Qantas Airways, Australia’s flagship airline, has strongly denied allegations brought forth by the country’s competition regulator regarding the alleged misleading of passengers by continuing to sell tickets for flights that the airline had already decided to cancel.
In a bold move to counter the watchdog’s lawsuit, Qantas issued a statement on Monday, asserting that the regulator’s case failed to account for the harsh realities of the aviation industry. The airline adamantly stated that it did not delay informing passengers about the cancellations for financial gain and ensured that all customers affected by scrapped flights were provided with an alternative flight or a full refund.
This legal battle began when the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a lawsuit against Qantas in late August, accusing the company of selling tickets for over 8,000 flights that had been canceled between May and July 2022. The ACCC is pursuing a historic penalty of more than A$250 million (S$217 million).
Read more: ACCC Warns Against Qantas-Virgin Duopoly
Qantas responded to the allegations by saying, “The ACCC’s case ignores a fundamental reality and a key condition that applies when airlines sell a ticket.” Qantas’ defense sets the stage for a potentially lengthy legal dispute over the accusations of “ghost flights,” which played a significant role in the early retirement of the airline’s then-CEO, Alan Joyce, and prompted a reshuffling of the board to restore the airline’s tarnished reputation.
Among a series of scandals that have cast a shadow over Qantas in recent times, the allegations of deceit by the regulator stand out as one of the most damaging blows to the airline’s brand and reputation.
Source: Straits Time
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 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