Less than four hours before departure, Ryan Farrell was surprised to learn his flight from Yellowknife to Calgary had been cancelled.
Air Canada cited 鈥渃rew constraints鈥� and rebooked him on a plane leaving 48 hours after the June 17 flight鈥檚 original takeoff time.
Farrell was even more surprised six weeks later, when he learned his request for compensation had been denied on the basis of the staff shortage.
鈥淪ince your Air Canada flight was delayed/cancelled due to crew constraints resulting from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our operations, the compensation you are requesting does not apply because the delay/cancellation was caused by a safety-related issue,鈥� reads the email from customer relations dated July 29.
The rejection 鈥渇eels like a slap in the face,鈥� Farrell said.
鈥淚f they don鈥檛 have replacement crew to substitute in, then the flight (was) cancelled because they failed to assemble a crew, not because any other factor would have made it inherently unsafe to run the flight,鈥� he said in an email.
鈥淚 think the airlines are trying to exploit a general emotional connection that people make between 鈥楥OVID-19鈥� and 鈥榮afety,鈥� when in reality if you put their logic to the test it doesn鈥檛 stand up.鈥�
Air Canada鈥檚 response to Farrell鈥檚 complaint was no outlier. In a Dec. 29 memo, the company instructed employees to classify flight cancellations caused by staff shortages as a 鈥渟afety鈥� problem, which would exclude travellers from compensation under federal regulations. That policy remains in place.
Canada鈥檚 passenger rights charter, the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), mandates airlines to pay up to $1,000 in compensation for cancellations or significant delays that stem from reasons within the carrier鈥檚 control when the notification comes 14 days or less before departure. However, airlines do not have to pay if the change was required for safety purposes.
The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), a quasi-judicial federal body, says treating staff shortages as a safety matter violates federal rules.
鈥淚f a crew shortage is due to the actions or inactions of the carrier, the disruption will be considered within the carrier鈥檚 control for the purposes of the APPR. Therefore, a disruption caused by a crew shortage should not be considered 鈥榬equired for safety purposes鈥� when it is the carrier who caused the safety issue as a result of its own actions,鈥� the agency said in an email.
That stance reinforces a decision made July 8 鈥� three weeks before Farrell learned he鈥檇 been denied compensation 鈥� when the CTA used nearly identical language in a dispute over a flight at a different air carrier. The regulatory panel鈥檚 ruling in that case emphasized airlines鈥� obligations around advance planning 鈥渢o ensure that the carrier has enough staff available to operate the services it offers for sale.鈥�
In the December memo, which was issued at the height of the Omicron wave of COVID-19, Air Canada said: 鈥淓ffective immediately, flight cancellations due to crew are considered as Within Carrier Control 鈥� For Safety.鈥�
鈥淐ustomers impacted by these flight cancellations will still be eligible for the standard of treatments such as hotel accommodations, meals etc. but will no longer be eligible for APPR claims/monetary compensation.鈥�
The staff directive said the stance would be 鈥渢emporary.鈥� But Air Canada acknowledged in an email on July 25 that the policy 鈥渞emains in place given the continued exceptional circumstances brought on by COVID variants.鈥�
READ ALSO:
Gabor Lukacs, president of the Air Passenger Rights advocacy group, said Air Canada is exploiting a loophole in the passenger rights charter to avoid paying compensation, and called on the transport regulator for stronger enforcement.
鈥淭hey are misclassifying things that are clearly not a safety issue,鈥� he said of Canada鈥檚 largest airline, calling the policy 鈥渆gregious.鈥�
Consumers can dispute an airline鈥檚 denial of a claim via a compliant to the CTA. However, the agency鈥檚 backlog topped 15,300 air travel complaints as of May.
Lukacs also noted that European Union regulations do not exclude safety reasons from situations requiring compensation in the event of cancellations or delays. Payouts are precluded only as a result of 鈥渆xtraordinary circumstances,鈥� such as weather or political instability.
鈥淭his document, along with the previous declarations and behaviour since the beginning of the pandemic, shows that Air Canada鈥檚 priority is clearly to try to limit the costs of the flight cancellations instead of providing good service to its clients,鈥� Sylvie De Bellefeuille, a lawyer with Quebec-based advocacy group Option consommateurs, said after reviewing a copy of the directive.
She said Air Canada aims to deter passengers from requesting compensation in the first place. 鈥淭his tactic does not, in our opinion, demonstrate that the company cares about its customers.鈥�
Air Canada disagrees with that characterization.
鈥淎ir Canada had and continues to have more employees proportionate to its flying schedule when compared prior to the pandemic,鈥� the company said in an emailed statement, indicating it had done everything it could to prepare for operational hiccups.
鈥淎ir Canada follows all public health directives as part of its safety culture, and during the Omicron wave last winter that affected some crew availability, we revised our policy to better assist customers in their travels with enhanced levels of customer care for flight cancellations related to crew contending with COVID.鈥�
John Gradek, head of McGill University鈥檚 aviation management program, said the transportation agency is partly responsible for the 鈥渄ebacle鈥� because it established looser rules than those in Europe and the United States.
鈥淐arriers have been making strong efforts to point fingers and claim delays are outside of their control to reduce liability,鈥� he said in an email.
Companies in this story: (TSX:AC)
Christopher Reynolds, The Canadian Press
Like us on and follow us on .
