Consumer NZ say passengers are entitled to reimbursement under certain conditions. Photo / NZ Herald
Consumer NZ say passengers are entitled to reimbursement under certain conditions. Photo / NZ Herald
Consumer NZ claim Jetstar were "in the wrong" when they told a passenger they could not seek full reimbursement for costs related to a cancelled flight.
If you're like most travellers, you probably aren't that interested in a chunky document called the Civil Aviation Act.
At 336 pages, I don't blame you. So, we focus our attention instead on upcoming adventures and trust experts to tell us the nitty gritty stuff if it ever comes up.
Except, what happens when plans go awry and the people you expect to protect (or at least communicate) your rights, don't?
When one Kiwi's domestic flight was cancelled on the day of departure, and rescheduled two days later, they didn't think to question Jetstar's policy around accommodation reimbursement.
According to the airline page, if the delay or cancellation is within their control and overnight, they will reimburse up to $150 per room.
Since the passenger needed somewhere they could work remotely, they booked a hotel for $180 per night for two days. Then, they learnt about their rights under the Civil Aviation Act.
This states that, if a flight is cancelled for reasons within the airline's control, passengers are entitled to compensation of up to 10 times the cost of their ticket, or the actual cost of delay, whichever is lower.
After providing details via an online customer service chat tool, the customer was told by 'Jessa' from Jetstar that transport to and from the airport ($30.69) and meals ($55.90) were covered. As for accommodation, Jetstar could reimburse $300.
Confused, the passenger replied, writing: "Under the Civil Aviation Act, I'm entitled to up to 10 times the cost of the flight or the actual cost of the delay." But this was little help.
Screenshots of a conversation between a passenger and Jetstar from August 3. Photo / Supplied
"Apologies but as per on our website, we can only cover up to $150 per room per night for accommodation," Jessa wrote, along with a link to Jetstar's compensation and refunds page.
Unsatisfied with the response, the passenger asked who they could escalate the issue to but their request was denied.
"I can assure you that speaking to a supervisor won't change the outcome," Jessa replied.
After closing the chat and reopening, they were connected to a new Jetstar employee, Van, who said the exact same thing.
"Just to confirm," the passenger wrote, "Jetstar is only willing to reimburse $150/night for accommodation even though the Civil Aviation Act says that customers are entitled to up to 10x the cost of the flight or the actual cost of the delay?"
"That is correct," Van replied.
According to Consumer NZ's Gemma Rasmussen, it's far from correct.
"In this instance, Jetstar is in the wrong," said Rasmussen. "Given the delay was within the airline's control, Jetstar is liable for up to 10 times the cost of the ticket, or the actual cost of delay, whichever is lower."
According to Consumer NZ, issues considered within an airline's control include; staffing shortages due to sickness, mechanical issues and overbooked flights.
What if an airline policy states it can't pay more?
A company stating it cannot reimburse more due to its policy sounds convincing. But Rasmussen said it doesn't actually mean anything.
"Airlines can't attempt to further limit their liability in their policies or terms and conditions," she said.
Not only because it goes against the CAA but could also mislead passengers, which breaches the Fair Trading Act.
Had Jessa or Van clicked on the link they had been sending for Jetstar's 'Compensation and refunds' page and scrolled down to the very bottom, they would have found that the passenger had been correct.
"You may also have a statutory right to a remedy (including a refund and/or compensation) under the Australian Consumer Law or the New Zealand Civil Aviation Act," reads the web page.
This links to yet another Jetstar website page, which reads: "you may be entitled under the Civil Aviation Act 1990 to claim the lesser of: the amount of damage proved to have been sustained as a result of the delay; or an amount representing 10 times the sum paid for the carriage."
For travellers (like the one above) who are well-versed in their rights, it may not be easy to get what they are entitled to, but it is possible.
After requesting, yet again, for a contact they could escalate the issue to, they were told they would receive full reimbursement "as one time courtesy outside of our policy". But it was just once, they warned, and next time they would stick to the Jetstar policy.
Screenshots of a conversation between a passenger and Jetstar from August 3. Photo / Supplied
If they hadn't been repaid, the passenger told Herald it was unlikely they would have taken the issue to the Disputes Tribunal, which is the next step.
"I can't be bothered," they said, "they just strong arm people into accepting it".
Jetstar said their policy meant reimbursement of $150 per night for accommodation was automatically approved in these cases. Additional expenses were assessed on a 'case-by-case basis' by a dedicated team.
However, they agreed people could obtain additional reimbursement for 'reasonable accommodation and meals'.
"We apologise that the incorrect advice was initially provided," a Jetstar spokesperson said, adding that they had reminded contact centre agents of the correct policy.
