Involuntary bumping has been discussed in this forum a number of times - including in the threads listed below.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum5/HTML/006082.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum5/HTML/006121.html

I just wanted to know if Air Canada ever comes close to compensating passengers as US airlines sometimes do and/or how Canadian regulations compare to US regulations in terms of compensation for involuntary bumping? (PS-If AC bumps passengers in USA - presumably it is covered by the US regulations there?). See the USA Today article for more details:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/vacat...19-bumping.htm

[This message has been edited by FlyerGoldII (edited 07-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FlyerGoldII (edited 07-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FlyerGoldII (edited 07-20-2002).]

The regulations are different in the U.S. I think that the denied boarding amount is more but I would have to check. I will let you know.

They are not even close. I don't think there are Canadian regulations on denied boarding. AC seems to give you a minimum and maximum of $300CDN in vouchers or $100CDN cash for voluntary and involuntary denied boardings.

In the US, I believe regulations say an involuntary denied boarding forces the airline to pay cash of twice the flight coupon's value up to a maximum of $400 US ($200US for regional operators, I believe).

They're crunchier, so they taste better. And, they have a creamy filling.

Interesting sidebar... The origins of the US bumping system suggested by the economist Julian Simon in 1967 and adopted in 1978 is summarized in his article Origins of the Airline Oversales Auction System

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...7n2-simon.html

The chief difference between the US volunteer system and the Canadian one is that AC has a maximum amount. US denied boarding is at about 1%. Wonder what the AC number would be? (US data: 0 volunteers in 1977; 599,205 in 1991).

Ew/oQ

To whet lurkers interest...
"I greatly fear that your overbooking auction plan suffers from a flawed premise and a fatal defect. The flawed premise is that you assume that airline management and regulation is a rational exercise. It is not; it is more accurately described as an exercise in applied insanity. The defect is your plan offers a market-sensitive and sensible solution to a real problem but a solution not conceived by an airline. Accordingly, the idea must be disallowed since it is well established in airline marketing that only ideas which originate within the airlines are permissible."

Actually I want to know if FlyerGoldII can post something, anything, where he is not asking others questions... where he contributes to the collective wisdom of the group instead of just takes from it.

There my rant is done now