We'd like your feedback on Australian aviation policy

[Kremmen]

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.

The first two points are irrelevant. I've had problems handled competently by overseas call centres. IHG's Diamond line is handled in the Philippines. The third point is the only point that matters. Geographical location and nationality is irrelevant.

 

[Leonie]

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!

Australian Consumers of airline products should be protected the same way as for all purchases. With eg Qantas saying in their t and c that they don’t guarantee virtually anything with your purchase how is the consumer supposed to be protected. The Airline Customer Advocate must have powers to penalise shonky operators to the benefit not detriment of the consumer even if it’s like the EU it would be better than what it is now

 

[bfm]

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!

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.

 

[TAK]

Didnt really know there was an ACA - but I do now!
A charter like the EU may be a good thing but AFAIC the Australian aviation sector works quite well. The issues lie with the airlines in so far as they (QF/VA, etc) can to cut costs to the bone and that is nearly in every area from baggage handling to non existent customer service to playing chess on aircraft loads so that fights are cancelled so that full planes can fly. And thats a corporate prerogative. customers voting with their feet ( I mean seat) is about the only option - and thats where competition MAY make a difference ( be careful what you wish for)- nothing like the "competition" in the US where flights are oversold by 20% and you need to sit in an overcrowded departure area to see if you name comes up on an overhead board to either get on the plane or get that upgrade to "first"
lowering CO2 is not really an AUS driven thing, tech comes for USA, bio av is coming, AUS could make more of it.
Airports are the places where the most improvements can be made from static to subtle passenger movement designs -how many people get overwhelmed by the 1000s sheep wandering to and from departure gates - how many morons does it take to stand in front of a baggage carousal so you cant see/get your bag without pushing someone over (hint no ones making a buck there)
Why is there no fast public transport to MEL ( and dont mention the 901)
Why to you have to wander though 5 kms of duty free shops before you get to the departure gates (because theres a buck in that)
Nothing can be said about Airport development other than it seem to grow like cancer all over the world - see comments above and hope that real designers get involved instead of leasing agent Amen

 

[tdimdad]

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.

Equally of course, if the airlines fully comply, there should be zero extra cost to them. It's only when they breach the compliance. In other words, they should have zero room to even suggest that the fares should increase because of this type of regulation. They have a completely free way out of the added expenses: run your show professionally and act well.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

Simple answer is to "enhance" existing consumer protection laws and to ensure contracts between
airlines and passengers (tickets) are fair and reasonable to all parties.
(Ticket rules are notoriously one sided)
Give the ACCC the teeth and ability to pursue airlines in the same manner that they can pursue
retailers !

 

[OATEK]

Simple answer is to "enhance" existing consumer protection laws and to ensure contracts between
airlines and passengers (tickets) are fair and reasonable to all parties.
(Ticket rules are notoriously one sided)
Give the ACCC the teeth and ability to pursue airlines in the same manner that they can pursue
retailers !

As I understand it, most "consumer protection laws" are state laws, and matters are either resolved through processes of regulatory intervention (ie the NSW Building Commissioner), parties being encouraged to resolve disputes under the oversight of consumer bodies, or through the consumer tribunals (VCAT, NCAT etc)

Owing to the regulatory framework for airlines falling under federal rather than state jurisdiction, most matters cannot be addressed through the existing state-based consumer protection bodies. Given that the infrastructure for consumer protection already exists, and resolves much more consequential issues that many of the matters that go to the ACA (think tenancy matters where people can be thrown into the street), then we should consider using those state resources.

The Federal government could create a broad consumer right and delegate the dispute resolution process to the state bodies that are already set up.

 

[JeniSkunk]

The first two points are irrelevant. I've had problems handled competently by overseas call centres. IHG's Diamond line is handled in the Philippines. The third point is the only point that matters. Geographical location and nationality is irrelevant.

The reason why I said that the help desk call centres of Australian airlines are to be physically located in Australia, is to keep jobs in Australia. No off-shoring, no outsourcing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The key takeouts should be:

• compensation for delayed or cancelled flights, as well as downgrades.
• a ‘refund’ is not a viable option if flights are cancelled on the day of departure and a walk-up fare is many multiples of the original fare paid
• claimed increases in airfares haven’t materialised in overseas jurisdictions where similar schemes are in operation
• even if they have increased by a few dollars, that’s insurance passengers could not buy independently for the same price. I would pay $2 more per ticket through the airfare as I couldn’t get an insurance policy myself for the same price
• exceptions should be ‘extraordinary’. Anything related to general operations cannot be a reason to deny compensation or assistance. Safety is a given in these circumstances and things such as maintenance should be planned, not used as a reason to avoid assistance
• specialist claim companies getting involved is a red herring. The claim companies do not affect the compensation or assistance due. € and £ compensation limits are capped. Specialist firms have not pushed that from say €600 to €800 or €1000. If airlines did what they were supposed to do, they’d pay nothing.
• downgrade compensation should be based on the fare paid compared with the lowest fare paid by any passenger in the downgraded cabin the passenger ended up flying. If you paid $500 for a business class ticket SYD-MEL and were downgraded, airlines must check the reservations system to identify the lowest economy fare and pay the difference. If someone got a special for $79, the difference owed would be $421.

