CloudsBelow

81% of TATL capacity is, essentially, on 3 "carriers".
Amazing how the most competitive market on the planet can drive all the airlines to work so closely with their partners.

jmottle

Yeah I noticed those P fares yesterday too. One thing I also noted is that only UA has 150% AQM though. LH and SWR have 50% and 100% respectively.

ffsim

Are you sure about that? LH should have 100% miles on P fares on anything except intra-Europe flights.

jmottle

You are correct, I mis-read the section on the Aeroplan site. I did not see they had broken it down into two sections.

yvr76

AC would not lose anything in court and they did not do anything illegal. They did not change the ticket's conditions of carriage! Posters that continue to point this out are not defending AC, we're just simply stating the facts.

They changed the Altitude programs benefits. They did this mid year, and in bad faith, potentially alienating loyal customers, but legally they did nothing wrong. Unfortunately AC did not decide to give a full year's notice with add-ons like they did when they diluted E35K and introduced E50K.

https://altitude.aircanada.com/status/terms-conditions


If you're travelling only J or Latitude fares, then these changes have no impact to you. In fact, there would be a positive impact, because Latitude now gets 125% AQM and International Business 150% AQM.

Stranger

Not talking about legal or illegal. But they might lose in court.

However it is arguably the case that they changed the ticket conditions after the ticket was puchased.

That the claim that the FF program is not part of the contract is merely them saying so. Does not make it true. As in many other cases, large corporations are very good at writing fine print that they know dam*n well would never hold in court. Pure intimidation. By design. Bad faith.

I can say the opposite just the same. Indeed isn't the FF program and benefits very much part of the purchase decision process? And don't they usually make it very much so? In this sort of situation, courts will often take the side of the consumer rather than the bully.

So, when they like it that way, it is, but when they don't it is not?

Too many folks here are ready to take it without even fighting. Why do people settle so happily in loser mode? Bottom line, this will need to be tested in court. Until then we should assume we have a winning hand.

Some of us will recall that a few years back, they suddenly started doing the right thing: announcing changes to the FF program over a year ahead of time. Then suddenly last year they reverted back to their own way. So it is likely that they are aware that the issue is totally up for grab. But that they decided we are wimps, losers. Who won't even put up a fight, even a winning one.

Lllahim

Versus your millions

hitsmith

Yes, because most want to use their time suing Air Canada because they had to sit in economy and not in the front on a 7hr flight to Europe. Upgrades are a not guaranteed. If you want J for sure then buy a J ticket.

Admiral Ackbar

Actually, small claims court (25k limit in ON) is pretty painless and he has excellent chances of winning using some of the arguments posted in here. AC would probably not even show up...

I am on the side that the 2 are involved in making a purchasing decision no matter what drivel AC spews to serve themselves.

danapop

There is no case here, period. I challenge anyone on this forum to find a reference to e-upgrades in the terms of carriage outlined in the OPs ticket. If you can find something there, then you have a case. If you cannot, then there is nothing left to discuss.

Again, Ill point out that the TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EUPGRADES state you need a minimum of a flex fare. No where on the flex fare does it mention eupgrades. You are applying terms and conditions of a completely separate program to suit your case. It doesnt work like that.

Furthermore, AC has not made flex ineligible for upgrades. The ability to upgrade as outlines when the OP bought his ticket still stands, he just now needs to pay a co-pay.

I really want to point out that I am in NO WAY defending AC as the way this rolled out was pretty shaddy and absolutely in bad faith. But ticket terms were not changed, and therefore no right to recourse.

margarita girl

Kind of wish I had some skin in this game. It might be fun to do the small claims thing just to see who is right.

I didn't call you an idiot, but I also didn't realize that you bought the ticket before the changes were announced. I empathize and would be upset as well if I was in your shoes.

rehoult

I disagree completely. Just because something isn't in an agreement doesn't mean it's not implied or that it can't be read in. 'Outcome based judgments' are a fact of life in the legal world like it or not, and provincial court Judges eat up stories like this all the time because the facts just look so bad for the company. You only argue the law if they facts aren't on your side.

Not that it would ever get there because the second the claim hit a lawyer's desk they'd advise the AC to refund the money as:
a) Losing is a very real possibility;
b) If they lose it's precedent and maybe a news story, if they settle it's not, especially if the settlement contains a non-disclosure clause;
c) Even if they win they won't get any legal costs back, and it's a $2000 ticket vs $500/hr lawyers at a minimum of 10 hours.

Part of my day job is managing litigation a group of companies, and in the situation where they bought the ticket before the rule change, I'd choose to argue the pax's position every time.

Dorian

Yet another bizarro statement by you.

YYZFlyboy

As stated above (and by other posters) AC would not allow this to ever get near a court for good reason - they would get their arse kicked. It's clear you don't have a clue about civil court or the civil process. Again, a court will not separate AC tactics to get you to buy a certain fare with their subsequent and arbitrary change to the conditions in place at the time of that purchase. The ticket purchases were made in good faith but the subsequent change affecting those few purchasers was not.

By the way, the remedy is a simple one - it's refund - not a million dollar suit but AC's arrogance in these kind of issues pees me off.

It most certainly does. I buy Latitude and J fares for business travel - I depended on the ability to upgrade Tango+ fares for my well-earned leisure travel with my spouse. This change has screwed this opportunity.

I can't imagine AC wanted to chase customers like me away but that's the net result.

CT1

The upgrade is not guaranteed and is contingent on available space i.e. AC willingness to offer an upgrade.

How is that a "condition" of the flex ticket purchased? Seriously would like to see the analysis laid out, don't agree or disagree at this point...