Decision No. 38-AT-C-A-2021

May 21, 2021

APPLICATION by Omur Taskin against Air Canada and Türk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi (Turkish Airlines Inc.) [Turkish Airlines] pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, SC 1996, c 10 (CTA), regarding his disability-related needs and subsection 110(4) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58 (ATR), regarding change of equipment.

Case number: 
19-07823

SUMMARY

[1] Omur Taskin filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) against Air Canada and Turkish Airlines for their refusal to rebook him free of charge on flights with full-flat or full bed seating (also referred to as fully reclining), as well as for an inbound flight delay, which caused a flight misconnection resulting in him being reprotected on a flight without full-flat seats. He submits that he has back problems and specifically booked in business class for his travels between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Antalya, Turkey, in order to have fully reclining seats.

[2] Mr. Taskin seeks a new business class ticket for the same route or a full refund of his ticket as compensation for the carriers’ alleged failure to provide appropriate seating and the discomfort he experienced from the resulting exacerbation of his back problems.

[3] The Agency will address the following issues:

  1. Did Turkish Airlines properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. TK-1 Containing Local and Joint Rules, Fares and Charges on Behalf of Turk Hava Yollaru, Anonim Ortakligi (Turkish Airlines, Inc.) c/o/b as Turkish Airlines Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage between Points in United States/Canada and Points in Areas 1/2, NTA(A) No. 530 (Tariff), as required by subsection 110(4) of the ATR?
  2. Is Mr. Taskin a person with a disability for the purpose of Part V of the CTA?
  3. If so, did Mr. Taskin encounter an obstacle to his mobility?

[4] For the reasons set out below, the Agency dismisses the application, specifically:

  1. the portion of the application filed pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the ATR, based on its finding that Turkish Airlines properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff; and
  2. the portion of the application filed pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA, based on its finding that it has not been established that Mr. Taskin had a disability at the time of travel, for the purposes of Part V of the CTA, nor that he made the carriers aware that he booked fully reclining seats as an accommodation for any disability-related needs.

BACKGROUND

[5] Mr. Taskin purchased a business class ticket, issued by Turkish Airlines, to travel between Vancouver and Antalya, via Toronto, Ontario, and Istanbul, Turkey, departing March 27, 2019, and returning May 20, 2019. Certain flight segments were operated by Air Canada.

[6] On February 1, 2019, Mr. Taskin noticed that his scheduled flight from Vancouver to Toronto was to be operated by Air Canada on an Airbus A321 aircraft, which does not have fully reclining seats. Mr. Taskin first contacted Air Canada, which referred him to Turkish Airlines, the marketing carrier. He then contacted Turkish Airlines, which advised him that he would be charged a EUR 600 fee and any applicable fare difference to be moved to the next available flight equipped with fully reclining seats. Mr. Taskin declined to change his outbound itinerary.

[7] On May 20, 2019, Mr. Taskin’s flight from Istanbul to Toronto was delayed, which caused him to miss his connecting flight from Toronto to Vancouver. Mr. Taskin asked to be rebooked on a flight with fully reclining seating, which would have required him to stay overnight in Toronto. Turkish Airlines agreed to provide him with that rebooking option, but would not pay for his hotel accommodation for the night. Mr. Taskin was ultimately rebooked on the next available flight operated by Air Canada from Toronto to Vancouver, a flight that did not have fully reclining seats in business class.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Late submissions and documents filed outside of pleadings

[8] Both Turkish Airlines and Mr. Taskin filed a series of documents after the pleadings process had closed; however, neither party objected to these filings.

[9] Specifically, the filings were as follows:

- an affidavit of the translator filed by Turkish Airlines on September 15, 2020, to accompany a document provided with its answer;

- a notice from Turkish Airlines, also filed on September 15, 2020, requesting that Mr. Taskin respond to written questions and produce
  documents in relation to allegations he made in his reply;

- Mr. Taskin’s response to the notice, filed on September 30, 2020; and

- three emails from Mr. Taskin, dated September 17 and September 30, 2020, and a document filed by Turkish Airlines on September 29,
  2020, referred to as a supplement to its answer.