That’s the bottom line… compensation can be avoided if they maintain fleets, crews, and schedules, and use existing yield data to avoid downgrades.

 

[tdimdad]

The reason why I said that the help desk call centres of Australian airlines are to be physically located in Australia, is to keep jobs in Australia. No off-shoring, no outsourcing.

But this would be outside of the scope of the question. A noble thought and worthy airing out where it can be influenced but the initial question revolves around the quality of the service instead of the location.

 

[tdimdad]

• a ‘refund’ is not a viable option if flights are cancelled on the day of departure and a walk-up fare is many multiples of the original fare paid

• downgrade compensation should be based on the fare paid compared with the lowest fare paid by any passenger in the downgraded cabin the passenger ended up flying. If you paid $500 for a business class ticket SYD-MEL and were downgraded, airlines must check the reservations system to identify the lowest economy fare and pay the difference. If someone got a special for $79, the difference owed would be $421.

These two points are worth keeping as some of the central aspects!

The airlines should not be able to just fob off the customer by effectively buying them out with a simple refund. Even the lowest level / cheapest customer needs to be in a position to request a reroute / reschedule to get where they need to, as close to the ticketed arrival time as possible. This may include being directed to a different airline (e.g. QF booking the pax on NH). Only if all airlines are equally disrupted and there are no viable options available, a refund may come into question.

The refunds, again, need to follow the "no worse off" which needs also include the difference of what the customer would need to pay on the day to fulfil their travel needs, as planned. Or, if they had chosen to buy a similar Y ticket instead of J on the day they did the purchase (compare J sale against Y sale, J flex against Y flex, etc).

 

[MikeG]

1. 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.

100% - I tried to use them a couple of times, and a) it was painful, and b) I received responses that were arrogant, and unhelpful.

2. 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.

I used EU261, and it was fair and reasonable. Even for an outsider to the EU, I was able to submit a claim, and it was paid within 3 months which I didn't expect (I expected longer, or pushback because I wasn't an EU resident)

3. Any other experiences, insights or suggestions regarding the topics discussed in the Green Paper?

Some of my ideas from the CEO retiring, what changes at Qantas would you like to see thread could be adopted if the airlines are not going to regulate themselves sensibly...

Qantas to take the lead on compensation for cancelled flights, and imposed flight changes similar to what is regulated in Europe and offered in the US.

Eg, on a leg by leg basis.
i. If flight is cancelled and no alternative, a full refund plus $500 compensation (domestic) or $1000 compensation (international).
ii. If flight is cancelled and able to change without impact to class travelled, $100 compensation or upgrade to next class.
iii. If flight is cancelled and able to change but with a downgrade in class, refund of fare difference plus $500 compensation (domestic) or $1000 compensation (international).
iv. If not allowed onto a flight without good reason (eg. overbooked and check-in finished early), and travel delayed by more than an hour, $500 compensation (domestic) or $1000 compensation (international)
v. Operational downgrade. Full refund + $100 compensation.

Offering gate compensation can be had in lieu of these penalties, eg if someone is willing to opt for an operational downgrade for $500 cash, then this would release Qantas from having to refund their fare...

This would restore faith in Qantas as a market leader and also put pressure on Virgin to reciprocate.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

"CHOICE" have a very good article on this subject. It's avaliable to
all.

 

[Mwenenzi]

The key takeouts should be:

• downgrade compensation should be based on the fare paid compared with the lowest fare paid by any passenger in the downgraded cabin the passenger ended up flying. If you paid $500 for a business class ticket SYD-MEL and were downgraded, airlines must check the reservations system to identify the lowest economy fare and pay the difference. If someone got a special for $79, the difference owed would be $421.

EU rules apply for

• all EU based airlines for departing and arriving flights
• all airlines for departing fights

Far too complicated and requires information from the airline/airlines and then a determination.

On a multi segment trip the say HBA-SYD-LAX on QF the HBA-SYD could be nil or even a negative value. If an AA/AS codeshare QF may not know the % for each sector. So the base Y fare to compare may be unknown, zero or negative.
If DL ticketed, VA operated SYD-HBA and SYD-LAX DL operated gets more complicated. Same on inbound.
Or say HBA-SYD-Orange the % cost for HBA-SYD could be very high.
.
Same from Eu/USA/Asia destinations where are the tag on flights in AU on a separate airline.
UA still sells tag on flights on QF , despite the VA relationship.
Oneworld (including QF) sell a 16 segment RTW **ONE*) flights. And QF has the OW awards. (EU261 applies to awards)
On multi segment flights it would/could be hard to determine a "base fare" to compare.

