Decision No. 3-C-A-2023

[1] The applicants reserved round-trip tickets for travel from Montréal, Quebec, to Cayo Coco, Cuba, departing on February 19, 2020, at 4:05 pm and arriving at 7:55 pm. Their flight was delayed until the next day, with a delay of approximately 15 hours. Their return flight, which was scheduled to arrive in Montréal at 12:40 am on February 27, 2020, was also delayed by 2 hours and 30 minutes.

[2] The applicants claim that they received very poor service from the respondent at the Montréal airport, in particular, they did not receive its help during the two-hour wait and they had to retrieve their baggage from the other end of the terminal by themselves.

[3] They also state that they did not receive an alert from the respondent’s application to inform them that their flight would not be leaving until the next day, otherwise they would have returned home to wait.

[4] The applicants claim that the meal voucher provided by the respondent during the wait, amounting to CAD 15 per passenger, was not sufficient to cover the cost of a meal.

[5] They add that an Air Canada flight was able to depart from the Montréal airport to travel to Cayo Coco on February 19, 2020, because Air Canada paid a penalty to land in Cayo Coco outside the usual hours of operation, a penalty that the respondent did not want to pay, according to what a representative of the respondent told them in Cayo Coco.

[6] The respondent claims it is unaware of the existence of such a penalty, and it has no knowledge of Air Canada’s operations.

[7] The applicants seek CAD 1,000 each in compensation, as provided for in the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) when a delay is within the carrier’s control.

[8] The applicants also claim that they incurred some expenses due to the flight delay, namely an additional day of parking at the Montréal airport, a meal at the restaurant in the terminal, an additional day of kennel fees for their dog, as well as a missed work day for each of the applicants.

[9] In this decision, the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) is to decide whether the respondent properly applied its Tariff to the tickets the applicants purchased. If the Agency finds that the respondent has failed to properly apply its Tariff, it may direct the respondent to take the corrective measures that it considers appropriate, or to pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by the respondent’s failure.

[10] The Agency does not have the authority to order compensation for poor service, the wait at the Montréal airport and inconveniences experienced by the applicants. Therefore, the Agency will not consider these aspects of the application.

[11] The respondent states that an issue with the baggage belt system at the Montréal airport caused a delay with the previous flight which was operated using the same aircraft. This delay led to the late departure of the applicants’ flight by 3 hours and 35 minutes. The arrival of their flight was now scheduled for 11:30 pm. However, the respondent states that the Cayo Coco airport remains open until 11 pm. It adds that it made a request with the airport authority to extend the curfew, but the request was denied. The respondent also indicates that the decision to authorize an extended curfew is made the same day by the airport authority depending on staffing of air traffic control and other airport staff, such as customs and security.

[12] As for the applicants’ allegations that a representative of the respondent told them that the respondent refused to pay a penalty to land in Cayo Coco outside the usual hours of operation, the respondent’s Tariff provides that no employee or representative of the carrier is authorized to bind the carrier regarding the dates or times of departure or arrival, or the operation of a flight, unless stated in writing.

[13] The respondent states that the curfew caused an additional delay of 10 hours and 45 minutes in the departure time of the applicants’ flight.

[14] The applicants’ flight finally landed in Cayo Coco on February 20, 2020, at 10:58 am, with a delay of 15 hours and 3 minutes.

[15] The APPR provides that a delay caused by issues related to airport operation is due to a situation outside the carrier’s control. In this case, the Agency is of the opinion that the faulty baggage belt system constitutes an issue related to the airport’s operation and that it is therefore a situation outside the respondent’s control.

[16] The APPR also provides that a delay that is directly attributable to an earlier delay that was due to a situation outside the carrier’s control is considered to also be due to a situation outside the carrier’s control if that carrier took all reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of the earlier delay.

[17] In this case, the additional delay of 10 hours and 45 minutes in the departure time of the applicants’ flight due to the curfew was directly caused by the initial delay, which was itself caused by the faulty baggage belt system. The evidence on file indicates that the respondent transported the applicants to Cayo Coco as soon as possible, that being the next morning at 6:39 am. The Agency finds that the respondent took all reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of the earlier delay and that the delay is therefore due to a situation outside the respondent’s control.

[18] The applicants claim that they were not informed by the respondent of the different flight delays. The respondent, however, issued a flight delay notice at 12:16 pm for the first delay and at 4:10 pm for the second, indicating the reason for the delays. It also sent an alert concerning the 12:31 pm flight to all passengers registered for flight alerts letting them know about the first delay. It adds that it has found no record that the applicants were registered for flight alerts.

[19] The Agency finds that the respondent met the requirement provided for in the APPR, which is to provide the reason for the delay to the applicants.

[20] Given that the delay is due to a situation outside the respondent’s control, it was not required to provide the standards of treatment provided for in the APPR with respect to food, drink and a means of communication. However, the Tariff states that the respondent must provide a meal voucher to the passenger when the delay is more than four hours, which it did.

Conclusion

[21] In light of the above, the Agency finds that the respondent properly applied its Tariff and the APPR to the tickets the applicants purchased. Therefore, the Agency dismisses the application.