Legislative mandate

The CTA is mandated to make regulations "respecting the airline’s obligations in the case of tarmac delays over three hours, including the obligation to provide timely information and assistance to passengers, as well as the minimum standards of treatment of passengers that the airline is required to meet".

EU and US rules

The EU's passenger protection regime does not currently include any obligations related to tarmac delays. However, proposed regulatory amendments could require that passengers receive water and access to lavatories after one hour and that adequate heating and cooling be provided in the passenger cabin. In addition, passengers could be allowed to disembark after a delay of five hours.

The US rules require airlines to adopt and adhere to tarmac delay contingency plans. In addition, airlines must not permit an international flight to remain on the tarmac at a US airport for more than four hours, or a domestic flight for more than three hours, without allowing passengers to disembark (subject to safety and security issues or direction from air traffic control).

During a tarmac delay, passengers must be given an update on the situation every 30 minutes, including reasons for the delay, if known, and be notified of the opportunity to disembark from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disembarkation area. Finally, the airline must provide adequate food and water, ensure that lavatories are working and, if necessary, provide medical attention during long tarmac delays.

Public views

The public feels strongly that lengthy tarmac delays are a highly uncomfortable situation for passengers, which should be discouraged. Most feel that 3 hours is too long for a passenger to spend in an aircraft on the tarmac, particularly without basic necessities. Some indicate that:

•  
  Standards of treatment and disembarkation rules should apply after 1 hour to 90 minutes.
•  
  The length of a tarmac delay should be calculated based on the time that passengers are on the tarmac but unable to leave the aircraft.
•  
  Tarmac delays are particularly difficult situations for persons with disabilities and certain types of medical conditions.

In terms of standards of treatment, the vast majority of survey respondents find all forms of possible assistance (i.e., disembarkation, water, food, and access to lavatories, medical attention, proper ventilation, heating and cooling and methods of communication) to be very important when delayed on a tarmac.

Travellers particularly wish to receive regular communication and status updates when confined to the aircraft. Some suggest that updates should be provided to passengers every 15 to 30 minutes or as soon as new information is available.

Consumer advocate views

Generally, consumer advocates agree that three hours is too long for a passenger to be confined on the tarmac, particularly without basic necessities like food, water, and access to lavatories, ventilation, and heating and cooling.

Recommendations as to when a tarmac delay begins vary and include:

•  
  Time the boarding doors have closed;
•  
  Advertised departure time; and
•  
  When boarding has been completed.

Many suggest that minimum standards of treatment should be available earlier than three hours into a tarmac delay (suggestions ranged from one hour to 90 minutes), and that this should include:

•  
  Water, food, and access to lavatories, medical attention (if necessary), proper ventilation, heating and cooling and communication methods.
•  
  Disembarkation at the next safe opportunity, if necessities cannot be provided.
•  
  Regular updates every 15 minutes to 30 minutes.

While consumer advocates agree that airlines should be required to disembark an aircraft after a certain length of tarmac delay, recommendations vary as to when disembarkation should begin:

•  
  No later than 90 minutes
•  
  No later than three hours
•  
  After three hours for domestic flights and after four hours for international flights (in alignment with U.S. disembarkation rule).

One consumer advocacy organization recommends that airlines be required to file a tarmac delay contingency plan with the CTA and that this plan should include provision of basic necessities at all times.

Air industry views

Airlines stress that tarmac delays are actively avoided, as these are costly situations that are uncomfortable to both passengers and crew. They indicate that it is in all parties' best interests for a boarded flight to take off as close to the scheduled time as possible.

Airlines also underscore that lengthy tarmac delays are rare and that most tarmac delays are caused by factors outside of an airline's control, particularly:

•  
  Weather and wind conditions preventing an aircraft from leaving from or arriving on the tarmac.
•  
  Air traffic control (ATC), which can command aircraft to stay on the tarmac in order to manage air traffic and congestion.
•  
  Lack of gate and customs availability upon arrival, which can force an aircraft to wait on the tarmac before disembarking.

It is generally agreed that passengers should be informed of a tarmac delay as soon as possible and regular updates should be provided. Information to be provided could include the reason for delay, expected length of delay, and estimated time to destination, when this information is available.

Most airlines believe the calculation of a tarmac delay should be based on the time passengers are on the tarmac but unable to disembark the aircraft and that the minimum standards of treatment provided to passengers during lengthy tarmac delays should include water, food, functional lavatories, proper ventilation, and heating and cooling. However, some airlines highlighted conditions that would make compliance with these requirements difficult, including systems malfunctions, weather conditions and the reality that small aircraft carry less food and water and, in some cases, have no lavatories.

Airlines generally advise against setting too short or strict a window before disembarkation is required. They state that:

•  
  Pilots have very little control over whether an aircraft can return to the gate. Gate availability (as well as customs availability in some cases) may mean that an aircraft cannot be accommodated.
•  
  In the event departure is imminent, it would be beneficial for both the passengers and the airline if the pilot could exercise discretion and wait to take off, rather than return to the gate.
•  
  Disembarkation would likely cause the passenger further inconvenience and delay, as gate priorities would have to be rescheduled and the disembarked flight could be cancelled.
•  
  Airlines may choose to cancel certain flights in advance and rebook passengers, rather than run the risk of experiencing a tarmac delay. Many airlines and US stakeholders attribute a significant increase in flight cancellations in the US to the implementation of a strict disembarkation rule for tarmac delays.

Legislative mandate

The CTA is mandated to make regulations "respecting the airline’s obligation to facilitate the assignment of seats to children under the age of 14 years in close proximity to a parent, guardian or tutor at no additional cost and to make the airline’s terms and conditions and practices in this respect readily available to passengers".

EU and US rules

Neither jurisdiction has established rules related to the seating of children.

Public views

Members of the public think airlines should be required to have clear guidelines for travelling with infants and/or young children and that there should be a requirement to seat families together at no additional charge, instead of relying on "best efforts". In order to facilitate this, some believe that airlines should proactively inquire whether passengers are children.

In terms of proximity, members of the public feel that it is particularly important to seat young children directly next to their parent or guardian:

•  
  A strong majority of survey respondents felt that children 5 years old and younger should be seated directly adjacent to their parent or guardian.
•  
  A weaker majority of survey respondents believe that children from age 6 to 11 should also be seated directly adjacent to their parent or guardian.
•  
  Survey responses regarding seating proximity for children 12 to 14 years ranged from adjacent seating to seating within three rows of their parent or guardian.

Consumer advocate views

Many consumer advocates agree that airlines should seat children in the seat adjacent to their parent or guardian at no extra charge. A suggestion was also made that, in the case of operational challenges, a child should be separated from their parent or guardian by no more than a row.

Consumer advocates generally believe that seating should be facilitated at the time of booking and some say that where this is not possible, parents or guardians should be able to call the airline to make arrangements in advance.

It is generally agreed that airlines should provide simple, clear and concise information with respect to the seating of children that is readily available on their websites, and at check-in counters, kiosks and the gate.

Air industry views

Many airlines indicate that they already make best efforts to seat children near their parent or guardian (either in advance or at the airport), as this is in everyone's best interest. Some members of the industry are of the view that this is not an area in which government regulation is needed. Concerns regarding regulating this area, include the following:

•  
  Priority seating of children is a complex process that is dependent on timing of bookings, whether child passengers have been identified in booking, differing seat selection processes of airlines, configuration and load factor of the aircraft, preferred seat selection of other passengers, and the number of families booked.
•  
  Many bilateral air agreements between states (e.g., the Canada-US Open Skies Agreement) protect airlines' pricing freedom and requiring that children be seated in proximity to parents at no charge could be interpreted as interfering with this right.
•  
  The legislative language treating individuals aged 14 and under as children, conflicts with International Civil Aviation Organization standards, which consider individuals aged 12 and older as adults for air travel.
•  
  This requirement creates potential for abuse (e.g., family members booking in different classes and expecting upgrades free of charge in order to be seated together).
•  
  The reservation process would be facilitated if airlines were able to collect birthdates of children travelling.

A range of views are expressed by airlines regarding the appropriate seating proximity for child passengers:

•  
  Some indicate that age should be the factor used to determine seating proximity; others recommended general parameters applicable to all child passengers to avoid unnecessary complexity.
•  
  The definition of "close proximity” should allow airlines flexibility to balance families' needs with the rights of other passengers, and commercial and operational factors.
•  
  This should include seats immediately adjacent, in the row in front or behind and across the nearest aisle.

Legislative mandate

The CTA is mandated to make regulations "requiring the airline to establish terms and conditions of carriage with regard to the transportation of musical instruments".

EU AND US RULES

The EU has not established regulations in this area.

The US has established a rule requiring airlines to:

•  
  allow passengers to stow a small musical instrument in the cabin overhead bin or a closet, or under the seats, in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, provided that space is available;
•  
  carry large musical instruments (within weight restrictions) in the cabin if the passenger has purchased an additional seat to accommodate the instrument; and
•  
  accept musical instruments in the cargo compartment as checked baggage if those instruments comply with the FAA's size and weight limitations.

Public and consumer advocate views

Some members of the public and consumer organizations voiced great concern regarding the handling and stowing of musical instruments at airports and on aircraft.

It is generally believed that the transportation of musical instruments should be predictable and reasonable across all airlines and all airports and that airlines should be required to provide passengers with clear guidelines and compensation policies for damaged instruments.

Many say that there should be a standard policy established across all airlines for the transportation of musical instruments, in alignment with the rules established in the US.

Air industry views

Generally, airlines support providing clear policies on the transportation of musical instruments. However, they feel that competition in this area generates the best results and that any further regulation in this area—for example, prescribing policies or service standards—is unnecessary.

Legislative mandate

The CTA is mandated to apply the regulations "in relation to flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights".

However, this new mandate could be informed by a long-standing provision of the Act, which states that the CTA's air-related regulations "may be conditional or unconditional or qualified or unqualified and may be general or restricted to a specific area, person or thing or group or class of person or things." This means that specific requirements established in the air passenger protection regulations could be applied to some rather than all airlines

Eu and US rules

Some passenger protection requirements in the EU and US are differentiated by airline type or apply only to certain classes of airlines. For example, the obligation in the US to have a tarmac delay contingency plan only exists if an airline is "a certificated airline, a commuter airline, or a foreign airline operating to, from or within the United States, conducting scheduled passenger service or public charter service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of 30 or more seats."

Public and consumer advocate views

In order to ensure a consistent and transparent approach and uniform rights for travellers, it is felt that the new regime should apply to all publicly available flights to, from and within Canada. It was also noted that this should include connecting flights, scheduled, non-scheduled and charter flights, and flights under any ownership/partnership arrangements.

Air industry views

Airlines object to the application of the new regime to flights originating outside of Canada. They state that:

•  
  Most regimes in the world apply only to flights departing that jurisdiction.
•  
  Extraterritorial application would create confusion between regimes, duplication and conflicts with local laws.

Most airlines believe that there should be no exemptions to the regime based on airline or aircraft type, in order to ensure a level playing field and a consistent regime. However, airlines acknowledge that this approach may involve greater financial impacts and/or operational difficulties for smaller airlines, ultra low cost airlines and airlines serving remote areas. Some airlines advocated for exemptions to regulations where undue harm to a airline can be proved.

Airlines serving northern and remote areas have advocated for exemptions from some provisions in order to maintain their viability and to take into account their unique operating conditions:

•  
  Significant and unpredictable weather events.
•  
  Locations with limited amenities (e.g., hotels and restaurants).
•  
  Infrastructure limitations at remote airports (e.g., snow clearing services, fuel availability, weather reporting systems, mechanical assistance).
•  
  Flights with multiple legs (serving a number of communities) and related rolling delays.
•  
  Lower flight frequency and fewer alternative airline options for rebooking.
•  
  Public service role in communities (often the sole transportation option, provider of services such medevac and transportation of necessities).

Legislative mandate

The CTA is mandated to make regulations outlining airline obligations with respect to specific issues "in relation to flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights".

Increasingly, airlines partner and cooperate through arrangements like code-sharing, interlining and joint ventures^{Footnote 2} . These arrangements allow one airline to sell an itinerary that includes flights with multiple airlines. These arrangements raise questions as to which airline—the marketing airline, the operating airline, or some combination of the two—should have obligations towards passengers if there are issues with flights.

Montreal convention provisions

Article 36 of the Montreal Convention addresses liability when carriage is performed by various successive air carriers. Each carrier that accepts passengers, baggage or cargo is subject to the rules set out in the Convention. For passenger compensation (for delay, injury, death), action can only be taken against the carrier that performed the carriage during which the incident occurred, unless liability has expressly been assumed by the first carrier. The baggage and cargo provisions make the first and last carriers, as well as the one performing the carriage when the destruction, loss, damage or delay took place, jointly and severally liable to the passenger or to the consignor or consignee.

EU and US rules

In the EU, when there is more than one airline involved in providing the air service, it is the operating airline that is responsible for fulfilling any obligations with respect to the consumer protection regulations.

In the US, the requirements vary. For example, in the case of tarmac delays, if there is a partnership between an airline or multiple airlines, the marketing and the operating airlines are responsible in an enforcement context for complying with the tarmac delay contingency plan, including disembarking passengers on international flights. In the case of lost and damaged baggage, it is the marketing airline that must address any issues.

Public and consumer advocate views

Many recommend that, when a flight involves an arrangement between multiple airlines, both the operating and contracting airline should have responsibility toward the passenger. They indicate that:

•  
  Joint liability would ensure that passengers can seek redress quickly and easily from either party.
•  
  This reflects the fact that the marketing and operating airlines are accountable for different components of the regime.

Air industry views

Many airlines agree that the regulations should apply to operating airlines only, in order to:

•  
  reflect current practices, in which the operating airline is responsible for managing operations on the day of travel;
•  
  reduce confusion as to where claims should be filed; and
•  
  limit the possibility of a passenger making claims to both airlines and receiving twice the compensation to which they are eligible.

However, other airlines indicate that the marketing airline, as the party that contracts for carriage, should be held liable for passenger claims. Marketing airlines are also generally responsible for communication with passengers prior to the day of travel.

Legislative mandate

When the new air passenger protection regulations come into effect, airlines will be required to follow them. Passengers who believe that an airline has not followed its obligations could first raise the issue with the airline and will have the option of filing a complaint with the CTA.

In addition, CTA enforcement officers will take steps to confirm and ensure that airlines comply with the new regulations. It is possible to designate some or all of the provisions of the air passenger protection regulations as subject to Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs), which are an efficient means of dealing with non-compliance.

EU and US rules

The US can issue fines for certain air passenger rules, including those dealing with tarmac delays. The EU rules do not prescribe monetary penalties in relation to its air travel regulations.

Public and consumer advocate views

Travellers want a complaint process that is simple, quick, enforceable, consistent and made clear to passengers.

•  
  There should be a universal complaint form across all airlines and the CTA.
•  
  Airlines should be required to inform passengers that a complaint can be made to the CTA, if the airline has not resolved the situation to a passenger's satisfaction.

Many believe that there should be punitive action (e.g., fines) taken against airlines if they do not comply with the new regulations.

•  
  In particular, the public wishes to see deterrents for misreporting causes of flight disruptions and providing inaccurate information to passengers.
•  
  Consumer advocates suggest that such monetary penalties be clearly defined and that the CTA outline what measures will lead to an AMP.

Air industry views

Industry members indicate that complaints are generally resolved quickly and to the satisfaction of the passengers. Airlines feel that passengers should approach them with a complaint before involving the CTA.

Legislative mandate

Tariffs are documents regulated by the CTA that set out an airline's fares, rates, charges and terms and conditions of carriage. They are the contracts between an airline and its passengers. The requirements set out in the new air passenger protection regulations will be deemed to form part of an airline's tariff, to the extent that the tariff does not provide better terms and conditions.

The CTA has the authority under the Act to establish what information should be contained in a airline's tariff. The current Air Transportation Regulations require that an airline's tariff include terms and conditions stating the airline's policies on certain matters, including failure to operate on the service or schedule, ticket reservation, cancellation, or confirmation requirements, refusal to transport, limitations of liability and refunds.

Currently, an airline's tariff must be publicly available for inspection anywhere an airline sells its transportation services, including its business offices. In addition, international airlines have to file their tariffs with the CTA and keep the tariffs on file up-to-date with respect to prices (fares, rates or charges), subject to the terms of any applicable air transport agreement.

Eu and US rules

The EU has no specific tariff filing requirements. However, the EU requires airlines to communicate to the general public the conditions applicable to any fare and air rate offered or published in any form, including on the internet. In the US, airlines are not required to file their domestic passenger fares and rules with the US Department of Transportation. In many cases, the Department has exempted US and foreign carriers from the statutory requirement to file international passenger fares. Airlines are required, for international travel, to file tariffs containing some "general rules" such as conditions of carriage, baggage allowances and liability. The US also has website posting requirements.

Public and consumer advocate views

Some individuals suggest that airline tariffs should provide clear, concise and simple information. However, consumer advocates suggest that while tariffs should include the air passenger protection provisions, they should not be relied upon as a passenger's primary source of information regarding their rights and terms and conditions of carriage. Instead, it is felt that the air passenger protection regime should ensure that simplified information be made available to passengers separately from the tariff.

Some individuals are of the view that policies on baggage, seat selection and transportation of pets should be addressed within the tariff. Some suggested topics, such as passenger comfort, language of service, aircraft configuration and safety issues, fall outside the scope of tariff requirements.

Air industry views

Many airlines express that tariffs are complex legal documents that are difficult for passengers to navigate; however, it is generally agreed that:

•  
  Passengers should receive key information on an airline's terms and conditions of carriage in plain language separately from an airline's tariff (e.g. on the airlines website, via email).

Some airlines disagree with the tariff approach altogether, stating that it does not add value, align with current industry practices, or keep up with modern developments.

•  
  If the tariff approach is maintained, filing should be done electronically.
•  
  If Canadian airlines are required to file a tariff for international service, the same requirement should apply to international airlines.

Industry members generally find that the topics are currently covered in the tariffs are sufficient.

The CTA appreciates the participation of the public, consumer advocacy groups and the air industry throughout the consultation process. All the input received will be given careful consideration as the CTA develops air passenger protection regulations. Draft regulations will require approval by Agency Members and the Governor in Council, and will be posted for a public comment period in the Canada Gazette.

Once the regulations are in place, the CTA will issue guidance and tools for passengers and airlines, to help ensure that this new regime is implemented smoothly and that passengers are aware of their rights and the recourse available to them.