Group wants to sue Air Canada for not reflecting actual ticket price
Apr 21, 2015, 2:03 pm
#76
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,359
This case relates to alleged illegal business conduct, not an accident.
In respect to filings after an incident, they are a reservation of rights. It takes months to file the case and to start the certification process. In the meantime,the investigation proceeds. There are statute of limitations that oblige plaintiffs to file quickly. How long does an investigation and its findings to be released in Canada in Canada take? 2 years or more sometimes doesn't it? Well, the clock starts running as soon as the incident occurs. Here's a more blatant example; one typically has 10 days to file against a municipality. Sometimes it's a month. If the Halifax municipality shares some of the responsibility for the AC crash, failure to file within the prescribed time period prejudices the plaintiffs. The litigation in the AC crash will name all implicated parties until a later date as liability for the incident is more firmly established. Failure to file within the set time limits can exclude a claim from being brought at a later date. Everyone involved has to be named as a failure to do so will prejudice a case and allow one party to claim responsibility lies with the unnamed party.
In respect to filings after an incident, they are a reservation of rights. It takes months to file the case and to start the certification process. In the meantime,the investigation proceeds. There are statute of limitations that oblige plaintiffs to file quickly. How long does an investigation and its findings to be released in Canada in Canada take? 2 years or more sometimes doesn't it? Well, the clock starts running as soon as the incident occurs. Here's a more blatant example; one typically has 10 days to file against a municipality. Sometimes it's a month. If the Halifax municipality shares some of the responsibility for the AC crash, failure to file within the prescribed time period prejudices the plaintiffs. The litigation in the AC crash will name all implicated parties until a later date as liability for the incident is more firmly established. Failure to file within the set time limits can exclude a claim from being brought at a later date. Everyone involved has to be named as a failure to do so will prejudice a case and allow one party to claim responsibility lies with the unnamed party.
But your response is a good one, thanks.
Apr 24, 2015, 8:14 am
#77
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
I consider this to be frivolous and without merit. I disagree with the courts, last time I checked I have a right that opinion. I believe in caveat emptor. My personal views about this are that its entirely a waste of energy, money and the the courts time.
In cases like this, I do not want the courts to 'protect me', as you say. I'm a big boy, and if I fell for an offer* that was deceitful, its on me. Live and learn.
My point of lunacy is that I am involved in this without my consent, and I need to waste more time and energy to opt out.
* Full disclosure, I don't even know what the issue was/is. I book tickets based on the price I see when I search for flights.
Apr 24, 2015, 8:22 am
#78
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
I would recommend you petition the courts for permission to initiate a class action against the PQ government, The Quebec Bar, the plaintiffs in the AC action, the estate of King John, and maybe Canadian Tire just for good measure.
Probably the easiest way would be to send the court a registered letter stating your intention to opt out.
Probably the easiest way would be to send the court a registered letter stating your intention to opt out.
My entire point is that I have to take the time and expense to send a registered letter. I think the onus should be on those who wish to participate to sign up, and not the opposite. But in our society, it appears that if one child poops in their diapers, everyone gets a diaper change, regardless. I understand that thought might have been clouded by my fury at the time of reading it and posting in such a rage. Now I am calmer (although still very much irate) but still annoyed by all this. One more small cut pushing me to move away from Quebec though. Its getting close to 1000. Very similar to your choice to leave a preferred airline a while back...but in this case its my homeland.
Apr 24, 2015, 11:52 am
#79
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ottawa and Montreal
Programs: SPG Gold / IHG Spire / Emerald Executive Elite
Posts: 457
Group wants to sue Air Canada for not reflecting actual ticket price
Well, from a consumer point of view, I'm very happy with consumer laws in Québec, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad to live here. They are ahead of the game most of the time.
To my knowledge, that "opt out" situation is not often used here, it's more the opt in situation usually. They probably picked the "opt out" as it made more sense in terms of overall numbers and $.
But “eh”, who cares? Just let it go, and be part of that class action; what do you lose? (Unless you believe you would do better in suing them on your own).
Now, about showing the actual ticket prices , what's wrong about this? That should have been a no-brainer from the start... and that, all accross Canada!
To my knowledge, that "opt out" situation is not often used here, it's more the opt in situation usually. They probably picked the "opt out" as it made more sense in terms of overall numbers and $.
But “eh”, who cares? Just let it go, and be part of that class action; what do you lose? (Unless you believe you would do better in suing them on your own).
Now, about showing the actual ticket prices , what's wrong about this? That should have been a no-brainer from the start... and that, all accross Canada!
Last edited by YUL; Apr 24, 2015 at 12:11 pm Reason: added title
Apr 24, 2015, 1:14 pm
#80
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,747
Apr 24, 2015, 1:35 pm
#81
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
You might say "meh", I knew it was really $287.53 before I actually purchased the ticket, but the final cost was not always directly related to the "teaser" price. Case in point instead of flying from YUL to YYC, you want to go YUL - BCN. On AC.com it would show routings through perhaps LHR, FRA, MUC, ZRH all for say $399.00. What you don't know unless you click through all the choices is that the final price you pay will be different depending on the country/airport you choose to connect through because of differences in a bunch of the hidden charges. So your quoted $399 fare is $620 via one city and $578 through the other.
Apr 24, 2015, 2:31 pm
#82
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
Well, from a consumer point of view, I'm very happy with consumer laws in Québec, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad to live here. They are ahead of the game most of the time.
To my knowledge, that "opt out" situation is not often used here, it's more the opt in situation usually. They probably picked the "opt out" as it made more sense in terms of overall numbers and $.
But “eh”, who cares? Just let it go, and be part of that class action; what do you lose? (Unless you believe you would do better in suing them on your own).
Now, about showing the actual ticket prices , what's wrong about this? That should have been a no-brainer from the start... and that, all accross Canada!
To my knowledge, that "opt out" situation is not often used here, it's more the opt in situation usually. They probably picked the "opt out" as it made more sense in terms of overall numbers and $.
But “eh”, who cares? Just let it go, and be part of that class action; what do you lose? (Unless you believe you would do better in suing them on your own).
Now, about showing the actual ticket prices , what's wrong about this? That should have been a no-brainer from the start... and that, all accross Canada!
Everyone says I should just let it go and worst case, I get a check. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the amount of the check is not enough for me to prostitute my morals.
Apr 24, 2015, 2:44 pm
#83
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
Like I said caveat emptor.
But I respect we have differing opinions on the subject and you are entitled to yours. I respect your right to your opinion. People are entitled to this lawsuit. To paraphrase the saying that is (wrongly) attributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This case, for me, is frivolous, trivial and petty. It speaks to the dumbing down of our society in general. What makes my blood boil is being lumped in with all these whining cry-babies without my consent. That is all I am saying.
Apr 24, 2015, 2:48 pm
#84
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
The "issue" is that up until 2012 the price you used to see when you checked on AC.com was say $169 to fly from YUL-YYC. Oh boy, you say to yourself, click "buy" and before you know it, the actual price you pay of $287.53 shows up.
You might say "meh", I knew it was really $287.53 before I actually purchased the ticket, but the final cost was not always directly related to the "teaser" price. Case in point instead of flying from YUL to YYC, you want to go YUL - BCN. On AC.com it would show routings through perhaps LHR, FRA, MUC, ZRH all for say $399.00. What you don't know unless you click through all the choices is that the final price you pay will be different depending on the country/airport you choose to connect through because of differences in a bunch of the hidden charges. So your quoted $399 fare is $620 via one city and $578 through the other.
You might say "meh", I knew it was really $287.53 before I actually purchased the ticket, but the final cost was not always directly related to the "teaser" price. Case in point instead of flying from YUL to YYC, you want to go YUL - BCN. On AC.com it would show routings through perhaps LHR, FRA, MUC, ZRH all for say $399.00. What you don't know unless you click through all the choices is that the final price you pay will be different depending on the country/airport you choose to connect through because of differences in a bunch of the hidden charges. So your quoted $399 fare is $620 via one city and $578 through the other.
Fact is that practice has changed. So problem solved. I've moved on.
Apr 24, 2015, 3:19 pm
#85
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Apr 24, 2015, 7:20 pm
#86
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,924
This is not a criminal case, nobody died.
I consider this to be frivolous and without merit. I disagree with the courts, last time I checked I have a right that opinion. I believe in caveat emptor. My personal views about this are that its entirely a waste of energy, money and the the courts time.
In cases like this, I do not want the courts to 'protect me', as you say. I'm a big boy, and if I fell for an offer* that was deceitful, its on me. Live and learn.
My point of lunacy is that I am involved in this without my consent, and I need to waste more time and energy to opt out.
* Full disclosure, I don't even know what the issue was/is. I book tickets based on the price I see when I search for flights.
I consider this to be frivolous and without merit. I disagree with the courts, last time I checked I have a right that opinion. I believe in caveat emptor. My personal views about this are that its entirely a waste of energy, money and the the courts time.
In cases like this, I do not want the courts to 'protect me', as you say. I'm a big boy, and if I fell for an offer* that was deceitful, its on me. Live and learn.
My point of lunacy is that I am involved in this without my consent, and I need to waste more time and energy to opt out.
* Full disclosure, I don't even know what the issue was/is. I book tickets based on the price I see when I search for flights.
You do not want the court to protect you. Super. Neither do I. However, the court is not protecting you. Rather, everyone has to be included because the failure to do so would defeat the purpose of the class action and would open the case up to turmoil as people left out filed suit to be included or claimed discrimination because they were not included.
You disagree with the courts. Ok. Yet, you have not read the filing. From what I have seen, the defendant doesn't come off as a pillar of integrity. As I have stated before, the claim is in respect to an intentional act that concealed proper disclosure. Whether you like it or not, there is both a moral and legal obligation not to engage in deceptive trade practices. If you do not care if a company engages in deceptive advertising and trade practices that is your personal choice. However, you will find that the vast majority of Canadians disagree with you.
We have very, very different opinions on this subject. The over protective government is one of the reasons I consider leaving here and is the thing that annoys me the second most.
Everyone says I should just let it go and worst case, I get a check. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the amount of the check is not enough for me to prostitute my morals.
Everyone says I should just let it go and worst case, I get a check. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the amount of the check is not enough for me to prostitute my morals.
We are seeing a repeat of the deviant behaviour with the industry response to the repeated requests of consumers to disclose complete information on complaints of baggage problems, cancelled flights and tarmac delays, just as it is done in the USA. AC's position is that such disclosure is unnecessary. As demonstrated, the disclosure rules in the USA have been an effective tool in helping consumers make an informed selection of carriers.
In respect to a cheque being cut and sent out to all implicated consumers, it will not happen. Consumers who want to collect compensation will have to provide evidence that they flew on the airline. This will require evidence in the form of reservations or tickets or other information with which the respective individual claim can be substantiated. In plain language, if a consumer cannot show that he or she flew on the airline in the covered period, there will be no payment.
Apr 24, 2015, 7:41 pm
#87
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
You may consider the case to be frivolous and without merit, but almost all of the other clients who are aware of the case, do not agree. (As evidenced by the limited number of opt outs.) In order to have the case certified, the plaintiff counsel had to demonstrate that the case had merit and was not frivolous. This was further demonstrated upon appeal. How can you be so dismissive when you have not read the case details?
You do not want the court to protect you. Super. Neither do I. However, the court is not protecting you. Rather, everyone has to be included because the failure to do so would defeat the purpose of the class action and would open the case up to turmoil as people left out filed suit to be included or claimed discrimination because they were not included.
