Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

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

Gentlemen, I appreciate your answers. In fact, there is one aspect of your opening remarks that we particularly agree on, namely the sharing of responsibility when a flight is cancelled or when there are problems related to government services and established standards.

However, we were told that, from the point of view of the consumer or user, there is often only one interface, and that is the airline they bought their ticket from. They'll turn to the airline if there's a problem. It would be complicated for the consumer to determine whether it's the government's fault, the airline's fault, or whoever. We were told that the interface a person should generally use is the airlines. It should be up to the airline to turn to the government, when the government is to blame, to offer compensation afterwards.

Wouldn't it be simpler to work this way?

As you mentioned, the rules are complex. We've heard from the Canadian Transportation Agency that the cases are complex, that the rules are complex, and we've heard the same thing from the Consumer Protection Agency. Everyone agrees that the rules are very complex.

Wouldn't it be better to simplify the rules for the consumer, who has trouble navigating them? So, if there were grounds for compensation, we would stop looking at who is at fault, the airlines would always offer compensation to the consumer, and then they would apply to the government for compensation when necessary.

[Andrew Gibbons]

Respectfully, I don't think an answer for simplification is to also make airlines responsible for managing an APPR framework and relationships with all of the government agencies.

We've heard from members of this committee. You are asking that your constituents get very clear information about why their flight was delayed or cancelled. We agree with you. We think they should have that precise information. Sometimes that precise information could be because the customs hall was full, or because Nav Canada had a ground delay. I think maybe a starting point is to recommend to the minister that he come back to the committee with some framework options so that at minimum there are service standards that have to be met.

When we talk about our employees, again, respectfully, when there's a delay or cancellation in our system where Pearson airport comes to a halt, there is a WestJet counter. There is no CBSA counter. There is no Nav Canada counter. Everyone ends up speaking to a WestJetter, confronting a WestJetter and asking a WestJetter for compensation, for a voucher.

We're simply saying that we agree with the minister—there is no one person to blame—but how do we appropriately capture all that? I would respectfully say that it is not to have airlines do everything we do now and that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Morrison.

I want to make sure I understood you correctly. If Mr. Barsalou-Duval and I are on the same flight and he gets compensation, you're going to provide me with compensation as well, right?

[Jeff Morrison]

What you will receive is the same service from airlines to ensure that you will ultimately get to where you want to go, which of course is the purpose of the flight.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Now, airlines have the ability to award passengers compensation under the APPR without the passenger complaining to the CTA. Has this ever occurred, to your knowledge, since the APPR has come into effect?

[Andrew Gibbons]

I want to make sure I understand your question. Have we compensated guests regardless of whether they've spoken to the regulator?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The APPR lays out compensation for delays. If it's more than three hours, it's a certain amount of money. If it's more than nine hours, it's a certain amount of money—$1,000. Has WestJet compensated passengers in accordance with the APPR without passengers having to go to the CTA and file a complaint?

[Andrew Gibbons]

Yes, of course, and it's our preference that we do that on our own accord and not have a guest need to go to the CTA. The answer is, yes, absolutely we have.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Morrison, is that the case for other airlines that you represent?

[Jeff Morrison]

Airlines do not always divulge their practices, so we can't confirm that.

What I can confirm for you—to go onto a slightly different tangent, because this was discussed at the prior session—is that when you talk about the CTA complaint process, as we said, 97% are addressed through facilitation. Just by way of numbers, in 2021-22, 3,825 were processed by facilitation, 148 by mediation, 124 by adjudication and zero by arbitration. It is for a very, very small percentage that a more formal adjudication process is required. It is, for the most part as was stated earlier, a fairly congenial situation.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm going to move on to a slightly different topic.

In the EU, when a pilot is sick, the passenger gets compensation. It's not an extraordinary circumstance under the EU regulations. Why should it be different in Canada, or should it be?

[Jeff Morrison]

Thank you for the question. It's a good question and one we've thought about.

When the minister of the day first introduced APPR, he made very clear that the framework was meant to be very fair and balanced. There is a certain balance required. In Canada, unlike the EU of course, we have a very unique Canadian institution, the CTA, that adjudicates complaints.

There are also, as Mr. Gibbons mentioned in his opening statement, some very, very different geographical population differences between Canada and the EU. Winnipeg gets a lot more snow days than London or Paris does, for example. Being able to fly an alternate pilot from London to Paris is much simpler than it is from, say, Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Vancouver. There are some very different circumstances between the EU and Canadian regulations and environments, on which the two aren't necessarily aligned.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It seems as though at the heart of this issue is the APPR's distinction between matters that are within an airline's control and matters that lie outside an airline's control. However, if you read the Canada Transportation Act, it actually provides three categories: within an airline's control, within an airline's control but required for safety, and outside an airline's control.

It's been suggested at previous meetings that the legislation be simplified to have two categories: inside an airline's control and outside an airline's control.

Would you support that approach if the CTA and Transport Canada provided specific guidance on what issues fall into those two categories?

[Andrew Gibbons]

I think the guidance is the important part there, as well as some certainty around what the regulators' rulings would or would not be. As I cited earlier, there was a ruling that we disagreed with and that we believe is contrary to the original intent of APPR.

Therefore, the short answer is that it depends. If it benefited the Canadian traveller and gave them more certainty and didn't unfairly penalize airlines, then that's something we'd be open to. Those are the principles that guide us. Would it benefit the Canadian traveller? Would it inform them properly about why they were delayed or cancelled? Would it make the system as strong as possible so we wouldn't have to be at the transport committee talking about delays and backlogs?

If it met those objectives, it's something we'd strongly consider.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I guess the issue here, really, is that we want to ensure, obviously, that safety is never compromised, that every flight that takes off is safe to fly and that passengers are treated fairly.

I think the challenge here, if I understand this whole issue correctly, is that there is this vague, grey area in the middle, things that airlines suggest are due to safety reasons. It would seem to me, as a member of the flying public, that most things related to airplanes also relate to safety. It's amazing that we're able to fly the way we do.

How do we strike the right balance? It seems as though currently a lot of things, such as crew shortages and other issues, seem to be within an airline's control. Maintenance would be another one. I'm trying to think of a maintenance-related or mechanical-related issue that would lie outside an airline's control. Perhaps you could offer some examples of mechanical issues outside of your control.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Could you give a 15-second response, please?

[Andrew Gibbons]

I think the answer to your question is in the recommendations we've proposed.

Mr. Bachrach, you're asking questions about the system that's in place to govern how airlines code or don't code, and where we pay and where we don't pay. Nothing exists for any other consumer-facing activity in Canada the way it does for airlines.

I respect them all—they're all wonderful partners—but no one else in the commercial aviation system that provides a service has one obligation that's even similar. We can work on imperfections around the existing APPR, coding and whether airlines should do this or that, but at the end of the day we are alone in that obligation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Gibbons, and thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Next we have Mr. Lewis.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both the witnesses this afternoon.

It's interesting testimony.

First and foremost, Mr. Gibbons, I just want to say thank you for celebrating your labour force—your team. To me, it is pretty awesome that you recognize that they are first and foremost. I'm quite sure it's not just WestJet—it could be any one of our airlines. Congratulations on that front.

To that extent, sir, what specifically is WestJet doing to support them?

To take it a step further, what more could the government be doing to help support WestJet to get more labour into the force?

[Andrew Gibbons]

Thank you very much for the question.

Thank you for complimenting WestJetters. They are great.

In terms of what the government can do, I think that was part of the testimony last time I was here, which mainly focused on a stable operating environment. That exists in a couple of different ways.

Definitely there's a COVID border travel guidance discussion to have—and credit to the minister. Last week he did ask for feedback in this regard in terms of what lessons we can learn from COVID. We do need to thank him for making that an issue of the summit. He could have chosen not to do that, but he didn't and good feedback was received, I hope.

We need a stable operating environment, so that people want to work in our sector, want to come to work for our company, want to serve Canadians and are not worried about up and down regulations or other issues. I think that's going to go a long way to labour stability.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. I appreciate that. It's good feedback.

I'm going to switch gears here.

Last Thursday, I went to the Ottawa airport. I will not name the airline. The long story short is I took a taxi, I sat there for two and a half hours and then found out my flight was delayed. It said the reason was flight schedule realignment because of earlier weather conditions. Then it had an asterisk with the category of “uncontrollable event”.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Morrison, you had spoken about safety before. Would this be considered a safety event?

[Jeff Morrison]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before answering that, I also want to acknowledge the workforce of all of the airlines in the country. They have done exceptional work in the most incredibly difficult circumstances. I just want to thank you for acknowledging that.

I can't speak to the particulars of any specific incident. What I can say is that weather delays, of course, have a safety element related to them, but ultimately those decisions are up to the pilots and to the individual airlines.

As I said in my opening statement, the cancellation of a flight is the last resort. It is only used if the pilots and decision-makers are feeling that there is a safety concern. In no way, shape or form do they do it lightly.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

I'm just down to my last minute and fifty seconds here.

To take that one step further, about three weeks ago the exact same thing happened. I went to the Ottawa airport and I was sent back home. Thank goodness I've got an apartment here in Ottawa, so I've got a place to stay.

I was re-booked on the next morning's flight at seven o'clock. That flight got cancelled. Then I was re-booked at three o'clock in the afternoon. That flight got me to Toronto. My Toronto flight was cancelled. I jumped on an Uber and I drove to Windsor.

I believe it was you, sir, who said there's a responsibility for the airlines to re-book you within 48 hours. Does my 48 hours start again with that second re-booking? Does it start again with my third re-booking? On my fourth, does it start again or is it from the very first time that my flight was delayed?

[Jeff Morrison]

Mr. Lewis, I would have to verify that with the regulators to be clear on that.

The 48 hours is the maximum time provided for in the regulations. The vast majority of the cases are nowhere near that. We talked about the fantastic work that airline crews have been doing over the past two years. They will endeavour to put you on the next flight available.

We do apologize for the incidents that you suffered, but in most cases that next available flight will be much shorter than the 48-hour window provided for.