We'd like your feedback on Australian aviation policy

[AFF Editor]

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!

 

[Himeno]

What are your views on the current effectiveness of the Airline Customer Advocate?

I've never had reason to use it, but given how it is set up, the limitations in its scope, how complaints are processed, the lack of any binding resolutions and prior complaints about the ACA I've seen, I'd say it isn't effective in any way and not much better then dealing with the airline.
If you're running into problems dealing with an airlines brick wall thinking, going to the ACA who just forwards it back to that same brick wall isn't going to do anything useful.

Should Australia consider broader consumer protection models for airline passengers, such as the one used in the European Union (EU261)?

Yes. An "AU261" would likely go a long way towards fixing many of the problems currently existing in Australian commercial aviation. As long as there is some kind of oversight mechanism that can break through airline attempts at stonewalling and avoiding paying the compensation.

 

[Blackswan]

What are your views on the current effectiveness of the Airline Customer Advocate?

The effectiveness is absolutely useless. I have tried to use them a few times - first instance, they just forwarded my complaint back to the airline (without chasing it up), and the second time they didn't even respond to my complaint.

It appears it is staffed by one or two team members, who don't have the capacity or empowerment to do anything. The entity is an absolute farce, paid for by the airlines to avoid a proper oversight.

Should Australia consider broader consumer protection models for airline passengers, such as the one used in the European Union (EU261)?

Yes, absolutely. No reason why not (unless you ask the airlines).
No more needs to be said.

 

[henrus]

Should Australia consider broader consumer protection models for airline passengers, such as the one used in the European Union (EU261)?

Ever tried to claim a legitimate EU261 from a low cost carrier, borderline impossible (quite frankly JQ/VA/ZL all operate like on domestic flights charging for seat selection etc).

 

[LondonAussie]

Should Australia consider broader consumer protection models for airline passengers, such as the one used in the European Union (EU261)?

Absolutely - especially the duty of care sections (must provide meals, accommodation and transport) and the right to choose a refund or rebooking (customer's choice to be fully refunded within 7 days OR to be rebooked/rerouted to their destination or back to departure point - again at customer's choice, and can be on another airline or even a high speed train in UK/EU).

These sections are often overlooked as the focus of discussion is always on the compensation payouts, but EU261 provides much more than that, including refunds for downgrades and bumping/overbooking.

 

[tdimdad]

1. What are your views on the current effectiveness of the Airline Customer Advocate?

You can't expect that an oversight body which is owned by the companies themselves would provide effective results to the consumers. Industry self-regulation overall works poorly in Australia. The body needs to be fully independent of the companies / organisations it oversees.

This could be formed as an ombudsman with deep industry knowledge and hosted by the ACCC. Instead of recommendations, the ACCC (ombudsman) provides determinations which are binding and enforceable.

1. Should Australia consider broader consumer protection models for airline passengers, such as the one used in the European Union (EU261)?

Definitely yes. Modelling it from the best parts of the existing EU / UK / US / CA regulations and incorporating the lessons learned in those jurisdictions. The model needs to be kept simple and straightforward so that the number of loopholes and workarounds are minimised.

The emphasis needs to be two-fold compared to the current situation:
1) Make good. In any disruption, the operating carrier is to make good ("no worse off") to the passenger. The method must be of customer's choosing (reroute / rebook, refund, etc). In case of downgrades, a legislated model to calculate a fair compensation needs to be included to avoid any ambiguity and dispute. The resolution times need to be kept to the minimum (e.g. 7 days, as suggested by LondonAussie above).
2) Contract. The sale of a ticket needs to be seen to form a contract (not a "bundle of some mysterious rights which only the company can adjudicate"). Any changes from that by the carrier is to be treated as a breach of contract which needs to be made good (point 1).

 

[yaziyo]

On the topic of an "AU261" I think this would absolutely go a long way in better aligning the incentives of airlines to do the right thing by their customers. Late flights, cancelled flights and downgrades should be a rare occurrence, not a free tool airlines can use without consequence. The airlines will argue it will make flights more expensive - the European aviation market begs to differ.

Next time you read a horror story on here of someone getting to the airport and being mistreated by their airline, look up the applicable law in Europe for that scenario. My experience is that more often than not, the customer would have been entitled to significant protection or compensation had they been in Europe and not Australia.

 

[gidxg03]

As others have said EU type protection for Australian consumers is critical. It is a wild west out there with airlines having no accountability to their customers. And airlines have shown they cannot police themselves.

 

[Ian Bud]

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 don't know why they bother with the Airline Customer Advocate - it has no power and is complicated and bureaucratic. The easy answer is to simply adopt every line from EU 261, just as the UK did on leaving the EU by creating UK261. It will be easy for the airlines to administer because they are all familiar with it. And then the Airline Customer Advocate could be terminated completely because AU261 would do the job by law! It seems so simple, I can't think why we leave it to politicians

 

[lawrencep]

The biggest issue is targeting lack of competition. This starts with telling the Government to get their fingers out of accepting perks for anti-competition corruption policies with Qantas by denying more planes to come into Australia. We need to open up more international and domestic slots and lower the barrier to entry for other airlines.
This will increase competition for international and domestic routes, more competition means airlines will need to drop prices or improve services otherwise they will lose market share.

Right now because of the duopoly between Virgin and Qantas, they can get away with poor customer service whilst having minimal impact on their market share.

 

[Forg]

The biggest issue is targeting lack of competition.

... and with competition, very slightly increasing their cost of providing the service by making them compensate when they screw-up (ie. this "AU261") doesn't translate to embiggened ticket prices either. The very lowest ticket price is set by whatever it costs the airline, but we're not currently paying that lowest price for anything apart from the very occasional limited sale fares.

 

[Kremmen]

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)

1. From all reports, it's not very good. Even if the implementation was better, it's limited in usefulness. An ombudsman/advocate makes sense for unusual, one-off situations where the airline does something (or fails to do something) that adversely affects the passenger. For large scale issues with relatively minor effects, such as cancellations and delays, it's just not an efficient mechanism. If 300 people are affected by a cancellation, 300 manual complaints being individually handled is a waste of everyone's time. There should be a fast, standard way to reimburse customers.

2. Yes.

 

[dvb2000]

The biggest issue is targeting lack of competition. This starts with telling the Government to get their fingers out of accepting perks for anti-competition corruption policies with Qantas by denying more planes to come into Australia. We need to open up more international and domestic slots and lower the barrier to entry for other airlines.

Agree with all of this PLUS making it illegal for airlines to target/capture politicians & public servants & regulators with free perks like the Chairmans lounge, etc.

 

[bernard]

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!

No 1, It;s ineffective and does not work. There's no compulsion for the airlines to do the right thing for customers.
No 2. Yes, if the EU regulations are brought in, it will save a lot of issues having to deal with the airlines.

 

[JeniSkunk]

One thing which has not, so far, been mentioned by anyone in this thread, is the practice of airlines of off-shoring their help desk call centres, and preventing the help desk call centre staff from being allowed to actually help pax. Over the past several years, Australian airlines have been abusing that scam with effective impunity.
The solve:
1. Australian airline help desk call centres must be physically located in Australian capital cities.
2. They must be staffed by Australians.
3. The staff must have the training, the tools, and the authority, to actually help pax who need to call the help desk to sort out problems.

 

[Gremlin]

One thing which has not, so far, been mentioned by anyone in this thread, is the practice of airlines of off-shoring their help desk call centres, and preventing the help desk call centre staff from being allowed to actually help pax. Over the past several years, Australian airlines have been abusing that scam with effective impunity.
The solve:
1. Australian airline help desk call centres must be physically located in Australian capital cities.
2. They must be staffed by Australians.
3. The staff must have the training, the tools, and the authority, to actually help pax who need to call the help desk to sort out problems.

FWIW, I 100% disagree with this. I think this would be a barrier to entry for too many airlines wanting to enter the Australian market. By my reckoning there's at least 40 airlines flying to Australia right now. Most of them are headquartered overseas and have very small numbers of employees here in Australia. I would've thought that, if they were mandated to have an Australian call centre in order to run flights into Australia, then more than a few of them would simply withdraw from the Australian market. None of us win if that happens.

 

[dajop]

Offshoring is not the problem. It’s outsourcing. And fixing #3 is the priority wherever they are located.

And regarding point #1 do you consider the good people of Wagga Wagga, Rockhampton, Ballarat, Launceston, Alice Springs and Port Lincoln to be inferior to people living in a capital cities?

Training and competency, authority to solve problems and English language competency are the important factors not necessarily physical location.

 

[JeniSkunk]

FWIW, I 100% disagree with this. I think this would be a barrier to entry for too many airlines wanting to enter the Australian market. By my reckoning there's at least 40 airlines flying to Australia right now. Most of them are headquartered overseas and have very small numbers of employees here in Australia. I would've thought that, if they were mandated to have an Australian call centre in order to run flights into Australia, then more than a few of them would simply withdraw from the Australian market. None of us win if that happens.

1. Australian airline help desk call centres must be physically located in Australian capital cities.

That's precisely why the first two words I wrote in point 1 are: Australian airlines.

Offshoring is not the problem. It’s outsourcing. And fixing #3 is the priority wherever they are located.

And regarding point #1 do you consider the good people of Wagga Wagga, Rockhampton, Ballarat, Launceston, Alice Springs and Port Lincoln to be inferior to people living in a capital cities?

Training and competency, authority to solve problems and English language competency are the important factors not necessarily physical location.

I put Australian capital cities, in point 1, rather than rural or regional cities, as the capital cities are more likely to have functioning NFN (the Notional Fraudband Notwork inflicted on Australia instead of the real FTTP NBN) connectivity.

Regarding outsourcing, agreed, that does need to be bought to a halt, across the board, and not just for the help desks.

 

[exceladdict]

1. An arbitrator needs to be independent in order to actually arbitrate. It needs to have teeth and could be a subset of a consumer protection body or otherwise.
2. Yes, minimum compensation and/or other penalties need to apply to all flights departing Australia, domestic, international or otherwise. This way it captures all players in the market equally.
3. The main further issue I would raise is being contactable in a reasonable way. When my bag was lost somewhere between Sydney and Melbourne last year, my only choice was to literally go to Sydney airport as there was no way to contact the airline in question's baggage services by phone. The offshore call centre could not connect me to them or do anything to practically resolve the issue. I'm not sure if call centre SLAs can be legislated, but if a legislated penalty for baggage delays was, then I would feel pretty confident airlines wouldn't let something go unresolved, and would put in systems to fix it.

Of course, airlines will claim these will raise fares due to the cost of compliance. But without a cost for non compliance, I fear customers will continue to be disrespected.

 

[luckyjohn888]

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!

An independent ombudsman is required not just an advocate who has no binding decision powers. That is just window dressing.

We are long overdue in Australia to have a compensation system such as they have in the EU and the US where compensation must be paid by law not the situation we have where we are totally at the mercy of the airlines. In what other industry or business can you sell a product that down the track you cannot or will not provide as per the contract and then hold on to the customers money, and that's legal. We don't need half measures or a government whitewash that sells out the consumers.