Decision No. 10-C-A-2023

[1] The applicants travelled on Flight WG526 from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to Montréal, Quebec, on January 5, 2020, at 3:30 pm. Their flight was diverted to the Winnipeg airport and they arrived in Montréal approximately 8 hours and 30 minutes later than scheduled.

[2] The applicants state that an announcement was made on board the flight indicating that there was a malfunction of the aircraft’s de-icing system. They also claim that the respondent had enough time to arrange a replacement flight before their flight landed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which would have reduced the delay.

[3] The applicants submit that the delay was within the respondent’s control and seek compensation in the amount of CAD 700 each for inconvenience under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR).

[4] 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.

Flight delay

[5] The respondent states that a mechanical malfunction of the de-icing system of one of the engines was detected after the departure of the flight in question. To establish the existence of this malfunction, it filed maintenance notes. This mechanical malfunction forced the flight crew to divert the flight to Winnipeg to avoid icing conditions forecasted in Ontario and Quebec. The respondent also filed as evidence meteorological data issued on the day of the incident.

[6] The respondent indicates that after the arrival of Flight WG526 in Winnipeg, it had to take measures to arrange for another aircraft and to assemble a new flight crew from other locations to complete the flight. This layover lasted 5 hours and 9 minutes.

[7] The respondent also states that it ensured that passengers were kept informed throughout the flight and during the layover in Winnipeg and that it offered CAD 25 meal vouchers to the applicants. To support its position, the respondent filed a report detailing the announcements that were made to passengers as well as another report regarding the distribution of meal vouchers.

[8] The respondent adds that the flight delay was therefore within its control but required for safety purposes.

[9] In this case, the evidence indicates that the applicants’ flight was delayed by 8 hours and 28 minutes due to an unforeseen mechanical malfunction and that the respondent acted as it did to reduce the risk to passenger safety. Therefore, the Agency finds that this situation was within the respondent’s control but required for safety purposes under the APPR.

[10] The Agency also finds that based on the evidence filed by the respondent, the respondent properly applied the provisions of the APPR with respect to its obligations in case of a delay that is within its control but required for safety purposes. Furthermore, it took all reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of the flight delay. In fact, the respondent implemented a plan to evaluate the mechanical malfunction, provided a replacement aircraft in Winnipeg, assembled a replacement flight crew to comply with the regulatory requirements of flight duty time limitations and offered meal vouchers to the applicants, all within a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances.

Conclusion

[11] 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.