We'd like your feedback on Australian aviation policy

[Gremlin]

I would like to see involuntary downgrade compensation regulated. My recommendation is as follows:

* Where the sector is priced point to point, compensation is the difference between the actual fare paid and the lower of (the lowest fare paid in the downgraded cabin or the lowest fare available in the downgraded cabin at the time of booking) plus $100 x scheduled duration of flight in hours.

* Where the sector is not priced as a point to point fare, the difference between the most expensive point to point fare in the equivalent fare bucket at the time of booking (which may be D or A, not necessarily J or F) and the cheapest point to point fare in the downgraded cabin plus $100 x scheduled duration of the flight.


So, for example, MrsG pays $800 for a one way J fare from MEL to SYD, a one and a half hour flight. The cheapest Y fare at the time of booking is $250. The cheapest Y fare booked on that flight at any time is $200.

If MrsG is involuntarily downgraded, under this proposal, she would be entitled to ($800 - $200) + 1.5 x $100, or $750 compensation.

At the moment, MrsG would get a piddling fraction of that, since it’s assumed she has been downgraded to full Y, regardless of the flexibility of the ticket she booked or needed.

This is a rort that needs to be addressed as part of better regulation of our rights as airline customers.

 

[burmans]

1/. The airline advocate is a waste of space. Decommission it!

2/. The adoption of consumer rights / protection as per the EU must be the base. Anything less is showing disregard for consumers

3/. The ACCC needs to be given power/s to review both domestic & international airline performance in Australia according to operating criteria that affords consumer satisfaction.

This says it for me and it seems most here.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

This says it for me and it seems most here.

The comments by bfm are pretty much the comments I made in my submission.
I found a lot of the questions asked to be outside of the scope of the average pax.

 

[CMA222]

"Everything old is new again"

Doing a bit of research on consumer rights I came across this report :-
"ACCC AIRLINES TERMS AND CONDITIONS REPORT 20.12.2017"

Sorry but I couldn't post a link but a Google search will pick it up.

Airlines: Terms and conditions report

The ACCC's report Airlines: Terms and Conditions is published to remind travellers of their consumer rights.

www.accc.gov.au

Progress since 2017 ? Newly imposed penalties for unfair contract terms - maybe they are loading their opportunities to act. Otherwise everything changes and everything stays the same.

 

[AFF Editor]

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. There are some very good and constructive suggestions in this thread.

So far, the common messages seem to be:

• The Airline Customer Advocate is not an effective body and should be replaced with something that has more teeth and isn't funded by the airlines themselves
• The idea for an "AU261" scheme (for lack of a better name) would be almost universally welcomed by AFF members.

Here's a summary of some of the other points raised so far, which are within the scope of the Aviation Green Paper:

• Any "AU261" scheme should include mandated compensation for significant delays, cancellations, downgrades and being bumped to another flight due to overbooking, where this happens for reasons within the airline's control. There should also be minimum standards of treatment for customers, such as good communication and a maximum time limit for airlines to pay out any compensation owed.
• There have been some good suggestions as to how airlines should calculate compensation for involuntary downgrades.
• It should be easier for customers to be able to access their rights, including by being able to contact airlines in a timely manner and speak to somebody who is able to assist at the first point of contact.
• It's not good enough for airlines to simply offer a refund if they cancel your flight at short-notice, since the cost of buying a new ticket on another airline or making alternative arrangements on the day of travel is much higher than it would have been at the time of originally booking the cancelled flight.
• There have been some comments about contracts between airlines and passengers being too one-sided.
• There are some concerns about airport slot hoarding and a general lack of domestic airline competition.
• There was a suggestion that Australia should have more "open skies" agreements with other countries.

Most of the feedback so far relates to the three questions posed at the start of this thread. But some AFF members have also provided suggestions relating to the following questions put forward for discussion in the Green Paper:

What measures should be taken to ensure Australian aviation markets operate efficiently, improve competition settings, and deliver optimal consumer outcomes?

Are there other issues or concerns associated with the Australian Government’s approach to negotiating aviation bilateral agreements that you wish to highlight?

Please feel free to continue adding comments and suggestions to this thread until 17 November 2023. We'll then prepare our AFF submission after this date.

