Decision No. 16-P-A-2012

INTRODUCTION

[1] Steve Newhouse filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) on January 7, 2011, alleging that the fares applied by Jazz Aviation LP, as represented by its general partner, Aviation General Partner Inc. carrying on business as Air Canada Jazz, Jazz, Jazz Air, Thomas Cook Canada (Air Canada Jazz) for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver, British Columbia were unreasonably high, and that Air Canada Jazz was offering an inadequate range of fares on that route.

[2] Mr. Newhouse had also filed a complaint respecting fares applied by Central Mountain Air Ltd. for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver. In Decision No. 316-P-A-2011 dated August 19, 2011, the Agency determined that there were reasonable alternative domestic services to those offered by Central Mountain Air Ltd. The Agency therefore dismissed that complaint.

[3] In Decision No. LET-P-A-66-2011 dated June 16, 2011, the Agency, following a show cause proceeding initiated by Decision No. LET-P-A-35-2011 dated March 18, 2011, determined that Air Canada Jazz was the only air carrier providing a domestic service between Fort St. John and Vancouver on January 7, 2011. Accordingly, the Agency advised the parties that it would investigate Mr. Newhouse’s complaint.

[4] The Agency also identified, on a preliminary basis, the following domestic services as similar to those offered by Air Canada Jazz between Fort St. John and Vancouver:

• Vancouver, British Columbia – Prince Rupert, British Columbia;
• Montréal, Quebec – Sept-Îles, Quebec; and
• Ottawa, Ontario – Moncton, New Brunswick

[5] The Agency granted Air Canada Jazz an opportunity to comment on the Agency’s preliminary analysis respecting the identification of the similar domestic services, and to provide fare data related to the route which is the subject of the complaint and the similar domestic services identified by the Agency effective on January 7, 2009, January 7, 2010 and January 7, 2011.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Who is the respondent in this matter

[6] Air Canada responded to Decision No. LET-P-A-35-2011 on behalf of Air Canada Jazz, explaining that Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz are parties to an Amended and Restated Capacity Purchase Agreement (CPA) under which Air Canada currently purchases the greater part of Air Canada Jazz’s fleet capacity. Air Canada submitted that, under the CPA, it determines, among other matters, the fares relating to flights operated by Air Canada Jazz for Air Canada pursuant to the CPA, and that these flights are conducted under Air Canada’s licence. Based on this information, the Agency finds that the appropriate licensee providing a domestic service on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route is Air Canada.

Whether the complaint is valid

[7] With respect to the allegation of unreasonable fares, Air Canada maintains that in the absence of details relating to Mr. Newhouse’s actual travel plans, including travel periods and fare preferences, it is impossible to identify the fare with which Mr. Newhouse takes issue. Based on the documents on file, the Agency is of the opinion that Mr. Newhouse did not provide evidence to support a complaint with respect to an unreasonable fare as no fare is specifically identified. Therefore, the Agency rejects this part of the complaint on the basis of lack of evidence.

[8] With respect to the allegation of an inadequate range of fares, Air Canada has indicated that the complaint lacks specificity, and should not have been accepted by the Agency as a complaint. Mr. Newhouse submits that the average lowest fare applied by Air Canada for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver is almost double that applied by WestJet and Air Canada for transportation between Grande Prairie, Alberta and Vancouver, even though the distance between Grande Prairie and Vancouver is greater than that between Fort St. John and Vancouver. The Agency is of the opinion that it has jurisdiction to determine if the range of fares offered between Fort St. John and Vancouver was inadequate and that sufficient evidence and facts have been filed for the Agency to consider this aspect of the complaint. As subsection 66(2) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended (CTA) gives the Agency the power to take remedial action where the Agency finds that a licensee is offering an inadequate range of fares, the Agency is of the opinion that it has jurisdiction to review each fare offered by Air Canada for transportation on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route.

[9] Furthermore, the complaint is within the intent of section 66 of the CTA, which is to ensure that travellers on routes on which there is no, or very limited, competition are offered fares which are broadly comparable in level and range to those offered to travellers on competitive routes.

ISSUES

[10] The issues to be addressed are:

1. whether, within the meaning of paragraph 66(3)(b) of the CTA, the domestic services offered on the Vancouver – Prince Rupert, Montréal – Sept-Îles, and Ottawa – Moncton routes are similar to those offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route;
2. whether Air Canada was offering an inadequate range of fares for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver within the meaning of subsection 66(2) of the CTA.

THE LAW

[11] Section 66 of the CTA sets out the Agency’s jurisdiction over complaints concerning fares applied by air carriers in respect of domestic services. Pursuant to subsections 66(1) and (2) of the CTA, the Agency may take certain remedial action following receipt of a complaint where the Agency finds that:

1. the air carrier who published or offered the fare which is the subject of the complaint is a licensee who, including its affiliated licensees, is the only person providing a domestic service between two points; and
2. the fare published or offered by the licensee in respect of the service is unreasonable; and/or
3. the licensee is offering an inadequate range of fares in respect of that service.

[12] Pursuant to subsection 66(4) of the CTA, the Agency’s jurisdiction over complaints concerning fares may be extended to domestic routes served by more than one licensee where the Agency is of the opinion that none of the other services between two points provides a reasonable alternative. In assessing such reasonable alternatives, the Agency takes into consideration the number of stops, the number of seats offered, the frequency of service, the flight connections and the total travel time.

[13] Further, pursuant to subsection 66(3) of the CTA, when determining whether a fare published or offered in respect of a domestic service between two points is unreasonable or that a licensee is offering an inadequate range of fares in respect of a domestic service between two points, the Agency shall consider the following factors:

1. historical data respecting fares applicable to domestic services between the two points;
2. fares applicable to similar domestic services offered by the licensee and one or more other licensees using similar aircraft, including terms and conditions of transportation and the number of seats available at those fares; and
3. any other information that may be provided by the licensee, including information that the licensee provides under section 83 of the CTA.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Section 66 of the CTA

[14] Air Canada maintains that the Agency’s jurisdiction under section 66 of the CTA should be guided by the following principles: (1) Canada’s transportation policy; (2) key principles of economics and competition in the context of the air transport industry; and (3) market realities of the Canadian domestic air transport industry.

[15] With respect to the transportation policy, Air Canada asserts that, in accordance with section 5 of the CTA, which sets out the national transportation policy, the Agency should refrain from exercising its powers under section 66 of the CTA in situations where market forces serve to constrain prices.

[16] Air Canada submits that, in exercising its mandate under section 66 of the CTA, the Agency should be mindful of key principles of economics and competition. In this regard, Air Canada refers to a statement by Professor William Baumol, which has been submitted by Air Canada, and which maintains that:

• suppressing fare differences between routes distorts market signals on the supply side;
• the effect of differences in the competitive characteristics of allegedly competitive routes cannot be suppressed by regulatory fiat;
• it is essential that an incumbent carrier be allowed, if not encouraged, to reduce fares on a particular route in order to compete legitimately; and
• differential pricing in an industry such as air passenger transportation is widespread, and is forced upon air carriers by market pressures because without such pricing, carriers cannot recover their fixed, sunk and common costs.

[17] Air Canada submits that the Agency should also be mindful of the potential negative impact that an inflexible approach to its mandate under section 66 of the CTA could have on Air Canada’s capacity to compete effectively and to serve smaller communities throughout Air Canada’s network. Air Canada also notes that its prices are influenced by other modes of transportation (e.g. car and bus), and that such modes prevent Air Canada from offering unreasonable fares for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver.

[18] Air Canada submits that the Agency must recognize that Air Canada is not obligated to serve any destination in Canada, and will not do so where there is no commercial rationale. Air Canada notes that it has continued to serve many communities which would not have air service but for Air Canada.

Similar domestic services

[19] In Decision No. LET-P-A-66-2011, the Agency states that in making its findings with respect to whether a particular domestic service between two points is similar to the service that is the subject of a section 66 complaint within the meaning of paragraph 66(3)(b) of the CTA, the Agency considers the following factors:

1. whether there are other licensees offering a domestic service between the two points;
2. the type of aircraft used by the licensee which is the subject of the section 66 complaint to operate its service between the two points;
3. the air mileage between the two points; and
4. the origin-destination passenger volume between the two points.

[20] Air Canada submits that in responding to a complaint filed with the Agency (Decision No. 484-P-A-2005 refers), Air Canada noted that the four factors identified by the Agency in determining similar routes, even if appropriately analyzed, were insufficient to determine a similar domestic service. Air Canada states that, instead, the Agency should also consider other relevant factors, including (without limitation) population basis (size of catchment area), total number of flights per day operating out of the airports in question, passenger mix, network contribution and the comparison of the trend of fares on the routes being examined. Air Canada believes that the criteria the Agency has used in its review in the past is insufficient to provide a reasonable determination of “similar” domestic services. However, Air Canada recognizes that the Agency’s decision in response to that complaint rejected this approach.

[21] Air Canada agrees that, on the basis of Decision No. 484-P-A-2005, the domestic services identified by the Agency represent similar domestic services to those offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route.

Range of fares between Fort St. John and Vancouver

[22] Mr. Newhouse maintains that Air Canada was not offering an adequate range of fares for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver because of lack of competition.

[23] Air Canada asserts that, prima facie, the range of fares available on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route should be considered adequate, as it is the same range that Air Canada offers on all other domestic routes in Canada that do not support aircraft with “Business Class” seating. In this regard, Air Canada notes that each of its domestic routes features at least three categories of fares, namely Latitude, Tango Plus and Tango.

[24] In the event that the Agency rejects this argument, Air Canada submits that the Agency should not require that Air Canada offer an identical range of fares on both competitive and non-competitive routes, as to do so would create regulatory uncertainty for carriers, which would ultimately harm consumers. Air Canada further submits that there are legitimate reasons for having lower fares on certain routes, such as consumer behaviour, travel patterns, demographics and market segmentation strategies, market size and seasonality.

[25] Air Canada submits that the fares for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver were almost identical to those offered between Vancouver and Prince Rupert, which is one of the similar domestic services identified by the Agency. Air Canada also submits that the fares on the Vancouver – Prince Rupert route were often higher than those offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route.

[26] Air Canada observes that the difference in level between the highest Latitude fare and the highest Tango fare for transportation on the Montréal – Sept-Îles and Ottawa – Moncton routes was broadly similar to that offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route. Air Canada also notes that the percentage year-over-year increase or decrease in such fares for transportation on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route was generally on par with that offered on the Montréal – Sept-Îles, and Ottawa – Moncton routes, and that, in some cases, the increase was smaller. Air Canada submits that the fare data reveal that the fares offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route have been fairly stable over the past three years and that there has been a significant decline in the highest Tango fare over that period.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[27] In making its findings in respect of the preliminary and fare-related issues raised in the complaint, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings. As well, the Agency has considered information available publicly and to the Agency, in its regulatory capacity, concerning air services provided on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route and the fares published or offered by Air Canada in respect of its service between these two points, including on the Internet, in the Official Airline Guide (OAG), in published flight schedules and in airline tariffs published by the Airline Tariff Publishing Company.

[28] In interpreting section 66 of the CTA, Air Canada suggests that the Agency take into account Professor Baumol’s statement. The Agency is of the opinion that the statement contains no information relevant to the complaint. In fact, it was specifically prepared in response to an unrelated issue that took place more than a decade ago. The statement sets out basic principles in respect of competition and economic analysis concerning regulation of air fares in general. Air Canada does not make any link between the statement and its application to the case, such as the principles applicable to the particular facts of this case. Also, the statement includes an argument on differential pricing, which is not the issue in this case.

[29] Finally, the theoretical arguments in Professor Baumol’s statement do little to elucidate the CTA, which it is the Agency’s duty to administer. Had Parliament accepted the arguments raised here, it might not have worded the CTA in the manner it did. As such arguments are not new to the field of regulatory theory, the Agency must conclude that Parliament had other public purposes in mind. Accordingly, the Agency gives no weight to Professor Baumol’s statement.

