AC Comments on Proposed Transportation Modernization Act (Passenger Bill of Rights)
May 29, 18, 11:57 pm
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson
Posts: 34,894
Status regardless of level within any airline should not include the right to demand another paid customer be IDB bumped for their convenience.
It's in the tariff?
Then perhaps it's time for that fact to be widely publicised by the media.
Status privileges should not extend to taking a seat from a paid passenger at any stage, particularly within the 48 hour window before departure.
Sadly there a few, very very very few, AC Status holders who regard themselves above everyone else; the Snob Appeal, so to speak!
It's in the tariff?
Then perhaps it's time for that fact to be widely publicised by the media.
Status privileges should not extend to taking a seat from a paid passenger at any stage, particularly within the 48 hour window before departure.
Sadly there a few, very very very few, AC Status holders who regard themselves above everyone else; the Snob Appeal, so to speak!
I am not providing my opinion on the matter, but just FYI-ing.
May 30, 18, 1:46 am
#62
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50k, A3*G, UA*S, MR Titanium, HHonors Gold, Carlson Gold, NEXUS
Posts: 3,661
To be fair, there's a difference between "take this flight that gets you to Hawaii two hours later" and "sorry, we're full. We're covering a cab to comparable accommodation that should get you there within half an hour" although I've never been bumped or walked
May 30, 18, 4:11 am
#63
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
Wow, the defence of ignorance...
If I might suggest, if you are ever charged in Canada with a Criminal Code offense, the law specifically excludes such a defence.
Albeit, you may wish to avail yourself of Section 16, Defence of Mental Disorder, if applicable.
ps...BetterHalf and I were IDB in 2014...thread elsewhere...my only question on this Forum was what was sufficient and comparable compensation for being bounced when AC decided to dispatch smaller a/c to Dublin and didn't bother over summer long weekend to deal with consequences before 8 front end customers, including us, were tossed entirely from airplane, NOT just to the back.
I never challenged at the airport or afterwards why AC would make such a decision even for an SEMM - just dealt with fair restitution that we accepted and we move on.
Life is full of disappointments and misgivings - I stopped sweating the small stuff like this years ago and I smile a lot more...
have a great day and heading to delhi flight on China Southern - always an alternative if AC becomes intolerable for you...
If I might suggest, if you are ever charged in Canada with a Criminal Code offense, the law specifically excludes such a defence.
Albeit, you may wish to avail yourself of Section 16, Defence of Mental Disorder, if applicable.
ps...BetterHalf and I were IDB in 2014...thread elsewhere...my only question on this Forum was what was sufficient and comparable compensation for being bounced when AC decided to dispatch smaller a/c to Dublin and didn't bother over summer long weekend to deal with consequences before 8 front end customers, including us, were tossed entirely from airplane, NOT just to the back.
I never challenged at the airport or afterwards why AC would make such a decision even for an SEMM - just dealt with fair restitution that we accepted and we move on.
Life is full of disappointments and misgivings - I stopped sweating the small stuff like this years ago and I smile a lot more...
have a great day and heading to delhi flight on China Southern - always an alternative if AC becomes intolerable for you...
May 30, 18, 7:44 am
#64
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YSB & YAM, Northern Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG Gold Elite, Marriott Rewards
Posts: 1,100
This is one case where passengers are usually to blame for their seating problem
Another part of the survey asked about how far apart families with children of various ages should be seated. It gave several options (same row, one row ahead or behind, etc) but nowhere did it say anything about how those seats would be made available to families who for whatever reason did not have preassigned seats together. Is it reasonable to infer from this line of questioning that passengers who have chosen a particular flight based on seat availability and payed for advance seat selection might be bumped out of their seat to accommodate said family? There was no question about compensation for such an occurrence, so it’s not clear what the CTA has in mind for this.
Sadly many families arrive at check-in counters at the last minute with children in tow and toting a mountain of luggage and expect miracles to be worked to seat them all together. Is the government really to be held responsible for forcing airlines to juggle seating assignments in such cases?
The line needs to be drawn somewhere!
May 30, 18, 9:22 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson
Posts: 34,894
Again, I'm not opining what's worse or better (or whether I think its acceptable in one industry but not another). I'm just saying the same thing exists in the hotel industry.
May 30, 18, 12:46 pm
#66
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
remarkable how folks get indignant, but still keep sending money to AirCanada.
ps...Nothing in this legislation does anything to stop the stealing across the north Atlantic as prices are significantly higher still… Tells you how little competition there really is by comparison to the pacific where both economy and business are sometimes half or even less than comparable distances on TATL.
e.g round-trip three days advance purchase business class Vancouver to Delhi over Guangzhou for $3400 US… Try finding similar fare for half the distance during the business season anywhere to Europe, at least from Canada
Jun 11, 18, 1:28 pm
#67
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 55,764
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/video...ceo-says-video
Air Canada to Benefit From Loosened Ownership Rules, CEO Says
Air Canada to Benefit From Loosened Ownership Rules, CEO Says
Jun 11, 18, 6:30 pm
#68
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/video...ceo-says-video
Air Canada to Benefit From Loosened Ownership Rules, CEO Says
Air Canada to Benefit From Loosened Ownership Rules, CEO Says
and before I get jumped on, ask yourself next time you fly Austrian, Swiss, or SN Brussels, where the profit (or loss) from that flight ultimately ends up (Lufthansa), or British, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus & Level (International Airline Group) - what about Alitalia, Jet, and recently defunct Air Berlin (Etihad)...all foreign owners...either in full or in part...
How about we move on to allowing capital to move where it can best be used - something called economics if I recall...
Last edited by tcook052; Jun 11, 18 at 7:36 pm Reason: off topic
Jun 12, 18, 8:19 am
#69
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
And why do we need airline ownership rules anyway?
and before I get jumped on, ask yourself next time you fly Austrian, Swiss, or SN Brussels, where the profit (or loss) from that flight ultimately ends up (Lufthansa), or British, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus & Level (International Airline Group) - what about Alitalia, Jet, and recently defunct Air Berlin (Etihad)...all foreign owners...either in full or in part...
How about we move on to allowing capital to move where it can best be used - something called economics if I recall...
and before I get jumped on, ask yourself next time you fly Austrian, Swiss, or SN Brussels, where the profit (or loss) from that flight ultimately ends up (Lufthansa), or British, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus & Level (International Airline Group) - what about Alitalia, Jet, and recently defunct Air Berlin (Etihad)...all foreign owners...either in full or in part...
How about we move on to allowing capital to move where it can best be used - something called economics if I recall...
Not it sure what your point on profits/loss is. Doesn't strike me as different to metal neutral revenue sharing that LH/UA/AC, AF/KL/DL, AA/BA engage in.
This change aligns with "economics" - it lets everyone allocate their capital to where they think it can best be user.
Jun 12, 18, 8:42 am
#70
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
mostly nonsense in the review that serves the government line...
my take is quite different, removal of AC ownership requirements would ultimately require the removal of Montreal as the designated headquarters location for a supposedly private Canadian corporation in FEDERAL LEGISLATION, namely the Air Canada Public Participation Act....
Now, does anyone really think it is necessary and valid to have the location of a private company specified geographically?
And in case your wondering if this is unique, ONLY ONE OTHER FIRM IN CANADA has the same designation...anyone guess...well try Canadian National, a very successful railroad in North America that too must have its HQ in Montreal...and can you imagine the howls and screams from La Belle Province should this try to be changed.
Can I be cynical and suggest fundamental hypocrisy of allowing Bombardier C Series be bought up by Airbus, the very airplanes that AC will fly but can only do so under supposed Canadian ownership...what a farse...
my take is quite different, removal of AC ownership requirements would ultimately require the removal of Montreal as the designated headquarters location for a supposedly private Canadian corporation in FEDERAL LEGISLATION, namely the Air Canada Public Participation Act....
Now, does anyone really think it is necessary and valid to have the location of a private company specified geographically?
And in case your wondering if this is unique, ONLY ONE OTHER FIRM IN CANADA has the same designation...anyone guess...well try Canadian National, a very successful railroad in North America that too must have its HQ in Montreal...and can you imagine the howls and screams from La Belle Province should this try to be changed.
Can I be cynical and suggest fundamental hypocrisy of allowing Bombardier C Series be bought up by Airbus, the very airplanes that AC will fly but can only do so under supposed Canadian ownership...what a farse...
Jun 12, 18, 9:36 am
#71
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
mostly nonsense in the review that serves the government line...
my take is quite different, removal of AC ownership requirements would ultimately require the removal of Montreal as the designated headquarters location for a supposedly private Canadian corporation in FEDERAL LEGISLATION, namely the Air Canada Public Participation Act....
Now, does anyone really think it is necessary and valid to have the location of a private company specified geographically?
And in case your wondering if this is unique, ONLY ONE OTHER FIRM IN CANADA has the same designation...anyone guess...well try Canadian National, a very successful railroad in North America that too must have its HQ in Montreal...and can you imagine the howls and screams from La Belle Province should this try to be changed.
Can I be cynical and suggest fundamental hypocrisy of allowing Bombardier C Series be bought up by Airbus, the very airplanes that AC will fly but can only do so under supposed Canadian ownership...what a farse...
my take is quite different, removal of AC ownership requirements would ultimately require the removal of Montreal as the designated headquarters location for a supposedly private Canadian corporation in FEDERAL LEGISLATION, namely the Air Canada Public Participation Act....
Now, does anyone really think it is necessary and valid to have the location of a private company specified geographically?
And in case your wondering if this is unique, ONLY ONE OTHER FIRM IN CANADA has the same designation...anyone guess...well try Canadian National, a very successful railroad in North America that too must have its HQ in Montreal...and can you imagine the howls and screams from La Belle Province should this try to be changed.
Can I be cynical and suggest fundamental hypocrisy of allowing Bombardier C Series be bought up by Airbus, the very airplanes that AC will fly but can only do so under supposed Canadian ownership...what a farse...
Which parts of their rationale on foreign ownership do you disagree with?
I don't know what AC's HQ location has to do with foreign ownership rules changing. Please explain.
I dont understand the bit about the C-Series either. What is the issue?
Jun 12, 18, 9:53 am
#72
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
2) When that occurred, AC would argue that the Government allowing all their competitors unfettered access to foreign capital, while also dictating AC's operations, right down to the point of specific HQ location, makes it impossible for them to be competitive.
3) As AC's point would be pretty darn reasonable, the Government would likely remove that rule from the Act. This would seriously annoy both the QC Government and voters.
Jun 12, 18, 4:14 pm
#73
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
1) If foreign control was allowed, one would expect to see a bunch of new airlines come in, back by foreign investors, that AC would have to compete with.
2) When that occurred, AC would argue that the Government allowing all their competitors unfettered access to foreign capital, while also dictating AC's operations, right down to the point of specific HQ location, makes it impossible for them to be competitive.
3) As AC's point would be pretty darn reasonable, the Government would likely remove that rule from the Act. This would seriously annoy both the QC Government and voters.
2) When that occurred, AC would argue that the Government allowing all their competitors unfettered access to foreign capital, while also dictating AC's operations, right down to the point of specific HQ location, makes it impossible for them to be competitive.
3) As AC's point would be pretty darn reasonable, the Government would likely remove that rule from the Act. This would seriously annoy both the QC Government and voters.
Jul 9, 18, 6:47 am
#75
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 55,764
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...se-correction/
The right approach to improving the air travel experience would have been is a government-industry partnership to address policy obstacles and capacity issues, foster greater consumer awareness and encourage competition and innovation.
Unfortunately, that train left the station with Bill C-49.
Bill C-49 missed the mark by putting a black hat on airlines and failing to recognize the complexity of Canada’s aviation ecosystem and the role that each part plays in the passenger experience.
The CTA now has the opportunity to correct this, at least in part by taking a wide-angle lens to passenger rights and considering the impact of its proposed regulations on the aviation ecosystem.
Fixing the system will have to wait.
The right approach to improving the air travel experience would have been is a government-industry partnership to address policy obstacles and capacity issues, foster greater consumer awareness and encourage competition and innovation.
Unfortunately, that train left the station with Bill C-49.
Bill C-49 missed the mark by putting a black hat on airlines and failing to recognize the complexity of Canada’s aviation ecosystem and the role that each part plays in the passenger experience.
The CTA now has the opportunity to correct this, at least in part by taking a wide-angle lens to passenger rights and considering the impact of its proposed regulations on the aviation ecosystem.
Fixing the system will have to wait.
