CALGARY — WestJet Airlines (TSX:WJA) could be forced to pay more compensation for lost or damaged luggage following a preliminary ruling by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
The agency received a complaint from a University of Manitoba professor over WestJet's $250 limit on baggage liability.
Gabor Lukacs argued that Air Canada's limit is $1500 for lost luggage on domestic flights, while international carriers provide a much higher level of compensation.
An official with WestJet says the discount carrier is reviewing the decision but it is too early to say what changes, if any, will be made.
The airline has the right to appeal the ruling.
Shareholder
Mar 31, 10, 6:24 am
Just love WS's "customer focused" response to the CTA:
"WestJet submits that a person always has the option of insuring baggage on commercial terms, or travelling on another carrier...WestJet further submits that it has a commercial obligation to earn a profit for its shareholders." [so we can stiff our "guests" any which way we want to, suckers!]
cur
Mar 31, 10, 12:07 pm
Yeah, I was really really surprised to hear that considering WS' obsession with putting customers (or is it their "owners" first)? I'm guessing that WS submitted that not knowing it would be news. I don't think AC would even use a statement like that, they'd at least guise it as "fulfilling an obligation that meets or exceeds the needs of our pax".
And when they talk about "the obligation to earn a profit for shareholders", they're referring to putting enough money in their employees pockets so they don't unionize, right?
tcook052
Mar 31, 10, 11:15 pm
Seems the complainant has taken airlines to task previous and there's much more in this Freep article: (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breakingnews/westjets-baggage-policy-fails-inspection-cta-rules-against-compensation-limit-89545822.html)
Last May, Lukacs won a victory over Air Canada and its policy that it was not responsible for minor damage to his baggage after he returned to Winnipeg from a trip. He said he was prompted by an airline notice that said Air Canada wasn't responsible for anything from scratches to missing straps.
Four years ago he agreed to a $6,000 settlement in a Nova Scotia court after he missed a conference because of a cancelled Continental Airlines flight.
"It's one of those experiences that everybody has if you fly like most people do and it's part of our daily lives where I think people are treated quite poorly fairly often," Lukacs said.
He suggested that if each person took up one issue of injustice, no matter how small, "we would be living in a much better world."
cur
Apr 1, 10, 6:25 pm
Seems the complainant has taken airlines to task previous and there's much more in this Freep article: (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breakingnews/westjets-baggage-policy-fails-inspection-cta-rules-against-compensation-limit-89545822.html)
Last May, Lukacs won a victory over Air Canada and its policy that it was not responsible for minor damage to his baggage after he returned to Winnipeg from a trip. He said he was prompted by an airline notice that said Air Canada wasn't responsible for anything from scratches to missing straps.
Four years ago he agreed to a $6,000 settlement in a Nova Scotia court after he missed a conference because of a cancelled Continental Airlines flight.
"It's one of those experiences that everybody has if you fly like most people do and it's part of our daily lives where I think people are treated quite poorly fairly often," Lukacs said.
He suggested that if each person took up one issue of injustice, no matter how small, "we would be living in a much better world."
I am so conflicted. I fully agree that if we took up issues of injustice, no matter how small, we would be living in a much better world. But these rulings are what I consider to be a form of injustice: bureaucrats determining what is right based on their ambiguous, invented standards on issues that are should be the responsibility of the free market. Yes, the CTA has the legal authority over tariffs. But I take issue with entities like the CTA that can command an airline to do something not because it is illegal (eg: bait and switch, 5% racial environmental surcharge for all Hispanic pax, etc) but because they somehow,ambiguously decided that the firm's justification for doing an otherwise legal action isn't reasonable. This type of entitlement and wide reach reminds me of the AB Human Rights Tribunal formally asking Ezra Levant to justify why he published an image depicting Mohammed. This dangerous notion of bureaucrats demanding the media to justify itself wasn't imposed to Levant because what he did was illegal, but but because someone complained by submitting some forms to the government.
For a professor, he really makes some silly propositions. His "battle" is nothing more than a belief that WS should operate a certain way that maximizes his (and consumers') utility. To say that AC's limits of $1500 are more beneficial to its customers than WS' $250 is logical and sound. To say that $250 is not enough to pay for a complete loss of most checked items is also fair. But to assert that the mere existence of a disparity, that is within the law, and prevalent in a free market "does not make sense" is really befuddling. The situation makes perfect sense: they don't seem to care about the implications but not guaranteeing more than $250 for customers that lose items that worth more than $250. This policy may be bad customer service, greedy, and a lot less than other airlines, but being that we (presumably) live in a free market, it isn't against the law, so what? Take your business elsewhere.
The claim that an airline should be responsible for luggage straps even though the airline tells pax not to use luggage straps (they jam baggage systems and create FOD hazards) blows my mind. And liability for cosmetic damage to luggage... wow.
A true form of justice would be to reward the firm that voluntarily has a higher rate with his business, not relying on government to solve everything for. Customer service is the result of innovation, not entities such as the government and (most dangerously) its bureaucrats regulating everything.
I hope this guy isn't prioritizing these complaints to the CTA over teaching undergraduates.
cur
Apr 1, 10, 6:31 pm
I take issue with entities like the CTA that can command an airline to do something not because it is illegal (eg: bait and switch, 5% racial environmental surcharge for all Hispanic pax, etc) but because they somehow,ambiguously decided that the firm's justification for doing an otherwise legal action.
Actually, if something illegal occurred to me, like if I was charged more on the basis of my race or a bait and switch occurs, I would go through the court system that would make a decision based on the law, precedence, and logic. I wouldn't go through some bureaucrats that will "ask the airline to justify itself" before deciding whether "the interests of the airline outweigh that of the pax" which, if negative, would lead them to "ask the airline to change its policies".
I'd say the CTA is just a useless bureaucratic median, except perhaps in dispute mediation between two parties that regarding the application of a perfectly legal policy, not whether a particular policy is 'fair' or 'just' or 'disbalanced' despite its lack of illegality. Or, (if they even do this), gathering complaints, compiling the data, and presenting it to the legislative branch of government to decide what is best.
WHILE waiting for luggage at Toronto Pearson International Airport earlier this week, Gulliver spotted a lonely bag circling on an abandoned carousel. Did someone forget that they had checked a bag or was its true destination hundreds or even thousands of miles away? And what goodies might be inside? Not much if our own luggage was any indication. Laptop, iPods, house keys were all safely stashed in carry-on. Who checks in anything valuable these days if they can help it?
Yet on that same day WestJet was receiving a rebuke from the Canadian Transport Agency, which has given the country’s second-biggest airline 20 days to increase the amount it offers passengers for losing their luggage from its current C$250 ($242) limit—or come up with a reason why not. WestJet said there was no evidence to suggest that domestic passengers regularly check in property worth more than C$250, so any increase in its policy could leave it open to fraudulent claims. It also stated that it had never received a complaint about its policy before.
But the agency ruled in favour of the complainant, a man who oddly had not lost luggage with WestJet, yet had filed on principle. And the ruling does indeed seem reasonable, since Air Canada’s limit for lost, delayed or damaged luggage is C$1,500, Porter Airlines offers up to C$1,000 and the standard adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation under the Montreal Convention can be as high as C$1,800.
And here's the full CTA ruling, in case any are interested:
WestJet said there was no evidence to suggest that domestic passengers regularly check in property worth more than C$250, so any increase in its policy could leave it open to fraudulent claims. It also stated that it had never received a complaint about its policy before.
Seriously, what's the cost of a good piece of luggage, with a few good quality shirts and pairs of pants? A couple of silk ties. Nothing that you can't get at the Bay, let alone Harry Rosen. I can get up to $500 easily on the contents of a suitcase without any electronics, jewelry or stuff that shouldn't be in it. Even a package of razor blades these day can run $30. A leisure traveller? So a few pairs of jeans and a Tommy shirt or two can easily exceed $250.
You can bet Gregg Saretsky isn't buying clothes at Honest Ed's.
billybob123
Nov 26, 10, 11:00 am
Looks like Westjet lost on this one. Good for the CTA to dump Westjet's argument. Is this really going to cost them money? I have a great idea to save on this judgement - stop misdirecting passengers' luggage! What are their statistics like? I can't find anything on a quick first search.
(I beat tcook052 to posting a news story! That's a first for me! - wait, he posted in the AC forum. Doh! Foiled again!)
CanuckFlyHigh
Nov 26, 10, 1:20 pm
Seriously, what's the cost of a good piece of luggage, with a few good quality shirts and pairs of pants? A couple of silk ties. Nothing that you can't get at the Bay, let alone Harry Rosen. I can get up to $500 easily on the contents of a suitcase without any electronics, jewelry or stuff that shouldn't be in it. Even a package of razor blades these day can run $30. A leisure traveller? So a few pairs of jeans and a Tommy shirt or two can easily exceed $250.
You can bet Gregg Saretsky isn't buying clothes at Honest Ed's.
$500? I have calculated my checked bag being worth 8+ grand with my suits in it. I mean its covered under house insurance certainly, but I agree, $250 is a joke. Might reimburse me for a tie.
Hypnotize
Nov 26, 10, 5:05 pm
Airlines should make available a $5-$10 add-on fee for higher baggage compensation. This bull about being told what is fair or not is a joke - much like the entire CTA.
Seriously, what's the cost of a good piece of luggage, with a few good quality shirts and pairs of pants? A couple of silk ties. Nothing that you can't get at the Bay, let alone Harry Rosen. I can get up to $500 easily on the contents of a suitcase without any electronics, jewelry or stuff that shouldn't be in it. Even a package of razor blades these day can run $30. A leisure traveller? So a few pairs of jeans and a Tommy shirt or two can easily exceed $250.
Our Customer Care department doesn't hand out money like candy, but from what I've been told we use $250 as a base and go well beyond that for most if not all cases. As noted somewhere, a higher limit opens up fraudulent claims.
Rejuvenated
Nov 26, 10, 11:22 pm
WestJet recommended a $1,000 limit for lost or damaged luggage in arguments with the Canadian Transportation Agency over compensation for passengers.
OTTAWA — WestJet will not get to appeal a ruling that said its compensation for lost or damaged luggage is not high enough.
The Federal Court of Appeal has rejected the airline's request for a hearing on the matter.
Last year, the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled the airline's $250 limit for luggage compensation was too low, and ordered the cap raised to $1,800.