Unethical Air NZ behaviour on refunds
Back to Forum- This topic has 16 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 May 2020
at 13:04 by SimonS1.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
ShandParticipantMy partner booked a return trip to US for May costing $3800. Air NZ advised him they had given him a credit for this – with a “take it or leave it” e-mail.
It now turns out that these US flights are covered by US Law which requires a full refund to be given for such cancelled flights. Air NZ must have known this legal position all along – so not advising customers with cancelled flights to US of their right to a full refund can only be described as unethical and devious. Thanks to Consumer NZ for sorting this out – and for saying that Air NZ should have put this on its website.
1 user thanked author for this post.
30 Apr 2020
at 11:03
capetonianmParticipantWouldn’t US law only apply if the purchase was made in the US and/or flights originating in the US?
30 Apr 2020
at 11:45
AMcWhirterParticipantShand – This Forum reaches a global readership.
To be clear to which route do you refer ?
Is it AKL-LAX ? In which case was your ticket purchased locally (in NZ) ?
Here in Europe there are many many 1,000s of complaints from travellers to whom airlines offer a refund voucher rather than cash. Even if consumer law says otherwise.
See these threads:
Ireland asks Europe to suspend law requiring refunds for cancellations
30 Apr 2020
at 16:31
ShandParticipantThe tickets were purchased in NZ b but that makes no difference where the ticket was purchased. Consumer NZ verified this. Air NZ’s flights into US are covered by US law. For the record the flights were AKL-ORD and LAX-AKL. Air NZ has now made the refund.
30 Apr 2020
at 23:44
SimonS1Participant[quote quote=997207]Likewise EU refund law applies to all flights operating into and out of EU, according to Consumer NZ, our government consumer watch organisation.[/quote]
I don’t know what “EU refund law” is but EC261 specifically excludes flights into the EU by a non EU carrier.
1 May 2020
at 08:55
AMcWhirterParticipant[quote quote=997207]Likewise EU refund law applies to all flights operating into and out of EU, according to Consumer NZ, our government consumer watch organisation.[/quote]
Shand – I would suggest Consumer NZ revise its advice.
As Simon has noted EU261 applies only to EU-based airlines when flying to the EU. (EU261 is also recognised by non-EU member Switzerland.
1 May 2020
at 10:42
ShandParticipantHere is a media report which elaborates on what is happening in NZ and statements by Consumer NZ. I rust the link works.
1 May 2020
at 21:45
SimonS1Participant[postquote quote=997281][/postquote]
“Refund rules also applied to all airlines departing the EU, regardless of whether it was an EU airline, although Air New Zealand flights to EU countries were not covered”.
Just as Alex and I said then….flights to EU not covered.
1 May 2020
at 21:57
ShandParticipantPoint taken. But the US Department of Transportation regulations on refunds for cancelled flights applies to all airline flights into and out of US – presumably that includes EU and UK airlines, as it does Air NZ. The reason for my posting as a kiwi was Air NZ with flights to ORD, SFO, LAX, IAH and HNL. (But I wonder if EU or UK airlines flying to US have also accurately informed their customers of their rights – not that it’s part of my brief or concern.)
2 May 2020
at 00:57
SimonS1Participant[quote quote=997289](But I wonder if EU or UK airlines flying to US have also accurately informed their customers of their rights – not that it’s part of my brief or concern.)[/quote]
You are still missing the point, as the US is not the issue.
Any flights leaving or returning the EU on EU/UK airlines are covered by same legislation which is EC261. That entitles people to a refund for cancelled flights.
It doesn’t matter whether you are flying to/from US, New Zealand, Glasgow, Timbuktu or anywhere else – there is no need to involve DoT here.
2 May 2020
at 08:30
ShandParticipantNo it is you who is missing the point. You seem to be Eurocentric. My post was primarily about refunds for cancelled Air NZ flights to and from USA (nothing directly to do with EU countries – I live in NZ not UK or EU and my partner’s ticket was from NZ to US and return) ) which are covered by US Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations which require a full refund, which was not initially offered by Air NZ which is now required to offer them. (The same regulations must apply to BA and Virgin flights to all US ports – I wonder what they have told their customers.) So the US DOT is at the heart of the issue I raise as it covers all airlines/flights operating into or out of the US.
Over and out.
2 May 2020
at 10:23
Roa1ParticipantI am rather surprised that, to date, not even a single aggrieved party has taken an airline to court, challenging this “scam” of airlines avoiding paying refunds and flouting Consumer Law, even if the airlines are struggling to deal with the impact of the “Wuhan” virus. The Airlines are clearly in breach of the Consumer Law, which requires that a full refund is offered if a business has cancelled a contract without providing any of the promised goods or services.
This includes if no service is provided because of restrictions during the current lock down or if a consumer cancels because of the restrictions.
Leaving aside the EU 261, most courts in the English speaking countries would take a dim view of airlines which avoid paying refunds and thus flouting Consumer law – and intentionally conning the travelling public by providing vouchers to be used “sine die” (sometime in (uncertain) future). My law is a bit rustic, but it may well come under “Intentional Tort”. My understanding is that the UK’s; Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is looking into this matter!
2 May 2020
at 11:02
SimonS1Participant[postquote quote=997303][/postquote]
Your post was nothing to do with EU countries??
But you advised us all “EU refund law applies to all flights operating into and out of EU, according to Consumer NZ, our government consumer watch organisation”
Its untrue.
2 May 2020
at 11:59 -
AuthorPosts