this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
75 points (97.5% liked)

Canada

10057 readers
1512 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
75
Airlines claim passenger safety at risk under new passenger rights rules (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"We want our pilots to be entirely free from any financial consideration when they take a safety-related decision," WestJet CEO Alexis von Hoensbroech said

Safety related delays and cancelations are not the problem. The airlines not having enough staff to fly the planes is the problem. Poor planning by the airlines is the problem. Lying and calling those YOU problems safety problems IS the ptoblem.

The loophole is allowing airlines to call any delay or cancellation a "safety issue" to deny passengerd compensation.

We pay for a an agreed service at an agreed time. If the airlines don't provide the service as and when described we should be compensated. The government is just closing a loophole that allows the airlines to decide how, when, and even if they are going to provide the service we paid for. 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Pilots shouldn't be pressured into making unsafe decisions? Then stop pressuring them to make unsafe decisions. If the plane isn't safe to fly for any reason, then it doesn't take off, period. It shouldn't be a choice for anyone.

The way airlines are acting these days, I can't shake the feeling that the business of flying people from place to place is not the primary focus. It seems more like they facilitate flights mostly for the purpose of luring people into their poorly-lit wing of the airport where their goons can extract the real profits.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The chain of incentives is like this:

  • Add regulations which cause airlines to have to provide more compensation for delays and cancellations
  • Airline is incentivized to have fewer delays and cancellations than before
  • Airline pressures pilots more to minimize delays and cancellations
  • More planes with safety concerns take off than used to
  • More incidents occur

I don't know how to economically motivate an airline to reduce delays and cancellations and reduce safety-related incidents at the same time. Those two things seem mutually exclusive. It's like how soldiers beginning to wear metal helmets "caused" head injuries to increase. The extra head injuries would have been deaths. The extra delays and cancellations would have been safety-related incidents.

Penalizing airlines for delays and cancellations is like telling soldiers they're not allowed to wear metal helmets.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago

Penalizing airlines for delays and cancellations is like telling soldiers they're not allowed to wear metal helmets.

I suppose it depends on how you define "penalization". I don't think a straight refund should be considered a penalty.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)