People just want their money back, forget credits.

[photofly]

You seem to imply that people bought stuff and prepaid at shady retailers. I'd hardly call Air Canada ... a dodgy retailer.

If taking your customers’ money for a flight you canceled, and refusing to give it back, isn’t dodgy, what is?

Dodgy is as dodgy does.

[trey kule]

I am surprised that this is legal. Civil law however, may provide a remedy in terms of a class action.
It might be that the airlines are just stalling for time. Yep, people will be pissed, but people forget so very quickly...
Look how polls showed our slime ball PM’s continual ethics violations got forgotten in just a few weeks.

[rookiepilot]

In the video I posted, a travel agent defends Westjet.

She tries to switch sympathy from the consumer who can't get a refund, to the airline "because it makes no sense to do a flight with 10 passengers". She then goes on and alludes "consumers must be understanding and flexible".

Bullshit. I'm neither. She'd never be my travel agent.

Seems to be some confusion as well between being an "investor" in a company and a customer. As an investor, I'm considered somewhat "sophisticated" -- yeah LOL -- by the law.

If I buy AC bonds or their stock and suffer a loss, tough shit. I'm supposed to be informed, and take risks. No problem.

The same legal standard doesn't apply to someone buying a ticket. A customer isn't expected to take risks a major seller -- of anything -- won't cancel and not refund their money, unless they go BK. Then the CC should refund the customer.

Customers aren't investors making unlimited length, no interest loans. Total BS.

PF's description is right, again. "Dodgy" comes to mind, as does "bait and switch".

Advertising flights -- one has NO intention of actually flying.

[455tt]

So under the law of contract, where the parties to an agreement encounter a "force majeur" such as a hurricane, war, nuclear bomb, global pandemic etc. etc., this can be used an excuse for a party to the contract for their failure to comply with the terms of the agreement.

Here in Canada we have a Canada Transportation Act and Agency that currently permits airlines to issue a voucher rather than a refund of a ticket where the pandemic has prevented the airline from completing their part of the agreement.

Here is the explanation from the CTA:

"The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions in domestic and international air travel.

For flight disruptions that are outside an airline’s control, the Canada Transportation Act and Air Passenger Protection Regulations only require that the airline ensure passengers can complete their itineraries. Some airlines’ tariffs provide for refunds in certain cases, but may have clauses that airlines believe relieve them of such obligations in force majeure situations.

The legislation, regulations, and tariffs were developed in anticipation of relatively localized and short-term disruptions. None contemplated the sorts of worldwide mass flight cancellations that have taken place over recent weeks as a result of the pandemic. It’s important to consider how to strike a fair and sensible balance between passenger protection and airlines’ operational realities in these extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances.

On the one hand, passengers who have no prospect of completing their planned itineraries with an airline’s assistance should not simply be out-of-pocket for the cost of cancelled flights. On the other hand, airlines facing huge drops in passenger volumes and revenues should not be expected to take steps that could threaten their economic viability.

While any specific situation brought before the CTA will be examined on its merits, the CTA believes that, generally speaking, an appropriate approach in the current context could be for airlines to provide affected passengers with vouchers or credits for future travel, as long as these vouchers or credits do not expire in an unreasonably short period of time (24 months would be considered reasonable in most cases).

The CTA will continue to provide information, guidance, and services to passengers and airlines as we make our way through this challenging period."

So there would appear to be nothing "Dodgy" at play in this particular instance. The Airline in question is following the law and the rules we have established for them.

[rookiepilot]

I don't give a shit what the CTA says.

Do you honestly think this attitude is encouraging the flying public to return?

Too many here are "Simply, Sit down, STFU, after you give me your wallet, too".

Get a F------- attitude check. The world doesn't exist to make airlines happy.

I shake my head. You must not want your jobs back.

Too many airlines are run like crap, barely better than the Bombardier I've loved ragging on -- how they doing these days? -- all feeding the C Suite at the expense of both employees and customers.
That is a fact, and not my problem as a taxpayer.

[digits_]

Here in Canada we have a Canada Transportation Act and Agency that currently permits airlines to issue a voucher rather than a refund of a ticket where the pandemic has prevented the airline from completing their part of the agreement.

.....

On the other hand, airlines facing huge drops in passenger volumes and revenues should not be expected to take steps that could threaten their economic viability.

Once could argue that "the expectation not to take steps would threaten their economic viability" is the option for the airline to cancel the flight instead of forcing them to fly it with 10 people on board.

It's up to the airline to decide what they do with the money they receive from the tickets. If they decide to gamble and spend it before the flight actually happens, that is an airline decision for which the customer should and can not be responsible.

[photofly]

So under the law of contract, where the parties to an agreement encounter a "force majeur" such as a hurricane, war, nuclear bomb, global pandemic etc. etc., this can be used an excuse for a party to the contract for their failure to comply with the terms of the agreement.

Force majeuere means you’re not liable for damages due to your breach; it doesn’t mean you can fail to provide the service *and* hang on to your customers’ money.

In this instance, Air Canada remains dodgy, and CATSA looks gutless and craven. Even the limp-dick Civil Aviation Authority has bigger balls than CATSA on this one.

[455tt]

I suppose you didn't get a chance to read the entire CTA quote I provided, so I will just include this part of it:

"For flight disruptions that are outside an airline’s control, the Canada Transportation Act and Air Passenger Protection Regulations only require that the airline ensure passengers can complete their itineraries. Some airlines’ tariffs provide for refunds in certain cases, but may have clauses that airlines believe relieve them of such obligations in force majeure situations."

So, I reiterate, there would appear to be nothing "Dodgy" at play in this particular instance. The Airline in question is following the law and the rules we have established for them.

I suppose if you have major issues with the CTA you could write your local MP and encourage them to amend the Act so that airlines cannot have force majeure provisions in their ticket terms and to require them to give full cash refunds and not vouchers for flight cancellations. But until the Act has been so amended, they aren't doing anything unlawful.

And we have not even yet touched the subject of giving the whole aviation industry massive government financial assistance, which I would fully support.

[AuxBatOn]

At what point, after the initial shock of COVID, is the “force majeure” clause still valid? I would argue that the environment is now known and That “force majeure” is not applicable anymore. Just like hotels gave refunds due to COVID-19 for trips purchased before April 1st. After that, you know the risks involved.

[photofly]

I suppose you didn't get a chance to read the entire CTA quote I provided, so I will just include this part of it:

....

That's fine. Repeating what you quoted doesn't change my opinion that the CTA is made up of gutless w*nkers in the pocket of the airline industry.

And we have not even yet touched the subject of giving the whole aviation industry massive government financial assistance, which I would fully support.

Well we have, and of course you do. Everyone is a capitalist when it comes to someone else's industry, and in favour of massive state aid to their own.

[rookiepilot]

I suppose you didn't get a chance to read the entire CTA quote I provided, so I will just include this part of it:

"For flight disruptions that are outside an airline’s control, the Canada Transportation Act and Air Passenger Protection Regulations only require that the airline ensure passengers can complete their itineraries. Some airlines’ tariffs provide for refunds in certain cases, but may have clauses that airlines believe relieve them of such obligations in force majeure situations."

So, I reiterate, there would appear to be nothing "Dodgy" at play in this particular instance. The Airline in question is following the law and the rules we have established for them.

I suppose if you have major issues with the CTA you could write your local MP and encourage them to amend the Act so that airlines cannot have force majeure provisions in their ticket terms and to require them to give full cash refunds and not vouchers for flight cancellations. But until the Act has been so amended, they aren't doing anything unlawful.

And we have not even yet touched the subject of giving the whole aviation industry massive government financial assistance, which I would fully support.

1. Mis- estimates of demand isn't a force majeure, well after the intial event.
2. Force Majeure applies mainly to commercial contracts between sophisticated parties, and protects against suing for damages. Not refunds for services not delivered.
3. Mis- estimates of demand, or worse, advertising more flights than the airline intends to complete, are poor business planning. Not anything else.
4. I'm guessing the CTA is well taken care of. Don't fool yourself, this happens everywhere.
5. Want to support the airlines, send them a cheque. Not with my money, unless all of us get equal treatment.

Oh, and 6. I don't care what the CTA thinks is fair. I'll decide that for myself.

[alkaseltzer]

I suppose you didn't get a chance to read the entire CTA quote I provided, so I will just include this part of it:

"For flight disruptions that are outside an airline’s control, the Canada Transportation Act and Air Passenger Protection Regulations only require that the airline ensure passengers can complete their itineraries. Some airlines’ tariffs provide for refunds in certain cases, but may have clauses that airlines believe relieve them of such obligations in force majeure situations."

So, I reiterate, there would appear to be nothing "Dodgy" at play in this particular instance. The Airline in question is following the law and the rules we have established for them.

I suppose if you have major issues with the CTA you could write your local MP and encourage them to amend the Act so that airlines cannot have force majeure provisions in their ticket terms and to require them to give full cash refunds and not vouchers for flight cancellations. But until the Act has been so amended, they aren't doing anything unlawful.

And we have not even yet touched the subject of giving the whole aviation industry massive government financial assistance, which I would fully support.

1. Mis- estimates of demand isn't a force majeure, well after the intial event.
2. Force Majeure applies mainly to commercial contracts between sophisticated parties, and protects against suing for damages. Not refunds for services not delivered.
3. Mis- estimates of demand, or worse, advertising more flights than the airline intends to complete, are poor business planning. Not anything else.
4. I'm guessing the CTA is well taken care of. Don't fool yourself, this happens everywhere.
5. Want to support the airlines, send them a cheque. Not with my money, unless all of us get equal treatment.

Oh, and 6. I don't care what the CTA thinks is fair. I'll decide that for myself.

Rookiepilot, I mean wannabe lawyer, I mean rec pilot permit, you need to bring this attitude and your empty wisdom to your first pilot interview.

[photofly]

Sympathy around here is heartfelt, but short-lived, it seems.

[iflyforpie]

I suppose you didn't get a chance to read the entire CTA quote I provided, so I will just include this part of it:

"For flight disruptions that are outside an airline’s control, the Canada Transportation Act and Air Passenger Protection Regulations only require that the airline ensure passengers can complete their itineraries. Some airlines’ tariffs provide for refunds in certain cases, but may have clauses that airlines believe relieve them of such obligations in force majeure situations."

So, I reiterate, there would appear to be nothing "Dodgy" at play in this particular instance. The Airline in question is following the law and the rules we have established for them.

I suppose if you have major issues with the CTA you could write your local MP and encourage them to amend the Act so that airlines cannot have force majeure provisions in their ticket terms and to require them to give full cash refunds and not vouchers for flight cancellations. But until the Act has been so amended, they aren't doing anything unlawful.

And we have not even yet touched the subject of giving the whole aviation industry massive government financial assistance, which I would fully support.

1. Mis- estimates of demand isn't a force majeure, well after the intial event.
2. Force Majeure applies mainly to commercial contracts between sophisticated parties, and protects against suing for damages. Not refunds for services not delivered.
3. Mis- estimates of demand, or worse, advertising more flights than the airline intends to complete, are poor business planning. Not anything else.
4. I'm guessing the CTA is well taken care of. Don't fool yourself, this happens everywhere.
5. Want to support the airlines, send them a cheque. Not with my money, unless all of us get equal treatment.

Oh, and 6. I don't care what the CTA thinks is fair. I'll decide that for myself.

Rookiepilot, I mean wannabe lawyer, I mean rec pilot permit, you need to bring this attitude and your empty wisdom to your first pilot interview.

This isn’t a pilot interview. This isn’t buttering up HR with canned responses to convince them you won’t be a liability to the company over the next several decades. Thinking a pilot interview is something special is like bringing up your air brakes endorsement in a group of academicians.

We the travelling public are the ones interviewing you. You have to sell us on spending our money and convince us it isn’t just pissing it into the wind.

I just got off the first commercial flight I’ve used since this thing started. My flight and cabin crew know what’s going on because the service and courtesy and politeness was at 2000s Westjetittude levels for all 25 of us on a greatly reduced wholly domestic route.

They get it. They need to make the customer experience as painless and positively memorable as possible.

None of them would dare be bringing up their supposed rights as a carrier as to why they were keeping your money. The public won’t stand for it and they will vote with their wallets whether you are right or wrong. In fact, they already have, and things like this will only make things worse.

[PeterParker]

Investors are usually one of the last ones to get money back when a company goes bankrupt. Clients who didn't get any services delivered can sue right away and should, in theory, get their money back, or might trigger the bankruptcy. Either way, in general, they (should) have a bit more protection.

Credit card companies also play a big role here. They should take a stance and consider this goods not delivered.

Bahahaha... That is funny! Since when have investors been the last ones to get money back? Governments in almost every single country in the world has been bailing out large businesses for many decades now. Those bail out funds go straight into the hands of the investors, not to pay off remaining debts to lenders or to employees who worked for many months in the hopes of a paycheck when things turn around.

Let's get the fact straight. You are not "investing" in WS or AC when you buy a ticket. You are purchasing in advance for a service that you expect to receive within a specific time frame. If they cannot deliver, they have to return the payment in the exact same form that they took from you. You can't go to a Timmies, order and pay for a large double double and then expect that if they ran out of coffee that they consider the money an "investment". You expect a refund, fair and square, in the same terms as you paid them. Neither can you tell your credit card company that the money you spent on a product cannot be repaid back within the 28-day no-default period because your service wasn't received. They will charge you at 20% or whatever other fvcked up rate that they care to put you under until you pay them back. How is the logic any different from a company that you pay for a service?

The CTA should get their heads out of their asses and start working for the public instead of large corporations!

[Roar]

It seems to me that the people upset by Westjets refusal to refund the ticket price should look in the mirror to find the person responsible. All they had to do before purchasing their respective ticket was read the Westjet policy which is clearly laid out on their website. Quite simply only Premium and Business Flex fares are eligible for cash refunds outside 24hrs after purchase. When you buy a lower class fare you are accepting that refunds in the form of original payment are not part of the agreement, this is a risk and consequence of the "cheap seat".
I am sympathetic to the customers that are out cash in these times but I also believe in personal responsibility, a traveller not reading and understanding the terms of the agreement they are entering into when its clearly spelled out, is not the airlines fault.

[rookiepilot]

It seems to me that the people upset by Westjets refusal to refund the ticket price should look in the mirror to find the person responsible. All they had to do before purchasing their respective ticket was read the Westjet policy which is clearly laid out on their website. Quite simply only Premium and Business Flex fares are eligible for cash refunds outside 24hrs after purchase. When you buy a lower class fare you are accepting that refunds in the form of original payment are not part of the agreement, this is a risk and consequence of the "cheap seat".
I am sympathetic to the customers that are out cash in these times but I also believe in personal responsibility, a traveller not reading and understanding the terms of the agreement they are entering into when its clearly spelled out, is not the airlines fault.

Seems to me the airlines feel as you do, but only in one direction.

They want their customers to accept maximum "personal responsibility" -- as you call it -- for any and all adverse circumstances, but scream for government money for themselves.

It's extremely hypocritical, and no different than bombardier.

These are the same airlines that spent most of their money buying back stock and issuing bonuses to the C suite. Not saving any money for a rainy day, and recessions happen for many reasons.

I know of people -- companies -- who were fully prepared for an event like this. They had reserves. Plans. Airline industry was not.

So I should open my wallet for the C - suite to refurnish their Forest Hill and Rosedale mansions?

They don't give a shit about the employees, let alone their customers.

So let them burn.

[455tt]

"So let them burn"?

The problem is the airline industry is huge and employs many Canadians upon which not only the workers, but also upon which their families rely upon.

The airline industry is "too big to fail" and to leave them out to dry would have disastrous effects on jobs and the economy in general.

This is not unlike 2008 when the economists told us we had to bail out the banks to save the economy. Nobody liked the idea but the government bailout was done for good economic reasons.

The weird thing about your viewpoint is that, assuming you are in some way reliant or connected or dependent in some important way to the survival of the aviation industry, which most of us on this forum are, why would you not take the position that the Canadian government should be "all in" with whatever economic bailouts would help the aviation industry survive? With government subsidies the airlines could pay back all those ticket refunds.

You seem to be arguing against your own interest here.

[photofly]

The airline industry is "too big to fail" and to leave them out to dry would have disastrous effects on jobs and the economy in general.

It isn't, and there wouldn't be.

assuming you are in some way reliant or connected or dependent in some important way to the survival of the aviation industry, which most of us on this forum are

No, no we're not. You are - which is why you take the "too big to fail" line. But we aren't, and we don't. I don't think airline travel will recover for a decade or more, and a lot of people formerly employed in the industry are going to have to go and do something else. That should probably start to happen sooner rather than later. Bail-outs are throwing good money after bad.

[rookiepilot]

This isn't an airline lobbying forum, it's an aviation forum.
Public service announcement.

I am sympathetic to pilots laid off.

I'm more sympathetic to lower class laid off workers swamping the food banks. Sorry....

I am less sympathetic to the C Suite who continues to rip all of you off in ways you don't understand. Not only ridiculous compensation-- think BBD who looted their company -- but stock awards, share buybacks funded by debt.

No money saved. When they get in trouble, the C Suite pays themselves even more, and screws the employees.

Your own leadership is your biggest enemy. Not your customers! Their looting your employer!

A US airline -- I think United (LOL) Turned down! uS government aid because it came with Restrictions on executive compensation. They then fired thousands of workers. None of the C Suite took a pay cut.

You can enable that behavior if you want, not with my money. Where is the union speaking out against this crap?

Cowards.