Originally Posted by
Traffic_Is_Er_Was
That's about how 90% of commerce works these days. You bought a Macca's or a car lately? The only difference between that and an airline ticket is the time lapse between payment and delivery, and the rubberiness of what they will provide for that money.
TBH, I can't really believe that most people are so naive that they don't realise what they are getting into when they pay for their ticket. Surely every traveller has in the back of their mind "Gee I hope my flight isn't delayed or cancelled, that will really mess up my plans" as they're heading to the airport. It's not like this is anything new.
It will be an interesting court case. I liked Gottliebsen's summary in the Oz, that a great way of defining past from present would have been negotiate with the ACCC - we've been naughty, it was the other guy, not me - I'm here to help, can we get a discount on the fine please as gesture of good will and here are our issues we have, can you help? - that type of thing.
Versus - How dare you accuse us of anything, you're not worthy, we're Qantas and we aren't going to change because you're wrong! Yes they might win a battle in Court, but the political optics are not good. If they don't win in Court, they will have the book thrown at them, they will look appalling (again) and create more problems. Of course, a loss could put a great deal of legal problems into their laps selling tickets (let alone FF points) into the future, but sitting and negotiating those points in good faith (assuming Qantas is capable of understanding the meaning) is going to achieve FAR better results than throwing spears at each other across a table.
Fighting IMHO is negatives all around for QF. Mea Culpa would have been a great positive for Qantas and especially Elaine's Wig from a marketing and political perspective.