Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Canada's new Air Passenger Protection Rules

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68

    Canada's new Air Passenger Protection Rules

    I fly from Canada to Asia many times each year. I'm not hopeful about this. Seems rather obvious that this simply means airline prices will increase. Its already expensive to fly. I'd rather take the risks if it means more affordable flights.

    https://www.chch.com/canadas-new-air...32Jje-JN_5w5TA

    he new air passenger protection rules mean disgruntled travelers could get up to $2,400 if they’re bumped from an overbooked flight or $2,100 if the luggage is lost or damaged.
    Airlines have tried to quash the rules in federal court but the new standards will be imposed tomorrow, July 15.

    Come December, phase two of the new passenger protections will also require an air carrier to compensate passengers for flight delays and cancellations.

    Airlines that fail to adhere to these new standards will be subject to fines of up to $25,000 per incident by the Canadian Transport Agency.

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    1,690
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,248
    Rep Power
    52
    We need this for Tiger Air in Australia.
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

  3. Top | #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,345
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    58,638
    Rep Power
    85
    I don't see the problem with this. If they fuck over their passengers for the sake of making extra money, what's the issue with their being the ones who are saddled with paying extra expenses over situations where these passengers get fucked? 99 times out of 100, the policy allows them to maximize revenue for a flight and the other times they've been trying to squeeze people in order to keep as much of the extra money as possible.

    This is exactly the type of situation where regulations are necessary against an industry which refuses to police itself.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,281
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,629
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
    I don't see the problem with this. If they fuck over their passengers for the sake of making extra money, what's the issue with their being the ones who are saddled with paying extra expenses over situations where these passengers get fucked? 99 times out of 100, the policy allows them to maximize revenue for a flight and the other times they've been trying to squeeze people in order to keep as much of the extra money as possible.

    This is exactly the type of situation where regulations are necessary against an industry which refuses to police itself.
    Well, Penguin already mentioned the problem with it. Air travel will cost more. If they can't sell as many seats, the ones they do sell will be more expensive. All costs are ultimately borne by the consumer.

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
    I don't see the problem with this. If they fuck over their passengers for the sake of making extra money, what's the issue with their being the ones who are saddled with paying extra expenses over situations where these passengers get fucked? 99 times out of 100, the policy allows them to maximize revenue for a flight and the other times they've been trying to squeeze people in order to keep as much of the extra money as possible.

    This is exactly the type of situation where regulations are necessary against an industry which refuses to police itself.
    Well, Penguin already mentioned the problem with it. Air travel will cost more. If they can't sell as many seats, the ones they do sell will be more expensive. All costs are ultimately borne by the consumer.
    Yes, and as a frequent consumer of flights, I am more concerned about the costs overall increasing on me than my luggage being lost or my flight being bumped. The cheapest to be found on flights from Toronto to Manila are usually around $1,000 Canadian. That's pricey already.

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,197
    Rep Power
    5
    I never understood why the airline industry was the only one allowed to sell a product they do not own. They sell more seats on planes that they have, which is why "bumping" happens at all (except in very rare cases where they need to transport a backup pilot for regulatory reasons - like a delay due to weather disqualified the scheduled pilot and new one was needed for compliance).
    That's fraud. There is not one penny of loss due to a ticketed passenger not showing up... they pay for their ticket up front whether their ass is in the seat or not.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    3,655
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Well, Penguin already mentioned the problem with it. Air travel will cost more. If they can't sell as many seats, the ones they do sell will be more expensive. All costs are ultimately borne by the consumer.
    The greedy bastards are selling the seat twice. It's not like they refund the no shows when they fail to board. I don't believe they do this to keep fares low. It's a calculated risk to sell the seat twice, for a profit increase.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,197
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Well, Penguin already mentioned the problem with it. Air travel will cost more. If they can't sell as many seats, the ones they do sell will be more expensive. All costs are ultimately borne by the consumer.
    The greedy bastards are selling the seat twice. It's not like they refund the no shows when they fail to board. I don't believe they do this to keep fares low. It's a calculated risk to sell the seat twice, for a profit increase.
    precisely.

  9. Top | #9
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    Its overblown and will be use as an excuse by the airlines to raise prices. Maybe if you could somehow get price control on the airlines I would agree with you, but that isn't going to happen. The end effect is I pay more for my tickets and very likely gain nothing for it since the odds of me being bumped from a flight due to them overselling is very small. The odds of my baggage being damaged or lost is pretty much zero since I only bring carry on.

  10. Top | #10
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,281
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,629
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Well, Penguin already mentioned the problem with it. Air travel will cost more. If they can't sell as many seats, the ones they do sell will be more expensive. All costs are ultimately borne by the consumer.
    The greedy bastards are selling the seat twice. It's not like they refund the no shows when they fail to board. I don't believe they do this to keep fares low. It's a calculated risk to sell the seat twice, for a profit increase.
    Um, no. They do refund you if you bought a non-super discount fare ticket, which are generally the people who don't show up. (aka business travelers whose plans change)

    But it doesn't matter. The principle still applies. If they can't make as much revenue selling those seats, they will charge more for the seats they do sell. If there are people paying money not to fly they are subsidizing those that do fly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •