New airline compensation guidelines remain murky, critics say

There is still too much leeway.

That’s the assessment of aviation analysts and lawyers following the Canadian Transportation Agency’s revelation a proposed makeover of the Airline Passenger Protection Regulations Tuesday intended to make it more difficult for airlines to avoid compensating passengers if their flights are delayed or cancelled.

“They’re trading a madman for four quarters,” said John Gradek, a former director of Air Canada and head of McGill University’s Global Aviation Leadership Program.

The current APPR, which came into effect in 2019, has three categories of delays and cancellations: delays and cancellations that are the fault of the airline and subject to compensation, types that are the fault of the airline but are necessary for safety reasons, and types that are not the fault of the airline. debt.

The proposed review of the APPR, which follows changes to the Canadian Transportation Act in June, removes those three categories and instead creates an “exceptional circumstances” category. Delays or cancellations that do not fall under the category of exceptional circumstances are eligible for compensation as standard.

The problem, says Gradek, is that the exceptional circumstances are not so exceptional at all.

“They have one category ‘exceptional circumstances’, but there are a lot of technical details. That’s not very enlightening,” Gradek said. “There’s a lot of wiggle room even with the three categories eliminated.”

“We’re kind of in a mess,” said John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Center.

He doubted whether the so-called safety loophole for compensation was really closed.

It has been the bane of many passengers in recent years and has allowed airlines to deny customers compensation for canceled flights or delays of more than three hours if they were “necessary for safety purposes” as stipulated in the Canada Transportation Act.

The proposed amendments remove that safety provision. But Lawford said the list of “exceptional circumstances” partially reverses the move.

“We’re going to list things that qualify as exceptional circumstances — and then list almost everything that was in the previous regime.”

The list of exceptions that exempt airlines from that obligation includes “hidden manufacturing defects” – possibly similar to the mechanical issues often cited by airlines.

“What is a hidden defect? Are we talking about latent and patent defects and getting into all that (things) about product liability law? Lawford asked. Enforcement on that front would also be difficult, he said.

“That is not an exception recognized in Europe,” he added, citing what is sometimes referred to as the gold standard of passenger protection regimes.

However, the list excludes “technical problems inherent in normal aviation operations”.

The transportation agency began 30 days of public consultations on the proposed reforms on Tuesday.

A second round of consultations by the Canadian Transportation Agency will follow a series of draft regulations, which will be published after the initial public consultations conclude on August 10.

The National Airlines Council of Canada, an industry group representing four of the country’s largest airlines, has denounced the potential removal of safety concerns as an exception to compensation requirements.

“No airline should be penalized for complying with the highest safety standards, whether due to weather, mechanical problems or other safety-related restrictions,” council chairman Jeff Morrison said in April.

With files from The Canadian Press

PART: