Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

[Andrew Gibbons]

You know, the best way to put this is that our obligations to our guests extend beyond what government regulations may or may not be that day. In a market economy, that's probably the way it should be, and it's probably the way everyone wants it to be. It is administratively burdensome; it is operationally difficult to comply with. This is definitely true with the accordion that we've seen throughout the COVID period around restrictions and what have you. That's why one of the four recommendations that we've put before you today is just to say that we actually haven't had a period of stability to assess them during a regular period of time with relative stability in the sector.

As an organization, we take a lot of pride in this, Mr. Strahl. We take a lot of pride in our guest service over the last 26 years. While we are obligated to comply, while we respect the fact that we have to comply, and while we take it incredibly seriously, it's not the start and finish of our relationship with our guests.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Last week, we heard from some airline passenger rights advocates who indicated that the airlines were—and Mr. Morrison referenced it just now—using the safety.... They wanted the ability to cite safety to be completely removed from the APPR altogether. I talked about my.... Obviously, the airports I use most frequently are Vancouver International and Ottawa International. Those are regions serving three million-plus people and a million people respectively.

If you have, for instance, a pilot who is sick or someone who is over time because of delays—I would assume it's relatively easy to get staff—how do you deal with that? The example that was used was about a pilot calling in sick to a remote airport or a less busy airport where you have fewer staff. How do you deal with staffing issues to the point that you can foresee someone's falling ill or...? What do you believe WestJet's obligation should be to have crews on standby or ready to fill in should an unexpected absence occur?

[Andrew Gibbons]

Sure. I can start off on that one.

There has been some.... I don't want to say misreporting, but there was an incident at the Regina airport where we had a first officer call in sick an hour before their flight, Mr. Strahl, and that might be the incident you're referring to. It was remarked in the media and by some members of the committee that we were challenging whether or not we had any obligations. That is categorically false. In that instance, what we have is a disagreement over the way this is defined and what the category should be. The way we categorized the flight was safety, and the passenger was given a hotel voucher and food vouchers and was placed on the next direct flight the next day.

The question and the disagreement we have with the agency is whether or not that should be a controllable crew delay or a safety delay. Under their ruling, it's $1,000 to that guest, so that's a legitimate discussion and disagreement over what the requirement should be. However, just note that it wouldn't be anyone's reasonable expectation that we have a supply of first officers in Regina waiting to be called. That's not good business practice. No one would advise us to have that. Again, it's back to these issues of balances, and it's back to what the original APPR introduced were supposed to capture and not capture.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Morrison, I see that pen.

[Jeff Morrison]

Yes. I have two very quick points.

The first is on your point about safety. To be clear, safety, as you can imagine, is non-negotiable for airlines. That is an absolute line that will not be crossed in any way, shape or form. Of course, safety is, in part, regulatory. There are dozens and dozens of safety regulations and they are, in part, the call of pilots, which is how it should be, given certain circumstances.

As I've said in my remarks, to suggest that somehow safety is being used as an excuse to avoid...or as a cause for disruption, it is not an excuse. It's a legitimate regulatory function that airlines must pursue.

The second very quick point is that on the case of staff or pilots who call in sick, for example, contingency planning is something that airlines do on a daily basis. It's a very sophisticated function of what they have to do if crews or pilots call in sick or have some issue. However, as Mr. Gibbons said, it's not always possible, especially when we had a COVID period when pilots were sick. I think we can all agree we would not have wanted them going into work.

If you are in a small remote area, for example, getting a replacement crew can be difficult. There are certain logistical challenges. Some are associated with geography.

Again, safety is a non-negotiable function for airlines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison.

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

Next we have Mr. Rogers. The floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome again to our guests. Mr. Gibbons seems to be a frequent visitor to this committee.

[Andrew Gibbons]

I'm a frequent flyer.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

I've seen you a number of times over the years. It's always good to see you.

Of course, we all know there have been turbulent times that we could describe as extremely challenging for airlines, for travellers and so on. We often hear some of our constituents complain and talk about how they've been ignored by airlines, or given information that they don't consider necessarily accurate.

For Mr. Gibbons, when airlines claim that flights are delayed or cancelled due to circumstances beyond their control, how is the accuracy or veracity of these claims verified?

[Andrew Gibbons]

That's a great question.

First of all, for our guests, we've done our very best helping your constituents and other constituents with these issues. We had a major challenge with our contact centre some time ago. We were very transparent and public that our service at our contact centre did not meet the expectations that Canadians have of our company. We weren't afraid to say that. The good news is that we made that better, but we know how difficult it was for guests for a certain amount of time to reach us. It was unacceptable.

With respect to who verifies it, that's a great question. The CTA investigated a series of flights. I believe it was 560 flights. They found not one instance of an airline deliberately miscoding a flight. Of course, human error can occur, but I would encourage you to look at those investigation reports.

This goes to the questions that Dr. Lewis had earlier. There was not one instance of a deliberate miscode of a flight. That is how it's verified. There is a process. I can tell you the CTA is not shy about seeking information about why we coded something this way or that way, and what the basis for it was.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Morrison, I guess I'll put this question to you first.

What should happen in instances where multiple and contradictory claims are made about the reasons for a delay, cancellation or lost luggage?

[Jeff Morrison]

Thank you for the question.

I've been in the role for only a month, so I hope that at some point, I can get my frequent flyer card from this committee.

What we said earlier in terms of the best way to address the APPR framework is to ensure that we can minimize the number of people who have to use it in the first place. That means improving the overall system.

When there are disruptions, having a much more transparent and accountable system whereby each of the players and each of the organizations within that ecosystem is transparent, public and accountable for the various actions would go a long way toward verifying claims and verifying causes of disruptions. Right now, that data sharing, shared accountability and shared measurement are not in place. If they were, we could have a much more verifiable system which ensures that, again, we're able to better understand the causes of the disruptions in the first place.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Gibbons, did you want to comment on that?

[Andrew Gibbons]

I was struck by the CTA testimony, which said there were 1,700 complaints in the last fiscal year before COVID and 5,800 in August.

Knock on wood, the challenges we've had have been legitimately unprecedented. It is legitimately confusing. I don't know if there's a regulatory environment or set of regulations that could have captured how complicated these delays and cancellations are. It's going to take some time to root through that. On any given evening during the operational crisis of the spring and summer, your delay or cancel could have been from the customs hall, our own baggage, or any of these things. There is a point to be made that it is legitimately complicated.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons.

I can't pass up the opportunity to ask you this question, even though it digresses a little bit. WestJet has been a great airline. Your employees have been great people. I've flown with them a number of times. What are your long-term plans for eastern Canada, in particular Atlantic Canada?

[Andrew Gibbons]

In central and eastern Canada...it depends on where you are. My colleagues call this the “east”. We're in Ottawa and I think it's central Canada.

For Atlantic Canada specifically, we are transitioning our investments from a more traditional hub and spoke, regional flying and a varied mix of flights, to what we describe as more east-west and more north-south. Our investments in Atlantic Canada are changing and evolving. Some of the regional services and some of the Q400 flights that many of the constituencies and provinces have relied on are going to change. Our investment mix will look different.

That transition will take some time. We've already made some of these announcements and decisions. It is part of a broader transition in the region coming out of COVID.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Hopefully, in the long term it's going to be positive news for Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada really relied on WestJet for providing some service to many of the hubs in the region.

[Andrew Gibbons]

We hope so, too. We really value all of our guests in Atlantic Canada and our relationship with communities. A lot of these decisions have been difficult. We fully recognize that.

As part of that transition that we're making, we are always open to any discussions. I actually met with a delegation from Newfoundland and Labrador just last week to discuss this. Our commitment is to be there and have those discussions.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.

Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll begin with Mr. Gibbons.

I really liked a point you made earlier. You said that there was an audit by the Canadian Transportation Agency to determine if there was proper categorization when flights were cancelled or delayed, for example. It appears that there was no miscategorization of any of the 500 flights that were audited. So generally speaking, there seems to be a good categorization when flights are affected by cancellation, change or delay. Perhaps I'll ask Mr. Morrison about this later.

Furthermore, it was mentioned earlier that it is estimated that only one passenger out of 5,000 will file a complaint and take action with the CTA.

Wouldn't it make sense that if compensation is offered to a passenger on a flight as a result of a particular situation, such as misclassification or misinterpretation, that this compensation be extended to all passengers on the flight, systematically?

[Andrew Gibbons]

Thank you for the question.

There are a few elements to this.

The first is the nature of our business. If you take the 6 a.m. flight from Ottawa to Toronto, it's not like a Via Rail train where every single guest has bought that ticket from Ottawa Union to Toronto Union and has the same journey. On our flight from Ottawa to Toronto at 6 a.m., 10 people are going to the Middle East, or 10 are going to the Carribean. A guest is not a guest is not a guest on the flight.

There's a reason why the regime is based on individual travellers. It's because individual traveller journeys are unique. They should have an individual right to plead their case and provide their perspective on it. We, equally, should have that obligation.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I understand your answer, but I still wonder. For example, if a flight was cancelled due to weather or for safety reasons, all passengers on the flight were subject to the same conditions. So in a lot of cases, it could be generalized to all passengers.

[Andrew Gibbons]

It could be. Yes. The APPR is designed as a minimum standard of treatment. But you're a different traveller from Mr. Bachrach. An acceptable guest relations solution for Mr. Bachrach might not be the same as it is for you. That's the beauty of commercial aviation. There's that competitive dynamic, and it includes a competitive dynamic when it comes to compensation and amelioration.

[Jeff Morrison]

As another example, let's say your flight is delayed or cancelled. You were coming to Ottawa, but another person on that same flight was going to Winnipeg, for example. Part of the APPR, part of the good customer service that airlines will do, is work with the individual passenger to accommodate. If there is an available flight immediately to Winnipeg but there is not an immediate flight to Ottawa, the two have two different circumstances, and therefore the blanket approach that I believe you're speaking to would not necessarily work in that case.

There's also the importance of due diligence. It's why we have a uniquely Canadian approach via the CTA. That due diligence is at the cornerstone of that.