Qantas Accused of Price Gouging

[ethernet]

The coughulative effect of conditions, booking engine discrimination, and the ability to dynamically vary 'buckets' within flight results in an unfair outcome - and what the ABC documented, would also fail the pub test. All too clever self-regulation. Would you like a refund, or a non-transferable limited, restricted, conditional voucher, that also terminates 'arms length' bookings. What the politicians hear is 'We give them cash vouchers' so they stop paying attention to electorate 'letters'. The ABC has done a good job, and the DOT minister too lazy to say 'That' s it, regulation time, we move towards global standards, like in the EU'. Some things, like price fixing airfreight - was NOT discovered in Australia - and the list is long.

Posts about refunds by QF will be narrow, because those purchased in the EU and US will have different conditions. By all accounts Australians receive globally inferior 'terms and rights' . I agree with other posts, that QF should fix matters. And I don't mean by larger party donations.

 

[LondonAussie]

Meantime, our hypothetical customer has a $140 voucher and decides a trip to CNS is in order with his/her “saving”.

The CNS flights are $169 each way so the customer uses the $140 voucher and stumps up the extra $198 - more revenue for QF and two extra seats filled.

Granted this is a very simple example. I’m sure there’s myriad other scenarios, many of which may not fall in QF favour.

I’m also sure QF crunched the numbers before deciding on a policy, but two years later I still don’t get it.

I had a voucher with BA for a return flight to Germany that I cancelled when they reimposed restrictions late 2021. I recently rebooked a £40 cheaper fare using the voucher and as a result BA generated a new £40 voucher to cover this 'left over' credit. I'm now using that £40 voucher towards another £250 return airfare on BA that I may have booked on another airline if it wasn't for that voucher.

 

[Daver6]

This issue has also come up with using gift vouchers. The booking engine for gift vouchers would show more expensive fares than a regular search.

 

[kyle]

Meh. This won't put a dent on QF's reputation. Most flight credit holders will quietly use up their credits on the higher priced fares. Nothing will change.

As the man in the video who spent 12 hours on hold said, "We support them. We always fly Qantas."

Qantas seems like it has the most deeply loyal customers in the world.

That gentleman needs his brain checked if he’s still loyal to QF despite such bad service.

 

[jpp42]

This issue has also come up with using gift vouchers. The booking engine for gift vouchers would show more expensive fares than a regular search.

Yes, it's the same booking engine view that's used when you have a voucher from a cancellation - they're the same thing behind the scenes. I've noticed this as well that the view is totally different - to be honest if it's showing different fares, I think this is probably more due to their antiquated IT systems and the work experience kids who run it, rather than any nefarious plot. Because the way the vouchers work they have to have a custom system to rebook them, rather than using the normal booking workflow.

The real solution to this is to completely stop using the traditional vouchers (which are a hack where the value is kept in an itinerary between fake cities), and go to a Travelpass based system all the time. The travelpasses can be used with the normal booking workflow as a method of payment, so would recognise all the proper sale fares automatically. I suppose they haven't done this yet because they are still trying to keep some of the restrictions on how to use a voucher, and the Travelpasses give their customers a little too much freedom? (Also I think they are using an outside company to manage them so they probably have to pay a fee to that company.)

 

[anmari]

Love that Qantas allow unlimited date changes. Don't convert to credit, just change date. Hubby did on a flight to Canada, and got an instant refund because the new flight had lower fares available.

 

[Jack_OC]

Just read the AFF Gazette article on this. I agree that the "same or higher value" rule can be huge pain and in some circumstances can be quite unfair. However, I still think the article is a little bit unfair on QF.

For example, it states (my emphasis) "the new rules under Fly Flexible are slightly better for customers because they don’t have to pay an additional fee to cancel non-flexible bookings." There is no way that you can objectively describe this as being only "slightly" better. Under the standard Red E-deal rules, you would have to pay a $99 fee to cancel and get a credit. That fee can wipe out a large proportion of the value of the ticket - especially as there are sale one way fares widely available these days for ~$100.

I'm pretty sure that far more people benefit from the fee waiver, than lose out due to the "booking of the same or higher value" rule. Bear in mind that this issue doesn't apply if QF cancels the flight. The only people impacted by the current rules are those who made a new booking since 1 October 21 for travel up to 30 April 22, and who made their own decision to cancel the booking, even though the flights went ahead. Even then, lots of those people will have booked relatively cheap fares in the first place, in which case there is little risk of losing much due to the "same or higher value" rule.

It should also be remembered that if you have a credit for more than the cost of the new flights you are booking, you don't have to use the credit on that particular booking. I acknowledge that some people rarely fly and have limited opportunities to make other bookings, but how many of those people booked unusually expensive flights since 1 Oct, and then decided to cancel? Obviously some, but I'm guessing not too many. Conversely, everyone who has cancelled a non-flexible booking in the past ~2 years has benefitted form the waiver of the fee.

 

[Jean Prouvaire]

For example, it states (my emphasis) "the new rules under Fly Flexible are slightly better for customers because they don’t have to pay an additional fee to cancel non-flexible bookings." There is no way that you can objectively describe this as being only "slightly" better. Under the standard Red E-deal rules, you would have to pay a $99 fee to cancel and get a credit. That fee can wipe out a large proportion of the value of the ticket - especially as there are sale one way fares widely available these days for ~$100.

I'm pretty sure that far more people benefit from the fee waiver, than lose out due to the "booking of the same or higher value" rule.

Fair point about waiving the $99 fee, but the benefit of that is greatest when the value of the ticket is low - which, granted, is probably a common scenario (eg people buying Sydney/Melbourne Red E-Deals).

What's galling about the "same or higher value" constraint is that the more you've spent, the more it hurts. So while comparatively fewer people might be affected by it, those people are badly affected by it.

Also galling is this statement: "Other major airlines have a similar approach." This does not seem to be borne out by the facts laid out in the article and its comments.

 

[dylarr]

For example, it states (my emphasis) "the new rules under Fly Flexible are slightly better for customers because they don’t have to pay an additional fee to cancel non-flexible bookings." There is no way that you can objectively describe this as being only "slightly" better. Under the standard Red E-deal rules, you would have to pay a $99 fee to cancel and get a credit. That fee can wipe out a large proportion of the value of the ticket - especially as there are sale one way fares widely available these days for ~$100.

But on the same token, being forced to purchase from a higher valued fare bucket when there are cheaper fares available can equally wipe out the value of the original ticket ticket and also the $99 fee.

 

[Lynda2475]

I will say it again, dont cancel request a change (free atm) and most f these issues go away.

People think oh I have covid (or whatever) so I cant fly next week, I'll cancel when what they should be doing is saying lets postpone plan to fly at a later date within the next 12 months, and rebook at a later date at no charge (if the new fare is lower or the same) and only have to pay the difference if higher.

Changes are not subject to the equal or higher fare, and you can atm do multiple free changes if situation re your health remains fluid.

 

[Jack_OC]

Fair point about waiving the $99 fee, but the benefit of that is greatest when the value of the ticket is low - which, granted, is probably a common scenario (eg people buying Sydney/Melbourne Red E-Deals).

What's galling about the "same or higher value" constraint is that the more you've spent, the more it hurts. So while comparatively fewer people might be affected by it, those people are badly affected by it.

Also galling is this statement: "Other major airlines have a similar approach." This does not seem to be borne out by the facts laid out in the article and its comments.

I agree that the fee is less of an issue on more expensive fares, but remember that domestic Flex & Business class fares and all international fares can be cancelled for a refund to the original form of payment anyway (less fees in some cases), so these restricted flight credits are really only relevant to domestic Red E-deal fares. What proportion of domestic Red E-deal fares are so expensive that a $99 fee wouldn't have a noticeable impact? A very small proportion, I would imagine, especially over the past few months.

That left me wondering how the guy in the ABC story had a $1,400 flight credit subject to the "same or higher value" rule in the first place. The story doesn't seem to make sense. It says the customer's original $1,400 credit was "received from previous flight cancellations in mid-2021". If that is the case, then surely the "same or higher value" rule would not have applied?

Anyway, I do agree that the "same or higher value" rule can in some circumstances be very painful. Would I prefer if the rule didn't apply? Of course. However, it's not necessarily a major problem even if you have spent a lot on your original fare. It's only a problem if the original fare cost a lot and you now have no intention of booking a similarly priced fare any time in the subsequent 12 months (which could be for travel up to almost 2 years later). I know that will be the case sometimes, but we really are talking about a small minority of bookings here. That's all I'm saying.

But on the same token, being forced to purchase from a higher valued fare bucket when there are cheaper fares available can equally wipe out the value of the original ticket ticket and also the $99 fee.

