Canada unveils air passenger bill of rights

The improvement of service requires the effort of the concerned parties. Good luck, Canada.

Good on Canada. It's not reasonable that passengers can be treated like cattle due to airline inefficiencies introduced as means of cost savings. This will ensure airlines expend the requisite resources to having their systems run efficiently, rather than making passengers just 'deal with it'.

.

Too bad there is no compensation for the lousy in-flight 'service' .

.

You have the right to subpar food.

You have the right to a cramped seat.

You have the right to remove your smelly shoes.

You have the right to treat your seating area as if it's your home.

You have the right to annoy the passengers around you.

Starting July 15, airlines will be required to disembark passengers after three hours on the tarmac if there is no prospect of taking off soon.

3 hours in the plane is reasonable???

@Arturo Jamilla

You have the right ...

You have the right to fly first-class if you’ve got the money.

Ah yes, first class. 10x-20x the price of a coach ticket, you arrive at the exact same time as everyone else. You pay for a larger seat, slightly better meal and the aire of feeling above everyone else.

Please make the seats more comfortable and give more space. Sitting next to an obese person can be hell.

This Canuck says it's a step in the right direction, but just one small step. I'll bet all you commenters don't know that it costs me more to fly to Haida G'waii from Victoria than it does to cross the Pacific to Tokyo, and more than twice that to fly to Yellowknife. Worst-case scenario - Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland. THAT'S the disgusting reality of flying in Canada; our country is huge, its population only about 35 million, and most of us, when flying for a holiday go out of country.

I like these new regulations, but as @Anonymous says, three hours on the tarmac is ridiculous. It should be less than one hour.

This Canuck says it's a step in the right direction, but just one small step. I'll bet all you commenters don't know that it costs me more to fly to Haida G'waii from Victoria than it does to cross the Pacific to Tokyo, and more than twice that to fly to Yellowknife. Worst-case scenario - Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland. THAT'S the disgusting reality of flying in Canada; our country is huge, its population only about 35 million, and most of us, when flying for a holiday go out of country.

That is a problem of the economic viability of the route. It's simple math really. Calculate the cost of fuel for the route in the aircraft type you're using to get there. Consider the load factor (How many passengers on the flight vs the number of seats). Airlines are usually happy to get around 80% loading. If the load factor is below 80% consistently on a 737 or A320 they'll probably use a smaller aircraft such as a Dash 8 or regional jet. The costs go up when they need to do this. The airlines need to consider the load factor in both directions. Add in basic flight costs such as aircrew costs, ATC fees, landing fees, maintenance and logistic costs (Which will definitely be higher at out of the way destinations) etc. etc. Then the cost of leasing or purchasing the aircraft itself, which has to be considered. Then also factor in that flights in general need to be more than break even simply to ensure overall profitability of the company.

It becomes obvious why a 777-300ER full of passengers from Vancouver to Toronto is more economical than a Dash 8 half full to Haida from Victoria. They're probably losing money on most flights from a city pair like Victoria to Haida, where the airplane might be less than 1/3rd full on both trips but still costs the same amount of money to the airline regardless of how many people are riding on it.

It is no small wonder that airlines go bankrupt frequently. It requires a serious talent for business to keep one profitable. On top of all of the basic problems of accounting, the airlines also need to prevent their client base from shrinking due to bad PR or a general bad reputation due to service problems of any sort including late flights or lost baggage etc. Air Canada is either lucky or unlucky with this as they're the only option available to many Canadian destinations. A private airline has the option of simply not servicing routes that don't guarantee profitability, and private airlines can choose to cancel routes for a penalty if they're proving to be money losers.

I don't envy the task airlines have, but I also don't think they've been doing the best job they can do. But I also don't think that they have a problem as severe as a company like United, which has in the last several years beaten its passengers, killed a number of dogs, etc.

These issues are some big reasons why cargo airlines are, from a business and investment perspective, so very much better than a passenger airline is.

The EU rules on flight delays are very good. My wife once got €600 in compensation when she was rerouted via an extra city and arrived five hours late. That was about the same as the cost of the flight.