Flights cancelled: consumer rights and refund options
Mar 28, 2020, 4:31 pm
#16
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Portland OR Double Emerald (QF and AA), DL PM/MM, Starwood Plat
Posts: 19,589
Thanks will ask on QF forum but can't believe that any airline could cancel return leg & refuse to offer alternative travel or refund/credit by unilaterally converting to a high fare category one way with different T & Cs!
Expensive one ways are a completely different fare category, usually offering flexibility, refundability etc for a high price.
Expensive one ways are a completely different fare category, usually offering flexibility, refundability etc for a high price.
Mar 28, 2020, 7:07 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
airlines can't refund if have no money to do that. AFAIK the Australian govt has ok'd airlines to give credit not cash, so they might survive.
Mar 28, 2020, 7:59 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 21,027
Mar 28, 2020, 8:09 pm
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
Mar 28, 2020, 8:13 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 21,027
And the credible verifiable source is ????
Anyway Air France is not an Oceania (Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific) based airline (other than flying to/from PPT)
Anyway Air France is not an Oceania (Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific) based airline (other than flying to/from PPT)
Mar 28, 2020, 8:21 pm
#21
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
Virgin & Qantas eg. will run out of money very fast, if they refunded everyone.
Do you want to see them all fold ?
Mar 28, 2020, 9:13 pm
#22
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Frensham, Lincolnshire
Programs: RFC
Posts: 5,093
Let them fold. Have them bailed out by the government or a third party equity provider.
Mar 28, 2020, 10:53 pm
#23
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
So not only should they get a pass on breaking the law (in most places) but the consumer should bear the cost of their inability or unwillingness to plan and manage cashflow responsibly?
Let them fold. Have them bailed out by the government or a third party equity provider.
Let them fold. Have them bailed out by the government or a third party equity provider.
There is also no cash flow right now.
If airlines like Qantas don't refund they might last 6 months or more, if they refunded everyone, they would run out of cash in a month or 2.
The govt is not going to bail out any airline. If they did they'd have to bail out everyone.
What 3rd party equity provider ?
Mar 29, 2020, 3:42 am
#24
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Frensham, Lincolnshire
Programs: RFC
Posts: 5,093
Oh, I do get it. I'm saying that they are badly run from a cashflow basis: they should be run where they *can* refund per the law. I have zero sympathy for them for the position they are in because *they* created it via poor management.
What you're not presenting is a reason why it should be kept afloat at all and allowed to break the law in order to do so?
What you're not presenting is a reason why it should be kept afloat at all and allowed to break the law in order to do so?
Mar 30, 2020, 5:38 pm
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
Oh, I do get it. I'm saying that they are badly run from a cashflow basis: they should be run where they *can* refund per the law. I have zero sympathy for them for the position they are in because *they* created it via poor management.
What you're not presenting is a reason why it should be kept afloat at all and allowed to break the law in order to do so?
What you're not presenting is a reason why it should be kept afloat at all and allowed to break the law in order to do so?
Qantas was in same position a few years back.
So you'd be happy if they say to everyone, we'll refund you, (& it will take longer than usual) but of course the money would run out way before, that could happen. Most airlines say 12 weeks for refunds normally. Many might not be here in 12 weeks.
Qantas is a very high cost airline. They have too many staff & they pay them all far too much. If Virgin faulters, Qantas fares will go through the roof, which is bad for the economy.
It seems Virgin do own some aircraft. Maybe they could sell some or all of them to a leasing co. & lease them back. This is a common practice, atlhough aircraft values have plummeted recently & Virgin would have to pay any leasing rates they were offered & as security, might have to put up some aircraft they keep.
Far more important for the country that Virgin survives & also that Qantas does.
Am assuming that pay rates in most aviation related jobs will fall & so will perks. Maybe many staff might be made casuals.
Mar 31, 2020, 4:08 am
#27
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Frensham, Lincolnshire
Programs: RFC
Posts: 5,093
True, but saying that does give them carte blanche to break the law just so that they survive, as you seem to be advocating.
That's not what I've said. They can *offer* a credit. But they are legally obligate to make a refund. Now, if an individual chooses to accept their alternative offer then great for them and the airline. If the pax asks for their owed refund then the airline shouldn't whine or lie about it, they should pay it. As for it taking 12 weeks, that is simply the airlines dragging their feet. There's no reason they can't process it faster. Would they run out of money? Quite possibly. But that has no bearing on acting within the law. It only has bearing on how well the airline was being run.
Too many staff and too high pay? I'm sorry, but where are you getting that from?! I may despises Alan Joyce with a passion for turning QF into the LCC, but I'll give him credit that he *has* turned it into a LCC in the way it operates.
Why wouldd they need to offer security on a plane they sold and then leased back?! They *don't own it* anymore: if they fail to pay the lease the new owners simply take the plane back. The plane *is* the security.
Why? Will the government not be able to float another national carrier? Will no one else move into the vacated airline space? If the *government* decides to step in and bankrupt QF then it can (actually, under current emergency legislation it could anyway, unilaterally (but is unlikely too, obviously)) seize the assets and immediately operate it as a government entity, selling it off (again) later if it wanted.
Anything to maintain that profit margin, eh? After all, it's the shareholders that are important first and foremost, yeah?
So you'd be happy if they say to everyone, we'll refund you, (& it will take longer than usual) but of course the money would run out way before, that could happen. Most airlines say 12 weeks for refunds normally. Many might not be here in 12 weeks.
Qantas is a very high cost airline. They have too many staff & they pay them all far too much. If Virgin faulters, Qantas fares will go through the roof, which is bad for the economy.
It seems Virgin do own some aircraft. Maybe they could sell some or all of them to a leasing co. & lease them back. This is a common practice, atlhough aircraft values have plummeted recently & Virgin would have to pay any leasing rates they were offered & as security, might have to put up some aircraft they keep.
Far more important for the country that Virgin survives & also that Qantas does.
Am assuming that pay rates in most aviation related jobs will fall & so will perks. Maybe many staff might be made casuals.
Mar 31, 2020, 5:49 pm
#28
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
True, but saying that does give them carte blanche to break the law just so that they survive, as you seem to be advocating.
you would rather they trade insolvent ? Last time I looked that was a jailable offence.
That's not what I've said. They can *offer* a credit. But they are legally obligate to make a refund. Now, if an individual chooses to accept their alternative offer then great for them and the airline. If the pax asks for their owed refund then the airline shouldn't whine or lie about it, they should pay it. As for it taking 12 weeks, that is simply the airlines dragging their feet. There's no reason they can't process it faster. Would they run out of money? Quite possibly. But that has no bearing on acting within the law. It only has bearing on how well the airline was being run.
It's really simple, you can't give a refund if you have no money.
Too many staff and too high pay? I'm sorry, but where are you getting that from?! I may despises Alan Joyce with a passion for turning QF into the LCC, but I'll give him credit that he *has* turned it into a LCC in the way it operates.
Most Australians are paid too much, but this recession will change that.
Why wouldd they need to offer security on a plane they sold and then leased back?! They *don't own it* anymore: if they fail to pay the lease the new owners simply take the plane back. The plane *is* the security.
Ok I'll explain again. These sell some aircraft to leasing company & lease back. Leasing companies aren't stupid, so they may require further security, as who knows, how long any airline, (including Qantas) might last. Not much use for a leasing co. to buy an aircraft & then airline that leases it back goes belly up in a short period, so that cheap aircraft, is not so cheap, when can't lease it to anyone. Bit like after SEP 11, hardly anyone wanted any aircraft.
Why? Will the government not be able to float another national carrier? Will no one else move into the vacated airline space? If the *government* decides to step in and bankrupt QF then it can (actually, under current emergency legislation it could anyway, unilaterally (but is unlikely too, obviously)) seize the assets and immediately operate it as a government entity, selling it off (again) later if it wanted.
Govts can run chook raffles. More incompetent than unions & that's saying something.
Anything to maintain that profit margin, eh? After all, it's the shareholders that are important first and foremost, yeah?
you would rather they trade insolvent ? Last time I looked that was a jailable offence.
That's not what I've said. They can *offer* a credit. But they are legally obligate to make a refund. Now, if an individual chooses to accept their alternative offer then great for them and the airline. If the pax asks for their owed refund then the airline shouldn't whine or lie about it, they should pay it. As for it taking 12 weeks, that is simply the airlines dragging their feet. There's no reason they can't process it faster. Would they run out of money? Quite possibly. But that has no bearing on acting within the law. It only has bearing on how well the airline was being run.
It's really simple, you can't give a refund if you have no money.
Too many staff and too high pay? I'm sorry, but where are you getting that from?! I may despises Alan Joyce with a passion for turning QF into the LCC, but I'll give him credit that he *has* turned it into a LCC in the way it operates.
Most Australians are paid too much, but this recession will change that.
Why wouldd they need to offer security on a plane they sold and then leased back?! They *don't own it* anymore: if they fail to pay the lease the new owners simply take the plane back. The plane *is* the security.
Ok I'll explain again. These sell some aircraft to leasing company & lease back. Leasing companies aren't stupid, so they may require further security, as who knows, how long any airline, (including Qantas) might last. Not much use for a leasing co. to buy an aircraft & then airline that leases it back goes belly up in a short period, so that cheap aircraft, is not so cheap, when can't lease it to anyone. Bit like after SEP 11, hardly anyone wanted any aircraft.
Why? Will the government not be able to float another national carrier? Will no one else move into the vacated airline space? If the *government* decides to step in and bankrupt QF then it can (actually, under current emergency legislation it could anyway, unilaterally (but is unlikely too, obviously)) seize the assets and immediately operate it as a government entity, selling it off (again) later if it wanted.
Govts can run chook raffles. More incompetent than unions & that's saying something.
Anything to maintain that profit margin, eh? After all, it's the shareholders that are important first and foremost, yeah?