That's one way of looking at the purpose of a forum like this, and that's fair enough. I have a different view. We live in a great country, and we deserve to have a great national airline. We don't, regardless of Air Canada's constant and annoying bragging about being the best airline in North America. AC offers a good product, but has zero interest in providing good customer service unless it really affects their image and bottom line. They -- senior management -- don't believe in doing anything decent for people (without an ulterior motive) and don't believe in correcting any mistakes in a meaningful way. What's even worse, they deliberately kill or punish any attempts by their own employees to show decency and humanity if it costs them money. That's unconscionable and needs to be called out.

Many people here believe that the Forum is only good for utilitarian purposes, i.e. what's in it for me that's tangible, how do I get a around some of the complex rules, how do I stop the guy next to me from stealing what's mine? I won't pass any moral judgment on that, but I think it's very naive to think that those "usual" acronym-filled discussions help frequent flyers, while an ethical exchange like this under the eyes of a lurking AC manager will get all the lucrative loopholes closed. If anything, I'd argue, many of you are doing Air Canada's dirty work for them by justifying the unjustifiable. I doubt there is much influence either way, but all those attacks on me help reinforce Air Canada's general policy of screwing the average person. I have zero doubt that a regular "civilian" would have the exact opposite reaction to this situation from the majority of posters here. I know that anecdotally, and I suspect that, ironically, if AC management began to respect the quiet, "rare" flyer, frequent flyers would benefit, too.

Over the past 10 years or so, Air Canada has been relentlessly reducing all benefits for frequent flyers -- whatever happens on this board, whatever the shrill complaints here whenever such "enhancements" are announced. Those discussions may be fun to have, but they don't really matter much one way or another. Unless they make Air Canada's executives step back and think a little bit. My example has been largely misread by the crowd here. It's not about my "entitlement." It's about the fact that Air Canada's employees wanted to correct an injustice (however small and insignificant) but couldn't because their management wouldn't allow them. Generally speaking, corporate entities these days only change their behaviour after a shaming, especially a public shaming. If this and other examples like it (not arguments about how many e-credits an SE should have) lead to giving AC employees a little more rope, then the general public will benefit, including those who think that I am so "entitled."