How a "maintenance loophole" is costing air passengers compensation | Go Public

When Juan Rojas' flight was cancelled, he thought Air Canada would compensate him. Instead, the airline relied on what experts call a loophole in air passenger rules to wrongly deny his claim. They're trying to cheat the system to avoid paying $1,000. Here's how it works. Air Canada said his flight to Bogota was cancelled due to unforeseen aircraft maintenance. Under air passenger protection regulations, that means they don't owe him compensation. and refused his claim. So he took his case to the CTA, the Federal Air Travel Regulator. The airline submitted documents claiming Rojas' plane had been damaged on the tarmac, but records show that was a different plane, not his. Air Canada had pulled the plane assigned to his flight, used it to replace the one out of commission, then cancelled his flight, citing safety maintenance. But the CTA says that maintenance has to be directly related. It's submitted false, misleading and fraudulent information. The CTA ordered Air Canada to pay Rojas the $1,000 compensation. In another case, Michael Bonsecu was also denied compensation after Air Canada cancelled his flight, claiming safety-related maintenance. What the hell is going on and why is Air Canada giving me this story? We learned that plane was perfectly fine. The airline needed it for passengers headed to Australia. Air Canada says an aircraft's schedule is fluid, that it strongly rejects any suggestion it moves planes around to avoid paying compensation, and that it makes decisions to optimize operations for the highest number of passengers. Air passenger advocates have been calling on Ottawa to close what they call the maintenance loophole, like the European Union. There, in most cases, airlines can't cite safety maintenance to deny compensation. Ottawa did draft changes several years ago, but that's gone nowhere. Critics citing a powerful airline industry. Erica Johnson, CBC News, Vancouver.