already have that they've been shirking.

We need proper reform and a proper customer compensation scheme like the USA, Canada, EU and UK all have. This reads like it was drafted Qantas PR.

agree.

but apparently that’s *not* the aim of this charter. The aim of this is to sim0yminform 99% of the travelling public who have no idea that if their flight is cancelled or delayed, that the airline needs to rebook them, or give them a full refund.

The ACL is actually pretty strong in that regard, but I guess people just don’t know.

It doesn’t resolve the issue raised by saab34, that a walk-up fare in another carrier can be very expensive. But how many people - non business - actually do that?

Not even EU261 covers the full cost of a replacement last-minute ticket.

 

[MARTINE]

At last, a charter of rights for Australian airline passengers – but where's the compensation for delays? | Monique Ryan

Airlines would be less likely to cancel or delay a flight if they had to pay up to $100,000 in compensation

www.theguardian.com

 

[p--and--t]

At last, a charter of rights for Australian airline passengers – but where's the compensation for delays? | Monique Ryan

Airlines would be less likely to cancel or delay a flight if they had to pay up to $100,000 in compensation

www.theguardian.com

It's intriguing how various persons keeping railing the furphy initiated by REX directors about slots which has been to be proven bulldust.

 

[Saab34]

Rex handed back Sydney slots because they couldn’t fill the seats. You could say they had been wasted with Rex and might as well give them to VA or QF who will fill them.

 

[serfty]

Not even EU261 covers the full cost of a replacement last-minute ticket.

But it does force the operating airline to reroute in a comparable cabin at their cost and not necessarily on the same carrier (if the PAX does not opt for a refund).

 

[clifford]

But it does force the operating airline to reroute in a comparable cabin at their cost and not necessarily on the same carrier (if the PAX does not opt for a refund).

It doesn't "force" them as they are routinely not doing it.

 

[serfty]

It doesn't "force" them as they are routinely not doing it.

The regulation exists, and non compliance has its own ramifications.

 

[JackMiles]

Apologies if this has been covered up thread. I am coming here from the newsletter today and haven't read the first 5 pages of comments from last year. As to giving feedback; is anyone planning to (or has already) draw up a feedback document that others may sign on to? I would like to voice my displeasure at the shortcomings of this new Charter but (a) I bet my complaints overlap a great deal with many others' and (b) many on here are more knowledgeable and eloquent than me, so I feel like endorsing an erudite expert's response would perhaps be more effective than lodging my own.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Apologies if this has been covered up thread. I am coming here from the newsletter today and haven't read the first 5 pages of comments from last year. As to giving feedback; is anyone planning to (or has already) draw up a feedback document that others may sign on to? I would like to voice my displeasure at the shortcomings of this new Charter but (a) I bet my complaints overlap a great deal with many others' and (b) many on here are more knowledgeable and eloquent than me, so I feel like endorsing an erudite expert's response would perhaps be more effective than lodging my own.

That sounds like a good idea although I must question whether such concerns will be given the time of day by the powers that be. After all this isn’t the first submission made by AFF on the matter and yet they seem to be offering less than nothing when it comes to reform. Other countries and even Australia for international flights (vis-a-via the Montreal Convention) have laid the groundwork for what should be offered to customers facing flight disruptions:

• Being booked onto the next available flight including on competitors at no cost to the passenger (APPR, EU261 and Montreal Convention via Article 19)
• Food and accommodation should the reason for the delay be within the airlines control (APPR, Montreal Convention) or for any reason for delay (EU261)
• Cash compensation for delays within the control of the airline (EU261 and APPR) and lost wages (Montreal Convention)
• Cash compensation should a passenger be bumped off an oversold flight (APPR, EU261)

There’s really not much involved here. And if the Commonwealth are worried about the impact these regulations will have on smaller airlines serving regional communities like Rex, they could have carved outs specifically for them whereby they maybe don’t have to pay as much compensation or the rebooking requirement is as stringent (this is what Canada does under the APPR). And the loser of this charter is everyone. Qantas will continue to torch their money by running a poor operation, paying crew to twiddle their thumbs whilst an aircraft they’re leasing is sitting on the ground not generating revenue. Passengers will lose because they won’t get to their destination on time and will be left out of pocket for an issue the airline caused.

I think the only way serious action is taken is if a grass roots effort takes on this cause. It will mean testifying before committees and being vocal on the media. This was how Canada got its air passenger protection. And whilst it is by no means as good as EU261 it is leagues ahead of anything in Australia

 

[MEL_Traveller]

All good points KF88… but a couple of things to bear in mind. The responsible minister has admitted this is *not* intended to create new rights, or make the enforcement of existing rights any easier… this is simply an information exercise… informing pax of their existing rights.

Frequent flyers may be familiar with EU261, and rules in canada and the usa, but occasional flyers may not.

They don’t know their rights under consumer law when flying in the same way we all do - now - for purchasing products at a store.

If an airline says ‘flight times don’t form part of our contract with you’, people tend to believe that. They don’t know they have a right to refund, in the same way as if they buy a damaged or faulty product.

The other thing is the montreal convention. It simply isn’t accessible for people for the day to day situations they find themselves in for a delay or cancellation. That’s why the EU came up with EC261, replicated by UK261. It sets fixed penalties with very few exceptions.

The montreal convention - other than for bodily injury or death - has to be prosecuted through the courts. That comes with the uncertainty of outcome, and expense in terms of time and money.

MC99 cannot be relied on as a guarantee… which is why EC261 and other consumer laws around the world have been created.