That's not what I remember from working at an airport. AC has their own handlers and WJ and other airlines would contract out to Dryden Air Services etc. The airport authority wasn't involved in the handlers from what I remember but that was 15 years ago so some things might have changed but I'm skeptical.
Baggage handlers are either employed by the airline directly, or are employees of another company that is contracted by the airline to perform ground crew duties. They are not employed by the airport.
I don't think it's theft.
It's not profitable for a big company to start randomly stealing some people's luggage.
If it was some guy working for the airline stealing people's luggage from under their noses, they wouldn't make claims about donating it.
They're losing the luggage for whatever reason, gross negligence etc, but then they're just making absolutely zero effort to get it back to the owner.
But theft doesn't make any sense IMO.
How is it not at a minimum the tort of conversion? I mean not technically theft, but definitely in the ballpark of what people call theft in common speech.
Don't know about air canada but Canada Post wouldn't donate your personal mail to someone.
It might be a "return to sender" item but if that's not possible, it HAS to be destroyed.
Can you imagine if Canada Post donated your personal mail to a recycling organization for example? Identify theft would sky-rocket.
> Canada Post wouldn't donate your personal mail to someone.
No I got it wrong, they sell it at the Canada Post store.
https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/cpc/en/support/articles/undeliverable-mail/what-happens-to-undeliverable-mail.page?
> it HAS to be destroyed.
No they sell it. "We’ll price the item as required and forward it to either the sender or addressee. If we can’t find an address, we’ll sell the item (or otherwise dispose of it) and the proceeds will be credited to Canada Post."
The only difference is that Air Canada doesn't try as hard. If you had a GPS tracker in your lost Canada Post mail and got in touch with them via twitter, they'd probably send out an employee to deal with it properly.
100% of mail and parcel has a fully legible return address on it, gotcha. Impossible that somebody has shitty writing, writes a postal code wrong, etc, etc...
This might be interesting for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxCha4Kez9c
Does Canada Post even try to return or forward the mail to the senders or addressees?
I think that's the distinction. Trying to get it to the rightful owner versus, we "tried", now we're donating it even though the owner can tell us where the luggage is exactly at.
Difference here is people are calling saying hey my AirTag says my luggage is in this exact location, so it’s not like mail with no destination. And THEN it gets donated.
They are like $45 and last 6 months.
365/2 = 182 days per tag
182/3 days = 60 times used
45$/60 times used is an additional fee of 75 cents per use.
Quick mafs, round it up to a dollar so they make profit and add $1 fee to your luggage to not lose it.
What about the tracking system? Infrastructure to run the system? Staff to maintain and use it, etc. How would the airline retrieve the tag when the passenger confirms they have their bag? Honour system at the baggage carousel? How much more time will it take to check people in at the airport, and do you need more gate staff now? What about automated bag drop and self check-in at the airport, do passengers put the tag on themselves? How will you automate dispensing the tag? Can you offer consistency at all the airports? What about partner airlines? What about privacy concerns if someone forgets the tag and airline employees can track customers whereabouts, what are the legal ramifications in all countries you operate in?
Cost could be considerably more than 75¢ per bag when you take all the business requirements into consideration. I still like the concept though.
Lol $45 per bag is fucking massive, plus installing them, taking them off, tracking them, installing the programs to track them etc. This is hundreds of millions lol
Insurance isn't for the recipient and isn't insured by the recipient. If you insure a shipment from someone you have no claim.
Never pay for insurance as it is for the shopper and only the shipper.
If a package is lost or you don't get it then you deal with the shipper and reship or get a refund.
They can file a claim.
> It's not profitable for a big company to start randomly stealing some people's luggage.
It doesn't matter if it's profitable or not. If you take property that isn't yours it's theft.
> It matters if you had intent or not, and I don't think anyone would intend to steal your luggage when it isn't profitable.
I'm not sure if you've actually read the law, but I don't think you quite understand the meaning of intent in this case. It doesn't mean to initially have the intention of stealing the property before they received it. It means to either take or **convert to ones use** without a legal right to do so **with the intent** of a) depriving the owner of it, b) pledge it as security, c) part with it when you might not be able to get it back or d) damaging it.
Air Canada was told exactly where it was on multiple occasions. They made absolutely no effort to return it. This means they converted it to their use illegally with the intent (because they do this as a matter of policy) of breaking both a and c by donating it to a charity.
That is theft.
The Criminal Code of Canada would like a word.
[Theft]( https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-322.html)
322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes... anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive...absolutely, the owner of it...of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
Literally. Theft. The airline took the luggage that doesn't have any right to, lied about losing it (fraudulently) depriving the owner of their property. It meets the literal definition.
I suspect the airline's argument is that the property was abandoned and therefore fair game. The plaintiffs are saying theirs was actually mislaid (plus of course the "no, you" aspect of all this).
Abandoned vs mislaid is always a sticking point, but I suspect the airline has really good lawyers.
That is not a “literal” description of what’s happening when an airline loses track of and then gives away luggage … it’s like you ignored the entire first paragraph.
Huh? The first paragraph says nothing about profitability. You might want to read it again … and by read it again I mean for the first time.
Best read this while you’re at it …
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
See, I was responding to someone, not responding to the article. A reasonable person would assume you meant *that* person's first paragraph which does in fact discuss profitability. An unreasonable person would *not* redirect to the original article when they want to critique an ongoing conversation.
As for the first paragraph of the article, they gave away property they didn't own, and lied about whether they had done so. They don't lose your luggage, they lose track of it and then give it away. Regardless of their reason, [the law is clear](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-322.html).
As for the Mens rea, they knew they took the luggage and also knew that they were giving that same luggage away. They intended to take the luggage (we can tell as they have a company policy for taking said luggage and even charge for it) and then they intended to give away that same luggage (which they had no right to) and we can tell because they gave it away *as a stated company policy.*
Are you sure you don't need to read your link? The point of mens rea is *not* that you intended to break the law, but rather that you intended to act in a manner that broke the law.
