Jetstar and Virgin Australia fined $745,000 over misleading prices

rawm on 08/03/2017 - 10:06
Last edited 08/03/2017 - 13:51 by 1 other user

Article HERE

Yay!

Finally some penalties (albeit tiny) were dished out to these 2 airlines. Penalties handed down focus mainly on 'Drip Pricing' from 2015, but IMO are still rampant!

Once again a reminder to be smart when booking these services. These guys prey on 'sectioning' prices. Determining every little element of a flight and attributing a price to it.

Want to sit near the exit? Pay more.
Want to eat a bun instead of a slice of bread? Pay more.
Want to fast track your boarding? Pay more.
Want a window seat in Row E? Pay more.

The crazy list goes on.

Each new section creates anxiety and forces the customer to consider much more than simply flying. This is where the profits are made.

• 

  altomic on 08/03/2017 - 10:14

  +4

  Though when I fly to India tomorrow for $1050 for the 4 of us return with Virgin (Singapore airline code share) and beijing in sept for $1000 for the 4 of us return with VA I'll not bat an eyelid over those fines. Paying extra for little things is for non-professionals. It's like buying a car and actually paying for mats and paint protection.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 08/03/2017 - 15:22

    My shopping trip to Aldi later today seems less exciting now.

    JetStar judgment.

    [34] There was no direct evidence before the Court in relation to any quantifiable loss or damage suffered by consumers or competitors as a result of the contravening conduct on the part of Jetstar.

    So not clear how much damage was done.

    [40] I am not persuaded that there was any flouting of the law or wilful breach of the relevant provisions. The booking process undertaken by Jetstar reflected a robust (but incorrect) view of the law.

    So naughty, but not deliberately so…

    Virgin judgment.

    Similarly for Virgin [33] & [41].

• 

  plmko on 08/03/2017 - 10:32

  Never really found pay more for little things here and there to be that much of a problem with Jetstar. Still ended up to be cheaper than Qantas to fly to Japan, $15 for seat allocation never irked me but don't need to pay if you go to the airport early and ask nicely. Their CC fees are massively excessive though, no idea how they can get away with charging $20 per ticket even though you pay with one card and in one transaction.

• 

  ausmechkeyboards on 08/03/2017 - 10:33

  -1

  $74,500,000

  This is a more appropriate fine, along with both airlines forced to dedicate a $5,000,000 budget to advertising what they did wrong, how much money they made from the deception, how they will compensate those affected and how they will change their policies to stop this from happening again.

• 

  mackaxx on 08/03/2017 - 11:15

  Always thought Jetstar was a little over the top but never virgin, surprised they got pinged too

• 

  ronnknee on 08/03/2017 - 12:18

  +4

  Each new section creates anxiety and forces the customer to consider much more than simply flying. This is where the profits are made.

  That's just the business model of budget airlines. If you don't like it, then be prepared to pay more for a more premium airline.

  • 

    havebeerbelywillsumo on 08/03/2017 - 14:00

    +2

    "That's just the business model of (insert any company here). If you don't like it, then be prepared to pay more for a more premium (insert any business here)"

    And, without having a go at you personally ronnknee, that attitude is how these deceptive practices continue to flourish. Set your price upfront not deceptively at the end of a painful purchase process.

    And, as well as being bilked on real price you are being bilked on time….the time spent going through interminable options to actually purchase what you want when you should be able to simply say "one of those please", pay and that's it.

    • 

      ronnknee on 08/03/2017 - 15:53

      +2

      No really, that's just how it is. Budget airlines vs Premium airlines. They work on entirely different business models which is why budget airline fares are cheaper than premium airline fares.

      The idea behind budget airlines is that it's no-frills and you pay for the extras you require. This means that the minimum fare covers for a seat that gets you from A to B. You want a meal? Pay extra. You want check-in baggage? Pay extra. You want in-flight entertainment? Pay extra. While it does sound daunting that are being charged extra for all these services but that's because you are using these extra services and they reflect the added costs to the business.

      On the other hand, premium airlines is the reverse. You get everything: checked in baggage, meal and in-flight entertainment by default. As such, the price is higher.

      Budget airlines are just not for everyone; we all have different expectations. If you don't mind not eating, or don't need extra luggage or don't need to in-flight entertainment then budget airlines are perfect for you. If you require these services, you could still pay for them on budget airlines because most likely, it would still be cheaper than a premium airline fare.

      Just don't expect all premium airline services on budget airlines at a budget fare.

      Tl;Dr: You pay for only what you need on budget airlines and it may not be suitable for everyone.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 08/03/2017 - 16:55

        In short (well it was meant to be)my reply said - so clearly advertise the optional pricing in an

        (a) cost with none of these (listed) extras

        (b) each extra will cost (listed with price) add on to base price as required

        Tell the operator what is required on booking. Done.

        I have no problem with the budget model, huge problem with the implementation………imagine going to a restaurant, meal arrives but no cutlery, only then you are told "oh cutlery is an extra, it has to be washed so that will be an extra $". It is this practice that I say must be stopped.

        "No really, that's just how it is." lets drip pricing continue IMHO.

      • 

        ronnknee on 08/03/2017 - 18:26

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:

        (a) cost with none of these (listed) extras

        The price that you see when searching for airfares is the absolute minimum fare ie. no extras and paid with POLi (at least on Jetstar). That's what you have

        (b) each extra will cost (listed with price) add on to base price as required

        This is an area where they can work on, displaying the prices for each add-on. However, it should be no surprise that these add-ons cost extra.

        imagine going to a restaurant, meal arrives but no cutlery, only then you are told "oh cutlery is an extra, it has to be washed so that will be an extra $". It is this practice that I say must be stopped.

        Let me put it this way. A more realistic analogical model of the food/hospitality industry is that there are restaurants with an a la carte menu (typically most restaurants) or a buffet menu. In this case, you either pay for only the dishes that you order or you pay a set price and you get to access all the different types of dishes (but the price is typically higher than average). If you go into restaurant with an a la carte menu and you want to try out all the dishes, then you are going to have a bad time. In other words, have a look at the menu and understand what the restaurant offers before ordering.

        "No really, that's just how it is." lets drip pricing continue IMHO.

        Again, you just want a budget airline to function like a premium airline. It doesn't work that way. Their business models are mutually exclusive.

• 

  havebeerbelywillsumo on 08/03/2017 - 18:45

  Something that I find a bit peevesome is sending a long considered reply and hearing nothing…probably just me being grumpy but just in case…read your reply ronnknee.

  I don't consider the "budget" model should ever excuse drip pricing, you seem to be saying can come with the territory so to speak and the buyer should know that is a possibility.

  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.