Qantas rejects giving ‘vague’ responses to consumer watchdog on ghost flights case

Qantas is doubling down against the consumer watchdog’s claims the airline sold tickets to more than 8000 flights that had been cancelled, amid the unfolding court stoush.

Qantas is doubling down against the consumer watchdog’s claims the embattled airline sold tickets to more than 8000 flights that had been cancelled, firing off a fresh legal letter amid the unfolding Federal Court stoush.

At a hearing on November 8, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission accused Qantas of failing to explain why it left flights up for sale for a period in 2022 when they had already been cancelled.

The ACCC has alleged in some cases tickets were sold up to 47 days after the flights were scrapped. It brought the case against Qantas after it collected evidence the airline did not immediately remove cancelled flights from its website.

The airline hit back on Monday with its own legal letter to the watchdog, released by the Federal Court, saying it denied its response had been inadequate following a letter from the ACCC dated November 17.

“Qantas rejects the assertion that the Concise Response is deficient,” the letter reads.

“Qantas also rejects the notion that the Concise Response is vague and unspecific in relation to facts, matters and circumstances on which Qantas relies in support of its defence.

“Again, the Concise Response must be understood as a document ‘in brief narrative form’ which is responding to allegations in a Concise Statement that are not framed with the specificity or particularity required of a statement of claim.”

Qantas goes on to resist the ACCC’s so-called ghost flight claims.

It said that as a result Qantas was not required to specifically admit or deny every allegation in the concise statement.

“Qantas denies the ACCC’s allegation that there was a period specified for the supply of the service. That is a general denial of the ACCC’s case,” the letter read.

The letter, sent by law firm Johnson Winter Slattery, acting for Qantas, also said “the ACCC should not treat as admitted any allegation in the Concise Statement which is not specifically denied in the Concise Response.”

The airline said while it was under no obligation to respond to Qantas’s request for information – or “particulars” – in order to constructively engage with the watchdog, it agreed when and where some of the information the ACCC supplied came from.

Qantas also said it provided re-accommodation options to customers booked on 10 flights identified by the ACCC. It said three of the 10 flights had no ticketed passengers when the cancellation was processed.

Of the remaining seven flights, five had fewer than 10 ticketed passengers at the time the cancellation was notified and the remainder had 20 and 35 passengers each.

The letter also set out “non-exhaustive” examples of information Qantas says was sent to customers to explain “flight times and schedules are not guaranteed and/or do not form any contract between Qantas and consumers”.

In their concise defence filed in late October, Qantas said the watchdog was misguided in its belief that it supplied particular flights, when in fact it sold “rights” to flights that were wrapped up with a promise to do its best to get customers where they needed to be on time.