Jun 19, 2013, 9:45 pm

FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides

Last edit by: fti

People, please edit/use the wiki so same questions are not always asked.

The current CTA decision on the Yangon deal is only for tickets canceled by SWISS Airlines for the seven merged complaints/companions and tickets canceled by Jet Airways for one complainant and companions
- It's not about other carriers because each carrier submits different tariffs.
- If you are not one of the complainants or their companions above who were mentioned in the respective cases, you need to submit a case yourself for hearing.
- There's currently one person who is on Iberia for CTA decision, one can either wait for results or submit a complaint to CTA.

Result of the current case for LX in brief is:
- CTA found 5(F) in the tariff used to be unclear for canceling tickets on erroneously quoted fares.
- 5(F) is unjust and unreasonable and must be revised or taken down by July 9, 2013 (or SWISS can appeal by then)
- SWISS did not use its tariff correctly to cancel the tickets.
- SWISS must compensate one complainant's First Class ticket and any related expenses by July 18, 2013 provided with evidence.
- SWISS must transport other complainants (and their companions) in the original price charged with same booking class and routing by June 18, 2014.

Result of the current case for 9W in brief is:
- Tariff on file had no clauses for "erroneous fares" and was updated subsequently, which means it is not relevant to this event
- Therefore, 9W is to reinstate the tickets with a 1-year validity for transport between the same points and the same booking class.

CTA official news can be read here for general overview of the case.

Actual CTA case review can be found here for reference should you wish to file a complaint.

If you have a similar case that's with SWISS, you need to file with CTA to get a result through informal process first before it gets to formal process. The entire procedure can take up to 3 months for each and the result may not be same cause it's case-by-base and the reviewer of the case can be different.

To file an informal complaint with CTA, see here. Click through all of the pages to get to the online form for the informal complaint. Or click here.

To file a formal complaint after informal complaint has been closed, see here. Continue on to the next page to see the address or email address for the formal complaint.

The July 17th and 18th responses from LX can be found here:

Other Letters:

Feel free to add dates, flights, etc., in order to plan DOs, etc.

Aug 4: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 5: ICN-SFO (UA892)
Jason8612

Aug 7: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 11: ICN-NRT-ORD (UA78, UA882)
Jason8612

Aug 14: BOS-IAD-NRT-ICN (UA285, UA803, UA79)
Deltspygt

Aug 19: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA352)
Deltspygt

Oct 1: UA433-UA893
JeredF +1

Oct 8: UA892-UA242
JeredF +1

Oct 9: BOS-SFO-ICN (UA433, UA893)
BigJC

Oct 13: ICN-NRT-ORD-BOS (UA78, UA882, UA744)
BigJC

Oct 21: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
Sterndogg +1
flyerdude88 (SFO - ICN portion only)

Oct 23: ICN - SFO UA 892
flyerdude88

Oct 27: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-BOS UA286
Sterndogg +1

Nov 05: BOS-ORD UA521, ORD-NRT UA881
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 11: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-IAD UA727
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 26: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-NRT UA837, NRT-ICN UA79
thepla

Nov 27: BOS-ORD-NRT-ICN (UA501, UA881, UA196)
BigJC+1

Nov 29: Planning 2 days in TPE, been to ICN
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-ORD UA698, ORD-BOS UA961
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA822)
BigJC+1

Dec 15: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
songzm

Dec 25: BOS-IAD UA285, IAD-NRT UA803, NRT-ICN UA79
Dinoscool3 +2

Dec 30: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA444
songzm

Dec 31: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA770
Dinoscool3 +2

Jan 11: BOS-SFO UA1523, Jan 12: SFO-ICN UA893
margarita girl

Jan 12: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
Zebranz

14 Jan: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
ORDOGG

19 Jan: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-ORD UA698 to ORD-BOS UA961
ORDOGG

Jan 22: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA500
margarita girl

Feb 5: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA242
Zebranz

CMB-DFW EY F

FARE IS GONE

FARE RULES (thanks to SQ421)
FRTLK Fare Rules (RT)
FOWLK Fare Rules (OW)

WHEN ARE YOU FLYING?
Feel free to add any additional cities you're leaving from!
Please slot yourselves in!!!

ex-CMB
Feb

Mar
8 - Darmajaya
12 - Thaidai
22 - Deadinabsentia

Apr
21 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
26 - tahsir21

May
28 - Upperdeck744
29 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

Jun
12 - lelee

Jul
7 - HansGolden +6
8 - arcticbull + 1
11 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: SIN-CMB, DFW-MCI)
25 - Tycosiao
30 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: MCI-DFW, CMB-SIN)

Aug
17 - DC777Fan
26 - Yi Yang
31 - dcas

Sep

Oct

Nov
8 - harryhv
29 - stephem+4

Dec
6 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. roastpuff , JFKEZE (UL Code-share)
7 - DWFI
10 - jlisi984 + dad (CMB-AUH-DFW)
21 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

ex-AUH
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr
27 - RICHKLHS

May

Jun
29 - yerffej201

Jul
9 - HansGolden +6
27 - Tycosiao

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov
30 - stephem+4 (to JFK)

Dec
7 - JFKEZE, DWFI [EY161 nonstop]
9 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. Roastpuff

ex-DFW
Jan

Feb

Mar
14 - Thaidai
15 - zainman +1

Apr
25 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir

May

Jun

Jul

Aug
22 - arcticbull + 1

Sep
22 - bonsaisai (positioning flights ORD-DFW, CMB-SIN)

Oct

Nov
19 - harryhv->Paris

Dec
19 - Yi Yang, jona970318
24 - DWFI (EY160 nonstop)
26 - HansGolden +6 (CDG), LwoodY2K (AUH)

[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 14, 2014, 4:29 pm

#9901

redtailshark

Suspended

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: Tucson, AZ, USA. UA 1K, reluctant but * best in class * DL FO/MM. Former BA jumpseat rider and scourge of Dilbertian management and apologists. As LX might - and do - say: "....an experienced frequent flyer of international airlines"

Posts: 3,386

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF

this is a good start on the powers of the Governor General in Canada but they are not an accurate reflection of how things work under the applicable conventions of the constitutional monarchy in Canada.

the governor general is not, in practice, responsible for the day-to-day running of the country. the government is, in practice, the crown is limited to acting solely on the advice of the prime minister (and cabinet) as this means decisions are ultimately subject to review by parliament.

in practice the GG doesn't do anything unless requested to do so.

an order-in-council is also subject to judicial review.

Some of the principles underlying the role of agents of the crown in commonwealth nations are archaic. Just ask the Australian PM, even back in 1975.

Of course LX would wish these still applied... business interests negotiating with sovereign powers over the heads of the plebs with no openness...probably, still the way it works in Switzerland. But not in Canada which after all scores high on transparency.org's Perception Index.

I like it that, just as LX details postings on this thread for presentation to legal entities, so we document their dealings with the CTA and other government entities. Unlike LX, I have no reason to fear transparency.

Feb 14, 2014, 5:07 pm

#9902

BrewerSEA

Join Date: Nov 2010

Location: Seattle

Programs: AS MVPG 75K

Posts: 2,574

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF

I am confused!

If leave to appeal (judicial review) was granted (as per your earlier post, Madame Justice Sharlow), how can the CTA enforce its earlier decision?

A motion for leave to appeal is distinct from an application for judicial review. The application for judicial review is currently being argued, the court has not yet accepted the application.

An application for judicial review is authorized by section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. The Agency will argue the Court does not have the statutory authority to hear this application, and they are right. Section 18.5 of the FCA clearly constrains Swiss to the appeals process defined in in the Canada Transportation Act, which it has exhausted. Both these motions for leave to appeal (13-A-27 and 13-A-35) were dismissed.

