The future for mass air transportation is bleak and it’s getting very little sympathy from its customers, who would prefer to have their money back.

Canada’s airlines have a big problem on their hands. I’m not talking about the global crisis that has torpedoed their business and made survival itself an issue. I mean the fact their customers largely don’t care about their troubles.

Well, maybe they do care, a little bit. It’s not fun to watch proud companies that employ tens of thousands of Canadians struggle to stay afloat. Should all the people whose livelihood depends on the air travel business suddenly find themselves out of work, it would be a disaster. Sort of like — now that I think of it — closing down the energy industry by shuttering the oilsands and setting up barricades to block pipelines.

The airlines are fortunate there are no masked protesters standing on runways, defying pilots to try and take off. Or celebrities flying in on private jets to object to the climate damage caused by aircraft used by people less privileged than them. And Ottawa politicians haven’t shown themselves to be nearly as craven in dealing with the airline industry as they have the oil business. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to be actively trying to help the airlines stay alive, rather than suggesting they should be phased out over time, as he did with the careers of a few hundred thousand energy industry employees.

Nonetheless, the future for mass air transportation is bleak, to say the least. And it’s getting very little sympathy from its customers, who would prefer to have their money back, thank you very much.

Unlike carriers in the U.S. and Europe, where refunds are mandatory for flights that were cancelled, Canada’s airlines have sought to offer vouchers instead. The initial offerings came with caveats on how the vouchers could be used, and limiting the time they remained valid. Under pressure from a growing public backlash they’ve started to change their tune. Air Canada now says passengers will be able to choose a voucher with no expiry date that is fully transferable, or convert their booking to Aeroplan miles with a 65 per cent bonus. Air Canada says this reflects its “revised goodwill policy.” It likely also has something to do with petitions that have garnered 70,000-plus names, and a class-action lawsuit being prepared against Air Canada, WestJet, Sunwing, Air Transat and Swoop.

The argument for refunds is straightforward. If you order a car, put down a deposit, and the car company tells you it can’t deliver your purchase, you get your money back. Maybe the car company is struggling, but too bad. That’s not the buyer’s fault. Should the manufacturer go bankrupt, the buyer might be in trouble, but none of Canada’s airlines have declared bankruptcy yet. They want to keep the money because giving refunds would make a very bad financial situation worse.

The lack of sympathy among air passengers has roots in changes that have transformed the airline industry over many years. To stay in business, and maximize profits, carriers have introduced one innovation after another, very few of them adding to the ease and comfort of the traveller. Cramped, uncomfortable seating; charges for luggage; charges for food; charges for seat choices, higher charges for better seat choices; restrictions on carry-ons. Canada’s carriers fought tooth-andnail against legislation establishing air passenger rights, which has proven to be toothless in any case. In many ways the industry finds itself in a similar situation to telecom companies: the public wants their products and their services, but they dislike the way they’re treated in return, and often don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth.

The argument for vouchers has gaping holes. If the car company gives you a hard time, you can go to another manufacturer. If your cell provider jacks up its rates, you can look for a better deal. But if Gramma and Gramps have their longplanned trip to visit their grandkids cancelled because of coronavirus, who’s to say they’ll be able to postpone it until another time? Gramps wasn’t feeling too well anyway, and the other family members who’d made difficult arrangements to join them won’t necessarily be able to do the same later. If the concert is cancelled, the cruise line is sunk, the graduation ceremony is transferred to Zoom or the business trip is cancelled due to the disappearance of business, the flight becomes redundant in any case. Offering a voucher is no solution if it means folding yourself into an economy seat just to avoid the ticket going to waste.

The prime minister, in his foggy, imprecise, hardto-decipher way, has suggested the issue of refunds isn’t finalized yet. “Getting the balance right will be delicate, but it’s something we’re working on,” he said when questioned on the situation. Transport Minister Marc Garneau may have let slip the government’s truer instincts when he emphasized the stress on the industry rather than the price to the customers.

“They’re in a world of hurt at the moment,” he told the CBC on May 15. “We have to take that into consideration, given the fact we want the industry to survive and rebuild and resume operations.”

Sure, go ahead, take it into consideration. To keep the Trans Mountain project alive, Ottawa bought the pipeline. Maybe it will have to contemplate something similar for an airline or two. Germany’s government expects to take a 20 per cent stake in Lufthansa as part of a US$9.8 billion ($13.7 billion) bailout. Either way, Ottawa should make sure people get their money back. It’s their money, not the airlines’.

THE ARGUMENT

FOR VOUCHERS HAS

GAPING HOLES.

— KELLY MCPARLAND