Todos
← Back to Squawk list
When is a passenger reimbursement policy not a policy? Ask Air Canada
Beware next time an airline asks for volunteers to forgo a flight... (www.cbc.ca) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Rule number one.....Air carriers will do whatever it takes to minimize expenses and minimize exposure. If that means violating federal or international law with the idea of "let 'em sue" they will.
No amount of commentary to the contrary will convince me otherwise. The airline horror stories where customers are treated like ( synonym for fertilizer) are simply too numerous to ignore.
Rule number two....Always look out for number one. NEVER volunteer to be bumped or delayed. You'll get nothing in return except delayed and inconvenienced. And it will cost you money..
Rule number three. If at all possible, drive.
I am not anti air travel. I like to fly. In fact I think prices are fair and just. Its not that. The problem with air carriers is they have forgotten they are vendors and we are customers.
No amount of commentary to the contrary will convince me otherwise. The airline horror stories where customers are treated like ( synonym for fertilizer) are simply too numerous to ignore.
Rule number two....Always look out for number one. NEVER volunteer to be bumped or delayed. You'll get nothing in return except delayed and inconvenienced. And it will cost you money..
Rule number three. If at all possible, drive.
I am not anti air travel. I like to fly. In fact I think prices are fair and just. Its not that. The problem with air carriers is they have forgotten they are vendors and we are customers.
Agreed, very helpful and practical advice, especially when considering ....
a ticket is a "contract of carriage"
-Passenger buys ticket; engages air carrier to provide transportation.
-Air carrier is supposed to fly the passenger to their destination, on the DATE and TIME as included on the ticket.
-If unable to satisfy the terms of the contract, a re-negotiation MUST by honored.
Otherwise, time for the courts.
What good is a contract if one party can refuse to honor the terms of the contract ... at will.
An admirable stance taken by Col. Johnson and Mr Lukacs. The Canadian Transportation Agency needs to hold the responsible party to account ... airline CEOs, driven by greed.
a ticket is a "contract of carriage"
-Passenger buys ticket; engages air carrier to provide transportation.
-Air carrier is supposed to fly the passenger to their destination, on the DATE and TIME as included on the ticket.
-If unable to satisfy the terms of the contract, a re-negotiation MUST by honored.
Otherwise, time for the courts.
What good is a contract if one party can refuse to honor the terms of the contract ... at will.
An admirable stance taken by Col. Johnson and Mr Lukacs. The Canadian Transportation Agency needs to hold the responsible party to account ... airline CEOs, driven by greed.
Hang the maintenance. The airline asked for people to participate in taking another flight to assist them in handling the circumstances; this young man accepted. There was the contract! A verbal contract at very least. in offering said contract to this young man, AC take on all obligations of that contract and expenses there to. Who cares about the maintenance it is a side issue. There was a verbal offering; accepted... contract completed! Pay up AC!
I think Air Canada may win this case the issue is maintenance actions in aviation are governed by Federal laws. The company can only preform maintenance in accordance with the parts manufactures written directions, I believe they will be able to prove they performed maintenance per manufacturer specifications at which point a failure of a component could be beyond the scope of their ability to prepare for. They are also bared from flying without replacing the pump by the same set of laws. The failure is literally out of their control. The delay in replacing the failed part is also out of their control as federal laws tie their hands (with good reason). To win Mr. Johnson would have to prove the maintenance to the pump was inadequate and not to the manufactures specifications, I don't think he will be able to prove either.
They're barred from dispatching that particular aircraft without minimum equipment, of course, but not barred from substituting another aircraft or finding the passengers some other transport.
As the article rightly says, if that's the proper interpretation of the existing law, then the law itself is nearly worthless. What things are actually in their control such that a failure would require reimbursement?
As the article rightly says, if that's the proper interpretation of the existing law, then the law itself is nearly worthless. What things are actually in their control such that a failure would require reimbursement?
Mealy-words and legalize aside, AC has once again lost focus on what keeps them alive. Their lack of customer focus will both cost them money in legal fees and more so in reputation. When the country's national news agency (ie: CBC) having picked this up, they have already lost in the bigger arena - public perception and opinion. Sh*t like this kills brands over time.
So, not all airlines act like Air Canada.