Tiger Airway’s FREE (but with charges) ANZAC DAY sales drive is disgraceful, disrespectful and insulting.
As pointed out in this item in Crikey today, it is also contrary to rules and laws that its competitors obey.
Tiger Airways launched a blatant Anzac Day rip off this morning leaving itself open to prosecution under the Crimes Act and by the ACCC.
It announced a special ANZAC Day sale ‘with more than 30,000 FREE seats’ for travel between 1 June and 30 September.
Two problems. The use of the term ANZAC is protected under Australian law from commercial exploitation except under very limited and specific conditions which include the prior approval of the Veterans Affairs department.
And under ACCC rules an advertised free seat or fare means $0.00, not $0 plus airport charges and GST of between $22.08 and $35.13 plus a ‘convenience fee’ of $5.
The ACCC’s rule on domestic air fares and the law in relation to GST prohibit the breaking out of that tax and other sub components of a fare and compel the advertising of the full price of the goods or services being offered to the consumer.
The national president of the RSL, Major General Bill Crews said this morning “Potentially Tiger is in breach of the act in relation to the protection of the names Anzac and Anzac Day from commercial exploitation.
“I note that particularly in this case we are not talking about air fares available for use on Anzac Day, which could have been of benefit in relation to reunions and the commemoration of the day.
“The first flights on offer under this Anzac Day sale are not available until June.
“The whole purpose of this exercise seems to be to associate the commercial sale of seats for use in a general sales promotion with Anzac Day and has no proper association with the observances of this day, and this is of considerable concern.”
The Minister for Veteran Affairs Alan Griffin is in France in advance of ceremonies marking Anzac Day but guidance issued by the department is that this is a most serious issue, and that approvals for activities which associate themselves with Anzacs or Anzac Day must among other things be directly related to its observance .
All of which makes Tiger Airways Australian managing director Shelley Roberts sound rather grubby.
Roberts spruiks the FREE ANZAC Day sale in the media release saying “ANZAC DAY (her emphasis) is a special time for Australians to unite for commemorations.
“As Australia’s true low fare airline, we’re thrilled to offer consistently the lowest airfares across the country so Australians can come together or take a well deserved break, more often,” she is quoted as saying.
This crass drivel might pass for typical low grade PR on an ordinary day, but this is about Anzac Day, and this effort to cash in on it by the Singapore Airlines controlled token low cost entry in the Australian market is offensive and illegal.
Under the relevant parts of s.4B of the Crimes Act as applied to an Anzac Offence a person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months or fined $6600 or both, and a body corporate can be fined up to $33,000.
Earlier this week a Perth brewery renamed a special brew made to a World War 1 recipe a ‘Memorial Ale’ to avoid infringing the act protecting the word Anzac from commercial exploitation.
Apart from permitted social and fund raising events on the day, the only widespread commercial use of the term Anzac that is allowed is in relation to Anzac Biscuits, and they have to conform strictly with the original recipes.
In several conversations with Tiger’s spokesperson in Australia the airline has claimed that the public doesn’t understand low cost airlines and the manner in which they work to achieve very low fares.
I’ve suggested in reply that keeping money for flights that don’t operate, or double debiting customers, or making it impossible for people to contact the carrier isn’t a case of providing low fares at all. It is a matter of theft, or at least very bad manners.
Those who have been complaining to Crikey and other media about Tiger paid money and have received nothing as yet in some cases. The Tiger claim to be providing cheap fares for those who actually get nothing in return is clearly false.
And it is patronising to suggest that Australians don’t understand low cost carriers given the rise of Virgin Blue and Jetstar in the years before Tiger arrived, and the substantial price competition from Qantas that has taken place.
What we don’t seem to understand is an airline that can’t be contacted and hasn’t mastered the corner shop art of reversing a credit charge charge in less than one minute.
The question has been asked here several times just what the majority stakeholder in Tiger, Singapore Airlines, thinks about the consumer disquiet about this unpleasant and unaccountable little outfit, and how inconsistently it sits with its own profile of being a top quality yet fiercely price competitive brand in the Australian market?
This needs fixing.
This statement was issued by Tiger late this afternoon:-
Tiger Airways apologises if its latest sale offer, which coincides with ANZAC Day weekend, may have caused any offence.
This was not at all intentional. Tiger Airways has contacted the RSL in this regard and has offered its apologies.
Tiger Airways is making a donation to the National RSL as a gesture of goodwill.
