AC has stranded us in Athens … advice?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Strikes over

How could this have possibly happened without government intervention?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by btimbit

She continued to represent them in private law firms for decades after that. Both with BLG and Heenan Blaikie

You can share proof of this claim? The only reputable thing that I have seen reported and talked about was her time with AC as Legal Counsel twenty years ago.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yes they are. Everyone is. I think someone said they've disabled the fully refundable ticket options as well.

Shouldn't there be laws against this sort of thing happening to protect the consumers?

[hixxes]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Was curious if Westjet is taking advantage of the situation and saw that one-way tickets from Calgary to Toronto are about $1,500 for a 17-hr long trip or $2,500 for a direct flight if I book a few days out.

Yeah WestJet took full advantage of the situation. We paid an egregious amount to get home, but felt we had no choice given the situation AC put us in. There was no line of sight for us to get home waiting on them, and two days of sitting in limbo was enough.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You can share proof of this claim? The only reputable thing that I have seen reported and talked about was her time with AC as Legal Counsel twenty years ago.

It was mentioned by CBC and CTV, but a quick Google shows case reports with her listed as private counsel for Air Canada.

Quick one from each firm she worked with.

https://ca.vlex.com/vid/air-can-v-cupe-680742681

https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossier...cherche/36630/

[iggy_oi]

Now calgarygeologist is gonna show his work for how he concluded that just because she had previously worked for the company there would be no conflict of interest. Right?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Now calgarygeologist is gonna show his work for how he concluded that just because she had previously worked for the company there would be no conflict of interest. Right?

Actually it's even worse, Arielle Meloul-Wechsler, Air Canada's Executive Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer and Public Affairs, worked alongside Tremblay at Air Canada. Now they're supposed to be representing different interests.... Yeah right.

And when I say work together I don't mean they just were at AC at the same time. They were side by side in the same department

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by btimbit

It was mentioned by CBC and CTV, but a quick Google shows case reports with her listed as private counsel for Air Canada.

Quick one from each firm she worked with.

https://ca.vlex.com/vid/air-can-v-cupe-680742681

https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossier...cherche/36630/

Great, thanks. Like I said, the only reporting on a conflict of interest I had seen was a couple CBC articles and they only mentioned her previous role with AC up until 2004. I did a quick search online for more info but it only brought up very loose allegations of conflict based on some arm waving.

Too often we see allegations of conflict of interest in potentially serious matters (such as the recent situation with David Johnston) and it isn't always easy to determine if it is actually the case of not.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Now calgarygeologist is gonna show his work for how he concluded that just because she had previously worked for the company there would be no conflict of interest. Right?

If it was a situation where they had worked for AC twenty years ago and had no further close ties I fully believe that someone could be objective.

[btimbit]

^ I was a little unsure at first as well, you never know when its one side leveraging something for public opinion. Especially because at first it was reported that she worked there until 2023 and like you pointed out it was actually 2004. But I guess that was confusion over when she stopped representing them

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Even more so than most things in life, peoples' stated preferences around flying are not the same as their revealed preferences. The margins of airlines are very small, and the biggest factor in consumer choice is price. We have the service (or lack of) in the air industry because most people are looking for the cheapest and most convenient flight.

I don't disagree with this in general, but I posit that this phenomenon is a global one. However, Airline pricing is especially egregious in Canada because of (and the same margin that enables better service is eaten by) the airport authorities and the massive back breaking fees they charge. The Edmonton airport is the one that's always killing me- it really shouldn't exist, and is always trying to attract more international routes. To do this, it spends tons of money on weird ass things like Hydrogen cars. That money is recouped by increasing fees on flights which are passed on to consumers.
The airports all have disproportionate control over the airspace. There's no competition allowed.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Dion

West Jet flight attendants contract is up in December. I suspect they will be watching closely with what happens with Air Canada.

Thanks for the information. I'll be sure to avoid booking WestJet in December.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If it was a situation where they had worked for AC twenty years ago and had no further close ties I fully believe that someone could be objective.

In fairness there is almost always a debate whenever mediators/arbitrators are appointed due to their histories of being either management side or labour side but when it’s a single mediator/arbitrator as opposed to a panel it’s still generally best to avoid having someone who has a history of working directly for either party.

Assuming they can or will be objective just because it’s plausible is a pretty risky assumption. I’m saying this as someone who has quite a bit of experience in dealing with labour mediators/arbitrators so take that for what it’s worth.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Canadian airport fees are also part of the problem. They have near zero competition or reason to try harder to lower them.

Don't forget the Federal Government's take as well. Last year the airports paid nearly $500 million in rent to Ottawa.

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Is there a breakdown that shows the taxes and fees charged to airlines? Even better if it shows the cost of accessing different airports.

If you have a ticket just look at the fare breakdown, it will show everything. Here is a recent from my son's trip he just booked on WS to Rome. Nice fare ($486) or which the airline gets a whopping $139, the rest it fees and taxes.

edit: on closer look I suppose the airlines may be getting a cut on some of the $250 ('other charges).


Fare CAD 139.00

Taxes/Fees/Carrier-Imposed Charges CAD 250.00 YQI (OTHER AIR TRANSPORTATION
CHARGES)

CAD 1.75 XG9 (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (GST

CAD 34.42 CA4 (AIR TRAVELLERS SECURITY CHARGE)
CAD 35.00 SQ (AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FEE (AI CAD 5.29 FR7 (FR7)
CAD 20.72 QX (EUROPEAN UNION SCHENGEN COUNTRIES / NON-SCHENGEN COUNTRIES / NO EUROPEAN UNION /
OVERSEAS TERRITORIES A DEPARTMENTS)
Total CAD 486.18

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Great, thanks. Like I said, the only reporting on a conflict of interest I had seen was a couple CBC articles and they only mentioned her previous role with AC up until 2004. I did a quick search online for more info but it only brought up very loose allegations of conflict based on some arm waving.

Too often we see allegations of conflict of interest in potentially serious matters (such as the recent situation with David Johnston) and it isn't always easy to determine if it is actually the case of not.

If it was a situation where they had worked for AC twenty years ago and had no further close ties I fully believe that someone could be objective.

I just want to mention, there's a little bit of a difference between conflict of interest and independence risks. There's similarities but they're a bit different.

Conflict of interest is more if you have a personal tie that conflicts with your professional duties (ie: romance/relational, financial, competitive and confidential).

Independence risks is something that compromises the ability to be objective and impartial (ie: self interest, self review, advocacy, familiarity, intimidation etc.).

These can exist, however, for conflict of interest, you need to have procedures in place to disclose and ensure it doesn't affect the ability to perform professional duties and for independence threats you essentially have to explain what safeguards are in place to address it so that it will not compromise the ability to be objective and impartial. Like having a stake with the group across the table, so you're negotiating against yourself which makes no logical sense.

The fact someone has internal knowledge/experience of the company they now sit across of in negotiations is not necessarily an issue. They may know more about the unique operations of the entity to bring forth a solution that works for both sides. For instance, you want someone with Airline experience/global operations experience negotiating vs maybe someone with local manufacturing experience to avoid someone basically talking about stuff they have no clue about.

The question isn't whether these links exist. It's whether it affects their ability to do their job correctly. If the assumption is that they once worked for AC, conflict of interest... that makes no sense. It would have to be like extremely close relationships with AC, owning AC stock etc. for it to be a conflict of interest. It's completely possible that their experience at AC sucked so badly, that they're trying to crucify AC as well. Either you can say that's clearing up the conflict, or it's an independence risk because if there's a good path forward for the union, the individual is still attempting to illogically nail AC to the wall and basically push them towards going defunct. That's an issue too which is why there's safeguards on the other side.

Again, links like this exist all the time and you cannot always find someone who will not have a potential conflict or independence concern due to how narrow the expertise is at times. Canada's expertise would differ from a different country's expertise just as union vs no union and different industries also change the skillset required. The question is whether these links are perceived to have the ability to affect the work to be done at an appropriate professional standard and if there's even the smallest possibility, what railings and safeguards are in place to ensure it doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In fairness there is almost always a debate whenever mediators/arbitrators are appointed due to their histories of being either management side or labour side but when it’s a single mediator/arbitrator as opposed to a panel it’s still generally best to avoid having someone who has a history of working directly for either party.

Assuming they can or will be objective just because it’s plausible is a pretty risky assumption. I’m saying this as someone who has quite a bit of experience in dealing with labour mediators/arbitrators so take that for what it’s worth.

Again, you need people who have knowledge/experience of these specific scenarios to do the job right. There are already strong rules of engagement for these types of things already because these types of worlds are relatively small. Conflict of interest and independence risk are things that the other side or one's own side would easily attack before it can affect either of them. Thus I'm certain it's already been brought forward and explained how it is addressed.

If neither side has done that, I don't get why some people are making a mountain out of a molehill out of these loose connections. The appropriate checks and balances are already in place and applied to avoid issues relating to any of these connections.

[DoubleF]

On a more on topic note, the whole airline reimbursement thing has been an insane debacle IMO. I've been affected by the Westjet one more than once. Both times it was "out of their control" (Strike and hail weather) so they pulled ####. They don't reimburse the whole thing when they try to pull that ####, the rebooking is usually quite difficult with/without insurance, they might rebook you, but rebook you so late (mine was nearly a week) that you'd miss something key etc.

There's gotta be a fix, or I need to read the fine print better on my travel insurance to figure out how to make it less of a hassle when it happens. (ie: similar to reading my travel medical)

I feel for OP. I at least was able to just revise my plans and drive out. Getting stuck on another continent would be stressful as hell.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Again, you need people who have knowledge/experience of these specific scenarios to do the job right. There are already strong rules of engagement for these types of things already because these types of worlds are relatively small. Conflict of interest and independence risk are things that the other side or one's own side would easily attack before it can affect either of them. Thus I'm certain it's already been brought forward and explained how it is addressed.

Yes and no. Often times a person will be appointed with little to no experience in a specific industry regardless of whether it’s beneficial or not to the process. In any event the best way to neutralize any conflict of interest or independence risk would be to have a panel of 3 mediators/arbitrators so that you can have at least 1 neutral party to balance out any potential risks.

If neither side has done that, I don't get why some people are making a mountain out of a molehill out of these loose connections. The appropriate checks and balances are already in place and applied to avoid issues relating to any of these connections.

Seeing as you work or have worked in an HR role(unless I’m mistaken as I’m just going off memory) you are likely aware that there are holes for lack of a better term in the system/checks and balances which can negatively impact either side of a dispute. Also as both sides were engaged in negotiations at the time of the appointment I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that they were more focused on getting a deal done than to immediately file objections to the appointment.

[Johnny199r]

It never ceases to amaze me that Canadian airlines (AC in this case) were blatantly ignoring their obligations to rebook customers on other airlines flights. There's never any recourse for this intentional refusal to follow the legislation.

I know during COVID the government revamped the air passenger protection regulations, but they did it in a half assed way which seemingly didn't really help customers.

Why do other countries have such robust protections in place WITH COMPLIANCE, and we can't ever do anything?

[Regorium]

My experience was that AC was only willing to rebook me on WJ flight for 72 hours after my initial flight departure.

So I got canceled on Aug 16, and they were only willing to rebook WJ/Flair/Porter up to Aug 19. Of course by the time I got through, everything was sold out on those days.

I asked for Aug 20 and they said they can't do that, but then rebooked me on AC on Aug 21.

So really the issue for me is the first available flight was on Aug 20 from WJ, but they didn't want to do that and rebooked me for Aug 21 which is where AC was saying their flights were going to be "available".

In the end I couldn't convince the agent to give me the Aug 20 WJ flights so I took the AC rebook to have some level of certainty (although the last 2 days before this morning were extremely stressful).

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes and no. Often times a person will be appointed with little to no experience in a specific industry regardless of whether it’s beneficial or not to the process. In any event the best way to neutralize any conflict of interest or independence risk would be to have a panel of 3 mediators/arbitrators so that you can have at least 1 neutral party to balance out any potential risks.

Seeing as you work or have worked in an HR role(unless I’m mistaken as I’m just going off memory) you are likely aware that there are holes for lack of a better term in the system/checks and balances which can negatively impact either side of a dispute. Also as both sides were engaged in negotiations at the time of the appointment I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that they were more focused on getting a deal done than to immediately file objections to the appointment.

The reason why you're saying yes/no is possibly because you're netting a few things together. I'm saying that if it's expanded, it might give more insight into why it seems a little odd and weird where maybe it naturally feels like is or isn't an issue depending on how it's viewed. I'm just saying it exists and should be addressed appropriately. I'm not trying to shoot down your comments, I'm trying to give you the tools and insight to understand it, so you can navigate it better.

Process wise, you need:
- Legal literacy
- Financial literacy
- Mediation skills
- Communication skills
- Industry expertise or ability to navigate it
- Understanding of regional/global operations and how decisions will affect those
- Canadian specific experience
- Consulting level knowledge of other similar scenarios, potentially data on similar companies/competitors and/or how to navigate it/when to copy and when to diverge
- Project management to deal with multiple groups pulling info, communicating with groups, researching
- and the list goes on...

You're also right about the panel, but often times, my understanding is that the panel is not just to address independence risks, it's also to address the issue that finding someone will all of the above skillsets is really damn hard.

I deal with HR but I am also an auditor so I deal with the legal and the segregation of duties/independence threats etc. While rushing to get a deal done, I also don't really think the concerns about conflict of interest or independence threats are as concerning as you're making it out to be. You could have a few junior or middle level staff crush this stuff out within a few hours to ensure there's no concern. You could also monitor the way they behave and cross reference it to how someone may behave or approach the situation (ie: if a competitor was in the same situation) to quickly figure out if there's a concern they aren't fighting hard enough for your side vs the other side. It's a negotiation so it's a push a pull. Neither side is supposed to have a resounding win. It's obvious something is wrong if one side just rolls over, but in a negotiation one side also has to choose where they win and where they lose for the best final option for their side (ie: compromise/come to an agreement).

You're right that there are potential holes, but you'd easily notice if those holes are actually affecting the outcome in a serious manner long before the other remaining and more complex processes are complete. It's something that everyone in the hotel "enjoying room service" could have probably gone through and sorted out many times over, because it doesn't take long to do.

Metaphorically, as key and important as conflict of interest and independence threats are, it's about as complex to address as making sure the wheels/tires on a rental car are good to go and not flat/damaged prior to driving off. Even if something wasn't immediately apparent on the walk around, you'd quickly start to notice something isn't right the moment you start driving.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

It never ceases to amaze me that Canadian airlines (AC in this case) were blatantly ignoring their obligations to rebook customers on other airlines flights. There's never any recourse for this intentional refusal to follow the legislation.

I know during COVID the government revamped the air passenger protection regulations, but they did it in a half assed way which seemingly didn't really help customers.

Why do other countries have such robust protections in place WITH COMPLIANCE, and we can't ever do anything?

Everybody is just ignoring the law or order to go back to work anyhow.