Travel

Locked: Coronavirus: How to Get a Refund?

  • Last Updated:
  • May 20th, 2020 7:35 pm
Tags:
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34840 posts
8801 upvotes
Ottawa
penguindude wrote: Politicians certainly think and act, just not always in the best interests of the people. This is a clear case where they put corporations before their constituents.
My point was that there are many rules, regulations etc that have no politician involvement. The CTA ruling is one that did not have to go through parliament.
As far as "where they put corporations before their constituents.", the big picture is, 4000 passenger constituents get future travel credit instead of cash or 40, 50 or more thousand people out of work when the corporation goes bankrupt. What would you do, pay the passengers or throw all those taxpayers out of work?
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Addict
Jan 3, 2007
1379 posts
174 upvotes
Toronto
Pete_Coach wrote: My point was that there are many rules, regulations etc that have no politician involvement. The CTA ruling is one that did not have to go through parliament.
As far as "where they put corporations before their constituents.", the big picture is, 4000 passenger constituents get future travel credit instead of cash or 40, 50 or more thousand people out of work when the corporation goes bankrupt. What would you do, pay the passengers or throw all those taxpayers out of work?
The fact that the CTA is giving out advice and notices in contrast to the law and their own regulations means the government in power is in on it. Your argument is the same every time neo-liberals/conservatives call for corporate welfare - that people will lose their jobs if taxpayers dont fund the corporations so that they can continue to exist. Yet, these very same people who call out for corporate welfare frowns upon welfare for actual citizens. If the EU and USA can demand airlines refund money, why cant Canada do it? There are so many ways the government can help airlines through this predicament, including temporary loans so they can have more cash flow, but withholding passengers' money forcefully and illegally is not the right way to go.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34840 posts
8801 upvotes
Ottawa
penguindude wrote: The fact that the CTA is giving out advice and notices in contrast to the law and their own regulations means the government in power is in on it. Your argument is the same every time neo-liberals/conservatives call for corporate welfare - that people will lose their jobs if taxpayers dont fund the corporations so that they can continue to exist. Yet, these very same people who call out for corporate welfare frowns upon welfare for actual citizens. If the EU and USA can demand airlines refund money, why cant Canada do it? There are so many ways the government can help airlines through this predicament, including temporary loans so they can have more cash flow, but withholding passengers' money forcefully and illegally is not the right way to go.
Sure LOL.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Addict
Jan 3, 2007
1379 posts
174 upvotes
Toronto
You can LOL all you want, but the CTA has violated its impartial mandate to side with the airlines.

I guess you were also okay with Trudeau cutting SNC Lavalin some slacks? lol ITS ABOUT THE JOBS!
Deal Addict
Oct 3, 2013
1078 posts
1348 upvotes
All of those with international flights on WestJet (yes, you cheapoair folks) in the next 1.5 months, standby for imminent cancellations effective until June 3rd.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34840 posts
8801 upvotes
Ottawa
penguindude wrote: You can LOL all you want, but the CTA has violated its impartial mandate to side with the airlines.

I guess you were also okay with Trudeau cutting SNC Lavalin some slacks? lol ITS ABOUT THE JOBS!
If CTA has broken any laws is yet to be determined unless your crystal ball and your prodigious legal mind has already adjudicated the issue. LOL

SNC Lavalin was a joke and I do not agree and it is completely different that allowing all airlines in Canada to collapse but hey, that is too big for you to think through. Every city and town of any size has airline or airline support workers. LOL

Oh and, "The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and regulator that has, with respect to all matters necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction, all the powers of a superior court"
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/d ... -2019-2020

So, we will wait, and wait, and wait for resolution ....if it ever, or even, comes.
Last edited by Pete_Coach on Apr 20th, 2020 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jun 4, 2007
771 posts
113 upvotes
Thanks for your comments guys. We will probably wait until about a week before the flight and then cancel (as it doesn't look like the situation will improve much).
Deal Addict
Jan 3, 2007
1379 posts
174 upvotes
Toronto
Pete_Coach wrote: If CTA has broken any laws is yet to be determined unless your crystal ball and your prodigious legal mind has already adjudicated the issue. LOL
SNC Lavalin was a joke and I do not agree and it is completely different that allowing all airlines in Canada to collapse but hey, that is too big for you to think through. Every city and town of any size has airline or airline support workers. LOL
I already stated there are other more appropriate ways to help the airline industry, including loans to help cash flow. The government for one, is already subsidizing AC employees wages. So, no, I do not propose just letting the industry die and no, the issue is not "too big" for me to think through. I just think that withholding someone's money without interest and likely having its worth devalued by 30%+ in order for another person to have a job is wrong.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34840 posts
8801 upvotes
Ottawa
penguindude wrote: I already stated there are other more appropriate ways to help the airline industry, including loans to help cash flow. The government for one, is already subsidizing AC employees wages. So, no, I do not propose just letting the industry die and no, the issue is not "too big" for me to think through. I just think that withholding someone's money without interest and likely having its worth devalued by 30%+ in order for another person to have a job is wrong.
Government is subsidizing all industry wages, not just airlines. Why? Is it to ensure the wheels of the economy keep rolling? Who would remain in business if they did not give money to industry so employees can get a wage? Who would remain in their houses? Who would be able to pay rent? Who would be able to buy food?
If they have to pay out all the cash, the airline industry will be bankrupt.
30%? Your crystal ball again? :)
The situation is totally unprecedented and everything that can be done and should be done to keep everyone, people as well as the companies that employ those people, viable, afloat and, with a future. Some folks may not like the effort but, those need to realize what is at stake.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Addict
Apr 24, 2017
1235 posts
598 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote:
Oh and, "The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and regulator that has, with respect to all matters necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction, all the powers of a superior court"
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/d ... -2019-2020
Precisely the point. Thank you for posting this.
Tribunal. That means a ‘for’ argument and an ‘against’. Where parties make their representations before a trier of fact or other similarly empowered party to make a decision. It is not, as we have here, a unilateral decree without representations. The Superior Court doesn’t just come out with edicts or rulings that have not been litigated as the CTA has done here. In my opinion, they’ve exceeded their jurisdiction. Anecdotal arguments in the public forum or on social media do not count as a case before them that’s been properly argued.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34840 posts
8801 upvotes
Ottawa
benjicash wrote: Precisely the point. Thank you for posting this.
Tribunal. That means a ‘for’ argument and an ‘against’. Where parties make their representations before a trier of fact or other similarly empowered party to make a decision. It is not, as we have here, a unilateral decree without representations. The Superior Court doesn’t just come out with edicts or rulings that have not been litigated as the CTA has done here. In my opinion, they’ve exceeded their jurisdiction. Anecdotal arguments in the public forum or on social media do not count as a case before them that’s been properly argued.
Tribunal
noun: a court of justice.