EU system of 75% cash pro rata by distance is simple and quick.
75% of your $500 is $375.

====
I think everyone (other than the airlines) considers AU needs EC261 type legislation.
Australia and New Zealand is a single aviation market (SAM).
So should be complementarity legislation in AU & NZ.

A lot of traffic trans Tasman. For example guess more traffic/flights from NSW-NZ than NSW-WA. Air NZ should be on the hook for late arrivals/downgrades on flights *to* AU.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To add, carrying over from the ACCC thread…

A requirement to accompany the introduction of any sort of consumer protections should be a simplified process to enforce rights.

As a customer we don’t want to be forced to consider jurisdiction, or have to pay for lawyers. We want a one-stop forum or tribunal that is empowered to hear these claims in a manner accessible to the general public. No lawyers, no fussing whether it has to be a Administrative Tribunal, or arguments it has to go to a federal court because it’s international, etc.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

kEU rules apply for

• all EU based airlines for departing and arriving flights
• all airlines for departing fights

Far too complicated and requires information from the airline/airlines and then a determination.

On a multi segment trip the say HBA-SYD-LAX on QF the HBA-SYD could be nil or even a negative value. If an AA/AS codeshare QF may not know the % for each sector. So the base Y fare to compare may be unknown, zero or negative.
If DL ticketed, VA operated SYD-HBA and SYD-LAX DL operated gets more complicated. Same on inbound.
Or say HBA-SYD-Orange the % cost for HBA-SYD could be very high.
.
Same from Eu/USA/Asia destinations where are the tag on flights in AU on a separate airline.
UA still sells tag on flights on QF , despite the VA relationship.
Oneworld (including QF) sell a 16 segment RTW **ONE*) flights. And QF has the OW awards. (EU261 applies to awards)
On multi segment flights it would/could be hard to determine a "base fare" to compare.

EU system of 75% cash pro rata by distance is simple and quick.
75% of your $500 is $375.

====
I think everyone (other than the airlines) considers AU needs EC261 type legislation.
Australia and New Zealand is a single aviation market (SAM).
So should be complementarity legislation in AU & NZ. A lot of traffic trans Tasman.
For example guess more traffic/flights from NSW-NZ than NSW-WA.
Air NZ should be on the hook for late arrivals/downgrades on flight *to* AU.

Fair point, and I only considered a single airline. I hadn’t thought of the scenario you raise.

I’m not convinced the 75% pro-rata is fair. The airline might sell your seat for a full walk-up price, but only have to give you a few dollars back. It should be the full value of the seat you’re giving up.

Perhaps the calculation could be:

• for multi-city tickets: the difference between the full published fare of the original cabin, and the lowest fare paid on the downgraded cabin, for that standalone segment.

This means the airline could not profit from selling the high-priced premium seat. If the full published fare SYD-MEL in business class is $1299, and the lowest fare paid in economy was $129, you should get back $1170. The airline is selling your seat for the higher price, and should get away with paying maybe $200 at 75% pro-rated.

 

[JeniSkunk]

But this would be outside of the scope of the question. A noble thought and worthy airing out where it can be influenced but the initial question revolves around the quality of the service instead of the location.

It's within the scope, due to how abysmal the off-shored, outsourced, hell desk mobs are, and the resulting workload, that allowing their continuance by Australian airlines, would flood a real ombudsman with.
So why shouldn't we be pushing to bring an end to useless hell desks, set up by Australian airlines, to prevent customer help?
Preventing the continuance of use of such hell desks would reduce the workload on a real ombudsman.

 

[Mwenenzi]

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.

So you are then OK with the USA airline Virgin Australian and the Asian airline REX having call centre out of Australia.
Are skilled people who live outside of the Au (state) capitals. Decentralisation should be encouraged.
Many people who are working in Australia are not Australians, but foreign nationals.
At times any call centre needs to pass an enquiry on to some one with more knowledge. For example in my view QF need some specialists for the QF Oneworld (132.4K/249.6K/318K/455K) award and the Oneworld RTW *ONE* paid tickets. Both are multi to segment and multi carrier with particular rules.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

"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.


This report covers most of what is discussed on this post. The last paragraph is interesting.
But 6 years later after acknowledging the known problems there is to be a "Green Paper" to collect info that they already have.

 

[MELso]

This actually crossed my desk at work. For once, I had a legitimate reason to read AFF on the clock...

The Australian Consumer Law provides many consumer guarantees, but in relation to services, the main remedy for breaches is damages, which is kinda hopeless when you're stressed out and needing accommodation midway through a connecting flight because the airline cancelled it. Couple that with difficulty enforcing the consumer guarantees ('better get a lawyer son - better get a real good one') and the protections they offer are inadequate for aviation.

A couple of other issues: they need a price signal (not just 'lose it or lose it') to prevent slot hoarding, and more open skies agreements would be welcome.