Yep fully agree. That has nothing to do with my point though, which is that for most people who have cancelled bookings, the waiver of this fee is a major benefit, which is why I felt it was unfair to describe this as only "slightly better" for the customer. I wasn't suggesting there are no reasons to criticise QF on this - in fact right at the start of my post, I said I agree that their policy can sometimes be quite unfair.

 

[Jack_OC]

I will say it again, dont cancel request a change (free atm) and most f these issues go away.

People think oh I have covid (or whatever) so I cant fly next week, I'll cancel when what they should be doing is saying lets postpone plan to fly at a later date within the next 12 months, and rebook at a later date at no charge (if the new fare is lower or the same) and only have to pay the difference if higher.

Changes are not subject to the equal or higher fare, and you can atm do multiple free changes if situation re your health remains fluid.

This is good advice up to a point - but I believe you can only make free changes/cancel for a credit up 30 April for domestic bookings? So unless you are actually planning to travel before 30 April or willing to lock yourself in to some date after that, this may not always be a wise move.

 

[Lynda2475]

This is good advice up to a point - but I believe you can only make free changes/cancel for a credit up 30 April for domestic bookings? So unless you are actually planning to travel before 30 April or willing to lock yourself in to some date after that, this may not always be a wise move.

It doesn't involve a credit, just a change of travel date. If you change your booking to a date beyond 30th April (and that is assuming Qantas don't extend the date again) and then need to change it yet again yes you will be up for the change fee or cancel fee at that point but if you are constantly needing t change plans you should probably buy fully flexible tickets.

 

[Jack_OC]

It doesn't involve a credit, just a change of travel date. If you change your booking to a date beyond 30th April (and that is assuming Qantas don't extend the date again) and then need to change it yet again yes you will be up for the change fee or cancel fee at that point but if you are constantly needing t change plans you should probably buy fully flexible tickets.

I fully understood that you were suggesting changing dates rather than getting a credit. You have put an emphasis on my wording that wasn't there. What I meant was, "you can only make free changes - and/or cancel for a credit - up to 30 April".

You said "you can atm do multiple free changes if situation re your health remains fluid". As I said, this is good advice up to a point, but I just wanted to clarify that this only applies up to 30 April, which of course is just over 2 months away now. After that, your fare will be locked in under standard conditions. Consequently, if someone is not yet sure when they will be able to travel, changing may not always be a better option than cancelling for a credit.

 

[Lynda2475]

if someone is not yet sure when they will be able to travel, changing may not always be a better option than cancelling for a credit.

But the cost to the individual is likely to be higher to the individual if they cancel and take a credit now.

If you get a credit now you are guaranteeing the equal or higher fare limitation when you go to use it later.

Whereas if you do a change and are able to keep the new date (requires people to do some planning i..e apply for leave etc) then no extra cost.

If they cant subsequently travel the later date then they can get a credit at that point in time, no worse off, and in fact gives them longer to use it as credit is for 12 months from the date of the flight it was given for.

The cases in the article at the start of this thread need not have cancelled and taken a credit, they rebooked and travelled well before 30th April.

Agree it is useful to point out that free changes currently cease in April, but if it were me Id keep making free changes and then deal with a credit only if it turns out I cant fly in future.

 

[pomona]

Sneaky ?, what can you expect from a Boss bottle fed at Ryan, who once notoriously came up with a cunning plan to charge passengers to use the toilets !!

I just love the comment, "The spokesperson also said that “if there are extenuating circumstances, we encourage people to talk to us”. Yeah right !

I have been advised that EK has recently increased the FF miles required for their flights.

Is that why QF decided to unilaterally cancel valid points bookings made last year for a March flight with this "partner" airline ?
I only found out by accident when logging onto EK re their COVID regs

Any inside knowledge would be welcome to add to my dossier for the Airline Customer Advocate complaint I have lodged.
I was advised by the QLD Office for Fair Trading to contact the ACA, is it really an independent ombudsman ? Also submitted a complaint to Qantas Customer Care, won't hold my breath.

 

[aikman]

The article did say that the travel landscape is different now so I don't think too much praise is owed to QF for waiving the $99 fee.

I think the $99 fee is reasonable for change of mind cancellations but not where you can't fly due to border restrictions.

 

[dylarr]

Nothing wrong legally... but ethically?

QF demands 100% flexibility from its passengers to cancel flights, cancel routes, determine how much and when they will refund you, the ability to substitute planes, cabins and services... yet if the passenger needs flexibility through no fault of their own they stand to lose significantly.

I'm at a loss as to why QF have made a business decision to reintroduce this rule. Is it because they're worried people will cancel and rebook during sales? If so, why not just restrict sales on the original travel date? Some types of changes already have this restriction in place, so the system already supports it. Otherwise it's just a money grab.

I agree with the quote from @MEL_Traveller. QF is demanding 100% flexibility to cancel flights, change schedules, aircraft en masse. There are downstream implications that I've been happy to work around such as altering hotel bookings, car rentals, leave. Often at significant expense. It's just the environment we're in now so I get it. So I can completely understand why people are pissed when their flight credit is almost useless in scenarios where the difference in fare buckets is almost the same or exceeds the value of the credit itself. Not fair.

Yep fully agree. That has nothing to do with my point though, which is that for most people who have cancelled bookings, the waiver of this fee is a major benefit, which is why I felt it was unfair to describe this as only "slightly better" for the customer. I wasn't suggesting there are no reasons to criticise QF on this - in fact right at the start of my post, I said I agree that their policy can sometimes be quite unfair.

Yep got it. I just wanted to point that in a lot of scenarios the fee waiver isn't so generous when the higher fare bucket exceeds the value of the original booking and then some.

There are circumstances where even charging a $99 fee, but allowing the customer to select the lowest available fare bucket works out much better for them. But I get this wasn't possible before COVID anyway.

 

[Jack_OC]

But the cost to the individual is likely to be higher to the individual if they cancel and take a credit now.

If you get a credit now you are guaranteeing the equal or higher fare limitation when you go to use it later.

As I said above, in most cases, the cost to the individual associated with taking a credit is likely to be zero, or close to zero. There are some circumstances when the equal or higher fare rule is a problem, and sometimes a very big problem, but in most cases it's essentially irrelevant.

If they cant subsequently travel the later date then they can get a credit at that point in time, no worse off, and in fact gives them longer to use it as credit is for 12 months from the date of the flight it was given for.

They would be worse off if they have to change again/cancel after 30 Apr, as by then they will have to pay the $99 fee, which can often be a significant proportion of the total fare.

The cases in the article at the start of this thread need not have cancelled and taken a credit, they rebooked and travelled well before 30th April.

Agree it is useful to point out that free changes currently cease in April, but if it were me Id keep making free changes and then deal with a credit only if it turns out I cant fly in future.

Again, as I already said in both of my previous replies to you, I agree that changing instead of cancelling can be a good option. I have used that option several times, for the reasons that you and others have pointed out. However, it is not always the best option, and everyone needs to weigh up their own circumstances with regard to each booking. If the original fare was cheap and/or they don't yet know when they can travel, then cancelling for a credit is usually going to be a better option. Bear in mind also that flight credits can be used for different routes - whereas I think you have to stick to the same route if you change.

 

[AussiePom]

My Story,

My parents in law are visiting Australia right now (booked Qantas via DRW in November 2021). At the time of the booking, we also booked a holiday to Hamilton Island. We booked 4 Qantas tickets.

Since the booking Omicron became a global issue, and whilst Mrs AussiePom and I would have been glad to travel to HTI, our parents in law are in risk groups and given the prevalence of Omicron, are very anxious about further plane travel (including their return flight to London).

We cancelled our flights.

Both AMEX travel (thanks to that November explorer deal and $400 credit) and Qantas have told me that all the passengers in the booking need to fly on the next booking for me to benefit from the flight credit. Our ability to realise this is frustrated by the fact that the parents in law will be in the UK and unable to benefit from this provision. This means that Mrs AussiePom and I will lose approximately $1000 in value.

Mrs AussiePom is returning to work after maternity leave in April and we have a 3 week holiday to the UK already booked in July August. With the annual leave we have available between now and November, given that we only have 8 months to use the credit, we have very limited options on where we can use the credit.

Sure, Qantas can point us to the various ticket rules and so called IATA regulations (Qantas told me that its an IATA requirement that the flights need to be taken by the same 4 people for the credits to apply, based on the fare class initially booked). But to retain $1000 for no service delivered where a contract has been frustrated by a persons inability to take a flight, even if they wanted to, is very disappointing.

Where, the spokesperson said that “if there are extenuating circumstances, we encourage people to talk to us”. Well I spoke to Qantas, fortunately as a WP I waited only a short while to do so, and they cited the terms of the booking and suggested I speak with AMEX (who in turn suggest I speak with Qantas).

I think this is the straw that breaks the metaphorical back on my enthusiasm to retain Platinum status, or indeed, continue to prefer Qantas. It's time to focus solely on reward travel.