Decision No. 24-A-1997

January 30, 1997

File No. 4370/A74/96

---

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 1996, Mr. Brendan Sullivan filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) with respect to Air Canada's non-provision of supervision to his child who was travelling as an unaccompanied minor. Mr. Sullivan expressed his view that this incident involved a violation by Air Canada of its tariff and that the carrier's flight crew had demonstrated irresponsible and incompetent behaviour. Mr. Sullivan therefore requested that the Agency investigate this incident and undertake a complete audit of the Unaccompanied Minor program offered by Air Canada.

POSITION OF MR. SULLIVAN

Mr. Sullivan states that on August 8, 1996 his 11-year-old son travelled with Air Canada as an Unaccompanied Minor (UM) from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Calgary, Alberta. Mr. Sullivan states that when he booked his son's ticket, he requested and paid $30.00 for the Unaccompanied Minor service to ensure the safety and security of his child and was, at that time, assured by the carrier's agent that the child would always be in the care and custody of an airline official. A "Request for Carriage - Unaccompanied Minor" form was completed and Mr. Sullivan's brother was identified on this form as the person who would meet the child in Calgary. Mr. Sullivan states that he was shocked to learn that his son deplaned in Calgary and was left wandering the airport for 50 minutes before being located although he was carrying with him the necessary documentation including a large card with the letters "UM" on his chest and around his neck.

Mr. Sullivan contacted Air Canada's Customer Service regarding this matter and asked for an investigation of what had happened. Mr. Sullivan was informed by Air Canada that this incident was the result of a miscommunication. The carrier explained that there was a flight crew change in Halifax on his son's flight and that the new flight crew was not informed that his son was travelling as an Unaccompanied Minor.

REPLY OF AIR CANADA

Air Canada apologizes for the lapse in service provided. The carrier states that it does take these situations very seriously and recognizes the importance surrounding children travelling alone. It further states that it has established procedures to ensure that an unaccompanied child is in the care of a member of its staff throughout the entire voyage, that the members of its staff are required to carry out their duties with efficiency at all times and that its agents are fully trained and are aware of the accountability when dealing with unaccompanied children. Air Canada states that a copy of Mr. Sullivan's letter was forwarded to the Manager, Customer Service at both the Halifax and Calgary airports for a thorough internal review and for the taking of necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

The carrier further explains that because the new flight crew in Halifax was not informed of the unaccompanied minor on board, additional and personalized instructions were not provided on this leg of the flight other than the general announcement on the public address system to stay on board until an agent escorted him from the plane. Unfortunately, when the airport agent arrived to accompany the child to the baggage claim area, the child had already left the aircraft.

The carrier acknowledges that its Manager, Customer Service met with Mr. Sullivan's brother and wife at the airport, offered apologies, an explanation for what happened and a refund for the service which was not provided. In addition, the carrier provides, as a gesture of goodwill, a travel voucher of $100.00 and, on a personal note, forwarded a small gift to the child.

The carrier provided the Agency with a copy of Rule 50 (Acceptance of Children) and Rule 8000 (Children's Fares) contained in its domestic tariff.

RESPONSE OF MR. SULLIVAN

Mr. Sullivan indicates that he is not satisfied with Air Canada's response that this incident was the result of a communication problem and requests that this be clarified and explained. Mr. Sullivan questions the public announcement made for his son to stay on the aircraft since the carrier had earlier stated that its crew was not advised in Halifax that Mr. Sullivan's son was an unaccompanied child. Mr. Sullivan also questions how the carrier's crew did not identify his son as an unaccompanied minor, particularly as he was wearing a large card with the letters "UM" around his neck, and why an immediate search was not conducted to find his son.

FURTHER SUBMISSIONS

The Agency has reviewed Air Canada's response and the tariff provisions provided and has noted some inconsistencies. The carrier stated that it has established procedures to ensure that an unaccompanied child is in the care of a member of carrier staff through the entire voyage. However, while Rule 50 (B) of its domestic tariff provides for the acceptance of unaccompanied children, Rule 50 (D) provides that "No carrier will assume any financial or guardianship responsibilities for unaccompanied children beyond those applicable to an adult passenger". Furthermore, Rule 8000 of its tariff provides for a mandatory charge of $30.00 for service provided to accompany unaccompanied children. Additionally, the Agency notes that the "Request for Carriage - Unaccompanied Minor" form, a copy of which was provided by Mr. Sullivan with his complaint, states "...in all cases the unaccompanied minor will be in the custody of an airline representative."

By letter dated December 13, 1996, the Agency requested Air Canada to provide it with an explanation as to which provision prevails in terms of Air Canada's responsibility for guardianship for unaccompanied minors. Furthermore, Air Canada was requested to advise why the terms and conditions as found on the "Request for Carriage" form are not found in Rule 8000.

Section 29 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 (hereinafter the CTA), requires that the Agency make its decision in any proceeding before it no later than one hundred and twenty days after receipt of the originating documents, and in view of the additional information required, the Agency sought the agreement of the parties to an extension of 30 days in which to render its decision. Both parties agreed to the Agency's request for an extension of time to render its decision.

In a letter dated December 24, 1996, Air Canada states that in order to clarify its intent in terms of responsibility for guardianship for unaccompanied minors, it will amend Rules 8000 and 50 of its tariff. It submits that Rule 8000 will be amended to reflect the following notes:

• Note 1: A mandatory charge will be applied for service provided to accompany children 5-11 years old and when requested for minors 12-17 years old. The charge is assessed from the child's boarding point to the point of stopover or destination.
• Note 2: For the purpose of this rule, the above service means that AC will provide supervision for the child from the time of boarding until the child is met at the stopover point or destination.
• Note 3: The age limits referred to in this rule shall be those in effect on the date of commencement of carriage.

The carrier also submits that Rule 50 would be amended by copying the above from Rule 8000 to Rule 50(C). Furthermore, Rule 50(D) would be clarified to indicate that, with the exception of service provided to unaccompanied minors under Rule 50(C), Air Canada will not assume any financial or guardianship responsibilities for unaccompanied children beyond those applicable to an adult passenger.

In a subsequent letter dated December 31, 1996, Air Canada clarified its statement regarding onboard announcements. It submits that it is standard procedure that an onboard announcement is made over the cabin public announcement system advising customers requiring assistance to remain onboard until an agent escorts them from the plane. Customers are not identified by name and it regrets that the child did not hear the announcement and that, unfortunately, the "UM" tag was not noticed as he left the aircraft among other passengers. The carrier reiterates that it has taken this matter quite seriously and apologizes for the poor impression left with the Sullivan family.

ANALYSIS

The Agency is the legislative authority responsible for the economic regulation of air carriers. The role of the Agency is to ensure that the provisions of the CTA and the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (hereinafter the ATR), made thereunder are adhered to and respected by persons and companies engaged in air transportation. Pursuant to subparagraph 107(1)(n)(ii) of the ATR, a carrier's tariff shall contain the terms and conditions of carriage, clearly stating the air carrier's policy in respect of, among others, the acceptance of children.

In this regard, the Agency finds that Air Canada's tariff did not provide complete and consistent information on the carrier's policy and terms and conditions of transportation of unaccompanied children. The Agency therefore finds that Air Canada contravened subparagraph 107(1)(n)(ii) of the ATR, but in view of the corrective measures taken by the carrier to amend its tariff, no further action is contemplated by the Agency.

The Agency further notes that Air Canada's Tariff Rule 8000 (Children's Fares), paragraph 3(a) (Unaccompanied Children), reads, in part:

Children under 12 years of age not accompanied in the same compartment by a passenger at least 12 years of age or over are accepted for transportation only under the following conditions:

unaccompanied children 2-4 years old...not accepted

unaccompanied children 5-11 years old...applicable adult fare

unaccompanied minors 12-17 years old...applicable adult fare

NOTE: A mandatory charge will be applied for service provided to accompany children 5-11 years old and when requested for minors 12-17 years old, when the trip consists of one or more connections between: ...

The Agency notes that the carrier accepted payment for the service and that the service was not provided on the Halifax/Calgary leg of the journey, as acknowledged by the carrier, and that the carrier has reimbursed Mr. Sullivan for the service paid for and not provided. The Agency is of the opinion that in failing to provide this service, Air Canada failed to meet the terms and conditions of its published tariff.

In addition, and in light of Air Canada's request to its Manager, Customer Service at both the Halifax and Calgary airports for an internal review and necessary action to prevent recurrence of similar situations, Air Canada is asked to provide the Agency with a report on what corrective measures have in fact been taken.

The Agency finds this contravention a serious matter and expresses its concern with Air Canada's failure to abide by its tariff provisions. Any continued failure by Air Canada to abide by this particular tariff provision will require the Agency to consider other action.

CONCLUSION

The Agency finds that in this instance Air Canada did contravene subparagraph 107(1)(n)(ii) of the ATR and Rule 8000 of its domestic tariff. In view of the amendments made by the carrier to its tariff, the Agency contemplates no further action, in this regard.

However, Air Canada is directed to provide to the Agency, within 30 days from the date of this Decision, a report on what corrective measures have been taken to prevent a similar situation from recurring.