Originally Posted by
emcampbe
You may have been saved by this at some point, too, by having an aircraft in place to run your departure that would have otherwise been stuck somewhere else. The up to 50 pax disserviced scheduled on your departure would have gone upwards to potentially hundreds of diserviced pax (say, 300 if the aircraft was scheduled to do 6 segments) if the aircraft went to MSP and got stuck. That's not even including any disruptions that may have occurred if the crew that was in MSP was also scheduled to run segments on other aircraft that day, who can no longer report to work.
In short, it's a lot more complicated then you think. AC and other carriers don't take flight cancellations lightly.
I understand the rationale, but:
1. If the plane and crew just go back and forth YYZ-MSP-YYZ those other 6 segments would have been canceled anyway. Instead of being stuck in MSP they were twiddling their thumbs in YYZ.
2. If the decision is to keep the plane in YYZ because of the domino effect it might have on subsequent flights, that is a business decision. That is not a weather cancellation. Maybe it is rational to disservice 50 pax to benefit 300. But you ought to compensate the 50 for their sacrifice.
"We decided to strand you because we might need that plane for something else" or "it's for the greater good" isn't that satisfying to me, when I'm out of pocket for non-refundable bookings at the destination and AC opted not to fly me there because it's less expensive than the alternative.
Also, it sounds like I will only get a partial refund. Original itinerary was YUL-YYZ-MSP-YYZ-YUL. I will end up flying YUL-YYZ-YUL with two days stuck in YYZ. AC/AE is arguing that they fulfilled part of my itinerary even though they did not get me to my destination and caused me to waste my weekend somewhere I had no interest in being. Does that make sense?