Tiburon

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Tiburon last won the day on September 27 2011

Tiburon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About Tiburon

  • Rank
    1

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/airline-refund-policies-credit-card-chargeback-1.5598623 Would-be passengers get around airline refund policies via credit card chargebacks Customers can get chargeback from credit card company if no refund or no response from airline company If a response doesn't come within 15 days or is rebuffed, customers can call the payment card issuer and request a chargeback on the grounds that services they paid for were not rendered. "The burden of proof is now on the carrier," Lukacs said. He recommends asking for a dispute adviser or an agent with a similar title in the credit card department. Clients should insist on a chargeback process even if the bank suggests the matter is between them and the airline or that the tickets were non-refundable — an irrelevant point, Lukacs said. "You need to be really very, very assertive." Credit cards spell out consumer rights in documents online.
  2. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-why-are-the-liberals-protecting-the-airlines-at-the-expense-of-their-citizens Surely a company with $10 billion in the bank could handle the payments on a long-term, low-interest loan targeted to refunds. Plenty of passengers, given the choice, might opt to keep their vouchers, especially if offered a little sweetener: a suspension of the usual baggage fee, access to the snobby business-class lounge or maybe an on-board sandwich without the usual spine-chilling mark-up. Passengers have borne the brunt of cramped seating, high fees and crowded terminals from a fiercely competitive industry. The passenger bill of rights introduced a year ago has been a bust. The Canadian Transportation Agency has waffled hopelessly throughout the pandemic. Passengers didn’t cause the crisis. It would be nice to treat them fairly for a change. National Post Twitter.com/kellymcparland
  3. A voucher is virtually worthless in this environment and it leaves cash strapped individuals with nothing of value and payments to be made on the credit card no matter what Oh they have asked they just have not got anything yet and they better not. I am all for the programs that have helped employees stay on the payroll as long as possible under these very unusual circumstances but there had better not be any corporate bailouts
  4. Don’t quite buy your analogy, if you bought the camping gear and they delivered it to you the transaction is complete and there are no more obligations .If you ordered the camping gear and prepaid it online and then they said sorry, manufacturer went out of business here is a trampoline or come back in two years would that be acceptable to you? the obligation is to supply the services or product contracted or give me my money back.
  5. I understand non-refundable but typically your defence of the airlines is “heads I win tails you lose.“ I buy a non-refundable ticket and don’t show up I lose the money I buy a non-refundable ticket and the carrier doesn’t show up I lose the money and now I buy a non-refundable ticket the carrier doesn’t show I lose the money and the Carriers want more of my money to bail them out
  6. I agree that there are many variables if the carrier is operating and you chose not to go you forfeit the ticket if you bought a restricted fare. The issue currently is people who purchased tickets for future travel and now the carriers are not operating, I don’t care who’s fault it is, the obligation is to refund the fare that’s all nothing more nothing less. It is contractual and many jurisdictions like the EU and the US are forcing refunds. The CTC under pressure from the carriers are not forcing them yet, but it is coming. If i order and prepay for a pizza, I expect delivery, if the pizzeria gets hit by lightning and burns down , to bad, feel sorry for you but give me my money back, that’s all I want.Fight it out with your insurance company. All carriers should carry insurance or post a bond to cover their obligations especially when the collect YOUR money in advance.
  7. Why should they? Air Canada should purchase the insurance to cover themselves if they can’t supply the service they were contracted to do. This is ridiculous ploy to grab more advance booking money and have the customer pay to insure the carriers liability, don’t fall for it.
  8. Well that aged well. Now that the airlines and its employees are on the receiving end of my tax dollars,(again) , I hope your appreciative.
  9. What you fail to understand is that when someone buys a non refundable ticket, they are gambling that they wont show up and therefore lose the ticket, they are not gambling that the carrier wont show up. If AC or any carrier cancels the flight they have failed their contractual obligations and should refund the money, period.
  10. Are you kidding, the royal family?? That group of lazy flunkies can afford to charter netjets, How about the people that actually work for a living for us?
  11. http://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-confirms-a380neo-and-a380-stretch Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier has confirmed plans for an A380neo with more fuel-efficient engines as well as a longer version of the superjumbo – dubbed the A380-900 – capable of carrying even more passengers than today's double-decker jet.
  12. You have a pretty short memory, CAPA Profiles Air Canada bailout buys time - but Canada Inc sells out to forces of protectionism CAPA > Aviation Analysis > Air Canada bailout buys time - but Canada Inc sells out to forces of protectionism 7th August, 2009 inShare © CAPA The Canadian government is simultaneously bailing out its flag carrier and blocking entry by foreign airlines – on the basis that they are “instruments of government policy”. Air Canada is far from safe, even with the bailout. But there is a special irony here. The government justifies its action as a matter of “national interest”. As the legacy airline industry looks for a future, this begs the question of whether that future should focus more on the economic importance of airlines, rather than their financial well-being. Last week, the formerly government-owned Air Canada announced it had managed to pull back from the brink, securing just over CAD1 billion in loans, probably enough to secure its future for the next few months. Calin Rovinescu, Air Canada’s President and CEO, was justly proud of his achievement, rightly observing that, "by any measure, raising CAD1 billion in new liquidity is a tremendous achievement, particularly in view of current credit markets and the state of the airline industry.” There is no doubt that Mr Rovinescu (recently appointed and anointed by ACE head, Robert Milton) has remarkably achieved a hard won battle and apparently prevented Air Canada from bankruptcy, at least for this year. A bailout by any other name…. But almost every dollar of the loans comes from the Canadian government and from the company’s owner, ACE and associate company, Aeroplan. Despite its prominent billing in the story, GE Canada Finance Holding Company is a minor player. And then there are various amounts from sale and leaseback and aggregating an array of biscuit-tin savings which help to achieve the magic headline figure of CAD1 billion. The basic loan is for CAD600 million – nearly half of it from the Canadian government. Yet how much damage does this faintly-disguised bailout do to the credibility of the airline industry? At best it is the preservation of a famous old national brand, securing the short term income of shareholders and a large private equity group, avoiding a difficult political decision by a government which wilted under pressure and which, by the way, temporarily saved some jobs. At worst, it protects – against more efficient airlines which have to survive on their own merits – an inefficient airline which is hidebound by its unions, and a recent history of management judgments which were either simply bad or did not show the guts to make long overdue surgery. And, perhaps worst of all, the debt burden on the carrier now suggests that its long term future will be by no means secure, unless there is a remarkable uptick in the economy. And, if the Canadian government is going to lend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to underwrite Air Canada’s attempts to avoid slipping once again into bankruptcy, there follows a powerful logic to protecting that investment. Logic - but that does not make it good policy. AND from the National Post Twenty years after privatization and Air Canada is still dealing with the "shackles of age and legacy" and its greatest challenge remains "changing the culture." What has the company been doing for more than two decades? It would be wrong to conclude that nothing has been done. The corporate record is full of activity: bankruptcies, court-ordered reorganizations, half a dozen new union deals, layoffs, shareholder wipeouts, billion-dollar government bailouts. But all for nought, apparently. The Air Canada culture is the same old culture where the idea of just doing it still doesn't exist. The Air Canada Mr. Rovinescu recently described sounds like the same Air Canada that emerged in 1989. It's still a cash-burning legacy company that, to this day, continues to benefit from government protection. From the moment it was privatized, Air Canada maintained the standards of a Crown corporation. It was a protected national institution that unions could continue to milk and management could continue to operate behind regulatory barricades that kept out evil foreign competition.http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=23f03e68-6f81-491d-8ee9-8dd444c42391
  13. Nonsense, a .02 reading 8-10 hours later means he was **bleep**. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
  14. Let's see, Air Canada cobbles together a mish-mash low cost operation, used airplanes,foreign crews, Chinese OC, to compete with Singapore and Cathay...ya that'll work. This thing will be fought by the unions on all fronts, if it even gets off the ground it will collapse in a heap in 12 months like every other AC idea.
  15. There is finally mounting pushback against Canada's Air policy This is testimony in front of the Canadian Senate, Highlights: Rob Howard, Member, Provincial Lead of the Air Access file, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia As I have said, air access is critically important to my province and our nation, and it is urgent that we take steps to allow expansion of air services, passenger and cargo, especially through the Pacific Gateway. In these times of need for job creation and job protection, expanded air services offer a low-cost, low-risk, high-reward way to grow and diversify our economy, allowing us to reach our full potential, so I will present some short-term or immediate recommendations and some long-term recommended actions. As we think about this, I ask us to keep a couple of principles in mind. The first is to view this issue through more of an economic lens. Right now, I think air access issues get tied up in Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Transportation and CBSA. Many different departments have an interest in the file. I understand that, but sometimes you lose sight of the big picture, and the big picture is economic development, growth, diversification and jobs. The economic lens is the first guiding principle I would encourage all of us to keep in mind. Second, the process needs to be a little more open, in our view. Right now, negotiations happen behind closed doors. These are negotiations on the air service agreements. The agreements do not see the day of light, as contrasted to the U.S., where you can Google them and they are online. As stakeholders, we do not always have a clear idea what is being negotiated and why. The term “national interest” is used a lot, and I think everyone understands that. What is national interest? Is it 5 per cent commercial and 95 per cent community, or is it 50/50? Does it change from time to time? We just do not know, and it does make it difficult for stakeholders to plan and to attack the file with a greater sense of purpose. As we look to increase our dialogue on this file, the Blue Skies Policy was introduced in 2006. It is up for its five-year renewal, and we are asserting — asking as loudly and as clearly as we can — that stakeholders and our government have a real, genuine opportunity for input. On the short-term list as well, you will see under “Bilateral ASAs” that we are talking about removing capacity restrictions with Taiwan. I do not think I gave this to you, but I will leave copies. We just collected a series of letters from business and organization leaders from the Taiwanese community in the province to underscore that there is pent-up demand on both the passenger and the cargo side with Taiwan. I wanted to give you a few examples of what life is like on the airport street out in British Columbia and some examples of where we have not had success and we should be able to have success. Singapore Airlines flew into YVR for about 20 years. They came three days a week. For them, it just did not make sense. It was kind of like operating a hotel three days a week and there were not enough options for their business travellers. They wanted to come daily. They pursued this with their federal government for a few years. They got turned down, and eventually tired of asking, they left. They pulled their service. Now I guess that traffic comes either through San Francisco or Los Angeles, but it is big loss to the community. I know Emirates evokes some emotion, but Emirates is just another example. It wanted to come. It was just a direct, non-stop drop-off. There were no beyonds or infiltration into our system. They were told no. They went to Seattle to set up. Part of their marketing program calls themselves the “gateway to Whistler.” That almost brings tears to my eyes because that should not be allowed to happen. That is hurtful, and it would cost YVR between 20,000 and 30,000 seats per year. I have already talked about Taiwan. There is pent up demand for cargo, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, even in my office. My office staff fly back and forth. I guess it was last May; they had to book in September to get a single ticket. I want to speak about Air France briefly. Air France wanted to come for years. They could not. They set up in Seattle as well. Now they can come because we have signed with EU, but they have capital, people, networks and dollars invested in Seattle, and I do not know if they will come back. There are other stories. I want to make it clear, too, that we are not talking about cabotage; we are simply talking about beyond rights and more access. Full article http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411/TRCM/49434-E.HTM