skybluesea

well, as SEMM, I have been IDB, and still fly AC because we agreed on a resolution.

So many examples from other industries and practices - NOT relevant when it comes to what you agree to when buying an AC ticket - apples and oranges, respectfully.

karachi

relevant insofar as people agreeing to contracts where there is power imbalance. Also expectations are not based on contract minutiae in most cases. i buy a ticket, i expect a service.

skybluesea

your argument is valid primarily where compulsion exists - purchase of hydro utility under specified and non-negotiable terms which without means you freeze. plus, context of power is NOT situation absent - as both of us are SEMM, presumably well versed in the AC tariff from multiple purchases over many years, I would be surprised that we could argue power imbalance for not understanding the AC tariff or obtaining relief from its provisions. But even for those without our travel experience, having spent hours this week reading through CTA decisions, I did not once see this argument raised, valid as a construct I agree, but simply NOT relevant at least by the learned adjudicators at CTA.

I can't recall the last time reading a consumer contract of any kind, and yes, I pretty much read all contracts that I agree to, where in the closing clauses a statement is made that the entire contract must be read as a whole, and if for any reason a term is severed for want of reasonableness etc, the remainder of the contract remains whole. in sum, you don't get to pick and choose which terms you consider relevant.

and the terms of that service are specified in the AC Tariff, including so we remain on Thread topic, the TERM that says you may get a seat, you may not, and if we choose, we may simply refund you your money - full stop.

Thanks for the interesting and respectful response.

Symmetre

Late to the party, but look, I brought snacks.

RangerNS

You know there is a long and detailed contract, and yet you expect something else, and you expect sympathy when you don't get what you did not ask to buy?

The reason why there is a long and detailed contract is because of the power imbalance. Air Canada is not acting arbitrarily or capriciously, neither are any of the other carriers. (less the infrequent, if always widely reported individual agent). They are acting in accordance to the tariff.

Which is what you are buying.

If you want full negoiating power and to get a custom contract for you (still subject to weather, ATC, maintenance and ground issues), feel free to charter a private jet, or wet lease an aircraft. I assure you they will have KitKats (if you request and pay for them). Your ticket may, however, may cost several tens of thousands per hour of flight time, however.

longtimeflyin

You are not forced to fly Air Canada, a gun is not being held to your head to buy a ticket and you have the ability to choose other airlines or not fly at all.

You are not being forced to sign (e.g. buy a ticket from air canada) that contract and thus the contract is valid.

ffsim

This is precisely the "imbalance" both karachi and I have referred to. Airlines' fine prints force a buyer to agree that the service can be pulled at any time without having the right to do so themselves. The average consumer says, "hold on a sec... if I no-show, I don't fly and they keep my money. But if I do everything right and they don't want to hold up their end of the bargain, I still don't fly? Ridiculous." And, perhaps to the learned adjudicators at CTA and elsewhere, they have absolute reason.

I'm no SEMM, but while I have plenty of travel experience, I can still relate the the average consumer who's absolutely infuriated at not receiving what s/he thought s/he was buying.

Maybe it's a phased roll-out... I'm still getting the un-enhanced home page

Stranger

But of course the latter has no teeth. A clause that would unilaterally free one side from any obligation cannot possibly be valid. Pure intimidation. They can only refund as long as the passenger agrees, period. (And if you read the tariffs carefully, that's more or less there; just in terms such that it's not too clear so that more gullible people will actually believe the airline can unilaterally free itself of the contract.)

Remainder is OK. Schedule is not part of the contract. Flying you is not. But the obligation remains from them to take you from A to B.

skybluesea

You are correct only in the case of TANGO class - all other AC airfare classes, FLEX and above, explicitly permit exactly what you indicate - traveler can walk pretty much at the last minute, either with partial or even full refund (Y & J, and variants thereof).

How is this FINE PRINT - when you purchase on AC on-line, and you click on the fare class definition at the top of each fare column, specifies the change/cancellation TERMS right there and then and not buried anywhere...

yes, you buy TANGO, you get nothing if you don;t show up...entire classes of airlines, and very successful ones to boot, such as RyanAir, make a good living at this approach to engaging with their customers...although I do agree with many posts about lack of clarity of expectations, as RyanAir and the like do a stellar job of communicating what the expectations are when you buy their product.

Accordingly, the AC Tariff is NOT as unbalanced or power bent as argued elsewhere + AC also offers Insurance before the Purchase BUtton, that should for some unfortunate reason, even in TANGO, that you must alter/curtail your trip, then full recompense is available, save the insurance fee.

and CTA routinely upholds AC right to pull service, explaining over, and over, and over in their decisions - the Tariff is clear and travelers cannot apply their so-called expectations of what should happen, rather what must happen is based on the contract...all of which can be overridden by the CTA is they find AC tries to introduce unconscionable terms.

and the operatives word is "THOUGHT" - well, where in the AC Tariff does it say that the traveller can substitute what they thought they would get with what AC offers at time of purchase, or amended along the way?

And with the widespread publicity of IDB of late, and yes some travelers remain in comas till they get out to the airport may NOT have heard, but seriously the shock of IDB is, I suspect only and have no evidence, this happens to somebody else NOT ME.

THank you for your interesting and respectful response.

skybluesea

I need to run, but when I can will go back to all those CTA decisions I read yesterday - thought I read something about this, but let me look it up again.

thanks for the interesting and respectful response.

Stranger

I don't expect the CTA to deal with issues of contract law though, merely enforcement of CTA-approved tariffs. This is the sort of things that might require going to court.

Northern Canuck

Now that the congressional committee has asked for a clear, concise contract of carriage as well as for the airlines in the US to clean up their act and start providing some customer service, we'll see if our gov't, CTA and AC follows suit.
"Several representatives criticized the airlines’ lengthy contracts of carriage, and Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) held up a thick stack of pages that made up airlines’ terms and conditions.
“We need simple language, disclosure and transparency in these contracts of carriage.” he said.
Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s delegate to the House, challenged the airlines to boil down customers’ rights in those contracts to a one-page document.
When executives from Alaska Airlines, Southwest Airlines and American Airlines said they would strive to make simpler and shorter contracts, Norton said, “We’re going to hold you all accountable for that.”
The grilling didn't stop with that...
"The airlines’ 2016 revenue of $168.2 billion included $4.2 billion from baggage fees and $2.9 billion from reservation change fees. In 2015, revenue was $169 billion, including $3.8 billion from baggage fees and $3 billion from reservation change fees."
"Representatives warned the airlines that if customer service did not improve, they could be subjected to a “one-size-fits-all” regulatory policy. Of course they also discussed the IDB problem.

“Seize this opportunity,” said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), committee chairman. “Because if you don’t, we’re going to come and you’re not going to like it."
We'll see what our government comes up with.

ffsim

But but but........... the terms and conditions are right there! The buyer agrees to them!!! There's no excuse!!!!!!!!

I'd be curious to see if legislation in the US will ever see the light of day or if lobbyists will find ways to allow these "smug ... policies" to continue to exist. I'd be further curious to see if Canada will be influenced by these proposed changes by the US.

Thanks for digging up those quotes ^

yulred

Hmmm?

I may be mistaken, but you seem to be arguing that people should pay $X (where X>0) to pay for a seat on a flight at a specific time/day that they may be denied access to, so that you can pay less to fly whenever you please. Who is subsidizing who here, and how fair is it?

It's been said many times here but I think it bears repeating: no matter what the tariffs say, as far as the public is concerned, IDB doesn't pass the smell test. Legal etc? Sure. Lacking any semblance of fairness and decency (premiums for certain days/times that may or may not be respected)? Apparently. It can be offset by putting the a warning upfront, but that might change consumer behaviour, which is probably why it's buried in the tariff.

And I don't buy this notion of doing X or Y will make fares go up. We both know fares are dictated by demand and supply, and not simply by the cost of providing a service. Hiking prices will simply deter demand and send leisure travellers and students to WS/create room for new entrants. Any increase in price had to factor that in too. AC knows as well a you do that the likelihood of air travel becoming elitist again ...is pretty damn low. More efficient carriers will enter the market long before that transpires.

On the other hand, airfares at the premium/flexible and might go up. And why not? If people value them enough, they'll buy them regardless of how high prices go.

Anyway, as a beneficiary of two op-ups in the last 5 months, I don't have a problem with overbooking. I just don't care for the lack of transparency surrounding it.

RangerNS

Without even thinking very hard, I couldn't list off the number of possible failure conditions of getting from point A to B on a single piece of paper, let alone even discuss who is responsible, and what the process to solve the problem wold be.

Tariffs are long - but no one point is complicated - because they cover a long list of possible situations.