IHMO I somehow doubt that such childishly simplistic logic would be viewed as arobust defence in a legal context wherein the airline was forced to defend failing to provide the services as advertised and paid for by the consumer.

Put another way...oh, sorry, sir, you bought the car with the window tints, but we couldn't be bothered to supply them and since they are only 1% of the purchase price of the vehicles ($400 of $40,000) you'll have to take your brand new car without the tints ....tough luck, fella. But here's a voucher with absolutely no cash value (none of your cash back - we're going top keep that)...now excuse, us, with have no more time for you because we're very busy pulling the same trick on other unsuspecting customers and we really don't give a r-ts ar-e if you ever do business with us again...

...just remember, Dave, that whatever bulls--t QF puts in the contract of carriage consumer and trade practices legal provision overrides such.

That said, it would be really nice if we had legal clarity in this country regarding compensation for the all too regular failures to supply by the airlines...

It never ceases to amaze me how folk seem to think that consumer / trade practices provisions somehow don't apply to an airline- facing a similar situation with a different product people would be quite determined to seek suitable cash settlement.