Qantas has denied it is engaging in misleading conduct despite promoting a special return fare to London on its website that was scarcely available and which its own sales staff were unable to book for customers.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is considering a complaint which alleges Qantas breached Australia’s consumer law by advertising return economy airfares from Sydney to London’s Heathrow airport as one of its “top offers”, with prices from $2,455 per adult.
The promotional offer, featured prominently on the London section of Qantas’ website, is only valid for flights departing between 1 September and 1 October, while its terms and conditions state the sale price is not available for all dates within the specified period. No window for return dates is specified.
One customer – known as Dave – went to the Qantas website but was unable to find a flight for $2,455 on his desired travel dates, then attempted to search every single departure date within the promotion’s terms and conditions but could not find any fare at the advertised “top offer” price.
Dave then called Qantas’ sales line and asked if the operator could find any trip dates during the promotion’s window that he could book for $2,455.
He claims the salesperson conceded there was nothing available at that price, and appealed for the operator’s supervisor to consider the situation and offer to match the advertised price.
Dave said he received a call back hours later, during which he claims the salesperson said the supervisor had also been unable to find dates when the advertised fare was available to book, but did not offer to match the price.
“I told them, ‘forget any date preference, just find me that fare’, and the sales staff couldn’t do that.”
Dave, who asked for his surname not to be published out of concern it could lead to reprisal against the Qantas staff he dealt with, has since lodged a complaint with the ACCC alleging the advertising amounts to misleading conduct.
“I tried and tried but meeting all the conditions I could not achieve it with the default dates or indeed any date combination,” Dave wrote in his complaint.
“This is classic ‘bait and switch’ advertising,” he alleged. “It’s misleading, at best disingenuous, at worst illegal.”
Qantas staunchly denies the offer amounts to misleading conduct. After Guardian Australia questioned if the advertised fare was available, a Qantas spokesperson provided a set of dates that would return a price of $2,463 – $8 above the advertised fare – but this required a trip of at least five and a half weeks, returning in November.
While that price was no longer available for those dates, the ad remained online until hours after this article was first published.
Fares closer to $2,455 can be achieved by booking a later return date, well into November.
“Any suggestion that this offer is misleading is not correct,” a Qantas spokesperson said. “While it’s unfortunate this customer wasn’t able to find a fare at this price to London on the dates they were looking to travel, many other customers have already snapped up fares at this price.”
Dave told Guardian Australia that even if the advertised price can technically be achieved, he still alleged Qantas has breached consumer law.
“If you advertise a price, it has to be readily achievable, not a needle-in-a-haystack, wild-goose-chase offer. If I can’t get the price, if a Qantas sales representative can’t get the price … is it really fair to still be advertising that price?” he said.
Dave acknowledged Qantas may have initially had some fares available for the advertised $2,455, but said the ad should be taken down. He ultimately purchased cheaper tickets with a different airline, costing just over $2000.
According to the ACCC, “bait advertising” is “the practice of promoting prices, often ‘sale’ prices, on products that are … available only in very limited quantities”. However, the watchdog notes that it does not constitute misleading conduct “if the business is upfront and clear about the product being in short supply”.
Gerard Brody, the chair of the Consumers Federation of Australia and former chief executive of the Consumer Action Law Centre, said it was important for the ACCC to investigate complaints of this nature, noting the lack of ombudsman and other consumer protections covering Australia’s aviation industry means consumers are often worse off.
Brody noted that if the ACCC decided to take legal action against Qantas and the airline was found to have engaged in misleading conduct, it could face a maximum penalty of three times the financial benefit obtained from the behaviour, or 30% of turnover during the breach period – whichever is highest.
“You would hope that the ACCC makes sure that fares are available at the price point advertised by Qantas,” he said. “This could well amount to misleading conduct under the consumer law.”
Qantas was the most complained about company to the ACCC in 2022-23. The airline is expected to announce a multibillion dollar profit at its results on Thursday.
