Decision No. 6-AT-C-A-2022

January 21, 2022

APPLICATION by Tapan Jyoti Sen and Soma Sen (applicants) against WestJet and Emirates (respondents), pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, SC 1996, c 10 (CTA), regarding their disability-related needs; and subsection 110(4) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58 (ATR), regarding a schedule irregularity and a refusal to transport.

Case number: 
21-50094

SUMMARY

[1] The applicants filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) against WestJet concerning their disability-related needs, a schedule irregularity and Emirates’ refusal to transport them on Flight No. EK242 from Toronto (Ontario) to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on December 6, 2019. The Agency added Emirates as an additional respondent to this case.

[2] The applicants seek compensation in the amount of USD 15,100 for the following:

  • USD 5,000 for the lack of wheelchair assistance;
  • USD 4,800 for the denial of boarding;
  • USD 500 for not providing meal vouchers;
  • USD 4,800 for the 12-hour delay and financial losses.

[3] They subsequently increased the amount of compensation sought to USD 20,800.

[4] The Agency will address the following issues:

  1. Are the applicants persons with disabilities?
  2. Did the applicants face a barrier to their mobility?
  3. Did WestJet properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its International/Transborder Passenger Fares and Rules Tariff No. WS-1 Containing Local and Joint Rules, Fares and Charges on Behalf of WestJet Airlines, Ltd Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage Between Points in the United States/Canada and Points in Area 1/2/3 and Between Points in the US and Points in Canada, NTA(A) No. 518 (WestJet’s Tariff), including the applicable requirements of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150 (APPR), as required by subsection 110(4) of the ATR?
  4. Did Emirates properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. EK-1 Containing Local and Joint Rules, Fares and Charges on Behalf of Emirates Airlines Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage Between Points in the Canada/United States and Points in Areas 1/2/3, NTA(A) No. 503 (Emirates’ Tariff), as required by subsection 110(4) of the ATR?

[5] For the reasons set out below, the Agency finds that:

  1. the applicants are persons with disabilities;
  2. the applicants did not face a barrier to their mobility;
  3. WestJet properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff, including the applicable requirements of the APPR; and
  4. Emirates properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff.

[6] Therefore, the Agency dismisses the application.

BACKGROUND

[7] The applicants purchased round-trip tickets from a travel agent to travel from Kolkata, India, to Winnipeg, Manitoba, via Dubai and Toronto, departing on May 18, 2019, and returning on November 30, 2019.

[8] Although WestJet made several changes to the inbound flights, the following was the applicants’ final return itinerary:

  • December 6, 2019: Flight No. WS534, from Winnipeg to Toronto, departing at 8:30 a.m. and arriving at 11:57 a.m.;
  • December 6, 2019: Flight No. EK242, from Toronto to Dubai, departing at 1:55 p.m. and arriving at 11:40 a.m. the following day;
  • December 7, 2019: Flight No. EK572, from Dubai to Kolkata, departing at 1:15 p.m. and arriving at 6:50 p.m.

[9] On December 6, 2019, Flight No. WS534 from Winnipeg to Toronto was delayed and arrived 50 minutes later than scheduled. When the applicants arrived in Toronto, they proceeded to the Emirates departure gate and attempted to board their connecting flight, Flight No. EK242. However, Emirates would not allow the applicants to board the flight and advised them that their tickets were no longer valid.

[10] The applicants returned to the WestJet counter and were reprotected on the following flights:

  • December 6, 2019: Flight No. WS003, from Toronto to London, United Kingdom, departing at 8:50 p.m. and arriving at 9:10 a.m. the following day;
  • December 7, 2019: Flight No. EK016, from London to Dubai, departing at 1:35 p.m. and arriving at 12:40 a.m. the following day;
  • December 8, 2019: Flight No. EK570, from Dubai to Kolkata, departing at 2:00 a.m. and arriving at 7:40 a.m.

[11] The applicants state that as a result of being rerouted, they arrived at their final destination more than 12 hours later than originally scheduled. They also allege that WestJet failed to provide them with the wheelchair assistance that they had requested. In support of their claim, the applicants filed medical documentation.

[12] The pleadings were opened on July 2, 2021. The respondents submitted their answers on July 23, 2021. The applicants filed their reply on July 29, 2021.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

Applicable tariff

[13] The applicants’ itinerary was an interline itinerary with flights operated by the respondents. When determining which carrier’s tariff applies to interline tickets, the Agency has found that each carrier’s tariff applies to their respective flights on the itinerary.

THE LAW AND RELEVANT TARIFF PROVISIONS

[14] The applicants raise issues related to both accessibility and the application of WestJet’s Tariff and Emirates’ Tariff.

Accessibility

[15] 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 barrier to the mobility of persons with disabilities.

[16] As stated in Decision No. 33-AT-A-2019 (Interpretive Decision) regarding accessibility‑related applications, the Agency determines whether there is an undue barrier to the mobility of a person with a disability using a two-part approach:

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

- they have a disability. A disability is any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment—or a functional limitation—whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society;

and

- they faced a barrier. A barrier is anything—including anything physical, architectural, technological or attitudinal, anything that is based on information or communications or anything that is the result of a policy or a practice—that hinders the full and equal participation in society of persons with an impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment or a functional limitation. There needs to be some connection between the applicant’s disability and the barrier.

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

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

or

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

[17] The Agency will address the first part of the above two-part approach in this Decision.

Tariff

[18] A carrier’s obligations towards passengers are established through both the carrier’s tariff and the APPR.

[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, subsection 113.1(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 that are applicable to the service it offers and that were set out in the tariff.

[21] Where a requirement is addressed in both the tariff and the APPR, the carrier must fulfill whichever requirement is more advantageous for the passenger.

[22] Various provisions of the APPR came into force on different dates, both before and after the date of the incident, as indicated below.

[23] Subsection 1(3) of the APPR, which came into force on July 15, 2019, states as follows:

For the purpose of these Regulations, there is a denial of boarding when a passenger is not permitted to occupy a seat on board a flight because the number of seats that may be occupied on the flight is less than the number of passengers who have checked in by the required time, hold a confirmed reservation and valid travel documentation and are present at the boarding gate at the required boarding time.

[24] The Agency has the authority under section 12 of the APPR to order standardized compensation for inconvenience resulting from delays in certain circumstances. This section of the APPR came into force on December 15, 2019, and does not apply to incidents that occurred prior to that date.

[25] Section 13 of the APPR, which came into force on July 15, 2019, requires carriers to provide passengers who are affected by a cancellation, a delay or a denial of boarding with basic information about the incident.

[26] This section also specifies that, in the case of a delay, status updates must be provided to passengers every 30 minutes until a new departure time for the flight is set or alternate travel arrangements have been made for the affected passenger; new information must be conveyed to passengers as soon as feasible; and information must be provided by means of audible announcements, and by means of visible announcements, upon request.

[27] The relevant provisions of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air – Montreal Convention (Montreal Convention), WestJet’s Tariff and Emirates’ Tariff are set out in the Appendix.

1. ARE THE APPLICANTS PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES?

[28] The applicants state that Tapan Jyoti Sen has been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and had a full-muscle tear in the right shoulder at the time of travel.

[29] The applicants state that Soma Sen has been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and osteoporosis, uses an inhaler for breathing problems, and has an acute knee joint problem.

[30] WestJet confirmed that the applicants requested wheelchair assistance.

[31] The respondents do not dispute that the applicants are persons with disabilities.

[32] In light of the above, the Agency finds that the applicants are persons with disabilities.

2. DID THE APPLICANTS FACE A BARRIER TO THEIR MOBILITY?

Positions of the parties

THE APPLICANTS

[33] The applicants state that they requested wheelchair assistance in advance of travel.

[34] They claim that, following the delay of their flight from Winnipeg to Toronto, they did not receive wheelchair assistance from WestJet at the Toronto Pearson International Airport (Toronto airport). They add that as a result, they had to walk on their own to reach the departure gate for Flight No. EK242 to Dubai.

[35] The applicants claim that if they had been provided with wheelchairs, they could have reached the Emirates gate earlier. They allege that WestJet intentionally failed to provide them with wheelchair assistance to cause them further delay.

WESTJET

[36] WestJet states that upon arrival at the Toronto airport’s Terminal 3, the applicants did not wait at the gate for wheelchair assistance and proceeded on their own to the Emirates departure gate in Terminal 1. WestJet claims that in a situation of irregular operations such as the one experienced by the applicants, it is reasonable to wait up to 30 minutes for wheelchair assistance. WestJet adds that had the applicants waited, they would have received wheelchair assistance.

[37] WestJet asserts that there was no “mal intent” to deny wheelchair assistance to the applicants, as it was specifically noted in their passenger name record that wheelchair assistance had been requested in Toronto, and that all flight segments on their reservation indicated “WCHR”.

EMIRATES

[38] In its answer, Emirates indicates that it is unable to comment on the applicants’ allegations in respect of the alleged barriers to their mobility as the allegations involved wheelchair assistance provided by WestJet, not Emirates, and that it has no first-hand knowledge of the events that occurred at the WestJet arrival area.

Analysis and determinations

[39] Transportation service providers have a duty to accommodate persons with disabilities. In order to establish that they faced a barrier to their mobility, a person with a disability must demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they were not provided with an accommodation that meets their disability-related needs.

[40] It is undisputed that the applicants requested wheelchair assistance when they booked their tickets. Although they did not file a copy of their original itinerary, WestJet indicates that the applicants’ reservation was coded “WCHR” on all flight segments.

[41] The evidence submitted by the applicants to demonstrate that wheelchair assistance was not provided is insufficient to determine that they encountered a barrier. The Agency accepts that wheelchair assistance was available, but that the applicants did not wait for it and chose to proceed on their own to the Emirates boarding gate in Terminal 1.

[42] In light of the above, the Agency finds that the applicants did not demonstrate that they faced a barrier to their mobility in relation to the wheelchair assistance that they requested.

3. DID WESTJET PROPERLY APPLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN ITS TARIFF, INCLUDING THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPR, AS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION 110(4) OF THE ATR?

Positions of the parties

THE APPLICANTS

[43] The applicants state that they were late arriving at the Emirates boarding gate because their first flight segment, Flight No. WS534, was delayed and they were not provided with wheelchair assistance by WestJet.

[44] They claim that they were reprotected on a subsequent flight by WestJet, eight hours later, but that they were not provided with meal vouchers.

[45] They state that they arrived at their final destination more than 12 hours later than originally scheduled.

WESTJET

[46] WestJet claims that on December 6, 2019, Flight No. WS534 from Winnipeg to Toronto was delayed due to a “Ground Delay Program” that was caused by adverse weather conditions at the Toronto airport. According to WestJet, as the flight arrived at 12:47 p.m. (50 minutes later than scheduled), the applicants had 68 minutes to make their connection to Flight No. EK242, that was scheduled to depart at 1:55 p.m. WestJet explains that this did not allow for the minimum connection time established by the Toronto airport, which was 1 hour and 59 minutes.

[47] WestJet submits that it reprotected the applicants for the remaining flight segments of their itinerary while they were still travelling on Flight No. WS534 and made announcements on board the aircraft advising all passengers to check with a WestJet representative to see if their connecting flights were impacted by the delay of Flight No. WS534.

[48] WestJet asserts that upon their arrival at the Toronto airport’s Terminal 3, the applicants did not, as instructed on board, check with a WestJet agent at the gate to see if their connecting flight was impacted by the delay before proceeding to the Emirates gate.

Analysis and determinations

[49] 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.

[50] The applicants seek compensation for the lack of wheelchair assistance, the denial of boarding, the 12-hour delay in arriving at their destination, not having been provided with meal vouchers, and the general financial loss.

Flight delay

[51] The Agency’s authority under section 12 of the APPR to order standardized compensation for inconvenience resulting from delays in certain circumstances came into force on December 15, 2019. The incident occurred on December 6, 2019. Section 12 therefore does not apply to this case and the applicants are not entitled to compensation under the APPR. The Agency has also considered whether any remedies are warranted for the alleged contraventions of WestJet’s Tariff.

[52] Rule 75(B)(2) of WestJet’s Tariff states that schedules are not guaranteed. In particular, it specifies that times shown in timetables or elsewhere are approximate and not guaranteed and form no part of the contract of carriage.

[53] Rule 75(B)(3) of WestJet’s Tariff states that the carrier will not guarantee and will not be held liable for cancellations or changes to flight times that appear on passengers’ tickets due to force majeure.

[54] Rule 75(C)(3)(a) of WestJet’s Tariff states that in the event of a schedule irregularity that is not within the carrier’s control, the carrier will offer to transport the passenger on the same route as they were originally ticketed or on a different routing operated by the carrier to the same ticketed destination.

[55] The Agency accepts WestJet’s evidence that the delay of Flight No. WS534 from Winnipeg to Toronto was not within its control as it was caused by adverse weather conditions at the Toronto airport.

[56] The Agency finds that WestJet properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff with respect to the schedule irregularity that was not within its control when it reprotected the applicants on a different routing to the same ticketed destination in accordance with Rule 75(C)(3)(a) of its Tariff.

[57] In addition, Rule 55(A) of WestJet’s Tariff incorporates by reference the liability rules set out in the Montreal Convention. Article 19 of the Montreal Convention provides that the carrier is liable for damages related to a delay unless it proves that it or its agents took all the measures that could reasonably be required to avoid those damages or that it was impossible for it or them to have taken such measures.

[58] In this instance, as soon as WestJet realized that, due to the flight delay, the applicants would not have the minimum connection time established by the Toronto airport, it concluded that they were going to miss their connecting flight to Dubai and it reprotected them for the remaining flight segments of their itinerary on a flight seven hours later. The Agency finds that it is reasonable for WestJet to rely on the Toronto airport’s assessment of the minimum connection time that passengers need in order to arrive in time for their connecting flight. The Agency also finds that the reprotection option provided by WestJet was reasonable.

[59] The Agency recognizes that WestJet intended to provide the applicants with good customer service by proactively reprotecting them. It is unfortunate the applicants did not check with a WestJet agent at the arrival gate before proceeding to the Emirates gate. In addition to the delay in their travel, their experience at the departure gate for Flight No. EK242 was clearly unpleasant.

[60] The Agency notes that the applicants claim that they suffered heavy financial loss because they arrived late at their destination but did not provide any supporting evidence, such as the additional expenses that they incurred. The Agency finds that they did not establish that they suffered damages as a result of the delay.

[61] In light of the above, the Agency finds that by reprotecting the applicants, WestJet properly applied the terms and conditions set out in Rule 75 of its Tariff relating to schedule irregularities. The Agency also finds that WestJet took reasonable measures to avoid damages to the applicants by reprotecting them on a flight seven hours later.

Communication of information

[62] Subsection 13(4) of the APPR, which was in force at the time of the incident, requires the carrier to provide the passengers who are affected by a cancellation, a delay or a denial of boarding, with information related to the incident through audible announcements. Other subsections specify the type of information that must be shared with passengers at a minimum, and require the carrier to provide regular status updates and to share new information as soon as it is feasible to do so.

[63] Rule 75(B)(4) of WestJet’s Tariff states that the carrier will make all reasonable efforts to inform passengers of delays and schedule changes and, to the extent possible, the reason for the delay or change.

[64] The applicants allege that WestJet did not inform them about the cancellation of their tickets. However, the Agency accepts WestJet’s submission that announcements were made during the flight that advised passengers to check with one of its representatives upon arrival to see if their connecting flights were impacted by the delay.

[65] The Agency finds that WestJet’s announcements during the flight fulfilled both the requirements under subsection 13(4) of the APPR and Rule 75(B)(4) of its Tariff with respect to communication.

Meal voucher

[66] The applicants state that they did not receive a meal voucher from WestJet. However, Rule 75(D) of WestJet’s Tariff provides that it is only required to provide meal vouchers for schedule irregularities that are within its control. Given that the arrival of the applicants’ flight in Toronto was delayed due to adverse weather conditions which were not within WestJet’s control, the Agency finds that they were not entitled to meal vouchers.

[67] Therefore, the Agency finds that WestJet properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff when it did not provide the applicants with meal vouchers.

4. DID EMIRATES PROPERLY APPLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN ITS TARIFF, AS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION 110(4) OF THE ATR?

Positions of the parties

THE APPLICANTS

[68] The applicants claim that they reached Emirates’ counter 20 minutes before the scheduled departure time of Flight No. EK242.

[69] They claim that they were held at Emirates’ counter for 10 minutes to check their travel documents and that they were asked to proceed to the boarding gate where an Emirates agent did not allow them to board the flight because WestJet had cancelled their tickets.

[70] The applicants allege that as two passengers were sold last-minute tickets and were allowed to board, the flight was not full.

EMIRATES

[71] Emirates states that the applicants reached the departure gate for Flight No. EK242 at approximately 1:45 p.m. (10 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time of 1:55 p.m.).

[72] Emirates submits that the applicants could not be accepted on the flight as they were not holding valid tickets for Flight No. EK242. Emirates adds that it asked WestJet to reissue the applicants’ tickets; however, WestJet was unable to do so because the Emirates flight was already full. Emirates argues that the applicants were not denied boarding as they were not holding valid tickets for the flight and, consequently, they are not entitled to any compensation. Emirates submits that the applicants arrived in Kolkata on Emirates Flight No. EK570 on December 8, 2019, at approximately 7:40 a.m., 12 hours and 50 minutes later than originally scheduled.

Analysis and determinations

Alleged denied boarding

[73] Rule 87 of Emirates’ Tariff provides that a passenger is denied boarding when the carrier is unable to provide the space that was previously confirmed due to more passengers holding confirmed reservations and tickets on a flight than there are available seats. This rule aligns with the definition of denial of boarding in the APPR, which was in force at the time of the incident in this case. The Agency finds that Emirates has demonstrated that the applicants were not denied boarding as they did not hold a confirmed reservation for the flight.

Refusal to transport

[74] Rule 65(A) of Emirates’ Tariff states that no person is entitled to transportation unless they present a valid ticket, and that the ticket entitles the passenger to transportation between the points of origin and destination via the routing specified on the ticket.

[75] As previously noted, the applicants are not responsible for the fact that they did not hold valid tickets for Flight No. EK242. Due to their delayed arrival in Toronto, WestJet proactively reprotected them. While the Agency recognizes that Emirates’ refusal to transport them was an unpleasant experience, it must find that the applicants were not entitled to be transported on that flight as they were not holding a confirmed reservation.

[76] In light of the above, the Agency finds that Emirates properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff when it did not transport the applicants on Flight No. EK242.

CONCLUSION

[77] The Agency finds that:

  1. the applicants are persons with disabilities;
  2. the applicants did not face a barrier to their mobility;
  3. WestJet properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff, including the applicable requirements of the APPR; and
  4. Emirates properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff.

[78] Therefore, the Agency dismisses the application.


APPENDIX TO DECISION NO. 6-AT-C-A-2022

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air – Montreal Convention

Article 19 – Delay

The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.

International/Transborder Passenger Fares and Rules Tariff No. WS-1 Containing Local and Joint Rules, Fares and Charges on Behalf of WestJet Airlines, Ltd Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage Between Points in the United States/Canada and Points in Area 1/2/3 and Between Points in the US and Points in Canada, NTA(A) No. 518

RULE 55 – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – PASSENGERS

(A) For travel governed by the Montreal Convention

(1) For the purpose of international carriage governed by the Montreal Convention, the liability rules set out in the Montreal Convention are fully incorporated herein and shall supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent with those rules.

….

Rule 75 – SCHEDULE IRREGULARITIES

….

(B) General

(1) The carrier will make all reasonable efforts to transport the passenger and his/her baggage at the times indicated in its timetable.

(2) Times shown in timetables or elsewhere are approximate and not guaranteed and form no part of the contract of carriage. The carrier will not be responsible for errors or omissions either in timetables or other representation of schedules. No employee, agent or representative of the carrier is authorized to bind the carrier by any statement or representation regarding the dates or times of departure or arrival, or of the operation of any flight.

(3) The carrier will not guarantee and will not be held liable for cancellations or changes to flight times that appear on passengers’ tickets due to force majeure. However, in the case of international transportation, a passenger may invoke the provisions of the convention regarding liability in the case of passenger delay. (See Rule 55).

(4) The carrier will make all reasonable efforts to inform passengers of delays and schedule changes and, to the extent possible, the reason for the delay or change.

….

(C) Passenger options – re-routing or refund

….

(3) In the event of a schedule irregularity, not within the carrier’s control (e.g. force majeure), the carrier will provide the following:

(a) The carrier will offer the passenger the choice to travel on another of its scheduled flights on the same route as the passenger was originally ticketed or to travel on a different routing operated by the carrier to the same ticketed destination.

(b) If these options are not available, the carrier will offer to transport the passenger on the same route as he/she was originally ticketed or on a different route operated by the services of another carrier with whom the original air carrier has a commercial agreement and provided space is available.

….

(D) Right to care

Except as otherwise provided in other applicable foreign legislation, in addition to the provisions of this rule, in case of scheduled irregularity within the carrier’s control a passenger will be offered the following:

(1) For a schedule irregularity lasting longer than 3 hours, the carrier will provide the passenger with a meal voucher.

(2) For a schedule irregularity lasting more than 8 hours or overnight, the carrier will provide overnight hotel accommodation and airport transfers for the passenger. The carrier is not obligated to provide overnight accommodation for passengers at the first airport of departure on the ticket.

(3) If passengers are already on the aircraft when a delay occurs, the carrier will offer drinks and snacks if it is safe, practical and timely to do so. If the delay exceeds ninety (90) minutes and circumstances permit, the carrier will offer the passenger the option of disembarking from the aircraft until it is time to depart.

International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. EK-1 Containing Local and Joint Rules, Fares and Charges on Behalf of Emirates Airlines Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage Between Points in the Canada/United States and Points in Areas 1/2/3, NTA(A) No. 503

RULE 65 – TICKETS

(A) No person (except members of the crew) shall be entitled to transportation except upon presentation of a valid ticket. Such ticket shall entitle the passenger to transportation only between points of origin and destination and via the routing designated thereon.

….

RULE 87 – DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION (DBC)

When EK is unable to provide previously confirmed space due to more passengers holding confirmed reservations and tickets on a flight than there are available seats on that flight, EK will take the actions specified herein.

(A) Definitions:

For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions apply:

(1) Airport – the airport at which the direct or connecting flight on which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is scheduled to arrive or some other airport serving the same metropolitan area that is served by EK, provided that transportation to the other airport is acceptable to the passenger.

(2) Alternate transportation – air transportation or other transportation used by the passenger which, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the passenger’s next scheduled stopover (of four hours or longer) or destination no later than four hours after the passenger’s originally scheduled arrival time.

(3) Carrier – an air carrier, except a helicopter operator, holding a commercial air service license authorizing the transportation of persons.

(4) Confirmed reserved space – that which applies to a specific EK flight, date and fare type as requested by a passenger and that is verified in EK’s reservation system and is so noted on his ticket.

(5) Comparable air transportation – transportation provided by air carriers to passengers at no extra cost.

(6) Oversold – the condition that is the result of there being more passengers with reservations and tickets than there are available seats on a flight.

(7) Stopover – a deliberate interruption of journey requested by the passenger that is scheduled to exceed four hours at a place between the points of origin and destination.

(8) Sum of the values of the remaining flight coupons – the sum of the applicable one way fares or 50% of the applicable round trip fares, as the case may be, including any surcharges and air transportation taxes, less any applicable discounts.

(9) Ticket lift point/boarding area – the point where the passenger’s flight coupon is lifted and retained by EK.

(B) Request for volunteers

(1) EK will request volunteers from among the confirmed passengers to relinquish their seats in exchange for compensation as defined in (E)(2) below.

(2) Once a passenger has voluntarily relinquished his/her seat, he/she will not later be involuntarily denied boarding unless he was advised at the time he/she volunteered of such possibility and the amount of compensation to which he/she would be entitled.

(3) The request for volunteers and the selection of passengers to be denied boarding shall be in a manner solely determined by EK.

Member(s)

Heather Smith
Inge Green
Date modified: