qantas-to-be-fined-100-million

[evanb]

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.

It's not novel, so thinking you're clever about recycling something that's been through the washer countless times for decades makes you look somewhat foolish. Throwing it around without seemingly any understanding of what actually happened makes you look dumb, actually.

I don't work for Qantas, but I did work on analysis for this case. What was apparent was how large numbers of staff working during an extraordinary period were left with an unenviable task managing an unpredictable operation with systems that were never designed or intended for the circumstances. Instead, you make assumptions as to what happened, and by throwing insults are directing those at a lot of people who were trying to get things done, trying to restore an operation.

Qantas were accused of doing this knowingly and willingly, but guess what? The authorities couldn't find a single piece of evidence to show that this happened. You'd think that given how widespread it was that they'd have found someone to talk, found a paper trail (emails, etc), but what did they find? Not nothing actually! They found a lot of communication which showed intent and efforts to try and rectify it.

The fundamental challenge was that when a decision to cancel a flight was made, this was done at a relatively senior level and in bulk groups. The cancellations had to be manually entered into a GDS since it wasn't a blanket cancellation, but rather a somewhat random collection of flights, often with the intent to reduce system capacity. As with almost all airlines, not anyone can go into the GDS and cancel the flight. That would be an unreal security risk. A relatively small number of people who have the control had to manually cancel 86,000 flights. This occurred over a 6 week period - so about 2000 a day!

People were made aware of it and they engaged with various of their system provides to see what they could do to do it quicker and they actually did some with solutions, but a lot of damage had been done. Another challenge was that people were mostly working offsite due to lockdowns and the like. This made it somewhat more challenges and slower to coordinate.

So why did Qantas settle then? They were still liable under Australian consumer law. They still misled consumers, even if not intentionally. In some respect, they are responsible for what their systems can/can't do - as they should be. In fact, I think they got off lightly in terms of the compensation they are having to pay.

And finally, words have meaning. They are not a monopoly. They are certainly operating in an oligopolistic sector. But your accusations show a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of airlines. An airline is not a supermarket! Airlines invest an extraordinary amount of capital in aircraft - the average airline invests approximately 8 to 13 percent of annual sales in capex (this varies on where an airline is in a fleet replacement cycle). A supermarket only needs to invest about 2 to 3 percent of annual sales in capex. Good luck trying to make airlines work if you dramatically reduce concentration in any airline market. The nature of the capex means it needs a return on capital and fundamentally overly competitive sectors can't sustain that. Supermarkets can tolerate a more competitive market since the margins don't have to be as large to justify the asset investment.

[Patrick AL]

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.

It's not novel, so thinking you're clever about recycling something that's been through the washer countless times for decades makes you look somewhat foolish. Throwing it around without seemingly any understanding of what actually happened makes you look dumb, actually.

I don't work for Qantas, but I did work on analysis for this case. What was apparent was how large numbers of staff working during an extraordinary period were left with an unenviable task managing an unpredictable operation with systems that were never designed or intended for the circumstances. Instead, you make assumptions as to what happened, and by throwing insults are directing those at a lot of people who were trying to get things done, trying to restore an operation.

Qantas were accused of doing this knowingly and willingly, but guess what? The authorities couldn't find a single piece of evidence to show that this happened. You'd think that given how widespread it was that they'd have found someone to talk, found a paper trail (emails, etc), but what did they find? Not nothing actually! They found a lot of communication which showed intent and efforts to try and rectify it.

The fundamental challenge was that when a decision to cancel a flight was made, this was done at a relatively senior level and in bulk groups. The cancellations had to be manually entered into a GDS since it wasn't a blanket cancellation, but rather a somewhat random collection of flights, often with the intent to reduce system capacity. As with almost all airlines, not anyone can go into the GDS and cancel the flight. That would be an unreal security risk. A relatively small number of people who have the control had to manually cancel 86,000 flights. This occurred over a 6 week period - so about 2000 a day!

People were made aware of it and they engaged with various of their system provides to see what they could do to do it quicker and they actually did some with solutions, but a lot of damage had been done. Another challenge was that people were mostly working offsite due to lockdowns and the like. This made it somewhat more challenges and slower to coordinate.

So why did Qantas settle then? They were still liable under Australian consumer law. They still misled consumers, even if not intentionally. In some respect, they are responsible for what their systems can/can't do - as they should be. In fact, I think they got off lightly in terms of the compensation they are having to pay.

And finally, words have meaning. They are not a monopoly. They are certainly operating in an oligopolistic sector. But your accusations show a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of airlines. An airline is not a supermarket! Airlines invest an extraordinary amount of capital in aircraft - the average airline invests approximately 8 to 13 percent of annual sales in capex (this varies on where an airline is in a fleet replacement cycle). A supermarket only needs to invest about 2 to 3 percent of annual sales in capex. Good luck trying to make airlines work if you dramatically reduce concentration in any airline market. The nature of the capex means it needs a return on capital and fundamentally overly competitive sectors can't sustain that. Supermarkets can tolerate a more competitive market since the margins don't have to be as large to justify the asset investment.

Blah,Blah,blah! - you clearly have a bias in the matter-so I will take your 'determinations' beyond those of the regulator's, with a pinch of salt.

Never claimed to have any deep understanding of economics -but the fact remains, as you said -that they misled people. That requires no specialisation to be able to be read and understood as 'unethical and dishonest' -in layman's terms.


As for the perhaps rehashing an 'old Qantas joke'....?

-it obviously works and suits -if it's been around for decades.

Ay Mate!---lighten up, man!




https://apnews.com/article/australia-qa ... 563f590878

“When flying resumed after the COVID shutdown, we recognize Qantas let down customers and fell short of our own standards.-Vanessa Hudson

ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said Qantas’ payments of AU$225 ($149) to domestic ticket holders and AU$450 ($298) for international bookings were in addition to other remedies already provided by Qantas, including alternative flights and refunds.

“We are pleased to have secured these admissions by Qantas that it misled its customers, and its agreement that a very significant penalty is required as a result of this conduct,” Cass-Gottlieb said in a statement.

“Qantas’ conduct was egregious and unacceptable. Many consumers will have made holiday, business and travel plans after booking on a phantom flight that had been cancelled,” she added.

