Latest news with #AirCanada
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Tips and deals to help maximize your summer vacation dollars
Travel has become more expensive in recent years, with increased costs for airfare, hotels, and dining. However, don't let that deter you from exploring. Regardless of your destination, booking early and choosing off-season travel are effective strategies to save money. If you want to stretch your budget further, try these tactics that can help maximize vacation dollars. The insiders' guide: Where to go in Europe to avoid the crowds Although travelling within Canada can be notoriously expensive, some recent changes may help reduce your overall costs. Porter Airlines expanded its network and now flies across the country. Both Air Canada and WestJet have also increased their domestic routes as they've scaled back some flights to the United States. As a result, lower fares have been available. Additionally, the federal government recently announced a Canada Strong Pass, which allows those under the age of 18 to get free access to art galleries, national parks, museums and free seats on VIA Rail when travelling with their parents. While specific details are yet to be announced, this initiative could offer a valuable opportunity to cut costs. When planning your travel, make sure to check the local tourism website since they often have exclusive deals or passes. Stephanie Clovechok, chief executive officer of Discover Saskatoon, said her group's website helps direct those planning their itineraries to a range of services and deals. 'Our offers and packages page connects travellers directly with hotel promotions and seasonal experiences developed in partnership with our hospitality and tourism members,' she said. In B.C. there's Whistler's offer of up to 25 per cent off and a complimentary $100 activity voucher on stays of three nights or more, or up to 30 per cent off and a $200 voucher on stays of at least five nights. Those headed to Nova Scotia may be interested in the Halifax Experience Pass and the Nova Scotia Museum Pass. Both give you access to some top attractions at one low price. When you bundle your flights, hotel and airport transfers together as a vacation package, it's often significantly cheaper than booking everything separately. That said, major resorts such as Sandals and Grand Velas often have seasonal sales, so booking separately might make sense. Working with a travel agent can also be beneficial since many don't charge a fee and offer practical advice. 'For flexible travellers, we can help them find the best days to depart to maximize savings,' travel adviser Jennifer Zabloski said. 'Sometimes leaving the day before or after your desired date can save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars.' She points out that online photos and reviews of resorts are frequently misleading, so collaborating with an adviser who has visited the properties and knows the location well can ensure you're getting the best fit for your needs. Another sun destination with deals right now is Bermuda, where visitors can get up to 30 per cent off hotel stays, and 20 per cent off air and hotel with BermudAir Holidays. If you're headed to Europe for the first time, it will be tempting to visit major destinations such as Paris, Rome and London, however, those cities tend to be the most expensive. Instead, consider more budget-friendly destinations such as Portugal, Poland, Romania or Bulgaria, where costs could be considerably cheaper. When it comes to flights, choosing an airline that provides a stopover program, such as Icelandair, Emirates, Turkish Airlines and TAP Portugal, can be a cost-effective way to visit multiple countries. Stopover programs allow travellers to break up their journey – usually by at least 24 hours - and visit cities that are en route to their ultimate destination. Google Flights and are excellent websites for discovering the lowest prices and best routes. Many European cities, such as Amsterdam, Vienna and Berlin, offer a museum pass that can save you money, depending on how many attractions you plan to visit. 'Regardless of what loyalty points you collect, using them for long-haul travel often makes sense because it'll immediately reduce the cost of your flights or hotels – typically your largest expense,' said Sash Bhavsar, co-founder of a consultancy firm that frequent flyers hire to help them maximize their points. Don't overlook local hotel brands abroad, like Tokyu Stay and APA in Japan. They're often more affordable and offer a more authentic experience than large international chains, Mr. Bhavsar noted. If possible, opt for a regional or smaller international airport instead of the main one at your destination to save on airport landing fees and taxes that are often reflected in ticket prices. Secondary airport hubs charge airlines less, so if visiting Bangkok, Thailand, see if you can land at Don Mueang International (DMK) instead of Suvarnabhumi (BKK). And in Buenos Aires, for example, aim for Aeroparque Internacional Jorge Newbery (AEP) rather than Ezeiza (EZE). Many seasoned cruisers turn to as a starting point for trip research. While it may not be the most user-friendly website, its filtering system is arguably the best because it allows travellers to browse cruise deals by departure date, ports, cruise lines and trip duration. Once you've found what you're looking for, contact the cruise line and book directly for the best price. 'Most cruise lines offer seasonal promotions, including discounted fares, onboard credits and special deals like free passage for third and fourth guests,' Lisa Huizing, a vacation consultant with Expedia Cruises, said. Planning ahead and prepaying for add-ons such as beverage packages, Wi-Fi, airport transfers, excursions and gratuities can also help, Huizing added. No one wants an unexpected charge at the end of their voyage, so securing these extras in advance can ensure a more enjoyable experience. When booking, ask about all-inclusive packages that bundle these extras at a reduced price. Barry Choi is a personal finance and travel expert. He was previously affiliated with Air Canada and WestJet, but currently has no relationship with any of the brands mentioned.
Vancouver Sun
4 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. The case stems from a July 2019 Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Sydney, Australia. The Canadian Press reported at the time that the flight hit severe turbulence and was forced to divert to Hawaii. Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention. The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life. In the case of the latter, it said airlines were liable for up to 100,000 SDR for the bodily injury or death of a passenger. SDR or 'special drawing rights' is an economic unit that can be translated into any local currency; 100,000 SDR is worth about $192,000 Canadian. The amount is examined and may be revised every five years. As of 2024 it stands at 151,880 SDR, equivalent to $277,940 Canadian. The plaintiffs had argued that Air Canada's terms and conditions included the phrase: 'There are no financial limits in respect of death or bodily injury of passengers,' suggesting that the airline was opting out of the limit set by the Montreal Convention. However, Lawson Hennick, founding lawyer at Hennick Law in Markham, Ont., told National Post that on closer reading of the airline's regulations and the lawsuit, the high court's decision makes sense. 'Article 25 of the Montreal Convention expressly permits carriers to agree to higher or unlimited liability,' he said. 'The court acknowledged this, noting that a carrier can raise or even eliminate the threshold at which the no-negligence defence applies.' However, 'the court rejected this position, finding that Air Canada had not clearly waived its right to rely on the no-negligence defence.' Specifically, language in the Montreal Convention note that its liability rules 'supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent.' Meanwhile, Air Canada's own international tariff rules note that, 'except as otherwise provided herein,' the airline 'reserves all defences available.' Said Hennick: 'In the result, the passengers were unsuccessful in establishing that the carrier had waived the Article 21(2) defence for claims exceeding the maximum liability set out in the Montreal Convention.' Hennick noted that the Montreal Convention, aside from its cap on liabilities, is very open-ended when it comes to injury or loss of life while flying. 'The Montreal Convention says the carrier is liable for damages sustained in the case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking,' he said. 'So if you're injured by turbulence, that's considered onboard the aircraft, right? So I would say that would be something that could be compensable.' He added that passengers can sue beyond the limit, 'but if you want to claim it under the Montreal Convention, the benefit of that is all you have to do is prove your injuries.' 'As soon as you start claiming amounts above and beyond that, then they can start putting in defences for negligence. They can start alleging, well, the injury wasn't caused by us, it was caused by a third party, or could have been a result of pre-existing issues, or something other than that. But if you're going to be pursuing the limits under the Montreal Convention, it's a strict liability regime. You just have to show that you're injured on board the aircraft, prove the value of your injuries, and then they'll have to pay it.' One downside, he noted, is that the convention only mentions physical injuries. 'So if it's a purely psychological claim or psychiatric trauma, and you're not physically hurt … you may not be able to recover anything out of the Montreal Convention.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. The case stems from a July 2019 Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Sydney, Australia. The Canadian Press reported at the time that the flight hit severe turbulence and was forced to divert to Hawaii. Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said. Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention. The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life. In the case of the latter, it said airlines were liable for up to 100,000 SDR for the bodily injury or death of a passenger. SDR or 'special drawing rights' is an economic unit that can be translated into any local currency; 100,000 SDR is worth about $192,000 Canadian. The amount is examined and may be revised every five years. As of 2024 it stands at 151,880 SDR, equivalent to $277,940 Canadian. The plaintiffs had argued that Air Canada's terms and conditions included the phrase: 'There are no financial limits in respect of death or bodily injury of passengers,' suggesting that the airline was opting out of the limit set by the Montreal Convention. However, Lawson Hennick, founding lawyer at Hennick Law in Markham, Ont., told National Post that on closer reading of the airline's regulations and the lawsuit, the high court's decision makes sense. 