segacs

But at what point does squeezing seats so close together reach a tipping point? I'm a short, small woman and even I find it ridiculous at this point. You have planes needing to be diverted because of passengers who break out into fights over recline vs. knee defenders. You have DVT and circulatory problems from people who can't move. You have passengers thrown off flights for being too wide for their seats, or spilling over into the next seats forcing their seat neighbours into half of theirs.

And the airlines have proven that there really is no end to it. Today it's a move from 34" to 31" pitch. Tomorrow, it could be 28", or 24", or everyone crammed standing up into a cargo hold. I mean, every additional ticket sold is more revenue, right?

I'm not suggesting that every passenger should be guaranteed a wide business class seat, but at bare minimum, people need to be able to reach the emergency exits in the case of an emergency evacuation of the plane. Surely there's a place for some sort of regulation here.

ETA: Advocates for a bill of rights in the US have been calling for this for a while.

The Lev

This part actually is regulated. the aircraft can't be certified unless the manufacturer can show that the aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds using only half its exits.

(I suspect the test isn't done with "people of size" though and it isn't done with smoke present).

Here is a 777 evacuation test:

Jumper Jack

If anything, the way these "tests" are conducted are in no way of representing the reality of emergency evacuation.

Scold me or whatever, its going to happen at some point with 450+ density on a 3-class 773, maybe not AC, maybe some other airline and we will find out just really if they meet the so called safety specs.
Keep in mind the Emirates flight that crash landed in Dubai only had 282 pax on-board.

In fact, just for the lolz, who here is actually willing to bet their house if tomorrow we choose any of AC's TPAC Flight on a 773 to conduct a emergency evac trial and they be able will complete the evacuation in 90 seconds provided the two exits on the wing is not working?

Also, does anyone with inside knowledge know that if even AC bothered to conduct testing with their 450 version in the first place, or if they had to?

StuMcIlwain

Boeing conducts the testing when they certify the aircraft. The 777-300 is certified for 550 people, which means that Boeing demonstrated that they could evacuate a 777-300 with 550 people on board in less the 90 seconds using only half of the exits. They use trained staff for these tests, and there is no confusion, smoke, or luggage. You can argue about passenger comfort and health in HD aircraft, but the safety angle won't go anywhere since the authorities have certified the aircraft for even denser passenger configurations than any of the major airlines are considering.

CZAMFlyer

Sorry Jack, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree here. The tests are representative, and certification is achieved based upon successful results. I guess the only critique one can offer is the evacuation tests are performed in a controlled atmosphere, with participants having advance knowledge of what they're expected to do. I understand that the non-functioning exit locations are not revealed ahead of the order to evacuate, which introduces some real confusion.

Read up on the AF358 accident if you need reassurance that over 300 people can successfully evacuate - with no advance warning - in less than 90 seconds in real world conditions: a broken and burning aircraft in rugged terrain with several exits not available .

Stranger

Except for half the people on board who insist in taking their carryons with them, and too bad if that results in the last half of the passengers ending up burning with the plane.

And it would not surprise me one bit if some of the folks are here might be among those...

Transpacificflyer

It is most certainly relevant:

1. AC is the largest airline in Canada. It also has one of the worst online perfomance and luggage delivery records of the major North American airlines (Delta, United, Air Canada, American, Jet Blue). If AC is forced to comply with minimum standards then it is of benefit for the tens of thousands of AC customers who are mistreated by the airline.

2. This directly impacts AC because unlike WestJet it intentionally oversells and overbooks its fligths as part of its operating procedures. This is the most egregious of business practices, and is deceitful. What other industry is allowed to offer a product for sale, to sell it ahead of time, misleading a customer to plan and prepare for a flight that that the customer expects to be on, only for the customer to be denied passage at the last minute?

