Qantas Advertises "Fully Refundable" - but it Isnt!

[justinbrett]

Gotta love this product.

A $25, fully refundable hold fee that is neither refundable nor does it hold anything.

It holds the seat, which might be important if the flight (or cabin) is nearly sold out

In that context it makes sense, if the flight is nearly sold out, you will be guaranteed your seat (and fare class) - the price would only change if the fare or taxes went up, which would be very unlucky in these short timeframes.

I personally would just make use of the free same day hold function if I needed time to coordinate with others/work etc.

 

[Vic]

There's probably meant to be a use case for coordinating bookings with friends/companions to negotiate to book same trip while yours is on hold...

Of course, then your friends book the last "flex" seats, your holiday is now 20% more expensive :|

Someone might want to lock in (HOLD) the fare until the card statement is issued and thereby get more points when the monthly points cap is reset, or defer payment to the next statement.

Except of course the fare hold doesn't actually hold the fare...

 

[TheInsider]

Except of course the fare hold doesn't actually hold the fare...

It actually does, but sometimes taxes do change.

 

[oz_mark]

It actually does, but sometimes taxes do change.

Or fares get adjusted...

• While your booking is on hold, the total ticket price may change due to amendments in taxes, fees and carrier charges, as well as fare adjustments.

 

[odysseus]

Not when it's directly followed in clear English, on the same page, with

if full payment is not made on time your booking and holding guarantee will be forfeited.

I'm really not getting what is unclear about that. Refundable means it's possible to refund it if you follow the conditions. If you book a refundable flight or hotel, there's still conditions attached to that. In this case, the conditions are clearly laid out in full size print under a heading of "things you need to know". If you chose to ignore that, that's on you - it's not like it's in fine print.

But yes, I don't know why you'd bother - although it would preserve your fare class for the flight, so it stops the fare going up in that regard - it would be pretty unlucky if the fare itself or taxes went up before you booked.

You'd have an argument if QF had said "Refundable in limited circumstances, terms and conditions apply" or similar.

They didn't. They said "fully refundable." The normal way you get a refund is when you _choose_ to cancel and get a refund. Hence all you've defined is a single scenario, not all possible reasons for a refund. And not the key, typical one, which is "on request".

And it's certainly a valid scenario that someone puts a ticket on hold while they tie up other plans, or check other options, then make their own decision within that time that they do not need it and choose to cancel. Lapsing is only one option, which is really where the customer does nothing and lets it expire. There's a whole range of times prior to then when they can take action and cancel themselves, which is at least if not more likely. Which means it is not delivering what is advertised as part of the product.

 

[odysseus]

I agree the wording is misleading.

The phrase "fully refundable" doesn't align with the terms immediately set out below that phrase on the website.

It seems to me that it would be best described as a "deposit".

Not in this case. A deposit is an initial payment towards a product. In this case though they say they will refund the fee once you actually pay for the product.

 

[justinbrett]

You'd have an argument if QF had said "Refundable in limited circumstances, terms and conditions apply" or similar.

They didn't. They said "fully refundable." The normal way you get a refund is when you _choose_ to cancel and get a refund. Hence all you've defined is a single scenario, not all possible reasons for a refund. And not the key, typical one, which is "on request".

And it's certainly a valid scenario that someone puts a ticket on hold while they tie up other plans, or check other options, then make their own decision within that time that they do not need it and choose to cancel. Lapsing is only one option, which is really where the customer does nothing and lets it expire. There's a whole range of times prior to then when they can take action and cancel themselves, which is at least if not more likely. Which means it is not delivering what is advertised as part of the product.

It does better than that, it specifically lists the conditions to getting a refund, in normal sized print, directly below the heading. It's not hidden in terms and conditions in fine print (though is there too).

In fact, the heading is in bold "what you need to know". If you elect to ignore that heading, then that's on you. Qantas are not hiding the fact you don't get your money back if you don't make a booking. In fact, it's explicitly telling you that you need to read these terms.

The condition for refund is full payment before the deadline - there's no wording about letting it lapse. Subtle but important difference - and it also spells out explicitly in the conditions that cancelling will lead to forfeit.

Surely if you're making a purchase online you do due diligence to check the terms of your transaction. If you're not doing this you risk losing a lot more than $25. Deposits, Holding Fees etc can have a variety of conditions and caveats, you need to check the terms before entering into an agreement.

 

[Vic]

It actually does, but sometimes taxes do change.

You might like to read your screenshot again.
Even as an outsider, I'm pretty sure I know the meaning of "fares get adjusted".

Or fares get adjusted...

 

[Vic]

It does better than that, it specifically lists the conditions to getting a refund, in normal sized print, directly below the heading. It's not hidden in terms and conditions in fine print (though is there too).

In fact, the heading is in bold "what you need to know". If you elect to ignore that heading, then that's on you. Qantas are not hiding the fact you don't get your money back if you don't make a booking. In fact, it's explicitly telling you that you need to read these terms.

The condition for refund is full payment before the deadline - there's no wording about letting it lapse. Subtle but important difference - and it also spells out explicitly in the conditions that cancelling will lead to forfeit.

Surely if you're making a purchase online you do due diligence to check the terms of your transaction. If you're not doing this you risk losing a lot more than $25. Deposits, Holding Fees etc can have a variety of conditions and caveats, you need to check the terms before entering into an agreement.

Actually, that's a misrepresentation of what it says.
Qantas tell us explicitly:
1. that the money is lost if you let it lapse.
2. That you get a refund if you pay for the airfare.
3. That they do not hold the fare.

