Senate Inquiry on Pay on delay

[openseat]

Mr Svesson of Qantas told the Senate that he had experienced the scheme as a consumer when living in Europe for three years, and said: “I have nothing good to say about it.”

What a joke and misinformation!

 

[SeatBackForward]

I have nothing good to say about it

He could've at least said it as "Qantas have nothing good to say about it". As a consumer, what would be bad about it? Sure if an airline bakes it into the price, all it takes is for one airline to figure out how to be more efficient and not have delays.

As it stands, the QF network is so tightly strung up that even one aircraft out of action causes the whole system to reverberate with delays.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Perhaps he has in mind all the airlines playing hardball and making it difficult for consumers to claim?

 

[Mattg]

Perhaps he has in mind all the airlines playing hardball and making it difficult for consumers to claim?

I have experienced this part of EU261. But overall, the scheme forces airlines to sell realistic schedules and try to recover faster from any delays. I've had far, far fewer delays and cancellations over many years of flying in Europe than I have in Australia.

 

[jase05]

All for some sort of compensation setup but I also have to be realistic in that the airlines will have to recover costs and these should and will be passed on to customers.

 

[CMA222]

All for some sort of compensation setup but I also have to be realistic in that the airlines will have to recover costs and these should and will be passed on to customers.

QF operate in or from locations that are already subject to UK/EU 261 and in countries such as Philippines and Canada that have compulsory requirements to protect pax when flights are delayed or cancelled. They do not make a big deal about their fares being inflated because of the compensation scheme operating in those countries nor do they promote the rights that pax have. They tolerate those compensation systems but want to stop their core market having the same or similar rights. The "Spirit of (corporate) Australia" - screw the customers and make them suffer when it suits QF to delay or cancel flights.

 

[jase05]

QF operate in or from locations that are already subject to UK/EU 261 and in countries such as Philippines and Canada that have compulsory requirements to protect pax when flights are delayed or cancelled. They do not make a big deal about their fares being inflated because of the compensation scheme operating in those countries nor do they promote the rights that pax have. They tolerate those compensation systems but want to stop their core market having the same or similar rights. The "Spirit of (corporate) Australia" - screw the customers and make them suffer when it suits QF to delay or cancel flights.

Companies exist to make money and I’d be absolutely certain that the money that QF is fined each year is 100% passed on to customers already as it should be

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Companies exist to make money and I’d be absolutely certain that the money that QF is fined each year is 100% passed on to customers already as it should be

Perhaps, but it’s about spreading the cost.

Travel insurance for an individual starts at minimum $20 or more for each flight. Airlines passing on the cost of a general compensation scheme might cost the individual passenger $1 per flight.

Competition keeps the airfares in check. Ryanair, Easyjet and Wizzair are all examples of this… their fares haven’t exploded because of EU261. The increase in cost is marginal when spread.

 

[Mwenenzi]

All for some sort of compensation setup but I also have to be realistic in that the airlines will have to recover costs and these should and will be passed on to customers.

If airlines "sell realistic schedules and try to recover faster from any delays"(Mattg) ,have good maintenance, good staffing the cost is zero or near zero.
EU261 delay payments, due the airlines control, are from 2 hours.
Exceptional weather (not ordinary bad weather) are a let out. Such as the recent QLD storms would be. Weather in Australia is benign compared to EU and USA snow and tornadoes.
As would the all too common AU govt Air traffic control staffing problems (not in the airlines control) be an exceptional circumstance.

As above, QF operate where EU261 and the like apply. If these laws were so bad they would not operate in those markets. Doing the right thing 100's times easier in Australia (home base) compared to some place with 1, 2 or 3 flights a day.

Air Passengers Rights Regulation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The requirements for an entitlement to compensation and the specific amount owed depend on the length of a flight, whereas the relevant distance is determined according to the great circle method. The Regulation differentiates between three types of flights:

1. Flights of less than 1,500 km (930 mi) in distance;
2. Flights within the EU of greater than 1,500 km (930 mi) in distance, or any other flight of greater than 1,500 km (930 mi) but less than 3,500 km (2,200 mi) in distance;
3. Flights not within the EU of greater than 3,500 km (2,200 mi) in distance.

Note: In the rest of this article, types 1, 2 and 3 are used to refer to the above thresholds.

Delays
Passengers are entitled to refreshments and communication if the expected delay of the arrival exceeds

• two hours, in the case of a type 1 flight,
• three hours, in the case of a type 2 flight, or
• four hours, in the case of a type 3 flight.

Furthermore, if the flight is expected to depart on the day after the original scheduled departure time, passengers are entitled to accommodation

 

[elanshin]

All for some sort of compensation setup but I also have to be realistic in that the airlines will have to recover costs and these should and will be passed on to customers.

I think there was a cost breakdown and it would average out to potentially less than $2 per pax per flight even if you passed on the cost in full.


Also just so this doesn't fall into a QF thread. This was also opposed heavily by the VA counterpart at the hearings too.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

We have it all wrong. The airlines are actually advocating on behalf of passsengers!

The airlines are opposed for three main reasons… interestingly, none of those reasons are undue hardship to the airline, they’re all concerns for the passengers!

• compensation schemes are confusing for passengers (only because airlines make them so, refusing many legitimate claims)
• compensation schemes would make airfares more expensive (not demonstrated anywhere, worldwide)
• compensation schemes are forced insurance, taking away passenger choice (a family of four would rather pay $4 than $80 to be insured, I guarantee you!)
• compensation schemes would affect safety (not demonstrated anywhere, that I am aware of?)

Of course if it wasn’t to the disbenefit of passengers, airlines would wholly embrace it!

 

[I love to travel]

This is not meant to be a political post - I think either political party could make an election pledge on this and it would be seen favourably as anyone that has flown has been hit by delays which is a significant % of population.

 

[jrfsp]

Competition keeps the airfares in check. Ryanair, Easyjet and Wizzair are all examples of this… their fares haven’t exploded because of EU261. The increase in cost is marginal when spread.

100%. Our international market has plenty of competition but domestic is another story.

I couldn't help but draw comparison with the recent ACCC findings into the supermarket duopoly and QF/VA duopoly particularly "Coles and Woolworths have limited incentive to compete vigorously with each other on price", how is the cosy QF/VA situation any different.

 

[anat0l]

This is not meant to be a political post - I think either political party could make an election pledge on this and it would be seen favourably as anyone that has flown has been hit by delays which is a significant % of population.

I think both parties have.

Forcing it through parliament and then down the throats of all airlines seems a whole lot harder. Makes the US presidential power of executive orders somewhat more attractive.

I'm curious to hear what all the non-QF contenders have said about this.

Oh, and fares would increase, as Ryanair's "retaliatory" €2 fee will bear witness to. How much would anyone be comfortable paying to have that consumer guarantee - an extra $10? Maybe $10 per Y ticket and $25 per premium ticket?

I am somewhat a bit apprehensive about the claim process for the customers. It is true that there is a non-trivial number of cases in the EU where the airlines play hardball and don't make the process easy. There are companies that customers can contact to help them recover their compensation from the airlines (for a modest fee), but yes, that is an extra step, not always well known to the common passenger, and some may very well just throw away the idea and forgo chasing the airline. Which court would you need to probably go to if your dispute got that far (particularly for an airline not headquartered in Australia)?

That said, saying to the Senate, "we don't think this is a good idea because airlines make it hard for consumers to claim their entitlements," is ludicrous and says a lot about the airlines in question. Surprised no senator threw that back at the airlines, i.e. "so what you're saying is that if this legislation were passed, we could not have moral or legal confidence in you to comply with it?" It's like a kid telling you not to give them a pencil because it could be used to stab someone.