Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

AC Comments on Proposed Transportation Modernization Act (Passenger Bill of Rights)

AC Comments on Proposed Transportation Modernization Act (Passenger Bill of Rights)

Old Jul 9, 18, 7:33 am
  #76  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC*E75 (*A Gold), Bonvoy Gold Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,589
While I applaud The Globe (and others) for clearly identifying "opinion" pieces, this one should be filed under "lobbying effort" -- or, even better, "industry shill":

Massimo Bergamini is president and CEO of the National Airlines Council of Canada, which represents Canadas largest air carriers: Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat and Jazz Aviation
My favourite quote from the piece: Fixing the system will have to wait."

Um, no. We've waited long enough. Get your acts together and stop making your problems my problems.
ffsim is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 8:22 am
  #77  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by ffsim
While I applaud The Globe (and others) for clearly identifying "opinion" pieces, this one should be filed under "lobbying effort" -- or, even better, "industry shill":



My favourite quote from the piece: Fixing the system will have to wait."

Um, no. We've waited long enough. Get your acts together and stop making your problems my problems.
My favourite quote is: "Creating policy in response to outliers is an unusually imperfect and risky business". I suspect that depends on the nature of the "outlier". The more egregious the outlier, the higher the likelihood of policy intervention. The vast majority of the population do not, for example, engage in illegal activities. Should we ignore those activities as outliers?

Its unfortunate that we've reached a point - globally - where airline behaviour has become so poor that policy interventions are required. The author would do well to dwell on airline behaviour instead. If he had advised his member airlines to sort out IDB compensation, CTA wouldn't have had to make a policy intervention. For some reason, he didn't.

Even for a paid lobbyist, this is very intellectually lazy stuff. I'm actually embarrassed for him.

yulred is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 8:27 am
  #78  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 3,983
The Government should pass a law requiring Concierge staff to answer the phone.
InTheAirGuy is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 9:00 am
  #79  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, WS Plat, Marriot Life Plat
Posts: 2,776
I can't read the article.... And I don't understand the quote. Delta is a censoring btch.
DrunkCargo is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 9:04 am
  #80  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, WS Plat, Marriot Life Plat
Posts: 2,776
Not Delta. Globe and mail censoring... Anyhow..

Wow. Someone who works for someone says someone is okay. Seriously.w t f .. is wrong with Canada.
DrunkCargo is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 9:20 am
  #81  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,494
Originally Posted by TemboOne
Far too many passengers travelling with young children make reservations and make no attempt to secure seating together at the time the reservation is made - and if it can't be done then, surely common sense should dictate that there may be problems later.

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!
maybe if the website allowed them to do it without calling in and waiting on hold for a while, then it would be a less likely occurrence.
BarrieTravelGuy likes this.
quantumofforce is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 10:05 am
  #82  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
Can and should AC be better in the future...yes

Should govt intervene now...maybe

Was AC better in the past...definitely NO

http://www.intervistas.com/downloads...July2008_h.pdf

how about a little contest, count how many of the airline service improvements identified by the eminent aviation economist Dr. Mike Tretheway points out in this article were directly caused by state intervention ? the answer less than you might think

ps...And if you think for a second, state intervention comes for free, I have a 4 inch thick book to lend on the theory of the firm under regulation for some bedtime reading that will dissuade you from such a wrongheaded way of thinking
skybluesea is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 10:43 am
  #83  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by skybluesea
Can and should AC be better in the future...yes

Should govt intervene now...maybe

Was AC better in the past...definitely NO

http://www.intervistas.com/downloads...July2008_h.pdf

how about a little contest, count how many of the airline service improvements identified by the eminent aviation economist Dr. Mike Tretheway points out in this article were directly caused by state intervention ? the answer less than you might think

ps...And if you think for a second, state intervention comes for free, I have a 4 inch thick book to lend on the theory of the firm under regulation for some bedtime reading that will dissuade you from such a wrongheaded way of thinking
Does reasonable IDB compensation count as an "airline service improvement? Because that's what we're really talking about - using economic penalties to change airline behaviour away from its current "passenger hardship does not matter if it suits the airline's bottom line" approach.

As for state intervention, a democratic state may impose rules on airlines on behalf of its people it represents. This really isn't a big deal. No one expects them to put forward unreasonable policies. The real problem here is that airlines need to be compelled by policy to be reasonable.

yulred is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 1:02 pm
  #84  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
If we can all agree on a definition of reasonable this would be a recipe for air service nirvana.

I wont be holding my breath anytime soon, and as plainly evident, forcing airlines to undertake a so-called reasonable IDB policy that other airlines choose NOT to use overbooking is actually putting the thumb of govt on the playing field, tilting the game.

this does not protect consumers in any way, its simply drives up costs for the rest of us, when the marketplace does offer alternatives for those who consider IDB un- acceptable- and if your E75k or SE then you directly have access to IDB, whether you use it or not

but how about I make a proposal for everyones consideration, how about government intervene in communications between airlines that have IDB as a tool, and make it absolutely evident with a big red notice either a ticket or at the time of purchase that this could happen,

market intervention should be about transparency not tilting the game as we are not children and we can make adult decisions if were properly informed
skybluesea is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 1:52 pm
  #85  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by skybluesea
If we can all agree on a definition of reasonable this would be a recipe for air service nirvana.

I wont be holding my breath anytime soon, and as plainly evident, forcing airlines to undertake a so-called reasonable IDB policy that other airlines choose NOT to use overbooking is actually putting the thumb of govt on the playing field, tilting the game.

this does not protect consumers in any way, its simply drives up costs for the rest of us, when the marketplace does offer alternatives for those who consider IDB un- acceptable- and if your E75k or SE then you directly have access to IDB, whether you use it or not

but how about I make a proposal for everyones consideration, how about government intervene in communications between airlines that have IDB as a tool, and make it absolutely evident with a big red notice either a ticket or at the time of purchase that this could happen,

market intervention should be about transparency not tilting the game as we are not children and we can make adult decisions if were properly informed
Tilting the game? I don't follow.

The issue here isn't IDB. It's IDB compensation. If an airline chooses to inconvenience pax by pursuing IDB, it should compensate those pax accordingly. The government intervention here is levelling the playing field by establishing what reasonable pax compensation is for any airline that chooses to go down the IDB route. Same policy for all = level playing field, no?

If IDB is raising the cost of your ticket in an age of record profits, then I'm afraid the higher cost you're paying has precious little to do with IDB compensation policies.

Either way, how come you're in favour of the Government intervening in communications to explain IDB can happen? Why should it have to? AC can, after all, advertise that voluntarily, can it not? On the one hand, you appear to be against policy interventions, but on the other hand, you seem to accept that policy interventions are required to change airline behaviour. Which is it?
yulred is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 2:17 pm
  #86  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
Originally Posted by yulred


Tilting the game? I don't follow.

The issue here isn't IDB. It's IDB compensation. If an airline chooses to inconvenience pax by pursuing IDB, it should compensate those pax accordingly. The government intervention here is levelling the playing field by establishing what reasonable pax compensation is for any airline that chooses to go down the IDB route. Same policy for all = level playing field, no?

If IDB is raising the cost of your ticket in an age of record profits, then I'm afraid the higher cost you're paying has precious little to do with IDB compensation policies.

Either way, how come you're in favour of the Government intervening in communications to explain IDB can happen? Why should it have to? AC can, after all, advertise that voluntarily, can it not? On the one hand, you appear to be against policy interventions, but on the other hand, you seem to accept that policy interventions are required to change airline behaviour. Which is it?
pax agree to IDB & the level of existing compensation in the AC contract so how is this inconvenient? Chose WJ if you do not wish to be inconvenienced!!!

you mean temporary record profits, arising from airlines pocketing the oil price crash...oh yeah Brent Crude today traded over $78 usd...ouch

in no way did I say that there should be zero intervention, I pointed out the cost of intervention which depends on the scale of action, and a key component of the marketplace is a buyer and seller being fully informed, so better marketplace communication is a highly recommended approach in the toolbox in the theory of the firm under regulation, And for Air Canada, this is already underway with regards to full price disclosure on the reservation system.

and if we wish to be serious about this, I would like to call out the minister of transport for sitting and supporting a cabinet policy for the legalization of cannabis, when the government of Canada has no way at present for a legally acceptable process for determining intoxication of flight crews, maintenance people etc.

so if the government wishes to intervene in the marketplace, probably a focus on public safety first is in everyones best interest
skybluesea is offline  
Old Jul 9, 18, 2:57 pm
  #87  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by skybluesea


pax agree to IDB & the level of existing compensation in the AC contract so how is this inconvenient? Chose WJ if you do not wish to be inconvenienced!!!

you mean temporary record profits, arising from airlines pocketing the oil price crash...oh yeah Brent Crude today traded over $78 usd...ouch

in no way did I say that there should be zero intervention, I pointed out the cost of intervention which depends on the scale of action, and a key component of the marketplace is a buyer and seller being fully informed, so better marketplace communication is a highly recommended approach in the toolbox in the theory of the firm under regulation, And for Air Canada, this is already underway with regards to full price disclosure on the reservation system.

and if we wish to be serious about this, I would like to call out the minister of transport for sitting and supporting a cabinet policy for the legalization of cannabis, when the government of Canada has no way at present for a legally acceptable process for determining intoxication of flight crews, maintenance people etc.

so if the government wishes to intervene in the marketplace, probably a focus on public safety first is in everyones best interest
The contract wasn't divinely revealed to AC by God. It was written by AC to suit AC. If parts of it are inadequate or unreasonable, they should be changed. If they don't do it voluntarily, the government should intervene. That's what happened with IDB and that's what's happening with this passenger rights thing.

Communications is great and all, but for whatever reason, airlines have chosen not to use it so far. You never seem to hold them accountable for that. Why not?

This passenger rights issue is an issue of the airlines' own making. They've just ticked off too many folk - probably by using the "COMPUTER SAYS NO" philosophy you seem to be pushing - and it's come home to roost.

The public safety issue is a false dichotomy. The government can sort out air passenger rights and deal with that simultaneously. It's not an either/or.

yulred is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 12:09 am
  #88  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
Originally Posted by yulred


The contract wasn't divinely revealed to AC by God. It was written by AC to suit AC. If parts of it are inadequate or unreasonable, they should be changed. If they don't do it voluntarily, the government should intervene. That's what happened with IDB and that's what's happening with this passenger rights thing.

Communications is great and all, but for whatever reason, airlines have chosen not to use it so far. You never seem to hold them accountable for that. Why not?

This passenger rights issue is an issue of the airlines' own making. They've just ticked off too many folk - probably by using the "COMPUTER SAYS NO" philosophy you seem to be pushing - and it's come home to roost.

The public safety issue is a false dichotomy. The government can sort out air passenger rights and deal with that simultaneously. It's not an either/or.
1. State intervention never comes for free, and ultimately consumers pay for what folks pretend will cost nothing
2. The terms of trade are abundantly clear, yet when folks buy AC product and dont do their homework first on what they are buying that becomes suppliers fault, according to your logic
3. Having worked in 3 levels of govt in Canada, agree tiny minuscule squeaky wheels get the grease - and politics all about exploiting the lowest common denominator for gains in the polls
4. Having been the author of laws enacted at both provincial & municipal levels, never ever was it acceptable to put policy recommendations for public debate and approval WITHOUT including implementation tools, including for those of you who live in B.C. where I authored road safety laws, regs, and budgets to effectively implement.

the federal govt is acting with complete irresponsiblility when enacting law and telling all of us in the flying public, trust us eventually we will figure out how to legally determine whether flight crews are under the influence of the active ingredients in Cannibis

skybluesea is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 3:32 am
  #89  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,220
Originally Posted by skybluesea
If we can all agree on a definition of reasonable this would be a recipe for air service nirvana.

I wont be holding my breath anytime soon, and as plainly evident, forcing airlines to undertake a so-called reasonable IDB policy that other airlines choose NOT to use overbooking is actually putting the thumb of govt on the playing field, tilting the game.

this does not protect consumers in any way, its simply drives up costs for the rest of us, when the marketplace does offer alternatives for those who consider IDB un- acceptable- and if your E75k or SE then you directly have access to IDB, whether you use it or not

but how about I make a proposal for everyones consideration, how about government intervene in communications between airlines that have IDB as a tool, and make it absolutely evident with a big red notice either a ticket or at the time of purchase that this could happen,

market intervention should be about transparency not tilting the game as we are not children and we can make adult decisions if were properly informed
What a load of tripe.
canadiancow likes this.
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 4:20 am
  #90  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canada
Programs: Star Alliance G*, Marriott Bonvoy PLAT, NE Gold
Posts: 3,475
Exclamation results of the consulations

I monitored the hearings in YOW and as well joined the July 5 teleconference call.
First, its unusual for the federal government to ask a regulatory body to provide advice on regulations. IMO, the only reason it has happened in this circumstance is because the CTA held hearings last year into the AT debacle. One presumes Minister Garneau was happy to see that.
At the beginning of the hearing, the Commissioner noted the # complaints has risen from 800 year to 6,000. Most of these complaints are (of course) about AC. What he went on to say - brag about - is that 99 % of them are resolved informally via mediation. What does this mean? You get a call from the CTA. They say you don't have a case. That is what Garneau wants i.e. an agency which protects AC.
Also, the legislation has a major flaw. It only provides compensation when the delay is controllable by the airline. AC is allowed to define what is within their control. I expect to see more instances where airlines blame ATC, weather, or virtually anything for the delay. Get out of jail free card.
Anyone who expects to see a robust CTA is dreaming.
Antonio8069 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread