Decision No. 442-C-A-2013

An erratum was issued on December 3, 2013

November 27, 2013

COMPLAINT by Dr. Rima Azar against Air Canada.

File No.: 
M4120-3/13-04197

INTRODUCTION

[1] Dr. Rima Azar filed a complaint regarding several provisions of Air Canada’s International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. AC-2, NTA(A) No. 458 (Tariff) relating to Air Canada’s denied boarding compensation policy and its check-in time limits for travel from Canada to the European Union (EU). Dr. Azar also requested that the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) order Air Canada to pay her costs on a full indemnity basis.

[2] In Decision No. 264-C-A-2013, the Agency addressed all issues relating to Dr. Azar’s complaint with the exception of whether Air Canada’s denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the EU were reasonable. That issue was placed in abeyance pending the issuance of the Agency’s decision on a related matter (the reasonableness of Air Canada’s domestic tariff provisions related to denied boarding compensation amounts). In Decision No. 327-C-A-2013, the Agency ruled on the related matter. The Agency then opened pleadings on the remaining issue in this case.

[3] In response to opening pleadings on this issue, Air Canada proposed revised denied boarding compensation amounts and requested the Agency to disregard the denied boarding compensation amounts included in its previous submissions in this case. Dr. Azar did not object to Air Canada’s request.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

[4] In her September 23, 2013 reply, Dr. Azar argues that she should be awarded costs because of Air Canada’s refusal to concede that the aspect of her complaint addressing Air Canada’s denied boarding amounts is well founded. Further, Dr. Azar disagrees with the Agency’s statement in Decision No. 264-C-A-2013 that an average self-represented individual is capable of understanding the Canadian Transportation Agency General Rules, SOR/2005-35, as amended (General Rules) and using it as a full procedural code. Specifically, Dr. Azar states that there are numerous decisions of the Agency where passengers clearly did not understand the adversarial nature of the proceeding and what was required of them. To support her position, Dr. Azar gives examples of two complaints brought before the Agency (Decision No. 349-C-A-2012 and Decision No. 239‑C-A-2013) where, in her opinion, a lack of counsel led to the complainants making uninformed choices.

[5] Regarding Dr. Azar’s submission and examples of the two cases, where in her submission, she states that a lack of counsel led to the complainants making uninformed choices, the Agency notes that there is absolutely no evidence that the outcome of those cases was adversely affected by any lack of adequate understanding of the Agency’s procedures on the part of the complainants.

[6] The Agency reiterates what it stated in Decision No. 264-C-A-2013: (1) the Agency as a quasi‑judicial tribunal is, by its very nature, a tribunal where a party can successfully plead without representation by counsel; (2) the General Rules set out a full procedural code for proceedings before the Agency that can be used by an individual who is self-represented; and (3) the Agency has maintained in past decisions that an award of costs is warranted only in special or exceptional circumstances.

[7] In Decision No. 264-C-A-2013, the Agency found that Dr. Azar’s complaint was not characterized by special or exceptional circumstances and, as such, the Agency declined to order costs against Air Canada. As Dr. Azar has still not established otherwise, the Agency reiterates its finding that this contested matter concerning tariffs and passenger compensation is not characterized by special or exceptional circumstances. Costs are therefore not granted.

ISSUES

  1. Are Air Canada’s existing denied boarding compensation amounts reasonable?
  2. Does Air Canada clearly state its denied boarding compensation policy in its Proposed Tariff Rule?
  3. Are Air Canada’s proposed denied boarding compensation amounts reasonable?

RELEVANT TARIFF AND STATUTORY EXTRACTS

[8] After Dr. Azar filed her complaint, Air Canada changed the rule numbers and some of the wording of its Tariff respecting denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the EU. Those amounts were found in Tariff Rule 89(Part 1)(E)(2) at the time of Dr. Azar’s complaint; however, they are now reflected in Tariff Rule 90(E)(2). While the rule numbers and some wording of its Tariff were changed, the denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the EU have remained the same.

[9] The Tariff provisions that were in effect at the time of Dr. Azar’s travel [Rule 89(Part 1(E)(2)] and those that were revised since Dr. Azar’s travel [Rule 90(E)(2)] are set out in the Appendix.

CLARITY AND REASONABLENESS OF TARIFF PROVISIONS

Clarity

[10] The Agency’s jurisdiction in matters respecting international tariffs is set out in Part V, Division II, International Tariffs, of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88‑58, as amended (ATR).

[11] Subsection 110(4) of the ATR requires that tariffs must be consistent with the provisions of the ATR, which includes section 122.

[12] Section 122 of the ATR requires that the terms and conditions of carriage contained in the carrier’s tariff clearly state the carrier’s policy in respect of, at a minimum, specified matters.

[13] Paragraph 122(a) of the ATR provides that:

Every tariff shall contain

(a) the terms and conditions governing the tariff generally, stated in such a way that it is clear as to how the terms and conditions apply to the tolls named in the tariff.

[14] Subparagraph 122(c)(iii) of the ATR provides that:

Every tariff shall contain

(c) the terms and conditions of carriage, clearly stating the air carrier’s policy in respect of at least the following matters, namely,

[...]

(iii) compensation for denial of boarding as a result of overbooking,

[...]

[15] The Agency found in Decision No. 249-C-A-2012 (Lukács v. WestJet) that an air carrier meets its tariff obligation of clarity when the rights and obligations of both the carrier and the passenger are stated in such a way as to exclude any reasonable doubt, ambiguity or uncertain meaning.

Reasonableness

[16] A carrier is required not only to set out its policies in the carrier’s tariff, but also to ensure that with respect to international flights, its tariff is just and reasonable within the meaning of subsection 111(1) of the ATR.

[17] Subsection 111(1) of the ATR states:

All tolls and terms and conditions of carriage, including free and reduced rate transportation, that are established by an air carrier shall be just and reasonable and shall, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions and with respect to all traffic of the same description, be applied equally to all that traffic.

[18] The Agency has stated in previous decisions, such as in Decision No. 249-C-A-2012, that to determine whether a term or condition of carriage applied by a carrier is “reasonable” within the meaning of subsection 111(1) of the ATR, a balance must be struck between the rights of passengers to be subject to reasonable terms and conditions of carriage and the particular air carrier’s statutory, commercial and operational obligations.

[19] The terms and conditions of carriage are set out by an air carrier unilaterally without any input from passengers. The air carrier sets its terms and conditions of carriage on the basis of its own interests, which may have their basis in purely commercial requirements. There is no presumption that a tariff is reasonable.

[20] When balancing the passengers’ rights against the carrier’s obligations, the Agency must consider the whole of the evidence and the submissions presented by both parties and make a determination on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the term or condition of carriage based on which party has presented the more compelling and persuasive case.

ISSUE 1: ARE AIR CANADA’S EXISTING DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION AMOUNTS REASONABLE?

Positions of the parties

Dr. Azar

[21] Dr. Azar states that Air Canada’s Existing Denied Boarding Rule fixes the amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers travelling from Canada to the EU at CAD$200 in cash or CAD$500 in travel vouchers. She notes, however, that the Existing Denied Boarding Rule fixes the amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers travelling from the EU to Canada at 600 euros in cash, an amount that can be reduced to 300 euros if the resulting delay is less than four hours. In light of these differences, Dr. Azar is of the opinion that Air Canada arbitrarily and unreasonably distinguishes between passengers who are denied boarding while travelling between Canada and the EU, based on their point of origin.

[22] Dr. Azar submits that the fact that being involuntarily denied boarding causes significant inconvenience and damages to passengers is explicitly recognized by subparagraph 122(c)(iii) of the ATR, which requires a carrier to state its denied boarding compensation policies in its tariff. Thus, the question is whether Air Canada’s ability to meet its statutory, commercial and operational obligations would be affected in any fashion by requiring Air Canada to pay the same amount of denied boarding compensation to passengers travelling from Canada to the EU as passengers travelling the other way.

[23] With respect to Air Canada’s commercial obligations, Dr. Azar states that there is no doubt that an increase in the denied boarding compensation amounts specified in the Existing Denied Boarding Rule would affect Air Canada financially. However, she points out that the question is whether it would create a competitive disadvantage for Air Canada, and she is of the opinion that the answer to that question is no. Dr. Azar argues that Air Canada would not suffer any competitive disadvantage if it applied the same “600 EUR/300 EUR rule” to its passengers travelling from Canada to the EU.

[24] Dr. Azar points out that Air Canada’s main competitors on routes from Canada to the EU are various European carriers, each of which has to pay the amount of denied boarding compensation prescribed by Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on all of its flights, regardless of the points of origin and destination. She contends that these carriers have to compensate passengers who are denied boarding according to the “600 EUR/300 EUR rule” on flights from Canada to the EU. Dr. Azar submits that Air Canada is therefore enjoying an unfair competitive advantage compared to its main competitors on routes to the EU, and Air Canada short-changes its passengers travelling from Canada to the EU. Dr. Azar argues that Air Canada would not suffer any competitive disadvantage by applying the same “600 EUR/300 EUR rule”, which is already incorporated into the Existing Denied Boarding Rule, to its passengers travelling from Canada to the EU.

Air Canada

[25] Air Canada contends that its existing denied boarding compensation amounts are reasonable. Air Canada states that the factors used to determine this level of compensation are: 1) the average of Air Canada’s international economy cabin fares (the total passenger revenue for all international markets divided by the number of total international revenue passenger segments) which has been CAD$440 from 2004 to 2012; 2) the level of denied boarding compensation offered by other Canadian carriers such as WestJet, Porter Airlines Inc. (Porter), Sunwing Airlines Inc. (Sunwing) and Air Transat A.T. Inc. carrying on business as Air Transat (Air Transat); and 3) the fact that its extensive network allows the fast reprotection of passengers on subsequent flights. Air Canada also points out that as a result of the principles set out in Decision No. 251‑C‑A‑2012 (Lukács v. Air Canada), more reprotection options are now available. Air Canada adds that as its international denied boarding amounts are based on the average of Air Canada’s international economy fares, these amounts are not contingent on inflation. Air Canada argues that competition maintains these fares at a steady level, and even contributes to reducing them.

[26] Air Canada points out that in Canada, denied boarding compensation is determined on a per carrier basis. Air Canada adds that its current compensation policy is already more generous than other Canadian carriers, and any imposition solely on Air Canada, and not on its competitors, of specific denied boarding compensation amounts would create a serious competitive disadvantage as overselling and overbooking situations may still occur on competitor carriers, particularly in the case of irregular operation situations.

Dr. Azar

[27] Dr. Azar asserts that the purpose of denied boarding compensation is to compensate passengers who are denied boarding on a flight on which they hold a confirmed reservation. As such, Dr. Azar argues that Air Canada’s failure to update its denied boarding compensation amounts to reflect the rate of inflation resulted in Air Canada gradually decreasing the value of the compensation it provides. Dr. Azar therefore argues that Air Canada’s failure to update its denied boarding compensation amounts to reflect the rate of inflation supports the finding that those amounts are unreasonable.

[28] With respect to Air Canada’s submission that it takes the benchmark against competitors for establishing its denied boarding compensation amounts, Dr. Azar states that Air Canada failed to present any evidence to establish that the carriers it listed represent significant competition on routes between Canada and the EU. Dr. Azar argues that neither WestJet nor Porter operate any flights between Canada and the EU, while Air Transat and Sunwing may operate, at most, a few seasonal flights that are insignificant from the point of view of any competitive disadvantage to Air Canada.

[29] Dr. Azar states that there is a striking difference in the willingness of passengers travelling from Europe to Canada to volunteer for denied boarding and the reluctance of passengers travelling from Canada to Europe to do the same. Dr. Azar submits that the difference has an obvious explanation: the amounts of denied boarding compensation offered by Air Canada on flights from Canada are inadequate and unreasonably low, not only in Dr. Azar’s view, but also in the eyes of the travelling public. Dr. Azar argues that the amounts do not adequately compensate passengers for the consequences of being denied boarding.

[30] Dr. Azar asserts that the ticket price figures provided by Air Canada are, without exception, over CAD$400. Therefore, she does not understand how Air Canada reached the conclusion that half of that amount, that is, CAD$200 (in cash), is a reasonable compensation for being denied boarding. Dr. Azar argues that if Air Canada’s denied boarding compensation amounts are to be determined based on the fares on individual flight segments, the current compensation of CAD$200 in cash is unreasonably low.

Analysis and findings

[31] Dr. Azar submits that the difference in Air Canada’s denied boarding compensation amounts for passengers travelling from Canada to the EU (CAD$200 in cash or CAD$500 in travel vouchers) and from the EU to Canada (600 euros or 300 euros if the resulting delay is less than four hours) represents an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction, based on the point of origin. Air Canada contends that its existing denied boarding compensation amount falls within the range of the average fare for its international flight sectors, which has been CAD$440 from 2004 to 2012. Air Canada points out that its existing denied boarding compensation amounts also consider the amounts paid by its competitors, as well as reprotection possibilities available to Air Canada.

[32] The Agency has considered the submissions in this matter and finds that Dr. Azar presents a more compelling case that Air Canada’s statutory, commercial and operational obligations do not outweigh the right of passengers to be subject to reasonable terms and conditions of carriage.

[33] The Agency agrees with Dr. Azar’s submission that Air Canada has not provided any evidence to indicate that the carriers it listed as its competitors represent significant competition on routes between Canada and the EU. Furthermore, the Agency has held in past decisions (such as Decision No. 204-C-A-2013Lukács v. Air Canada) that the mere fact that a carrier’s term and condition of carriage is comparable to other carriers does not render that term and condition reasonable.

[34] The Agency also agrees with Dr. Azar’s submission that Air Canada’s existing denied boarding compensation amounts are unreasonable when compared to either the average (mean) total price paid by passengers between Canada and the EU augmented by the standard deviation, or Air Canada’s average international economy fare between the years 2004 and 2012, which are all over CAD$400. Air Canada fails to explain how half of that amount, or CAD$200, is an appropriate denied boarding compensation amount.

[35] With respect to Air Canada’s submission that its extensive network allows the fast reprotection of passengers on subsequent flights, the Agency ruled in Decision No. 204-C-A-2013 that the action of a fast reprotection may not, in fact, entirely or sufficiently mitigate the damages experienced by that passenger. The Agency is still of that opinion.

[36] The Agency also notes that if Air Canada were to increase its existing denied boarding compensation amounts, the commercial impact would be mitigated as Air Canada indicates that it has a low level of denied boarding on its international flights (0.08 percent of passengers were subject to being denied boarding in 2012, 0.08 percent in 2011, and 0.07 percent in 2010).

[37] The Agency finds that Air Canada has failed to demonstrate how a higher level of compensation would place it in a disadvantage in relation to other domestic carriers.

[38] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that Air Canada’s existing denied boarding compensation amounts are unreasonable.

ISSUE 2: DOES AIR CANADA CLEARLY STATE ITS DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION POLICY IN ITS PROPOSED TARIFF RULE?

Positions of the parties

[39] In its September 18, 2013 submission, Air Canada proposed the following denied boarding compensation amounts for delays at arrival caused by involuntary denied boarding:

  • For a delay of up to four hours: CAD$400 (cash or equivalent);
  • For a delay of over four hours: CAD$800 (cash or equivalent).

[40] Dr. Azar states that the word “arrival” in the phrase “delay at arrival caused by involuntary denied boarding” found in the Proposed Tariff Rule leads to ambiguity in the case of itineraries involving more than one segment. She argues that the word “arrival” ought to be clarified as “arrival at the airport of the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger’s final destination.” She also states that the term “stopover” ought to be clarified as a “deliberate interruption of a journey by the passenger, scheduled to exceed 4 hours, at a point between the place of departure and the final destination.”

Analysis and findings

[41] As stated in the test for clarity set out earlier in this Decision, an air carrier meets its tariff obligation of clarity when the rights and obligations of both the carrier and the passenger are stated in such a way as to exclude any reasonable doubt, ambiguity or uncertain meaning.

[42] The Agency is of the opinion that the word “arrival” in the phrase “delay at arrival caused by involuntary denied boarding” refers to a passenger’s arrival at their final destination and as such, it is self-explanatory within the context of the phrase.

[43] The Agency therefore finds that the wording found in the Proposed Tariff Rule would be clear within the meaning of subparagraph 122(c)(iii) of the ATR if it were to be filed with the Agency.

[44] However, greater clarity would be achieved if Air Canada were to amend the phrase to read: “delay at arrival at point of destination caused by involuntary denied boarding.”

ISSUE 3: ARE AIR CANADA’S PROPOSED DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION AMOUNTS REASONABLE?

Positions of the parties

Air Canada

[45] Air Canada submits that its proposed denied boarding compensation amounts are reasonable in that:

  • They were established considering the amounts set out under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 as well as amounts established by Decision No. 342-C-A-2013;
  • The Proposed Tariff Rule significantly streamlines the amounts already established for domestic travel;
  • The amounts will be easily understood by passengers as denied boarding compensation amounts for all flights within or departing out of Canada will be significantly organized;
  • All passengers will receive the same amount; and,
  • The Proposed Tariff Rule establishes denied boarding compensation amounts that closely resemble those established under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 which, according to Air Canada, meet Dr. Azar’s request.

[46] Air Canada states, however, that its submissions regarding the reasonableness of its proposed denied boarding compensation amounts in no way constitute an admission by Air Canada that Dr. Azar’s complaint is well founded; rather, they are transmitted to the Agency to propose a compensation regime based on the principles set out in Decision No. 342-C-A-2013, as well as to harmonize Air Canada’s denied boarding compensation regime.

Dr. Azar

[47] Dr. Azar accepts four hours as a reasonable division mark to determine the amount of the compensation; however, she maintains that the amounts proposed by Air Canada are still lower than the amounts paid by its main competitors. Dr. Azar indicates that pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, Air Canada’s main competitors on routes between Canada and the EU are legally obligated to pay denied boarding compensation in the amount of 300/600 euros, depending on whether the delay caused is more or less than four hours. Dr. Azar points out that according to the Bank of Canada, as of September 23, 2013, 300 euros equates to CAD$416.22, and 600 euros equates to CAD$832.44.

[48] In light of the above, Dr. Azar argues that if Air Canada were to raise its amounts to match 300 euros and 600 euros, respectively, it would not affect Air Canada’s ability to meet its statutory, commercial and operational obligations. She maintains that passengers ought to be entitled to the same compensation when they travel from point A to point B as they are when they travel from point B to point A. As such, Dr. Azar maintains that the amounts proposed by Air Canada are still unreasonable, and provides the following alternative compensation amounts:

  • 300 euros to 600 euros, depending on the length of the delay, as prescribed by Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004; or
  • Offer the passengers a choice between CAD$400 and 300 euros, or CAD$800 and 600 euros, depending on the length of the delay; or
  • Determine the amount of denied boarding compensation in Special Drawing Rights and pay out the compensation in the passenger’s choice of Canadian dollars or euros; or
  • CAD$425 or CAD$850, depending on the length of the delay. These amounts are slightly higher than what is paid by Air Canada’s competitors, but the difference is not so significant as to cause Air Canada any competitive disadvantage.

Analysis and findings

[49] To determine a reasonable compensation regime for Air Canada’s domestic flights, the Agency stated in Decision No. 342-C-A-2013 that it would consider the following factors:

  • the degree to which the compensation regime mitigates the inconvenience suffered by passengers affected by denied boarding;
  • the extent to which the denied boarding compensation regime is understandable; and,
  • the ease of implementation of the regime.

[50] The same factors apply to this case.

[51] The Agency agrees with the parties that four hours is a reasonable division mark to determine the denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the EU. The Agency finds that Air Canada’s proposed denied boarding compensation amounts are reasonable, as they are of similar amounts to what is offered under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 for flights from the EU to Canada.

[52] The Agency disagrees with Dr. Azar’s argument that the mere difference of CAD$16 in terms of the “0-4 hours” time period and the difference of CAD$32 regarding the “over 4 hours” time period (as a result of the exchange rate between the European and Canadian currency) render Air Canada’s proposed denied boarding compensation amounts unreasonable.

[53] The Agency finds that it is not unreasonable for Air Canada to set the amounts of compensation in Canadian dollars and, furthermore, that the current exchange rate between the euro and the Canadian dollar results in an insignificant difference in the amounts of denied boarding compensation proposed by Air Canada, in comparison to what is offered in the EU. In addition, the Agency agrees with Air Canada that the proposed denied boarding compensation regime is understandable and would be easy to implement.

[54] The Agency finds that Air Canada’s Proposed Tariff Rule is an appropriate balance between the rights of passengers to be subject to reasonable terms and conditions of carriage and Air Canada’s statutory, commercial and operational obligations. The Agency finds that the amounts of denied boarding compensation in the Proposed Tariff Rule would be found reasonable if they were to be filed with the Agency.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

Issue 1

[55] The Agency has determined that Air Canada’s existing denied boarding compensation amounts are unreasonable.

Issue 2

[56] The Agency has determined that the wording in the Proposed Tariff Rule would be found clear within the meaning of subparagraph 122(c)(iii) of the ATR if it were to be filed with the Agency.

Issue 3

[57] The Agency has determined that the amounts of denied boarding compensation in the Proposed Tariff Rule would be found reasonable if they were to be filed with the Agency.

ORDER

[58] The Agency, pursuant to paragraph 113(a) of the ATR, disallows Existing Tariff Rule 90(E)(2) as it relates to denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the EU.

[59] The Agency orders Air Canada, by no later than December 30, 2013, to amend its Tariff by filing its proposed denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the EU.

[60] Pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(b) of the CTA, the disallowance of Existing Tariff Rule 90(E)(2) as it relates to denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the EU shall come into force when Air Canada complies with the above or on December 30, 2013, whichever is sooner.


APPENDIX

Air Canada’s International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. AC-2, NTA(A) No. 458

Tariff Rules that were in effect at the time of Dr. Azar’s travel

RULE 89 – DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION

PART 1

[...]

(E) COMPENSATION

[...]

(2) Amount of Compensation

Subject to the provisions of (E)(1)(a) AC will tender liquidated damages in the amounts in cash or a credit voucher good for travel on AC as follows: Caribbean/Bermuda to Canada, compensation by cash is equal to the value of coupons remaining to an online or interline destination, or next stopover points, maximum is CAD 200.00. Compensation by MCO (credit voucher), is equal to twice the value of coupons remaining to an online or interline destination or next stopover point, minimum is CAD 100.00, maximum is CAD 500.00.

From Venezuela, compensation to passengers must equal 25% of the value of the ticket to be paid by cash, by electronic bank transfer, cheque, or in accordance with an agreement signed with the passenger, with travel vouchers or other services.

  Draft MCO (credit voucher)

Canada to Mexico/Mexico to

Canada

CAD 100.00 CAD 200.00
Canada to all other destinations CAD 200.00 CAD 500.00
Asia to Canada (excluding Japan and Korea) CAD 300.00 CAD 600.00
Japan to Canada (compensation offered in cash only)

JPY 30,000

(paid by bank transfer)

not applicable
Seoul to Canada - Y class (compensation in cash only) USD 400.00 not applicable

[1] Seoul to Canada - J class

(compensation in cash only)

USD 600.00 not applicable
South America/South Pacific to Canada CAD 200.00 CAD 500.00

[2] **exceptions**

From Sao Paulo to Toronto

USD 750.00 USD 1500.00

(3) Time of Offer of Compensation

  1. Compensation will be offered to, and if accepted, receipted by the passenger on the day and at the place where the denied boarding occurs.
  2. In the event the alternate transportation departs before the offer can be made, it shall be made by mail or other means within 24 hours after the time the failure to accommodate has occurred.

[...]

Tariff Rules that were revised since Dr. Azar’s travel

RULE 90 – DENIED BOARDING

(E) COMPENSATION FOR INVOLUNTARY DENIED BOARDING

[...]

(2) Amount of Compensation

Subject to the provisions of (E)(1) AC will tender liquidated damages in cash or in MCO (credit voucher good for travel on Air Canada) in the amounts as follows […]

  Draft MCO (credit voucher)
Canada to all other destinations CAD 200.00 CAD 500.00

[...]

Proposed denied boarding compensation amounts for travel from Canada to the European Union
Delay at arrival caused by involuntary denied boarding Cash or equivalent
0-4 hours CAD 400
Over 4 hours CAD 800

Member(s)

Geoffrey C. Hare
J. Mark MacKeigan
Date modified: