AC cancels flight for "maintenance" but...
Dec 23, 2019, 11:33 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: YUL
Programs: AP 50k
Posts: 83
AC cancels flight for "maintenance" but...
Was on AC8456 today from Montreal to Boston. I saw our load was very light. About an hour before boarding they cancelled out flight for "maintenance issue" so the girl at customer service said no compensation.
I then walked the terminal and saw our exact plane that was supposed to fly to Boston is now flying to Washington Dulles instead at 1:35pm. Doesn't seem like a maintenance issue to me.
Does anyone have a suggestion as to who I can complain to about this? Do you think it's even worth it?
I then walked the terminal and saw our exact plane that was supposed to fly to Boston is now flying to Washington Dulles instead at 1:35pm. Doesn't seem like a maintenance issue to me.
Does anyone have a suggestion as to who I can complain to about this? Do you think it's even worth it?
Dec 23, 2019, 11:37 am
#2
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,331
What likely happened is that the aircraft scheduled to IAD had a mechanical issue, so they swapped it with a flight with a lighter load.
Aircraft are swapped all the time for operational issues. The IAD flight was more important, so it got the working aircraft.
I don't think you'd get anywhere with compensation since the aircraft finally assigned to your flight did, in fact, have a mechanical issue.
Aircraft are swapped all the time for operational issues. The IAD flight was more important, so it got the working aircraft.
I don't think you'd get anywhere with compensation since the aircraft finally assigned to your flight did, in fact, have a mechanical issue.
Dec 23, 2019, 11:54 am
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: YUL
Programs: AP 50k
Posts: 83
What likely happened is that the aircraft scheduled to IAD had a mechanical issue, so they swapped it with a flight with a lighter load.
Aircraft are swapped all the time for operational issues. The IAD flight was more important, so it got the working aircraft.
I don't think you'd get anywhere with compensation since the aircraft finally assigned to your flight did, in fact, have a mechanical issue.
Aircraft are swapped all the time for operational issues. The IAD flight was more important, so it got the working aircraft.
I don't think you'd get anywhere with compensation since the aircraft finally assigned to your flight did, in fact, have a mechanical issue.
Dec 23, 2019, 12:58 pm
#5
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
This incident appears to have been handled the way most carriers would handle the issue worldwide. Some flight was to be cancelled, so which one?
Dec 23, 2019, 1:13 pm
#6
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,916
So which excuse is closer to the truth:
- The flight was canceled due to maintenance.
- The flight was canceled because we needed it to replace another aircraft that needed maintenance.
- The flight was canceled for operational reasons.
- The flight was canceled for safety reasons.
Dec 23, 2019, 1:17 pm
#7
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,331
So which excuse is closer to the truth:
- The flight was canceled due to maintenance.
- The flight was canceled because we needed it to replace another aircraft that needed maintenance.
- The flight was canceled for operational reasons.
- The flight was canceled for safety reasons.
They're not. They change all the time. The "flight" wasn't needed to replace something else.
An aircraft went mechanical. They had to cancel a flight. They chose this one.
Isn't everything "operational"? And under the law, maintenance is a subset of safety.
As such, maintenance is always more precise than safety, but that doesn't mean they're not both legally accurate.
Dec 23, 2019, 1:21 pm
#8
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: YYJ
Posts: 4,137
This seems like the logical way to handle the situation.
If the highly loaded flight was cancelled for maintenance, then more people would be inconvenienced. And none of them would be eligible for compensation. That leaves a whole lot more people in a pickle before the holidays.
It makes sense to cancel the lightly-loaded flight.
And it doesn't make sense to force the airline to compensate those passengers, because if not, it would create an incentive to cancel the higher load flight and not compensate anyone.
If the highly loaded flight was cancelled for maintenance, then more people would be inconvenienced. And none of them would be eligible for compensation. That leaves a whole lot more people in a pickle before the holidays.
It makes sense to cancel the lightly-loaded flight.
And it doesn't make sense to force the airline to compensate those passengers, because if not, it would create an incentive to cancel the higher load flight and not compensate anyone.
Dec 23, 2019, 5:36 pm
#9
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Montreal & Nashville
Programs: Aeroplan SE100K, Accor Platinum, Bonvoy Titanium Elite, BW Diamond, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 391
in Europe maintenance has compensation
it's completely ridiculous that they removed that from the compensation in Canada
it's completely ridiculous that they removed that from the compensation in Canada
Dec 23, 2019, 5:59 pm
#10
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
But I think the EU rule changed via the courts; maintenance is a choice. Maybe the inspect and repair as necessary part should be lifed. The 5000 hour inspection should be 2500hr.
Air Canada chooses to buy from OEMs who write very friendly PIMs, they can choose to pressure for more reliable PIMs.
PAX don't have that power.
AC, the OEMs and Lloyds should settle it among themselves.
Dec 23, 2019, 6:04 pm
#12
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,918
This seems like the logical way to handle the situation.
If the highly loaded flight was cancelled for maintenance, then more people would be inconvenienced. And none of them would be eligible for compensation. That leaves a whole lot more people in a pickle before the holidays.
It makes sense to cancel the lightly-loaded flight.
And it doesn't make sense to force the airline to compensate those passengers, because if not, it would create an incentive to cancel the higher load flight and not compensate anyone.
If the highly loaded flight was cancelled for maintenance, then more people would be inconvenienced. And none of them would be eligible for compensation. That leaves a whole lot more people in a pickle before the holidays.
It makes sense to cancel the lightly-loaded flight.
And it doesn't make sense to force the airline to compensate those passengers, because if not, it would create an incentive to cancel the higher load flight and not compensate anyone.
Especially an hour out of takeoff. At an hour before, passengers will have already started to arrive at the airport with the expectation of a flight. That the plane that was originally scheduled to transport them was swapped out to service another flight is not their fault. I can see these swaps being challenged as something within AC's control. I'd be curious to see what the comments in the system say as well as what a court challenge would result in.
Dec 23, 2019, 6:16 pm
#13
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,916
So which excuse is closer to the truth:
- The flight was canceled due to maintenance.
- The flight was canceled because we needed it to replace another aircraft that needed maintenance.
- The flight was canceled for operational reasons.
- The flight was canceled for safety reasons.
Dec 24, 2019, 8:37 am
#14
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 556
The other thing that comes to mind with the whole compensation thing is that it does raise the cost of flying. It is somewhat like paying for insurance for every single flight you take. The airlines are not ultimately bearing these compensation costs; they're passing it on to the passengers. But we will sometimes buy flight insurance to help cover IRROPS. I guess that's basically what we're doing here, by force, on every flight.
Dec 24, 2019, 10:26 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Programs: AC 75K, Hertz President’s Circle, Accor Gold, Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 10,068
I have not heard of major safety issues in Europe as a result of mechanical being deemed subject to compensation. Also, I agree to some degree that a very slight increase to costs may occur due to compensation but Ryanair is still flying people for $30 so I think the impact on fares is overblown. Not including mechanical in compensation opens a huge loop hole that we all know airlines will take advantage of. Everything will be cancelled due to weather (apparently anywhere in the network) and mechanical! Also, if airline one has major costs for compensation and 2 others do not then the costs may come out of profits as opposed to hiking fares that may not get matched.