When you’re labouring below any phantasm that Qantas has modified from the abusive, gouging monopolist that holds its prospects and staff in contempt, get a maintain of its response to the federal government’s lame aviation inexperienced paper and behold the drivel it’s peddling as a critical contribution to public coverage.
The inexperienced paper broadly hews to Labor’s pro-Qantas line, however the state of competitors in aviation in Australia is now so terrible that even the paper acknowledged large issues. The “home aviation sector is very concentrated, with few market individuals”, it says, characterised by “airways now not competing ‘face to face’ and focussing on market niches”. This “may adversely impression customers and companies that depend on aviation”.
Not true, says Qantas in its response. In truth, aviation is very aggressive. “A concentrated market doesn’t essentially equate to a scarcity of competitors,” Qantas insists. “There are actually 4 giant jet operators, with Regional Specific increasing onto mainline routes and the entry of Bonza … Qantas and Jetstar proceed to intently monitor adjustments to the Regional Specific and Bonza working fashions (together with Virgin Australia’s) and reply appropriately.”
Bonza has 5 planes and doesn’t fly to Sydney, as a result of it could actually’t get slots. Qantas has 125 planes and hoards slots at Sydney Airport. Bonza simply needed to cancel flights as a result of it couldn’t get approval to lease two extra planes. However, yep, Bonza is exerting aggressive strain on Qantas. Certain factor.
Qantas continues to disclaim the truth of its slots-hoarding. It says if you would like extra slots at Sydney, do away with the curfew. “The Qantas Group notes that the Harris evaluate [a review of slots management by former Productivity Commission chair Peter Harris] had a restricted scope and that the 80 motion cap, Sydney Airport curfew and broader Sydney basin had been explicitly out of scope. This was a missed alternative. A complete evaluate addressing recognized operational challenges and effectivity positive aspects can’t be correctly carried out with out partaking with these points.”
Nevertheless it’s the inexperienced paper’s delicate flirtation with higher client protections that has the airline exercised, reflecting its standing as essentially the most complained-about firm within the nation. As with competitors, all the pieces is simply tremendous in client safety, Qantas says. It definitely doesn’t need any further aviation-specific safeguards for customers. “The entire-of-economy utility of the Australian client regulation represents greatest observe and has been recognized as certainly one of its key strengths,” Qantas says. “Its simplicity ensures that it doesn’t matter what the services or products, customers are clear about their rights and recourse.”
Simplicity? Readability? You possibly can think about how Qantas’ company relations scribes giggled as they wrote this. That is the airline that responded to the Australian Competitors and Shopper Fee’s (ACCC) allegations that it offered tickets to very large numbers of flights it had no intention of ever flying by saying it didn’t promote tickets to flights, it offered “bundles of rights”. Qantas “doesn’t assure explicit flight instances or its flight schedules,” it instructed the ACCC. It doesn’t even promise to make “affordable endeavours to function any explicit flight”. However, positive, customers are clear about their rights and recourse!
What actually worries Qantas, although, is the prospect that the federal government would possibly contemplate European Union-style compensation necessities for delayed or cancelled flights — for which Qantas has an abysmal document. The EU requirement is known as EU261 and, in accordance with Qantas, doesn’t work. “The scheme hasn’t led to a discount within the quantity of disruption. As [the International Air Transport Association] famous in June 2023, the fee’s personal information exhibits that disruptions have elevated since EU261 was launched.”
Besides that’s a bald lie from what’s the worldwide foyer group for airways. In accordance to a peer-reviewed paper by German and Polish economists printed earlier this 12 months, EU261 quantifiably does work: “Regulated flights are 5% extra more likely to arrive on time, and imply arrival delay is diminished by virtually 4 minutes. The impact is strongest on routes with little competitors, and for legacy carriers. Thus, client rights can enhance high quality when incentives from competitors are weak.”
That’s a daunting conclusion for Qantas: given the dearth of competitors it faces, the proof exhibits a compensation requirement would result in a noticeable enchancment in on-time efficiency.
As for the much-criticised airline-funded and managed buyer complaints scheme, the Airline Buyer Advocate (ACA), which the inexperienced paper famous didn’t present a “low-cost, accessible authorized course of which might guarantee passengers can entry honest remedy”, Qantas thinks that, too, is ok. Why? They’re “refreshing the Airline Buyer Advocate’s web site to reinforce its performance and ease”. Additionally, they’re truly going to do a evaluate of the ACA’s efficiency, and airways have made “a renewed dedication to enhancing response timeframes” (observe the “renewed” — they’ve dedicated to enhance timeliness earlier than, however failed).
On no account ought to the federal government contemplate an impartial airline ombudsman, Qantas says. Too costly. And notoriously sluggish. And doubtless wouldn’t have a “refreshed” web site.
And what about entry for the disabled? Does Qantas help any reforms that may see an finish to Qantas wheelchair-using passengers being dropped from their wheelchairs and being pressured to crawl to their seats, or forcing passengers to remain on a airplane and return to the place they got here from as a result of Qantas refuses to disembark them at their vacation spot, breaking prospects’ wheelchairs, leaving passengers on planes as a result of they will’t get their wheelchair, or threatening disabled prospects with the AFP in the event that they complain?
Once more, nothing to see right here. There’s no want for any reform, and current exemptions for airways want to remain in place. Any adjustments ought to recognise it’s all very costly to move individuals with particular wants — “some prospects require important help to have the ability to journey which includes further tools, resourcing and operational/security concerns”.
In truth, the one space in aviation that wants any substantial reform is the airport house owners. “As successfully unregulated monopoly infrastructure, many Australian airports have a observe document of utilizing their market energy, with the present regulatory regime offering no constraint on monopoly behaviour or offering any incentive to decrease prices or enhance high quality.”
An unregulated monopoly utilizing its market energy with none incentive to decrease prices or enhance high quality. Qantas definitely is aware of all about that.
Are you shocked by Qantas’ response to the federal government inexperienced paper? Do you propose to hop on board the flying Kangaroo any time quickly? Tell us your ideas by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please embrace your full title to be thought-about for publication. We reserve the appropriate to edit for size and readability.