Transport Committee on Sept. 14th, 2017

[Gábor Lukács]

The point we are making first is that the testimony of Transport Canada officials requires some rectification. They were claiming that they are taking the best of the European rules, and that's factually not true.

One area where I believe that one should not necessarily follow the European rules is with respect to genuine weather delays. I'm not talking about having rain in Vancouver and therefore flights being cancelled in Halifax; I'm talking about genuine snowstorms, which can happen in Canada's unique climate. But in other aspects, the European system has worked. It has resulted in significant improvements in the rights of passengers.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was flying back to Budapest to visit my grandmother. We were in Frankfurt airport. There was a small delay that would have required the crew to time out. Lufthansa had a backup crew that was available in 30 minutes to take their positions, because if it had taken them longer they would have been liable to pay compensation. So the place where we see a difference with respect to safety issues—and airlines do have to maintain their fleets and it is possible to maintain fleets—and where we see that this works, is in the European Union. It's the oldest system, and it works.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I want to move on to a similar theme but to our other panellists from Flight Claim Canada. The structure that Dr. Lukács has suggested sounds to me less like a bill of rights for passengers and more like a bill of penalties against airline providers in terms of the compensatory model. If we adopted his approach and said we're going to make mandatory payment—once you break the rule, you make the payment rather than assessing the situation with the customer—it might lead to a circumstance.... I think he said a two-hour delay would be appropriate for domestic flights, and a three-hour delay for international flights. In an instance where that doesn't cause a passenger to miss a connection, for example, is it your opinion that the same penalty should still apply, or should we take an individual approach as was suggested by the testimony by Air Canada earlier this week?

[Jacob Charbonneau]

Given the reality of globalization, it would be helpful to have the same rights as passengers coming to Canada. At the moment, the legislation operates on two levels. For example, on a flight from Canada to Europe with a European company, European rules provide for possible compensation in the event of a problem. However, on a flight to Europe with a Canadian company, that right does not exist. So, two passengers travelling on the same route, with the same departure point and the same destination, do not have the same rights. Passengers travelling from Canada to Europe and encountering problems with delays or cancellations are not eligible for compensation. But when they return from Europe, they can get compensation if a problem arises during the flight.

In today’s globalized world, the viable solution would be to adopt the best practices and provide the same rights to all passengers, no matter the airline or the destination.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

You've touched on something interesting. I know in Europe, they're in a world of ultra-low-cost carriers. I would love to see more low-cost carriers come here. We had earlier testimony describe a situation where the penalty—if we adopted the European fee model, for example—could be so extreme that the penalties paid out on a habitually late flight could outstrip the cost of the fare itself. Is that something that you foresee happening, and do you even think that's a problem?

[Jacob Charbonneau]

It is actually possible, but it depends on the tickets. Today, you often see discount sites advertising tickets at $99 for certain destinations and for a limited number of seats. So it is possible, but, with delays impacting a very small number of flights, they don’t want to compensate all the passengers affected by delays, or 14% of flights in Canada. They just want to compensate the small number of passengers affected by very long delays and for whom a delay had consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 35 seconds, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Can you just elaborate on the CATSA Plus screening that you touched on, Mr. Gooch?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Yes. CATSA Plus is a different process that incorporates technological elements. There's a centralized screening, and then as you actually approach the lane, there are four parallel divest stations, so it gets travellers going through the lane a lot more quickly, and it's a much better traveller experience.

CATSA had plans to roll that out at the eight large airports. There was a plan for that and some money requested, we understand. Unfortunately, all that was funded was what had previously been approved for a very limited implementation at the four largest airports. So, for example, it's in Toronto at U.S. transborder, but it's not at the domestic check-in point in T1, which is the biggest. We really would like to see that investment get restarted. It was put on hold in the budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

On to Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome, and thank you for being here today.

I will start the discussion with the people from Flight Claim Canada Inc.

First, congratulations for your courageous testimony. If the government adopted all the recommendations you are proposing, I suppose your operation would close its doors.

[Jacob Charbonneau]

It actually gives us additional tools with which to help passengers. Today, although European rules are clear, we are mostly helping European passengers.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you. It was more along the lines of a joke.

In your opening statement, one thing caught my attention. We have been talking about the passenger bill of rights for weeks. The usual things we hear about are lost luggage, overbooking and flight delays.

You are now adding questionable business practices that require compensation. Could you give me some examples of what you call “questionable business practices”? What impact could they have on passengers, and what solution do you propose?

[Jacob Charbonneau]

When I said questionable business practices, it was against the background of the current state of affairs and the perception of airlines that passengers have. I am not proposing specific compensation for that. But I was referring to the fact that a class action has been filed about the “Mexican game”, where airlines were selling tickets for so-called direct flights that turned out not to be.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I would now like to turn to Mr. Gooch.

I do not know whether you were here when we heard the testimony from the previous group of witnesses. We briefly touched on the recent events involving Air Transat. Air Transat seems to want to share the responsibility—to put it politely—with the airports. According to Air Transat, a good number of factors put the passengers in the situation they were in because the Ottawa International Airport was not able to respond to unscheduled diversions of flights. Is that the case? Are airports programmed to handle that kind of unexpected happening to any extent?

If we are considering providing passengers with compensation, should we also be considering sharing the responsibility between airlines and airports?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Thank you for that question.

I heard what was said at a meeting with Air Transat last week. Clearly, the situation is really complex. After two days of discussion, I never managed to find out who was responsible for that situation.

I think it's fair to say that the passenger doesn't really want to see a lot of finger pointing, that the passenger wants people to take responsibility.

My sense is that our members from coast to coast strive to positively influence and control the experience of passengers—to the best ability that they can—travelling through their airports, even though they don't necessarily have direct control or influence over a lot of those areas. Certainly what happened was out of the ordinary.

I think it's fair to expect airports to have plans. Major airports do have plans on how they handle irregular operations. I think it's also fair to expect that everybody will communicate and coordinate with each other and strive to do better on an ongoing basis.

I'm not going to speak for the Ottawa airport—I'll let them speak for themselves—but I heard my colleagues there speak to what they had in terms of the buses, the water bottles, and the snacks that were available. A lot of that came from learning from previous experiences.

With airports, airlines, Nav Canada, ground handlers, refuellers, we don't need government to tell us to talk to each other to work better. We do that all the time. When there's an incident like this, everybody gets together and asks, what happened here, where did we drop the ball, and how can we do it better next time?

It was a very unfortunate incident. Certainly aviation is very complex. There are a lot of players involved.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I would now like to turn to the representatives of the two organizations that advocate for passengers in these matters.

In the cases you have been involved in, has it ever happened that airlines have backed out by putting the responsibility on the airport and by refusing to compensate passengers?

[Jacob Charbonneau]

Speaking on behalf of Flight Claim Canada Inc., I can say that the answer is no.

We make sure that the regulations in place are enforced. That is why I said earlier that it would give us additional tools.

We rely on the rules that are in place. The European regulations, in particular, define what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for airlines. In addition, they set out when extraordinary circumstances are applicable and when they are not. Finally, they define what is inherent in the services provided by airlines.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Lukács, earlier, you said that compensation should also be provided for mechanical malfunctions. Did you mean full compensation? We all know what mechanical issues are, and that even when our car leaves the garage, there can be a glitch. If the airline demonstrates that it has followed its maintenance plan to the letter, should it still be responsible for compensation for mechanical malfunctions that it clearly could not have foreseen?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Make it a short answer, please.

[Gábor Lukács]

The answer is yes. The only exceptions are mechanical issues for which a whole model of aircraft is grounded. If a particular model affecting all models across the airline is grounded, that could be extraordinary. Other than that, it's the airline's responsibility to ensure that they have spare aircraft if needed. That has been the case law already in the context of the Montreal convention, actually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukács.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you Madam Chair.

I have a few questions for Mr. Charbonneau with respect to where we're going and how we're getting there.

Your organization has been pushing for more accountability and more clarity for the traveller for quite some time. You wanted uniform, or you've advocated for a uniform compensation regime. How far do you think Bill C-49 has gone? How far are we, and how much more do you think we should do? Do you think C-49 sits nicely now, that it's a good bill, a good piece of legislation; or do you think that we have some more work to do?

[Jacob Charbonneau]

This is a good starting point that encourages some very good ideas. There is still a need to clearly define when the compensation applies, when it does not, and the type. The committee must study this matter and submit clear rules so that the regulations that result are clear as well.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

With respect to the time, you've been at this for a while. You've been advocating and lobbying for an air passenger rights regime for quite some time. In that time frame, first off, why do think it has taken so long? With that said, what did you gather in terms of information throughout that time? Does it exist now? Is it part of the information that you're speaking of?

[Jacob Charbonneau]

I'm not sure I'm getting the question.