Decision No. 307-P-A-2001

June 7, 2001

File No. M4370/A74/01-400

---

COMPLAINT

On March 5, 2001, Astrid Levelt (hereinafter the complainant) filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the complaint set out in the title.

The complainant submits that the economy fare of $2,161.36 US offered by Air Canada for round-trip travel between Vancouver and Toronto is $700 higher than the round-trip fare for travel between Vancouver and New York via Toronto. She further submits that she found these fares, which include taxes and applicable charges, while conducting research on the Internet using the Travelocity.com website on March 5, 2001, for travel departing on March 19, 2001 and returning on March 21, 2001. She further submits that it is the lack of competition in Canada that is dramatically impacting "our ability to travel". The complainant also submits that it is less costly to fly round-trip from Vancouver to Toronto with connections at Seattle and New York, than directly from Vancouver to Toronto.

ISSUES

The issues to be addressed are:

1. whether Air Canada including its affiliated licensees (hereinafter Air Canada) was the only person providing a domestic service between Vancouver and Toronto within the meaning of section 66 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 (hereinafter the CTA) on March 5, 2001; and, if so,
2. whether the fare offered or published by Air Canada in respect of its service between Vancouver and Toronto, which is the subject of the complaint, was unreasonable.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Section 66 of the CTA sets out the Agency's jurisdiction over complaints concerning fares applied by air carriers for domestic services. Pursuant to subsection 66(1) 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, including affiliated licensees, who is "the only person providing a domestic service between two points"; and
2. the fare offered or published by the licensee in respect of the service is unreasonable.

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 those two points provides a reasonable alternative "taking into consideration the number of stops, the number of seats offered, the frequency of service, the flight connections and the total travel time".

In making its findings, the Agency has carefully reviewed and considered the complaint as well as information available both publicly and within the Agency concerning air services provided between Vancouver and Toronto, including the Official Airline Guide, the Internet, and published flight schedules.

Based on this information, the Agency is of the opinion that, on March 5, 2001, in addition to being served by Air Canada, the Vancouver-Toronto route was served by Royal Aviation Inc. carrying on business as Royal and/or Conifair (hereinafter Royal), Air Transat A.T. Inc. carrying on business as Air Transat (hereinafter Air Transat) and Canada 3000 Airlines Limited (hereinafter Canada 3000).

From the information available to the Agency, Air Canada's service between Vancouver and Toronto during the week of March 5, 2001 consisted of:

• approximately ninety-one direct, non-stop flights per week;
• service every day of the week;
• a total weekly capacity of approximately 17,689 seats;
• large aircraft, as defined in the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (hereinafter the ATR), utilized on all flights; and
• a total travel time from Vancouver to Toronto of approximately four hours and twenty minutes.

Available information also indicates that Royal's service between Vancouver and Toronto during the week of March 5, 2001 consisted of:

• approximately two direct, non-stop flights per week;
• service available on Monday and Wednesday;
• a total weekly capacity of approximately 477 seats;
• large aircraft, as defined in the ATR, utilized on all flights; and
• a total travel time from Vancouver to Toronto of approximately four hours and twenty minutes.

Available information also indicates that Air Transat's service between Vancouver and Toronto during the week of March 5, 2001 consisted of:

• approximately four direct, non-stop flights per week;
• service available Monday through Thursday;
• a total weekly capacity of approximately 925 seats;
• large aircraft, as defined in the ATR, utilized on all flights; and
• a total travel time from Vancouver to Toronto of approximately four hours and twenty minutes.

Available information also indicates that Canada 3000's service between Vancouver and Toronto during the week of March 5, 2001 consisted of:

• eight flights per week: five direct, non-stop flights and three direct flights with one stop;
• service available Monday through Saturday;
• a total weekly capacity of approximately 1,662 seats;
• large aircraft, as defined in the ATR, utilized on all flights; and
• a total travel time from Vancouver to Toronto of approximately four hours and twenty minutes for non-stop flights, and a total travel time of approximately five hours and forty-five minutes for flights with one stop.

The Agency has carefully examined and analysed the services provided by all the carriers between Vancouver and Toronto during the week of March 5, 2001; on the basis of the factors set out in subsection 66(4) of the CTA, both individually and collectively, the Agency is of the opinion that the services offered by Royal, Air Transat, and Canada 3000 were not as extensive as the one provided by Air Canada. However, taken together, these services provided travellers with an alternative service to that offered by Air Canada which was not unreasonable.

The Agency has therefore determined that Air Canada was not the only person providing a domestic service between Vancouver and Toronto within the meaning of section 66 of the CTA on March 5, 2001.

Accordingly, the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of section 66 of the CTA.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, the Agency hereby dismisses the complaint.