Originally Posted by
canadiancow
Wow. I'd appeal that with the aim of having 65(d) struck from the tariff.
I can't believe that even in court (or arbitration or whatever) AC would adhere to their obviously incorrect position on the necessity of a visa.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Good faith clauses are common in contracts and provide parties a reasonable level of protection against human error, which is the basis of claim in both the article and the past case. There could be reason to challenge the level of liability for errors made in good faith and for the burden of proof for the airline to demonstrate that a good faith effort was made, but the concept of the clause itself is fine and is reasonable that it is there.