AC has stranded us in Athens … advice?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by hixxes

Just to follow up, we made it home last night on Delta/ WestJet.

In the end the only communication with AC was the original call that was dropped (with no follow up), a second call that was dropped immediately (again no follow up), and a missed call after two rings. We called one more time after that but had no success reaching anyone or receiving a call back.

Now the process of getting reimbursed begins. Thanks to all that provided insight into what lays ahead.

Maybe it was already mentioned in the thread, but this company is pretty useful in terms of getting you $$. They take a pretty big chunk of it (30% or so?) but they have lawyers and a ton of experience getting you what you need.

https://www.airhelp.com/en/

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Maybe it was already mentioned in the thread, but this company is pretty useful in terms of getting you $$. They take a pretty big chunk of it (30% or so?) but they have lawyers and a ton of experience getting you what you need.

https://www.airhelp.com/en/

I never used these guys, but it would have been useful to consider them when I dealt with the Westjet strike and hail storm situations.

10-20 ish hours each time and in the end that was only to get a full refund (vs initial offer of partial refund, not full refund) as Westjet credit.

If these guys could get the compensation credit added to the full cost of the ticket refund (Westjet claimed they didn't have to pay this part because it was out of their control for strike and weather), then 30% or whatever is a complete no brainer. This vs rolling over and getting basically nothing or having to spend a stupid amount of time not even being able to contact the air line.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I never used these guys, but it would have been useful to consider them when I dealt with the Westjet strike and hail storm situations.

10-20 ish hours each time and in the end that was only to get a full refund (vs initial offer of partial refund, not full refund) as Westjet credit.

If these guys could get the compensation credit added to the full cost of the ticket refund (Westjet claimed they didn't have to pay this part because it was out of their control for strike and weather), then 30% or whatever is a complete no brainer. This vs rolling over and getting basically nothing or having to spend a stupid amount of time not even being able to contact the air line.

Not sure how long ago your flight was, but I think that they can go 3-4 years back when it comes to making a claim.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Not sure how long ago your flight was, but I think that they can go 3-4 years back when it comes to making a claim.

I think it was last year and the year before? We already settled though which I think eliminates another shot. Pretty sure the earlier article said not to accept the refund as it could eliminate you from making the claim? That was my understanding last year and the year before as well.

I also don't think I have the boarding passes, app notifications etc. and stuff anymore to make the claim for the additional compensation. I also think that Westjet was being sneaky in forcing people to call in their claims so that there's barely any paper trail via emails and whatnot.

If I run into another scenario again (anticipate the possibility for next year), for sure I'll just give airhelp the 35% + VAT that it says on their site. But I'll also hit to hurt by screen shotting all of the notifications before they disappear to make the case stronger.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Acey

To some degree. YYC is privately run and has to pay abusrd rent fees to the government, so are forced to pass on that cost to travelers else they'd be bankrupt. The US sees airports as a public necessity as opposed to a source of federal revneue, so they are not operated this way.

This article says it well:



tldr: YYC is getting scammed by the government, so YYC is forced to scam you

But did YYC have to pay for the airport up front. From what I could glean they pay about $50MM annually in rent. If we assumed a 30 year amortization that would have about a present value of only $1.1B which is way less than cost to build an airport. Comparing to say Denver where the airport is owned by the county, it is not funded by tax revenues, it is financially self sufficient, so someone has to pay for that, the debt servicing in 2024 for DEN was about $600MM which is much more than the rent YYC pays (Albeit, DEN does easily twice the revenue as Calgary)

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What’s the thoughts on the deal? Two guys on my team at work, partners, are flight attendants for Air Canada and both are very unhappy with the deal and think it will be rejected by about 70%. Very unhappy with the union.

Hard to say without details of the deal

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

That's not what I was trying to say. But I'm just going to bow out because my attempts to help are just derailing things instead.

Your attempts to help?

You’ve been making pretty misleading or at the very least misguided statements. I’m not sure how that is helpful or why you consider it to be derailing when someone points it out.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

So if the union rejects the deal will they be back on strike?

I think they might need to hold another strike vote first but that would only delay it by 72 hours. What the Union decides to do next would also depend on how close the vote was. My guess is that if it gets rejected by a small margin(like <65% rejection) both sides will continue talking and working in the interim but you never know.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Hard to say without details of the deal

Originally Posted by Weitz

What’s the thoughts on the deal? Two guys on my team at work, partners, are flight attendants for Air Canada and both are very unhappy with the deal and think it will be rejected by about 70%. Very unhappy with the union.

What are they unhappy with? There's lots of moving pieces in this but one thing I found interesting (if true, but it was reported by CBC) is that the only thing they will be voting on is the actual pay increase. That is vague but may mean they are not voting on the change to how they are paid etc. Only the percentage increases?

Iggy, is this common - where union membership votes only on part of the agreement?

"CBC News has learned that the only thing that the flight attendants will vote on are the proposed salary increases."

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

What are they unhappy with? There's lots of moving pieces in this but one thing I found interesting (if true, but it was reported by CBC) is that the only thing they will be voting on is the actual pay increase. That is vague but may mean they are not voting on the change to how they are paid etc. Only the percentage increases?

Iggy, is this common - where union membership votes only on part of the agreement?

"CBC News has learned that the only thing that the flight attendants will vote on are the proposed salary increases."

No it’s not common(or IMO even sensible from a labour relations perspective) for a Union to vote on a single issue like that, it is however very common for the media to not accurately report on labour issues.

Without any context as I haven’t read the article or even the offer for that matter, my guess is the CBC are trying to say that aside from the wage and ground pay issues there aren’t any changes to the the last rejected offer. So essentially all they are voting on this time is the monetary changes.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Your attempts to help?

You’ve been making pretty misleading or at the very least misguided statements. I’m not sure how that is helpful or why you consider it to be derailing when someone points it out.

Yes. My attempts to help. As mentioned, it seems I'm making a bigger mess than actually helping, so I apologize for making the mess and I am stepping back so those that know more can actually help.

The discussion about conflict of interest and independence risk is a derail. The intention of the thread is to help OP who was stranded by AC. I'm sure OP doesn't give a damn about the strike stuff and OP only wants to know how to sort how the bigger problems that transpired from the strike. Again, I'm not going to contribute to that in this thread. It's a discussion that probably belongs in the union thread, not this one.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Buff

Wait... Oversimplification but... they were told they can't strike but continued to strike and got a deal that probably favors them more than their employer so now their suing the government for telling them they can't do something that they did anyway.

Government has set a bad precedent with several of the last major strikes getting forced to end without a deal. Like we saw here, companies have used that as a crutch to not negotiate in good faith knowing and strike will last maybe one day.

It makes complete sense that the largest union in the country wants the precedent to end

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

The discussion about conflict of interest and independence risk is a derail. The intention of the thread is to help OP who was stranded by AC. I'm sure OP doesn't give a damn about the strike stuff and OP only wants to know how to sort how the bigger problems that transpired from the strike. Again, I'm not going to contribute to that in this thread. It's a discussion that probably belongs in the union thread, not this one.

It's become the AC strike thread, you're fine. OP got home and his fight with AC will take years. Discussions evolve, it's okay

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by btimbit

It's become the AC strike thread, you're fine. OP got home and his fight with AC will take years. Discussions evolve, it's okay

Either way, on this specific topic, I seem to know enough to be dangerous and not enough to be helpful. So it's probably best I step back because my attempts to help are hurting more than actually helping. Again, I apologize for unintentionally making things worse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Either way, on this specific topic, I seem to know enough to be dangerous and not enough to be helpful. So it's probably best I step back because my attempts to help are hurting more than actually helping. Again, I apologize for unintentionally making things worse.

No lives are at stake here, we’re just a bunch of folks shooting the ####.

Knowing enough to be dangerous but not helpful is what message boards were invented for. You’re all good!

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No lives are at stake here, we’re just a bunch of folks shooting the ####.

Knowing enough to be dangerous but not helpful is what message boards were invented for. You’re all good!

Basically my entire posting history

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I think it was last year and the year before? We already settled though which I think eliminates another shot. Pretty sure the earlier article said not to accept the refund as it could eliminate you from making the claim? That was my understanding last year and the year before as well.

I also don't think I have the boarding passes, app notifications etc. and stuff anymore to make the claim for the additional compensation. I also think that Westjet was being sneaky in forcing people to call in their claims so that there's barely any paper trail via emails and whatnot.

If I run into another scenario again (anticipate the possibility for next year), for sure I'll just give airhelp the 35% + VAT that it says on their site. But I'll also hit to hurt by screen shotting all of the notifications before they disappear to make the case stronger.

They're definitely worth it. I submitted a claim through them about 18 months ago and it came back as a no, but then they emailed me again a year later and said wait, we've had some success getting claims for this flight and I was able to file a claim for about $500 (it was $750ish but they took their share, rightfully so in this case).

[curves2000]

The Greek tourism agency must be wondering what the hell happened with this thread? LOL. JK.


The federal Liberals under Carney need to come out with a strong policy on where they stand with unions, collective bargaining, business interruptions and ensuring business is able to be conducted properly in Canada.

Under Trudeau they thought they could get away with being pro union, let both sides strike a deal, we are looking after Canada, Canadians, Canadian workers blah blah blah. We ended up where union members routinely were forced back to work, a constant state of chaos in airlines, ports, postal, railways and more. Federally regulated industries and crown corporations can be given very direct messaging from government. Fix this or we will fix it for you.

[Amethyst]

Well, in the end, Air Canada did (sort of) get me home from Venice. They re-booked me on United to Washington DC and then WestJet to Calgary, arriving only 24 hours late. Fortunately, I have a few days before I am due back at work. Will be sending a letter to Air Canada, demanding they cover extra expenses and pay the penalty required under European passenger protections.

And United and WestJet, in the spirit of showing that Air Canada isn't the only airline who makes travellers' lives miserable, did their part by chucking my baggage in the ocean, so I could spend another hour reporting that after 20+ hours of travel.

[Fuzz]

Didn't opt in to the baggage floatation add-on.