Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

Class action lawsuit: customers rouged following 737 MAX grounding

Class action lawsuit: customers rouged following 737 MAX grounding

Old Jan 15, 21, 12:40 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 829
Class action lawsuit: customers rouged following 737 MAX grounding

I was looking for recent court decisions involving Air Canada and found this:

A class action lawsuit was initiated on behalf of all individuals who purchased a flight ticket for an Air Canada flight on a Boeing 737 MAX aircraft departing or in transit after May 1st, 2019 and a date to be determine and whose flight was transferred to Air Canada Rouge LP on an Airbus A319, A321 or Boeing 767-300 aircraft
https://www.allianceconseil.pro/jutr...-canada-rouge/


Class action authorized on September 28, 2020

AC appealed the decision but got shut down
Bogwoppit likes this.

Last edited by hoipolloi; Jan 15, 21 at 12:59 am
hoipolloi is offline  
Old Jan 15, 21, 5:29 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Edmonton (Mostly)
Programs: AC SE100K, Bonvoy Gold Elite, IHG Gold Elite, Accor Silver
Posts: 754
Kind of a ridiculous class action. The difference is one inch of pitch in economy and no seat back screens. One could argue (quite easily) that the seat width on the 67 makes up for the one inch loss of pitch. Do those changes justify 15% back in the cost of the ticket?
Yoshi212 likes this.
EdmFlyBoi is offline  
Old Jan 15, 21, 10:13 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Tit, HH Diamond, Hyatt Glob, Accor Gold, UA Silver
Posts: 35,265
Originally Posted by EdmFlyBoi View Post
Kind of a ridiculous class action. The difference is one inch of pitch in economy and no seat back screens. One could argue (quite easily) that the seat width on the 67 makes up for the one inch loss of pitch. Do those changes justify 15% back in the cost of the ticket?
I have family who consistently pay more to fly AC just for the IFE.

And AC regularly charges for extra seat pitch.

So... maybe?
hoipolloi likes this.
canadiancow is online now  
Old Jan 15, 21, 12:48 pm
  #4  
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, WS Gold, BA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Accor/Hilton/Radisson/NH Gold
Posts: 11,225
15% of total price for a downgrade from mainline to rouge? For most tickets, that seems ridiculously high.

Back then, customers were also given the option to refund their tickets, since their original flights were cancelled, and this was before AC stopped refunding cancelled flights.
canadiancow likes this.
Adam Smith is online now  
Old Jan 15, 21, 1:46 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,870
I wonder how many people this lawsuit will cover.
I was "Rouged." However I was able to change my flights to a more expensive day, a more generous mileage earning route and got a discount code.
Thought I did ok. But if there's more coming!

Will there be a lawsuit next year about people getting "Maxed?"
Adam Smith likes this.
tracon is offline  
Old Jan 15, 21, 3:23 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: YOW
Programs: AC E50 / Marriott Gold Elite
Posts: 856
Clearly none of these people have flown the Max 8! IMO the rouge product even on a tired old aircraft rivals the Max 8 product. Nothwithstanding those who worry about the Max's falling out of the sky which I don't worry about, they are really tightly packed, limited pitch with slimline seats, cramped lavs/galley's, etc. A route 763 is a huge upgrade IMO.
Adam Smith likes this.
YZF_Elite is offline  
Old Jan 15, 21, 3:51 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: BGI (ex-YYC, YYZ)
Programs: AC*G-E100K (once again)
Posts: 1,607
I'm happy for this legal action to go ahead.
cooleddie is offline  
Old Jan 16, 21, 10:17 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K, BA Silver, Accor Plat, Marriott Gold, Carlson Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 21,840
Fun! Thanks OP! I looked at my original receipt to PTP and it indeed shows MAX. And it was Rouged.

Anytime someone sues AC, and AC has to pay up - is a good thing
hoipolloi likes this.

Last edited by rankourabu; Jan 16, 21 at 10:47 am
rankourabu is offline  
Old Jan 16, 21, 10:34 am
  #9  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 3,426
Originally Posted by canadiancow View Post
I have family who consistently pay more to fly AC just for the IFE.

And AC regularly charges for extra seat pitch.

So... maybe?
Both of those things are things AC advertises, suggesting they are valuable.
canadiancow and hoipolloi like this.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Jan 16, 21, 10:55 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,640
Following the apparent logic, any time AC changes an aircraft it would be exposed to a claim? Example: I booked an exit row seat on an A330. Got a boarding pass with the seat number I booked, but on boarding discovered they had switched aircraft and the same seat number wasn't an exit row. At the time I just shrugged it off. Now I wish I had sued.

Also, AC has a strong track record of advertising one aircraft and configuration when you book but changing later to something else for "operational reasons". So now we sue every time this happens?

Honestly, we're getting more and more like the US every day. This is nothing more than a predatory lawyer looking for a percentage of a settlement.
Adam Smith likes this.
Sopwith is offline  
Old Jan 16, 21, 10:59 am
  #11  
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, WS Gold, BA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Accor/Hilton/Radisson/NH Gold
Posts: 11,225
Originally Posted by Sopwith View Post
Also, AC has a strong track record of advertising one aircraft and configuration when you book but changing later to something else for "operational reasons". So now we sue every time this happens?

Honestly, we're getting more and more like the US every day. This is nothing more than a predatory lawyer looking for a percentage of a settlement.
Perhaps a group of reasonable AC customers could file an amicus brief in support of AC?
Adam Smith is online now  
Old Jan 16, 21, 11:14 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: LAX
Programs: AC S100K, Bonvoy Gold Elite
Posts: 160
Unless you got relegated to being up front on the 767, Rouge is the superior product to the Max. Will be interesting to see how this one is argued in the courts.
recreationaltimetraveller is offline  
Old Jan 16, 21, 11:28 am
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Tit, HH Diamond, Hyatt Glob, Accor Gold, UA Silver
Posts: 35,265
So what happens when you pay $100 more per person for a family of 3 for AC than for WS because you want IFE?

You're now unreasonable because you think you deserve some cash when they put you on rouge?

In the exit row case, they always refund that, so it's not a reasonable analogy.
hoipolloi likes this.
canadiancow is online now  
Old Jan 16, 21, 11:26 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by canadiancow View Post
So what happens when you pay $100 more per person for a family of 3 for AC than for WS because you want IFE?.
Someone who would pay an extra $100 for ACís IFE has a bigger problem than getting stiffed for the $100.
Sopwith is offline  
Old Jan 17, 21, 1:15 am
  #15  
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, WS Gold, BA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Accor/Hilton/Radisson/NH Gold
Posts: 11,225
Originally Posted by canadiancow View Post
So what happens when you pay $100 more per person for a family of 3 for AC than for WS because you want IFE?

You're now unreasonable because you think you deserve some cash when they put you on rouge?
So what happens when you pay $100 more per person for a family of 2 for AC than for WS because it was on an Embraer with 2x2 seating and AC changes it to a 319? Does AC owe compensation?

What if you booked a flight because you really wanted a Dreamliner and they change it to a 333?

What if the 7M8 hadn't been grounded but the IFE just wasn't working that day, should you get a 15% cash refund?

People on FT are generally quite discerning about these things. We have our preferred aircraft types, maybe even our favourite seats on each type, etc. Most people haven't the slightest clue and don't make purchasing decisions on things like which airlines have seatback IFE. The number of people who made the type of purchasing decisions you're referring to is extremely small.

So what damages did these people actually suffer? Maybe slightly less legroom and no seatback IFE. But they got slightly wider seats, much nicer lavs, and available in-flight WiFi. The vast majority of passengers would have barely noticed, if at all. AC got them from A to B when they were supposed to.

AC offered people free changes to their flights, or full refunds. Apparently they also offered discount codes to at least some people. Those are pretty fair remedies to the damages caused by AC with the swap from 7M8 to rouge, in my view.

And a refund if 15% of the fare paid is pretty ridiculous. We all know AC doesn't charge 15% less just because something is rouge - it's not like the $300 premium for domestic/TB Signature Class vs narrowbody. Guaranteed that AC didn't decrease the fares on those routes when they switched the 7M8 to rouge.

So to answer your question, in your hypothetical situation, if you had a real problem with it, you should have complained to AC and gotten a change/refund/discount code/whatever at that time. If you're expecting a class action lawsuit to deliver you some compensation, yes, you're unreasonable.
Adam Smith is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: