AC Comments on Proposed Transportation Modernization Act (Passenger Bill of Rights)
Dec 15, 19, 6:43 pm
#256
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 4,052
I'm of the moral opinion that everything is the carrier's responsibility, including weather, atc and terrorism.
They can deal with Lloyds to get everyone a hotel room.
And I'll pay that price.
But also, I don't expect AC or Lloyds to invent a time machine and get me to my cruise/wedding/sales call on time. If the carrier's treated those with self awareness and self preservation with respect, they would not be now taking heat with the children who want everything, now.
They can deal with Lloyds to get everyone a hotel room.
And I'll pay that price.
But also, I don't expect AC or Lloyds to invent a time machine and get me to my cruise/wedding/sales call on time. If the carrier's treated those with self awareness and self preservation with respect, they would not be now taking heat with the children who want everything, now.
Dec 15, 19, 9:25 pm
#257
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,816
So let’s try one of Einstein’s famous thought experiments. Flight AC 111 inbound to YYZ suffers a cracked windshield. (Not an uncommon occurrence if you follow the Aviation Herald). The next flight AC 222 bound for YVR is delayed for four hours while they replace the windshield. This will be declared a safety delay, and I suppose it’s hard to argue with that. No compensation payable.
The third flight of the day, AC 333, outbound from YVR is delayed for four hours due to the ubiquitous “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”. Or so it has been up until now. But first of all, “late arrival of the inbound aircraft” is not the cause of a delay, it is the result of a delay further up the line. So now, will this delay be held out as being caused by the “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”, which leaves room for an argument over compensation, or will it be declared as a delay caused by a cracked windshield and therefore a safety delay?
I can imagine many permutations as this game plays out.
The third flight of the day, AC 333, outbound from YVR is delayed for four hours due to the ubiquitous “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”. Or so it has been up until now. But first of all, “late arrival of the inbound aircraft” is not the cause of a delay, it is the result of a delay further up the line. So now, will this delay be held out as being caused by the “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”, which leaves room for an argument over compensation, or will it be declared as a delay caused by a cracked windshield and therefore a safety delay?
I can imagine many permutations as this game plays out.
Dec 15, 19, 10:08 pm
#258
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, UA Gold, Bonvoy Tit LT Sil, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond, Accor Silver
Posts: 42,046
So let’s try one of Einstein’s famous thought experiments. Flight AC 111 inbound to YYZ suffers a cracked windshield. (Not an uncommon occurrence if you follow the Aviation Herald). The next flight AC 222 bound for YVR is delayed for four hours while they replace the windshield. This will be declared a safety delay, and I suppose it’s hard to argue with that. No compensation payable.
The third flight of the day, AC 333, outbound from YVR is delayed for four hours due to the ubiquitous “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”. Or so it has been up until now. But first of all, “late arrival of the inbound aircraft” is not the cause of a delay, it is the result of a delay further up the line. So now, will this delay be held out as being caused by the “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”, which leaves room for an argument over compensation, or will it be declared as a delay caused by a cracked windshield and therefore a safety delay?
I can imagine many permutations as this game plays out.
The third flight of the day, AC 333, outbound from YVR is delayed for four hours due to the ubiquitous “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”. Or so it has been up until now. But first of all, “late arrival of the inbound aircraft” is not the cause of a delay, it is the result of a delay further up the line. So now, will this delay be held out as being caused by the “late arrival of the inbound aircraft”, which leaves room for an argument over compensation, or will it be declared as a delay caused by a cracked windshield and therefore a safety delay?
I can imagine many permutations as this game plays out.
Dec 15, 19, 11:01 pm
#259
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,816
Just saw a new one:
This flight is delayed due to airport facility limitations affecting the inbound aircraft at the previous airport.Learn more about our flight interruption policy.
Dec 16, 19, 11:26 am
#261
Join Date: May 2013
Location: YYT/YYC/TPE
Programs: AC SE, UA, National Exec Elite, Nexus, GE
Posts: 1,810
Well, this game got played out in EU, with eventual ECJ determination that aircraft maintenance is NOT safety related, but a managerial decision (i.e. aircraft that goes mechanical can always be swapped out to avoid delay - which happened to me on domestic TP flight in July, although delay was longer than permitted and I'm still waiting for my cheque, but TP says its coming)
And consequently, AC has paid me out multiple times when they originally claimed safety as excuse for delays ex-EU...I reply referring to this ECJ decision, and AC as NOT once challenged, but instead just paid.
Whether this will apply within the new Canadian compensation framework, only time will tell...and someone must be willing to go to Federal Court, as even if AC gets ruled against by CTA, AC does have the right to have such a decision reviewed at this higher level.
And since AC and others are challenging the new rules in Federal Court, don't expect them to give up lightly here.
And consequently, AC has paid me out multiple times when they originally claimed safety as excuse for delays ex-EU...I reply referring to this ECJ decision, and AC as NOT once challenged, but instead just paid.
Whether this will apply within the new Canadian compensation framework, only time will tell...and someone must be willing to go to Federal Court, as even if AC gets ruled against by CTA, AC does have the right to have such a decision reviewed at this higher level.
And since AC and others are challenging the new rules in Federal Court, don't expect them to give up lightly here.
My experience has been that if I can cite the exact articles of regulations in my claims, airlines would quickly send the appropriate compensation without contest.
Dec 20, 19, 4:21 pm
#263
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Programs: Altitude 100K Super Elite; AC Million Miles; Emirates Gold; Bonvoy lifetime Platinum Elite;
Posts: 349
And what to believe in situations like these?
On the left, what the app said (which I believe to be correct). On the right, an automated email message.
On the left, what the app said (which I believe to be correct). On the right, an automated email message.
Dec 26, 19, 9:58 pm
#264
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Some very delayed pax. Not sure sure how AC will deal with them under the new act. I'd appreciate anyone who can offer info or opinions. Thanks.
AC 783 YUL-LAX had some issues. Diverted to YYZ
FlightAware:
FR 24:
AC shows this info:
They just departed. If the info is correct, looks like an aircraft swap in YYZ.
EF shows:
OAC783/26DEC
* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * AC 783 -1 TH 26DEC19
CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL)
YUL ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 0200 ☨1 LAX
YYZ DIV LAX YYZ
NON-SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 1945 YYZ
AIRCRAFT LANDED YYZ 1942
AIRCRAFT ARRIVED AT GATE YYZ 2002
ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 2320
DELAY SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
LEFT THE GATE 2338
ESTIMATED TAKE OFF TIME 2343
DELAY
*1A PLANNED FLIGHT INFO* AC 783 -1 TH 26DEC19
APT ARR DY DEP DY CLASS/MEAL EQP GRND EFT TTL
YUL 1720 TH JCDZPR/M Y/F 320 6:15
BMUHQVWGSTL/F
AK/F F/-
LAX 2035 TH 6:15
AC 783 YUL-LAX had some issues. Diverted to YYZ
FlightAware:
FR 24:
AC shows this info:
They just departed. If the info is correct, looks like an aircraft swap in YYZ.
EF shows:
OAC783/26DEC
* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * AC 783 -1 TH 26DEC19
CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL)
YUL ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 0200 ☨1 LAX
YYZ DIV LAX YYZ
NON-SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 1945 YYZ
AIRCRAFT LANDED YYZ 1942
AIRCRAFT ARRIVED AT GATE YYZ 2002
ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 2320
DELAY SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
LEFT THE GATE 2338
ESTIMATED TAKE OFF TIME 2343
DELAY
*1A PLANNED FLIGHT INFO* AC 783 -1 TH 26DEC19
APT ARR DY DEP DY CLASS/MEAL EQP GRND EFT TTL
YUL 1720 TH JCDZPR/M Y/F 320 6:15
BMUHQVWGSTL/F
AK/F F/-
LAX 2035 TH 6:15
Dec 27, 19, 9:53 am
#265
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 5,445
"Scheduled maintenance" is, in theory, covered by the act as "Situations within airline control" and therefore AC is required to deal with compensation, standards of treatment; and completion of passenger's itinerary.
Unless of course they remove the "scheduled" at which point it becomes a safety issue.
Unless of course they remove the "scheduled" at which point it becomes a safety issue.
May 31, 20, 4:28 pm
#266
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,816
The inevitable has happened:Canadian Transportation Agency overwhelmed by 2-year backlog of air passenger complaints
The CTA told CBC News the vast majority of untouched cases are not tied to the global public health crisis, which largely grounded air travel around the world.
The number of complaints more than doubled after the second wave of air passenger protection regulations came into effect in December 2019, the agency said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cta...klog-1.5592246
Canadian Transportation Agency overwhelmed by 2-year backlog of air passenger complaints
The Canadian Transportation Agency is wrestling with a backlog of nearly 14,000 air passenger complaints accumulated over the past two years, at the same time as thousands of Canadians are demanding the agency help get their money back from flights cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Complaints surged after new passenger protections implemented
The CTA told CBC News the vast majority of untouched cases are not tied to the global public health crisis, which largely grounded air travel around the world. The number of complaints more than doubled after the second wave of air passenger protection regulations came into effect in December 2019, the agency said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cta...klog-1.5592246
May 31, 20, 10:04 pm
#268
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,131
NO need for AC to sue to get PP overturned - government has implemented ineffectual policy simply by starving CTA so it cannot respond to this deluge.
Liberals can then say they brought in PP, and blame airlines for bad performance that has generated so many complaints.
Feds should pay their spin doctors double for this nice sidestep.
Liberals can then say they brought in PP, and blame airlines for bad performance that has generated so many complaints.
Feds should pay their spin doctors double for this nice sidestep.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Airlines, or at least AC, did play a number of disingenuous games in order to refuse paying compensation due under the new rules. Leading to a massive number of cases that went to the CTA because airlines and/or clearly AC were/was dishonest.
We had a couple that were initially denied even though they clearly did fit within the rules. As luck would have it, at that point the press had already picked up on the tactic AC had been using so when we got back to AC arguing their answer was in error they ended up paying. But I can see that we might have had to file a claim with the CTA.
Anyway, between airlines dishonesty and the CTA not being able to handle, I don't really know who to blame. We personally did get twice the max compensation from AC.
