Decision No. 506-C-A-2008

October 8, 2008

File No. M4120-3/08-04384

INTRODUCTION AND ISSUE

[1] Bernard Bloom filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) alleging that Air Canada failed to arrange transportation for him on the next available flight from Toronto, Ontario, Canada to Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America on November 22, 2007, when the departure of his flight from Ottawa to Toronto was delayed due to bad weather.

[2] The terms and conditions of carriage relating to schedule irregularity set out in Air Canada's Canadian General Rules Tariff No. CGR-1, CTA(A) No. 241 (the Tariff) state that the carrier, in case of schedule irregularity, will, among other options, transport passengers on the carrier's next available flight.

[3] Did Air Canada properly apply the terms and conditions of carriage relating to schedule irregularity set out in its Tariff?

[4] As indicated in the reasons that follow, the Agency finds that Air Canada properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff. The complaint is therefore dismissed.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

[5] Mr. Bloom has complained about the quality of service offered by Air Canada, particularly relating to the carrier's lack of communication with him. The Agency does not have jurisdiction over the quality and level of service provided by an air carrier, and will therefore not deal with this issue.

FACTS

[6] Mr. Bloom was scheduled to travel from Ottawa to Boston, via Toronto, with Air Canada on November 22, 2007. Due to a flight delay caused by severe weather conditions, Mr. Bloom missed his connecting flight from Toronto to Boston. Air Canada subsequently returned Mr. Bloom to Ottawa to protect him on the next available flight from Ottawa to Boston. Mr. Bloom was transported from Ottawa to Boston on the following day, i.e., November 23, 2007. As a goodwill gesture, Air Canada offered Mr. Bloom a CAD$75.00 travel voucher or, alternatively, 5,000 Aeroplan miles. Mr. Bloom requests that Air Canada reimburse the cost of his ticket or provide him with a new return ticket.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

[7] Mr. Bloom submits that Air Canada should have held back his connecting flight from Toronto to Boston, which departed at 11:20 a.m. on November 22, 2007, until his flight from Ottawa arrived in Toronto. Mr. Bloom also submits that instead of being returned to Ottawa, he should have been protected on Air Canada's flight departing from Toronto at 9:15 p.m., on November 22, 2007. Mr. Bloom advises that as a result of Air Canada's failure to put him on a flight to Boston departing on November 22, 2007, he missed his mother-in-law's one hundredth birthday.

[8] Air Canada submits that the disruption of a given schedule, because of inclement weather, can cause a ripple effect through the entire network, and that, for operational reasons, carriers cannot hold back flights from their scheduled departures, unless absolutely necessary or when not doing so would cause more serious disruption than operating these flights on schedule. Air Canada states that on November 22, 2007, Mr. Bloom was scheduled to depart at 9:00 a.m. from Ottawa and to arrive in Toronto at 10:08 a.m., but, due to inclement weather, he did not arrive in Toronto on time for his connecting flight to Boston, which left at 11:20 a.m. Air Canada submits that given the problematic weather conditions, holding this flight would not have made sense for all other passengers on the flight to Boston.

[9] Air Canada advises that it was not possible to protect Mr. Bloom on the carrier's next available flight on November 22, 2007 from Toronto to Boston, departing at 9:15 p.m., because there were no seats available. Air Canada indicates that the term "next available flight" is not the same as "next scheduled flight". For a flight to be available, it not only has to operate according to a schedule, but must also have seat availability. Air Canada adds that Mr. Bloom was carried on the next available flight, i.e., the flight departing from Ottawa the following day at 6:30 a.m. Air Canada submits that having Mr. Bloom returned to Ottawa and protected on the Ottawa to Boston direct flight departing at 6:30 a.m. the following day appeared to be the best alternative at the time, in light of the disruptions to the entire network caused by the weather conditions and the number of passengers whose travel plans were disrupted as a consequence.

[10] Air Canada filed several supporting documents relating to this matter, including documents respecting flight operations on November 22, 2007, such as the Daily Operation Performance Report and the Operation System Reports.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[11] The Agency notes that on November 22, 2007, Mr. Bloom missed his connecting flight from Toronto to Boston because his flight departing from Ottawa was delayed due to bad weather. The Daily Operation Performance Report for November 22, 2007 submitted by Air Canada indicates that freezing precipitation, icing and wind conditions that limited runway availability disrupted operations system-wide.

[12] These reports indicate a system flight departure performance of only 30 percent and that 7,123 passengers were delayed by more than two hours. Air Canada states that one Toronto-Boston flight on November 22, 2007 was cancelled and the only remaining flight was fully booked and subject to considerable uncertainty with respect to capacity, as different-sized aircraft were being swapped on routes because the originally scheduled aircraft were often not available.

[13] The detailed documentary evidence submitted by Air Canada allowed the Agency to verify the operational difficulties the carrier encountered in accommodating the affected passengers.

[14] In the case of scheduled irregularity, Air Canada's Tariff provides that the carrier will transport the passenger without stopover on its next available flight. Under the circumstances, the Agency concludes that, by protecting Mr. Bloom on its direct flight from Ottawa to Boston, early the following day, Air Canada acted in compliance with its Tariff, as the next flight available to Boston required routing him through Ottawa. The Agency therefore finds that Air Canada properly applied the terms and conditions of transport set out in its Tariff.

Members

• Raymon J. Kaduck
• Geoffrey C. Hare