skybluesea

delete

WaytoomuchEurope

Adam Smith

​​​​​​​If you've had to reset twice before even leaving the gate, it's likely not going to. But good luck

WaytoomuchEurope

[left]

YVRtoYYZ

SD on AC33 yesterday said something similar - only 2 resets permitted then it messes with the wiring (?). Never been told that before.

Edit: I should also add that 3-2-1 did trigger the pump so that functionality was not disabled. Ironically enough, the SD was struggling with getting to the keypad screen via the Rondelle and then entered 1-2-3 incorrectly; yet, they were the ones telling me only 2 resets maximum. In other words, don't put too much weight into their "2 resets" comment.

PB53x11

Really? So if there is no certainty that the cost could be charged back, is it your position that the compensation that AC would give would be zero (or something significantly less than $1,000)?

As a customer it's AC that hasn't delivered a promised feature, so I don't actually care whose pocket compensation comes out of. No, AC isn't a benevolent fund, but if a corporation sells something and only partially delivers, surely reasonable compensation is due. I don't care whose fault it is and I don't care who ultimately pays the bill.

canadiancow

It's not that I trust AC, it's that there is no other data, just speculation. "It can't take this long" has nothing to back it up.

My main issues with AC are when they say X but I experienced not-X. When I know they're making stuff up. It's unfounded speculation right now in this thread.

I have very little idea how the approval process works. Can they give everyone a mattress? Is there enough vertical clearance on the seats for one to be practical?

But who has been slow? TC? The manufacturer? AC?

There's definitely a problem, and compensation is definitely owed by AC, but I've seen no evidence to suggest AC is the one slowing the fix.

Agreed.

I recently received a $150 gift card because a 77W didn't have working wifi. I highly doubt they're going to charge that back to Gogo.

When they sell something, but fail to deliver it, they compensate, out of their own pockets.

skybluesea

delete

Adam Smith

Depends on what warranties, performance guarantees, etc, were offered by the manufacturer. Remember that AC spent tens, or more likely hundreds, of millions of dollars on these seats, and it would not be uncommon for such mechanisms to be built in to such a contract. For instance, perhaps the manufacturer guaranteed that only 10% of bladders would need to be replaced within a 10-year period (i.e. 90% should be fine for 10+ years) and agreed to compensate AC for any costs if the results were worse than that. Or there may have been no guarantees so direct, but perhaps AC has threatened to sue because the seats were defective/did not meet required specs, and the settlement included B/E (whatever it is now) footing the bill for AC's customer compensation. There any many different ways in which some or all of the compensation costs could be billed back to the manufacturer, although they could also be subject to a cap.

Certainly the eMCOs are coming out of AC's pocket initially, and I don't know that we've seen any concrete evidence that the manufacturer is paying. But unless you have some info from a credible source within AC, I don't think we can rule it out.

PB53x11

Umm ... how can what I said possibly be viewed as making an excuse for AC? I'm saying they should compensate, regardless of whether they can recover from the OEM.

skybluesea

delete

Transpacificflyer

My position is that a service provider will be more generous in its compensation when it is not the entity that ultimately incurs the cost of that compensation. Also the severity of the event and the quantum of the damage incurred is a major determinant of the compensation. You may not care who's fault it is, but you can be assured that the people paying most certainly do. Air Canada is no different than other service providers/product distributors in that regard.

When an allegation of defect or product caused injury is received, a company will first review the claim to see if it is possible. Then it will review to see if the company is legally liable to provide compensation. In cases of small brand related issues (cold food, misdelivered luggage, wifi failure etc.) the company has its own internal schedule of compensation. This is why AC is fairly quick to hand out the discount codes for malfunctioning wifi or IROPS. However, on bigger issues where other parties may have been responsible, the company will hand back the claim to the supplier and ask what's your position. I am 100% certain that with a problem as serious and significant as the seat issue that the airline has gone back to the supplier of the seats and asked for compensation. IMO, there is no way that Air Canada has made the call on its own to award $1000 without being certain that there was an avenue of subrogation.

For example, if you purchase a product at Costco or Walmart and something goes wrong, resulting in a bodily injury or property damage, it is not the retailer who addresses the claim. The demand gets flipped to the supplier who in turn provides it to their product liability insurer, and it is that insurer who responds. This process can take months to years to resolve depending upon the severity of the claim.

Due to the extent of the problem and the costs involved, I can see this situation having the potential of tens of millions of dollars to resolve depending upon the nature of the defect and the extent of the problem. There is no way that Air Canada will have just said, hey, let's be swell and pay out millions of dollars. The institutional shareholders would have been furious. And yes, the ability to collect back from a supplier has a major influence on a service/product provider to offer compensation for an alleged defect. It's much easier to be generous with someone else's money


The problem here is more complex than a simple product liability claim, and this has an impact upon the management of the claims and how they will be compensated. You misunderstand the liability process when you assume that if a company sells something and fails to deliver, that they will compensate out of their own pocket. The short answer is no, a company may not have to provide compensation. The company must be legally liable to pay the compensation. On small items, yes, it may be easiest to just toss some money and get rid of the issue, but no public company pays out claims that can aggregate into something large without there being a way to collect the money.

My view on the issue is that Air Canada is not to blame for a large part of the delay in fixing the problem. It had to wait on the supplier and a determination whether or not the manufacturer was legally liable for the damage both the alleged defect and the financial costs of the compensation paid to pax. If the manufacturer is insured, then it had to wait on its insurer to accept the claim and to confirm what would be paid. If there was no insurance coverage, then there was an issue of contractual indemnification as per the terms and conditions of the supply agreement.
As public companies, the airline and its supplier(s) had to follow a defined process and that takes times. Complex product liability and defect claims can drag on for years. Air Canada isn't alone on this.

Where the airline has failed and I believe has betrayed the trust of its customers, is in not being transparent about the problem. It has obfuscated and dithered on the issue for too long. The airline has not provided a clear statement of the issue with the manufacturer and whether it has a right of redress and what the compensation is. There is a known product defect, and has been stated many times upthread, the airline continues to sell the service without advising customers. On that basis, it can be argued that there is bad faith and that if anything, the financial compensation offered should be increased over time as a penalty to the airline for intentionally selling the defective product. I continue to be that the media has not picked up on the story as it has the potential to be quite a scandal in respect to how the seat was selected in the first place (what a dud) and how the issue was denied for so long to the detriment of the consumer. IMO, not a good demonstration of ethical behaviour.

skybluesea

delete

canadiancow

My comment was agreeing with another post to say that AC would compensate regardless of whether they could bill it all to someone else. I'm not saying they're doing it out of their own pocket here, I'm saying they would compensate out of their own pocket regardless. It doesn't matter who gets charged eventually, as your contract is with AC, and they are failing to deliver the product.

I'm not really sure those delays would make sense.

They seats are defective. AC wants them fixed regardless of who pays for it. The insurance can be handled at the same time as the fix is being prepared/approved/installed, as the fix is going to happen regardless.

canadiancow

To follow up on this, a $300 eCoupon was just delivered. There was no official compensation form. Passenger is UA*G, and was traveling on one of the mistake R fares (i.e. cheap).