 

[Daver6]

• It should be easier for customers to be able to access their rights, including by being able to contact airlines in a timely manner and speak to somebody who is able to assist at the first point of contact.

Bit late to this thread so apologies if this has been already covered.

I think airlines should be forced to provide an individual with their rights when something goes wrong (flight delay, cancellation, downgrade). If it's at the airport then a printout, if online, then a link to it, written in plain English.

A little like when you go through airport security, if you need a pat down, you're provided with a written document that explains what will happen and what your rights are.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Here's a summary of some of the other points raised so far, which are within the scope of the Aviation Green Paper:

• Any "AU261" scheme should include mandated compensation for significant delays, cancellations, downgrades and being bumped to another flight due to overbooking, where this happens for reasons within the airline's control.

Disagree it needs to be ‘within the airline’s control’.

They will argue unforeseen maintenance, or a bird strike, or lightning strike or weather are not within their control.

It should be the same standard as the EU and UK. ‘Extraordinary.’ Anything which is part of the expected operations of an airline should not give reason to avoid compensation. Bad weather happens, things break. You need to plan for that and have spare aircraft or less ambitious schedules so you can absorb problems when they occur.

 

[Himeno]

Disagree it needs to be ‘within the airline’s control’.

They will argue unforeseen maintenance, or a bird strike, or lightning strike or weather are not within their control.

It should be the same standard as the EU and UK. ‘Extraordinary.’ Anything which is part of the expected operations of an airline should not give reason to avoid compensation. Bad weather happens, things break. You need to plan for that and have spare aircraft or less ambitious schedules so you can absorb problems when they occur.

True, however such a policy would also require clear language that unplanned maintenance is not "extraordinary" as the likes of BA claim.

 

[yaziyo]

I think airlines should be forced to provide an individual with their rights when something goes wrong (flight delay, cancellation, downgrade). If it's at the airport then a printout, if online, then a link to it, written in plain English

I agree this is important, and is a component of the equivalent laws in Europe. In a retail context, Australia has strong consumer laws, but you'll find that people often don't know their rights and are mislead by service staff or retailers when it comes to matters of refunds and warranties. It would be a real shame if similarly strong consumer rights were introduced for aviation, but not known by the customer.

 

[VeeVeeTop]

Airlines having a dedicated complaints process and escalation would be great. I 'complained' to Qantas multiple times, but could only do it via form or through the service consultant I was speaking to (and complaining about). If I did the form I'd get a case no. and if I did it through a consultant I would just get told "someone would get back to me".

Best I would get is a proforma email saying "Sorry, you had a bad experience. Oh well." No way to escalate or actually get a resolution, and when I'd respond or file a follow up complaint I'd get ignored. Raised a complaint with the ACÁ in Jan, got told a month later they were waiting to hear from the Airline, and in July they closed my case without telling me because Qantas told them to. I asked to have it reviewed/reopened but still haven't heard anything.

This compared to a recent issue I had with a credit card company not understanding its own T&Cs and us not getting our card perks. Raised a complaint and had a callback within 7 days. It wasn't resolved so they advised over the phone and in writing (as they're required to do) that I could escalate to the AFCA. I did and had a written offer in 2 weeks. In order for the case to be closed by AFCA I had to sign confirming I was accepting the offer. Perks + compensation sorted in less than a month.

Banks are required to record complaints and respond within a specific time frame, and customers are required to try and resolve with the bank before they can file with AFCA. It's not perfect but it forces more accountability onto the banks and reduces the load on the Advocate.

Weird how an advocate funded by the airlines it's 'governing' isn't as effective...

 

[CMA222]

................
Weird how an advocate funded by the airlines it's 'governing' isn't as effective...

 

[Arno]

Dear AFF Community,

The Australian government recently published its Aviation Green Paper which will shape our nation's aviation policy for the upcoming decades.

The paper touches on numerous topics that directly impact us as frequent flyers. Key areas of discussion include the Airline Customer Advocate's role and the potential for new consumer protections.

How you can assist the AFF community:

Australian Frequent Flyer intends to voice our community's collective feedback by providing a submission on the Green Paper. To do this effectively, we’re seeking your input.

The central questions of our focus are:

1. What are your views on the current effectiveness of the Airline Customer Advocate?
2. Should Australia consider broader consumer protection models for airline passengers, such as the one used in the European Union (EU261)?
3. Any other experiences, insights or suggestions regarding the topics discussed in the Green Paper?

See our article for more details about the Aviation Green Paper.

Please share your perspectives and suggestions in this thread by Friday, 17th November 2023.

Your feedback will be invaluable. It will not only shape our collective response but will also have a lasting impact on the future of aviation in Australia. We will share our final submission with the AFF community.

Thank you for your participation!

I believe there needs to be better protections implemented. Given the current frequency of cancelled/delayed/amended flights by the airlines the customer deserves the right to be protected against delays and have the choice of whether to receive a full refund or the other options provided by the airline. The government should have an appointed ombudsmen such as other industries ie telcos, insurance etc to provide greater oversight and consumer protections within the airline industry.

 

[Himeno]

It should be the same standard as the EU and UK. ‘Extraordinary.’ Anything which is part of the expected operations of an airline should not give reason to avoid compensation. Bad weather happens, things break. You need to plan for that and have spare aircraft or less ambitious schedules so you can absorb problems when they occur.

Additional to that, bad weather is a expected part of operating an airline. It should be accounted for when planning. If an airline tries to claim that a storm in Singapore or a typhoon in Japan/Hong Kong/Korea during summer is "extraordinary", the airline needs to be smashed down by a regulator.
Meanwhile, it there were a hurricane in London, sure, extraordinary.
If a type of weather is a known, regular occurrence in a given area, such weather events should be expected and accounted for as a normal part of operating in that region.

For example, Hong Kong regularly gets hit by typhoons, often causing the airport to close for a short time. This is expected for that location and time of year. The fact that a known, expected weather event has impacted airport operations in a known and expected way is not extraordinary.

In 2011, following the earthquake, tsunami and resulting issues at Fukushima Daiichi, Qantas started delaying QF21 overnight and diverting via HKG for crew change in order to not have crew staying in Tokyo while the situation at Fukushima was unclear. The delays resulting from that could be considered extraordinary.

 

[Seat0B]

• It's not good enough for airlines to simply offer a refund if they cancel your flight at short-notice, since the cost of buying a new ticket on another airline or making alternative arrangements on the day of travel is much higher than it would have been at the time of originally booking the cancelled flight.
• There have been some comments about contracts between airlines and passengers being too one-sided.

The Airline Customer Advocate is not an effective body and should be replaced with something that has more teeth and isn't funded by the airlines themselves

Hi @AFF Editor

Thanks for taking the time to coordinate a response on behalf of us all.

I agree with your summary at post #45 with a couple of additions to the points quoted above:

• the cancellation does not even have to be short notice to cause problems for the pax. eg if you have a booking at a popular time such as Christmas or Easter or the European Summer, if they cancel your flight even a month out, you have cost and availability issues in replacing that flight. So an airline should not EVER be able to buy you out of your trip with a refund unless you choose that yourself, not their choice, yours. And if you still want to fly, they should have to make that possible, in the class you booked, within a reasonable time of your original booking on whatever airline can provide the service. Again, your choice, not theirs, and certainly not at the airline's discretion.
• I also think that this should apply whether the ticket was paid for in cash or points ie award seat pax should also be entitled to re-routing rather than just having their flight cancelled and the points and taxes refunded.
• Given the near monopoly status of domestic airlines, some government intervention is absolutely needed to make the one-sided contracts for domestic flights that pax are forced to accept more balanced. It is not like pax have any real alternative to flying for most trips with the distances to be covered in Australia (until we can teleport!), or that pax can choose to give their business to an airline offering a better contract or better reliability or better service as they are pretty much all the same, and there is only a choice of 2.6 airlines anyway (counting Rex as 0 .5 and Bonza as 0.1 here because of their limited operations - which might well be linked to the slot access argument too). I'd really like to see more balanced contracts extended to international flights as well, just out of consumer fairness, but I suppose international pax do have a bit more choice.
• Re the ACA, yes it needs to be replaced by a more effective body, with teeth/authority to impose decisions, genuine independence, low/no fees for a case, does not require lawyers, prompt resolutions, right of appeal and a mandate to help redress the power imbalance between a retail consumer and a multi-billion dollar business like an airline.
• And this needs to build on a proper opportunity for the customer and the airline to resolve problems - eg I have been dealing with Qantas for nearly 9 months (and still not fully resolved) to reconcile the fall out of an involuntary re-routing and downgrade of a doemstic connecting leg to an international flight. My emails simply go unanswered and there is no real way to contact them - they just play attrition and hope the problem (ie the customer who has been screwed over) will go away. Airlines should have to provide a resolution (not just a holding response, or a nonsense response, or a response that does not address the issues, or an endless round of internal referrals to this team or that team with no result) within a fixed time. And if they don;t there should be consequences such as those in the consumer law or along the lines proposed by @VeeVeeTop in post #50.

 

[Gremlin]

I agree with your summary at post #45 with a couple of additions to the points quoted above:

• the cancellation does not even have to be short notice to cause problems for the pax. eg if you have a booking at a popular time such as Christmas or Easter or the European Summer, if they cancel your flight even a month out, you have cost and availability issues in replacing that flight. So an airline should not EVER be able to buy you out of your trip with a refund unless you choose that yourself, not their choice, yours. And if you still want to fly, they should have to make that possible, in the class you booked, within a reasonable time of your original booking on whatever airline can provide the service. Again, your choice, not theirs, and certainly not at the airline's discretion.

I think this is a particularly important point.

 

[LondonAussie]

Additional to that, bad weather is a expected part of operating an airline. It should be accounted for when planning. If an airline tries to claim that a storm in Singapore or a typhoon in Japan/Hong Kong/Korea during summer is "extraordinary", the airline needs to be smashed down by a regulator.
Meanwhile, it there were a hurricane in London, sure, extraordinary.
If a type of weather is a known, regular occurrence in a given area, such weather events should be expected and accounted for as a normal part of operating in that region.

Unfortunately a bit of strong wind or rain in London and BA will deny EU261 compensation due to weather being out of their control, even if there was another underlying reason for the delay or cancellation. Some people take them to MCOL (UK county court claim) to get paid, and BA will usually offer a 75% out of court settlement, but most don't bother taking it that far. Hopefully the Australian equivalent (if created) will be stronger in that area because in practice EU261 is actually quite easy for airlines to avoid paying the compensation.

 

[AFF Editor]

Thank you to everyone who has responded to this thread.

We'll now prepare our submission based on all of your feedback and share this with you in due course.

 

[AFF Editor]

Thanks again to everyone who took the time to respond in this thread.

We've now sent off our submission to the Aviation Green Paper. You can read it in full here.

In our submission, we included quite a few direct quotes from AFF members who posted in this thread. A special shout-out to @tdimdad, @Ian Bud, @Blackswan, @VeeVeeTop, @MikeG, @Himeno, @LondonAussie, @yaziyo, @luckyjohn888, @bfm, @MEL_Traveller, @TAK and @lawrencep whose comments were included in our submission.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I was wondering whether I would be prepared to accept an exemption from AU261 for any airline that certified their operations via AI?

The AI should be given all operational data, weather, pax loads, aircraft changes, fares, crew salaries, slots, fleet age, maintenance, ATC operations, you name it. For some airlines this could be many years or decades of data.

The only exception in the AI parameters should be extraordinary circumstances, and there’s plenty of EU law on that.

Run all that + your schedule through AI, and if you get the ‘green tick’ you can be excused from AU261 for a year. If not, you either amend your schedule and booking patterns or you subject yourself to compensation.

On a side note what we don’t want to end up with is Canada’s version… last-minute maintenance is deemed ‘within the control of the airline’ but is excused from compensation on safety grounds. Lots of cases in front of the CTA where passenger claims for compensation have been dismissed on that ground.

 

[Guvner]

Qantas rejects calls for passenger compensation scheme, arguing it will jack up airfares

Qantas says compensation scheme would hike airline prices

Qantas submits to the federal government's aviation green paper that its recent performance has been "unacceptable".

www.abc.net.au