Decision No. 230-A-2016

Air Canada has applied to the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) for a review of 80-A-2016">Decision No. 80-A-2016.

INTRODUCTION

80-A-2016">Decision No. 80-A-2016 varied Agency 301-A-2015">Decision No. 301-A-2015 by removing the limitation to specific countries, which made the approval to Air Canada for the use of aircraft with flight crew provided by rouge LP applicable to all of Air Canada’s licensed routes.

ISSUE

Has there been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the Decision since it was issued that would warrant a review, rescission or variance of the Decision?

POSITION OF AIR CANADA

In its application for a review of 80-A-2016">Decision No. 80-A-2016, Air Canada requests that the last paragraph of the Decision read as follows (varied text is underlined):

The Agency approves the use by Air Canada of aircraft with flight crew provided by rouge LP, and the provision by rouge LP of such aircraft and flight crew to Air Canada, to permit Air Canada to provide its scheduled international services on all routes for which it holds a license, and to provide its international air service on a scheduled basis between Canada and Grenada, using aircraft with flight crew provided by rouge LP, for an indefinite period.

Air Canada states that it is regularly required to submit proof to foreign authorities that rouge LP is authorized to operate routes for which Air Canada holds a license. Air Canada submits that the Decision as currently worded is not sufficiently clear for these purposes, as it may create confusion as to which countries are covered by the Decision. The variation is thus requested in order to avoid future requests for clarification.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Pursuant to section 32 of the CTA, the Agency may review, rescind or vary any decision or order made by it or may re-hear any application before deciding it if, in the opinion of the Agency, since the decision or order or the hearing of the application, there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the decision, order or hearing.

The review process contemplated by section 32 of the CTA is not an open-ended authority for the Agency to review its decisions, nor is it an appeal mechanism. The Agency’s jurisdiction under this section is limited and only arises if there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the decision.

The burden of proof rests with Air Canada to provide the Agency with some substance and explanation demonstrating that there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the Decision, and to explain how the change would affect the outcome.

The approval granted in 80-A-2016">Decision No. 80-A-2016 permits Air Canada to use aircraft with flight crew provided by rouge LP and permits rouge LP to provide aircraft and flight crew to Air Canada for the operation of Air Canada’s scheduled international air services on licensed routes as well as Air Canada’s international services on a scheduled basis between Canada and Grenada.

CONCLUSION

In considering the reasons presented by Air Canada, the Agency finds that they do not constitute a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the Decision, nor does the proposed change alter the outcome of the Decision.

Based on the above findings, the Agency dismisses Air Canada’s application for a review of 80-A-2016">Decision No. 80-A-2016.