andy12345

Fight delayed 5.5 hours from LA to Toronto, AC decline full compensation per the APPR, supposed to be 400dollars. as a good gesture, they offer 200 ecoupon. Should I take it or pursue further?

Thanks in advance!

zappy312

Depends on the reason, if it was weather or another uncontrollable issue where compensation doesn't apply, collecting the coupon is much better than what you'd deserve (zilch).

If it was a controllable delay, you can try to fight for the rest of your compensation.

mahasamatman

AC is claiming that it's exempt because the issue was safety-related. I don't buy it because that would exempt virtually all maintenance-related issues.

MSPeconomist

Does the OP know exactly what the mechanical problem was?

YEG USER

Which had been discussed extensively in other threads. While the act specifies certain payment amounts, it also makes it very difficult to collect as most of the reasons flights are typically delayed/cancelled are exempt from compensation. The act isn’t nearly as strict as what is in place in the EU.

I wish things were different. I myself am about to submit a claim for a non-weather/non-mechanical delay that caused me to return home with a 24 hour delay. Looking to see what happens...

canadiancow

It sounds like you're not familiar with the regulations.

Rundosrun

Yesterday AC756 (SFO-YYZ) was cancelled after sitting on the tarmac for hours. The engines would not start after being pushed back. The captain explained it was no problem, they would have the maintenance crew come and do it manually, but several hours later parked back at the gate and repeated attempts to start the engines ended up with no luck. Flight was cancelled and we reached YYZ with a 10+ hour delay.

I am expecting the $1,000 compensation for this case - will report back.

Adam Smith

Why? This is a maintenance issue, one that wasn't identified during routine maintenance, and AC will therefore deny the claim for safety reasons.

Don't get me wrong, the legislation sucks, and it seems like AC may offer you something as goodwill, but "expecting" seems like an exaggeration.

Rundosrun

The fact the captain kept saying it was a minor issue and would not impact things, and that they had every intention of departing with a manual start would seem to say the lack of the autostart was not a safety issue?

Adam Smith

AC has deemed pretty much every maintenance item to be a safety issue. And if you read the APPR guidelines, they're written pretty favourably for the airlines, in that any maintenance issue that doesn't come up during scheduled maintenance is a "safety" issue and therefore exempt.

Stranger

I made a claim after a cancellation, which the e-mail said was because of a crewing issue. Denied based upon not the cancelled flight but because the flight actually taken was (apparently) delayed for a safety or weather reason...

I sent a mail back. So far no answer. Next step is the CTA, after we get back home. Apparently the web form is not overly onerous.

canadiancow

I like this argument. Please pursue it and report back.

eigenvector

If Air Canada failed to provide one of the engines for the aircraft, would that also be a safety issue, because you cannot safely take off on one engine?

Or can passengers reasonably expect some baseline duty with regard to maintenance?

I think this remains to be established by the CTA.

I believe the legislation was written to avoid a situation where airlines might ignore a warning light to avoid delaying and paying compensation. Despite my misgivings about this line of reasoning due to the experience with EU261, that is a reasonable goal.

I don't think Parliament intended that the airline be absolved of responsibility for any and all mechanical problems.

Parliament created a loophole with good intentions and Air Canada is trying to drive a 777 through it.

Adam Smith

eigenvector , 100% agree with your post, and I'm certainly not saying that Rundosrun (or anyone else in the same position) shouldn't pursue compensation - I certainly would do it myself.

I'm just trying to advise that expecting the compensation that we think should be owed under APPR is probably going too far at this stage, when AC has very clearly established its position on these matters.

canadiancow

In this case, neither engine would start. There's no safety issue. It's not taking off.

"Can't fly" and "can't safely fly" are two very different things, that may make a legal difference here.