boestar

On 9/15/2022 at 10:08 AM, Airband said:

Air Canada ordered to pay passengers $2,000 for flight cancellation caused by crew shortage

Crew shortages are generally within an airline's control, Canada's transport regulator says

Thu Sep 15, 2022 - CBC News
by Sophia Harris

A recent ruling by Canada's transport regulator in favour of two Air Canada passengers whose flight was delayed is the latest development in the ongoing battle over whether airlines must compensate passengers for flight disruptions caused by crew shortages. 

In a decision published on Aug. 25, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ordered Air Canada to compensate passenger Lisa Crawford and her son $1,000 each following a flight cancellation that delayed their August 2021 trip from their home city of Fort St. John, B.C., to Halifax by almost 16 hours.

According to the CTA, Air Canada initially told Crawford the flight cancellation was caused by a crew shortage linked to COVID-19, and was safety-related — so she wasn't eligible for compensation. 

The airline's response prompted Crawford to take her case to the CTA, a quasi-judicial tribunal.

"Staffing and other aspects of operations are the employer's responsibility to manage," said Crawford in an email to CBC News. 

The CTA agreed, stating in its decision that Air Canada failed to provide evidence "establishing that the crew shortage was unavoidable despite proper planning," so Crawford and her son must be compensated.

Under Canada's Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), airlines only have to pay compensation — up to $1,000 per passenger — if a flight cancellation or delay is within the airline's control and not required for safety reasons. 

"I was thrilled with the CTA's finding," said Crawford, though she and others question if the case will carry much weight.

"Given the ongoing disagreement on how the regulations are to be interpreted and/or applied, I believe the real outcome for my case and likely many others, remains to be seen," said Crawford. 

Court battles raise questions

According to the CTA, it has received 13,743 air passenger complaints since May 1, of which 87 per cent are related to flight disruptions.

The CTA's ruling in the WestJet case, issued on July 8, was supposed to help clear the air on some of those compensation disputes.

In that case, WestJet initially denied passenger Owen Lareau of Ottawa compensation for a cancelled flight, stating it "was impacted due to flight crew member availability and required for safety purposes."

In its decision, the CTA clarified that staffing issues typically warrant compensation because, in general, they are an airline's responsibility and can't be categorized as a safety matter. 

The agency also ordered WestJet to pay Lareau $1,000. 

"Training and staffing are within airline control and therefore crew shortages are within airline control, unless there's compelling evidence" to the contrary, said CTA spokesperson Tom Oommen in an interview. "It's a high threshold."

But in a motion filed in the Federal Court of Appeal on Aug. 10, WestJet argued that, according to the APPR, the CTA can't presume crew shortages warrant compensation and then put the onus on airlines to disprove it. 

Consumer advocate and lawyer, John Lawford said WestJet is offering a narrow reading of the rules, and that the CTA ruling in July set out to clarify them.

"[The airline is] saying, 'That's nice, the actual wording of the regulations is all we will follow and we're going to court.' "

WestJet, the CTA and passenger Lareau have each declined to comment on the case.

"They're going to continue down this path until they're told otherwise," said Gradek, a lecturer and program co-ordinator for the aviation management program at McGill University.

"They'll keep trying to get away without paying, because it is a very serious expense."

'Minister should be spanking these guys'

CBC News asked Air Canada if, like WestJet, it planned to appeal the CTA's ruling that it must pay Crawford and her son compensation. 

Spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick replied that the airline was unable to comment as it's still reviewing the ruling.

But Air Canada is already taking part in a legal battle that calls into question Canada's compensation regulations. The airline is one of more than a dozen applicants, including the International Air Transport Association, which filed a motion in 2019 to appeal the APPR.

In that case, which is still before the Federal Court of Appeal, the applicants argue the regulations are "invalid" for international flights because they differ from the Montreal Convention, a treaty adopted by many countries — including Canada — which establishes airline liability for flight disruptions. 

"I suspect before Christmas, we will find out from the Federal Court of Appeal if the entire APPR regime gets tossed or not," said Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

Some travellers say they’re being denied compensation for cancelled Air Canada flights as the airline claims the flight disruptions were 'due to crew constraints' and beyond their control.

Lawford said federal Transport Minister Omar Alghabra should assist passengers with compensation claims by sending a stern message to airlines that they must abide by the compensation rules set out by the CTA.

"The Minister should be spanking these guys, these airlines, and saying, 'How dare you, how dare you screw up my regulations,'" said Lawford.

Since August, Alghabra has repeatedly issued public warnings to airlines that they must follow the rules. 

"Passengers have rights and they need to be respected," he said in a statement just last week. "We will continue to protect the interests of passengers when travel doesn't go according to plan."

But, so far, the warnings haven't curtailed the flood of air passenger complaints pouring in to the CTA; it currently faces a backlog of more than 23,000 grievances. 

If there is no crew, there is no safety issue.  Kind of like "nobody works, nobody gets hurt"

yup good old stunned mentality.  Stop them from hiring foreign pilots so you can accelerate your path to bankruptcy.

I find that I do not frequent the forums as much as I used to because of the divisive nature of the "NON AVIATION" posts.  I do ignore them now when I come to the forum but IMHO those discussions are better left in the political forums.

if I had a dollar for all of the "Brand new canadian airlines" that no longer exist I could buy a meal at Mcdonalds

after examining the data I am not so worried.  The data is all stored on the device until you submit it to the CBSA.  No background operation.

On 8/18/2022 at 10:44 AM, Specs said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/12/europe-travel-airlines-halt-some-staff-flight-perks-buddy-passes.html

if you are trying to get home from LHR,LGW MUC,FRA  FORGET ABOUT IT.  The airports have placed restrictions on the capacity of aircraft at 90%.  That means planes are leaving without cons.  

For a while there was a ban on all NON-Rev passengers DEPARTING LHR and LGW.

It is a Poopshow for cons in Europe right now.

I am going to LHR in a couple of weeks and I am returning from another airport due to the restrictions unless they are no extended past the Sep 11 date at which time I will alter my bookings.

ok what is everyones issue with ArriveCan other than the obvious Vaccination stuff.

It electronically does everything I need to do with pen and paper now.  It does make life easier aside from the nefarious bits.

I always like "The Airplane fell from XXXX to XXXX feet"  As if it were held up there by the pressurized air in the cabin.

It did not fall.  it was driven there

LHR has banned all NON_REV passengers until Sept 11 on departing flights.

All Flights were capped at 90% of available seats which ended earlier this month.

LHR adn LGW are a bloody mess and this is their solution

it is the AIRPORT imposing these restrictions

This is just the continuing story of the Liberals coming to the wrong conclusion and doing the wrong thing.  Seems to be a trend.

Well there is a Tornado so blame the airline.  Severe Thunderstorm at the destination...Blame the airline.  Someone was shot in Toronto blame legal gun owners.  I am sure there are a thousand more examples of their incompetence.

18 hours ago, Seeker said:

The default for the forum software is that reaction icons; likes, etc are disabled on posts made by moderators and Admin.  When I researched the reason for this I found it was to prevent people from "liking" everything the moderator (or Admin) would post as a bid to seek special treatment or favour.  My first reaction was - "well, that's silly" but on further consideration decided just to leave it as is. 

I don't think it would be a problem but human nature is a curious thing.  Maybe not a problem for me or for the person who clicked a "like" on my post but s-a-s someone will claim they see a pattern in who I'm allowing to post certain things based on how many likes the person gave me.  Yeah, like I said - silly but who needs the headache.

the like button is just a way to send a dose of dopamine to the original poster,

I hope the aircraft was removed from service.  An impact strong enough to fracture a spine is hard enough to damage the airframe

where's Heathrow.  Its a mess

well that article is pure BS from the outset.

The 2 aircraft are being procured for Multi Role operations that was made abundantly clear in the press release.  They will both be modified as Airborne refueling tankers as well as personnel and VIP transport aircraft hence the MRTT designation.

The original Polaris aircraft were all second hand aircraft procured from the defunct Canadian Airlines / Wardair fleet and repurposed in the MRTT role.

The aircraft in question were manufactured in 2015 so 7 years old which is not bad considering they will undergo extensive rework by Airbus to be refitted for their roles.

Suck it up and revamp the aircraft systems.  the airframe is solid but the mishmash underneath is outdated.  Makup on a pig is still a pig.  Just do the work, spend the money and have a better plane in the end.  So what if airlines have to do training.

honestly....for the most part you get what you pay for

On 5/27/2022 at 8:15 AM, deicer said:

Water?  What water?

 

are we sure that's not a flight test scenario.  The water ingestion test is a requirement for certification.

On 5/28/2022 at 7:28 AM, deicer said:

Bombardier Global 7500 breaks sound barrier in testing.

 

When I worked flight test in Witchita on the original Global Express aircraft, it also exceeded Mach 1.  We always knew when they did it because they would lose the lav service door.

On 4/7/2022 at 2:00 PM, Specs said:

The white smoke appears to start just a moment before the plane passed behind the white pick up.  A blown tire doesn't create that much smoke or create the need for a turn back.   A hydraulic issue could though.

a blown tire can cause a hydraulic issue pretty quick

12 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

Go to NETFLIX......watch DOWNFALL....

Watched it.  nothing at all surprising there.  Profit over innovation and safety.

oops....You get my point

17 hours ago, Seeker said:

The mighty 737 has done it's bit, now it's time for something new.  Of course, the passengers want cheap airfare but that's not what I was talking about or what I said.  What I said is that passengers would better served with a new design.

A new design could/would incorporate a better ventilation system maybe with humidity control, probably slightly wider seats, possibly a bigger door, certainly a more ergonomic flightdeck and galleys which would improve the service and safety.  The list goes on and on.  TBH, the 737 has been skating by many required safety advances on the basis it's pre-existing certification and this has most definitely not served the passengers well.

Boeing has sidestepped a lot of certification requirements in their history.  The 747-400 kept the same certification (with amendments) as the -200 even though the wing was different. This shortened the certification process.  The main technicality was not renumbering the slats.  Thats why you have a 1A and not fully renumbered.  Technicalities.

The 737 has been redesigned so many time but always retains enough of the predecessor to be the same type for certification purposes.  While this make development fast and cheap, it does nothing to enhance safety, comfort and efficiency.  It is stagnating advancement and letting Airbus and others leap out ahead of the former king.

The 727 and the 737 share the same cockpit section.  

My point was initially that they are attempting to make 1060s technology integrate with 2000 technology and it has many issue.  From a pilot and backend perspective its all bright lights and shiny new things but under the skin is is a nightmare of independent systems trying to work together.  Does it work?  Sure.  is it efficient or reliable? not really.  Does it measure up to the competition?  not by a longshot.

the current 737 variations are an abomination of 1960s, 1970.s, 1980's etc technology.

The integration of systems is no-existent and is mainly duct taped together to create the aircraft.

it may look pretty in the (lower) cockpit but behind those screens is still analog and steam.

The type is WAY past its prime and needs a full replacement.

read the article of the Supersonic DC-8.  They put the aircraft into a controlled dive with the trim set full nose up and held the aircraft in the dive to achieve speed in excess of Mach 1.  it took 15000 feet to recover the dive.