Qantas also admitted its misconduct continued until August last year, more than a year longer than the regulator has alleged in court, Cass-Gottlieb said.

The regulator initiated the suit a week after Qantas posted a record profit for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2023, following years of losses due to the pandemic.

Its underlying profit for 2022/23 before tax was AU$2.47 billion ($1.6 billion), compared to a AU$1.86 billion ($1.2 billion) loss in the previous year.

Qantas reported a profit of AU$1.74 billion ($1.13 billion) after taxes for the latest year.

[evanb]

Blah,Blah,blah! - you clearly have a bias in the matter-so I will take your 'determinations' beyond those of the regulator's, with a pinch of salt.

Never claimed to have any deep understanding of economics -but the fact remains, as you said -that they misled people. That requires no specialisation to be able to be read and understood as 'unethical and dishonest' -in layman's terms.


As for the perhaps rehashing an 'old Qantas joke'....?

-it obviously works and suits -if it's been around for decades.

Ay Mate!---lighten up, man!

You're twisting your own words so dramatically that you're confusing your own arguments to the point of making little sense. The argument about economics had nothing to do with them misleading, but rather why oligopolies are a feature of the industry. That really has little to do with levels of service or whether firms behave ethically. But somehow you link that to their misleading behaviour. Was it unethical or dishonest? That's a stretch. For someone who claims to enjoy grammatical and phonetic tricks, it's somewhat unethical and dishonest to use words as if they have the same meaning when they don't. By parsing it as being understood in layman's terms you think that it gives you license to slippery slope things to suit your narrative. Maybe it does and is very cunning, but it's also cowardly. But you're such a self-righteous bloke, so we will leave the definitions of morality to you, St Baldrick. I guess you're never made a mistake in your life, especially not when under pressure or when trying to do things without the necessary tools!

As to bias? You enjoy throwing vague accusations at anything that doesn't align with your piety. My conflict of interest is that we were hired by outside lawyers seeking to bring a class action against the airline (I alluded to this, but maybe I should have been more direct). As with these types of cases, a lot of early work is done at risk (you take it on knowing that you'll get paid if the case goes to court). In this case, we couldn't find the evidence (i.e. intent) in our analysis to support bringing the case. We spent a lot of money and didn't get paid. If anything, I should be aggrieved at Qantas.

Why I've taken umbrage with this? The contemporary world is one with a high degree of specialisation. Skills and expertise has become more specialised over time. Airlines are typical of this! Add to this the world of social media where every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a big mouth, lots of bravado, and hypocritical piety. They think they know how this all works and go about <<moderated - language>>-posting on things they know as much about as my grandmother! Their arrogance leads them to over simplify complex events and systems to pontificate as the fountain of all knowledge. You are a prime example of this!

Airlines are not saints. They are not perfect. In fact there are huge problems in the industry, many of which are systematic. Many are the result of bad decisions and an equal amount due to the inertia and conservatism of the industry that continues to build on legacy architecture rather than clean slate approaches using modern and contemporary technology and capabilities. Instead of know-it-all <<moderated - language>> posters, most professionals in the industry are cognisant of the challenges. But when the public domain is filled with people who know nothing more than repeating oversimplified social media shitposting narratives acting as if they could or would do better, then we're doomed!

The time period in question was incredibly challenging for airlines and the sector as a whole. The stress and pressure on individuals was something I've never seen or experienced before. I hope that we never experience something like that again and wouldn't wish it upon anyone. Experiences like working several weeks of 20 hour days helping airlines rush through sale and lease-back agreements to free up cash so that they could pay staff and not go under, all while capital markets were so broken that we struggled to make deals happen were stressful to the point of being traumatic, since some airlines failed as a result simply because of the volume we were doing and how broken capital markets were. It cost people their jobs and many cases, their livelihoods.

So yes, when self-righteous buffoons like yourself thrive on and enjoy turning some of these challenging situations into <<moderated - language>>-posting punching bag I take some offence. I'd be happy to join the criticism where it's warranted or where people hold personal responsibility, but this just isn't it. Qantas didn't handle the situation well. They inadvertently misled customers, but I would be absolutely shocked if almost every other airline in the world didn't do the same to differing degrees. As I said, it's a feature of the system architecture. They got pinged for it and righty so. Most other countries don't have the consumer protections to even hold an airline to account. In the EU, this behaviour is actually legal with the penalties and protections fixed under EU261. In mid 2020, it was an open secret in the US that airlines were even knowingly doing this. So go climb back on your high horse!

[Patrick AL]

Blah,Blah,blah! - you clearly have a bias in the matter-so I will take your 'determinations' beyond those of the regulator's, with a pinch of salt.

Never claimed to have any deep understanding of economics -but the fact remains, as you said -that they misled people. That requires no specialisation to be able to be read and understood as 'unethical and dishonest' -in layman's terms.


As for the perhaps rehashing an 'old Qantas joke'....?

-it obviously works and suits -if it's been around for decades.

Ay Mate!---lighten up, man!

You're twisting your own words so dramatically that you're confusing your own arguments to the point of making little sense. The argument about economics had nothing to do with them misleading, but rather why oligopolies are a feature of the industry. That really has little to do with levels of service or whether firms behave ethically. But somehow you link that to their misleading behaviour. Was it unethical or dishonest? That's a stretch. For someone who claims to enjoy grammatical and phonetic tricks, it's somewhat unethical and dishonest to use words as if they have the same meaning when they don't. By parsing it as being understood in layman's terms you think that it gives you license to slippery slope things to suit your narrative. Maybe it does and is very cunning, but it's also cowardly. But you're such a self-righteous bloke, so we will leave the definitions of morality to you, St Baldrick. I guess you're never made a mistake in your life, especially not when under pressure or when trying to do things without the necessary tools!

As to bias? You enjoy throwing vague accusations at anything that doesn't align with your piety. My conflict of interest is that we were hired by outside lawyers seeking to bring a class action against the airline (I alluded to this, but maybe I should have been more direct). As with these types of cases, a lot of early work is done at risk (you take it on knowing that you'll get paid if the case goes to court). In this case, we couldn't find the evidence (i.e. intent) in our analysis to support bringing the case. We spent a lot of money and didn't get paid. If anything, I should be aggrieved at Qantas.

Why I've taken umbrage with this? The contemporary world is one with a high degree of specialisation. Skills and expertise has become more specialised over time. Airlines are typical of this! Add to this the world of social media where every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a big mouth, lots of bravado, and hypocritical piety. They think they know how this all works and go about <<moderated - language>>-posting on things they know as much about as my grandmother! Their arrogance leads them to over simplify complex events and systems to pontificate as the fountain of all knowledge. You are a prime example of this!

Airlines are not saints. They are not perfect. In fact there are huge problems in the industry, many of which are systematic. Many are the result of bad decisions and an equal amount due to the inertia and conservatism of the industry that continues to build on legacy architecture rather than clean slate approaches using modern and contemporary technology and capabilities. Instead of know-it-all <<moderated - language>> posters, most professionals in the industry are cognisant of the challenges. But when the public domain is filled with people who know nothing more than repeating oversimplified social media shitposting narratives acting as if they could or would do better, then we're doomed!

The time period in question was incredibly challenging for airlines and the sector as a whole. The stress and pressure on individuals was something I've never seen or experienced before. I hope that we never experience something like that again and wouldn't wish it upon anyone. Experiences like working several weeks of 20 hour days helping airlines rush through sale and lease-back agreements to free up cash so that they could pay staff and not go under, all while capital markets were so broken that we struggled to make deals happen were stressful to the point of being traumatic, since some airlines failed as a result simply because of the volume we were doing and how broken capital markets were. It cost people their jobs and many cases, their livelihoods.

So yes, when self-righteous buffoons like yourself thrive on and enjoy turning some of these challenging situations into <<moderated - language>>-posting punching bag I take some offence. I'd be happy to join the criticism where it's warranted or where people hold personal responsibility, but this just isn't it. Qantas didn't handle the situation well. They inadvertently misled customers, but I would be absolutely shocked if almost every other airline in the world didn't do the same to differing degrees. As I said, it's a feature of the system architecture. They got pinged for it and righty so. Most other countries don't have the consumer protections to even hold an airline to account. In the EU, this behaviour is actually legal with the penalties and protections fixed under EU261. In mid 2020, it was an open secret in the US that airlines were even knowingly doing this. So go climb back on your high horse!

As insightful as your expansion on the intricacies of the airline industry may be, your ad hominen attacks peppered within your lecture only serve to reinforce your bias, and your bullish resistance to be countered in opinion.

Out.

[evanb]

As insightful as your expansion on the intricacies of the airline industry may be, your ad hominen attacks peppered within your lecture only serve to reinforce your bias, and your bullish resistance to be countered in opinion.

Out.

For the guy who claims to be the clever grammatical wizz, you're quite something. If you're going to accuse someone of an ad hominem then you should at least be sure that you weren't the one who did it first!

An ad hominem is an argument directed against the person rather than the argument they present. I laid out an argument which you explicitly dismissed with the response "blah, blah, blah" and that it's taken with a "pinch of salt" without any response to the merits or substance of what I outlined. Furthermore, throwing a vague accusation of "bias" without any reasoning what that bias was or touching on any merits of what I said before laying into clearly indicates that it was your ad hominem! Your only contribution of the substance of twisting the meaning of the word misled to mean "unethical and dishonest". But as I said, I think it's a stretch, but the framing is certainly subjective.

The rather insulting dismissiveness of your response when people provide factual and somewhat firsthand knowledge with "blah, blah, blah" while playing your critique with an ad hominen attack on me due to "bias" (when my interest in it was noted, and no actual bias was pointed to) is a direct attempt to build a strawman. You did not challenge a single statement that I said.

So sure, call my response ad hominen. I don't think it was. It stopped being an ad hominem a lot earlier. It was a direct attack on your integrity and your absolutely despicable behaviour. I took the time to lay out a firsthand response/experience which you felt deserved nothing more than "blah, blah, blah". If someone said that to your face you'd probably do a lot worse than my insulting response.

So sure, call it ad hominem. If that makes you feel better and gives you an adrenaline kick then good for you.

[Patrick AL]

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/q ... -consumers[/b]


Qantas (ASX: QAN) has admitted that it misled consumers by advertising tickets for tens of thousands of flights it had already decided to cancel, and by cancelling thousands more flights without promptly telling ticketholders of its decision, after court action by the ACCC.

As part of an agreement announced today, the ACCC and Qantas will ask the Federal Court to impose a penalty of $100 million on Qantas for breaching the Australian Consumer Law.

Qantas has also agreed in a court-enforceable undertaking to pay about $20 million to more than 86,000 customers who were sold tickets on flights that Qantas had already decided to cancel, or in some cases who were re-accommodated on these flights after their original flights were cancelled.

Qantas will pay $225 to domestic ticketholders and $450 to international ticketholders. These payments are on top of any remedies these consumers already received from Qantas, such as alternative flights or refunds.

“We are pleased to have secured these admissions by Qantas that it misled its customers, and its agreement that a very significant penalty is required as a result of this conduct. The size of this proposed penalty is an important milestone in enforcing the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Qantas’ conduct was egregious and unacceptable. Many consumers will have made holiday, business and travel plans after booking on a phantom flight that had been cancelled.”

“We expect that this penalty, if accepted by the Court, will send a strong deterrence message to other companies. Importantly, it demonstrates that we take action to ensure that companies operating in Australia communicate clearly, accurately and honestly with their customers at all times,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We note that Qantas has also agreed not to repeat this type of conduct in the future, and to make payments as soon as possible to the thousands of consumers who purchased tickets on flights that Qantas had already decided to cancel, or were re-accommodated onto these flights after their original flight was cancelled.”

The ACCC launched Federal Court action against Qantas in August 2023 alleging that, between 21 May 2021 and 7 July 2022, Qantas advertised tickets for more than 8,000 cancelled flights. It was also alleged that, for more than 10,000 flights scheduled to depart in May to July 2022, Qantas did not promptly notify existing ticketholders that their flights had been cancelled.

Qantas has now admitted that its misconduct continued from 21 May 2021 until 26 August 2023, affecting tens of thousands of flights scheduled to depart between 1 May 2022 and 10 May 2024.

“We acknowledge Qantas’ cooperation in ultimately deciding not to contest this case, admitting that the conduct occurred for a longer period, and seeking to resolve this early and for the benefit of consumers,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Qantas has also undertaken to notify customers of cancelled flights as soon as practicable, and no more than 48 hours from deciding to cancel the flight. It has also undertaken to stop selling cancelled flights as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours of its decision to cancel. The undertaking also applies to its low-cost subsidiary, Jetstar.

Qantas will also review its consumer compliance program and appoint independent auditors who will monitor Qantas’ compliance with the undertaking and provide reports to the Qantas board and the ACCC.
Summary of the agreement

Under the agreement with the ACCC, Qantas:

admits misleading representations were made to consumers in respect of flights it had decided to cancel
undertakes to the ACCC to make payments to customers
undertakes to not engage in this type of conduct in the future
will make joint submissions on the proposed $100 million penalty to the Federal Court.

The Court will determine the penalty after a hearing on a date to be fixed.

Qantas has also agreed to pay a contribution towards the ACCC’s costs.
Payments to affected consumers

Qantas will facilitate payments to 86,597 consumers who, between 21 May 2021 and 26 August 2023, booked, or were re‑accommodated on, a domestic or international flight scheduled to depart between 1 May 2022 until 10 May 2024 after Qantas had already decided to cancel it.

The total value of the payment scheme is expected to be approximately $20 million.

Qantas will contact affected consumers to inform them about the payment scheme by 10 July 2024, and consumers should direct queries about the scheme to Qantas.

Consumers will receive communications from Qantas and Deloitte Australia, which is administering the payments on behalf of Qantas, via email and text message, providing information on accessing a portal to facilitate the payment.

Consumers should be aware of scammers pretending to make contact on behalf of Qantas or Deloitte. Consumers should only provide their personal information through the official claims portal, and not to anyone else.

The undertaking offered by Qantas, and accepted by the ACCC, is available online at Qantas Airways Ltd.
Background

Qantas is Australia’s largest domestic airline operator. It is a publicly listed company which operates domestic and international passenger flights under its mainline brand, Qantas, and through its subsidiary Jetstar. It offers flights for sale through direct channels, such as its website and app, and indirect channels, such as travel agents and third-party online booking websites.

The ACCC commenced its court action against Qantas on 1 August 2023.

[evanb]

egregious

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/q ... -consumers[/b]


Qantas (ASX: QAN) has admitted that it misled consumers by advertising tickets for tens of thousands of flights it had already decided to cancel, and by cancelling thousands more flights without promptly telling ticketholders of its decision, after court action by the ACCC.

As part of an agreement announced today, the ACCC and Qantas will ask the Federal Court to impose a penalty of $100 million on Qantas for breaching the Australian Consumer Law.

Qantas has also agreed in a court-enforceable undertaking to pay about $20 million to more than 86,000 customers who were sold tickets on flights that Qantas had already decided to cancel, or in some cases who were re-accommodated on these flights after their original flights were cancelled.

Qantas will pay $225 to domestic ticketholders and $450 to international ticketholders. These payments are on top of any remedies these consumers already received from Qantas, such as alternative flights or refunds.

“We are pleased to have secured these admissions by Qantas that it misled its customers, and its agreement that a very significant penalty is required as a result of this conduct. The size of this proposed penalty is an important milestone in enforcing the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Qantas’ conduct was egregious and unacceptable. Many consumers will have made holiday, business and travel plans after booking on a phantom flight that had been cancelled.”

“We expect that this penalty, if accepted by the Court, will send a strong deterrence message to other companies. Importantly, it demonstrates that we take action to ensure that companies operating in Australia communicate clearly, accurately and honestly with their customers at all times,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We note that Qantas has also agreed not to repeat this type of conduct in the future, and to make payments as soon as possible to the thousands of consumers who purchased tickets on flights that Qantas had already decided to cancel, or were re-accommodated onto these flights after their original flight was cancelled.”

The ACCC launched Federal Court action against Qantas in August 2023 alleging that, between 21 May 2021 and 7 July 2022, Qantas advertised tickets for more than 8,000 cancelled flights. It was also alleged that, for more than 10,000 flights scheduled to depart in May to July 2022, Qantas did not promptly notify existing ticketholders that their flights had been cancelled.

Qantas has now admitted that its misconduct continued from 21 May 2021 until 26 August 2023, affecting tens of thousands of flights scheduled to depart between 1 May 2022 and 10 May 2024.

“We acknowledge Qantas’ cooperation in ultimately deciding not to contest this case, admitting that the conduct occurred for a longer period, and seeking to resolve this early and for the benefit of consumers,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Qantas has also undertaken to notify customers of cancelled flights as soon as practicable, and no more than 48 hours from deciding to cancel the flight. It has also undertaken to stop selling cancelled flights as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours of its decision to cancel. The undertaking also applies to its low-cost subsidiary, Jetstar.

Qantas will also review its consumer compliance program and appoint independent auditors who will monitor Qantas’ compliance with the undertaking and provide reports to the Qantas board and the ACCC.
Summary of the agreement

Under the agreement with the ACCC, Qantas:

admits misleading representations were made to consumers in respect of flights it had decided to cancel
undertakes to the ACCC to make payments to customers
undertakes to not engage in this type of conduct in the future
will make joint submissions on the proposed $100 million penalty to the Federal Court.

The Court will determine the penalty after a hearing on a date to be fixed.

Qantas has also agreed to pay a contribution towards the ACCC’s costs.
Payments to affected consumers

Qantas will facilitate payments to 86,597 consumers who, between 21 May 2021 and 26 August 2023, booked, or were re‑accommodated on, a domestic or international flight scheduled to depart between 1 May 2022 until 10 May 2024 after Qantas had already decided to cancel it.

The total value of the payment scheme is expected to be approximately $20 million.

Qantas will contact affected consumers to inform them about the payment scheme by 10 July 2024, and consumers should direct queries about the scheme to Qantas.

Consumers will receive communications from Qantas and Deloitte Australia, which is administering the payments on behalf of Qantas, via email and text message, providing information on accessing a portal to facilitate the payment.

