sokolov

Because it is the law. And they knew the law very well when they offered the contract of carriage.

The reason for the legal situation is that any airline would always try to blame someone or something else.

AirPassRightsCA

According to an internal document of Air Canada, customer agents are trained to reimburse stranded passengers only for up to $100/night for accommodation, and a total of $32/day for meals.

The policy flies in the face of the Montreal Convention, which provides a $9,000 liability cap for delay of passengers, and prohibits lowering or contracting out this limit.

The policy was obtained in the course of an ongoing formal complaint against Air Canada before the Canadian Transportation Agency, which challenges the policy.

Wpgjetse

Here you go again. Anytime I needed a hotel from AC, it's always a voucher, so I don't understand your max $100 cash payout. $9000 liability cap seems very high for food and hotel for 1 night. Maybe explain the $9000 cap fully, what it is to cover, instead of missleading people. It can not just be for food and hotel room.

Stranger

This seems to be a complaint to the CTA, not a ruling as of yet.

With involvement of our friend Lukacs.

Adam Smith

Same for me.

yulred

The previous thread asked for cases. This one has an AC document explicitly making it a policy.

As noted in the previous thread, people were in fact affected by this, so the "we've already told you" is either based on a factually incorrect assumption that everyone is treated the same way as you or a handful of others here are, or a quirky reflection of your regal lineage. Either which way, the fact that people are affected by this makes it an issue worth addressing.

Let's recognize it for what it is - an unacceptable policy (noting that it's for "controllable" situations). Other experiences here suggest that it's applied when hotel vouchers aren't available due to availability, which means hotels are likely to be even more expensive than normal.

Ultimately the question is: should pax go out of pocket for situations within the airlines' control? What do similar countries or the EU require?

Where did the document come from?

somedude3210

Always a voucher for me too.

AirPassRightsCA

Article 19 of the Montrel Convention makes the airline liable for damages caused by delay, unless the airline can show that it has taken all reasonable measures to prevent the delay or that there were no such measures available.

The $9,000 cap refers to all damages that delay can cause, such as out-of-pocket expenses, lost wages, and according to some jurisprudence, even inconvenience.

Airlines cannot decide that amount X per night is all they will pay, because the Convention does not permit that. Obviously, the cost of a hotel depends on where the passenger is stranded, and so there cannot be a maximum amount for all situations, other than what is set out in the Convention.

This does not mean that stranded passengers can stay at a luxury suite at the airline's dime. The expense has to be reasonable; however, if for example, all nearby hotels are full, then passengers can obtain accommodation further away, and the airline will also be on the hook for the ground transportation.

Bottom line: as long as the expense is reasonable in the circumstances and below $9,000, the airline is on the hook.

BlueMilk

Document clearly states that the amount can exceed $100 with "lead approval". The presence of a control environment isn't a policy limiting allowable expenses.

Good luck to OP chasing this ambulance down.

AirPassRightsCA

In practice, passengers are simply told that these are the maximum and that's it. You may wish to review the formal complaint and its exhibits to see what has been going on in practice.

You may also find it interesting to review the witnessed statement of a passenger, who ended out out-of-pocket several hundred dollars.

BlueMilk

OK, but is it your contention that AC has an invalid policy, or that front line employees have misapplied the policy. If the former, you've uncovered proof countering your arguement.

yulred

Indeed. And we've also had cases where 'lead' staff were either absent or unable and people had to go out of pocket. Seems a bit daft to have a policy that is so out of touch with reality that it will have to be overruled by a 'lead' (or Ben L) more often than not. Evidently its ineffective and needs to be addressed.

If challenging that amounts to ambulance chasing, then defending it amounts to justifying injuring people to the point that they need to be put into an ambulance.

No ambulance= no chaser. Just a runner, as it were.

AirPassRightsCA

The document was submitted by Air Canada to the Canadian Transportation Agency in response to questions that were directed to it.

In the EU, airlines have to provide (or cover) accommodation, meals, and ground transportation under Regulation (EC) 261/2004. The definition of "extraordinary circumstances" that exonerate airlines from liability is extremely narrow, and does not include mechanical problems.

Wpgjetse

What pax are told $100 max for hotel rooms? In my 30 + years of travel, I have never been given cash for hotel room or known anyone give cash for hotel room for weather issues or any reason for misconnections. It is always a voucher and AC books the room.

AirPassRightsCA

The cancellation was not for weather, and it was not an isolated incident either.

You may wish to carefully and thoroughly read the witnessed statement of the passenger as well as the other emails that were attached to the formal complaint.