The practice of cancelling ticketed flights when flights delayed or cancelled.

[Quickstatus]

Airlines are not only about aircraft, they are about the movement of people from place to place, and often to/from international destinations.
So regardless of the reason for delays and cancellations, it is the management of stranded and displaced passengers that is important.

Jetstar's B787 fleet have been severely culled due to technical issues involving 6 of the 11 B787 causing many passengers to be stranded
Technical issues are unfortunately a feature of highly complex organisations like airlines and sometimes major disruptions ensue.

I am very uneasy however, about certain airline practices notwithstanding some airlines operate under the "low cost carrier"moniker
The practice is that in some cases, airlines just cancel the ticket when they are unable to complete the ticketed sectors due to a variety of reasons - technical in this case. In doing so, passengers might find themselves at a location remote to their usual place and often country of residence.

I refer to the case of the elderly couple who was stranded in BKK after JQ cancelled their onward flight from BKK to AU. By processing a refund, the airline basically washed their hands of any responsibility. In my opinion this is totally negligent for several reasons:

❋ the couple were not residents of Thailand
❋ they had a ticketed onward sector to Australia where they had family
❋ they were elderly
❋ they were left with no support

I don't think airlines should be able to unilaterally cancel a ticket in circumstances where the passenger is in a country where they are not a resident
The cancellation of a ticket should not absolve airlines of the responsibility of ensuring displaced passengers are returned to their either their original or final destination.

Separately, the airline's statement that they "apologised" to the couple for their travel disruption due to aircraft technical reasons is also an exercise in spin. It is not the travel disruption that is at issue, it is their treatment of the passengers post facto the travel disruption that they should be apologising for.

Poor management of passengers are not necessarily only the domain of the LCC, even mainline airlines seem to also possess that quality.

 

[JohnK]

I don't understand how this practice is still allowed. If you're an airline your primary responsibility is to your passengers not your bottom line.

Both trips to Thailand this year I've maxxed out my allowed time in Thailand. In June I flew out out with JQ and in a week or so I'm flying out with SQ back tonBNE.

If I turned up to BKK airport and told my JQ flight was cancelled and refunded $375 it'd cost considerably more to find a one-way airfare back home, assuming there's availability.

I'd also have a huge problem as my visa would expire at midnight and I'd be in quite some trouble getting through immigration or even getting a hotel as one thing they check at hotel check-in is the visa stamp.

 

[bam71]

Agree, in my opinion they should rebook pax into another carrier asap to get them to their destination.

 

[Hvr]

I refer to the case of the elderly couple who was stranded in BKK after JQ cancelled their onward flight from BKK to AU. By processing a refund, the airline basically washed their hands of any responsibility.

I can't see why a country would allow an airline to basically abandon people in their country.
If the airline refuses to take people home then they (the airline) are potentially causing a problem with over stayers as noted by @JohnK

The natural reaction by a country to an airline causing such problems may well be cancelling their right to fly there because of these issues.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't understand how this practice is still allowed. If you're an airline your primary responsibility is to your passengers not your bottom line.

Both trips to Thailand this year I've maxxed out my allowed time in Thailand. In June I flew out out with JQ and in a week or so I'm flying out with SQ back tonBNE.

If I turned up to BKK airport and told my JQ flight was cancelled and refunded $375 it'd cost considerably more to find a one-way airfare back home, assuming there's availability.

I'd also have a huge problem as my visa would expire at midnight and I'd be in quite some trouble getting through immigration or even getting a hotel as one thing they check at hotel check-in is the visa stamp.

We need a concerted campaign to introduce an eu/uk 261!!

Airlines will tell politicians that it’s a bad idea because fares will rise, but we only need to look at the EU and UK to know this is false. ULCCs are still offering rock-bottom fares, and legacy carriers offering similar fares commensurate with their level of service.

 

[Brissy1]

Corporate spin is sickening, and Jetstar seems to do even that badly, publicly promising to..."improve our communications during disruptions.” rather than provide actual help.
Time, well over time, for the gov to legislate to give Aus at least the same consumer rights as EU or USA

 

[Quickstatus]

eu/uk 261

Though isn't that is just paying out $$. The problem remains that the passenger remains displaced.

The airline can cancel a flight but they should be allowed to unilaterally cancel a ticket in these circumstances. There are consequences with such a policy however...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Though isn't that is just paying out $$. The problem remains that the passenger remains displaced.

The airline can cancel a flight but they should be allowed to unilaterally cancel a ticket in these circumstances. There are consequences with such a policy however...

The provisions also provide for rerouting. So the passenger potentially gets the benefits of both if they can’t reach their destination within the specified time.

There is a question around whether rerouting includes other carriers, but the compensation can help sway that decision for airlines.

 

[jb747]

Corporate spin is sickening, and Jetstar seems to do even that badly, publicly promising to..."improve our communications during disruptions.” rather than provide actual help.

In their minds, improving communication is all that's ever needed to fix any problem. Anyway, once they've cancelled the ticket, they are no longer customers, so they have no right to complain. The fix is to communicate that bit of information to them.

 

[jrfsp]

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/airports/jetstar-passengers-stranded-for-three-days-in-tokyo-airport-after-flights-cancelled/news-story/7a8adbb078bd427b6f16ea7ed9af8070

 

[Blackswan]

We need a concerted campaign to introduce an eu/uk 261!!

Airlines will tell politicians that it’s a bad idea because fares will rise, but we only need to look at the EU and UK to know this is false. ULCCs are still offering rock-bottom fares, and legacy carriers offering similar fares commensurate with their level of service.

I agree 100% with everything in your post.

Kick off a campaign, promote it, get the general public onboard - and ask them to start lobbying their elected pollies!

How do we start?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I’m gonna write an email to the minster responsible, and possiblY cc the PM.

 

[dylarr]

I’m gonna write an email to the minster responsible, and possiblY cc the PM.

Don't forget to include your local member.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if an airline unilaterally cancels your ticket because they cannot fulfill their obligations at a minimum I would expect that to represent a breach of contract and one could simply book whatever flight will get them to their final destination and take the airline to small claims court.

-RooFlyer88

 

[RooFlyer]

If you're an airline your primary responsibility is to your passengers not your bottom line.

Unfortunately, its not. By law, company Officers must act in the best interests if its shareholders (within the law).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if an airline unilaterally cancels your ticket because they cannot fulfill their obligations at a minimum I would expect that to represent a breach of contract and one could simply book whatever flight will get them to their final destination and take the airline to small claims court.

But the contract sets out what will happen in the event the airline cannot fulfil its obligations… which is that they will put you on the next service, or if they cannot do that, they will refund you. As a passenger you have also ‘accepted’ overbooking can occur.

As a passenger you have agreed to that, and Aussie consumer law only goes a little bit further than that in terms of protection for flight schedules and refunds.

As we have seen in another thread (‘Taking qantas to NCAT’) it may not be as simple as going to small claims, especially if the airline can rely on federal legislation in their defence, for example around delays.

EU/UK261 provide significant consumer protection over and above the contract of carriage.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

But the contract sets out what will happen in the event the airline cannot fulfil its obligations… which is that they will put you on the next service, or if they cannot do that, they will refund you. As a passenger you have also ‘accepted’ overbooking can occur.

But what constitutes cannot do that? If a flight is available to get you from point A to point B surely the airline is obliged to rebook you onto that?

-RooFlyer88

 

[Quickstatus]

airline cannot fulfil its obligations… which is that they will put you on the next service, or if they cannot do that, they will refund you

Except now the ticket cancellation and refund takes place when the passenger is displaced.
There is are very few circumstances where an airline is unable to carry a passenger (when the passenger is otherwise fit to travel).

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Except now the ticket cancellation and refund takes place when the passenger is displaced.
There is are very few circumstances where an airline is unable to carry a passenger (when the passenger is otherwise fit to travel).

I think part of it is the airlines want to take the easy way out. It's way easier for them to cancel out a booking and refund the amount paid than to honour their obligations and perhaps spend several hundred or even thousands of dollars to rebook you on another carrier. What I will say is commitments are a two-way street. If airlines won't let me change or cancel my non-refundable fare when I don't feel like travelling they better damn well do the same when I am holding a ticket with them!

-RooFlyer88

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But what constitutes cannot do that? If a flight is available to get you from point A to point B surely the airline is obliged to rebook you onto that?

The conditions of carriage relevant here are there:

(c) Significant Change​

If, due to Events Within Our Control, after you buy your Ticket we make a Significant Change to your flight we will:​

• rebook you on the next available flight (or combination of flights) on our services to your booked destination at no additional cost to you
• alternatively, at your option, refund the applicable fare

It says if *Qantas* makes a change, for something within their control, they will accommodate you on another one of their services.

This does not cover for example if a partner airline cancels a flight or makes a schedule change which makes your ticket impossible.

It could also be for other reasons outside QF’s control, for example you cannot connect through a city due to covid restrictions (Japan), or because a partner airline has decided to change or amend schedules (Finnair and others due to war in ukraine).

The conditions around refunds where something is outside QF’s control are not as generous, and a refund will be processed if an alternative cannot be found. In these circumstances the ability for the passenger to ‘choose’ which option they prefer is limited.