Decision No. 232-A-1996
Decision varied by P.C. 1996-849 dated June 7, 1996.
April 19, 1996
Decision No. 232-A-1996 dated April 18, 1996 - Complaint filed by WestJet Airlines Ltd. against Greyhound Lines of Canada Ltd. and Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter Ltd.
File No. M4205/K14/6052
Docket No. 960315
An erratum to this Decision was issued - In the second paragraph below "March 16, 1996" should read "March 18, 1996".
April 18, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed by WestJet Airlines Ltd. against Greyhound Lines of Canada Ltd. and Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter Ltd.
File No. M4205/K14/6052
Docket No. 960315
WestJet Airlines Ltd. (hereinafter WestJet) filed a complaint with the National Transportation Agency on February 22, 1996. Copies of the complaint were provided to Greyhound Lines of Canada Ltd. (hereinafter Greyhound) and Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter Ltd. (hereinafter Kelowna) for comments.
On March 11, 1996, Greyhound and Kelowna filed their answers to the complaint of WestJet. On March 15, 1996, WestJet filed its reply to the answers of Greyhound and Kelowna. Upon review of WestJet's March 15th reply, the Agency determined that it contained additional evidence. Accordingly, by letter dated March 16, 1996, Greyhound and Kelowna were provided an opportunity to comment on the new evidence; WestJet would then have the opportunity to respond to any comments received. Greyhound and Kelowna did not provide comments on this new evidence.
By letter dated February 26, 1996, WestJet provided additional comments in support of its complaint. This letter was received by the Agency on March 13, 1996 and copies were provided to Greyhound and Kelowna for comments. On March 18, 1996, Greyhound and Kelowna provided their answers to the letter dated February 26, 1996. On March 19, 1996, WestJet filed its reply.
In reviewing WestJet's reply dated March 19, 1996, the Agency determined that it contained additional evidence and accordingly, by letters dated March 21, 1996, the Agency advised the parties that Greyhound and Kelowna had a right to respond to the new evidence and that WestJet would then have an opportunity to respond to any new comments provided by Greyhound and Kelowna. The Agency also advised the parties that following receipt of all submissions related to the new evidence contained in WestJet's March 19, 1996 reply, the pleadings in respect of the complaint would be closed. On March 25, 1996, Greyhound and Kelowna provided their answers to the new evidence. On March 26, 1996, WestJet filed its reply to these answers.
By letter dated March 29, 1996, the Agency advised the parties that pleadings in respect of the complaint were closed. The Agency further advised the parties that it had concluded that insufficient information and documentation had been filed in order for the Agency to dispose of WestJet's complaint and that Kelowna and Greyhound were required to file copies with the Agency of "... all agreements, arrangements and contracts that have been or are to be entered into between Kelowna and Greyhound and their affiliates concerning proposed operations, for the Agency's review in confidence.". These documents were filed and attested to by affidavit on April 3, 1996.
POSITION OF WESTJET
WestJet submits that Greyhound is intending to circumvent the National Transportation Act, 1987, R.S.C., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.) (hereinafter the NTA, 1987). WestJet states that the effective control of Greyhound Air lies in the hands of Greyhound who, WestJet submits, in turn is controlled by The Dial Corp. WestJet states that it is of the view that the commercial relationship between Kelowna and Greyhound is intended to circumvent the Canadian ownership requirements of the NTA, 1987.
WestJet states that because Greyhound would not be permitted by the Agency to operate the airline equipment itself, Greyhound has contracted all flight operations to Kelowna. WestJet submits that Greyhound would be responsible for all routes, scheduling, planning, pricing, payload control, marketing activities, service standards and meeting the competitive challenges in the marketplace. WestJet further states that Kelowna would simply operate Greyhound Air's aircraft at a contract rate per available seat mile, without incurring any market risk.
WestJet adds that it was required to meet the strict criteria stipulated by the Agency to ensure that the ownership and control of the airline industry remains in the hands of Canadians, and finds that the arrangement between Greyhound and Kelowna is a "backdoor approach" which is highly offensive.
In its reply dated March 15, 1996, WestJet alleges that certain of Greyhound's actions prior to entering into an agreement with Kelowna indicate Greyhound's awareness that it would not be able to obtain a licence from the Agency as it would not meet Canadian ownership requirements and yet Greyhound pressed ahead and entered into an arrangement with Kelowna. WestJet states that Greyhound's current plan, as reported in the press, is to market and sell tickets for an airline service, then contract the flying to Kelowna. This, according to WestJet, is an attempt to circumvent the Canadian ownership and control requirements of the domestic licensing process. WestJet submits that an airline is considerably more than the sum of its inanimate aircraft; it is rather the sum total of the human and financial capital required to promote, market and ultimately sell seat inventory and cargo capacity on the aircraft. WestJet argues that, although Kelowna intends to physically operate the aircraft, what transforms those aircraft into an airline are the activities of Greyhound. WestJet asserts that without Greyhound, there is no Greyhound Air and maintains that the mind and control of Greyhound Air lies with Greyhound. It is submitted by WestJet that all marketing efforts, advertising, uniform selection, reservations systems, inventory management, payload control, route selection and scheduling and other key elements are clearly controlled by Greyhound.
POSITION OF GREYHOUND
Greyhound submits that the arrangement with Kelowna is a tour operator-charter carrier arrangement. Greyhound states that the allegations by WestJet concerning the control of the air service are without foundation and that the air service remains completely under the operation and control of Kelowna.
Greyhound expresses the view that there is nothing in either aviation law or policy which prevents a foreign-controlled company entering into charter contracts with Canadian air carriers.
In response to WestJet's allegations that Greyhound controls Kelowna, Greyhound asserts that both it and Kelowna have demonstrably shown that Greyhound does not control Kelowna. Greyhound further submits that it has no equity investment in Kelowna and has no representation on the board of directors nor does it have any control over the selection, retention and compensation of Kelowna's officers and executives. Additionally, Greyhound states that it is the officers, executives and employees of Kelowna that run and manage Kelowna and that will run and manage the air operations of Greyhound Air on a day-to-day basis. Greyhound maintains that the financial arrangements in connection with Greyhound Air are highly conventional and standard.
In conclusion, Greyhound states that WestJet's allegations are without foundation and cannot be substantiated.
POSITION OF KELOWNA
Kelowna submits that the charter arrangement with Greyhound does not give control of Kelowna, directly or indirectly, to Greyhound. Kelowna further submits that Greyhound will obtain no ownership interest in Kelowna, nor will it have any representatives on its board of directors or amongst its executives. In addition, Kelowna states that it will, at all times, maintain full control of and decision-making over the operation of the aircraft, and only its employees will operate the aircraft.
Kelowna also submits that the terms of the charter arrangement represent common industry practice and, while confidential, are not unlike those of the charter arrangement already in place between Kelowna and Purolator Courier Ltd.
Kelowna asserts that its sole director, Mr. Barry Lapointe, has no intention of relinquishing any control over the corporation or its operations, nor does he have any intention of circumventing Canadian transportation law or assisting anyone in doing so.
The Agency has carefully examined all of the submissions and evidence filed. Further, the Agency has carefully examined the documents which Kelowna and Greyhound were required to file with the Agency pursuant to the Agency's letter of March 29, 1996. By letter decision dated April 12, 1996, the Agency determined that these documents are confidential.
The Agency has also determined that the issue to be addressed in this matter is whether Greyhound will be operating a domestic air service which would require it to hold a domestic licence.
Based primarily on the financial, operational and business relationships between Greyhound and Kelowna described in the confidential documents, the Agency determines that, if the air services commence as proposed therein, Greyhound will be operating a publicly available domestic air service. Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 71(1) of the NTA, 1987 in order for the proposed air services to commence, Greyhound will be required to hold a domestic licence. In order to obtain a domestic licence, Greyhound would have to establish to the satisfaction of the Agency that it is Canadian as defined in section 67 of the NTA, 1987, holds a Canadian aviation document, and has prescribed liability insurance coverage or evidence of such insurability in respect of the air services to be provided under the licence.
The Agency notes that Greyhound does not presently hold a domestic licence. Accordingly, if operation of the proposed air services commences, the Agency will take all actions within its jurisdiction to prevent such operation, including the issuance, if necessary, of a cease and desist order against Greyhound. The Agency, therefore, cautions against the commencement of the operation of the proposed air services.
In view of the foregoing and, in order to protect the travelling public, it is advisable that Greyhound immediately cease the marketing of its proposed air services, including advertising in the various media and selling tickets to the public.
Due to the confidentiality of the documents filed by Kelowna and Greyhound, as determined by the Agency in its letter decision dated April 12, 1996, detailed reasons for the Agency decision were to be provided, in confidence, to Greyhound and Kelowna which was done on April 16, 1996.
This Decision takes effect as of April 12, 1996, the date on which it was communicated by letter.