The competitive landscape is quite different in Europe vs Canada but I guess we will see.

I just wonder if this regulation will open the door to double-dipping. If you are on an AC flight ex-EU and are delayed for a reason within AC’s control, are you owed by EC261 and Canadian regulation compensation? Or does one of them take priority over the other?

That makes perfect sense.

From the CBC link:
will not require airlines to provide compensation. So what happens if the plane goes mechanical? Do airlines still have to provide meal vouchers and accommodation as necessary?

Plus, I can see way more restrictions coming for flight changes or ticket cancellations. Also, I can see airlines cutting out any benefits if a flight is delayed/cancelled by weather or any other reason spelled out in the act that doesn’t have to pay out any compensation. This new act will not all be good news for pax.

Well, yes. Regulatory capture has that effect.

Whats with the fearmongering anyhow? This bill appears to have been written by the airlines, for the airlines.

Gotta say it's a bit weird watching ardent corporate welfare types on this thread bemoaning the impact on prices/service etc.

How many of you are worrying about this government's refusal to implement the competition-related recommendations in the Emerson report? That would have had a far greater beneficial impact for consumers than this useless initiative ever will.

Lets not pretend that this bill is going to affect consumers one way or the other. It's not meant to. It's a convenient talking point in the context of an upcoming election.

Don’t be under the illusion that AC, WS and others came together on their own with the goal of how they can better compensate passengers. This is a government bill, plain and simple. Just because they consulted the airlines, doesn’t mean they were on board.

Whether the intention is to benefit consumers or not, it will increase fares for everyone. That is what red tape does.
It is hard to believe airlines will simply absorb the cost rather than pass it on to passengers through higher ticket prices, bag fees, etc.

I have no problem allowing foreign airlines to compete domestically (cabotage), as long as Canadian airlines have reciprocal rights in those countries.

I think the regulations are a positive for Air Canada, Porter and WestJet. They already implement many of these or can easily manage these. There incremental cost is going to marginal if any.

The guys that are impact by this the most are the startups. Flair for one. The charter airlines (Sungwing) are going to ones this is going to to have real challenges meeting these regulations.

In IROP situation AC and WS can accommodate most passages on their own metal or with a partner.

So now in IROP WS has to buy some seats on AC and AC has to buy some seats on WS. A good percentage of this is just going to cancel itself out. Neither AC or WS are going to move passengers over to Flair or Sunwing. However the small holiday and ultra-low-cost carriers are going to have to buy seats on WS and AC at an alarming rate.

The airline industry is already over-regulated; this just adds more red tape, and eventually higher prices.
If AC’s OTP is so horrible to the point it is negatively affecting travellers, then people would flock to the competition.
Despite OTP, business travellers continue to use AC vs WS, and others.

This piece of legislation is just a feel-good measure for a government facing re-election in a few months. It is similar to rent control - looks great on the surface, but actually forces rent levels higher and higher. Airline ticket prices will be increasing.

Let's break this down.

- Never claimed it was a WS/AC creation. It was a Harper creation from 5-6 years ago. Not sure why you're blaming Trudeau for pursuing what the Tories thought would be a vote winner. In the interim, AC and WS have done to it what they did to pilot duty rules. Which is why we've got the worst pilot duty rules in the developed world. Now we have APRs that are equally inferior. It's a symptom of regulatory capture.

- Regardless, in what scenarios do you see "better" compensation being paid out? Virtually everything will now be presented as a safety issue if it is under the airline's control. Good luck to anyone who believes otherwise. Between that, and airlines tendency to tell the truth (WS was formally warned yesterfay about lying about why it cancelled flights), the entire exercise is a waste of time. There's no "better" compensation here. Just nice numbers that everyone can agree to because they'll never (dareisay ever) pay out.

- Not that it matters, but any compensation should be paid out of the "record" profits that these airlines are accumulating by not providing adequate service in the first place. Problem of their own making really. If your profitability depends on screwing over paying customers, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business. Airlines aren't entitled to profits no matter what; at some point they have to treat properly. So far they haven't. Or else, there would be no red tape.

- Cabotage is only one aspect of competition. I don't think Emerson even addresses it. There are other levers (foreign investment etc). Not to mention international competition.

It's all a bit of a nothing burger.