Quote:

Federal Courts Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7)
18.5
Despite sections 18 and 18.1, if an Act of Parliament expressly provides for an appeal to the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board from a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal made by or in the course of proceedings before that board, commission or tribunal, that decision or order is not, to the extent that it may be so appealed, subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except in accordance with that Act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Swiss is claiming the CTA made a number of errors of law in reaching its decision not to reopen the case on the grounds of further evidence - a course of action that was open to it under an earlier Supreme Court ruling. (Swiss is not contesting the facts of the case as the CTA heard them... which was solely on the tariff clause 5 - it is arguing the CTA did not reopen the case once the other evidence was given that this was a mistake fare.)

Here you are mistaken. Swiss claimed in 13-A-35 that the Agency made errors of law and jurisdiction (paragraphs 34-36, "the CTA committed a reviewable error of law and jurisdiction..."). Here in A-402-13, Swiss argues "the CTA made several errors of fact that are reviewable..." The Agency will argue that the Court has not statutory authority to review its findings of fact, due to Section 31 of the CTA:

Quote:

The finding or determination of the Agency on a question of fact within its jurisdiction is binding and conclusive.

Feb 14, 2014, 5:37 pm

#9903

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Mar 2001

Location: AU

Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)

Posts: 14,405

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrewerSEA

The initial stay (on request of Swiss) of 416/417 was justified by the Agency as an issue of efficiency, pending the outcome of the petition to the GiC and the application for leave to to appeal (13-A-35). Neither Swiss nor the Agency mentions A-402-13, which is an application for judicial review pursuant to the Federal Courts Act. 13-A-35 was dismissed on February 5th.

On February 11th Swiss wrote a letter requesting the Agency extend the stay of 416/417 while the petition to the GiC remains pending. The Agency denied this after applying a three-prong test, ultimately determining the balance of inconvenience favored the public.

A-402-13 was also stayed by the Court pending a decision by the GiC. In its motion the Agency claims that staying the judicial review process is not prejudicial to Swiss, as paragraph 28 of 417 was stayed until February 12th. But we have passed February 12th, the GiC has not issued any decision on that petition, and the Agency has refused to extend the stay. Considering this, perhaps the Court would order a stay if Swiss so requests.

I believe that the true reason the Agency is ordering this now is that there no longer exists any venue for Swiss to argue the case. 13-A-35 was dismissed, and the Agency has some reason to believe the petition to the GiC will fail (the executive branch must talk to itself, right?). It is confident that it will win A-402-13 because Swiss has no statutory authority for judicial review. Swiss claims that the Agency made errors of fact reviewable by the Court, but the Canada Transportation Act states "The finding or determination of the Agency on a question of fact within its jurisdiction is binding and conclusive."

yes I agree swiss claims the CTA made a number of errors of fact in its application for judicial review (A-402-13), but this seems related to 'fact' in the application of the law, as opposed to the 'facts of the case' (what did and didn't happen)? the latter would not be subject to review, but the former would.

if the CTA decided foreign cases were not relevant, but they in fact were, that would be subject to appeal, and the appeal could determine whether or not the CTA made an error of fact on that basis.

Feb 14, 2014, 5:43 pm

#9904

RCyyz

Join Date: Dec 2007

Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere

Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat

Posts: 5,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF

All correct! There's the theory of how things are supposed to be / the history of how they came to be, and then the current reality of how they actually are.

The Prime Minister for example is not selected from the Privy Council but rather is simply elected as a normal Member of Parliament who then, by nature of being the head of the party with the most seats goes on to become PM and by extension a member of the Privy Council.

The Governor General is largely a ceremonial role. And similarly the Queen never interferes in the running of Canada, though arguably there are times that she should!

But one does have to understand how Canada was formed (from a governance perspective) to see how & why Swiss is doing what they are.