Consumers should be aware of scammers pretending to make contact on behalf of Qantas or Deloitte. Consumers should only provide their personal information through the official claims portal, and not to anyone else.

The undertaking offered by Qantas, and accepted by the ACCC, is available online at Qantas Airways Ltd.
Background

Qantas is Australia’s largest domestic airline operator. It is a publicly listed company which operates domestic and international passenger flights under its mainline brand, Qantas, and through its subsidiary Jetstar. It offers flights for sale through direct channels, such as its website and app, and indirect channels, such as travel agents and third-party online booking websites.

The ACCC commenced its court action against Qantas on 1 August 2023.

Thank you for this and for highlighting the terms. As you will see, my own explanation indicated that Qantas "misled". I used this term because it was the term that the ACCC had used even though you accused me of going beyond those of the regulator. I also noted that I thought Qantas got of lightly - my words drew a clear distinction between the factual statement and my value judgement. So I'm not sure how it can be interpreted that I was simping for Qantas.

The point that I made, which you (wilfully) ignored was that the initial claim by the ACCC about intent (included in ACCC's original statement of 31 August 2023). The specific accusation made in that statement and subsequent court documents argued that Qantas engaged in "deceptive conduct". Deception requires intent, in that the actions that caused the harm were intentional and planned. In contractual terms, it's a fraudulent misrepresentation. The ACCC was very clear to state the exact words: "deceptive conduct". This is important since the law uses this term!

But you'll note that the statement from the ACCC from 6 May 2024 - the one that you shared doesn't use the word "deceptive" or "deceptive conduct". Instead, it leaves it only at "Qantas misled customers". You've shown a willingness to interpret words to fit your priors, but the ACCC doesn't do this. They use these words with intent! Misleading, as egregious and unacceptable as it is, doesn't imply intent. While it is compatible with intent, it is not the same as intent (i.e. deceptive is misleading, but misleading doesn't imply that it is deceptive although it can be).

So as I previously indicated and as you have now confirmed thanks to Mr Google, is that my original words were correct. The ACCC tried to prove intent (i.e. deception) but didn't/couldn't and settled on the lesser charge of misleading which is still an offence under Australian Consumer Law (specifically, section 18). However, the two words have different meanings and different responsibilities and sanctions under the law.

Words have meaning, but also for someone so angry at the supposed poor ethics of companies (your words), one would think that consideration of intent is somewhat important in the acceptance of responsibility. The construct of retributive justice as an important framework for ethics (from Cicero to Kant) rather than the framework of revenge that you seem more interested in. If you're interested in ethical conduct it's incumbent on considering intent within the ethical framework. Carelessness may certainly be harmful, egregious and unacceptable, but it doesn't warrant vitriol!

[Patrick AL]

egregious

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/q ... -consumers[/b]


Qantas (ASX: QAN) has admitted that it misled consumers by advertising tickets for tens of thousands of flights it had already decided to cancel, and by cancelling thousands more flights without promptly telling ticketholders of its decision, after court action by the ACCC.

As part of an agreement announced today, the ACCC and Qantas will ask the Federal Court to impose a penalty of $100 million on Qantas for breaching the Australian Consumer Law.

Qantas has also agreed in a court-enforceable undertaking to pay about $20 million to more than 86,000 customers who were sold tickets on flights that Qantas had already decided to cancel, or in some cases who were re-accommodated on these flights after their original flights were cancelled.

Qantas will pay $225 to domestic ticketholders and $450 to international ticketholders. These payments are on top of any remedies these consumers already received from Qantas, such as alternative flights or refunds.

“We are pleased to have secured these admissions by Qantas that it misled its customers, and its agreement that a very significant penalty is required as a result of this conduct. The size of this proposed penalty is an important milestone in enforcing the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Qantas’ conduct was egregious and unacceptable. Many consumers will have made holiday, business and travel plans after booking on a phantom flight that had been cancelled.”

“We expect that this penalty, if accepted by the Court, will send a strong deterrence message to other companies. Importantly, it demonstrates that we take action to ensure that companies operating in Australia communicate clearly, accurately and honestly with their customers at all times,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We note that Qantas has also agreed not to repeat this type of conduct in the future, and to make payments as soon as possible to the thousands of consumers who purchased tickets on flights that Qantas had already decided to cancel, or were re-accommodated onto these flights after their original flight was cancelled.”

The ACCC launched Federal Court action against Qantas in August 2023 alleging that, between 21 May 2021 and 7 July 2022, Qantas advertised tickets for more than 8,000 cancelled flights. It was also alleged that, for more than 10,000 flights scheduled to depart in May to July 2022, Qantas did not promptly notify existing ticketholders that their flights had been cancelled.

Qantas has now admitted that its misconduct continued from 21 May 2021 until 26 August 2023, affecting tens of thousands of flights scheduled to depart between 1 May 2022 and 10 May 2024.

“We acknowledge Qantas’ cooperation in ultimately deciding not to contest this case, admitting that the conduct occurred for a longer period, and seeking to resolve this early and for the benefit of consumers,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Qantas has also undertaken to notify customers of cancelled flights as soon as practicable, and no more than 48 hours from deciding to cancel the flight. It has also undertaken to stop selling cancelled flights as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours of its decision to cancel. The undertaking also applies to its low-cost subsidiary, Jetstar.

Qantas will also review its consumer compliance program and appoint independent auditors who will monitor Qantas’ compliance with the undertaking and provide reports to the Qantas board and the ACCC.
Summary of the agreement

Under the agreement with the ACCC, Qantas:

admits misleading representations were made to consumers in respect of flights it had decided to cancel
undertakes to the ACCC to make payments to customers
undertakes to not engage in this type of conduct in the future
will make joint submissions on the proposed $100 million penalty to the Federal Court.

The Court will determine the penalty after a hearing on a date to be fixed.

Qantas has also agreed to pay a contribution towards the ACCC’s costs.
Payments to affected consumers

Qantas will facilitate payments to 86,597 consumers who, between 21 May 2021 and 26 August 2023, booked, or were re‑accommodated on, a domestic or international flight scheduled to depart between 1 May 2022 until 10 May 2024 after Qantas had already decided to cancel it.

