Makes perfect sense. We can't have people riding on top of the aircraft because the cabin is full, now can we? Ergo, a safety issue.

There are two aspects to look at here: legal and contractual.

Legally, and by that, I mean mandated by Transport Canada, the bare minimum crew complement on the 788 is 5 and no less than 1 FA per 40 passengers. Which means if only 5 crew members are carried, then there cannot be more than 200 passengers on the 788.

The 788 on AC is configured to hold 255 passengers. So if AC does not want to leave anyone behind, it needs a minimum of 7 FAs, which is what it is crewed for on domestic flights. (Note that I am using the term FA here to mean both FA and SDs.)

Contractually, and by that, I mean the collective agreement with CUPE, the bare minimum crew complement on the 788 is no less than 1 FA per 40 passengers. In addition, if the flight is an overseas, then there must be at least one FA per door. Which means an overseas is crewed with at least 8 FAs (since there are 8 doors on the 788). On certain longer overseas flights, there are 9 FAs.

Now, there are certain exceptions to the minimum crewing, such as when an FA is sick on a layover and away from a crew base, the 788 can be operated with a minimum of 5 FAs but now with a 1 FA per 50 passengers ratio. Which means in this scenario, AC will only leave 5 passengers behind.

Is there anything that makes AC takes any responsibility? I do not blame the airlines. I put this entire blame on the head of the government. If they are incompetent to formulate a set of laws that makes no one responsible then this is the kind of chaos we have. I know for a fact that the initial draft was a very competent draft with many clauses as per the EU and some other countries but it got watered down by the politicians.

Canadian governments across the spectrum have had the opportunity to pass laws to protect consumers for decades, no government expressed any interest until recently, while the rollout and contents of the APPR is very useless, at least its something.

Of course it doesnt fix or address in any way the fact that only ~half of AC's flights are on time.

The original draft was fairly good as it had incorporated a lot of requirements from EU and other countries but it got watered down to the virtually nothing. The airlines are not responsible for anything these days. If they have no aircraft, no crew no bags nothing is their responsibility anymore.
Could anyone please give me an instance where they have cancelled a flight and they have put the passengers on another carrier? I have not heard of it at all and I have seen passengers being upset in the airport because they were not able to fly while the other airlines had space and they had to either buy a ticket on their own and fly or wait a couple of days at a hotel on their own expense.

Moderator note: this thread seems to be wandering off topic of AC's systemic OTP issues. Please note that there's a thread in the Canada forum about possible toughening of APPR that might be a more appropriate venue for broader discussion of those regulations, and there's a separate thread in this forum for information about IRROPs; a few recent posts have been moved there.

I was sitting in the NH lounge at HND waiting for my UA flight and noticed AC002 HNDYYZ was delayed 35 min (and counting). Quelle surprise. I then was curious how far back this delay started for this FIN (806, a 788). Couldn�t believe this FIN has been delayed with no possibility of catching up since 21 July!

Date Flight Route STD/ATD STA/ATA Delay

26JUL AC002 HNDYYZ 1740/1924 1650/1841 1h51m
25JUL AC001 YYZHND 1325/1506 1540/1715 1h35m
25JUL AC807 EDIYYZ 0900/1137 1110/1334 2h24m
24JUL AC806 YYZEDI 1905/2226 0625/0941 3h06m
24JUL AC002 HNDYYZ 1740/2035 1650/1956 3h06m
23JUL AC001 YYZHND 1325/1700 1540/1859 3h19m
23JUL AC829 CPHYYZ 1225/1241 1440/1521 0h41m
22JUL AC828 YYZCPH 2115/2214 1050/1128 0h38m
22JUL AC002 HNDYYZ 1740/2118 1650/2035 3h45m
21JUL AC001 YYZHND 1325/1750 1540/1932 3h52m

Now there was some plane substitution made on 23JUL from CPH to HND, but the fact that AC can�t recover their schedule from these types of rolling delays is a really bad look for them. They really have no slack in the system and not enough planes to reliability run their schedule.

That lack of slack applies to staff, too. At least the compensation thread seems to suggest they�re paying out in instances where they don�t have the crew to operate the schedule they sold.

It makes perfect sense tho from a business perspective. Revenue from selling a schedule like this must exceed any toothless compensation issued.

If it didn't, they'd put effort to fix it.

OTP stats from Cirium:

https://mobilesyrup.com/2023/07/25/c...flight-delays/

15% improvement from last June.
🥳
see, they care.

52-67 is a 30% improvement.

Ah yes, the snow in June from 2022 was worse than the snow in June of 2023

Its 37 to 52.

67 does not really seem achievable for AC due to weather

That�s 50% improvement. Impressive!