Personally I wonder why Swiss is going to this extent. Their legal fees by now must be approaching the value of the F tickets (or at least, a significant percentage of the value) so I don't particularly see any gain for LX, unless they're trying to establish precedence that they cannot be held accountable to their own published fares in Canada.

Feb 14, 2014, 9:45 pm

#9905

redtailshark

Suspended

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 3,386

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCyyz

Personally I wonder why Swiss is going to this extent. Their legal fees by now must be approaching the value of the F tickets (or at least, a significant percentage of the value) so I don't particularly see any gain for LX, unless they're trying to establish precedence that they cannot be held accountable to their own published fares in Canada.

This action is no longer being driven by a rational benefit/cost calculus, if it ever was. That rationality was more likely applied by OAL's to their own RGN J misfiles - e.g. SQ, see the relevant DoT filing under Deltahater's FOIA for the US case - but LX sees things differently.

As I see it, they have two reasons to persist.

1. They are LX. As I stated before, including to their faces, they are reneging gnomes. I'd call them much worse things, like :-: mejor en su clase :-: if it weren't for BA.
2. They want to defend to the last their secret, and now apparently illegitimate, Tarriff 5F, to protect themselves from future events of this type.

This clause will now be voided, so that ambition has been thwarted.

It may have additional collateral in causing review of similar tarriff provisions by other airlines.

A third reason, not for current persistence, but for the original voiding action, was that they badly miscalculated a. the consumer resolve and b. the CTA's position on this. The Yangon Seven have made them think twice ^ and now they have eighty formal complaints on the book. It's quite the disaster for them.

@:-) I suggest that whenever LX misfiles in the future, everyone involved here buys at least ten of them immediately. They won't miscalculate the voiding costs in this way again.

Feb 14, 2014, 11:20 pm

#9906

Deltahater

Join Date: Aug 2004

Location: SAT

Programs: AA EXP BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, AS 100K, QR PLT, SAS Gold, IHG Spire, AMR

Posts: 5,898

My position by now is this:

A trip has a value as it relates to time and circumstance. For example, a ski trip to Aspen in December has a different value than a ski trip to Aspen in August.

If I hire a wedding photographer, I want him there during the wedding, not the next day.

The RGN trip had a certain value to me at the time I booked it. LX took that from me. A replacement trip now (even if it is the same routing, class of service, etc), has a much lower value, because I need to BUY an additional positioning flight to RGN. I had that as part of my initial trip, but now I need to replace that.

As a result, I expect that LX will do better than just let me travel by Feb 2015. Maybe I am pushing it, but simply putting me through all this and then giving me what I was entitled to back in Sep 2012, won't cut it.

I now expect a RT ticket. (the outbound SAT-RGN can be in Y, as that is what I had before). Why should I have to do pay for another OW ticket to RGN just because LX had a hissy fit?

I understand the CTA won't grant me that. A court in the US might very well, as this is part of my damage model.

Feb 15, 2014, 8:55 am

#9907

colpuck

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jul 2007

Location: DFW

Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary

Posts: 23,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltahater

I understand the CTA won't grant me that. A court in the US might very well, as this is part of my damage model.

You'll get compensation for monies already spent If you asked for that from the CTA. You shouldn't get anything else.

Feb 15, 2014, 8:56 am

#9908

jmolony

Join Date: Sep 2005

Location: Yul

Programs: AC SE

Posts: 335

CTA Decision

As this applies only to the original 7, does anyone have any idea when the CTA will deal with the 80+ remaining claims.
It would seem to me that the others were based on the same criteria as the original 7 (or the CTA would not have grouped them together), so I think the CTA will have no other choice than applying the same penalty on Swiss.
Any thoughts.
Thanks in advance

Feb 15, 2014, 9:35 am

#9909

Deltahater

Join Date: Aug 2004

Location: SAT

Programs: AA EXP BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, AS 100K, QR PLT, SAS Gold, IHG Spire, AMR

Posts: 5,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by colpuck

You'll get compensation for monies already spent If you asked for that from the CTA. You shouldn't get anything else.

Are you suggesting that the CTA may order LX to compensate me for my non-refundable positioning flights and hotels?

Does it matter if I flew to RGN?

Feb 15, 2014, 12:07 pm

#9910

RCyyz

Join Date: Dec 2007

Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere

Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat

Posts: 5,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by colpuck

You'll get compensation for monies already spent If you asked for that from the CTA. You shouldn't get anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltahater

Are you suggesting that the CTA may order LX to compensate me for my non-refundable positioning flights and hotels?

Does it matter if I flew to RGN?

I don't know the answer to this.

But keep in mind, CTA = Canadian Transportation Agency. They are not an actual court of law so in general they wouldn't be in the habit of awarding damages / costs incurred. Their role is really just to ensure that transportation in Canada is efficient. To do this they may need to resolve (adjudicate) certain situations in addition to issuing licences, permits and the like.

I suspect that if you want damages or some form of compensation beyond an F ticket from RGN, you'll need to head to court separately.

Feb 15, 2014, 2:06 pm

#9911

BrewerSEA

Join Date: Nov 2010

Location: Seattle

Programs: AS MVPG 75K

Posts: 2,574

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCyyz

The CTA ordered the compensation I requested in my formal complaint, which was the first considered by the Agency. However, I actually purchased and flew a replacement ticket and did not request compensation for my positioning flight.

Quote:

The Agency directed Swiss, in part, to:
1. Compensate Mr. Brewer, by July 18, 2013, for any expenses that may have been incurred as a result of the cancellation of his ticket, as well as for the expenses incurred for the replacement ticket that he purchased, minus the cost of the original ticket, upon presentation to Swiss of both tickets and all receipts.

Feb 15, 2014, 2:36 pm

#9912

lewende

Join Date: Aug 2011

Location: 10^7 mm from Ȱ

Programs: Hyatt D/HHonors D/ SPG P/ Marriott P/ IHG P/ UA 1K/ AA EXP/ DL D

Posts: 1,976

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrewerSEA

Should LX not cancel your ticket, you would have undertaken your positioning flight(s) cost anyway, right?

I think based on CTA decision, other than the ex-CMB replacement ticket you purchased (of course, minus your LX ticket value), you may still ask LX to reimburse:

(1) Flight from RGN to CMB (if you flew from RGN to CMB);
(2) Hotel at both RGN and CMB;
(3) Visa fee for Sri Lanka;
(4) Int'l cell phone roaming charges...
etc.

Feb 15, 2014, 5:55 pm

#9913

BrewerSEA

Join Date: Nov 2010

Location: Seattle

Programs: AS MVPG 75K

Posts: 2,574

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewende

Yes, I submitted receipts for my hotel in CMB and the visa fee. Flew to CMB on an award where I simply changed destinations so there was no added cost.

Feb 15, 2014, 6:24 pm

#9914

lewende

Join Date: Aug 2011

Location: 10^7 mm from Ȱ

Programs: Hyatt D/HHonors D/ SPG P/ Marriott P/ IHG P/ UA 1K/ AA EXP/ DL D

Posts: 1,976

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrewerSEA

Flew to CMB on an award where I simply changed destinations so there was no added cost.

Interesting...how did you do that? I mean, under UA/*A scheme, RGN and CMB are at different award zones, while RGN and CMB are in the same award zone under AA/OW system, at the time of your travel, MH wasn't one of the OW members so that OW has no access to RGN, unless you used your DL miles for ST award redemption...

Feb 15, 2014, 8:45 pm

#9915

BrewerSEA

Join Date: Nov 2010

Location: Seattle

Programs: AS MVPG 75K

Posts: 2,574

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewende

I had an AA award to BKK. Hadn't yet purchased a ticket to RGN as the issue was so up in the air.