The total value of the payment scheme is expected to be approximately $20 million.

Qantas will contact affected consumers to inform them about the payment scheme by 10 July 2024, and consumers should direct queries about the scheme to Qantas.

Consumers will receive communications from Qantas and Deloitte Australia, which is administering the payments on behalf of Qantas, via email and text message, providing information on accessing a portal to facilitate the payment.

Consumers should be aware of scammers pretending to make contact on behalf of Qantas or Deloitte. Consumers should only provide their personal information through the official claims portal, and not to anyone else.

The undertaking offered by Qantas, and accepted by the ACCC, is available online at Qantas Airways Ltd.
Background

Qantas is Australia’s largest domestic airline operator. It is a publicly listed company which operates domestic and international passenger flights under its mainline brand, Qantas, and through its subsidiary Jetstar. It offers flights for sale through direct channels, such as its website and app, and indirect channels, such as travel agents and third-party online booking websites.

The ACCC commenced its court action against Qantas on 1 August 2023.

Thank you for this and for highlighting the terms. As you will see, my own explanation indicated that Qantas "misled". I used this term because it was the term that the ACCC had used even though you accused me of going beyond those of the regulator. I also noted that I thought Qantas got of lightly - my words drew a clear distinction between the factual statement and my value judgement. So I'm not sure how it can be interpreted that I was simping for Qantas.

The point that I made, which you (wilfully) ignored was that the initial claim by the ACCC about intent (included in ACCC's original statement of 31 August 2023). The specific accusation made in that statement and subsequent court documents argued that Qantas engaged in "deceptive conduct". Nope -it was this they alleged 'alleging Qantas Airways (QAN) engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct' Deception requires intent, in that the actions that caused the harm were intentional and planned. In contractual terms, it's a fraudulent misrepresentation. The ACCC was very clear to state the exact words: "deceptive conduct". This is important since the law uses this term!

But you'll note that the statement from the ACCC from 6 May 2024 - the one that you shared doesn't use the word "deceptive" or "deceptive conduct". Instead, it leaves it only at "Qantas misled customers". You've shown a willingness to interpret words to fit your priors, but the ACCC doesn't do this. They use these words with intent! Misleading, as egregious and unacceptable as it is, doesn't imply intent. While it is compatible with intent, it is not the same as intent (i.e. deceptive is misleading, but misleading doesn't imply that it is deceptive although it can be).

So as I previously indicated and as you have now confirmed thanks to Mr Google, is that my original words were correct. The ACCC tried to prove intent (i.e. deception) but didn't/couldn't and settled on the lesser charge of misleading which is still an offence under Australian Consumer Law (specifically, section 18). However, the two words have different meanings and different responsibilities and sanctions under the law.

Words have meaning, but also for someone so angry at the supposed poor ethics of companies (your words), one would think that consideration of intent is somewhat important in the acceptance of responsibility. The construct of retributive justice as an important framework for ethics (from Cicero to Kant) rather than the framework of revenge that you seem more interested in. If you're interested in ethical conduct it's incumbent on considering intent within the ethical framework. Carelessness may certainly be harmful, egregious and unacceptable, but it doesn't warrant vitriol!

Not a lawyer -and not going to get into a legal nitpicking handbag fight with with you!

But, in closing - consider 'negligent culpability' as a possibilty-? ( you are at liberty to unpick and obfuscate this basic premise with all the legal word-spaghetti you wish -but you will surely find in that a legal misdirection detour too!)

-for something as simple and fundamental as- ( particularly for an organisation as large as Qantas): -Qantas did not update its “Manage Booking” web page for ticketholders to reflect the cancellation. to be cause for this whole debacle is laughable, and for 'incapacity to do so/ failure to identify issue ' to be proffered as a valid 'excuse' by Qantas is disingenuous- at best.

-and I'll bet that the ACCC just took the settlement in wise and prudent approach to avoiding unnecessary further legal wrangling, (which would likely not have imposed much greater penalty in any case-compared to the settlement amount)

-and so helped the consumer receive speedy settlement, and also avoided too much ruckus in order not to negatively disrupt greater economics inextricably tied to the aviation industry.

Anyhow - as they say -'The Law is an Ass-and it sure has its holes!'

( and I'll say, in closing: 'Aviation is a beast! -and it sure has its Qantas!'





https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/a ... -cancelled

The ACCC today launched action in the Federal Court of Australia alleging Qantas Airways (QAN) engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct, by advertising tickets for more than 8,000 flights that it had already cancelled but not removed from sale.

The ACCC alleges that for more than 8,000 flights scheduled to depart between May and July 2022, Qantas kept selling tickets on its website for an average of more than two weeks, and in some cases for up to 47 days, after the cancellation of the flights.

It is also alleged that, for more than 10,000 flights scheduled to depart in May to July 2022, Qantas did not notify existing ticketholders that their flights had been cancelled for an average of about 18 days, and in some cases for up to 48 days. The ACCC alleges that Qantas did not update its “Manage Booking” web page for ticketholders to reflect the cancellation.

This conduct affected a substantial proportion of flights cancelled by Qantas between May to July 2022. The ACCC alleges that for about 70 per cent of cancelled flights, Qantas either continued to sell tickets for the flight on its website for two days or more, or delayed informing existing ticketholders that their flight was cancelled for two days or more, or both.

“The ACCC has conducted a detailed investigation into Qantas’ flight cancellation practices. As a result, we have commenced these proceedings alleging that Qantas continued selling tickets for thousands of cancelled flights, likely affecting the travel plans of tens of thousands of people,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We allege that Qantas’ conduct in continuing to sell tickets to cancelled flights, and not updating ticketholders about cancelled flights, left customers with less time to make alternative arrangements and may have led to them paying higher prices to fly at a particular time not knowing that flight had already been cancelled.”

“There are vast distances between Australia’s major cities. Reliable air travel is essential for many consumers in Australia who are seeking to visit loved ones, take holidays, grow their businesses or connect with colleagues. Cancelled flights can result in significant financial, logistical and emotional impacts for consumers,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

The ACCC’s investigation included engagement with impacted consumers and the serving of compulsory information notices on Qantas. The investigation, which included detailed data analysis by ACCC specialist data analysts, identified that Qantas cancelled almost 1 in 4 flights in the period from May to July 2022, with about 15,000 out of 66,000 domestic and international flights from airports in all states and mainland territories in Qantas’ published schedule being cancelled. These proceedings relate to more than 10,000 of those cancelled flights.