Once again ""The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and regulator that has, with respect to all matters necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction, all the powers of a superior court""

Your opinion...worth ????

As I said "If CTA has broken any laws is yet to be determined"
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Addict
Apr 24, 2017
1235 posts
598 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: Tribunal
noun: a court of justice.

Once again ""The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and regulator that has, with respect to all matters necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction, all the powers of a superior court""

Your opinion...worth ????

As I said "If CTA has broken any laws is yet to be determined"
And just what do you think makes up a court? The tri part in tribunal means three parties make up the tribunal or ‘court’. For, against and the decider(s).

I know you to be a reasonable person here on these forums. I’ve read many of your posts. I’d prefer a discussion without it devolving into an attack. As for what my opinion is worth, let’s just say I know a thing or two about the law. I’m no genius, but I do know what’s required for a tribunal to function. It’s not the court on an island making obiter statements.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34840 posts
8801 upvotes
Ottawa
benjicash wrote: And just what do you think makes up a court? The tri part in tribunal means three parties make up the tribunal or ‘court’. For, against and the decider(s).

I know you to be a reasonable person here on these forums. I’ve read many of your posts. I’d prefer a discussion without it devolving into an attack. As for what my opinion is worth, let’s just say I know a thing or two about the law. I’m no genius, but I do know what a tribunal is.
OK.
I am not making attacks, not intended to do so. Trying to keep the discussions real..

Just to help with the word, a tribunal is not "tri" anything but derived from the word tribune which was a political or military position. "tribunal -
early 15c., "a judgment seat," from Old French tribunal "justice seat, judgment seat" (13c.) and directly from Latin tribunal "platform for the seat of magistrates, elevation, embankment," from tribunus "official in ancient Rome, magistrate," literally "head of a tribe" (see tribune). Hence, "a court of justice or judicial assembly" (1580s)."
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Addict
Apr 24, 2017
1235 posts
598 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: OK.
I am not making attacks, not intended to do so. Trying to keep the discussions real..

Just to help with the word, a tribunal is not "tri" anything but derived from the word tribune which was a political or military position. "tribunal -
early 15c., "a judgment seat," from Old French tribunal "justice seat, judgment seat" (13c.) and directly from Latin tribunal "platform for the seat of magistrates, elevation, embankment," from tribunus "official in ancient Rome, magistrate," literally "head of a tribe" (see tribune). Hence, "a court of justice or judicial assembly" (1580s)."
Agree on the word history. I’m talking about what actually forms that tribunal so that it has power. A judge walking around at the grocery store can’t espouse an opinion and make law. You need the functioning of a court or tribunal for it to have force or effect.

In this instance, they’ve given an opinion without hearing argument. I think they’ve exceeded their jurisdiction and the airlines have seized on a statement that’s not law. You’re right though, it’ll take ages to sort it out legally. If you plan to travel in the next year or two, the voucher might be attractive.
Deal Addict
Jan 3, 2007
1379 posts
174 upvotes
Toronto
Pete_Coach wrote: Government is subsidizing all industry wages, not just airlines. Why? Is it to ensure the wheels of the economy keep rolling? Who would remain in business if they did not give money to industry so employees can get a wage? Who would remain in their houses? Who would be able to pay rent? Who would be able to buy food?
If they have to pay out all the cash, the airline industry will be bankrupt.
30%? Your crystal ball again? :)
The situation is totally unprecedented and everything that can be done and should be done to keep everyone, people as well as the companies that employ those people, viable, afloat and, with a future. Some folks may not like the effort but, those need to realize what is at stake.
No, not my crystal ball. It's from articles ive read according industry experts as the vouchers are non-transferable and have expiration date, and come with many terms and conditions, unlike CASH.

Also, you dont need to argue with me why the government is subsidizing wages, I've never said that is not a legitimate way to keep the economy/industries alive. To me, that's MUCH better than a bailout that gives CEOs taxpayers money with no strings attached like what happened the last time around. We're talking about providing alternatives to allowing companies keep our money while not providing service. My own company cannot do what the airlines are allowed to do. If I cannot deliver a product the customer has purchased, due to no stock or what not, i cannot hold the customers' money until the product becomes available again in 2 years time.

Top