Air Canada aircraft swaps and the safety exemption: what CBC found

A CBC Go Public investigation has found three more cases in which Air Canada told passengers their flights were cancelled because of safety-related maintenance, while flight records show the planes they were scheduled to fly on were later used on other routes.¹ In all three cases, Air Canada maintains it does not owe compensation.²

Our earlier post covered a fourth case, the one that was ruled on. What’s new here is the wider pattern CBC describes, and Air Canada’s own explanation of it.

What Air Canada said

Air Canada declined Go Public’s request for an interview.³ In a written statement, according to CBC, the airline acknowledged that in all four cases (the three new ones and the one already decided) it made a commercial decision: it reassigned a working aircraft to another route where the scheduled plane needed safety-related maintenance.⁴ Air Canada argued that an aircraft’s schedule is fluid, and that it has to be able to adjust it to limit the overall impact on passengers.⁵ The airline said it was within its rights to deny compensation.⁶

According to CBC’s account of that statement, the plane that needed safety-related maintenance was the one scheduled for the other route, not the plane these passengers were booked on.⁴

What the complaints officer said in one case

In the case a CTA complaints resolution officer decided, CBC reports that the officer wrote: “The decision to swap aircraft to avoid or minimize delays for one group of passengers at the expense of another is a commercial decision”.⁷ CBC reports that, per the ruling, the airline could make that decision but was required to compensate affected passengers.⁸

That is one decision about one flight. CBC’s report doesn’t say how the other three cases have ended, and Air Canada maintains it does not owe compensation in them.²

Gabor Lukacs, founder of Air Passenger Rights, points to a 2022 CTA decision which, he says, found that mechanical issues must be “a direct cause” of a cancelled flight, not a knock-on effect.⁹¹⁰

What the rules say

The regulations treat a disruption that is required for safety differently from one that is simply within the airline’s control.¹¹ Required for safety means required by law in order to reduce risk to passenger safety.¹¹ The CTA lists aircraft choice as an example of a cause within the airline’s control.¹² Whether a swap like the ones CBC describes counts as aircraft choice or as a safety disruption is exactly what is in dispute.⁶⁷

The reason the airline states is where it starts, and the exact cause may only be confirmed later, after contacting the airline or after a CTA complaint.¹³

If the cause was within the airline’s control and not required for safety, and you were told 14 days or less before departure, a large airline owes $400 for arriving 3 to under 6 hours late at the destination on your original ticket.¹²¹⁴¹⁵ It owes $700 for 6 to under 9 hours and $1,000 for 9 hours or more.¹⁶¹⁷ In those same circumstances, if rebooking didn’t meet your needs and you took a refund instead, the amount is $400.¹⁸¹²¹⁴ In every case, the request has to reach the airline before the first anniversary of the disruption.¹⁹

How to check the reason you were given

In one of the cases, CBC reports, a passenger was told mid-flight that his connecting flight from Vancouver to Newark had been cancelled because of safety-related maintenance.²⁰ Yet the plane said to need it had the exact registration number of the aircraft he was sitting in.²¹ In the case the officer decided, Air Canada submitted documents saying a catering truck had struck the passenger’s plane.²² After a friend suggested he check the public Civil Aviation Daily Reporting System, he realized the damaged plane was not the one assigned to his flight.²³²⁴

That is why it helps to note which aircraft the problem affected, if the airline tells you, and to keep the cancellation message in its own words.

Send your request to the airline in writing before the first anniversary of the day of the disruption.¹⁹ The airline must then pay or explain why compensation isn’t payable within 30 days.²⁵ If your written request isn’t resolved within 30 days, you can file a complaint with the CTA.²⁶

The wider picture

Go Public has previously reported WestJet using the same safety-related maintenance exemption to deny passengers compensation.²⁷ The CTA launched an investigation in the WestJet cases.²⁸ According to CBC, the full extent of the practice among Canada’s two largest airlines remains unclear.²⁹

The CTA told CBC it has never issued a penalty against Air Canada for incorrectly characterizing a flight cancellation as safety-related maintenance.³⁰ CBC also reports that documents it obtained show previous transport ministers telling the CTA to keep the airlines’ ability to deny compensation for safety-related maintenance.³¹

If your flight was cancelled or delayed, the free check shows whether you may be owed money for your own flight.¹² Our guide to the airline’s reason explains the categories in more detail.¹³