You disagree with the courts. Ok. Yet, you have not read the filing. From what I have seen, the defendant doesn't come off as a pillar of integrity. As I have stated before, the claim is in respect to an intentional act that concealed proper disclosure. Whether you like it or not, there is both a moral and legal obligation not to engage in deceptive trade practices. If you do not care if a company engages in deceptive advertising and trade practices that is your personal choice. However, you will find that the vast majority of Canadians disagree with you.
The provincial government isn't over protective. Please note the history. Starting in 2003 the federal government made multiple requests to the Canadian airline industry to provide clear and open pricing. The industry refused. Led by AC, it did everything possible to prevent honest cost disclosure. The Quebec law followed the lead of the EU that imposed a similar law. Other provinces have consumer protection laws and are waiting for the Quebec judgement. There would have been no need for the court case had AC done the right thing.
We are seeing a repeat of the deviant behaviour with the industry response to the repeated requests of consumers to disclose complete information on complaints of baggage problems, cancelled flights and tarmac delays, just as it is done in the USA. AC's position is that such disclosure is unnecessary. As demonstrated, the disclosure rules in the USA have been an effective tool in helping consumers make an informed selection of carriers.
In respect to a cheque being cut and sent out to all implicated consumers, it will not happen. Consumers who want to collect compensation will have to provide evidence that they flew on the airline. This will require evidence in the form of reservations or tickets or other information with which the respective individual claim can be substantiated. In plain language, if a consumer cannot show that he or she flew on the airline in the covered period, there will be no payment.
You do not want the court to protect you. Super. Neither do I. However, the court is not protecting you. Rather, everyone has to be included because the failure to do so would defeat the purpose of the class action and would open the case up to turmoil as people left out filed suit to be included or claimed discrimination because they were not included.
You disagree with the courts. Ok. Yet, you have not read the filing. From what I have seen, the defendant doesn't come off as a pillar of integrity. As I have stated before, the claim is in respect to an intentional act that concealed proper disclosure. Whether you like it or not, there is both a moral and legal obligation not to engage in deceptive trade practices. If you do not care if a company engages in deceptive advertising and trade practices that is your personal choice. However, you will find that the vast majority of Canadians disagree with you.
The provincial government isn't over protective. Please note the history. Starting in 2003 the federal government made multiple requests to the Canadian airline industry to provide clear and open pricing. The industry refused. Led by AC, it did everything possible to prevent honest cost disclosure. The Quebec law followed the lead of the EU that imposed a similar law. Other provinces have consumer protection laws and are waiting for the Quebec judgement. There would have been no need for the court case had AC done the right thing.
We are seeing a repeat of the deviant behaviour with the industry response to the repeated requests of consumers to disclose complete information on complaints of baggage problems, cancelled flights and tarmac delays, just as it is done in the USA. AC's position is that such disclosure is unnecessary. As demonstrated, the disclosure rules in the USA have been an effective tool in helping consumers make an informed selection of carriers.
In respect to a cheque being cut and sent out to all implicated consumers, it will not happen. Consumers who want to collect compensation will have to provide evidence that they flew on the airline. This will require evidence in the form of reservations or tickets or other information with which the respective individual claim can be substantiated. In plain language, if a consumer cannot show that he or she flew on the airline in the covered period, there will be no payment.
I'm out. Goodnight and Goodbye.
Apr 24, 2015, 8:56 pm
#88
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,747
When a customer went to book it came out north of $1,200 for a Y seat that the headline price said was $189, yet it was impossible to buy a seat to LHR for $189. You don't consider that deceptive? Or unethical?
How can a consumer comparison shop on the basis of the ads when the final price bears no resemblance to the total cost?
If AC had obeyed the law, there would be no reason for this lawsuit to exist and you wouldn't have to opt out. So blame AC's arrogance for flouting the law, not the legal system.
Last edited by tcook052; Apr 24, 2015 at 9:35 pm