Frequentlander

My last two flights on WS have been 3 hours or more late. On one (LGW to YVR), I got EU261 compensation of 600 Euros ($921) as well as - without any prompting from me - 150 WestJet dollars.

The last flight, YVR to YOW was a series of rolling 30 minute delays. This was a mechanical issue. I've received nothing (not even an e-mail) from WestJet after 4 days.

I'm thinking we REALLY need an EU261 style Passengers Bill of rights in Canada. Does anyone know where the proposed legislation sits, and how effective the airlines lobbying has been at diluting it?

smallmj

Considering the fact that we have heard nothing about it for a long time, one might posit that the airline lobbyists are quite effective. But that's just my uninformed armchair opinion.

mxqisit

The only thing this will do is (further) increase fares.

robsaw

Complying with safety regulations also is a cost, which comprises part of the price of a fare - so suggesting the "only thing" effect of any regulation is cost is simply incorrect. We can debate whether the cost-benefit is worthwhile but reducing the discussion to just cost is pointless; when airlines can address an issue so that they alter behaviour in way that favours them over other airlines with respect to any cost it becomes a competitive differentiator.

Frequentlander

That's partially correct (it will do other things too), and then only if they have to pay penalties. If they organize their business such that they don't have to reimburse their customers for poor performance (ie by not performing poorly), then they wont have to pay the penalties and there is no cost to them. They may actually find that they save money by being better at what they do.

If you don't want to incur library late fees, take your books back on time. I just realize I dated myself there.

cedric

Except they didn't, on your flight from LGW.
So the $900 that they paid for everyone on their flight had to be funded from somewhere.
Now imagine that that was the case each time a mechanical occurred domestically. That money has to come from somewhere.
It's not like they want to run a poor operation. But stuff happens, machines break down.

trooper

If airlines are having to pay such amounts for 3 or 4 hour delays, why don't other businesses? I suspect we'd see less praise for such measures if YOUR business had to pay out $900 for failing to meet an appointment/promised time.... Oh? There's a REASON why the customer didn't get the service they had arranged from your business, at the TIME arranged? ? Yeah...the airlines have those too...but they don't shield them from payouts.... Ive had FAR more 4 hour waits from entities other than airlines.....should I be compensated?

aidy

Fares are also a lot cheaper in the EU than in Canada with the law in place.

Frequentlander

So if your machine breaks down, I have to suffer the consequences even though I paid for the "not breaking down" level of service?

With this latest latest 3 hour delay, its now six days and WS has not even sent an e-mail to acknowledge that there was a significant delay.

No compensation for a significant non-weather delay is wrong and on the other hand, one could certainly argue that EU261 is too punitive - but there has to be some middle ground - otherwise, there is little incentive for the airline to do anything other than what's in their immediate best interests.

robsaw

Let's not conflate every single business appointment or delivery with a business which as its primary activity is transport between points to a schedule.

There are plenty of contractual arrangements where "time is of the essence" clauses exist and ARE major headaches for parties that don't meet those timelines with penalties, liquidated damages, and other nasty and costly effects. Such clauses are limited in consumer contracts because consumers typically are provided take-it-or-leave-it terms unless regulated by government. There is a POTENTIAL to take a balanced approach to an issue like this that reasonably provides an incentive to airlines to perform better and compensates customers when EXCESSIVE disruptions through controllable circumstances (yes, mechanical issues are a controllable circumstance) occur.

As I stated previously, if we argue that any measure with respect to timeliness will just increase prices then we logically must argue that ANY and ALL regulatory measures should be eliminated on airlines. A rational debate will examine the cost-benefit and suggest a particular course of action (which will then be totally muddled through lobbying to the gov't by the various parties - but that's life).

FlyerTalker70

There's an argument to be made that imposing an economic cost on inefficient airlines will lead to more profitable airline operations. Anytime an airplane is on the ground not servicing revenue paying customers, that's lost revenue for the airlines (regardless of pax)! One need only look at the EU's regulations to see that in spite of those alleged "crippling" regulations for OTP, we have the likes of RyanAir and EasyJet taking kettles to far away places for the same price we pay for checked bags here at home! The reason is simple, they use standardized equipment (i.e. an all 737 fleet), have quick turnarounds, and have a robust fleet so that MX is a rarity! Perhaps you could argue that our fares are so darned high because of lack of competition. However, if we look at the US market, which has tons of competition (the legacies, Seattle Airways , Southwest, Allegiant, etc.) fares are slightly lower than Canada, sure, but they're nowhere near the insane deals we are finding out of Europe.

That being said, I will say that ancillary fees on the domestics are way too low! There's no reason why the first checked bag should be at a bargain basement price of $30...it should be more like $50! These ancillary fees are a great way to discriminate against the kettles out there who can easily afford to pay through the nose while us frequent flyers (who are more cost sensitive) use our elite status to waive those fees, ensuring we get the best airfares! This is also a great way for the airlines to get more loyalty from us frequent flyers. I know several people who are very fickle and will switch between AC and WS based entirely on price or flight schedules.

Safe Travels,

James

trooper

Why not? Why does one apparently deserve (significant) compensation for being delayed in one environment...but not in another (or all?) If I make an appointment , and the business/authority/body I have made that appointment with keeps me waiting...there IS an opportunity cost to ME. I could have used that time for something else. Why do I not deserve compensation for that?

To use the argument that is made in FAVOUR of 261, If businesses ARE held responsible for failing to meet appointed times, then they will improve performance!

Actually... I agree with the suggestion made here that some middle ground would be better.... 261 certainly seems far too punitive (or generous depending on your point of view), but yes, some carrot and/or stick may well be appropriate.... I'd just like to see it applied to ALL commercial (and government) entities....

mellon

Looks like the airlines won and Canadian flyers will not get any compensation for the new legislation. Have your say: Air passenger protection | Homepage
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ourt-1.4487912

J. Leslie

Frequentlander

If anything, the article (which is quite old) point directly to the need for some sort of legislated protection for passengers. AC showed their hand when they tried to get the passengers rights advocate booted off the case. They don't want their customers being treated fairly.