Scenic’s defeat — for the moment at least — in a Supreme Court class action should act as a warning to tour operators across Australia. The long running case, which surrounded Scenic’s handling of flood-hit voyagers in 2013, showed conclusively that consumers — and this should hardly come as a shock — expect to get what they paid for, and to hell with the terms and conditions.
A judge ruled in favour of the lead plaintiff who described his European cruise as a “massive disappointment” after being shunted onto a coach for part of the itinerary.
The industry should take note. Scenic held up its T&C’s as a way of absolving itself of responsibility. The judge was having none of it, concluding Scenic breached Australian consumer law by not informing passengers about weather disruptions.
As reported in Travel Daily, more than 1,000 passengers will now receive refunds and damages that could cost Scenic an estimated $14m. Scenic deserves some sympathy. The tour operator was in an unenviable position, dealing with exceptional circumstances not of its making. Whenever natural catastrophe confronts the industry — unprecedented rainfall in this case — there are challenging situations to deal with.
But deal with them they must and tough, clear and decisive action is necessary. Critically, it is action that must be taken in the best interests of customers.
Scenic is a river cruise specialist. It promotes itself as such and has established a solid reputation as an expert. To that end, it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that it surely should have known, or suspected, there was a high chance of severe disruption. Let’s not forget, these weren’t passing showers in Europe but extraordinary downpours.
As lawyers acting for the plaintiff argued, Scenic should have known that operating the voyages without major disruption was “inconceivable”. On the face of it, the company seems to have demonstrated poor judgement as well as failing to alert passengers of the possible disruptions.
I have no doubt that had voyages been postponed, some criticism would have followed, particularly from those who had already travelled to Europe. Damned if they cancelled, damned if they didn’t to some degree. On balance, however, most passengers, while disappointed, would probably have understood and respected that a decision not to proceed had been made in their best interests.
It may have resulted in a logistical nightmare maybe, but it would have been the right decision.
Instead, there appears to have been a lack of transparency and a substandard experience. Scenic is now paying the price.
