Qantas, Australia’s flagship airline, has reached a significant settlement with the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) following revelations that it continued to advertise and sell tickets for flights that had already been cancelled for a much longer period than initially thought, dubbed “ghost flights.” The settlement, totaling $120 million in penalties and compensation, marks the conclusion of a Federal Court case initiated by the ACCC last year.
The controversy stemmed from allegations that Qantas had sold tickets for approximately 8,000 flights that were cancelled between May and July 2022. However, upon further investigation, it was discovered that the airline had actually continued to sell tickets for these non-existent flights until legal action was taken by the ACCC in August of the same year. This prolonged period of ticket sales affected a staggering 86,000 customers.
Read more: Australia’s ACCC Seeks Massive Fine for Qantas Violations
Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson, who assumed her role earlier than planned amidst the fallout from the ghost flights allegations, emphasized that the decision to settle the case was not driven by the recent revelations but rather by the airline’s commitment to transparency and accountability. In an interview on Monday, Hudson stated, “We absolutely were always focused on bringing this to a conclusion. Part of the focus that we have as an organization is around being transparent and taking accountability.”
Despite the settlement, Qantas maintains its stance that it did not accept fees for services it did not provide. Hudson reiterated this, stating, “We absolutely have maintained and continue to maintain that we did not take fees for no service, that we would not take fees for no service, and that the ACCC is no longer proceeding with this part of its claim.”
As part of the settlement agreement, Qantas has agreed to pay $100 million in penalties to the ACCC and an additional $20 million in compensation to the 86,000 affected customers. However, the settlement is subject to approval by the Federal Court.
Source: SMH
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand