Qantas to change Credit Card Surcharge calculation

As of 1 September, 2016, Qantas will be changing the way it calculates Credit Card surcharges. The change will see Qantas move from a flat fee model, to one where the fee is calculated as a percentage of the ticket price. As part of the changes, one of the current fee free options will also be removed.

The changes are being made as a result of changes to the regulatory environment around Credit Card surcharges.

New Credit Card Surcharges

The new and existing Credit Card Surcharges are shown in the following table:

From 1 September Before 1 September
Booking made
in Australia
Debit / Prepaid card
Credit / Charge Card
Fee Cap
(per ticket per card) 
Debit / Prepaid card Credit / Charge Card
Domestic 0.6% 1.3% $11 $2.50 $7.00
Trans Tasman 0.6% 1.3% $11 $2.50 $7.00
Other International 0.6% 1.3% $70 $10.00 $30.00

For customers making lower priced purchase, there will be a reduction in the fees charged. For those purchasing higher priced tickets, there will be an increase in the Credit Card Surcharge.

Specifically, for Domestic and Trans-Tasman fares, the surcharge will be lower than at present when purchasing fares less that $538, and more expensive for tickets above that amout. In the case of Internatioanl airfares, the change between costing less or more takes place at a fare level of $2,308

Fee Free Options

Those that remain

The following fee free options will still be available from 1 September:

  • POLi online payment option
  • BPAY for payment made 7 days or more before the flight’s scheduled departure
  • UATP cards issued by Qantas
  • Cash or EFTPOS (Qantas airport locations)

and one that goes

These options all exist now, although there is also a fifth option. The option

  • Debit cards for payment less than 7 days before the flight’s scheduled departure

will be removed as from 1 September. As of this date, this payment method will begin to be charged the new 0.6% surcharge amount.

One thought on “Qantas to change Credit Card Surcharge calculation

  • July 8, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    It appears they have simply recouped the lost fees by altering the formula.. Not the intention of the regulation ha!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *