Labor’s proposal to bolster airline customers’ rights to empower them when confronted with poor service and disruptions offers weaker protections than those Australians are entitled to under consumer law, Choice has warned.
The consumer advocacy group also criticised the use of timeframe “targets” instead of “deadlines” as being more likely to let airlines off the hook more easily.
It issued a range of warnings about the draft version of the aviation customer rights charter – an initiative that emerged from the Albanese government’s year-long white paper process for the industry.
The draft charter revealed that the government had bowed to pressure from Qantas and other airlines advocating against laws that would force them to pay cash compensation to passengers whose flights were delayed or cancelled – similar to a scheme that exists in the EU – after carriers said such rules would force them to pre-empt costs and bake them into higher base air fares.
Choice, along with several other consumer groups, had long advocated for Australia to introduce a scheme to compensate passengers on delayed or cancelled flights for their lost time, on top of additional expenses incurred by the disruption.
Having accepted the omission of a cash compensation scheme, Choice’s senior campaign and policy adviser, Bea Sherwood, said even the provisions that had been included in the draft needed strengthening.
“The draft charter may be weaker than existing consumer protections under the Australian consumer law, such as consumer guarantees,” Sherwood said.
As an example, Sherwood identified how the draft charter appeared to be less prescriptive about a passenger’s rights if a flight was cancelled or delayed due to bad weather as opposed to an operational decision made by the airline.
Under Australian consumer law, passengers have the same rights if the flight disruption is not their fault.
“Consumers are entitled to a refund or replacement where flights are delayed or cancelled due to weather events under [existing] consumer guarantee rights, but may not be under the draft charter,” Sherwood said.
In its submission, Choice urged the draft charter be strengthened to include the right to a replacement flight or a refund when a flight was cancelled or significantly delayed through no fault of the consumer.
“The charter should include the right to rebook or receive a refund, regardless of whether the reason for the delay or cancellation is inside or outside the airline’s control,” Sherwood said.
Choice’s submission also called for minimum reimbursement amounts that airlines must pay.
“The charter should set minimum amounts … for meals, accommodation and airport transfers for significant delays and cancellations,” Sherwood said. “These measures will ensure that a consumer knows what to expect regardless of the airline they fly with, and ensure that the charter has all of the information a consumer needs in the event their flight is delayed or cancelled.”
Choice criticised the draft charter’s wording about a passenger’s rights when luggage was lost, and called for “specific standards for claim times and compensation for damaged, delayed or lost baggage”.
“The charter does not outline any specific timing for both making claims and receiving compensation from the airline when a bag is damaged, delayed or lost,” Sherwood said. “We strongly recommend the charter includes specific standards to ensure consumers have one source of information and that all airlines treat consumers the same.”
She was also disappointed that the draft charter used terms such as “target” instead of “deadline” when outlining fair timeframes to expect refunds, responses to complaints or luggage claims.
“Let’s be real; we need deadlines. Because if it’s a target, what happens if it’s not met? …
“What happens if a passenger’s rights are breached? We were hoping for concrete penalties to be applied … but we’re not sure how these rights will be enforced.”
More broadly, Sherwood said the “vague” wording surrounding rights outlined in the charter could be confusing for customers.
The Australian Services Union, whose members include some sections of flight crews, called for the charter to require a minimum staff presence at airports to deal with displaced passengers after disruptions.
Too often, airlines rely on apps or call centres to handle rebooking, reimbursements and passenger needs, without any airline representatives to deal with in person, the union said.
“Aviation staff do their best, but when there aren’t enough staff on the floor, passengers get frustrated, and that frustration is directed at them,” the union submission said, adding: “Our members are committed to providing quality service, but the increasing reliance on digital platforms and staff shortages typically infuriates passengers, creating difficult workplace conditions for our members and a poor experience for air travellers.”
