Stranded passengers make it out of Arctic Bay
Mechanical issue prevented passengers from leaving Aug. 23
Passengers who were stuck in Arctic Bay left on Aug. 29 after their initial flight on Aug. 23 was cancelled due to a mechanical issue with a fuel truck. The passengers will not be compensated for the extended stay because the flight cancellations were out of Canadian North’s control, the airline states. (File photo)
Updated on Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2022 at 9:20 a.m. ET.
Passengers who had been stranded in Arctic Bay since their flight was cancelled on Aug. 23 have made it out of the hamlet, seven days later.
They left on an Aug. 29 flight, said Olivier Forbes, one of the passengers whose departure was delayed by a week.
As far as he knows, Forbes said that all of the stranded passengers, which included at least 12 people, were all on the flight out.
While passengers are no longer stranded, they will not be compensated for the extra time they spent in Arctic Bay, Forbes said, citing an email he received from Canadian North.
Forbes said his cost of taking a hotel and buying food in Arctic Bay for the additional six days he was there is approximately $2,700.
The company told Forbes the cancellation of flights was out of its control, so it will not compensate passengers. A mechanical issue on a fuel delivery truck, operated by the Government of Nunavut, is the reason for the flight’s delay.
On its website, Canadian North states it compensates passengers with overnight accommodation if a flight is cancelled for reasons within the airline’s control.
The company lists factors such as weather and airport operations as being out of its control.
Forbes said Canadian North worked to get a flight to Arctic Bay from Resolute Bay for the stranded passengers to leave.
The captain made a point to apologize for the passengers who were stuck in Arctic Bay, Forbes said.
Two other passengers stranded from the cancelled flight, Christy Rouault and Scott Garrison, were also aboard the flight that left on Aug. 29. Rouault told Nunatsiaq News that if she had to stay in Arctic Bay past Sept. 2, she would potentially miss her wedding.
Forbes said the cancelled flight on Aug. 23 was initially rescheduled to Aug. 25, but that flight was cancelled as well due to weather conditions.
As someone who has lived in the North for just under five years, Forbes said he understands that planes not being able to fly because of weather is a common occurrence.
However, Forbes said it was a sunny day without wind on Aug. 25.
He added that to be told the cancellation was weather related “feels like a slap in the face.”
“I’m still looking to get some clarity as to why we were stranded for so long,” Forbes said.
Canadian North spokesperson Kevin Kablutsiak told Nunatsiaq News in an email that the Aug. 23 flight was cancelled because the plane could not receive fuel. The Aug. 25 flight, as well as another one on Aug. 28, were cancelled due to high winds, he added.
Passengers stuck in Arctic Bay had been rescheduled to fly out on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, but Canadian North was able to get enough open seats for them on an Aug. 29 flight, Kablutsiak wrote.
He added the shortage of fuel in the High Arctic has affected the payloads of flights in that area and caused Canadian North to readjust routes.
The Government of Nunavut’s Department of Community and Government Services was not able to respond to Nunatsiaq News by the time of this publication.
Update: This article was updated from an earlier version to include the hotel and food costs passenger Olivier Forbes said he incurred while in Arctic Bay for nearly an extra week.
The Canadian Transportation Agency has recently issued decisions that staffing issues are controllable. I appreciate this is a fuel truck issue, but the airline needs to act reasonably. Surely Canadian North cannot say it is reasonable to not have flown up alternative aircraft by day two or three for these passengers. Imagine paying for your phone or internet only to be told the provider is sorry, some subcontractor down the line is having issues so neither do they have to refund you or compensate you. This is the state of consumer protection in this country and it cant continue.
.
I would claim under the Air Passenger Rights Regulations and go after them, they don’t have the time or interest fighting claims.
This article had nothing to do with staffing.
You will not get any compensation ordered while this current Liberal Government is in power. Read the passenger bill of rights that Garneau implemented. Full of loop holes for the airline. Plus the current Minister is working with CN to ease up merger restrictions. So good luck with any compensation. You are correct though, the airline should have sent a alternate aircraft, of which they have several.
False. As I said passengers have been winning at the CTA on these types of issues. Even more have been winning in small claims court. The regulations have holes but people have had enough of the buck passing in this industry. Imagine renting an apartment and the door freezes closed. Your landlord says the maintenance subcontractor it uses is sick so you can’t access your apartment for a week. Who will accept that as an excuse? Why are we giving a multi million dollar airline, bailed out by the GN no less, this kind of latitude to not provide care for passengers when they are failing the basic care required under the regulations? I have had air canada give me every excuse under the sun for delays in the south and I recently got $1000 plus my hotel for their incompetence.
And how are they supposed to fly up another aircraft when there is fuelling issues? Hello no airline is in business to bleed money lol kinda wonder how some people think, fuelling issue so let’s send another plane up and strand another plane because there is no fuel, oh they have tons of planes, do you seriously think they are all just sitting there and available to use? Do you think they have flight crews just sitting around doing nothing? Nope but you people don’t think about that kind of stuff right? Nope just more people who think they can fix a problem but only add layers that add to more problems lol
I can think of 11000 Way they could have managed to get the passengers home in a more timely manner as opposed to sitting around doing nothing.
.
I am willing to put money down that they managed to get the flight crew out to keep them working elsewhere.
You sure seem to have a solution for a problem that as not due to the airlines fault lol
So you are stating that the airline just has flight crews sitting around doing nothing and aircraft that is capable to fly there when there is NO FUEL for the plane to fill up with, your end all solution is to get some magic flight crew to appear out of no where and fly a plane into a community with no fuel and that will fix the problem?
You are a very privileged person the way you are talking about something you clearly can’t comprehend, THERE WAS NO FUEL, so how are they supposed to send a plane there? Why would they send an empty plane and burn money? This should all fall back on the GN and the contractor not the airline.
First There was fuel. The article clearly says there was a mechanical issue with the truck.
.
Second the article says they rode on another plane to Resolute. So the magic flight did appear after all.
.
If you want to call holding airlines to the basic standards of federal regulations, which is to put up stranded passengers and get them to their destination by using reasonable means (including means that cost the airline money) then go ahead.
Fuel truck issue meaning its a fuel issue…… How are they supposed to give a plane fuel if they can’t pump fuel in the first place?
The plane they left on didn’t arrive until the issue was fixed, you can’t seem to comprehend that this is a GN issue not the airline so why should the airline be at fault? So I guess you would hold the stores accountable for a product you wanted but couldn’t get in because the manufacturer couldn’t supply it in the first place?
If I bought and paid for a product that was not delivered I would expect my money back at minimum. If I bought and paid for something that wasnt delivered that cost me money because I couldn’t run my business I’d sue for damages. Companies do this everyday.
So with you saying that then sue the government not the airline.
The airline has no control over the fuel, the fuel truck(s) anything to do with the fuel other then purchasing it.
thank you, Salam
I doubt that any of the passengers were out-of-pocket. Somebody (i.e. The Taxpayer) picked up the tab for accommodations and meals I’m sure.
Nevertheless, the GN might want to claim (against the GN?!) for the expenses and “lost productivity” (LOL) of their employees.
You ever have that happen to you up here?? The article didn’t say these people were there for work for the GN. They likely had to pay out of their own pockets.
They should be going after the Gov’t of Nunavut, not Canadian North. The issue was the fuel truck not the plane! And then the weather, well nothing or no one can do anything about that.
Canadian North said due to weather I wasn’t able to return home for a week. Get home to find out others were put up in hotels as CN had decided they were not going to land here. Took over a year but was sent a cheque for about 903.00. Yes, you can do something about the weather excuse when it is false. Thinking about it now that didn’t cover my time or expenses travelling back and forth to airports.
…and then enroute to Clyde River the reasons become more questionable…fuel truck was the issue. Many other travel instances which we eventually give up on.
Passengers have no contract with fuel suppliers to sue them for. They don’t have regulated rights like the federal Air Passenger Rights that protect them from airline subcontractors even if they are the GN. The chain of liability is that after reimbursing passengers it is Canadian North who goes after the GN to recover.
Fly @ your own risk, you can afford to go to Arctic Bay and pay ridiculously over priced hotel thats not even the ritz hotel haha