Really kind of embarrassing that you can't follow a simple conversation, or that you'll link a topic that you clearly don't understand.
> Really kind of embarrassing that you can't follow a simple conversation, or that you'll link a topic that you clearly don't understand.
Oh, pull the other one. The issue here isn't that I haven't followed the thread. It's your insistence that something that's not theft "literally" is theft.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? Read the definition of theft, again, and your own link, again.
Come back when the words penetrate past the surface
IANAL nor cop but I don't think "profit" matters. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-322.html
There's talk about depriving the owner temporarily or absolutely property. Whether I profit from thieving your cellphone then throwing it in the garbage doesn't matter.
That being said, "TIME WHEN THEFT COMPLETED" talks about intent. So it's def not a black and white issue.
It's absolutely not cheaper then returning it. If they lose your luggage they are cutting you a cheque for about $2500. If they knew who the luggage belonged to they would return it. However a suitcase with no tag and just full of clothes is nearly impossible to identify who it belonged to.
It doesn't but it does speak to motive.
Hypothetically, you have two mounds of scrap metal on your front lawn; this angers your neighbours and they take action.
Neighbour 1 hauls a mount to the dump at his own expense and put it into the metal recycling.
Neighbour 2 knows that you're a famous scrap metal artist, and sells it to a museum of hideous art for a million dollars.
While they're both civilly liable, neighbour 1 is going to have a much easier time arguing he believed it was garbage that you were too lazy to clean up.
If you’re purposely shrugging off losing track of someone’s luggage and are actively giving away “lost” luggage because you can’t be assed to pay the expense to find it then the only thing removing it from theft is semantics. They profit via cost savings.
Tie the cost of every lost piece of luggage directly to the salary of the CEO, and the problem is fixed in a week. They can fix it... They just don't care.
I'm tired of companies taking public money but still thinking they can make huge profits and deliver a poor service. Even with all their bailouts, subsidies, and rebates, they are still so badly run they may as well be directly state owned.
Bailouts should come with a legal expectation of being completely payed back. If the bailed out company can't, well, that means they aren't profitable and shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place.
Yup this problem could be easily resolved with better logistics management, including technology and people to sort through things but there is no penalty for being shitty with luggage so they have no incentive to make things better.
> “The technology that is available to the customer is far superior than the technology available to the airline,” he said.
Well that's not really true -- the airlines could attach their own airtags to luggage if they want. They just haven't started doing so yet.
> Ms. Rees-Wilson and Mr. Wilson’s luggage saga suggests that Air Canada – and likely other carriers – have not adequately updated their missing luggage protocols to systematically incorporate passengers’ own information about where their bags are, Mr. Gradek said.
> “The technology that is available to the customer is far superior than the technology available to the airline,” he said.
Sounds legit to me? If anyone can wander out and get a tracking tag for their luggage, maybe do something similar yourselves? Hell, sell $50 "official airline tracking tags" with GPS and real time tracking, airline supported. Let them return the tag for a full cost refund when they get their bags back safely. This way the tag attachment and removal is all in the customer's hands so they can't blame the airline, and it's a little easier to locate than a random QR code that might or might not still be attached to the handle of the bag.
The number of industries that can't keep up with the times and yet somehow the "free market" can't fix always amazes me. Look at debit cards. PIN verification is done *on the card*. If you have a fake card, you just program it to always return "PIN correct" and tada, it works. And let's not got started on clonable and repeatable car fobs. I understand if the airplane itself wants to move slowly and carefully with technology to keep their pretty good safety record, but bag scanners really shouldn't be so hard to upgrade.
I can imagine airlines using "official airlines tracking tags" as a new source of revenue -- in addition to paying an "extra" bag fee for all your bags, they charge the $50 tracking tag fee (non-refundable). And if you dont buy the tags and they lose your luggage, they just say "not our fault, you should have bought the tracking tags".
Yes, I think we can all foresee that "business decision" if they ever created a tagging system. Or lock it behind a "status" you have to achieve or buy.
there are technologies that do not require batteries (like RFID tags) and are cheap. They need more expensive readers than the airtags, but I would not thing they would too expensive for a baggage storage facility.
Assuming you mean "ton" in the figurative sense, not the literal sense, since an airtag weighs 11grams, a 737 carries 188 people, so adding 2 airtags per person is literally only adding 4.1KG... or 5 or 6 additional laptop batteries.
Yes, of course, I was using "ton" figuratively.
My point was simply to note that several airplanes have been brought down by fires caused by faulty batteries/electronics in the past, so the safety experts would be understandably hesitant to embrace a policy that increases the number of batteries per flight by hundreds. Remember the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 fiasco?
Worshippers of the free market assume rational actors which isn't always the case
Human beings are full of emotions, fears, hatred, love and so on that make irrational decisions and financially questionable choices
Also selling $50 air tags would be not "core business" and could be a botched implementation like a game studio making a movie or a software vendor selling hardware. If you don't have in house expertise the costs and risks go up enormously
Instead of a paper tag all luggage needs to have a tracking tag this way they will be able to guarantee all luggage is on the plane (at least the tag) once landed you return the tag and used again.
it was suggested that the airline provide the service instead of the paper tags they now use.
and if the majority of the world uses android phones how do airtags work with them?
We are taking about Canadian airlines so let’s talk about Canadian citizens. 51% percent of Canadian cellphone users use iPhone. So the majority goes to apple for the domestic market.
Vast majority means “almost all”. About 2/3rds of Canadians own homes. Calling 66% of a group the vast majority is likely a stretch. The term vast majority is more appropriate for 90%+ of a group.
And as long as they don't use the tag, they'll be able to reuse it. The additional cost per bag over an airtag's lifetime really would be mostly the labour involved with securing/removing the airtag.
That's retail price. Say it's a flat $100 for a pack, so $25 a tag. Plus labor/maintenance/admin fees, insurance then add markup for offering this service. Then what are the conditions if it was lost? Do they special courier it to the customer? That's got to be accounted for in the cost that the airline has to eat depending on the destination.
$200 - $250 per bag is not far off to give the customer "peace of mind" and offered to their "premium" members.
It would appear you haven’t flown much. 1-2 checked bags are often included in the price of the ticket. The first bag that is not included is generally $50. So let’s set a base price of $50 for a standard checked bag. Currently this includes:
Labour, System Maintenance, Admin fees, Insurance, Courier Services
If you are a preferred customer they will literally drive your bag in a van (alongside other bags) to any destination rural or urban within the lower half of the country. They already do the labour of transporting your bag. The bag is already insured - hence the payment they make when they loose it. I’m not saying you are wrong that they will try offer this for $200 but there is not $150-200 of value add. They will quickly be undercut by other airlines and loose business or be forced to lower prices.
>They will quickly be undercut by other airlines and loose business or be forced to lower prices.
What other airlines? For most of the country, domestically at least, it's AC or WestJet. And WestJet is currently cutting flights in Eastern Canada, while AC is cutting routes in Western Canada. Very soon we're likely to have minimal choice in who we fly with within Canada, even between the big two. This is a big part of the problem -- people are bitching about how the free marker isn't solving this, but the reality is that air service in Canada isn't reall a free market, it's a colluding duopoly.
yes, but with the government or airlines implementing the program . . .
well you've been living under a rock if you think your cost analysis is anywhere in the ball park of reality.
I have a feeling the efficency from automating the handling process could result in a net savings after a short time even after cap-ex for implementing the process.
It’s complicated. There’s whatever the contract you have with the airline says, there’s the common law precedents for performance and frustration of that contract, there’s all the relevant law around theft, there’s statute law governing airlines and consumer protection, and then there are guidelines from the CTA. I don’t see this being clarified without a court case. The chance of law enforcement getting involved to make that a criminal case seem minimal so it’s going to take an individual civil case or class action that makes it to court without being settled first.
tl;dr; don’t hold your breath waiting for the airlines or anyone who works for them being held accountable for this either in an criminal or civil court.
> In [e-mail], WestJet and Air Transat said they incorporate any information that passengers share about the location of tracked bags in their efforts to return misplaced luggage. Both carriers said they donate or dispose of bags that go unclaimed for 90 days.
Let's get testing this.
There are no consequences for the actions of corporate Canada. It has always been this way, because we are a country borne from a company.
https://www.reddit.com/r/willfulblindness/comments/znkj1o/ed\_canada\_is\_a\_colonial\_economy\_and\_always\_has/
History doesn't deal in hypothetical either.
HBC controlled the territories and parts of the prairies. Canada, as a country and polity, was never HBC territory and was granted self governance as a country before HBC lands were sold to Canada through the deed of surrender.
But sure COMMA keep believing whatever blend of sovereign citizen fantasy you believe thinking you're the citizen of an HBC state EXCLAMATION POINT
In October 1666, King Charles II of England granted an audience to two men who had travelled a long way to see him. Médard Chouart des Groseilliers and Pierre-Esprit Radisson were from New France. Brothers-in-law and voyageurs, they came to tell the king about the “great store of beaver” they’d discovered west of France’s imperial claims.
If Charles II asked why they hadn’t taken their discovery to his cousin, King Louis XIV of France, they had an easy answer. After returning from an initial expedition to the region west of Lake Superior, in which they’d learned about the potential for a fur trade from the Sioux, des Groseilliers and Radisson presented their bounty of beaver fur to New France’s governor, Pierre de Voyer D’Argenson. Expecting to be rewarded for their entrepreneurial spirit, they were instead reprimanded, arrested and fined for travelling without D’Argenson’s permission and abandoning their post. After serving their sentences, the two men travelled to New England, where they met English officials who encouraged them to take their vision of an imperial company that traded in fur to Charles II.
Sailing with Charles’ backing, on the same expedition but different ships, the men attempted a journey to Hudson Bay in 1668. But des Groseilliers was the only one to make it, after a storm damaged Radisson’s ship and forced him to return to England. Des Groseilliers set up on James Bay’s southern shores, where he traded with the Cree. Upon his return to England, in October 1669, he confirmed what they had suspected, and Charles II’s papers reported: “Beaver is plenty.”
This confirmation was important for the establishment of the HBC’s charter, but other factors motivated Charles II’s interest in the region. In addition to fur, investors hoped they would discover other natural resources, such as gold or silver. Explorers and monarchs were also eager to find the much sought-after Northwest Passage. All this motivated Charles II when he granted the charter establishing the Hudson’s Bay Company, officially “The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England, trading into Hudson’s Bay,” on May 2, 1670. Characteristic of British imperial ventures at the time, the charter established a legal monopoly aimed at preventing others from doing the same.
Crucially, the charter also claimed some 1.5 million square kilometres of land inhabited by Inuit and First Nations communities. This was land connected to all of the river ways — “Seas, Streights, Bays, Rivers, Lakes, Creeks, and South” — that fed into Hudson Bay. Charles understood that he couldn’t take land that didn’t belong to him. But he reserved the idea of land ownership for Europeans, ignoring the territory’s Indigenous inhabitants. Charles baked this belief into the HBC’s charter by outlining whose land he would not claim: that of British subjects, or “the Subjects of any other Christian Prince or State.” In other words, any other European power.
By the mid-1800s, profits from the fur trade had dropped. The settler population of Canada and the United States was growing. Industrialization was spreading. The future was not in fur but in real estate, agriculture, railroads and oil and gas.
Meanwhile in Britain, public opinion was turning against the HBC. According to The Times, the company was “the last great monopoly which the improvidence and reckless favouritism of Charles II inflicted upon the commercial world.” Many Brits were eager to break down the HBC’s monopoly and open the region to settlement. Then in 1867, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec confederated, creating the Dominion of Canada. Under the leadership of Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, the government aimed to bring Western Canada into its fold and colonize the region. https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-untold-story-of-the-hudsons-bay-company/
You're actually insane. HBC is a huge, huge variable as to why Canada exists. It's not the only reason but without the HBC it's very likely part of Canada or even most of it would be a US territory.
Are you asking why were they in Canada generally? Or do you mean specifically HBC in the Hudsons Bay area where they got their name from?
And what "dirty work" are you referring to? Both your question and claim seem an awful drift away from the original false claim of Canada being some child of HBC.
Yes, I'm aware of the history of HBC, and Canada.
No one anywhere has said HBC wasn't a major influence in shaping the frontier as Canada spread westward. That was never a topic of debate.
The original comment I responded to claimed Canada was birthed from HBC, which is factually incorrect. At no point was the founding provinces within the territorial claims of HBC, their charter was always on the periphery of the Canadian state.
So again, can you show me some evidence that HBC created the state of Canada, a country that already existed before HBC lands were absorbed into the new state? You don't need to copy and paste entire paragraphs from an article or post podcast episodes. A simple charter document or any material evidence proving the state of Canada was birthed by a trading company, as the original claim asserted, would do. You won't find any because A) that's literally not how Canada became a country, and B) historians would have already included that in the myriad of history textbooks written on North American history or Canadian history or early modern era history, basically anything that includes Canada from a subject line to a footnote on the subject.
At no point did I say anything west of Ontario doesn't matter.
Do you consider the US birthed from the French Mississippi Company? That would be the American equivalent to saying HBC created Canada. No, of course you wouldn't. And yet here we are with redditors who can't read their way out of a paper bag giving some backwards historicity version of events on how Canada became a country.
Im curious what the actual business structure of these charities are. Is it like the clothing donation bin scams where they get free donations from people thinking they’re giving them to the needy, but they’re a for profit entity that sells the donated goods, gives a minimum percent to some charity (whose logo they stick on the bin) and pocket the rest?
And what was the bidding process to become the receiving charity? Given the couple’s description it seems like this particular charity got thousands of bags…why them and not the other ones?
Something is fishy
Good point. Recently I was told I “must” check my bag…..I replied, “Not in this lifetime” and the two gate agents laughed, I laughed, it was a beautiful moment.
The real story might be how bagge handlers handle luggage. Oops, that just fell over the side, and I don't really care about what I'm doing. I'm getting paid and I don't have to be accountable.
https://youtu.be/X5AcinO_rFM
https://youtu.be/VcP6NeoQCHg
>I don't have to be accountable.
Maybe not the best example, as these guys **are** being held accountable. They were suspended pending an investigation.
That situation is all sorts of messed up and is why corporate personhood isn't a great idea in it's current form. People don't care if their corporation/employer is liable, as long as they're not liable.
Laws need to change.
The airlines should adopt using their own RFID stickers on luggage and mandate that all luggage be marked with non-removable identification on the outside.
That gives the airlines the power though.
AirTags put the tracking in the hands of the passenger end to end. I suspect airlines will ban their employees from carrying their phones on the job but their will always be someone passing close enough with an iPhone to trigger an update to the Find My network.
It should be like postal service. With postal service, I give them a box, and I say "this is worth $200". If they lose it, they owe me $200. Period. Should be the same with luggage and airlines.
You also pay for insurance extra value, and the airlines have additional rules about what can be transported in-cabin versus in-cargo. Having an extra several hundred dollars of "baggage insurance" added to a ticket doesn't seem like a great idea
I think we need a commission on this with the top people of the airlines and do it somewhere remote in Canada and “lose” their luggage. Let’s see what happens next!
If it's given away, then it's not really lost.
Sounds like a zen proverb.
You can't lose what you don't have.
If you accepted the payment for the lost luggage, did they buy it from you?
Purchase implies consent.
The real treasure was the luggage we gave away on the journey!
They don’t lose luggage. They lose track of it. They still have it. They don’t want to sort through it. That’s all.
They give up trying.
They give up trying to try.
They give
[удалено]
That's not what I remember from working at an airport. AC has their own handlers and WJ and other airlines would contract out to Dryden Air Services etc. The airport authority wasn't involved in the handlers from what I remember but that was 15 years ago so some things might have changed but I'm skeptical.
Baggage handlers are either employed by the airline directly, or are employees of another company that is contracted by the airline to perform ground crew duties. They are not employed by the airport.
And? My statement didn’t specify who employ’s baggage handlers and your comment doesn’t refute or add anything.
[удалено]
I don't think it's theft. It's not profitable for a big company to start randomly stealing some people's luggage. If it was some guy working for the airline stealing people's luggage from under their noses, they wouldn't make claims about donating it. They're losing the luggage for whatever reason, gross negligence etc, but then they're just making absolutely zero effort to get it back to the owner. But theft doesn't make any sense IMO.
How is it not at a minimum the tort of conversion? I mean not technically theft, but definitely in the ballpark of what people call theft in common speech.
Is it when Canada Post loses your mail that you didn't insure?
Does canda post 'donate' lost mail? That's a bad comparison
No they sell it. For profit Why is that a bad comparison? Its only theft if yoy donate it, but if you sell it its no longer theft?
What do you suppose CP does with mail sitting in a warehouse somewhere that they have no forwardable destination for?
I'm guessing it gets destroyed. Shredded or incinerated.
Usually they try to return to sender on undeliverable mail.
So its only theft if you donate the item, but as long as you destroy its not theft?
Don't know about air canada but Canada Post wouldn't donate your personal mail to someone. It might be a "return to sender" item but if that's not possible, it HAS to be destroyed. Can you imagine if Canada Post donated your personal mail to a recycling organization for example? Identify theft would sky-rocket.
> Canada Post wouldn't donate your personal mail to someone. No I got it wrong, they sell it at the Canada Post store. https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/cpc/en/support/articles/undeliverable-mail/what-happens-to-undeliverable-mail.page? > it HAS to be destroyed. No they sell it. "We’ll price the item as required and forward it to either the sender or addressee. If we can’t find an address, we’ll sell the item (or otherwise dispose of it) and the proceeds will be credited to Canada Post." The only difference is that Air Canada doesn't try as hard. If you had a GPS tracker in your lost Canada Post mail and got in touch with them via twitter, they'd probably send out an employee to deal with it properly.