Similar domestic services offered by Air Canada and one or more licensees

Issue (i):Whether, within the meaning of paragraph 66(3)(b) of the CTA, the domestic services offered on the Vancouver – Prince Rupert, Montréal – Sept-Îles, and Ottawa – Moncton routes are similar to those offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route.

[30] The Agency, in relating to Air Canada the results of its preliminary analysis, asked Air Canada to comment on the Agency’s selection of the domestic services offered on the Vancouver – Prince Rupert, Montréal – Sept-Îles, and Ottawa – Moncton routes as similar domestic services.

[31] In Decision No. 484-P-A-2005, the Agency found that the inclusion of additional factors in determining what constitutes similar domestic services would either severely limit the domestic services that could possibly meet the more restrictive criteria or conclude that each domestic service offered by a carrier is essentially unique and, therefore, that there are no truly comparable services. The Agency was of the opinion that the four factors it had chosen to consider in analysing similar domestic services represent the basic characteristics of a domestic service taken into consideration by the air travel consumer and provide the Agency with a consistent standard against which all domestic services can be assessed. Accordingly, the Agency was of the opinion, and still is of the opinion, that the above noted factors are appropriate for determining similar domestic services within the meaning of paragraph 66(3)(b) of the CTA.

[32] Consequently, the Agency’s analysis of the range of fares offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route will include a comparison to the fares published by Air Canada for the three routes identified above.

Data respecting fares applicable to domestic services between Fort St. John and Vancouver, Ottawa and Moncton, Montréal and Sept-Îles, and Vancouver and Prince Rupert

Issue (ii): Whether Air Canada was offering an inadequate range of fares for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver within the meaning of subsection 66(2) of the CTA

1. General overview

[33] The Agency analyzed the range of fares offered by Air Canada in respect of its service on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route on January 7, 2011, and compared that range of fares with that offered by Air Canada on its Ottawa – Moncton, Montréal – Sept-Îles and Vancouver – Prince Rupert routes on the basis of the: span of fares, number of fares offered, distribution of discounts off of the Y-class fare, fare booking classes offered, and historical range of fares.

2. Span of fares

[34] The following tables compare the difference between the highest and lowest fare over three years on each route and the difference in relative value between the Fort St. John – Vancouver route and each of the similar domestic routes in terms of fares, revenue generated per kilometre and percentages. The fares are base fares submitted by Air Canada.

January 7, 2009

route	highest fare ($)		lowest fare ($)		highest fare minus lowest fare ($)	difference in the highest fare on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes		difference in the lowest fare on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes		difference in the span of fares on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes
	fare	RPK	fare	RPK	fare	fare	RPK	fare	RPK
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	1,019	1.28	199	0.25	820
Ottawa – Moncton	906	1.52	135	0.23	771	113 (12%)	-0.24 (-19)	64 (47%)	0.02 (9%)	49 (6%)
Montréal – Sept-Îles	911	1.52	234	0.39	677	108 (12%)	-0.24 (-19)	-35 (-18%)	-0.16 (-41)	143 (21%)
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	1,049	1.39	199	0.26	850	-30 (-3%)	0.11 (9%)	0	0.01 (4%)	-30 (-4%)

*RPK = Revenue ($) per kilometre

January 7, 2010

route	highest fare ($)		lowest fare ($)		highest fare minus lowest fare ($)	difference in the highest fare on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes		difference in the lowest fare on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes		difference in the span of fares on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes
	fare	RPK	fare	RPK	fare	fare	RPK	fare	RPK
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	1,095	1.37	149	0.19	946
Ottawa – Moncton	977	1.63	119	0.20	858	118 (12%)	-0.26 (-16%)	30 (25%)	-0.1 (-5%)	88 (10%)
Montréal – Sept-Îles	967	1.62	248	0.41	719	128 (13%)	-0.25 (-15%)	-99 (-40)	-0.22 (-54%)	227 (32%)
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	1,127	1.49	159	0.21	968	-32 (-3%)	-0.12 (-6%)	-10 (-6%)	-0.2 (-10%)	-22 (-2%)

*RPK = Revenue ($) per kilometre

January 7, 2011

route	highest fare ($)		lowest fare ($)		highest fare minus lowest fare ($)	difference in the highest fare on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes		difference in the lowest fare on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes		difference in the span of fares on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route v. similar routes
	fare	RPK	fare	RPK	fare	fare	RPK	fare	RPK
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	1,192	1.49	289	0.36	903
Ottawa – Moncton	1,044	1.75	109	0.18	935	148 (14%)	-0.26 (-15%)	180 (265%)	0.18 (200%)	-32 (-3%)
Montréal – Sept-Îles	1,010	1.69	313	0.52	697	182 (18%)	-20 (-12%)	-24 (-8%)	-0.16 (-31)	206 (30%)
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	1,209	1.60	194	0.26	1,015	-17 (-1%)	-0.11 (-7%)	95 (49%)	0.10 (38%)	-112 (-11%)

*RPK = Revenue ($) per kilometre

[35] The Agency notes that over the period under review, the span of fares applied to transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver vis-à-vis that applied to the similar domestic services remained relatively stable; however, a significant increase in the lowest fare available on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route on January 7, 2011 resulted in a notable difference in the span of fares applied to that route as compared to that applied to the similar domestic services offered on the Ottawa – Moncton and Vancouver – Prince Rupert routes. Generally, the span of fares applied to transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver was narrower than that applied to the similar domestic services.

[36] The Agency notes that the highest fare offered for transportation on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route was generally higher than the highest fare offered for transportation on the Ottawa – Moncton and Montréal – Sept-Îles routes, but lower than the highest fare offered for transportation on the Vancouver – Prince Rupert route, both in actual terms and revenue generated per kilometre.

[37] The Agency further notes that for all of the years under review, the difference in the highest fares offered for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver, specifically on the basis of revenue generated per kilometre, compares favourably to that offered between Vancouver and Prince Rupert, but not to that offered between Ottawa and Moncton and between Montréal and Sept-Îles.

[38] There were no significant changes in the difference between the highest and lowest fares offered from year-to-year among the routes under review; however, it is noted that the difference in the highest and lowest fares offered for transportation on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route between January 7, 2010 and January 7, 2011 decreased by 5 percent, whereas the difference in the highest and lowest fares offered for transportation on the Vancouver – Prince Rupert and Ottawa – Moncton routes increased between these two dates. It is further noted that, on January 7, 2011, the decrease in fares on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route was less than that on the Montréal – Sept-Îles route.

[39] The lowest fare offered on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route compared favourably to that offered on the Vancouver – Prince Rupert route on January 7, 2009 and January 7, 2010, and to that offered on the Montréal – Sept-Îles route on January 7, 2011.

3. Number of fares

[40] The following table compares the total number of fares offered by Air Canada on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route and each of the similar domestic routes on January 7 of each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.

route	January 7, 2009 number of fares	January 7, 2010 number of fares	January 7, 2011 number of fares
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	16	28	26
Ottawa – Moncton	20	32	31
Montréal – Sept-Îles	14	15	16
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	16	28	26

[41] As is evident, the number of fares offered by Air Canada for transportation on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route did not vary significantly from that offered on the similar domestic routes, except for the Montréal – Sept-Îles route.

4. Distribution of discounts off of the Y-class fare

[42] The following table compares the percentage of discounts off of the highest Latitude fare (Y-class fare) applied by Air Canada on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route and each of the similar domestic routes.

	January 7, 2009		January 7, 2010		January 7, 2011
	highest discount off highest Y fare (%)	lowest discount off highest Y fare (%)	highest discount off highest Y fare (%)	lowest discount off highest Y fare (%)	highest discount off highest Y fare (%)	lowest discount off highest Y fare (%)
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	80	5	86	1	76	2
Ottawa – Moncton	85	4	88	2	90	2
Montréal – Sept-Îles	74	8	74	6	69	5
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	81	5	86	1	84	2

[43] This table reveals that, from year-to-year, the distribution of discounts off of the Y-class fare, in terms of both the highest and lowest discounts, was fairly consistent on each route under review. Further, the discounts available on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route were comparable to those which were available on the similar domestic routes.

