FLIGHT RIGHTS

Didn’t think it could be any worse than snakes on a plane? There’s even more drama than ever when boarding an aircraft these days. Judy Gerstel investigates

MARCGARNEAUKNOWS a thing or two about the hazards and discomforts of careening through space high above our planet. Maybe that’s why the former astronaut and current minister of transport sponsored a bill in Parliament meant to protect the rights of air passengers. Bill C-49, also known as the Transportation Modernization Act, received Royal Assent last May although it has yet to be fully implemented.

Nate Laurie, a retired journalist and economist living in Waterloo, Ont., also knows something about the hazards and discomforts of careening through space as an airline passenger. “It’s such an unpleasant experience,” he says. “People are treated like cattle.”

Even worse, Laurie complained, was being squashed into an airplane seat and not flying through space.

“The pilot told us Delta had forgotten those Canadian customs forms,” he recalls about his flight from New York to Toronto shortly before the forms became unnecessary. “Another 20 minute wait. When the doors were finally closed, the pilot informed us that we were 20th in line for takeoff, and the wait would be another half hour. We did finally take off at the exact time we were supposed to land in Toronto.”

Standardized compensation for delays and for cancelled flights – unless due to weather and safety issues – is among the requirements mandated by the new legislation.

It also includes provisions ensuring that “no Canadian is involuntarily removed from an aircraft due to overbooking.” As well, airlines are required to seat children close to a parent or guardian at no extra cost.

And they’re required to follow established standards for the treatment of passengers in the case of tarmac delays of more than three hours.

That means you won’t have to call 911 if you’re stuck on the plane for six hours on the tarmac without adequate food or water, and the pilot won’t let you leave.

That’s what happened to Transat passengers at the Ottawa airport when weather caused planes to be diverted from Toronto and Montreal.

Air Transat was initially fined $295,000 for their neglect of passengers who felt like they were being held hostage, but the fine was waived by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), much to the dismay of passenger advocates.

Then there was the series of unfortunate events that befell passengers last winter on a Delta flight from Kansas City to Los Angeles. Stuck on the tarmac for 11 hours because of an ice storm, they were informed that the plane was ready to go but, alas, the crew’s shift had just in the last few minutes run over the legal time limit. The flight was cancelled, and passengers received $100 vouchers in compensation. And yes, they were allowed off the plane for good behaviour – er, to get food.

Still that was a minor inconvenience compared to the now infamous misfortune of an American who was yanked from his seat on a United plane in Chicago before take-off. Airport police dragged him fighting and yelling through the aisle with his face bloodied and shoved him out the door because the airline needed his seat for an employee. It was the equivalent of be- ing forcefully thrown overboard.

Garneau cited the “much-publicized cases of the unacceptable treatment of air travellers both in this country and south of the border” when he introduced the bill.

He told legislators “that when passengers purchase an airline ticket, they expect and deserve the airline to fulfill its part of the transaction. When that agreement is not fulfilled, passengers deserve clear, transparent and enforceable standards of treatment and compensation.”

Many such standards were already specified by 1999’s Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) Act and, according to the Act, “have the force of law in Canada.”

But these were often ignored by the airlines, and few passengers were well-informed about their rights and what to expect. Moreover, passengers who were seeking compensation were required to sue the airline and to prove damages.

“When things go wrong, people find it incredibly frustrating because they feel they have very little control,” explained Scott Streiner, president and CEO of the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), before Bill C-49 was introduced. “They don’t know what their rights are, what they’re entitled to, who to turn to.”

The CTA, which is mandated with providing consumer protection for air travellers, consulted with other agencies, passengers and air car-

riers to formulate details of the proposed Bill C-49 regulations – for example, compensation amounts and policies for cancelled or delayed flights and lost or damaged luggage.

However, the Air Passenger Rights organization, a voluntary consumers’ group headed by Dalhousie math professor Gábor Lukács, insists that Bill C-49 does nothing to fix the situation Streiner describes. He’s also highly critical of the CTA which, he maintains, favours airlines to the detriment of passengers. “The consultations were a dog-and-pony show,” he insists. “They were talking to the airlines before discussion took place with passengers.” C-49, he says, “contains no passengers’ rights and creates a framework that is way worse than what exists in Europe.”

Jacob Charbonneau, whose company, FlightClaim ( flightclaim.ca), makes compensation claims for air passengers on a contingency basis, says millions of dollars owed to passengers according to the European law go unclaimed.

Under European law, when a flight to or from Europe on a European carrier or on any carrier leaving from a European airport is delayed for three hours or more, canceled or overbooked, each passenger can claim up to 600 euros in compensation. Also, the European Union requires compensation even when the delay or cancellation is due to mechanical issues. (With Brexit happening, European Union regulations regarding flights to and from Britain may no longer apply.) In the new Canadian law, that’s a loophole airlines can exploit, says Lukács.

Passengers aboard an Air Canada flight to Maui this past Christmas Eve were given $10 food vouchers when the aircraft returned to Vancouver for “maintenance reasons.” An airline spokesperson noted they also got a discount for future travel, free meals on board and a meal at the gate before reboarding, landing in Maui 15 hours after their initial takeoff. If they had provable losses, they could apply for compensation under the current existing Carriage by Air Act, Lukács told CTVNews.ca. Under the proposed regulations, however, unforeseen mechanical issues wouldn’t trigger compensation for delays.

In 2016, there were 634 delays and 115 cancellations of flights to or from Canada eligible for compensation, impacting an estimated 187,000 passengers. Yet, only two per cent of passengers filed a claim. “People need to know they have three years to make a complaint,” says Charbonneau.

The point of Bill C-49, says Sara Wiebe, director general, Air Policy, Transport Canada, is “to make sure the system is more efficient, to create an environment where, if there is an issue with an air carrier, it would be resolved at the gate of the plane. Both the carrier and the passenger should be clear about what would have to be done.” This includes a plan for mandated transparency, standardized compensation and awareness campaigns.

Says Wiebe, “We want to create a framework whereby air carriers become more aware of the impact of delays or lost luggage so they adjust their business to avoid repercussions.”

Nate Laurie thinks the legislation may “help in terms of the worst horror stories, simply not allowing the airlines to abuse people.”

But he’s not hopeful that much can be done about the indignities of air travel that accompany cheap fares.

“Nobody is saying, other than through price competition, put the customer first,” he says. “They offer you the cheapest possible flight without putting you with the suitcases, which they haven’t thought of yet. Other than that, nobody cares about the passenger with a cheap ticket.”

Lukács sums up the situation this way: “Airlines cannot do whatever they want. But they pretend they can.”