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 10, 18, 6:33 am
  #91  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 4,052
Originally Posted by skybluesea
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
The government can not today determine if someone is "too tired" or strung out on OTC meds. Mostly the professionals don't fly while intoxicated (with anything). It isn't credible that post a date on the calendar pilots will start chilaxing in the cockpit because they can buy weed legally. They can already easily buy weed illegally, and already buy Sudafed legally.

The same also applies to unstated concerns about traffic cops not being able to detect things.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 7:51 am
  #92  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by skybluesea


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

  1. What's your point? That companies should be able to take money to provide a service AND have the right to delay provision of that service with minimal compensation because they permit themselves to do so in a contract that, when challenged, did/does not pass regulatory muster?
  2. If the terms are communicated clearly, why are you advocating state intervention to make airlines communicate more clearly. You proposed that. Not me. I've simply asked why it's necessary.
  3. The "COMPUTER/CONTRACT SAYS NO" philosophy you're advocating rarely goes down well with the public. They understand that rules can and should change if necessary. It may well be the case that airlines have ticked off one political staffer too many, but the kicker here is that passenger rights will be viewed positively by the public. It certainly raises questions about whether the public perceive airlines as acting in good faith. Which is what this airline hack should have focused on.
  4. I don't have enough faith in the CTA to participate in this process, so I really don't know what they're up to.But then again, even a 0.0001 improvement is greater than 0. They might unintentionally make things better for consumers.
  5. I'm under the impression that there are different groups within government departments that work on separate issues simultaneously. Does your experience in three levels of governments indicate otherwise? It's a minor point anyway - all we have to do is ask the Dutch. KL doesn't seem to be particularly unsafe - no AC style hard landings or SFO incidents anyway. What policies have they or their government adopted. If you're going to resort to deflecting, consider finding a better example.
yulred is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 12:27 pm
  #93  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by yulred
  1. What's your point? That companies should be able to take money to provide a service AND have the right to delay provision of that service with minimal compensation because they permit themselves to do so in a contract that, when challenged, did/does not pass regulatory muster?
  2. If the terms are communicated clearly, why are you advocating state intervention to make airlines communicate more clearly. You proposed that. Not me. I've simply asked why it's necessary.
  3. The "COMPUTER/CONTRACT SAYS NO" philosophy you're advocating rarely goes down well with the public. They understand that rules can and should change if necessary. It may well be the case that airlines have ticked off one political staffer too many, but the kicker here is that passenger rights will be viewed positively by the public. It certainly raises questions about whether the public perceive airlines as acting in good faith. Which is what this airline hack should have focused on.
  4. I don't have enough faith in the CTA to participate in this process, so I really don't know what they're up to.But then again, even a 0.0001 improvement is greater than 0. They might unintentionally make things better for consumers.
  5. I'm under the impression that there are different groups within government departments that work on separate issues simultaneously. Does your experience in three levels of governments indicate otherwise? It's a minor point anyway - all we have to do is ask the Dutch. KL doesn't seem to be particularly unsafe - no AC style hard landings or SFO incidents anyway. What policies have they or their government adopted. If you're going to resort to deflecting, consider finding a better example.
With the level of confidence and bravado in your post, I must ask, are you willing to take Air Canada to court? If not, then, well, time to sit and play in the sand box like the rest of us.
skybluesea likes this.
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 3:19 pm
  #94  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin
With the level of confidence and bravado in your post, I must ask, are you willing to take Air Canada to court? If not, then, well, time to sit and play in the sand box like the rest of us.
"Computer says no."
yulred is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 4:03 pm
  #95  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
How about little poll ?

1.who believes GoC can chew gum and walk all at the same time.

if you say yes, you believe every word of this press release from 15 months ago which says strict enforcement once law enacted

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...is.html#mb-pnl

if you say NO, well, do NOT read this article if you wish to avoid your blood boiling - in sum, unlike alcohol, no scientific consensus exists on what level of THC is considered impairment, and Constitutional Challenges are planned to start in October.

https://www.leafly.com/news/canada/c...nal-challenges

So Minister of Transport busy creating good press for the current govt with tiny focus on IDB compensation- while the public safety of every flier in Canada is left to dangle and the Minister has NOT sufficiently driven the technical and enforcement agenda on Cannibis detection to be ready for October.

good luck to all of us.
longtimeflyin likes this.
skybluesea is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 4:18 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by skybluesea
How about little poll ?

1.who believes GoC can chew gum and walk all at the same time.

if you say yes, you believe every word of this press release from 15 months ago which says strict enforcement once law enacted

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...is.html#mb-pnl

if you say NO, well, do NOT read this article if you wish to avoid your blood boiling - in sum, unlike alcohol, no scientific consensus exists on what level of THC is considered impairment, and Constitutional Challenges are planned to start in October.

https://www.leafly.com/news/canada/c...nal-challenges

So Minister of Transport busy creating good press for the current govt with tiny focus on IDB compensation- while the public safety of every flier in Canada is left to dangle and the Minister has NOT sufficiently driven the technical and enforcement agenda on Cannibis detection to be ready for October.

good luck to all of us.
He's creating good press by creating several regulations that will effectively fix inadequate portions of airlines' tariffs. They will likely address more than IDB compensationwhich has already been addressed - might have been under the last Government. Surprised you didn't know that.

You out seem awfully worried about safety. Fair enough. What do you make of the lack of policy intervention on pilot fatigue so far? Given AC's track record -from the Zurich flight to the SFO incident, I'd maybe worry more about that than cannabis or passenger rights. But then AC might not like that. Which may or may not influence your stance on the need for intervention. The FAA report on the SFO incident does not make for comfortable reading.
canadiancow likes this.
yulred is offline  
Old Jul 10, 18, 11:36 pm
  #97  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
Originally Posted by yulred
You out seem awfully worried about safety. Fair enough. What do you make of the lack of policy intervention on pilot fatigue so far? Given AC's track record -from the Zurich flight to the SFO incident, I'd maybe worry more about that than cannabis or passenger rights. But then AC might not like that. Which may or may not influence your stance on the need for intervention. The FAA report on the SFO incident does not make for comfortable reading.
Thank you for making my point, do not overestimate the capacity for govt of every stripe and at any level to research, develop, obtain consensus on, and then drive-through policy to lawful legislation that has successful enactment. The cannabis law if successfully challenged on the grounds noted above, will mean there will be zero ability for the police to enforce on the roads or for some active duty crew member boarding an airplane, until a legislative fix is made.. Just passing a law does not make it eventually enforceable, at least in the Canadian context with the Charter in place.

So in this case, the minister of transport is pushing through the low hanging fruit, for cheap vote getting, rather than directing the resources of the department to resolve a far more challenging question like you have raised.

In sum, governments do not have endless capability, and it is the role of the minister to determine the priorities, and direct execution, and this Ministry of transport is putting us all at risk for not dealing with cannabis and fatigue safety issues in a sufficiently timely way - and on that point I Can agree with you

ps...ICAO advises states that as intervention in the marketplace declines with industry liberalization at the same time technical intervention on safety & security matters need greater attention - IATA started on this agenda with IOSA long before ICAO put this forward... I know personally the IOSA project director and he routinely advises that IOSA standards and practices that is a condition of IATA membership often far exceed wha ICAO advises, which has a relatively low bar to accommodate developing nations. Can more be done - yes, but even on technical issues active state intervention often falls behnd the fast moving pace of industry- I must stop here as I could write another dissertation on this topic.

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety...ges/index.aspx

Last edited by skybluesea; Jul 10, 18 at 11:50 pm Reason: Footnote
skybluesea is offline  
Old Jul 11, 18, 1:36 am
  #98  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,220
Originally Posted by yulred
Surprised you didn't know that.
Really?
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jul 11, 18, 8:15 am
  #99  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by skybluesea


Thank you for making my point, do not overestimate the capacity for govt of every stripe and at any level to research, develop, obtain consensus on, and then drive-through policy to lawful legislation that has successful enactment. The cannabis law if successfully challenged on the grounds noted above, will mean there will be zero ability for the police to enforce on the roads or for some active duty crew member boarding an airplane, until a legislative fix is made.. Just passing a law does not make it eventually enforceable, at least in the Canadian context with the Charter in place.

So in this case, the minister of transport is pushing through the low hanging fruit, for cheap vote getting, rather than directing the resources of the department to resolve a far more challenging question like you have raised.

In sum, governments do not have endless capability, and it is the role of the minister to determine the priorities, and direct execution, and this Ministry of transport is putting us all at risk for not dealing with cannabis and fatigue safety issues in a sufficiently timely way - and on that point I Can agree with you

ps...ICAO advises states that as intervention in the marketplace declines with industry liberalization at the same time technical intervention on safety & security matters need greater attention - IATA started on this agenda with IOSA long before ICAO put this forward... I know personally the IOSA project director and he routinely advises that IOSA standards and practices that is a condition of IATA membership often far exceed wha ICAO advises, which has a relatively low bar to accommodate developing nations. Can more be done - yes, but even on technical issues active state intervention often falls behnd the fast moving pace of industry- I must stop here as I could write another dissertation on this topic.

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety...ges/index.aspx
This is getting silly. Simply searching the interwebs reveals the following:

"In Canada, a pilot testing positive for cannabis will lose his MVC with an automatic and immediate removal from flying duties."

That's from December 2015.
https://www.skiesmag.com/news/cannabis-and-pilots/

"TC officials told delegates to the Air Transport Association of Canada meeting last week that any amount of TCH, the psychoactive chemical in cannabis, found in a pilots bloodstream will result in immediate suspension of flight privileges and that will last until the TCH is flushed from his or her system."

That's from 2017, after the legalization was announced.

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Transport-Canada-Reinforces-Pot-Ban-229907-1.html

The policy already exists. It stands regardless of whether a drug is legal or not. Like, you know, alcohol.I hope you were diligent enough to bother looking into whatever position or recommendations you were putting forward while working with three levels of government.

That aside, its self-evident that you can't get "cheap" votes if an issue doesn't resonate with the voting public. That this issue does, speaks to how much airlines have angered an impressive number of people over the years. "Where there's smoke, there's fire", and all that.

canadiancow likes this.
yulred is offline  
Old Jul 11, 18, 10:30 am
  #100  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,220
"Silly" is not the word I would have used.

From the CCC:
Operation while impaired
  • 253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
    • (a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
    • (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

It's almost like someone had been smoking grass. Artificial grass. Astroturf.
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jul 11, 18, 6:01 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Originally Posted by KenHamer
"Silly" is not the word I would have used.

From the CCC:
Operation while impaired
  • 253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
    • (a) while the persons ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
    • (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the persons blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

It's almost like someone had been smoking grass. Artificial grass. Astroturf.
I was trying to be polite.

And trying to head off the inevitable obfuscation: "how do you measure it?" and corresponding non-sequiturs citing...I don't know.., ICAO, IATA, UNHCR, NORAD and the chief veterinarian in Zurich, Ontario.

Always amusing when the motive for obfuscation becomes transparent.



yulred is offline  
Old Jul 11, 18, 8:16 pm
  #102  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,220
Methinks those "three levels of government" were primarily with the Harper administration .

Last edited by tcook052; Jul 11, 18 at 9:37 pm
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jul 11, 18, 11:59 pm
  #103  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
Make fun but Good luck folks when new law gets challenged as any amount of THC & actual demonstrated Impairment are two different things.

the Minister of transport as part of cabinet is pushing through two laws at present- one to appease remarkably tiny # of incidents that I assert are already covered by the existing AC contract, while the other law endangers us all without clarity that goes directly to the heart of Charter Sec 7-9 where persons must NOT be denied their liberty without due process, and that test demands GoC act in a reasonable manner - and without an easily replicated test for impairment based on a particular level of THC, just wait as we will soon get some bad news.

oh yes, govt will say we passed these two laws before next election but the far more serious issues of impairment will certainly take much longer to be resolved through the courts and future law changes.

Canadians are getting smoke and mirrors here on a deadly subject
skybluesea is offline  
Old Jul 12, 18, 1:20 am
  #104  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,220
Are you the smoke?

Or the mirrors?
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jul 12, 18, 3:54 am
  #105  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: YXE
Programs: Curb Your Enthusiasm, Fraggle Rock
Posts: 110
Hey yall. Looooooooong time reader, first time poster.

Im a moderate traveller (The most segments Ive done in a year is 28) who most enjoys the personalities and what I learn from FlyerTalk. You're all great, and I most appreciate the reading.

A handful of threads---including this one---about the contract between AC and their passengers have been in my mind in the past days.


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!!!
There is a fundamental flaw with the If you dont like the contract, chose WJ argument that hasas near as I can tellnever really been addressed in any AC forum thread.

Yes, by entering into the contract the passenger agrees to involuntary denied boarding and the level of compensation that AC will provide. This is not to say whether or not the contract is fair or "reasonable." This is only to say that a contract has been entered into.

However, the passenger is unable to negotiate the terms of the contract. Regardless of fare. The contract can only be accepted or rejected under AC's terms, in what is (broadly speaking) a duopoly market.

This means that the contract the passenger enters into with AC, whether that passenger be a FOTSG or SEMM, is not a mutual exchange between two parties. It is an imposition by AC.

This imbalance of negotiating power is exactly why the state must intervene. The market has failed.
canadiancow and Bohemian1 like this.
Norcanair is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread