Ashley Nunes

An article by Ashley Nunes: The pandemic isn’t even over, but the fight for more space is already on. As of July 1, both Air Canada and WestJet have stopped blocking access to adjacent seats on their planes. Previously, these carriers had embraced “seat distancing” policies, allowing passengers to sit farther away from one other because of potential COVID-19 transmission. Not any more. Instead, Canadians can now expect the usual tight squeeze onboard. Predictably, the move isn’t going over well. One couple, expecting an empty adjacent seat, likened the new policy to having “the rug pulled out from underneath” them. “I just thought that (the airlines) would want to take our safety more seriously,” the couple lamented to the CBC. Manitoba MP Niki Ashton shared their sentiment, calling for Ottawa to apply the same physical distancing rules that apply on land, in the air. According to Ms. Ashton, that airlines want to revert to the old ways of doing business “really speaks to (their) profit-driven agenda.” All of this criticism misses the mark. Let’s start with an airline’s “contract of carriage.” This document defines the rights of passengers and the responsibilities of the airline. It lays out in painstaking detail what happens if your flight is cancelled, your luggage is misplaced or you are denied boarding. What the contract of carriage doesn’t address are passenger rights when it comes to adjacent seats. The reason? You have none. In what should surprise few flyers, paying for one seat on a plane entitles you to, well, just one seat. To limit the spread of COVID-19, carriers like Air Canada offered passengers more space by limiting seating in adjacent seats. But the move only ever applied to cases “whenever possible.” In other words, it’s courtesy, not compulsory. If an airplane can seat 100 passengers and 100 passengers show up, the airline is well within its rights to accommodate them all. There’s a lesson here for flyers: it pays to read the fine print (or at the very least, the airline’s tweets) before buying a ticket.

An article by Ashley Nunes: Lyft’s all-electric pledge comes amid mounting concerns over auto emissions. Fossil fuel powered vehicles produce dangerous toxins, exposure to which can damage lungs, worsen pre-existing medical conditions and contribute to climate change. Ride-sharing companies have drawn particular ire in this regard. Research suggests they disproportionally contribute to air pollution compared to private car rides. Going electric is one way to temper these criticisms. Standing in the way, however, is cost. Electric cars remain pricier than their gasoline-powered counterparts. That’s a problem, particularly for ride-hailing drivers who must cover their own expenses. Lyft’s solution? To make electric vehicle economics more compelling, so compelling in fact that, according to the company’s sustainability chief Sam Aarons, drivers will be “basically jumping out of their chair at the opportunity to drive an EV.” Lyft’s formula for success relies in large measure on two things: first, the use of government incentives to spur electric car purchases by Lyft drivers. And second, a fervent expectation that manufacturing costs will fall. I wouldn’t bet on either. For one thing, using taxpayer cash to boost electric car sales is a questionable practice at best. Studies consistently show these programs mostly benefit the wealthy. The Congressional Research Service — a US government think-tank — found electric car subsidies mostly benefit high-income taxpayers; specifically, those making more than $100,000 annually. The problem? Drivers for companies like Lyft earn far less. Exactly how much these drivers earn is anyone’s guess. Ride-sharing companies frequently resort to numerical gymnastics when asked about it.

An article by Ashley Nunes: Where's my money? That's the question air travellers want answered. As the COVID-19 pandemic ravages economies worldwide, thousands of Canadians are stuck with tickets in hand and no place to go, and they want their airfares refunded. Predictably, airlines are having none of it. The likes of Air Canada and WestJet - which dominate the Canadian air travel market - are instead offering fliers credit that can be used toward future travel. According to WestJet, "...airline tariffs do not always provide for cash refunds especially in cases beyond our  control. WestJet believes refunding with travel credits is an appropriate and responsible approach in extraordinary circumstances such as the COVID-19 crisis." Put another way, good luck getting your cash back. If there's one thing airlines hate, it's issuing refunds. The reason comes down to pure economics. Running an airline is pricey. Commercial jets cost tens of millions of dollars. Add to that maintenance, insurance, and taxes - all of which must be paid regardless of whether or not an airplane flies - and you're talking about serious money.

An article by Ashley Nunes: Commercial aviation is seeing its darkest period ever. That’s according to Air Canada chief executive officer Calin Rovinescu. Mr. Rovinescu, who has led the airline since 2009, is grappling with a simple yet thorny question. How do you balance the books when no one wants what you’re selling? Airline executives around the world are facing the same challenge as COVID-19 brings air travel to historic lows. So far, the response has been to ground airplanes and furlough workers – that, and tap into taxpayer funds. Yes, in a move that will surprise few, C-suite executives now want government to help. For Air Canada, it’s hardly the first time. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the carrier received $100-million from Ottawa. In 2009, Air Canada pushed for – and secured – a government commitment for financial relief in the form of lower obligatory payments to its underfunded pension plan. What concessions the carrier extracts this time around are anyone’s guess. One thing is certain: With losses topping $1-billion in the latest quarter, the carrier needs help, and fast. Airlines have already tapped into Ottawa’s emergency wage subsidy, and they could be eligible for a new bridge-financing program for large employers. But make no mistake, more help is coming.

An article by Ashley Nunes: To say US airlines are struggling is putting it mildly. Coronavirus has crushed air travel demand, threatening both balance sheets and jobs. It’s true we’ve been here before. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, public enthusiasm towards flying waned which culminated in heavy losses for the airlines. Back then, however, US airlines received just $15 billion in government aid to stay afloat. In a sign of how serious the current situation is, Washington has upped the ante to the tune of $50 billion. Bailing out airlines is risky. Do nothing and the knock-on effects might drag down the economy. America’s economic might depends in large measure on having a vibrant aviation industry. But propping up private carriers at taxpayers’ expense naturally invites public ire. Americans may love to fly but we also love to complain about flying. Which explains why Washington wants consumer-friendly strings attached to any bailout package. The most relevant of these (for passengers at least) include the waiving of change fees, bag fees, and fees for really anything airline execs can think of (bland meals, flat pillows and more legroom come to mind). Bailing out airlines is risky. Do nothing and the knock-on effects might drag down the economy. America’s economic might depends in large measure on having a vibrant aviation industry. But propping up private carriers at taxpayers’ expense naturally invites public ire.

An article by Ashley Nunes: The numbers are staggering. Delta Air Lines is parking at least 50% of its entire fleet. United Airlines reports passenger bookings are down 70%. And 75% of American Airlines’ international flights are to be cut. Across the pond, Virgin Atlantic is offering staff eight weeks of unpaid leave, Norwegian Air is furloughing 90% of its workforce, and Austrian Airlines has suspended flights altogether. The culprit for all this is COVID-19. The rapid spread of the virus — coupled with government-imposed flying restrictions — has caused travel demand to plummet. Airline execs liken the situation to the 9/11 attacks. The comparison has some merit. In the aftermath of those attacks, bookings dropped, and airlines were left reeling. In their desperation, free market loving airline execs turned to governments for help. Governments obliged, forking out billions in taxpayer cash to keep airlines afloat. With COVID-19, expect more of the same.

An article by Ashley Nunes: Crash investigations are a complex affair. When a plane goes down, investigators normally spring into action. Some of these individuals work for the company that built the jet, some for the country where the jet was registered and others for the airline itself. All, however, are looking for clues about what caused the crash and what must be done to prevent another one. They do this with rigour and with attention to detail, because what we can learn from an aviation disaster should make the skies safer. That, however, is not what will happen with the tragic plane crash on Wednesday that killed 176 people, including 63 Canadians. The jet – operated by Ukraine International Airlines – had left Tehran for what should have been a four-hour flight to Kyiv. It ended up only taking a few minutes. Air traffic controllers lost contact with the jet shortly after takeoff, and the plane’s wreckage was later found on the outskirts of Tehran.

An article by Ashley Nunes: Canadians worry about distracted driving and rightly so. Studies show that taking your eyes off the road – even for a few seconds – dramatically raises the odds of a crash. In 2016, distracted driving was implicated in some 21 per cent of fatal accidents and 27 per cent of serious injury collisions (instances where the car’s occupants were hurt but not killed). The growing ubiquity of this phenomenon has alarmed legislators, law enforcement organizations and safety advocacy groups who – keen to save lives – are asking Canadians to stay focused on the road...It turns out that while we agree distracted driving is dangerous, we aren’t willing to give it up. Nearly 50 per cent of Canadians admit to using cell phones while driving while 30 per cent report taking their eyes off the road to do things such as rummaging through personal belongings, smoking and eating. Texting while driving has increased by 50 per cent since 2010. During the same time period, support for banning cellphone use while driving has fallen by 50 per cent.