14 Comments
You are spot on with the use of the word “free”. It’s not just Tiger of course, but is everywhere in the travel industry. The ACCC is silent.
Reminds me of Intrepid Travel that currently advertises “Colours of Morocco” trip for $788, but in smaller print states (plus EUR400), which in fact doubles the headline price! Again ACCC is silent.
Tiger is getting a thrashing with calls to ban the airline from Oz airspace for the reasons you’ve raised Ben. If we’re sanitising the boardrooms of the nation why not put a broom through our regulatory authorities that also failed us.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=618805
Oh for goodness sakes, if you think the average punter is so stupid that he can’t see through this scam and is getting ripped off I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. As for the appropriation of the “Anzac” name, what the hell difference does it make. The whole legend is just a PR exercise dreamed up after the war was long over. Today it is simply an excuse for the pollies to indulge in some chest beating. Frankly the whole day just gives me the sh*ts.
This is almost as bad as two leading politicians wearing the shirts from a commercial TV program at a Anzac Day dawn service. But Rudd and Hockey have gone onto bigger and better things…Kev now abuses defence force staff because his VIP Jet combat rations are not up to scratch and Joe gives travellers Kokoda Track travelling tips.
Regards from Shareswatch Blog
Just gotta love your cartoon! Very clever.
On a more serious note, how come Tiger, as a foreign-owned airline, are permitted to carry the Australian flag on its aircraft. While their fleet is on the Australian register, surely it does not give them the right to imply that they are an Australian airline by painting the Blue Ensign on each of its fleet. Can you imagine Singapore Inc. allowing a 9V- registered aircraft totally owned by an Australian company carrying the Singapore national flag? Come to think of it, would Singapore Inc. allow an airline with majority foreign ownership base itself in Singapore?
In a similar vein, I see that a large multi-national corporation based in Oz that has a Business jet registered in the US but which carries the Australian flag on its fuselage. Why isn’t it good enough to put the aircraft on the VH- register?
To my surprise I just blew up some photos of Jetstar Asia 9V registered jets and they seem to have the Singapore flag on the rear door, at least it sure isn’t the Australian flag. And that is a 49% owned Qantas company.
I guess our policy of allowing 100% owned foreign entities to operate domestic routes explains the Tiger situation.
But this doesn’t explain the phantom Union Jack on the rear fuselage of the V Australia 777-300ER.
Any authorities on this topic are very welcome to add to Ken’s comments on this, as the broader issues have me stumped. I’m due to fly with a very experienced Australian aviation photographer and historian on a demonstration of a corporate jet next week, so I’m sure I’ll be able to get answers to these questions by then at the latest.
Ben,
Because Tiger in Australia is 100% foreign owned entity and Jetstar is 49% foreign owned entity in Singapore, it’s not a fair comparison as Jet* is considered by Singapore Inc. to be a Singaporean entity. Hence, they should have the right to fly Singapore’s flag.
One could reasonably ask why a purely domestic operator needs to show a flag on its aircraft. For many years aircraft of neither Ansett, TAA, East West, Kendall etc. etc. did not carry the Australian flag. Without being xenophobic, the use of our flag to imply “Australianness” has to be an affront to all thinking Australians. The Flag Act of the Federal Parliament requires amendment to stop this kind of activity.
I can’t comment on the phantom Union flag on VAustralia’s B777s but don’t get me started on the livery of these bottom-feeders. I would suggest their livery is ntended to look very much like that of Qantas while the use of the Southern Cross is borrowed from an early Ansett livery (that with the blue tail before their final livery). I wonder how much Branson and his minions paid for this most “unoriginal” work. Maybe the good folk at Qantas would believe that imitation is a sincere form of flattery? I think not!
As a returned serviceman and one to whom the ANZAC Day commemoration means a great deal I find the remarks of Kevin Russell repugnant and insensitive. Mr Russell would do well to reflect on the origin of ANZAC and the fact that, despite the futility of war in many ways, those who have given with their lives in the service of the Australian Armed Forces over the years have done so because they believed it would ultimately help keep Australia the great country it is and maybe give others a chance of a better life in their countries. If Anzac Day gives Mr Russell “the sh*ts”, as he claims, he might like to take himself to some other place where he won’t have to endure such pain. A more ungrateful comment on Anzac Day I have not seen.
Old Fella: Are you frightened the great Oz public is becoming a wake up to the amount of trash, jingoistic tripe and drowned in the advertising garbage that goes along with it?
