skybluesea

Thanks for info - have said all along the marketplace is quite capable of sorting out operational messes without Nanny state intervention.

And let's not forget IDB remains, United is not getting rid of IDB, they're just making the opportunity for its use less throught market choice. And I love the posts, over and over from one FTer here that says they guarantee someone will take up VDB and thus never need IDB with such higher offers.

Prove it- and I can think of high density business flights on the Golden triangle, when much of the flight is business people and government officials needing to get to where they need to get to, who won't give up seat for any voluntary amount. Try explaining away, " hey boss, sorry I missed that really important sales meeting with that new client, but good news I got a $10,000 personal bonus for missing the flight" - " or sorry grandpa, I miss grandma's funeral and now I got some money to go sit on the beach".

But for sure we will get posts that demand the state button down everything and make the business of flying remarkably more expensive, undermining the economy and society.

Stranger

They did in the previous cases, but not in this one.

What did they do that's wrong here? According to their version of the event, nothing. In contrast with previous cases. I am enclined to believe them.

They have been pretty objective in these other cases where they did carry part of the blame.

vernonc

Why are thy waiting till it gets blown up on CBC before they get objective ? Too many cases. The fact that it takes 4-6 weeks to respond to a emailed complaint tells you that they have a problem.
My last email to AC was to praise a great flight crew. Response back in less than 5 days.

vernonc

I think I agree here. I do not think IDB will vanish. But it should be limited to dire circumstances like IRROPs, weather issues, etc. Not for oversold circumstances. VDB should be the path for oversold.If the airlines will not fix it then the govt might. Similar to what Europe did for delays. And the rule for not keeping pax on the plane on the tarmac beyond x hours.

skybluesea

Sorry vernonc, but against 41 mil pax, please clarify if one error is too many.
it would appear from numerous posts, other than yours, that zero tolerance approach appears as desired.

No such system exist, certainly not in commercial aviation, and the cost of reducing error to near zero could be extraordinary relative to the benefit, especially as funding would ultimately come from passengers.

Too many generalities in this debate, please specify what level of error is acceptable, or maybe should create new thread - what do you think?

Stranger

The one time I sent a complaint, I had a phone call the next morning, 8 am. Mind you, there was a clear violation of the tariff. Not just venting about poor customer service.

vernonc

One error would be too many if it involves me .
To answer your question, no I do not expect zero. But I fear that given the number of AC news articles that perhaps they are worse than some of the others. And since I fly AC often, my skin in the game here is that I would like them to improve and not just with IDB/VDB.
Euro legislation did not seem to have increased fares ex-Europe. It just made the compensation process more visible and equitable albeit more expensive for the airlines.

YYT82

You neglected the fact that there are lots of competition for the European skies. I challenge you to go back and look at AC domestic tickets you bought before September 18, 2013 and check the prices for the same booking classes for tickets booked about two weeks after (undiscounted). September 18, 2013 was the date when AC was ordered by the CTA to up their comp for denied boarding.

Truth of the matter is, if the Canadian government truly allows Open Skies, this VDB/IDB issue would be taken care of by the free market. Be careful what you wish for with a nanny state.

vernonc

I do not wish for a nanny state. However the same nanny will not allow open skies either. So if the airlines will not improve then the nanny will rule.

Mauricio23

Perhaps airlines are reacting this way to forestall state intervention. An effective state is not necessarily one that intervenes in everything - it is one that has the ability to intervene should markets not work. Sometimes its mere presence is enough to make markets work, like in this case.

Everyone has a price. Maybe once every ten years an airline will have to pay $50,000 to get a VDB. So? That's chump change when compared to the profits from overbooking over ten years. You really, really, really think airlines need insurance against this? Fine, set IDB payments at $100,000 - now the airline's risk is not infinite.

skybluesea

Definitely agree economic theory predicts that threat of intervention can be effective- but no such thing has come forward from Ottawa - just yet so let's see how this plays out.

Game theory also relevant and careful that forcing airlines to IDB with huge payouts could create game playing by savvy manipulators - if payoff sufficient than colluding to book lots of seats if not all on smaller turbo-prop could result in a huge payday. $10-15k ticket purchase could lead to million dollar payout may be very difficult for AirCanada to prove collusion in the modern and a highly decentralized communications world.

So the lesson from the second paragraph, state intervention always has unintended consequences.

With respect, where is your evidence for this. Take a look at RyanAirair ticket, I can PM one to you if you like, and they have a line in the fare box for EC261 insurance. Whether Ryan air is actually buying insurance for eventual payout, or just put the money into an internal bank for payout, fares must go up, or alternatively airline shareholders must be prepared to take a lower return on investment. No other source for such compensation.

But you raise what I think is the true crux of the IDB problem, and it's this mIs-guided and altruistic view that the marketplace should somehow be equitable to consumers - whatever that means.

Marketplaces are places of exchange hopefully with knowledgeable purchasers negotiating with equally savvy sellers - I absolutely agree that state intervention should occur when a market failure is evident, but where is the market failure when customers failed to read the Tariff and then whine afterwards they didn't like the terms of the contract.

And with exception of a few isolated routes in Canada where AC is only one operator in the marketplace, so go pick an alternative if you don't like the potential for IDB.

And if you really want to talk about equity, how is it that only one third of Canadians regularly travel, and the remaining two thirds look at this debate as remarkably elitist I'm sure.

Mauricio23

Everything is gameable. I suspect that in such a situation, the Beechcraft may suddenly develop a mechanical problem leading to the cancellation of the flight - no compensation owed to anyone. Or rather than pay out a million dollars, another Beechcraft will be found to carry the overbooked customers - and then those who bought all the seats would be out a huge amount. Million dollar payouts just will not happen, but if you are so worried about them my suggestion of retaining IDB with a high cap would work just fine. Or airlines could just decide not to overbook small planes for a change. This is not an unsolvable problem.

tcook052

For those wanting to discuss the UA case please do so in existing threads the UA forum.

tcook052
AC forum moderator

dobiefan

I guess a "lot of Canadians" never fly on other North American carriers. The worst flight I ever had was my first Westjet flight. I won't bother to list other bad experiences on other international carriers.

skybluesea

As moderator suggests, let's go back to origin of the story. American Airlines needed somebody else's space to deal with their own issues, and it's pretty common for airlines to be accommodating on a reciprocal basis. The fact that pax transfer got messed up for yet to be confirmed ticketing issues, let's understand alternative impacts if scenario of no IDB at all and instead always replace aircraft with extended delay - as no guarantee of VDB acceptance at whatever price offered, thus AirCanada would have to factor in the worst case possible in business case analysis. of course could do probability analysis with expected returns, but no need because a far greater problem will emerge.

Well, what does no IDB say for every other passenger on the aircraft about their value of time and the fare they paid for reasonable scheduled service. So IDB sacrifices few travelers to betterment of (nearly) rest of load. Strikes me this is more of the desire for equity, so everybody loses, rather than minimizing the total loss by concentrating loss in a few.

And I've said this before, here's where AC loses big time, because schedule reliable really matters for the highest paying customers. How many really frequent travellers are going to tolerate massive schedule disruptions to avoid high IDB pay out as airlines try to avoid by finding a replacement aircraft.

I'm sure I have missed a lot in this scenario, and I'm sure you have a rebuttal, but the unintended consequences of state intervention needs careful attention before the indiscriminate use of the power to destroy businesses