Neil Malik
Will Air Canada’s new dispute resolution process make things any better?
Will Air Canada’s new dispute resolution process make things any better?
Courtesy of Air Canada
The Topline
- Air Canada is testing a new dispute resolution process to address passenger complaints.
- Five hundred randomly selected claimants who have filed complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) will be asked if they want their cases referred instead to an independent arbitrator, who would aim to resolve them within 90 days of receiving all the details.
- The test arbitration process will be run by a subsidiary of the U.K.-based CDRL Group — a non-profit that provides dispute resolution services in the U.K. and Europe.
- The CTA has a backlog of about 95,000 complaints, with passengers waiting up to three years for their case to be heard.
Never miss another side to every story
Sign up for The Level's 5-minute newsletter, 3x per week
Thanks for subscribing!
Check your inbox for an email to confirm you're on the list. If there's no email, check your spam filter just in case, then mark us as 'not spam' so that you never miss an issue.
Switch sides,
back and forth
Something is better than nothing
Finally — at least someone is attempting to improve the system.
Back in 2022 when the existing process was created, the intentions were good. But four years later, it’s a complete mess.
If you filed a complaint today, you’d be waiting up to three years before your case is heard. It was recently revealed that CTA staff handle about one complaint per day.
Marc Barbeau, Air Canada’s chief legal officer, told reporters: “During that whole time, they are thinking that we are withholding funds that we owe to them … For us that’s an issue, because we would like to restore that client’s confidence in us, restore the trust.”
So, Air Canada is ponying up for its own mediator to try to fix things. Credit where credit is due.
The best part is the speed to get to a decision. The airline claims its process will provide a ruling within 90 days of receiving all the necessary information from the passenger and Air Canada.
The second-best part is that even though it’s only a test for now, there seems to be no risk for those invited to take part.
If they choose to participate in Air Canada’s test, they won’t lose their spot in line with the CTA. If they don’t like the mediator’s ruling, they can decline it and still go back to the CTA.
Here’s another good thing. Passengers won’t be asked to sign any kind of non-disclosure agreement. They can speak out about the decision and the process — giving it a much-needed level of transparency.
Meanwhile, the CTA does the opposite of that. It bars anyone from disclosing details unless both parties waive the confidentiality requirement. That’s absurd.
Time will tell whether this idea proves successful. But it’s certainly better than nothing.
Kudos to Air Canada.
It lets the government off the hook
The most important thing in a dispute resolution is having a neutral mediator.
And while Air Canada describes its third-party vendor as “independent and impartial,” it’s hard to call it neutral as long as Air Canada is paying for it.
Ian Jack, a spokesperson for the Canadian Automobile Association, calls it “the fox in charge of the chicken coop.”
Air Passenger Rights president Gabor Lukacs said : “It’s like if somebody is divorcing — your ex hires their best friend to be the impartial arbitrator between you.”
This idea also doesn’t solve the real reason we’re in this mess to begin with. The CTA’s rules are flawed.
“The original sin on this file really was the government writing an enormously complicated set of regulations — all kinds of grey areas, all kinds of loopholes and exemptions — to the point where the average consumer files a complaint with the carrier, the carrier just says ‘Nah,’ and then you have to file a complaint with the regulator. That was supposed to be a last resort,” Jack told CBC.
Under the current rules, the reason for a delayed flight has to be categorized by the airline into one of the following buckets: situations within the airline’s control, situations within the airline’s control but required for safety, and situations outside the airline’s control.
If the airline declares the reason to fall into the last two categories, no compensation is typically owed for the delay.
That creates an incentive for airlines to label all delays as being “required for safety” or “outside the airline’s control,” leaving the onus on the passenger to prove the airline wrong.
Until that changes, it’s hard to imagine this new system improving things — except for the speed at which the passenger’s claim gets denied.
A backlog of 95,000 is absurd. But it’s not up to Air Canada to solve it. They’re operating within the rules that were drawn. This is the government’s responsibility to fix.
Air Canada’s solution takes the heat off the CTA. But if anything, the CTA and Ottawa need more pressure to fix this, not less.
