Private Members Bill C-541 - An Act to Extend Certain Rights to Air Travellers
Private Members Bill C-541 seeks to serve as a Canadian counterpart to regulations initiated in the European Union in 2004 that dictate compensation and care in the event of flight delays, cancellations or denied boarding. Like the European rule, the Canadian bill also would enshrine protections for passengers with mobility challenges.
At the time of their introduction, the EU rules were seen as the most onerous and punitive passenger rights requirements anywhere in the world. Europe’s air carriers at the time described them as “deeply flawed, and potentially very damaging not only to their business, but also to the relationship with their customers.”
Meanwhile, there also have been several attempts at the state and federal levels in the U.S. to institute passenger rights legislation, but none have been successful.
While the Canadian bill may be fashioned after the European rules, however it is more onerous with which to comply, overly punitive and impractical in Canada’s very unique operating environment. Therefore, if C-541 were allowed to pass, Canada would surpass the EU in burdening air carriers with passenger obligations. In particular, tarmac delays and inform requirements specific to individual flights are not dealt with in the EU regulation.
Passage of C-541 would directly add costs to air carriers that would have to be passed on to consumers. This move would come at a time during which Canada’s air carriers already are suffering from the economic downturn and in an operating environment already facing competitive challenges because of Canada’s fiscal policies toward aviation.
As drafted, there simply are too many flaws for C-541 to be salvaged, and it should be defeated.
Applicability of delay/cancellation compensation requirements do not take into account the unique nature of air operations in Canada
Limiting an exemption for weather to airport closures is far too limited. There are plenty of delays caused by weather in which an airport is not closed. In fact, airport closings usually only occur due to lightning strike dangers.
There doesn't appear to be a weather exemption for delays or for right of care requirements.
There are no other circumstances that would be considered as an exemption. A strike impacting flights at any organization in the aviation supply chain, political instability in a foreign country, a security threat – none of these would exempt the carrier from the requirements of C-310.
The requirements do not take into account the complex environment in which air carriers operate.
A one hour limit for tarmac delays is a bit too onerous, in light of subsection (d) which dictates the point at which passengers have the right to get off the aircraft. Many aircraft delays on the ground occur because the aircraft is in line for departure. Perhaps for this reason, the EU regulation does not deal with tarmac delays.
If an aircraft is in line-up for departure on a taxiway, it will not be possible to offload passengers without completely disrupting the aircraft flow at an airport.
Applicability is unbalanced and favours foreign air carriers.
The bill would apply to Canadian carriers operating abroad. Congestion problems in other markets, such as the U.S. for example, are out of the control of the Canadian components of the aviation supply chain.
The act applies only to “Canadian air carriers” and “operations of all air carriers that take place in Canada.” This would appear to capture foreign originating flights operated by Canadian air carriers, but only Canada-originating flights operated by foreign air carriers. In addition to confusing passengers, this would impose penalties on Canadian air carriers not faced by their competitors on some of the very same routes.
Several requirements would be difficult to comply with, require expensive capital upgrades or result in other “unintended consequences”
The requirement for air carriers to provide an explanation in writing to passengers in the case of a cancellation is impractical. Gates only have printers fitted to print boarding passes. The requirement for an explanation in writing would require the installation of new printers, which could cost millions. Perhaps for this reason, the EU regulation does not require situation-specific notifications.
Airline personnel are not always in a position to inform passengers of the nature of their delays in a timely manner due to the multiple parties involved, ever-changing weather and operational conditions, the workload of staff in their operations centers, and a host of other complications associated with operating a complex airline network. Perhaps for this reason, the EU regulation does not require situation-specific notifications.
The language around "burden of proof" for weather delays is vague. This could end up in requirements on airports to support airline contentions that a delay is due to weather.
Quite intensive “right to information” requirements associated with specific passenger or flight delays and misplaced baggage would be unprecedented and place undue strain on airport and operations staff. Perhaps for this reason, the EU regulation does not require situation-specific notifications.
There could be significant extra costs associated with aircraft returning to a terminal gate multiple times more than they ordinarily would due to the one hour restriction on ground time. It is unclear as to which entities would be burdened with these extra costs. Perhaps for this reason, the EU regulation does not deal with tarmac delays and New York legislation (deemed outside the state’s jurisdiction by federal courts) outlined a limit of three hours.
The legislation refers to “check-in counters.” It is entirely possible that check-in counters will not even exist in several years time. This legislation could have the perverse impact of preventing airports or air carriers from removing check-in counters when they are no longer needed for operational reasons in order to comply with the legislation.
Government has no place in interfering with voluntary arrangements between carriers and their passengers or the circumstances governing the carriage of airline employees travelling on business or pleasure
In the case of a denial of boarding, if a passenger voluntarily gives up their seat, the compensation should be what is agreed to by the carrier and the passenger and no more. The government has no business getting involved in the arrangements to which both a passenger and air carrier voluntarily agree.
Air carriers must be able to demonstrate to the travelling public how much taxes and fees are added to the cost of their ticket through government fiscal policy.
This law would appear to apply to airline employees and their friends/family travelling for pleasure free of charge, or even those airline employees travelling on business for their company.
The legislation contains text flaws.
There is no such thing as the "Canada Transportation Agency." It should say the "Canadian Transportation Agency.”
In the English text, the short title of the act is defined as the “Air Passengers’ Bill of Rights” however the notice required in 18 (1) refers passengers to consult their rights for compensation under the “Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights.”
