WestJet has been caught red-handed lying about flight cancelations in order to avoid paying passengers government mandated compensation. Or at least the situation is so bad that the airline is even refusing to provide Canada’s biggest broadcaster a plausible explanation for why it’s doing what it’s doing (thanks to Jack for flagging this)…
In this post:
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.
What do you make of this WestJet practice? Is there any other logical explanation you can come up with here?
Unrelated to WestJet, but whenever I've had delays, cancellations or baggage issues with AC, they gave me everything that was required by law without putting a fight. Maybe I've been lucky. I've only flown WestJet once but after seeing this I'll actively avoid it.
The question really is whether the plane that was swapped in was on scheduled or unscheduled maintenance. If the former, then clearly it's not unexpected. If the latter then the question of compensation arises.
And the issue is how much spare capacity does the regulator want Canadian carriers to have - spare capacity which costs money and raises fares. Any individual breakdown may be unexpected, but you do expect a certain level of breakdowns over...
The question really is whether the plane that was swapped in was on scheduled or unscheduled maintenance. If the former, then clearly it's not unexpected. If the latter then the question of compensation arises.
And the issue is how much spare capacity does the regulator want Canadian carriers to have - spare capacity which costs money and raises fares. Any individual breakdown may be unexpected, but you do expect a certain level of breakdowns over the course of time. It would be easy to have, say, 10% spare planes locked and loaded at each hub but it would be woefully expensive. If that's what the regulator wants, then fine but it needs to be explained to the public that they're paying for it.
This is called fraud. Time for some massive fines.
Air Canada invented this fraud a long time ago.
I'm not sure I consider this to be unethical.
Let's simplify the situation by saying that the airline has two flights due to departing at 7pm, and it discovers at 5pm that one of the two planes intended to fly these routes has a mechanical issue.
If it doesn't swap the tail numbers, then it clearly owes no compensation to the delayed passengers.
Let's now say that WestJet decide to swap the planes. Are we...
I'm not sure I consider this to be unethical.
Let's simplify the situation by saying that the airline has two flights due to departing at 7pm, and it discovers at 5pm that one of the two planes intended to fly these routes has a mechanical issue.
If it doesn't swap the tail numbers, then it clearly owes no compensation to the delayed passengers.
Let's now say that WestJet decide to swap the planes. Are we really going to say that they owe compensation to the delayed passengers - in effect, that WestJet don't get to decide that, for operational reasons, it makes more sense for e.g. the flight with higher load to be the one that takes place?
To my mind, the two questions here are:
a) Does a plane being out of action for a week count as "unforeseen maintenance"; and, if so,
b) should there be a requirement to switch the tail numbers no later than, say, 24 hours before scheduled take-off?
In making changes to the rotation, the reason for cxl turns from mechanical to commercial.
Commercial interests will often align with passenger interests and commonsense.
Say you have two flights scheduled to depart at roughly the same time, on similar aircraft. One is to be at full capacity and covers a route that only operates once per week, while the other is part full and covers a route that operates several times per day. Should the airline really face punishment for cancelling the latter flight instead of the former?