quantumofforce

Transport minister looking at ways to ease air travellers' frustrations

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics...ghts-1.3699496

RCyyz

About time! Let's hope Minister Garneau takes a good hard look at EC 261/2004.

imverge

This is long overdue.

segacs

Halle-friggin'-lujah.

I'm reserving judgment until I see what they draft, mind you.

cur

i have an idea

reduce the role and size of government

Wpgjetse

+1

yulred

Agreed.

That will allow open skies and lower limits on foreign investment in airlines, paving the way for a consumer-friendly market, as opposed to the current mess. Would go a long way towards easing pax frustrations.

Not sure AC would be happy it though.

Wpgjetse

By the way, about 5 years ago or so, AC said they would welcome American Airlines flying pt to pt in Canada, so long as they could do the same in the states. So maybe they would be happy.

tcook052

Let's please save the political stumping for another place and focus on the impact on AC this news may have.

tcook052
AC forum moderator

IluvSQ

I think we are approaching the time whereby we need minimum standards
for seat size and pitch, maybe varying according to length of flight.
And maybe standards for number of w/c's per pax.

Wpgjetse

I would agree, but easier said then done. How do you get countries to agree on this? Since airlines have their planes flying every where around the world, international standard would have to be set, not just a Canadian standard.

eigenvector

I don't think this will really shake up the Canadian air market that much. You will have a bunch of new services on YVR-YYZ but Joe Sixpack in Moncton trying to fly to see grandma in Dublin once a year is not going to benefit. Increased access (up to and including cabotage) for foreign carriers will improve competition on international hub-to-hub routes, probably bring some interesting new nonstop international destinations, but it will never solve the problem of non-existent competition to secondary and tertiary Canadian towns.

Every airline in the world could be flying YYZ-LHR, it doesn't help someone in Sudbury trying to get there on one ticket.

Wpgjetse

But the aircraft flying YYZ - LHR could be flying YYZ - YVR later in the same day and have some one from Sudbury flying to Vancouver on it. 1 aircraft can be in 5 or 6 Canadian cities and 5 or 6 counties in 1 week. International standards would be required.

segacs

There are international and multilateral treaties in the airline industry already. Adopting international standards doesn't have to be impossible, especially if you allow existing regulations in multilateral regions like the EU to drive the efforts, and follow suit.

I agree about minimum seat size and pitch: Airlines are making them smaller and smaller because they're driven by revenue, but there's got to be a tipping point, right? I feel like maybe we're close to reaching it already, when pax are getting thrown off planes for starting wars with so-called "knee defenders" and such. The war about recline vs. non-recline always focuses on which passenger is at fault, while missing the elephant in the room: Neither passenger is at fault; it's the fault of the airline for squeezing the seats so close together that one person can't recline without being in the next person's lap. And so on.

I also think a few more obvious points to address would be:
*Compensation in the case of cancellations / delays -- with a clear and central way to file for that compensation, rather than chasing down multiple customer service departments without an answer.
*A clear definition as to what an airline can consider in or out of their control in the case of delays and cancellations (i.e. weather related is out of control, but weather-related at an airport 3000 miles away resulting in late equipment for an unrelated route might be considered airline ops) and at what point airlines are required to provide food, water and accommodation for stranded passengers and under what circumstances.
*The right to disembark, to use the washroom or to get food/water if a plane is stuck at the gate for longer than a certain amount of time.
*Clarity around the compensation given for lost or delayed baggage.
*Transparency around taxes and fees, and requirements to market with all-inclusive prices. For example, the CRTC finally stepped in to stop mobile providers from charging a "network access fee" disguised as a tax, and there was a massive class-action lawsuit. Should we do something similar around YQ "fuel surcharges" that airlines like to pretend are taxes, but aren't?
*Passenger rights in the case of overbooking, involuntary bumping, or discretionary denial of boarding by the airline.
*Rights around cancellations / changes. Airlines could still offer different fare classes with different levels of flexibility, but something like what the EU does where a ticket can be cancelled in the 24 hours following booking might be a good idea.
*Compensation or protection in the case of unilateral schedule changes made by the airline.

These are just a few off the top of my head. I realize that a lot of this stuff is already covered by voluntary self-regulation by the airlines. Codifying it into law, however, would force airlines to comply and would clarify the process for flyers on what to do in case something goes wrong.

yulred

Meh. It's not like AC follows the 'international standard' on cabin baggage size/weight.

If an AC standard can exist, then so can a Canadian standard.