New aviation industry ombudsman in Australia

I think we are missing the obvious here that the white paper heading actually gives the more important reason for the paper.
The first 2 issues in the White Paper are -
1. A balanced approach to Airport Planning and Noise.
2. Maximising Aviation's contribution to Nett Zero.

Things that really probably define the government;s priorities.

Passengers Experience comes in at number 3 with little real discussion of the problems.
 
I think we are missing the obvious here that the white paper heading actually gives the more important reason for the paper.
The first 2 issues in the White Paper are -
1. A balanced approach to Airport Planning and Noise.
2. Maximising Aviation's contribution to Nett Zero.

Things that really probably define the government;s priorities.
Passengers Experience comes in at number 3 with little real discussion of the problems.
= votes at an election.
Nothing to do passengers air travel rights
 
In all the communication I received from Qantas and on the ground in Singapore, I wasn't told what my rights were under EU261. Indeed, Qantas sent me an erroneous email stating there were limits on how much I could spend on meals and hotels (which is a lie since EU261 says you just pay for it). I was actually even more surprised that for international flights like these they would suggest such limits, it's really cute of them, since again under Montreal Convention, they're on the hook for about $10,000 CAD in damages, which would cover just about any flight and hotel you want.
I agree with you.

I'm pretty sure that Qantas (and in my experience other companies like Trip A Deal and Luxury Escapes) just try to bulldoze and bluff the client into doing what they say, and of course that always favours the company over the client. This works because they are aggressive, sound confident and most people don;t know their rights. That's why I wish that we here were getting something where you rights are clearly spelled out, and are not discretionary or have to be argued on "reasonableness".
 
Meanwhile:

Its one solution but only a tiny step that doesn't fix the overall problem

Pros - gives the customer ability to cancel and go elsewhere if they can find a seat at equivalent or lower cost or just not travel

Cons - removes the obligation on the airline to provide the service you bought - to get you where you want to go when you want to go (ie the airline forced to find a seat on another flight, any flight at any cost)
 
One suspects that vested interest plays a part here, not too many Pollie's would want to see their overly generous membership benefits downgraded by the airlines
 
I just attended a Q&A with the Department of Infrastructure about the White Paper on behalf of AFF, and passed on the thoughts of our community.

Several people at the Q&A, including myself and various other consumer group representatives, asked specifically whether the government considered a European or Canadian style compensation scheme and if so, why it wasn't mentioned in the White Paper. The government representative would not even say whether or not it was considered, and gave no reasons for its omission from the White Paper.

I also gave an example of somebody being told at 3am that their 8am flight was cancelled, and being offered only a new flight at 6pm or a refund. The Department could not tell me any additional consumer protections someone in this situation would receive under the new proposals.

Very disappointing.
 
I just attended a Q&A with the Department of Infrastructure about the White Paper on behalf of AFF, and passed on the thoughts of our community.

Several people at the Q&A, including myself and various other consumer group representatives, asked specifically whether the government considered a European or Canadian style compensation scheme and if so, why it wasn't mentioned in the White Paper. The government representative would not even say whether or not it was considered, and gave no reasons for its omission from the White Paper.

I also gave an example of somebody being told at 3am that their 8am flight was cancelled, and being offered only a new flight at 6pm or a refund. The Department could not tell me any additional consumer protections someone in this situation would receive under the new proposals.

Very disappointing.
Agreed but not surprising. The white paper produced by the government was what one may call a 'Claytons' white paper. I have faith that eventually a proper compensation scheme will eventuate. I just hope I live long enough to see it.

BTW, Qantas are already subject to the UK261 / EU261 regulations on flights departing to Australia from those jurisdictions.
 
Did the govt beurcrats (or pollies) even know(details) of what European or Canadian style compensation schemes are like? I suspect "no". Crtibaly not from a passenger perspective.

The other related thread on this topic.
 
Standard Government practice. First decide the desired politically acceptable outcome. Prepare a paper that provides that as an option then sell it as the suitable solution for everyone, particularly if it is acceptable (no matter how ineffective) to those most likely to be detrimentally affected.

How a research paper can not consider (read totally ignore) the systems in use in the major aviation markets of the world says it all. Airlines (when flying internationally) including QF are subject to and already operate under those systems anyway.

The objective was to appease the public while keeping the players politically on-side. Mission accomplished. Interested consumer advocates like "Choice" will push back but, the media will not want to upset the airlines (the advertisers, sponsors and contra partners) so will give it the priority and coverage that suits their agendas.
 
Last edited:
This page makes for interesting reading:


The Secretary, Deputy Secretary and First Assistant Secretary of the Department of of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts all have complimentary Qantas Chairman's Lounge membership.

The Transport Minister and her spouse also have complimentary Qantas Chairmans Lounge and "Virgin Club Lounge" membership, which she has declared.


How is this not a conflict of interest?
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

This page makes for interesting reading:


The Secretary, Deputy Secretary and First Assistant Secretary of the Department of of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts all have complimentary Qantas Chairman's Lounge membership.

The Transport Minister and her spouse also have complimentary Qantas Chairmans Lounge and "Virgin Club Lounge" membership, which she has declared.


How is this not a conflict of interest?
It’s a conflict of interest if it’s not declared

Because it’s declared, it’s open and transparent.
As to if it means someone needs to “recuse” themselves from the decision-making process, that’s when it becomes a conflict of actual interest when they don’t and ought have
 
How is this not a conflict of interest?

QF Chairmans lounge membership is offered to every MP and Senator - 92% of them have accepted. Or rather declared (could be higher if some didn't declare).

The media hasn't been as interested with VA's Beyond Lounge so I haven't seen stats, but you'd have to think VA would at least be offering to the same people QF is.

If anything, it's slightly better if QF offers it to everyone regardless of party or position; Bridget McKenzie is a Charimans Lounge member and that certainly hasn't stopped her criticising QF for the last few years.
 
It’s a conflict of interest if it’s not declared

Because it’s declared, it’s open and transparent.
As to if it means someone needs to “recuse” themselves from the decision-making process, that’s when it becomes a conflict of actual interest when they don’t and ought have

The ICAC NSW has this to say about conflicts of interest:

Conflicts of interest
Citizens rightly expect that public officials, or their close connections and associates, should never be in a position to obtain an undue personal benefit as a result of the public official doing their job. This reflects the view that public office is held for the public good, not the purposes or benefits of the officeholder...

...A conflict of interest exists when a reasonable person might perceive that a public official’s personal interest(s) could be favoured over their public duties.


Under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act (2022) (the NACC Act):
‘…an act (or failure to act) by a public official could be improper because it:
• involves an undeclared or unmanaged conflict of interest…’

Where a public official engages in an “improper” act or omission in their official capacity, it is considered an ‘…abuse of office…’; and abuse of office is one of the ‘…4 types of corrupt conduct under the NACC Act’.

While failing to declare or manage the situation may, depending on the circumstances, be considered improper and an abuse of office (and therefore corrupt conduct), to my mind the conflict of interest remains whether it is declared or not.

Furthermore, whilst I acknowledge that selective quoting risks taking someone's words out of context, I note that according the UK's Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors:

In recent years, anti-bribery and corruption legislation has been introduced across a number of different countries including the UK, US, France and Germany, highlighting that the receiving of gifts or hospitality could amount to a bribe where intended to induce someone to behave in a certain manner. (Emphasis added)

Is the Chairman's Lounge '...intended to induce someone to behave in a certain manner...' or to provide a quiet environment for the upper echelons of business and government to discuss matters of mutual interest? What, if anything, does QF expect to gain in return by offering complimentary membership of the Chairman’s Lounge? Does VA expect something in return for complimentary membership of the Beyond Lounge?

Having worked for government agencies, I note that those public servants at lower levels of the organisation are not allowed to accept gifts and may be subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal, while those at the top of the tree (those who make the rules) often exempt themselves from that same level of scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t fares rise? As a standalone business or less ‘synergies’ available, not to mention any balance sheet creative accounting, JQ costs would actually climb.

Major components of fare setting are level of demand and competition.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top