Transport Committee on Sept. 14th, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

I'll continue with the musicians, but before I do, Monsieur Aubin, I'm a musician as well. I've been playing the bagpipes for about 25 years or so. Perhaps if you and I travel together we can pay for one ticket and I'll store you in the overhead container.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm curious. One of the things that caught my attention, of course, was the fact that when musicians travel, they're not always travelling for leisure. There's an enormous economic contribution from arts and culture in Canada. Has anyone ever done an assessment on the economic impact of musicians' inability to travel when they do run into issues like this?

[Allistair Elliott]

Not that I'm aware of.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That was easy.

Ms. Schutzman, you were in the middle of a response. If you wanted to take this opportunity...?

[Francine Schutzman, President, Local 180, Musicians Association of Ottawa-Gatineau, Canadian Federation of Musicians]

I just wanted to say that if people who own large instruments know in advance that they will not be able to transport their instrument, they can purchase, for some instruments, a kind of case that will let them check the instrument. If you've been told that you can carry your instrument on board, and then you don't have that case with you, that's when an instrument can be damaged.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It seems that you guys might be singing the same tune—no pun intended—as some of the other witnesses. If there really was enhanced transparency, and you knew what the deal was before you made the deal, that would solve both of these problems?

[Allistair Elliott]

I believe it would.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay. That's helpful.

Just bouncing around here, a number of the other witnesses discussed the importance of ensuring that the fines only pertain to what's within the airline's control. I think the minister this morning was fairly clear that this was his intention as well. Is there something in the language of the proposed Bill C-49 that has you concerned that this will not be the case?

Mr. Lavin, go ahead.

[Douglas Lavin]

The language itself is not a concern, but as Mr. McKenna said, it's in the details of what the regulation will say. Let me give you an example of the concern. What is meant by “control”? We talked about such things as there being a snowstorm, or maybe no gates because of a snowstorm. That would be seen, and I think anybody would agree, as something not within the airline's control. What about a mechanical issue where the airline said that a part needed to be fixed, and a passenger challenged them that they could have fixed that part some other time, or that it should be investigated as to why that part was broken in the first place?

In the U.K., for example, in Europe, the courts decided that they had.... In Europe they use the standard of extraordinary circumstances—i.e., that they don't fine an airline for delays if there are extraordinary circumstances. A court interpreting that in the U.K. decided that a very major thunderstorm was not an extraordinary circumstance because the airline should have anticipated thunderstorms in July. Again, with tarmac delays, with all the different things, the definition of it has to be quite subjective. As a result, we don't have certainty, which causes confusion for airlines and passengers alike.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

How can we achieve that level of certainty? I'm thinking of a weather delay. Nobody is going to blame the weather on an airline, but if the airline made decisions to cut costs along the way and wasn't equipped to deal with the weather that we ordinarily expect, I think that rightfully falls within the intent of the legislation. How do we thread the needle on this one?

[Douglas Lavin]

I'm not sure if you can, and that's the challenge I have with, for example, a three-hour tarmac delay. I think it's important to recognize the experience of the U.S., for example, in implementing three-hour tarmac delays. If you say that after three hours it's a delay, that means that really it's a two-hour tarmac delay, because the airline will be turning back to the gate within two hours. How do you explain that to...? Think about an international flight. You're sitting on the tarmac at two hours and you want to take off to go to Europe. The next flight is 24 hours later. You're told, “We need to turn back now, because we could be subject to a tarmac delay.”

We believe that the airlines are perfectly incented on tarmac delays. It's a wasted asset out on the runway. If it's within their control, they'll do whatever they possibly can to get back. I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule for that reason. As well, defining “control” is very difficult.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

Mr. McKenna, you mentioned that you're not necessarily opposed to foreign ownership but have some reservations, and that reciprocity would be a nice feature if that were possible. What's the rest of the world doing on foreign ownership? I'm thinking of the U.S., the U.K., the EU. What are the rules on foreign ownership in other countries?

[John McKenna]

I don't have the answer to all of those.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Perhaps I asked the wrong group. IATA possibly would know this.

[John McKenna]

Yes. I'm sure that the U.S. is not quite open to it.

I'll let my colleague answer that.

[Douglas Lavin]

The U.S. isn't open to it yet. The EU has provided for, in the U.S.-EU agreement, relaxation on ownership.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Only between the U.S. and the EU?

[Douglas Lavin]

Yes, that is correct. I'm not sure in terms of others. I'm just familiar with the U.S.-EU one.

IATA generally is in favour of airlines being treated just like any other companies. On this issue in particular, and I'm sure you've had this expression in your Parliament, we have friends on both sides on this issue, and we are voting with our friends. But generally I would say that airlines being treated like other businesses is what we're looking for.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You mentioned threading the needle, Mr. Lavin. I agree. That's definitely the case. We find ourselves as parliamentarians staring down issues that come along. An airline hasn't behaved well and people are demanding that something be done. They don't look to you. They look to us. There was that poor family that ended up being bumped from the flight, delayed a day, and then dinged another $4,000 to get on the plane they had already actually booked a flight on. That's the sort of lack of judgment that brings down the wrath of the public on us. The heat gets transferred. You can understand that heat.

We have to look at two things here. There are two key words: judgment and expectation. You say that passengers should have a clear expectation when they buy a ticket. If I look at somebody's tariff, and it says that they'll fly you to Toronto for $95, but your luggage will end up in Whitehorse, I'm still not going to buy that.

If we look at the logical sequence of the transaction, I buy a ticket with the expectation that I'm going to get on the plane I booked and that I'm going to end up at my destination with the stuff that's travelling with me. We can understand some delays along the way, because things can happen. I mentioned the other day sitting on the tarmac in Kelowna waiting for them to fix a safety problem. Take your time, guys. I don't want to go up there if I can't get back down safely.

What about the person who has a connecting flight. I'm okay. I'm getting to where I live. I have no problem, but what about the connecting flight? Isn't there a reasonable expectation, if people sequence a trip, that they're going to be able to make those connections? Would you not agree that there should be some compensation for the person who has to stay over a night and incur extra expense?

[Douglas Lavin]

You've raised a number of issues. First of all, I'll say I don't envy the job of a politician and don't pretend to be one. I understand that you get hit on these issues.

I think it's important to stress that these are very irregular operations, and they're called irregular operations for a reason, because there are fewer delays, there are fewer cancellations. The bags are being delivered where they're supposed to be delivered.

You mentioned the safety issue. I don't think you're suggesting that if there's a safety issue, we should be overriding the safety issue to make sure people make their connection. Safety is number one in our book.

What I'm suggesting is that, yes, there are circumstances that are unacceptable. The question is whether regulation addresses those circumstances.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

When your members don't, then regulations have to. You're certainly not going to create an unsafe situation by taking off, but let's face it, you're responsible for the aircraft, its maintenance, etc. In this case, the aircraft wasn't airworthy for a period of time. What do you do? What would you suggest as a principle of good customer service in what happened to the people who missed their connections?

[Douglas Lavin]

Any airline that's a competitive airline does its best to accommodate passengers in those situations.