'Article 25 of the Montreal Convention expressly permits carriers to agree to higher or unlimited liability,' he said. 'The court acknowledged this, noting that a carrier can raise or even eliminate the threshold at which the no-negligence defence applies.' However, 'the court rejected this position, finding that Air Canada had not clearly waived its right to rely on the no-negligence defence.' Specifically, language in the Montreal Convention note that its liability rules 'supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent.' Meanwhile, Air Canada's own international tariff rules note that, 'except as otherwise provided herein,' the airline 'reserves all defences available.' Said Hennick: 'In the result, the passengers were unsuccessful in establishing that the carrier had waived the Article 21(2) defence for claims exceeding the maximum liability set out in the Montreal Convention.' Hennick noted that the Montreal Convention, aside from its cap on liabilities, is very open-ended when it comes to injury or loss of life while flying. 'The Montreal Convention says the carrier is liable for damages sustained in the case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking,' he said. 'So if you're injured by turbulence, that's considered onboard the aircraft, right? So I would say that would be something that could be compensable.' He added that passengers can sue beyond the limit, 'but if you want to claim it under the Montreal Convention, the benefit of that is all you have to do is prove your injuries.' 'As soon as you start claiming amounts above and beyond that, then they can start putting in defences for negligence. They can start alleging, well, the injury wasn't caused by us, it was caused by a third party, or could have been a result of pre-existing issues, or something other than that. But if you're going to be pursuing the limits under the Montreal Convention, it's a strict liability regime. You just have to show that you're injured on board the aircraft, prove the value of your injuries, and then they'll have to pay it.' One downside, he noted, is that the convention only mentions physical injuries. 'So if it's a purely psychological claim or psychiatric trauma, and you're not physically hurt … you may not be able to recover anything out of the Montreal Convention.' No more instant noodles in economy, says Korean Air Video shows passenger being pulled from overhead bin after turbulent Air Europa flight Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Edmonton Journal
4 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
Article content Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said. Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention. The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. What is the Montreal Convention? The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life.
National Post
4 hours ago
- Business
- National Post
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
Article content This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. Article content Article content The case stems from a July 2019 Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Sydney, Australia. The Canadian Press reported at the time that the flight hit severe turbulence and was forced to divert to Hawaii. Article content Article content Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said. Article content Article content Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention. Article content The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. Article content The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life. Article content Article content In the case of the latter, it said airlines were liable for up to 100,000 SDR for the bodily injury or death of a passenger. SDR or 'special drawing rights' is an economic unit that can be translated into any local currency; 100,000 SDR is worth about $192,000 Canadian. Article content Article content However, Lawson Hennick, founding lawyer at Hennick Law in Markham, Ont., told National Post that on closer reading of the airline's regulations and the lawsuit, the high court's decision makes sense. Article content 'Article 25 of the Montreal Convention expressly permits carriers to agree to higher or unlimited liability,' he said. 'The court acknowledged this, noting that a carrier can raise or even eliminate the threshold at which the no-negligence defence applies.'