[10] While the first three documents were filed late, after the close of pleadings, they were not accompanied by requests under section 30 of the Canadian Transportation Agency Rules (Dispute Proceedings and Certain Rules Applicable to All Proceedings), SOR/2014-104 (Rules) for an extension of time. The filing of the remaining documents is not provided for in the Rules. Although requests to file them can be made under section 34 of the Rules, no request was made in relation to these documents.

[11] In Air Canada v Marley Greenglass and Canadian Transportation Agency,2014 FCA 288, the Federal Court of Appeal indicated that common sense should prevail with the acceptance of submissions and advised against being too rigid in the acceptance of such documents.

[12] The Agency notes that in these documents: Turkish Airlines and Mr. Taskin agreed on the accuracy of Turkish Airlines’ translation of some of the documents; Turkish Airlines asked for more information about allegations that were made for the first time in Mr. Taskin’s reply; and, Mr. Taskin responded by confirming that he did not keep records of the dates and times of the calls that he made to Turkish Airlines. In the interest of providing a more efficient process and because the documents submitted by the parties between September 15 and September 30, 2020, are relevant, may assist the Agency in making its decision and will not cause prejudice to any party if they are accepted onto the record, the Agency accepts the documents pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Rules.

Air Canada’s request to dismiss

[13] Air Canada argues that the application is fundamentally flawed and should be dismissed on a preliminary basis pursuant to section 42 of the Rules. It claims that it should not be a party to the dispute as Mr. Taskin purchased his ticket with Turkish Airlines via a travel agency. Air Canada also claims that an application filed pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA is not the appropriate procedure in the circumstances because Mr. Taskin’s complaint relates to his reservation and is not an accessibility issue. If its request is denied, Air Canada asks for the opportunity to submit additional comments about the application of the tariff.

[14] Mr. Taskin agrees that Air Canada was not involved in the delay of the return flight from Istanbul to Toronto on May 20, 2019. However, he submits that the type of aircraft Air Canada used for the outbound flight from Vancouver to Toronto was a downgrade from what he had booked and what was indicated on his itinerary. Mr. Taskin argues that he was entitled to travel on the type of aircraft he had paid for.

[15] Turkish Airlines did not respond to Air Canada’s request for a dismissal of the application.

[16] Although Air Canada argues that the application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it is fundamentally flawed, the Agency finds that Air Canada has not demonstrated that the application contains a fundamental defect—such as a jurisdictional issue or an abuse of process—that would warrant dismissing Mr. Taskin’s claim rather than considering it on the merits. Therefore, the Agency denies Air Canada’s request to dismiss the case pursuant to section 42 of the Rules.

[17] The Agency notes that Air Canada filed its request to dismiss the application on the day its answer was due, despite being provided 30 business days to file its answer. The Agency encourages Air Canada to file any procedural requests as early as possible following receipt of the application.

Request for reward mileage

[18] Mr. Taskin seeks reward program mileage credits as compensation for discomfort that exacerbated his back problem. The Agency has no jurisdiction to order the payment of compensation for pain, suffering or loss of enjoyment regarding events that took place before the Accessible Canada Act, SC 2019, c 10, came into force on July 11, 2019. Likewise, paragraph 113.1(b) of the ATR empowers the Agency to order compensation for certain expenses incurred by passengers in matters involving international air services but does not empower the Agency to award general damages in the form of mileage credits. Accordingly, the Agency will not consider this matter.

THE LAW

(A) Application pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the ATR

[19] Subsection 110(4) of the ATR requires that an air carrier operating an international service apply the terms and conditions of carriage set out in its tariff.

[20] If the Agency finds that an air carrier has failed to properly apply its tariff, section 113.1 of the ATR empowers the Agency to direct the carrier to:

(a)  take the corrective measures that the Agency considers appropriate; and

(b)  pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by its failure to apply the fares, rates, charges or terms and
      conditions set out in the tariff.

[21] The relevant provisions of the Tariff are set out in the Appendix.

(B) Application pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA

[22] The application was filed pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA, which, at the time of the incident, read as follows:

The Agency may, on application, inquire into a matter in relation to which a regulation could be made under subsection 170(1), regardless of whether such a regulation has been made, in order to determine whether there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities.

[23] As set out in the letter that opened pleadings on this application, the Agency determines whether there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of a person with a disability using a two-part approach:

[24] Part 1: The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that:

- they have a disability, for the purposes of Part V of the CTA;

and

- they faced an obstacle. An obstacle is a rule, policy, practice, or physical structure that has the effect of denying a person with a disability
  equal access to services that are normally available to other users of the federal transportation network.

[25] Part 2: If it is determined that the applicant has a disability and faced an obstacle, the onus shifts to the respondent to either:

- explain, taking into account any proposals from the applicant, how it proposes to remove the obstacle through a general modification to a
   rule, policy, practice, technology, physical structure, or anything else constituting an obstacle, or, if a general modification is not feasible,
   an individual accommodation measure;

or

- demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that it cannot remove the obstacle without experiencing undue hardship.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Mr. Taskin

[26] The applicant states that, due to back problems, he specifically booked business class tickets for his return travel between Vancouver and Antalya to ensure that he would have fully reclining seating.

[27] Mr. Taskin claims that he noticed on February 1, 2019, that he would not have a fully reclining seat on one of his scheduled flights, namely Turkish Airlines Flight No. TK 9137 from Vancouver to Toronto, operated by Air Canada on an A321 aircraft. He states that he contacted Air Canada and requested to be moved to the next available flight equipped with full-flat seats.

[28] Mr. Taskin claims that he informed Air Canada of his health problems and of his refusal to be rebooked on the alternate flight that did not have fully reclining seats when he called “customer care”. He claims that if he did not have back problems, he would not have insisted on changing flights. However, Air Canada indicated it could not help him and referred him to Turkish Airlines.

[29] Mr. Taskin indicates that he contacted Turkish Airlines directly and was informed that there would be a EUR 600 fee for such a change. He declined this option and took his originally scheduled flight with no fully reclining seat.

[30] Mr. Taskin states that, on May 20, 2019, his flight from Istanbul to Toronto was delayed, which caused him to miss his connecting flight from Toronto to Vancouver. Mr. Taskin acknowledges that Turkish Airlines compensated him for this delay.

[31] Mr. Taskin says that he informed Turkish Airlines of his back problems and asked the carrier to rebook him on a flight to Vancouver with fully reclining seating, indicating that he was prepared to wait until the following day in order to obtain that type of seating. He was rebooked on a flight from Toronto to Vancouver scheduled for the same day. The new flight, operated by Air Canada, did not have fully reclining seats in business class.

[32] Mr. Taskin argues that Air Canada’s A321 aircraft, on which he travelled on both flights between Vancouver and Toronto, was a downgrade from the Boeing 777 aircraft indicated on his booked itinerary. He submits that he was entitled to travel on the type of aircraft he had paid for and that he paid a premium to do so. He further argues that advertisements for “lying seats” on Air Canada’s website prove that these seats are “special (and more expensive)”.

[33] Mr. Taskin maintains that his complaint is not about his back problems and he questions the relevance of mentioning his back problems to the carriers, indicating that he is not asking for compensation for his health problem, which is not caused by, but exacerbated after a long waiting period and travel in a seat different than what he bought. Rather, he seeks compensation for the difficulties he experienced as a result of the carriers’ refusal to honour his booking. He argues that they should be liable for the consequences of their delay and for failing to provide him with a flight similar to his booking. He is seeking a full business class ticket or refund of the fare he paid for his tickets.

Turkish Airlines

[34] Turkish Airlines states that Mr. Taskin contacted Turkish Airlines customer relations by email on February 1, 2019, asking for a change to his itinerary for travel on March 27, 2019, because he purchased his tickets believing that the flight from Vancouver to Toronto would be operated with a wide-body aircraft with fully reclining seats. At that time, Mr. Taskin indicated that he had taken these flights many times, that the aircraft operated by Air Canada was allegedly not the usual aircraft type for this trip, and that he did not want to travel on an A321 aircraft.

[35] Turkish Airlines claims that Mr. Taskin never mentioned that he was requesting this change due to back problems. It argues that it is entitled to charge passengers for voluntary changes to their reservations, and that it was therefore justified in refusing to make the requested modification unless Mr. Taskin paid the applicable fees.

[36] Turkish Airlines states that on May 20, 2019, the return flight between Istanbul and Toronto was delayed by 2 hours and 38 minutes for an operational reason. It confirms that it paid the applicable compensation to Mr. Taskin.

[37] Turkish Airlines indicates that it knew that Mr. Taskin was going to miss his connecting flight in Toronto, and tried to rebook him on a flight with fully reclining seats operated by Lufthansa from Istanbul to Vancouver with a connection in Frankfurt, but there were no business class seats available on that flight.

[38] It admits that Mr. Taskin asked to be rebooked on a flight from Toronto to Vancouver with an aircraft with full bed seats on the following day. Although it was initially prepared to agree to this request, Turkish Airlines refused to do so because Mr. Taskin asked it to cover the hotel expenses that he would incur to spend a night in Toronto.

[39] Turkish Airlines states that Mr. Taskin was rebooked on the first available flight operated by Air Canada from Toronto to Vancouver, even though this flight did not have full bed seats. It submits that it was justified in doing so because Mr. Taskin did not indicate that his request to travel the following day was due to any disability.

[40] Turkish Airlines submits that it cannot speak to whether Mr. Taskin has a disability or whether he had one at the time of his flights. It argues that none of the documents submitted by Mr. Taskin prove that he was suffering from back problems prior to the flights or that he informed Turkish Airlines of this alleged condition. It argues that his failure to mention any disability to Turkish Airlines rendered any accommodation impossible.

[41] As it is impossible to know whether Mr. Taskin had a disability, Turkish Airlines argues that the question of whether he faced an obstacle is moot.

[42] Turkish Airlines contests Mr. Taskin’s claim that he paid a higher price for his tickets to travel from Vancouver to Toronto on an aircraft with full bed seats. It asserts that the fare of a ticket for a round trip on Mr. Taskin’s route is not constructed based on aircraft type and that the price he paid is the lowest price available for a business class ticket on this route.

[43] Turkish Airlines submits that the Agency should dismiss Mr. Taskin’s application. It claims that, in the last 4 years, Mr. Taskin submitted 56 claims against it regarding 29 flights. It states that none of the claims are related to an alleged disability.

Air Canada

[44] Air Canada argues that it should not be a party to the dispute as Mr. Taskin purchased his ticket with Turkish Airlines through a travel agency and his complaint is not related to an accessibility issue.

[45] Air Canada challenges the assertion that Mr. Taskin is a person with a disability. It claims that it was never advised of Mr. Taskin’s back pain limitations, that its Medical Department does not have a recent medical file on him involving such limitations, and that Mr. Taskin has not demonstrated he has a disability.

[46] Air Canada relies on the Agency’s interpretive decision, Decision No. 33-AT-A-2019, to argue that a travel difficulty does not automatically become an obstacle justifying an accessibility complaint simply because it was experienced by a person with a disability. It argues that Mr. Taskin did not experience an obstacle or difference in treatment compared to a passenger without limitations and that the complaint is about his reservation.

[47] Air Canada states that during Mr. Taskin’s return travel on May 20, 2019, Turkish Airlines’ flight from Istanbul to Toronto experienced a delay of 2 hours and 38 minutes causing him to miss his connecting flight with Air Canada from Toronto to Vancouver, scheduled to operate on an aircraft with full flat seats. Mr. Taskin was then rebooked by his travel agency on a later Air Canada flight on an aircraft that was not equipped with full flat seats. It states that it honoured the travel agency’s booking and transported Mr. Taskin from Toronto to Vancouver. Therefore, Air Canada argues that Mr. Taskin completed his itinerary.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATIONS

Did Turkish Airlines properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff, as required by subsection 110(4) of the ATR?

[48] The onus is on the applicant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the carrier has failed to properly apply the terms and conditions of carriage set out in its tariff.

[49] Although Mr. Taskin filed his application against both Turkish Airlines and Air Canada, the evidence establishes that his ticket was issued by Turkish Airlines and that each flight—including the flights between Vancouver and Toronto, which were operated by Air Canada—was marketed by Turkish Airlines. The Agency finds, therefore, that Turkish Airlines’ Tariff applies to Mr. Taskin’s itinerary and that Air Canada will not suffer any prejudice if the Agency determines the tariff component of the application without providing Air Canada with the opportunity it requested to submit additional comments about the application of the tariff.

[50] Based on the parties’ submissions and Mr. Taskin’s boarding passes, the Agency finds, as a fact, that Mr. Taskin travelled in business class on each flight of his completed itinerary.

OUTBOUND ITINERARY

[51] According to Rule 65(B)(1) of its Tariff, Turkish Airlines issues tickets based on class of service but not on type of seating. Rule 85(B)(1) of the Tariff further states that Turkish Airlines may substitute alternate aircraft without notice.

[52] In this case, Mr. Taskin was carried on the same schedule and in the same class as ticketed. The Agency therefore finds that Turkish Airlines properly applied Rule 65(B)(1) and Rule 85(B) of its Tariff.

[53] Moreover, with respect to Mr. Taskin’s request to be rebooked to a flight with fully reclining seats for which Turkish Airlines required a EUR 600 change fee, Rule 80(A)(3) of the Tariff states that Turkish Airlines will collect any difference between the fares and charges applicable to a passenger’s original ticket and those applicable to a revised routing requested by the passenger. As Mr. Taskin did not identify a disability-related need underlying his request, the Agency finds that Turkish Airlines properly applied Rule 80(A)(3) of the Tariff when it refused to change Mr. Taskin’s flight free of charge.

INBOUND ITINERARY

[54] The parties agree that Mr. Taskin’s inbound itinerary was affected by a flight delay in Istanbul which caused him to miss his connecting flight in Toronto and that Turkish Airlines has already compensated Mr. Taskin for the flight delay he experienced as a result.

[55] Where a passenger misses a connecting flight due to a schedule irregularity, Rule 80(C) of the Tariff states that Turkish Airlines is to arrange for the carriage of the passenger or make an involuntary refund under Rule 90.

[56] Although Mr. Taskin seeks a refund of the cost of his ticket due to the change in equipment, the Agency has consistently found that there is no basis upon which to order the refund of a ticket when the travel has been completed. In this case, the involuntary refunds set out in Rule 90(D) of the Tariff are available only to passengers who are prevented from travelling on their ticket.

[57] As Mr. Taskin was carried on the first available flight and in the same class as ticketed, albeit on an aircraft without fully reclining seating, the Agency finds that Turkish Airlines properly applied Rule 80(C) of its Tariff.

[58] Likewise, although Mr. Taskin alleges that there is an additional cost associated with fully reclining seating, the Tariff does not set out a difference in the fare for variations in amenities, such as special seating, that are included as part of a particular class of service. In a previous decision, namely Decision No. 61-C-A-2020 (Borsato v Air Canada), the Agency found that a tariff provision stating that not all amenities may be available for a particular product or service class, and that no compensation will be offered for such unavailability, was just and reasonable within the meaning of section 111(1) of the ATR.

Is Mr. Taskin a person with a disability for the purpose of Part V of the CTA?

[59] The Agency has long held that a person making an application pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA must first demonstrate that they have a disability for the purposes of Part V of the CTA.

[60] Mr. Taskin indicates that he has back problems which were exacerbated by sitting in a semi-upright position for 5 hours on an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Vancouver on May 20, 2019. Mr. Taskin filed an emergency discharge summary dated May 28, 2020, that indicates a primary diagnosis of chronic back pain for a duration of more than two weeks. He also filed a note from a doctor dated May 29, 2019, that indicates that he injured his back. Although these notes suggest that Mr. Taskin suffered from a back condition at some point after his travel, they do not show that he had a disability within the meaning of the CTA at the time of the travel. The Agency finds that the medical information filed by Mr. Taskin describes a common condition which does not automatically result in a disability, given there is a wide spectrum of severity of symptoms or activity limitations for this type of condition. In addition, this medical information does not show how his condition directly affected or limited his participation in the transportation network on May 20, 2019, which would have required an accommodation.

[61] Accordingly, the information filed by Mr. Taskin with respect to his back problems does not meet the onus to demonstrate that he had a disability at the time of travel for the purposes of Part V of the CTA. Therefore, the Agency finds that Mr. Taskin has not established that he had a disability at the time of travel for the purposes of Part V of the CTA.

[62] In addition, the Agency finds that there is no evidence that Mr. Taskin actually identified any disability or sought an accommodation for that disability from either Air Canada or Turkish Airlines. At best, it seems that Mr. Taskin complained to the carriers at the time of travel that sitting in cradle seating for a lengthier flight would make his back sore, but this does not rise to the level of disability.

[63] In light of the above, the Agency dismisses the portion of the application filed pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA.

[64] Mr. Taskin approaches this problem from a contractual perspective. He says that he prefers fully reclining seating because he has back problems, so he makes the effort to only book tickets on longer flights that offer this type of seating, and he pays a premium for these tickets as these types of seats are only available in higher classes of service. However, as demonstrated by this and other cases, carriers’ tariffs generally do not guarantee a particular type of seat; they only guarantee a seat in a similar class of service.

[65] Mr. Taskin stated several times that he does not think that his health problem is relevant to the issue, but therein lies his problem. Some persons with disabilities may require specific seating to accommodate their disability-related needs, and once they demonstrate their disability-related needs to the carrier, the carrier is generally required to provide accommodation to meet those needs. However, the person must self-identify as a person with a disability to the carrier and make a request for accommodation from the carrier. Furthermore, where the accommodation required is related to seating, it is recommended that persons with disabilities take this step—to self-identify and request accommodation—at the time of reservation or as soon thereafter as possible, to ensure that they receive appropriate accommodation, as they may also be required by the carrier to submit medical information in advance to substantiate their disability-related need for accommodation. Accordingly, if Mr. Taskin does have disability-related needs that can be accommodated by fully reclining seating, then, in the future, he should disclose this information to the carrier at the time of reservation and seek the accommodation that he requires through its medical department.

CONCLUSION

[66] The Agency finds that Turkish Airlines properly applied Rules 65(B)(1) and 85(B) of the Tariff with respect to the change in equipment on Mr. Taskin’s outbound itinerary and Rule 80(C) of the Tariff with respect to the change in equipment on his inbound itinerary. Accordingly, Mr. Taskin is not entitled to a refund and the Agency dismisses the portion of the application filed pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the ATR.

[67] The Agency also finds that it has not been established that Mr. Taskin had a disability at the time of travel for the purposes of Part V of the CTA nor that he properly disclosed any disability or disability-related needs to the carriers either before or at the time of travel. Accordingly, the Agency dismisses the portion of the application filed pursuant to section 172(1) of the CTA.

[68] In light of the above, the Agency dismisses the application.


APPENDIX TO DECISION NO. 38-AT-C-A-2021

International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. TK-1 Containing Local and Joint Rules, Fares and Charges on Behalf of Turk Hava Yollari, Anonim Ortakligi (Turkish Airlines, Inc.) c/o/b as Turkish Airlines Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage between Points in United States/Canada and Points in Areas 1/2, NTA(A) No. 530

Rule 65 TICKETS

(B) VALIDITY

General

(1)  When validated, the ticket is good for carriage from the airport at the place of departure to the airport at the place of destination, via the route shown therein and for the applicable class of service and is valid for one year from the date or commencement of flight, except as otherwise specified in the carrier’s tariffs. Each flight coupon will be accepted for carriage on the date and flight for which accommodation had been reserved.

….

Rule 80 REVISED ROUTINGS, FAILURE TO CARRY AND MISSED CONNECTIONS

(A) CHANGES REQUESTED BY PASSENGER

(1)  At the passenger’s request, carrier will effect a change in the routing (other than the point of origin), carrier(s), class(s) of service, destination, fare or validity specified in an unused ticket, flight coupon(s) or Miscellaneous Charges Order by issuing a new ticket or by endorsing such unused ticket, flight coupon(s) or Miscellaneous Charges Order, provided that:

(a)  Such carrier issued the original ticket or;

(b)  Such carrier is the carrier designated in the “via carrier” box, or no carrier is designated in the “via carrier” box, of the unused flight coupon or Miscellaneous Charge Order for the first onward carriage from the point on the route at which the passenger desires the change to commence …; or

(c)  Such carrier has received written or telegraphic authority to do so from the carrier entitled, under (a) or (b) above, to effect the change.

(2)  When the rerouting results in a change of fare, the new fare and charges shall be constructed as follows;

(a)  The new fare shall be calculated upon the basis of that which would have been applicable had the passenger purchased transportation for the revised itinerary (which includes those points for which transportation has already been completed) prior to departure from point of origin.

(b)  Additional passage at the through fare and charges shall not be permitted unless request therefore has been made prior to arrival at the destination named on the original ticket or Miscellaneous Charge Order; and, after carriage has commenced:

....

(3)  Any difference between the fares and charges applicable under paragraph (2) above, and the fares and charges paid by the passenger, will be collected from the passenger by the carrier accomplishing the rerouting who will also pay to the passenger any amounts due to account of refunds.

….

(B) INVOLUNTARY REVISED ROUTING

In the event carrier cancels a flight, fails to operate according to schedules, substitutes a different type of equipment or different class of service, or is unable to provide previously confirmed space … carrier will either:

(1)  Carry the passenger on another of its passenger aircraft on which space is available; or

(2)  Endorse to another carrier or to any other transportation service the unused portion of the ticket for purposes of rerouting; or

(3)  Reroute the passenger to destination named on the ticket or applicable portion thereof by its own services or by other means of transportation; and, if the fare, excess baggage charges and any applicable service charge for the revised routing is higher than the refund value of the ticket or applicable portions as determined from Rule 90 (REFUNDS) herein, carrier will require no additional payment from the passenger, but will refund the difference if the fare and charges for the revised routing are lower, or

(4)  Make involuntary refund in accordance with the provisions of Rule 90 (REFUNDS) herein.

(C) MISSED CONNECTIONS

In the event a passenger misses an onward connecting flight on which space has been reserved for him/her because the delivering carrier did not operate its flight according to schedules, or changed the schedule of such flight, the delivering carrier will arrange for the carriage of the passenger or make involuntary refund in accordance with Rule 90 (REFUNDS) herein.

….

Rule 85 SCHEDULES, DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS

(B) CANCELLATIONS

(1)  Carrier may, without notice, substitute alternate carriers or aircraft.

….

Rule 90 REFUNDS

(D) INVOLUNTARY REFUNDS

See also Rule 80 (REVISED ROUTINGS, FAILURE TO CARRY AND MISSED CONNECTIONS) and Rule 87 (DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term “Involuntary Refund” shall mean any refund to a passenger who is prevented from using the carriage provided for in his ticket because of cancellation of flight, inability of carrier to provide previously confirmed space, substitution of a different type of equipment or different class of service by carrier, missed connections, postponement or delay of flight, omission of a scheduled stop, or removal or refusal to carry under conditions prescribed in Rule 25 (REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT—LIMITATIONS OF CARRIER). Involuntary refunds will be computed as follows:

….

Member(s)

Elizabeth C. Barker
J. Mark MacKeigan
Heather Smith
Date modified: