Donating Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by seeker

  1. ...who read a newspaper and said.... I don't wanna read any more newspapers. I'm done. Don't care anymore. Let it all burn. Read some left-wing news and some right-wing news. Watched some CNN and watched some Fox (and some CBC). It's all sh1t - all of it. Lies, exaggerations, distortions. Nobody is telling the truth and, worse, there's no place to get the truth. Everything is a narrative. The closest you can get to truth is to find the narrative that you agree with and roll with it. And now we get idiots saying we should de-fund the police? What do you do with that? People who live in a community where the Chief of Police is black, the mayor is black in a state where the governor is black and their claim is that society is racist against them. Read this stupid article: "Why are the Liberals protecting the airlines at the expense of their citizens" The article itself is full of half-truths, misdirection and manipulation and, then, I read the comments! Honestly, humans are too stupid to exist. IDK, maybe we'll get lucky and get hit with a comet before we self-destruct. Personally, don't care either way - the sooner we hit the restart the better. Any lifeform that's too ignorant to learn from it's past does not deserve to survive.
  2. 1. It's already in full effect. 2. The sale of the newly prohibited forearms is illegal itself. 3. "They" don't care. 4. Buying and turning in firearms plays into the system - buying them and burying them in a six foot piece of 4 inch PVC pipe does not - if I had a ton of money I know which way I'd play this and it wouldn't be buying to turn them in.
  3. “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” ― Marcus Aurelius
  4. Well, as I understand it, you paid for a flight and a cruise and got a refund for the cruise portion, right? So you should be entitled to the balance (assuming no transfers, hotels, etc were included). Whether that equals a stand-alone flight to Barcelona is besides the point. Who knows what pricing the travel agent was able to negotiate/acquire for the flight as part of the package.
  5. True, but all quotes from Marcus Aurelius must come from Marcus Aurelius. I apologize, my intent was obviously not clear from the title. I like Aurelius and think there is enough wise things he said to support the entire thread.
  6. Jaydee, I do believe you've missed the point of this thread.
  7. If a man is mistaken, instruct him kindly and show him his error. But if thou art not able, blame thyself, or blame not even thyself. (Book Ten)
  8. That which is not good for the bee-hive cannot be good for the bees. Marcus Aurelius
  9. Although it may not sound like it I really am sympathetic and if I had hundreds or thousands of dollars tied up in vouchers I wouldn't be happy either. It's a dilemma. The US is forcing the airlines to give refunds but is also giving $60 billion in industry assistance. Canadian airlines haven't received assistance yet but it may be necessary and forcing refunds will make it imminently critical for all but AC which might make it a few months before being in the same position. Like it or not, our airlines compete in a global marketplace.
  10. Then how do you know what's an acceptable amount for the voucher? If you got some back from the cruise line the remainder is the airline portion?
  11. What portion of the package was air travel; was it $500 or $2000?
  12. Well, a voucher has value. Not now but eventually and believe me I am quite cognizant of the Visa bill that needs to be paid. I prepay for my annual club membership and I'd like to get that money back - not gonna happen. That money is gone completely - no voucher there. Same goes for fitness clubs, marina slips and university students who paid for in-person classes with their professor and are now watching him on their laptop. Lots of people experiencing a loss and out of the bunch, people who are getting a voucher are doing better than most in the fallout. Now, on the subject of "bailouts." I keep hearing this term being throw about. When one company or a subset of an industry gets public money it's a bailout. When the entire industry gets money it isn't. AC entered this pandemic with 7 billion dollars in cash and credit facilities. I ask you, what would expect them to have done to be better prepared? If you say, "save more", then I'll simply point out that this money comes from ticket sales. Sure, the entire industry (not just in Canada) could have charged an extra $100 on every ticket for the last 10 years to ensure they'd have enough to ride out the duration - that would have been better I guess, just get the money upfront. Or, we could just apply tax-credits, fee deferrals, backstop loans, etc as needed, where needed and leave those $100 bills with the consumers for the last 10 years. And, BTW, why are we "bailing out" individuals? Those people should have been saving money in case there was a pandemic or something. You seem to have a real problem with corporations. You do understand that corporations provide jobs, pay taxes, provide services, right? Failing to support domestic corporations is exactly the same as shooting yourself in the foot. Now, should you want to discuss foreign corporations that syphon money out of the country such as Google, Amazon or a hundred others I think you'd find we are 100% in agreement.
