qantas-to-be-fined-100-million

[MadMacs]

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued the Sydney-based airline in the Federal Court last year. The commission alleged that Qantas engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct by advertising tickets for more than 8,000 flights from May 2021 through to July 2022 that had already been canceled.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/qan ... ource=mixi

[Volo]

Pity there is a paywall there . Seems I will never no what these clowns ( by clowns I mean Quantus / the regulator and the Australian public ) did .

[Whirly]

Competition Commissions have one goal, to enrich the State! Someone overcharges the public or does price fixing and gets fined by the CC.

Where does the money go? Back to the customers?

Whirly.

[Burner]

I'm just relieved that no one yet on the thread has called them Quantas...

[34south]

I'm just relieved that no one yet on the thread has called them Quantas...

….called them Quiant whaaaat???

[Patrick AL]

I'm just relieved that no one yet on the thread has called them Quantas...

Phonetically - speaking.- does a ‘Q’ without a ‘u’ just sound like a hard ‘C’ ?

Sounds like they acted like a right bunch of Qantas ! -for ripping off their qustomers!

[Volo]

I'm just relieved that no one yet on the thread has called them Quantas...

Phonetically - speaking.- does a ‘Q’ without a ‘u’ just sound like a hard ‘C’ ?

Sounds like they acted like a right bunch of Qantas ! -for ripping off their qustomers!

.....................................
Patrick - I would watch my mouth if I were you - not that they dont deserve it.

[evanb]

The specific case here:

Between May 2021 and July 2022, like many other airlines, Qantas cancelled a large number of flights due to erratic demand and capacity constraints. However, authorities argued that Qantas continued to sell tickets on flights that had been cancelled for several days or even weeks. The accusation was that it was intentional (i.e. maintaining the flight on the schedule to attract passengers) while Qantas claimed that this was not intentional and a result of the large number of flights they were cancelling which required manual inputs and fixes in the GDS.

The number of flights involved was about 8,000 and although passengers were accommodated on other flights, Qantas did not cover additional costs. A second accusation was that for more than 10,000 flights, Qantas didn't notify customers of flight cancellations quickly enough, sometimes taking weeks. During legal proceeding, Qantas acknowledged that the conduct occurred and continued for a longer period than initially argued, however they did not agree that it was intentional.

The settlement will provide compensation to customers, cover legal and administrative costs, and an undertaking not to engage in this conduct in future, including notification of customers of cancelled flights as soon as practicable, and no more than 48 hours from deciding to cancel the flight. So yes, money is going to customers - an administrator has been appointed to management the payouts.

[Whirly]

Thanks Evan, then it's fitting.

Whirly.

[Volo]

I just don't get it that this fine is imposed in a country like Australia.
If you want to fly you are free to chose . If you don't like the price then go and find someone cheaper which I am sure you will find .
No one forced you to buy your ticket from Quantus so why should you expect some government agency to compensate you for your voluntary choice .
This is then not a free market and the government has meddled in private enterprise .
I don't know the structure of Quantus - perhaps it's part owned by government which could well explain what happened here.

[Whirly]

I just don't get it that this fine is imposed in a country like Australia.
If you want to fly you are free to chose . If you don't like the price then go and find someone cheaper which I am sure you will find .
No one forced you to buy your ticket from Quantus so why should you expect some government agency to compensate you for your voluntary choice .
This is then not a free market and the government has meddled in private enterprise .
I don't know the structure of Quantus - perhaps it's part owned by government which could well explain what happened here.

Volo,

Did you read Evan's explanation?

Whirly.

[evanb]

I just don't get it that this fine is imposed in a country like Australia.
If you want to fly you are free to chose . If you don't like the price then go and find someone cheaper which I am sure you will find .
No one forced you to buy your ticket from Quantus so why should you expect some government agency to compensate you for your voluntary choice .
This is then not a free market and the government has meddled in private enterprise .
I don't know the structure of Quantus - perhaps it's part owned by government which could well explain what happened here.

The compensation isn't coming from a government agency. The compensation is coming from the airline. In this case, an enforcement agency is enforcing the law. Or do you believe that in enforcement of laws?

There is no government ownership in Qantas.

Edit: removed an unnecessary comment that had nothing to do with the content.

[Volo]

I just don't get it that this fine is imposed in a country like Australia.
If you want to fly you are free to chose . If you don't like the price then go and find someone cheaper which I am sure you will find .
No one forced you to buy your ticket from Quantus so why should you expect some government agency to compensate you for your voluntary choice .
This is then not a free market and the government has meddled in private enterprise .
I don't know the structure of Quantus - perhaps it's part owned by government which could well explain what happened here.

The compensation isn't coming from a government agency. The compensation is coming from the airline. In this case, an enforcement agency is enforcing the law. Or do you believe that in enforcement of laws?

There is no government ownership in Qantas. But also, what's with the intentional manipulation of name to make it derogatory? I don't know if you think it's clever or funny - it's neither. It just makes you appear angry and objectionable.

..........................

If you look back on the posts you will note that the manipulation you refer to was not my post .

[evanb]

If you look back on the posts you will note that the manipulation you refer to was not my post .

Indeed, apologies for that. I've edited it out.

[Patrick AL]

I just don't get it that this fine is imposed in a country like Australia.
If you want to fly you are free to chose . If you don't like the price then go and find someone cheaper which I am sure you will find .
No one forced you to buy your ticket from Quantus so why should you expect some government agency to compensate you for your voluntary choice .
This is then not a free market and the government has meddled in private enterprise .
I don't know the structure of Quantus - perhaps it's part owned by government which could well explain what happened here.

The compensation isn't coming from a government agency. The compensation is coming from the airline. In this case, an enforcement agency is enforcing the law. Or do you believe that in enforcement of laws?

There is no government ownership in Qantas. But also, what's with the intentional manipulation of name to make it derogatory? I don't know if you think it's clever or funny - it's neither. It just makes you appear angry and objectionable.

..........................

If you look back on the posts you will note that the manipulation you refer to was not my post .

I'll claim that, thank you very much!

I did indeed think it was a mite clever ( specifically in grammatical/ phonetic context of the previous post it had directly referenced), and just a little funny , in that the context that Qantas knowingly and willingly, over an extended period, fleeced their very own ( primarily Antipodean) customers, for excess and undue filthy lucre.

Am I angry -no,not really, just generally fed up seeing the wealthy monopolies/oligopolies in all sorts of industries agglomerating, colluding, and squeezing the consumer dry.

Derogatory? -what Qantas did, derogates their reputation and standing as an ethical enterprise far far more than any commentary thereon ever could.

Objectionable-? -objectionable is the blatant dishonesty and gluttonous greed enacted by those Qantas.