forwardho

If AC increased the VDB amounts would you be willing to pay much more as a no show or for cancelling your seat less than 24 hours before the flight.

Right now they charge $200 for changes to lower fare tickets on Intenational routes and generally have to give out much if there is a VDB in say LHR.

cur

yes, let's also guarantee free hotel rooms and a long distance phone call home for pax that are delayed between 2200-0800! more regulation means more bureaucrats means a merrier society! we need a public inquiry, not only into fairmont, but the PANDEMIC of oversell situations STRIKING and HARMING canadian travelers. it is at CRISIS point and a DISASTER is imminent. the only solution to the current laws are.... MORE LAWS

i have a hunch that this strong rebuttal will strike once again.

Altaflyer

Look, all I am saying is that if I have paid to be on the 7am flight because I have a 10am meeting then I should fly at 7am barring weather/mechanical. To be unceremoniously removed without either first asking for volunteers or asking but offering little incentive to stay behind is bad business and if AC cannot see that then yes GOVERNMENT regulation is the answer. If such regulation is not desired then make the right decision before government has to step in. Regulations have been in place in the US and Europe and the sky has not fallen in. Also, if no volunteers are requested then this is a violation of AC's own policy and potentially its Tariffs (not sure on the latter) notwithstanding the compensation is a joke. Saying regulation is somehow inherently evil is just naive. I bet lots of homeowners in the US would have preferred a little more regulation in the mortgage industry!

ProudEdmontonian

From a legal perspective the whole notion of the special treatment afforded to the airline industry is nothing short of astonishing. Their special tariffs etc. are never disclosed to the general travelling public and thus IDB and all other such conduct comes as a rude surprise.

Most people when they purchase an airline ticket believe that they have contracted to be flown from a departure point to an arrival point and can understand delays etc. However, very few people expect IDB and carriers never publish such harmful information so that it is general knowledge. Instead they hide behind the tariffs. Next time you check-in ask to see the tariffs and all of the conditions of your ticket. Good luck....

In simple contract law, if I promise to deliver you a load of bricks and you pay for it in advance and I fail to show up or show up days later holding up all other contractors I would be in breach and could be sued for direct and not too remote damages. People expect that.

Why should the airlines be treated any differently? Why don't they price cancellations and no-shows into all their fares? Some do. WestJet for instance. They never oversell - and advertise it.

Now of course airlines want less regulation and the freedom to do whatever they please - as protected by obscure tariffs and conditions.

The issue of compensation is an effort to allow the airlines to continue to practice over-booking but with a price attached. Of course they lobby to keep it as low as possible and bleat and complain when it is raised.

In a true competitive environment, there should be freedom to sue for breach of contract when they IDB but I'm sure they've figured out that's far too expensive.

The saddest part of this whole thread are those who accept IDB as somehow an airline's right. It is only under archaic government sanctioned nonsense that protects only them. Get rid of it or pay decent compensation. You ought not to be allowed to retain it and not pay for the privilege.

forwardho

I don't believe you answered the question. Would you be willing to pay higher change fees as well as getting more money for IDB's?

Stranger

Actually, AC lost a case with the CTA on availability of tariffs at airports not too long ago. As a result, they now have them on their web site, although I suspect these are not really current. And I suspect the ones they have at airports, which they probably are much more careful to make sure they are available, may not be either. So if you want to sue them on the recent increases of fuel surcharges, you might have a case.



This said, tariffs *are* part of the contract, aren't they? At least to the extent that they don't conflict with commercial law, I would imagine. So I would think the one and only contractual obligation is to take you from A to B. Which given the uncertainties in the business is arguably not unreasonable.

I recently had an issue with AC whereby BD refused to make changes on their codeshare claiming my changeable fare was not. I filed a complaint with AC and they were very prompt in answering. I suppose I did have a winning case of violation of tariffs that I could have taken to the CTA, and maybe I should have done that, if only to keep them straight. But eh, life is short.

djjaguar64

http://news.yahoo.com/s/aviation/200...ngcompensation

YOWkid

Actually, by law (Bill C-11) they also have to make them publicly available.

I suspect it's the same document they file to the Agency, so it would be up-to-date. Besides, if an incorrect tariff was made available, the Agency would slap the carrier's wrists upon complaint.

Stranger

Yes, but if you look at it, it's a funny document. They basically update a couple of pages here and there and left the rest unchanged. Last time I checked, the one they had on the web did *NOT* have updated fuel surcharges.

Might be a good case to file a complaint with CTA?

ProudEdmontonian

In common law jurisprudence when a contract contains an extraordinary deviation from the norm, it is normally the obligation of the party that prepared the contract or of greater bargaining power to make sure the other party is aware of any such deviation and understands it.

In a series of ship cargo cases that became known as the 'ticket cases' the House of Lords said that merely putting it on the back of a shipping receipt in fine print without more was insufficient to absolve a carrier of liability when the ship sunk with the cargo. Lord Denning went further in later cases to propose that when a term is so extraordinary as to fly in the face of expectations it perhaps ought to be highlighted in the contract by the presence of a 'big red hand' in the margin pointing to that term. I am sure some of you have seen this as a variation is when you have to initial boxes waiving coverages on a car rental contract; or when you have seen certain paragraphs in bold type or with coloured highlighting.

Now all of these are at the inception of the formation of the contract. My question is why have many airlines been permitted to practice IDB without having had the obligation to have a 'big red hand' on this term before the customer purchases a ticket?

Of course it would be harmful to their business but they would then have a real economic choice: don't oversell, price the risk of empty seats and spread it over all tickets or run the risk of damages from legal actions. Years ago perhaps $200 was a reasonable settlement. Today I doubt it and hence the actions in Europe and the US to increase compensation in lieu of free-market litigation. When will Canada follow? Or, should we not regulate this at all and let the lawsuits flow?

Stranger

If the version on their web site is not current, would that be grounds for a (winning) complaint with the agency?

Stranger

I could see AC adding an extra "negative benefit" to Tango fares: risk of IDB. With a big disclaimer on their web page asking people to confirm that they are aware of the risk, making the lawyers happy.

Stranger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...nt/7356283.stm

Ten hours delay because of technical issues: full refund plus a free round-trip.

Likewise, Italy's high speed trains have a policy whereby if delayed more than an hour (at least on legs like Florence-Milan that is), you get 50% back. And yes I got a cheque in the mail.

Granted that talking trains, a ten hours delay is somewhat embarrassing (except of course in the UK where there is no longer an expectation that trains should be reliable - BTW, reminds me of microsoft and computers, which used to be reliable too).

makin'miles

I find it concerning that among AC some agents, there seems to be a (false) perception that Tango seats are somehow less than a confirmed ticket. This is not the case.

While I can see that the lack of a seat assignment on a low fare could reduce your chances of boarding the aircraft in an oversell situation, no one should be denied boarding before Air Canada first does and honest and thorough job of soliciting volunteers.

Does Canada have minimum compensation amounts for involuntary denied boardings, or is it just up to the airline? If there is no regulation on IDBs and AC can just foist the same $200 voucher, that provides no economic benefit to the airline to actually find volunteers.

I have no problem with VDBs (the airline and passenger settling on a mutually agreeable modification to their contract, at whatever amount), but barring the airline finding VDBs, I think IDBs should be compensated at a more reasonable level.

Stranger

Again it's in the tariff. For domestic:

(2) AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF (E)(1), AC WILL
TENDER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$100.00 CASH OR A CREDIT VOUCHER (GOOD FOR FUTURE
TRAVEL ON AIR CANADA) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$200.00, TO THE PASSENGER'S OPTION. IF
ACCEPTED BY THE PASSENGER, SUCH TENDER WILL
CONSTITUTE FULL COMPENSATION FOR ALL ACTUAL OR
ANTICIPATORY DAMAGES, INCURRED OR TO BE INCURRED.

For international, there are quite a few different rules depending upon where/to.