YOURSAY 'AirAsia should publish very clearly the final price (taxes included) the passenger will have to pay.'

Australian regulator files lawsuit against AirAsia

Kgen: Because AirAsia (AA) likes to advertise low headline prices exclusive of mandatory charges and taxes, a lot of people automatically assume that they are the cheapest. So they book AA without bothering to shop around.

In fact, there's often only a small difference between AA's regular fares and those of non-discount airlines that include food, entertainment, comfort kit, seat selection and baggage.

And if you book AA close to the date of travel, it can be even more expensive than regular airlines.

Other unfair practices of AA that the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) should go after are the huge penalty charges for date changes and the ridiculous 60-day refund policy.

This is like being forced to give the airline an interest-free loan for two months despite the fact that the cancelled flight is not the customer's fault.

Bharat Menon: AA has been in operation now for more than a decade and have always advertised their raw fares this way. We have always known this - that the advertised fares do not include airport tax and duties.

This is denoted in asterisk (though in smaller print). As such, I cannot understand why the fuss now and of late the brickbats aimed at AA/TF (AirAsia/Tony Fernandes).

If you do not include all the frills which you have the option to opt for or not, then the fares are low as compared to other airlines.

This is the low-cost budget airline business model. One has to agree wholeheartedly that more and more people have taken the opportunity to fly since AA came on the scene. Can anyone deny this?

AA/TF has won many accolades and awards locally and internationally and all Malaysians should be proud of this. There is no cheating involved - just do not opt for the optional services you do not want.

Having said this, however, I would be inclined to agree that the advertised fares should be the minimum payable.

Changeagent: The crux of the matter for the ACCC is that all advertised prices must realistically represent the minimum amount payable by consumers. Let's assume for example that the airfare is A$100, while the taxes and duties add up to A$200.

In this case, it would be misleading to advertise the price as A$100 since the minimum price that consumers would have to pay is A$300.

I understand the point about extra charges relating to optional add-ons such as food and entertainment, but taxes, duties and booking fees are non-optional items that you cannot de-select.

At the end of the day, the Australian regulators have implemented these regulations to protect consumers against misleading and deceptive practices.

If foreign companies like AirAsia choose to compete in their market, they will have to abide by the same competitive rules like any other company.

Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum: AirAsia should publish very clearly the final price (taxes included) the passenger will have to pay. Only after that should the optionals (seat/food/luggage) be mentioned together with the charges for them.

The Phnom Phen/KL flight is intially priced at RM155. The final charge, without optionals, is more than RM300! How annoying. Competition is no excuse for such conduct.

Indian Ji: I am a frequent flyer using AA and I don't face any problem in term of prices nor bookings for domestic and internationals. After all, this business model leads them to achieve the ‘best in the world' award for three times and we can't denied that.

That is the reason I can't digest Australian lawsuit. For me, it doesn't make any sense as each individual company has its own innovative way to make money and the same goes to AA.

Manjit Bhatia: Indian Ji, business models have nothing to do with the requirement that all businesses must adhere to a country's regulatory rules and laws. Do not confuse business models with laws. They can't be conflated, either.

The ACCC investigated AirAsia for breaching regulatory rules and is pursuing the matter in court. I understand you want AirAsia's exoneration but let the court decide the matter.

The only relevant question here is whether AirAsia breached pricing rules that contravened Australian competition laws.

OB: In marketing strategy, this is a case of using an ally or a third party (the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) to attack a competitor to gain market share.

Changeagent: Dear OB, with all due respect, the ACCC have an impeccable record of protecting consumers' rights and has definitely not gone out of its way to make life difficult for AirAsia.

Far from restricting competition and protecting local companies against global players, the primary purpose of ACCC is to promote competition and fair trade in the market to benefit consumers.

The rules of engagement in the Australian airline industry had long been established way before AirAsia's entry into the fray.

All industry players, new and existing, are governed by the same competition rules. It would be extremely unfair to suggest that AirAsia is treated differently just to limit their market share.

Onyourtoes: It is easy to say it is a free market, we shall decide whether or not we would like to proceed with a purchase, be it airline tickets or other goods and services.

If it is that simple, why are there the need to have regulators and anti-competition legislations? We may as well shut down all these agencies, why waste taxpayers' money?

Obviously individual consumers are no match when compared with large corporations in terms of information, knowledge and bargaining power. Besides, some corporations may have tacit support from their respective governments to exert monopoly power and predatory pricing on unsuspecting consumers.

That is why we need regulators to see that fairness and even-handedness prevail in most dealings.

Pemerhati: What this incident tells us that in Australia there is an agency that looks after the consumers by making sure that businesses do not hoodwink the customers by hiding certain costs when advertising and then suddenly charging them more when the actual purchases are made.

Let us hope that our bloated and easy going civil service can learn from this and also start doing some work along these lines to protect the Malaysian consumers.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .