WTF? This is nonsense.
Apple prices for battery repairs are clearly outlined on their web site[0]. This has always been what I (or relatives/friends/coworkers) paid for France[1] when I had to change a battery.
[0]: https://support.apple.com/mac-notebooks/repair/service/prici...
[1]: https://support.apple.com/fr-fr/mac-notebooks/repair/service...
They told me that those prices are the service pricing, but do not include parts. And because the entire lower-half of the laptop needed to be changed in the rMBP model, the total cost would come to about $900 AUD.
The actual item listed on the repair invoice is "Top Case Assembly with Battery" @ $562.73 and the "Hardware Repair Labor" charge is listed at $289 AUD.
Did you ever have friends or relatives change the battery in a retina MacBook Pro? Apple cannot remove the battery because it is glued into the lower case assembly. And so when I got my machine back from Apple the trackpad, keyboard, and lower aluminium chassis was brand new (however the bottom plate, logic board, and internals were the same).
When I complained in-person and through phone support I was told the same story specifically about the retina MBP model. They said that the standard charge for battery replacement in this model included the entire lower case assembly. I heard this from about four different support agents, even when it was escalated to the special support agent that was able to eventually authorise the free repair.
When I received my MacBook Pro back from battery service the keyboard, trackpad, and lower aluminium chassis were brand new. So they did change it all out just to replace the battery.
I figured I could take it to Apple for a battery replacement. They said they would do it — for $900. They told me it involved replacing the entire bottom half of the computer as the battery was glued in.
So I called their support line and complained that the laptop was perfectly fine and it shouldn't cost that much to replace a battery. They ended up replacing it for free, as well as the screen (because they identified that the anti-reflective coating was starting to wear). So while the policy was ridiculous, the actual outcome was very positive.