As an example of the conduct, ticketholders scheduled to fly on Qantas flight QF93 from Melbourne to Los Angeles on 6 May 2022 were first notified of the cancellation on 4 May, two days before the scheduled departure and four days after Qantas had cancelled the flight.

One consumer was provided with a replacement flight a day before their original departure date, which was communicated only by the Qantas app. As a result, the consumer had to change connecting flights and had a 15-hour layover in Los Angeles, which had a significant impact on the consumer and left them $600 out of pocket.

In another example, Qantas sold 21 tickets for QF73 from Sydney to San Francisco scheduled to depart on 29 July 2022 after it had cancelled the flight, with the last ticket being sold 40 days after cancellation.

Airlines may cancel flights in the short term due to a range of unforeseeable reasons including bad weather, aircraft defects and delays from previous flights. Flight cancellation can also happen due to a range of factors that are within the control of an airline.

“We allege that Qantas made many of these cancellations for reasons that were within its control, such as network optimisation including in response to shifts in consumer demand, route withdrawals or retention of take-off and landing slots at certain airports,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“However, this case does not involve any alleged breach in relation to the actual cancellation of flights, but rather relates to Qantas’ conduct after it had cancelled the flights.”

The ACCC is seeking orders including penalties, injunctions, declarations, and costs.

Some examples of flights allegedly affected:

Qantas flight QF93 was scheduled to depart from Melbourne to Los Angeles on 6 May 2022. On 28 April 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 2 May 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 4 May 2022 (two days before the flight).
Qantas flight QF81 was scheduled to depart from Sydney to Singapore on 4 June 2022. On 8 February 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 27 March 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 28 March 2022.
Qantas flight QF63 was scheduled to depart from Sydney to Johannesburg on 31 July 2022. On 8 February 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 27 March 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 28 March 2022.
Qantas flight QF486 was scheduled to depart from Melbourne to Sydney on 1 May 2022. On 18 February 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 15 March 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 16 March 2022.
Qantas flight QF1785 was scheduled to depart from Gold Coast to Sydney on 1 May 2022. On 17 February 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 15 March 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 16 March 2022.
Qantas flight QF696 was scheduled to depart from Adelaide to Melbourne on 23 July 2022. On 18 June 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 26 June 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 27 June 2022.
Qantas flight QF1764 was scheduled to depart from Canberra to Gold Coast on 27 June 2022. On 16 June 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 19 June 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 20 June 2022.
Qantas flight QF513 was scheduled to depart from Brisbane to Sydney on 8 June 2022. On 27 May 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 30 May 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 31 May 2022.
Qantas flight QF45 was scheduled to depart from Melbourne to Denpasar on 1 May 2022. On 8 February 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 24 February 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 23 March 2022.
Qantas flight QF649 was scheduled to depart from Sydney to Perth on 30 July 2022. On 18 February 2022, Qantas made the decision to cancel the flight. Despite this, Qantas did not remove the flight from sale until 7 March 2022, and did not inform existing ticketholders of the cancellation until 8 March 2022.

Background

Qantas is Australia’s largest domestic airline operator. It is a publicly listed company which operates domestic and international passenger flights under its mainline brand, Qantas, and through its subsidiary Jetstar. It offers flights for sale through direct channels, such as its website and app, and indirect channels, such as travel agents and third-party online booking websites.
ACCC’s other work in the airline industry

During the pandemic and in the industry’s recovery period, from June 2020 to June 2023, the ACCC monitored prices, costs and profits of Australia’s major domestic airlines under a direction from the Federal Government.

The ACCC has investigated various aspects of Qantas’ conduct over the past three years. It has been engaging with Qantas directly on aspects of its customer service in an effort to get quick and equitable outcomes for consumers, however the ACCC considers that Qantas needs to do more.

The ACCC continues to receive more complaints about Qantas than about any other business. Last year alone the ACCC received more than 1,300 complaints about Qantas cancellations, accounting for half of all complaints about Qantas reported to the ACCC.

The ACCC notes Qantas’ public statements that most consumers holding COVID flight credits are eligible for, and still able to seek, refunds. The ACCC strongly encourages consumers holding these flight credits to seek refunds directly from Qantas.

Qantas has suggested that these COVID credits will expire at the end of December 2023, and that customers with expired COVID credits where Qantas cancelled the original flight may not be able to seek a refund. The ACCC has written to Qantas strongly objecting to this proposed position and will continue to monitor the situation to ensure Qantas continues to make available refunds to consumers.

The ACCC also notes there is a current class action which has been launched in relation to flight credits, and affected consumers may be able to seek remedies against Qantas as part of this class action.
Maximum penalties

For corporations, the maximum penalties for each breach of the Australian Consumer Law before 9 November 2022 is the greater of:

$10 million,
three times the total benefits that have been obtained and are reasonably attributable, or
if the total value of the benefits cannot be determined, 10 per cent of the corporation's annual turnover.

Concise statement

ACCC v Qantas Concise Statement 31 August 2023 ( PDF 577.52 KB )

The document contains the ACCC’s initiating court documents in relation to this matter. We will not be uploading further documents in the event these initial documents are subsequently amended.

[Volo]

I can't say I really understand what is going on with this Quantas Saga .
It appears to me as though a court of law has found Quantas guilty of not performing to their customers satisfaction and penalizing them for simply not being able to deliver.
How is that then ? Unless Quantas has not delivered on what you have paid for and you have sued them in a court of law for breach of promise and failure to deliver and they have not returned your money and paid your costs why should the state be taking them on.
That's just plain meddeling.
No further action need be taken by anyone as their unsatisfied customers will decide their fate .

[Patrick AL]

I can't say I really understand what is going on with this Quantas Saga .
It appears to me as though a court of law has found Quantas guilty of not performing to their customers satisfaction and penalizing them for simply not being able to deliver.
How is that then ? Unless Quantas has not delivered on what you have paid for and you have sued them in a court of law for breach of promise and failure to deliver and they have not returned your money and paid your costs why should the state be taking them on.
That's just plain meddeling.
No further action need be taken by anyone as their unsatisfied customers will decide their fate .

It's 'QANTAS' .. not QUANTAS!

Say it aloud! -without the 'U" !

U won't forget it then!

[Volo]

I can't say I really understand what is going on with this Quantas Saga .
It appears to me as though a court of law has found Quantas guilty of not performing to their customers satisfaction and penalizing them for simply not being able to deliver.
How is that then ? Unless Quantas has not delivered on what you have paid for and you have sued them in a court of law for breach of promise and failure to deliver and they have not returned your money and paid your costs why should the state be taking them on.
That's just plain meddeling.
No further action need be taken by anyone as their unsatisfied customers will decide their fate .

It's 'QANTAS' .. not QUANTAS!

Say it aloud! -without the 'U" !

U won't forget it then!

.................................
Patrick - Everyone knows you cant use a Q without a U except you and the Australians

[evanb]

I can't say I really understand what is going on with this Quantas Saga .
It appears to me as though a court of law has found Quantas guilty of not performing to their customers satisfaction and penalizing them for simply not being able to deliver.
How is that then ? Unless Quantas has not delivered on what you have paid for and you have sued them in a court of law for breach of promise and failure to deliver and they have not returned your money and paid your costs why should the state be taking them on.
That's just plain meddeling.
No further action need be taken by anyone as their unsatisfied customers will decide their fate .

The court did not find Qantas guilty, nor did they acquit Qantas. The settlement was reached out of court. Whether or not they were found guilty, acquitted or settled, it wouldn't preclude a customer rejecting the settlement from Qantas and suing directly, as an individual or via a class action. While this would be difficult for an individual (purely cost and risk), it's easier as a class action (since the lawyers would take the risk), however various lawyers have passed since they've determined that the chances of success are very low. This is even more profound since the legal standard in this secondary civil case would be a lower bar to achieve compared to what the government (i.e. ACCC) would have had to seek. The government would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt whereas the civil matter would only need to show on the balance of doubt.

You raise an important question, why should the state take them on? There is an Australian Consumer Law (it's a schedule of the Competition and Consumer Act) which essentially moves a bunch of things from contracts to being regulated with potential criminal penalties. A lot of people think it's unnecessary, however it really came about due to complications between the States which have traditionally been responsible for consumer regulation. Over time, jurisdictional challenges began to emerge with an increasing amount of interstate commerce. An airline ticket is a prime example since few airlines tickets in Australia are purely within a single state. However, if we don't like the law we should advocate changing it. Unless the law specifically provides latitude in enforcement, then it's a tough sell to not enforce it because it suits oneself.

[evanb]

Patrick - Everyone knows you cant use a Q without a U except you and the Australians

Other than when the said word is ... a proper noun or an acronym. Neither of these grammatical rules are Australian, in any way!

[evanb]

Not a lawyer -and not going to get into a legal nitpicking handbag fight with with you!

But, in closing - consider 'negligent culpability' as a possibilty-? ( you are at liberty to unpick and obfuscate this basic premise with all the legal word-spaghetti you wish -but you will surely find in that a legal misdirection detour too!)

-for something as simple and fundamental as- ( particularly for an organisation as large as Qantas): -Qantas did not update its “Manage Booking” web page for ticketholders to reflect the cancellation. to be cause for this whole debacle is laughable, and for 'incapacity to do so/ failure to identify issue ' to be proffered as a valid 'excuse' by Qantas is disingenuous- at best.

-and I'll bet that the ACCC just took the settlement in wise and prudent approach to avoiding unnecessary further legal wrangling, (which would likely not have imposed much greater penalty in any case-compared to the settlement amount)

-and so helped the consumer receive speedy settlement, and also avoided too much ruckus in order not to negatively disrupt greater economics inextricably tied to the aviation industry.

Anyhow - as they say -'The Law is an Ass-and it sure has its holes!'

( and I'll say, in closing: 'Aviation is a beast! -and it sure has its Qantas!'

I don't know what you think you're achieving with just google dumping. You're just pulling more and more things that are trashing your argument.

"negligent culpability" ... I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean criminal negligence? In Australia, that's the term used in the Criminal Code, not Consumer Law. It literally has nothing to do with it. Consumer Law here has two broad thresholds, as indicated: whether something is misleading or whether something is deceptive. Negligence doesn't enter into it. It's not murder!

The ACCC don't have a history of settling. In fact, they enjoy the court litigation since they have a somewhat successful track record and the Australian media love the circus. I doubt they wanted to settle, but likely settled because the legal advice they were receiving on the strength of evidence didn't indicate they would proving intent. If they failed on proving intent, they'd fail outright, hence why they sought to settle.

By your reasoning, you appear to be fine with finding guilt without evidence. So much for all your talk about ethics!

[Patrick AL]

evanb -I have no gripe with you personally

-I ....Googled ... your website, and scanned through a few of the articles you have published

-You clearly have a deep understanding of the intricacies of the Business of aviation from all perspectives -specifically the Australian industry, and I will not argue your depth of understanding and insight

-as for the core issue here :

It is very simply about a mega-corporation, with huge power and leverage in the industry, manipulating the market to achieve some sort of undue financial/marketing benefit by actively duping many thousands of its customers - through intent, or through entirely unreasonable/unacceptable 'oversight or omission'.

End of story.

Why they actively did / negligently allowed this?

I actually suspect ( broadly informed by some of your own articles) that Qantas -after the whole C'vid19 flustercluck -possibly found themselves in a position to bolster their recovery by deceptively using customer funds as a short-term interest-free finance pool -(possibly to be able to bolster their Aus-US capacity which seems to be flagging).

-but I may be wrong as to the ultimate reason...

-yet even if it is something as simple as the 'the website update team got lost' -it is unethical and inexcusable for an organisation of the scale of Qantas to even suggest that as valid reason -they are culpable in that, they knew it, and they settled.

Hoping that the consumers find fair recompense, and that the Qantas don't do that again!

Good luck with your website, evanb -I expect it will prove very useful to aviation Business in your market.