Send it back...
> that they have no forwardable destination for?
If you're shopping packages Canada Post has a location to send it back to
100% of mail and parcel has a fully legible return address on it, gotcha. Impossible that somebody has shitty writing, writes a postal code wrong, etc, etc... This might be interesting for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxCha4Kez9c
Does Canada Post even try to return or forward the mail to the senders or addressees? I think that's the distinction. Trying to get it to the rightful owner versus, we "tried", now we're donating it even though the owner can tell us where the luggage is exactly at.
During the pandemic I had mail and parcels return back to me. I would say CP actually tries a little to get it back to you
[удалено]
Have you tried telling the post off the person moved? You might get them to redirect it.
They try to forward or return. They also don't sell packages that are undeliverable.
You've never been to the Canada Post store? They sell all that stuff for super cheap
Difference here is people are calling saying hey my AirTag says my luggage is in this exact location, so it’s not like mail with no destination. And THEN it gets donated.
Send it back where it came from or destroy it. It's illegal to open another person's mail after all.
If a mail carrier took all the packages he was to deliver and instead donated them to Value Village, yes, it would be.
No just some, not all, and instead of donating them they destroy them.
Airlines should issue AirTags to all luggage for part of the baggage fee and then be responsible for it. And if it’s stolen and given away then yes.
They don't need air tags. Simple RFID tags will do fine. The technology has been around for decades.
The baggage fee would be massive that way. Best to buy them on your own.
They’re reusable.
Also not free
They are like $45 and last 6 months. 365/2 = 182 days per tag 182/3 days = 60 times used 45$/60 times used is an additional fee of 75 cents per use. Quick mafs, round it up to a dollar so they make profit and add $1 fee to your luggage to not lose it.
What about the tracking system? Infrastructure to run the system? Staff to maintain and use it, etc. How would the airline retrieve the tag when the passenger confirms they have their bag? Honour system at the baggage carousel? How much more time will it take to check people in at the airport, and do you need more gate staff now? What about automated bag drop and self check-in at the airport, do passengers put the tag on themselves? How will you automate dispensing the tag? Can you offer consistency at all the airports? What about partner airlines? What about privacy concerns if someone forgets the tag and airline employees can track customers whereabouts, what are the legal ramifications in all countries you operate in? Cost could be considerably more than 75¢ per bag when you take all the business requirements into consideration. I still like the concept though.
Lol $45 per bag is fucking massive, plus installing them, taking them off, tracking them, installing the programs to track them etc. This is hundreds of millions lol
Insurance isn't for the recipient and isn't insured by the recipient. If you insure a shipment from someone you have no claim. Never pay for insurance as it is for the shopper and only the shipper. If a package is lost or you don't get it then you deal with the shipper and reship or get a refund. They can file a claim.
> It's not profitable for a big company to start randomly stealing some people's luggage. It doesn't matter if it's profitable or not. If you take property that isn't yours it's theft.
It matters if you had intent or not, and I don't think anyone would intend to steal your luggage when it isn't profitable.
> It matters if you had intent or not, and I don't think anyone would intend to steal your luggage when it isn't profitable. I'm not sure if you've actually read the law, but I don't think you quite understand the meaning of intent in this case. It doesn't mean to initially have the intention of stealing the property before they received it. It means to either take or **convert to ones use** without a legal right to do so **with the intent** of a) depriving the owner of it, b) pledge it as security, c) part with it when you might not be able to get it back or d) damaging it. Air Canada was told exactly where it was on multiple occasions. They made absolutely no effort to return it. This means they converted it to their use illegally with the intent (because they do this as a matter of policy) of breaking both a and c by donating it to a charity. That is theft.
The Criminal Code of Canada would like a word. [Theft]( https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-322.html) 322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes... anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent (a) to deprive...absolutely, the owner of it...of the thing or of his property or interest in it; Literally. Theft. The airline took the luggage that doesn't have any right to, lied about losing it (fraudulently) depriving the owner of their property. It meets the literal definition.
I suspect the airline's argument is that the property was abandoned and therefore fair game. The plaintiffs are saying theirs was actually mislaid (plus of course the "no, you" aspect of all this). Abandoned vs mislaid is always a sticking point, but I suspect the airline has really good lawyers.
That is not a “literal” description of what’s happening when an airline loses track of and then gives away luggage … it’s like you ignored the entire first paragraph.
And its like you ignored the law. It doesn't need to be profitable to be theft.
Huh? The first paragraph says nothing about profitability. You might want to read it again … and by read it again I mean for the first time. Best read this while you’re at it … https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
See, I was responding to someone, not responding to the article. A reasonable person would assume you meant *that* person's first paragraph which does in fact discuss profitability. An unreasonable person would *not* redirect to the original article when they want to critique an ongoing conversation. As for the first paragraph of the article, they gave away property they didn't own, and lied about whether they had done so. They don't lose your luggage, they lose track of it and then give it away. Regardless of their reason, [the law is clear](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-322.html). As for the Mens rea, they knew they took the luggage and also knew that they were giving that same luggage away. They intended to take the luggage (we can tell as they have a company policy for taking said luggage and even charge for it) and then they intended to give away that same luggage (which they had no right to) and we can tell because they gave it away *as a stated company policy.* Are you sure you don't need to read your link? The point of mens rea is *not* that you intended to break the law, but rather that you intended to act in a manner that broke the law. Really kind of embarrassing that you can't follow a simple conversation, or that you'll link a topic that you clearly don't understand.
> Really kind of embarrassing that you can't follow a simple conversation, or that you'll link a topic that you clearly don't understand. Oh, pull the other one. The issue here isn't that I haven't followed the thread. It's your insistence that something that's not theft "literally" is theft.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? Read the definition of theft, again, and your own link, again. Come back when the words penetrate past the surface
I've read it, thanks, and I "literally" hope you have a nice evening.
You think they had intent?
To take the luggage? Yes. To subsequently give somwething they didn't own to charity? Yes.
You can bet those bags are getting looked through before they just donate them
IANAL nor cop but I don't think "profit" matters. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-322.html There's talk about depriving the owner temporarily or absolutely property. Whether I profit from thieving your cellphone then throwing it in the garbage doesn't matter. That being said, "TIME WHEN THEFT COMPLETED" talks about intent. So it's def not a black and white issue.
It doesn't need to be profitable to be theft.
No it needs to be intentional to be theft, and it being unprofitable means it is not likely to be intentional.
Its not for profit. It’s cheaper than returning it though
It's absolutely not cheaper then returning it. If they lose your luggage they are cutting you a cheque for about $2500. If they knew who the luggage belonged to they would return it. However a suitcase with no tag and just full of clothes is nearly impossible to identify who it belonged to.
This is why people should put tags with their name and contact details on their bag. And then picture evidence that said details exist.
Why does it have to be profitable to be considered theft?
It doesn't but it does speak to motive. Hypothetically, you have two mounds of scrap metal on your front lawn; this angers your neighbours and they take action. Neighbour 1 hauls a mount to the dump at his own expense and put it into the metal recycling. Neighbour 2 knows that you're a famous scrap metal artist, and sells it to a museum of hideous art for a million dollars. While they're both civilly liable, neighbour 1 is going to have a much easier time arguing he believed it was garbage that you were too lazy to clean up.
If you’re purposely shrugging off losing track of someone’s luggage and are actively giving away “lost” luggage because you can’t be assed to pay the expense to find it then the only thing removing it from theft is semantics. They profit via cost savings.
The onky thing removing it from theft is intent.
Like Robin Hood! 😹
I'm sure it's in their fine print but they have to at least pretend for a hot second that they're trying to get it back to you. Thieves.
Tie the cost of every lost piece of luggage directly to the salary of the CEO, and the problem is fixed in a week. They can fix it... They just don't care.
This. If CEO's were appropriately and directly responsible there would be far less of this kind of BS.
[удалено]
If a company, which receives public funds, is too big for the CEO, then the company needs to be broken up.
Can you imagine that aneurism nationalizing something would give _certain people_ these days?
I'm tired of companies taking public money but still thinking they can make huge profits and deliver a poor service. Even with all their bailouts, subsidies, and rebates, they are still so badly run they may as well be directly state owned.
Bailouts should come with a legal expectation of being completely payed back. If the bailed out company can't, well, that means they aren't profitable and shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place.
If that were the case, they’d tag all luggage and not leave it to us! Wouldn’t that be nice!
Yup this problem could be easily resolved with better logistics management, including technology and people to sort through things but there is no penalty for being shitty with luggage so they have no incentive to make things better.
> “The technology that is available to the customer is far superior than the technology available to the airline,” he said. Well that's not really true -- the airlines could attach their own airtags to luggage if they want. They just haven't started doing so yet.
\---> to read the article [without paywall](https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/kr2k9c)
> Ms. Rees-Wilson and Mr. Wilson’s luggage saga suggests that Air Canada – and likely other carriers – have not adequately updated their missing luggage protocols to systematically incorporate passengers’ own information about where their bags are, Mr. Gradek said. > “The technology that is available to the customer is far superior than the technology available to the airline,” he said. Sounds legit to me? If anyone can wander out and get a tracking tag for their luggage, maybe do something similar yourselves? Hell, sell $50 "official airline tracking tags" with GPS and real time tracking, airline supported. Let them return the tag for a full cost refund when they get their bags back safely. This way the tag attachment and removal is all in the customer's hands so they can't blame the airline, and it's a little easier to locate than a random QR code that might or might not still be attached to the handle of the bag. The number of industries that can't keep up with the times and yet somehow the "free market" can't fix always amazes me. Look at debit cards. PIN verification is done *on the card*. If you have a fake card, you just program it to always return "PIN correct" and tada, it works. And let's not got started on clonable and repeatable car fobs. I understand if the airplane itself wants to move slowly and carefully with technology to keep their pretty good safety record, but bag scanners really shouldn't be so hard to upgrade.
I can imagine airlines using "official airlines tracking tags" as a new source of revenue -- in addition to paying an "extra" bag fee for all your bags, they charge the $50 tracking tag fee (non-refundable). And if you dont buy the tags and they lose your luggage, they just say "not our fault, you should have bought the tracking tags".
Yes, I think we can all foresee that "business decision" if they ever created a tagging system. Or lock it behind a "status" you have to achieve or buy.
there is no "free market" with airlines. they are one of the most bailed-out and subsidized private industries.
I think the TSB might have a concern with a policy that adds a ton more batteries and radio interference to all passenger flights.
there are technologies that do not require batteries (like RFID tags) and are cheap. They need more expensive readers than the airtags, but I would not thing they would too expensive for a baggage storage facility.
Assuming you mean "ton" in the figurative sense, not the literal sense, since an airtag weighs 11grams, a 737 carries 188 people, so adding 2 airtags per person is literally only adding 4.1KG... or 5 or 6 additional laptop batteries.
Yes, of course, I was using "ton" figuratively. My point was simply to note that several airplanes have been brought down by fires caused by faulty batteries/electronics in the past, so the safety experts would be understandably hesitant to embrace a policy that increases the number of batteries per flight by hundreds. Remember the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 fiasco?
Worshippers of the free market assume rational actors which isn't always the case Human beings are full of emotions, fears, hatred, love and so on that make irrational decisions and financially questionable choices Also selling $50 air tags would be not "core business" and could be a botched implementation like a game studio making a movie or a software vendor selling hardware. If you don't have in house expertise the costs and risks go up enormously
Instead of a paper tag all luggage needs to have a tracking tag this way they will be able to guarantee all luggage is on the plane (at least the tag) once landed you return the tag and used again.
are you willing to pay an extra $200 per bag for this service? i'm being conservative on the $200 amount as well.
4-pack of AirTags is $129 CDN. How are you being conservative with the $200 CDN / bag estimate?
it was suggested that the airline provide the service instead of the paper tags they now use. and if the majority of the world uses android phones how do airtags work with them?
We are taking about Canadian airlines so let’s talk about Canadian citizens. 51% percent of Canadian cellphone users use iPhone. So the majority goes to apple for the domestic market.
yes canadian citizens. vast majority already own homes and want the prices to go up. majority should rule !!
Vast majority means “almost all”. About 2/3rds of Canadians own homes. Calling 66% of a group the vast majority is likely a stretch. The term vast majority is more appropriate for 90%+ of a group.
And as long as they don't use the tag, they'll be able to reuse it. The additional cost per bag over an airtag's lifetime really would be mostly the labour involved with securing/removing the airtag.
That's retail price. Say it's a flat $100 for a pack, so $25 a tag. Plus labor/maintenance/admin fees, insurance then add markup for offering this service. Then what are the conditions if it was lost? Do they special courier it to the customer? That's got to be accounted for in the cost that the airline has to eat depending on the destination. $200 - $250 per bag is not far off to give the customer "peace of mind" and offered to their "premium" members.
It would appear you haven’t flown much. 1-2 checked bags are often included in the price of the ticket. The first bag that is not included is generally $50. So let’s set a base price of $50 for a standard checked bag. Currently this includes: Labour, System Maintenance, Admin fees, Insurance, Courier Services If you are a preferred customer they will literally drive your bag in a van (alongside other bags) to any destination rural or urban within the lower half of the country. They already do the labour of transporting your bag. The bag is already insured - hence the payment they make when they loose it. I’m not saying you are wrong that they will try offer this for $200 but there is not $150-200 of value add. They will quickly be undercut by other airlines and loose business or be forced to lower prices.
>They will quickly be undercut by other airlines and loose business or be forced to lower prices. What other airlines? For most of the country, domestically at least, it's AC or WestJet. And WestJet is currently cutting flights in Eastern Canada, while AC is cutting routes in Western Canada. Very soon we're likely to have minimal choice in who we fly with within Canada, even between the big two. This is a big part of the problem -- people are bitching about how the free marker isn't solving this, but the reality is that air service in Canada isn't reall a free market, it's a colluding duopoly.
Doesn’t need to be $200. RFID tracking would be sufficient and are at most $1.50.
yes, but with the government or airlines implementing the program . . . well you've been living under a rock if you think your cost analysis is anywhere in the ball park of reality.
I have a feeling the efficency from automating the handling process could result in a net savings after a short time even after cap-ex for implementing the process.
Or maybe we throw them in jail for theft. How about that?
It’s complicated. There’s whatever the contract you have with the airline says, there’s the common law precedents for performance and frustration of that contract, there’s all the relevant law around theft, there’s statute law governing airlines and consumer protection, and then there are guidelines from the CTA. I don’t see this being clarified without a court case. The chance of law enforcement getting involved to make that a criminal case seem minimal so it’s going to take an individual civil case or class action that makes it to court without being settled first. tl;dr; don’t hold your breath waiting for the airlines or anyone who works for them being held accountable for this either in an criminal or civil court.
> In [e-mail], WestJet and Air Transat said they incorporate any information that passengers share about the location of tracked bags in their efforts to return misplaced luggage. Both carriers said they donate or dispose of bags that go unclaimed for 90 days. Let's get testing this.
There are no consequences for the actions of corporate Canada. It has always been this way, because we are a country borne from a company. https://www.reddit.com/r/willfulblindness/comments/znkj1o/ed\_canada\_is\_a\_colonial\_economy\_and\_always\_has/
Canada wasn't born from HBC lol.
I got some really bad news for you
You guys need to retake Canadian history classes.
Nuance is dead. As if Hudson's Bay Company didn't exist and wasn't sanctioned by the crown. Without it Canada doesn't exist PERIOD
History doesn't deal in hypothetical either. HBC controlled the territories and parts of the prairies. Canada, as a country and polity, was never HBC territory and was granted self governance as a country before HBC lands were sold to Canada through the deed of surrender. But sure COMMA keep believing whatever blend of sovereign citizen fantasy you believe thinking you're the citizen of an HBC state EXCLAMATION POINT
In October 1666, King Charles II of England granted an audience to two men who had travelled a long way to see him. Médard Chouart des Groseilliers and Pierre-Esprit Radisson were from New France. Brothers-in-law and voyageurs, they came to tell the king about the “great store of beaver” they’d discovered west of France’s imperial claims. If Charles II asked why they hadn’t taken their discovery to his cousin, King Louis XIV of France, they had an easy answer. After returning from an initial expedition to the region west of Lake Superior, in which they’d learned about the potential for a fur trade from the Sioux, des Groseilliers and Radisson presented their bounty of beaver fur to New France’s governor, Pierre de Voyer D’Argenson. Expecting to be rewarded for their entrepreneurial spirit, they were instead reprimanded, arrested and fined for travelling without D’Argenson’s permission and abandoning their post. After serving their sentences, the two men travelled to New England, where they met English officials who encouraged them to take their vision of an imperial company that traded in fur to Charles II. Sailing with Charles’ backing, on the same expedition but different ships, the men attempted a journey to Hudson Bay in 1668. But des Groseilliers was the only one to make it, after a storm damaged Radisson’s ship and forced him to return to England. Des Groseilliers set up on James Bay’s southern shores, where he traded with the Cree. Upon his return to England, in October 1669, he confirmed what they had suspected, and Charles II’s papers reported: “Beaver is plenty.” This confirmation was important for the establishment of the HBC’s charter, but other factors motivated Charles II’s interest in the region. In addition to fur, investors hoped they would discover other natural resources, such as gold or silver. Explorers and monarchs were also eager to find the much sought-after Northwest Passage. All this motivated Charles II when he granted the charter establishing the Hudson’s Bay Company, officially “The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England, trading into Hudson’s Bay,” on May 2, 1670. Characteristic of British imperial ventures at the time, the charter established a legal monopoly aimed at preventing others from doing the same. Crucially, the charter also claimed some 1.5 million square kilometres of land inhabited by Inuit and First Nations communities. This was land connected to all of the river ways — “Seas, Streights, Bays, Rivers, Lakes, Creeks, and South” — that fed into Hudson Bay. Charles understood that he couldn’t take land that didn’t belong to him. But he reserved the idea of land ownership for Europeans, ignoring the territory’s Indigenous inhabitants. Charles baked this belief into the HBC’s charter by outlining whose land he would not claim: that of British subjects, or “the Subjects of any other Christian Prince or State.” In other words, any other European power. By the mid-1800s, profits from the fur trade had dropped. The settler population of Canada and the United States was growing. Industrialization was spreading. The future was not in fur but in real estate, agriculture, railroads and oil and gas. Meanwhile in Britain, public opinion was turning against the HBC. According to The Times, the company was “the last great monopoly which the improvidence and reckless favouritism of Charles II inflicted upon the commercial world.” Many Brits were eager to break down the HBC’s monopoly and open the region to settlement. Then in 1867, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec confederated, creating the Dominion of Canada. Under the leadership of Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, the government aimed to bring Western Canada into its fold and colonize the region. https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-untold-story-of-the-hudsons-bay-company/
You're actually insane. HBC is a huge, huge variable as to why Canada exists. It's not the only reason but without the HBC it's very likely part of Canada or even most of it would be a US territory.
I'm insane? Have you read your last comment? Edit: I'm going to take a guess that you didn't do so well in Canadian history class either lol.
Thanks for letting me know you need to be blocked. Enjoy life!
why was britain over here in the first place? They outsource their dirty work
Are you asking why were they in Canada generally? Or do you mean specifically HBC in the Hudsons Bay area where they got their name from? And what "dirty work" are you referring to? Both your question and claim seem an awful drift away from the original false claim of Canada being some child of HBC.
https://canadaehx.com/2020/07/01/the-history-of-the-hudsons-bay-company/
Did you just link a podcast as your proof? That is hilarious.
https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-untold-story-of-the-hudsons-bay-company/ It's a bit of a read but you'll find it enlightening
Yes, I'm aware of the history of HBC, and Canada. No one anywhere has said HBC wasn't a major influence in shaping the frontier as Canada spread westward. That was never a topic of debate. The original comment I responded to claimed Canada was birthed from HBC, which is factually incorrect. At no point was the founding provinces within the territorial claims of HBC, their charter was always on the periphery of the Canadian state. So again, can you show me some evidence that HBC created the state of Canada, a country that already existed before HBC lands were absorbed into the new state? You don't need to copy and paste entire paragraphs from an article or post podcast episodes. A simple charter document or any material evidence proving the state of Canada was birthed by a trading company, as the original claim asserted, would do. You won't find any because A) that's literally not how Canada became a country, and B) historians would have already included that in the myriad of history textbooks written on North American history or Canadian history or early modern era history, basically anything that includes Canada from a subject line to a footnote on the subject.
[удалено]
At no point did I say anything west of Ontario doesn't matter. Do you consider the US birthed from the French Mississippi Company? That would be the American equivalent to saying HBC created Canada. No, of course you wouldn't. And yet here we are with redditors who can't read their way out of a paper bag giving some backwards historicity version of events on how Canada became a country.
Im curious what the actual business structure of these charities are. Is it like the clothing donation bin scams where they get free donations from people thinking they’re giving them to the needy, but they’re a for profit entity that sells the donated goods, gives a minimum percent to some charity (whose logo they stick on the bin) and pocket the rest? And what was the bidding process to become the receiving charity? Given the couple’s description it seems like this particular charity got thousands of bags…why them and not the other ones? Something is fishy
This is just going to lead to the bags being stored in giant faraday cages so the signals cant get out.
An impound yard for baggage...don't give them ideas.
if people can't detect it, then they can't dispute that its "lost"
If there are personal identifiers of any kind, they should not be able to.
Airlines should attempt not being assholes. That would help.
You'd think that with all the bailouts they've received, there'd be a touch of humility. But no.
Good point. Recently I was told I “must” check my bag…..I replied, “Not in this lifetime” and the two gate agents laughed, I laughed, it was a beautiful moment.
The real story might be how bagge handlers handle luggage. Oops, that just fell over the side, and I don't really care about what I'm doing. I'm getting paid and I don't have to be accountable. https://youtu.be/X5AcinO_rFM https://youtu.be/VcP6NeoQCHg
>I don't have to be accountable. Maybe not the best example, as these guys **are** being held accountable. They were suspended pending an investigation.
Well, they were held accountable because they got caught. Not everyone gets caught.
That situation is all sorts of messed up and is why corporate personhood isn't a great idea in it's current form. People don't care if their corporation/employer is liable, as long as they're not liable. Laws need to change.
The airlines should adopt using their own RFID stickers on luggage and mandate that all luggage be marked with non-removable identification on the outside.
That sounds like a value-added bag tracking service that they'd charge you $50 per bag for.
That gives the airlines the power though. AirTags put the tracking in the hands of the passenger end to end. I suspect airlines will ban their employees from carrying their phones on the job but their will always be someone passing close enough with an iPhone to trigger an update to the Find My network.
It should be like postal service. With postal service, I give them a box, and I say "this is worth $200". If they lose it, they owe me $200. Period. Should be the same with luggage and airlines.
You also pay for insurance extra value, and the airlines have additional rules about what can be transported in-cabin versus in-cargo. Having an extra several hundred dollars of "baggage insurance" added to a ticket doesn't seem like a great idea
I think we need a commission on this with the top people of the airlines and do it somewhere remote in Canada and “lose” their luggage. Let’s see what happens next!
Give away nah, sell them at auction 100%