  13. Wolfhunter; Interesting that you brought up the concept of Force Majure. I had accepted your earlier challenge and was working on a post to argue the "pro-refund" side of the problem that encapsulated this. I was almost there too but then read your latest and had to re-think. Now I don't think I can get there. First to note that English Common Law does not automatically include Force Majure and that it must be clearly stated in a contract. AC's Tariff does include a Force Majure clause: RULE 75 – REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT A. Refusal to transport - removal of passenger The Carrier will refuse to transport, or will remove any passenger at any point for any of the following reasons: (1) Government request or regulations Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulations, or at the direction of a government official, or to comply with any government request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense, or whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond its control (including but without limitation: acts of god, force of majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities or disturbances) actual, threatened or reported. This from AC's Tariff (bolding mine): RULE 100 – REFUNDS A. General Refund by the Carrier: for an unused ticket or portion thereof, or miscellaneous charges order, refund will be made in accordance with this rule. (1) Economy Basic tickets are entirely non-refundable and hold no credit for future travel. For all other non-refundable tickets, the unused value may be used toward the purchase of another ticket within a year from date of issue if ticket is fully unused or from first departure date for partially used ticket, subject to any fee or penalty contained in applicable fare rules and subject to customer cancelling the booking prior to departure. Definition of Force Majure: Force majeure is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic or an event described by the legal term act of God, prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not excuse a party's non-performance entirely, but only suspend it for the duration of the force majeure So, the tariff allows for the refusal of transport (cancelled flights) due to government regulation, basic tickets are non-refundable and hold no future value and Force Majure frees the parties from liability or obligation for the duration of Force Majure. It appears that AC's issuing vouchers meets or exceeds their tariff. Yes, I can certainly agree that it doesn't play well on CBC or Facebook but if we wanted we could make a huge list of services paid for with no ability to use/enjoy them due to the Covid: fitness clubs - monthly memberships with no access and no refunds (I've haven't checked every one of them so maybe a few are) my shooting range - closed but my yearly membership will be renewed on the same anniversary date with many months lost cottages - taxes being paid, maintenance, etc with no access private aircraft, boats, marinas, motorcycles, little kid's karate classes and swimming classes I realize these are not direct comparisons but my point is that a lot of stuff got paid for with nothing in return and it's nobody's fault. At least the airlines are giving vouchers which is something. Diminished value but value nonetheless and for many, more than is stipulated in the tariff.
  14. Ahhh, but in many cases the carrier did show up and when you didn't they still gave you a voucher so you didn't lose and even when the carrier didn't show up they gave the voucher. I understand many people would like their money back now and that a voucher isn't exactly equal but it's not nothing in return. The airlines have not, so far, asked for any bailout. Not more than any other industry at least. The NHL is asking for bailouts!
  15. The airlines, most of them, already gave vouchers to all the people who chose not to fly even when they could have. I'm just guessing, but would estimate this at more than half even though, technically, they didn't have to. They could have just refused to give out vouchers to anyone who's flight was actually available. The optics of this would have been even worse than what we have now. I wonder how this would play out - force the airlines to give refunds for the flights that were cancelled but allow them to keep the money from the non-refundable tickets where the flights were actually available. It's an interesting mental exercise and I wonder, but have no idea, who would ultimately come out better in that deal. Regarding your example of the pizzaria - I would also expect a refund but these examples are not comparable. The airline already offers the option of buying a ticket that has this benefit while the pizzeria does not offer a discounted non-refundable option.
  16. This is exactly the type of vacuous thinking that brought us the Passenger Rights legislation. Passengers think it's great when get a $1000.00 cheque when their flight is delayed 3:01 hours - if they're the one that gets it but, as a group, everyone pays more for their fare. In effect, every passenger is buying a ticket for travel and a lottery ticket. The overall cost when you factor in admin costs is greater than the amount that will paid out. It's a non-zero-sum game.
  17. Yeah, that's fine. What you're really saying is all airlines should only sell fully refundable tickets. Here's a link to IATA. Let us know how your presentation goes and when the new standards will come into effect. BTW, Air Canada (and other airlines) will accept the external risk and whatever flakiness there might be in the customer's decision-making and planning abilities - just buy the regular ticket - easy. After you're done with your IATA presentation you can work on ridding all fast food restaurants of french fries because people shouldn't have choice, after all, Tiburon knows what's best. Non-refundable tickets have value to some people and not to others - choose wisely. If you're having trouble understanding the concept of non-refundable, just use the Google.
  18. OK, but to be fair your example would have to include the fact that you are agreeing to sign a non-refundable contract for your renos. Would you agree to such a contract? Not likely as you would immediately think about all the things that could happen that would affect the plan; your work schedule changes or you get sick or you get divorced - can't guarantee that you will be ready for the contractor at 8:00 AM on the agreed day. What if the contractor agrees to give you a discount if you absolutely promise to be ready for him to work and turns down other jobs on that basis or agrees to a higher price that includes schedule flexibility or outright cancellation? I used to have a dentist (not my current dentist) who had an appointment cancellation fee of $50 (less than 24 hour notice). I never had an appointment that I couldn't keep but I asked him about it. He said before he had the fee people would cancel all the time and it caused all sorts of problems (lost time). A lot of people commented on the policy but after he instituted it people rarely cancelled within the 24 hours and when they did he would usually waive it anyways but just the possibility of it caused people to be more careful in making their appointments and keeping them. PS - don't get the reference to PMs - what's this about?
  19. Hah, I'd have to see the contract. What conditions/obligations are laid out? What remedies? What are industry standards and established protocols? Sorry, drawing parallels to a contract with a contractor is too far from this situation to be useful.
  20. Yes, I see your point but it's not quite as simple as the airline just cancelled the one flight that a particular person was booked on and refuses to refund. Think of a very simple example; a person buys a non-refundable ticket and then the event is cancelled (wedding postponed, resort flooded, whatever) a week before the flight. Should they be entitled to a refund? I think you'd agree that they should not be entitled to a refund. They'd like a refund. They'd hope for a refund but the fact that the reason for the trip or desire to go has evaporated is not due to some airline-initiated action. This pandemic is in many ways just a scaled up version of the above example. There are, of course millions of different scenarios and permutations but in April there were still flights going almost everywhere but they were empty - people weren't showing up for the flights because they knew when they got to their destination they'd be quarantined or the planned event was cancelled. I'm sympathetic but the reason why a passenger doesn't want to take the flight or what inconvenience they might face on arrival is not the responsibility of the airline. Now it gets complicated; the Canada/USA border is closed and somebody has a ticket to Florida and the flight is cancelled. Is this a case of "the airline has failed in their contractual obligations and should refund the money?" In this case I'd argue that neither the passenger nor the airline has failed to hold up their end of the contract. The passenger doesn't want to go anyway because they don't want to be quarantined on arrival in their hotel and the airline is forbidden by law from conducting the flight. If the passenger sleeps in and misses their flight - their fault so no refund. If the airline cancels the flight due to some controllable circumstance - the passenger gets a refund or re-booked. A closed international border? You can hardly say that the airline failed in their obligation. Nowhere in the tariff does it say that selling a ticket imposes an obligation to take the passenger to their destination - no matter what external event happens and a refund is due if it doesn't happen. The regulations discuss airline-controllable delays/cancellations. How can you place an obligation on a company for something they have no control over? As an aside I see the same thinking around weather delays; passengers expect meal, hotel and taxi vouchers. They have an expectation that from the time they arrive at the departure airport until they arrive at destination that it's airline's responsibility to keep them fed, watered and sheltered in every case other than a perfectly on-time trip even in cases where the airline has no control. What started as a good-will gesture has become an expectation and is demanded. I look at a non-refundable ticket this way; the passenger is essentially saying that "I am so confident that I will be able to take this exact flight on this exact day that I'm willing to accept the risk associated with events external to the airline affecting my desire to travel in exchange for a cheaper ticket." Buying a non-refundable ticket is a wager; you "win" a cheaper fare in exchange for accepting risk of external events. The passenger almost always wins, in fact, the chance of losing is so remote that people don't even consider it. They click through the disclaimer about "non-refundable" and "$200 change fees" as fast as they can without reading them. They are however, pretty quick to grab the cash for a delayed flight that's one minute over the legislated maximum. Technically, I would estimate that a significant majority of the advance ticket holders should get nothing at all. They pre-paid for a non-refundable ticket and many are "choosing" not to travel. AC is still doing flights to Sao Paulo. Would you board a flight a flight to Sao Paulo? Not me, but the flight is still going and what about the people who bought non-refundable tickets? Refund them because now is not a good time to go to Sao Paulo? Well, the airline knew no more about what the situation would be like for the planned travel than the passenger did when they bought the ticket. Airlines have decided that they will meet the passengers in the middle - offering travel vouchers even though in many, not all but many, cases they could have simply given nothing at all. Clearly the optics of that would be "not good" and hence the vouchers. One more thought on the topic of insurance and non-refundable tickets. Some wise person explained to me that you should never buy insurance for something that would not cause a significant financial burden if it was lost. You don't buy insurance on a toaster, you do buy insurance for your house. Over time the savings from not buying trivial insurance offsets the rare times you do experience a loss - this is how insurance companies manage to exist. The same holds true for non-refundable tickets. A lifetime of buying non-refundable tickets and experiencing the rare loss would be cheaper than always buying the refundable ticket. Of course in each circumstance you must redo to mental calculation of what is the financial exposure and what is the chance of losing the reason to go. You're buying a $200 domestic flight to visit family and your schedule is completely free of other obligations - probably don't need the refundable ticket. If you're buying a $10,000 ticket and have doubt about the schedule - probably a good idea to buy a refundable ticket.
  21. Well, they could have bought fully-refundable tickets but decided to roll the dice and buy the cheaper option. Biggest question - do you think any of them will actually learn anything from this?
  22. Yes, it's simply a case of; hope for the best but plan for the worst. Do "they" know? Of course not but they still need to have a plan forward and if they plan for 3 years but it happens quicker, well, probably easier to move things up rather than the opposite.
  23. I think you'd be happy with the report, although it was written in 2013 so, before the actual deal was completed. The statement “the worst procurement deal in Canadian history.” was made by Peter MacKay when he was Minister of National Defence in 2012.