Also, old fella: you are a liar. No-one on this planet goes to war to fight to maintain the integrity of a country. They go because their politicians tell them to. (VB you’re standing in it.) (RSL would sell their grannies if it meant bigger and better wastes of times on Anzac days.
If you think legions of our youth go to Gallipoli for any other reason than to get laid, to drink buckets of beer, and to trash the place then you are even less informed than your comment suggests. It took John Howard to reduce what tiny bit of dignity was left of the Anzac day celebrations to grotesque and tawdry dimensions.
Your comment is full of jingoistic cant and crap. And you and your ilk died, wounded, whatever for a foreign land. Where was it, Vietnam? (From the tone of your letter you didn’t come close to being hurt by the American enemy)
Your comment is identical to the tripe that Bruce Ruxton (ex president of the RSL) used to lurve trotting out. And we all know what kind of a hero he was! He never saw enemy fire did he? Stuck as he was in the catering corps here, right here, in Oz
When I read the comments from Mr Russell I thought that was as about as low as it could go, but Venise Alstergren wins the “low life stakes” by the proverbial country mile. Of course soldiers, sailors and airmen go to war because they are asked to by government. Those who went to Gallopli were volunteers, as were those who served in the Second World War. As for calling me a liar, totally incorrect and uncalled for. Venise Alstergren should crawl back under the rock from whence he/she came. With views such as his/hers and denial of history he/she does not deserve to live in this country. What, Venise, have you ever contributed toward improving the lives of others? Oh, and by the way, I served alongside the American “enemy” and surely came a lot closer to being hurt by others than, I suggest, you did.
Old Fella. You have my support and respect. It saddens me to see people question the integrity of Anzac Day. Thanks for your contribution to our nation.
I think the discussion went off the rails here and I apologise to those who were offended by attacks on Anzac Day, which also offended me. As did the slaughter of our youngest and best so long ago. The notion that the youth of today would go to the expense of a visit to Turkey just to get laid is ridiculous and slanderous. Getting laid isn’t exactly an activity that requires money, or long distance travel these days. Those comments however remain posted because we are strong enough to accommodate just about anything that doesn’t involve atrocities against children and animals. The post was about the illegal use of the terms Anzac and Anzac Day to make money. Nothing else. If there is to be a discussion about the merits of throwing open those terms to be exploited to the hilt contrary to the law it ought to go to one of the other Crikey blogs
Thank you Greg Atkinson and also to Ben for your post and PM. Living in a democracy we are allowed to exercise free speech, except where it is in vilification of others. Posts such as those attributed to Venise Alstergren should, in my view, be treated as vilification. They are insensitive and an outrageous slur on the deeds of those who, rightly or wrongly, were prepared to lay down their lives for what they believed to be a just cause. I am patently aware that the vast majority of fair minded Australians would find the post of Venise Alstergren as distasteful as do I.
Old Fella,
Months later I’ve re-read my comments about Anzac day and the only thing I regret is my intemperate language.
Stripped of my verbosity my comments come down to three points. 1) I was shafting the RSL and anyone who couldn’t see that was blind. Ever see an RSL chief begging a Prime Minister NOT to send young men and women to fight and die? 2) I am not impressed by the fact that Australians were so committed to fighting for England and are so committed to fighting for America. Yet during WWII soldiers-here I’m not talking the Australians which Winston Churchill refused to let go of in the Middle East-had to be drafted to fight Japan. War photographers like Damien Parrer had to churn out patriotic films to encourage people to sign up. If that’s patriotism I’m a monkey. 3) I was saying that Anzac Day had become a tawdry shadow of what used to be a simple but moving occasion.
No one will get to read this comment. But just in case someone does, please don’t accuse me of not knowing something about Australia’s WWII efforts. I did study the subject at Uni.
PS: All the old diggers (?) trot out the line that America saved us from ruin by winning the battle of the Coral Sea. The first people to beat the Japanese on land were the Australians at Milne Bay. Also I venture to suggest our geography-deserts, waterless deserts, mile after mile of soul-destroying dry, pitiless deserts would have had the Japanese worn out within three months. Our soldiers would have emerged as heroes. The Nation would have emerged as an entity of itself. We would not have been gutless
worriers about getting a Republic. AND we would have stopped using sport to win at any price, as a grudge match against our former masters.
Good Bye!!!
One Trackback