Air Canada Defends Aircraft Swaps That Led To Compensation Denials

Air Canada is defending its practice of reassigning aircraft to minimize network disruptions, even when those decisions result in cancelled flights for which passengers are denied compensation.

The news follows a CBC investigation that revealed cases where the airline cited safety-related maintenance to deny compensation after reassigning functioning aircraft to other routes.

The CBC News ‘Go Public’ investigation identified four cases in which Air Canada cited safety-related maintenance to deny passenger compensation, despite flight records showing that the aircraft originally assigned to the affected flights were subsequently used on other routes.

In a written response to CBC, Air Canada acknowledged that all four incidents involved commercial decisions to reassign functioning aircraft to routes where another plane required safety-related maintenance.

The airline maintains that these operational decisions are permitted under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) and that it was justified in denying compensation.

Air Canada declined CBC’s request for an interview but explained in writing that aircraft schedules are fluid and airlines must be able to make operational adjustments to “minimize the overall impact on passengers.”

The distinction is significant under the APPR, which provides compensation of up to $1,000 for certain flight delays and cancellations within an airline’s control, but excludes disruptions required for safety.

The issue is whether a safety-related maintenance problem affecting one aircraft can justify denying compensation to passengers whose scheduled aircraft was functioning but reassigned elsewhere.

CTA Rules Against Air Canada

One case highlighted by CBC involved Gatineau resident Juan Rojas, whose September 2022 flight from Montreal to Bogotá was cancelled.

Air Canada denied his compensation request, citing safety-related maintenance. When Rojas challenged the decision through the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), the airline submitted documents indicating that an aircraft had been damaged after being struck by a catering truck.

However, Rojas subsequently discovered through publicly available aviation records that the damaged aircraft was not the one originally scheduled to operate his flight.

Air Canada explained to CBC that Rojas’s aircraft had been reassigned to replace the damaged plane.

In January, a CTA complaints resolution officer ordered Air Canada to pay Rojas $1,000.

“The decision to swap aircraft to avoid or minimize delays for one group of passengers at the expense of another is a commercial decision,” the officer wrote.

The ruling acknowledged the airline’s ability to make such operational decisions but found that compensation was required for affected passengers.

Consumer Advocate Challenges Airline’s Position

Air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs disputes Air Canada’s interpretation of the regulations.

He pointed CBC to a 2022 CTA decision establishing that mechanical problems must be a direct cause of a flight cancellation rather than a secondary or “knock-on effect” of a disruption elsewhere in an airline’s network.

Montreal lawyer Sylvie De Bellefeuille, director of legal services for consumer advocacy organization Option consommateurs, also expressed concern about airlines’ reliance on the safety exemption.

“Most passengers do not have enough information to counter whatever is said by the airline,” she told CBC.

For travellers and travel advisors, the cases highlight the importance of understanding the distinction between safety-related disruptions and commercial operational decisions.

Air Canada continues to maintain that its aircraft reassignment practices are legitimate and that compensation was not owed in the cases identified by CBC.