canadiancow

CTA portal said AC had until end of day May 8 to respond to my IDB* complaint.

I received an email today that they'd requested an extension, and now had an extra 4 calendar days.

What I find interesting is:
So even though they "have" extra time now, the request has not actually been approved.

*Context: They "IDB'd" me at T-48 because J was overbooked by 1, and Y was overbooked by 5 or something (it's been 7 months, I can't recall what they told me, but I submitted the details as stated by the supervisor). So it wasn't technically IDB per the tariff or regulations, but the idea that they can just IDB before you get to the gate and avoid compensation is definitely against the spirit of the rules. Even the requirement that they request volunteers only applies at the gate. So I don't think it's clear-cut from a legal perspective, but I also don't think an airline should be allowed to do this.

bambinomartino

My assistant's daughter and her husband are moving to Brazil. With 2 dogs and 9 checked bags.

They were supposed to fly out from YEG today for their connection at YYZ on AC 170 at 3pm, but that flight had been cancelled. Apparently they were rebooked on the noon flight, AC 166, but never received notification - not by email, not by text. They only realized they had missed their flight upon arrival at the airport. They had a separate ticket from Sao Paulo to their final destination (I know, I know) that they've lost and will have to spend a fortune to get there.

Can anyone look up the reason for AC 170's cancellation? I have the basic EF subscription but can't seem to figure out how (or if) to get that info.

They were rebooked for tomorrow. She says they bumped them up to "Premium" to YYZ, but in Y for the long-haul leg. Could it be they were put in J -- it's an A320.

Are they entitled to any type of compensation?

kangarooflyer88

Yes they are entitled to compensation under Brazil's ANAC 400 consumer regulation (provided of course they were flying to Brazil on AC as you mentioned). They are also eligible for reimbursement of out of pocket expenses under the Montreal Convention (i.e. meals, hotels, plus the new flight they had to rebook from S�o Paulo to their final destination in Brazil etc.). They will need to take Air Canada to small claims court in Brazil. However, the legal system in Brazil is such that it's free to do and very accessible. Indeed over 98 percent of all lawsuits globally involving airlines occur within Brazil with passengers winning cases about 80% of the time. Indeed, they can easily get several thousands reais in compensation from the moral damages caused by the disruption. I would encourage this route over APPR since they'll likely get more and there is a much better chance of winning.

-RooFlyer88

bambinomartino

Thank you!!!

This is what Expert Flyer shows. What to make of it (esp regarding reason for cancellation, I don't think this shows any).

canadiancow

AC finally replied to my IDB claim.

Fun quotes:

Immediately below that is a little screenshot that matches those numbers.

Appendix A, however, shows:

So there were 420 people booked on a 400 seat aircraft at some point? When I was on the phone with a supervisor immediately after being kicked off, it was J0 O0 Y-5.

So the numbers seem to be wildly different depending on the time they were checked (which makes sense).

But they didn't even attempt to explain why they kicked me off at T-48. Hint: It was overbooked.

Now I have 4 days to draft a reply. I think I'll ask for full PNR history with remarks (as I pushed both agents I spoke with to document the PNR, so I hope they did), and an explanation for why I was moved.

I still think they owe me $900.

Oh, and "The airline has indicated that they are not willing to participate in the Informal resolution (mediation)."

secretalcoholic

The fact they can't even get their stories straight tells you all you need to know. Lying straight out of their behind.

cedric

The reply doesn't go back to the airline for further action. It goes to the mediator, who then makes a decision. Asking for a PNR history won't go anywhere.
In my (flight delay) case, I did point out a discrepancy in AC's reply and ultimately that was one of the reasons that the mediator sided with me.
I would use your reply to point out the discrepancy that you noted as well as reiterate that you were removed from the flight despite AC mentioning that it was not overbooked.

canopus27

At the end of the day, isn't this the only detail that matters? I have no doubt that you're correct and that the flight was overbooked ... but does it really matter even if they were not overbooked, and AC decided to fly with an empty J seat just to spite you?

I think the core facts are:

• You had a valid ticket, and your desire was to fly
• For reasons only known to AC, they decided to involuntarily remove you from the flight
• The end

AC's response contains no other explanation nor mitigating factors, explaining why it was ok for them to remove you from the flight.

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with you including some additional comments to the mediator, with your reasoned speculation that the flight was overbooked - but I'm not sure I would make that your central argument. I think the key point is that you wanted to fly and AC decided to involuntarily remove you from the flight. Everything else is gravy.

Adam Smith

The problem with this case is that it's not really contemplated under APPR. APPR compensation normally doesn't apply if the airline cancels your flight and re-books you on a different flight arriving an hour later, or an hour earlier; you only get paid based on delays exceeding a certain threshold. The cow arrived early, so he wasn't delayed.

Compensation does apply if it's an IDB, regardless of the delay.

So for the cow to get paid, he needs this to be an IDB.

zappy312

But at the same time, APPR (and in turn, the AC tariff) has a very narrow definition of denied boarding:

Under the APPR definition, an IDB didn't occur since the series of events occured prior to the boarding gate.

Adam Smith

Which is what I pointed out to the cow months ago. It's odd that AC didn't point that out, which suggests they really haven't thought this through either. But these are the same people who fought the guy who literally had the receipts (as the kids like to say these days) that he flew YYZ-YVR on his originally scheduled flight rather than the later one they re-booked him on, so...

While it doesn't fit the narrow definition of IDB, AC has clearly violated the spirt of the regulation, and to allow them to get away with this would allow the airlines to largely gut the IDB provisions by simply re-booking passengers in the days leading up to the flight, or even earlier in the day on the day of the flight - if a 1PM flight is overbooked at 11AM, but not yet fully checked in, and they start moving people to other flights, that's not technically IDB either. To preserve the spirit of the rule, it may be necessary for the CTA to interpret it more broadly.

canadiancow

Yep, that's the issue. I do know it was due to overbooking due to the phone calls I had within the several hours after getting the email about the change.

But it didn't happen at the gate, so it's not technically IDB.

But if they can just get around the whole provision by "IDBing" people before the gate, then what's even the point of the regulation?

TV guy

I recently finished the process and figured I'd report on it.

On July 15, 2023 my flight YYZ-LHR got cancelled. It was supposed to leave at 21:50 and I got put on the 24:00 which left at around 6:00. Both flights blamed the delays on mechanical issues. The thing was that the 21:50 aircraft had been sitting at YYZ for at least 2 days after being cancelled for a mechanical. They didn't cancel my flight until around 1.5 hours before the flight.

I used the from on the AC site and requested $700 for the delay and it was denied (twice).

Submitted the CTA complaint on October 31, 2023. I got the "start notice" on March 14, 2023 and AC declined mediation.

ACs answer claimed the complaint should be dismissed due to unscheduled maintenance and included a record of the maintenance they performed with times but no dates. They said they worked diligently to find another aircraft but failed.

My reply stated that AC should have known the flight was in danger and cancelled or made alternative arrangements earlier and that after 2.5 days the maintenance was in their control and no longer "unscheduled".

The findings included this:

and they ruled in my favour. The order was issued March 26 and gave AC until April 26 to pay. I got the Interac email April 24.

I figured I'd share this since not all "mechanical for safety reasons" are the same and sometimes those sorts of delays will get decided in the passengers favour.

canadiancow

So Adam had already provided some editing advice before you posted this, but you are absolutely correct.

My reply, verbatim (with case number and booking reference redacted), was just submitted as:

So we'll see how this goes.

I know that AC thinks a lot of claims are baseless, and I know there are a lot of passengers who don't understand the "but required for safety" qualifier.

But I'm legitimately shocked at my case. Though one could argue it's also baseless since I wasn't denied boarding after being checked in and presenting myself at the boarding gate.

Anyone know how long after the "passenger reply" it generally takes for the CTA to do the "eligibility review"?

canopus27

Nice to casually drop Latin into your response