3. Attaching additional financial costs to business practices will cause AC to reconsider its business operation strategy. Many of AC's failings in the customer service department are due to inadequate staffing levels. It should not be a surprise that baggage is lost or delayed when the airline doesn't allocate enough personnel for the loading, unloading and transfer of baggage. It should not be a surprise that there are delays when the airline doesn't have enough technical support staff on duty to respond to basic urgent service issues. Nor should it be a surprise that customers become upset when there are IROPs and the airline only provides 2 agents at a service desk to rebook hundreds of pax, or when there is one agent at the baggage desk to deal with hundreds of customers who have not received their bags. This may force AC to go, hmmm tens of thousands in penalties vs. a few hundred dollars to pay for an extra worker here and there.


What do you hope to achieve by your nonsensical statement? "Reform" has not been around in over a decade. Why try and blame former Transport Minister Rait? I remind you that when the USA and the EU were planning and introducing the consumer protection rules, the liberals were in power. The EU 261 Regulation was passed in 2004. Who was PM of Canada at that time? I'll give you a hint: His first name was Paul.

The failure to act has been a characteristic shared by Canadian governments since the airline industry started. It is no big secret that Air Canada prior to privatization was once a patronage plum of liberal governments and this is argued to be one of the reasons why the airline had so much pull with the governments of the day.

I will also remind you once again that the initiative started in 2013 with support at the parliamentary commitee level. It was people like Prof. Gabor Lukacs who kept pushing the issue. He is the gentleman who has been ridiculed on this forum and been greeted with much sniping despite the fact that to date he has been one of the few people to actually help any injured customers.

Former Conservative Industry Minister James Moore summed up the need for airline passenger protection when he stated this in January 2014,
“People who have paid for their ticket show up at the gate, go through security, arrive on time, and they find that their ticket has been sold twice and that somebody else is occupying their chair and they have to get rebooked, sometimes missing a wedding, missing a funeral, and having their business life interrupted.” “That’s not fair to consumers, it’s not fair to travellers and we are looking to take action on that front as well.”

The NDP had started the ball rolling in 2014 with its private members bill to introduce passenger rights. And I will reiterate, if Marc Garneau was not Transport Minister, it is unlikely that the current government would even be discussing the issue at this time. Minister Garneau is a decent and honourable gentleman and he has had to deal with some vociferous lobbyists to get this issue on the agenda.

Who led the campaign against the introduction of air passenger rights? It is no secret that the National Airlines Council of Canada does not support the introduction of consumer rights. The NACC is made up of Air Canada, Jazz, Air Transat and West Jet.

Wpgjetse

Most lost baggage is not from inadequate staffing, but from misprinted tags or the airport system failing to read tags. Very few bags are lost from staffing issues or staff loading bags onto the wrong plane. AC baggage handlers scans every bag load onto a aircraft to make sure they are loaded onto the correct plane. If you think any business this going to employ hundreds, if not thousands of extra staff per shift around the world for a possible problem, your are dreaming. Also, it is not a few dollars, but hundreds of millions of dollars. I guarantee no business does what you want. By the way, when hundreds of bags go missing, it will always(99.9%) be a weather issues and no Bill of Rights(any country) will come down on any airline for this.

PS - I do know AC bring extra staff in, when the weather is bad in the winter.

Wpgjetse

I agree this is a problem. The main reason this happens to AC and not Westjet, is because AC allows pax to cancel tickets and get a full refunds. Westjet does not refund your money(except plus ticket's, but there is a cancel fee) so pax don't book "just in case" tickets or book tickets under other peoples name, hoping to increase their upgrade chances. AC basically over books flights because they have a higher no show rate than Westjet because of this.

YOWgary

I suspect AC also has a considerably higher percentage of business travel than Westjet, which is a segment far more likely to no-show or SDC than people flying to see Grandma.

Wpgjetse

I would agree.

KenHamer

So because a "business" passenger might not show up someone flying to see grandma should be penalized?

BlueMilk

Absolutely not. As you well know.

If the business passenger shows up, grandma should get a hotel room and $800 to travel tomorrow. It's unlikely she'll have the opportunity, however, as she'll lose the race to the desk.

Bartolo

Thanks. This is a great practical beginning.

vernonc

Very nice summary. I might copy and paste.