WestJet swapping planes to avoid paying compensation

In 2019, Canada introduced the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), which includes a provision for passengers to be paid cash compensation in the event that their flight is significantly delayed or canceled. The thing is, unlike in the European Union, Canada specifically excludes disruptions due to unforeseen maintenance as being eligible for compensation.

In theory I can appreciate the logic for this carve-out, but as I pointed out when these new protections were introduced, there was no way the airlines weren’t going to use this to their advantage.

That brings us to a fascinating CBC News investigation, which was released this week. On March 2, 2026, a Canadian couple were scheduled to return from their vacation in Mexico, flying from Los Cabos (SJD) to Calgary (YYC) with WestJet. Their flight was canceled at the last minute, so they only made it home 16 hours later than planned.

Upon returning home, the couple submitted a compensation claim with the airline, only to be denied, using the maintenance excuse:

Upon review of your reservation, we are unable to approve the claim for compensation as the most significant reason for the flight interruption was due to unplanned aircraft maintenance and was required for safety purposes.

There’s only one little issue with this explanation:

• The website FlightStats (which uses information provided by airlines) showed the flight as being canceled at 8:11PM the evening before, and at exactly the same time (also 8:11PM), it showed the tail number for the flight as being changed from C-FAJA to C-GUDH
• C-FAJA, the plane initially scheduled for the flight, ended up flying to Cancun (CUN) and remained in service (what happened to the maintenance issue?), while C-GUDH, the plane that was swapped in, hadn’t flown since February 28 due to maintenance, and ended up being grounded for around a week

In other words, it would appear that when WestJet decided it wanted to cancel the flight, it swapped in a broken aircraft that was in maintenance, so that it could blame the cancellation on maintenance. CBC News investigated 34 other cases where exactly the same thing happened, where a tail number was swapped to a “broken” aircraft, and then within minutes (or even the same minute), the flight was canceled.

You might think “well, maybe there’s more to the story, let’s give the airline a chance to respond.” CBC News reports that the airline refused to directly address their questions and claims (despite being Canada’s largest broadcaster), and instead, simply said that “planes are sometimes reassigned to minimize the impact of disruptions.”

Right, it’s absolutely true that planes are sometimes reassigned to minimize the impact of disruptions, but that shouldn’t mean the airline can’t pay compensation to those passengers who were initially scheduled to be on the plane.

I can’t say I’m surprised to see this happening

The airline industry is a tough business, and I understand airlines want to do everything they can to avoid paying out cash compensation. I imagine WestJet is hardly alone in acting this way.

I’ve written about my fights with American over EC261 compensation, and how the airline outright lies, direct contradicting its own flight notes. And even when I specifically provided them documentation proving their lie, they still doubled down. Quite frankly, I probably only got this resolved because I have a blog, and it shouldn’t be this way.

My point is to say that airlines outright lying about these things is way too common. When Canada introduced consumer protections but excluded maintenance, I figured that there would be a bit of a challenge with holding airlines accountable.

Canadian regulators really need to look into this, because even if it has become normalized, it’s not okay. If the law says that only unforeseen maintenance can be used as an excuse, then swapping a flight to a plane that has been grounded for days doesn’t seem to fit that bill, in my opinion.

Bottom line

Canada requires airlines to pay cash compensation for flight cancellations, assuming the flight isn’t canceled due to unforeseen maintenance issues. From the time that these regulations were introduced, I assumed airlines wouldn’t be very honest about it, and WestJet has now been pretty clearly caught engaging in some unethical behavior.

The airline has denied many compensation claims due to unforeseen maintenance, but an investigation revealed the trick the airline is using in many of these situations. Essentially, the airline swaps in a broken aircraft at the last minute when it’s preparing to cancel a flight, so it can use the maintenance excuse.

Credits: WestJet

The post WestJet’s Sneaky Lie To Avoid Paying Compensation For Cancellations? first appeared on AircrewNews.com.

Recent filings by the Transportation Department indicate that it is looking to loosen aviation industry rules — something the nation’s largest carriers have increasingly pushed for — undoing the policies of the previous administration.

While some rules covering passenger rights are set to be eliminated, others have been flagged for updates, according to the agenda of proposed regulatory changes released last week.

The Transportation Department and Airlines for America, a trade group representing the country’s biggest carriers, argue that these rollbacks are course correcting from years of government overreach.

A federal law in 1978 granted airlines the authority to set routes and fares without heavy governmental intervention, reversing a long-established norm. Proponents of deregulation emphasized that increased competition would lower fares and bring in new routes and carriers.

Whether this was a success depends on whom you ask. Airlines for America said in a federal filing in May in response to a government request for comment from the public that deregulation accomplished many of its goals. But Ganesh Sitaraman, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the author of a book on airline deregulation, believes that it created an unregulated oligopoly and an aviation system with unreliable service.

“The reality is that we did not end up in that kind of dream world that the deregulators imagined,” Sitaraman said. “It’s a system in which there often isn’t a lot of competition,” he added. “The prices aren’t often that great. Sometimes the service isn’t great.”

Since deregulation, regional and budget airlines have struggled. Airlines merged and built up hub-and-spoke models, granting them dominance on key routes.

Meanwhile, consumer advocates say the passenger experience has deteriorated. Airplanes are more crowded and seats narrower. Different categories of fares have proliferated, and some services, such as baggage and seat selection, are no longer free.

Advocates for passenger rights celebrated the Transportation Department’s efforts during the Biden administration to shore up consumer rights through policy. Among those changes: requiring airlines to promptly pay for damaged wheelchairs, to give automatic cash refunds for significant flight disruptions under an airline’s control, and to allow families to sit together for free.

Some of these rules took effect. Others introduced in the final months of the last administration have largely stalled or been stymied by litigation filed by the airlines.

The Transportation Department is responsible for enforcing aviation consumer rules. Without its push to protect passengers, consumers are on shakier ground, said William McGee, a senior fellow for aviation at the American Economic Liberties Project, a progressive-leaning nonprofit that opposes monopolistic practices.

“Since deregulation in 1978, consumers have fewer rights with airlines than with any other industry. State courts, legislatures and attorneys general have zero authority over airlines,” McGee added. “The DOT secretary is the only sheriff in town, and if the secretary is on the side of the airlines, then consumers are out in the cold.”

In April, the Transportation Department solicited public input — including from businesses and lobbyists — about what rules, regulations and reporting requirements ought to be discarded. The notice encouraged commenters to focus on where the government could achieve “meaningful regulatory cost reduction” through deregulation — including, potentially, by reducing the amount of data it collects. Within weeks, nearly 1,000 entities, including several airlines, airline executives and trade associations, weighed in.

But the submission from Airlines for America, the industry trade group, stood out. Clocking in at 93 pages, it was a diatribe against a swath of Biden-era regulations concerning the rights of airline passengers.

“This activist agenda has stifled innovation, capitalism and efficiency, raised prices for consumers, and inhibited consumers’ ability to choose an airline with their wallets,” Airlines for America wrote in its comment. “Now is the time for the re-deregulation of the airline industry that can unleash American prosperity and the new ‘golden age’ of air travel in America.”

Among the airlines’ priorities are eliminating the rules requiring airlines to reveal “junk” fees before booking — which they tried to block in a lawsuit — and making them liable for damaged wheelchairs, clawing back refund rules, and ending “baseless and unfair” investigations into airlines. They also want to reduce the amount of data they are required to publicly report, which includes statistics such as on-time performance, mishandled baggage and tarmac delays.

Advocates for consumer rights and fair-pricing experts said the Transportation Department’s apparent openness to the airlines’ demands to roll back protections for passenger rights is a sign of what’s to come.

Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic think tank, said she fears that airlines will next seek to roll back other rules, such as ones mandating automatic refunds for severely disrupted flights and refunds for significantly delayed bags and ancillary services that weren’t provided.

Credits: The Seattle Times

The post The Trump administration wants to roll back airline passenger rights first appeared on AircrewNews.com.