There is no explicit advice about cancelling. Inferring something that is not written is not explicit. The fact that your interpretation is very different to other interpretations, alone, shows that this point is not stated clearly. That is, it is not explicit.

explicit
adjective
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
"the arrangement had not been made explicit"

 

[justinbrett]

Whilst I don't disagree QF are the current market leader... are they really that far ahead of UA? Maybe when JFK/SFO come back yes..

MEL/SYD/BNE to LAX
MEL/SYD to DFW

UA offer
MEL/SYD/BNE to SFO
SYD-LAX
Seasonal SYD-IAH

Well, QF still hold slots to SFO and JFK, and those flights resume (not commence) in the next few months - so let's save the argument about whether that counts or not and just fast forward to then. Not to mention by seats, QF is operating the larger A380 on some routes.

Also you have SYD-HNL, and while not in the US itself it also offers connections via SYD-YVR.

By the same token UA BNE-SFO is operating under the QLD government's AAIF which expires in 2025, so lets see if that route continues. Subsidised routes have a nasty habit of disappearing when the money runs out.

Anyway, off topic for this thread, clearly QF is a "true international airline", whatever that means

 

[Vic]

Anyway, off topic for this thread, clearly QF is a "true international airline", whatever that means

That's really strange to declare Qantas is a "true international airline" and in the very same sentence say that you don't know what that means. How did you determine this if you don't know what "true international airline" means?

Is it any wonder that such subjective positive declarations about the greatness of Qantas are meet by scepticism of the hidden agenda?

 

[justinbrett]

That's really strange to declare Qantas is a "true international airline" and in the very same sentence say that you don't know what that means. How did you determine this if you don't know what "true international airline" means?

Is it any wonder that such subjective positive declarations about the greatness of Qantas are meet by scepticism of the hidden agenda?

I was quoting OP.

I would just call it an international airline, I don't know what the point of the "true" adjective is. It's an objective statement based on the routes served. It has nothing to do with "greatness".

 

[TheInsider]

Or fares get adjusted...

If you hold a N class ticket it will stay as an N class ticket. The fare class will not change.
It would be extremely unlikely for the fare to change and usually when the actual fares to do change, it will NOT change the TSM in the booking which holds the fare information and the price of which is was held at.

 

[Vic]

I was quoting OP.

I would just call it an international airline, I don't know what the point of the "true" adjective is. It's an objective statement based on the routes served. It has nothing to do with "greatness".

I was just reflecting on your post. you don't know what "true international airline" means, but you've declared qantas is one. Very confusing. now saying you're uncertain about "true" only adds to the confusion.

I'm not sure assessment can be objective if the meaning of what is being assessed is unknown.

Personally, I think the difference is fairly obvious. On the one hand, Qantas fly to a handful (boom tish) of international destinations. On the other hand are airlines that fly to many 10s or 100s of international destinations.

 

[Vic]

If you hold a N class ticket it will stay as an N class ticket. The fare class will not change.
It would be extremely unlikely for the fare to change and usually when the actual fares to do change, it will NOT change the TSM in the booking which holds the fare information and the price of which is was held at.

Actually, the value of a fare in a given class will change when a sale starts or ends. This happens all the time. The warning from Qantas makes it very clear, explicitly, that the value of the fare can change and will change.

 

[justinbrett]

Qantas fly to a handful (boom tish) of international destinations. On the other hand are airlines that fly to many 10s or 100s of international destinations.

Suggest you count again (unless you have very big hands)

 

[downgraded]

if you let it lapse

These seen to be your words. QF says forfeit if not paid by the due time. They make no representation as to why you may choose not to pay.

 

[stm1sydney]

It actually does, but sometimes taxes do change.

Please stop defending the indefensible. It specifically refers to fare adjustments, not just taxes.

 

[Vic]

These seen to be your words. QF says forfeit if not paid by the due time. They make no representation as to why you may choose not to pay.

I'm sorry, if you can't understand the meaning of lapse in context, I can't help you. Maybe take this over to the grammar thread...
It's the LACK of action that is explicitly covered by Qantas. The OP is talking about a case of taking an action, to cancel. NOT doing nothing.

verb

1.
(of a right, privilege, or agreement) become invalid because it is not used, claimed, or renewed; expire.

Suggest you count again (unless you have very big hands)

This is my point: The Qantas apologist on AFF arguing over 6 or 15 as if that is comparable to hundreds of destinations.
It's great that you support Qantas so fanatically. The case remains:
You don't know what "true international airline" means, but you've declared qantas is one.
How? *


*Rhetorical question

 

[justinbrett]

I'm sorry, if you can't understand the meaning of lapse in context, I can't help you. Maybe take this over to the grammar thread...
It's the LACK of action that is explicitly covered by Qantas. The OP is talking about a case of taking an action, to cancel. NOT doing nothing.




This is my point: The Qantas apologist on AFF arguing over 6 or 15 as if that is comparable to hundreds of destinations.
It's great that you support Qantas so fanatically. The case remains:
You don't know what "true international airline" means, but you've declared qantas is one.
How? *


*Rhetorical question

Yes, I can declare that Qantas is - in fact - an international airline. It truly is an international airline, as it operates direct services to all six inhabited continents - serving 30+ international destinations.

If you want to turn this into your typical emotive rants and labelling people "apologists", whilst contributing nothing to the conversation other than attacking people, then you're on your own.