5. Fare booking classes

[44] In each of the years under review, Air Canada offered three categories of fares: Latitude, Tango Plus and Tango. The tables below show the number of classes of fares offered on January 7, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

January 7, 2009

route	number of classes in Latitude	number of classes in Tango Plus	number of classes in Tango
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	2	7	7
Ottawa – Moncton	2	9	9
Montréal – Sept-Îles	2	6	6
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	2	7	7

January 7, 2010

route	number of classes in Latitude	number of classes in Tango Plus	number of classes in Tango
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	4	15	9
Ottawa – Moncton	4	17	11
Montréal – Sept-Îles	2	8	5
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	4	15	9

January 7, 2011

route	number of classes in Latitude	number of classes in Tango Plus	number of classes in Tango
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	4	15	7
Ottawa – Moncton	4	17
Montréal – Sept-Îles	2	9	5
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	4	15	7

[45] The Agency observes that on many of the routes under review, the number of classes of fares offered each year under each category on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route was comparable to that offered on the similar domestic routes.

[46] The terms and conditions of transportation associated with each fare category were similar, except for the periods of travel.

6. Historical range of fares

[47] The following table sets out the change in percentage in the highest and lowest fares offered by Air Canada on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route and each of the similar domestic routes on January 7, 2009 and January 7, 2011.

	January 7, 2009		January 7, 2011		2009 v. 2011
route	highest fare ($)	lowest fare ($)	highest fare ($)	lowest fare ($)	change in highest fare (%)	change in lowest fare (%)
Fort St. John – Vancouver (section 66 route)	1,019	199	1,192	289	17%	45%
Ottawa – Moncton	906	135	1,044	109	15%	-19%
Montréal – Sept-Îles	911	234	1,010	313	11%	48%
Vancouver – Prince Rupert	1,049	199	1,209	194	15%	-3%

[48] A comparison of the range of fares offered by Air Canada for transportation on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route and the fares available on the similar domestic routes reveals that, in respect of the highest and lowest fares offered on each route, some fares were higher and others were lower. For example, on January 7, 2009, the highest fare offered for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver was $30 lower than that between Vancouver and Prince Rupert and $107 higher than that between Montréal and Sept-Îles. On January 7, 2011, the lowest fare offered for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver was $24 lower than that between Montréal and Sept-Îles and $180 higher than that between Ottawa and Moncton.

[49] The percentage change in the highest fare offered on January 7, 2009 and January 7, 2011 was comparable for each of the routes under review. However, the difference in the percentage change in the lowest fares offered on the routes under review was pronounced. The change on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route was similar to that on the Montréal – Sept-Îles route, but much higher than that on the Ottawa – Moncton and Vancouver – Prince Rupert routes.

7. Summary

[50] Generally, the difference in the span of fares offered from yeartoyear on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route was not notably different from that offered on the similar domestic routes.

[51] The number of fares offered by Air Canada for transportation on the Fort St. John – Vancouver route was comparable those offered on the similar domestic routes.

[52] The distribution of discounts off of the Y-class fare was fairly consistent on all of the routes under review.

[53] Air Canada offered three major categories of fares, namely Latitude, Tango Plus and Tango, on all of the routes under review, and the number of classes of fares offered under each category for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver was comparable to that available for transportation on many of the similar domestic services.

[54] The percentage change in the highest fare from January 7, 2009 to January 7, 2011 for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver was similar to that for transportation on the other routes under review; the percentage change in the lowest fare for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver was similar to that for transportation between Montréal and Sept-Îles, but not for transportation between Ottawa and Moncton and between Vancouver and Prince Rupert.

CONCLUSION

[55] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that there is no conclusive evidence to support the allegation that, on January 7, 2011, Air Canada was offering an inadequate range of fares for transportation between Fort St. John and Vancouver within the meaning of subsection 66(2) of the CTA.

[56] Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.