Originally Posted by
skybluesea
@
24left
my solicitor referred a legal brief that describes CB controversial subpoena powers S.11 - here is lay article I could actually understand 🙃
https://business.financialpost.com/l...ex-its-muscles
I completely agree with you such communication would be unprofessional and a huge AC mistake, so how else did AC communicate to its SDs the code for fixing the seats? CB can get to this communication, and specifically have used S.11 in cases of deceptive advertising so precedent already exists.
your post useful to remind me that AirCanada has therefore somehow physically instructed it’s many frontline staff contrary to their advertisement.
And I got AC correspondence with a compensation offer that refers to the seats as “infallible, but fail from time to time”
ps... I actually feel sorry for the AC staff who have to pedal this nonsense, but AC booked $2 billion net operating income in the last couple years, so I am not that sorry.
Telling staff how to fix a problem that may occur doesn't indicate misleading advertising, it is no different that FAs knowing how to reset the IFE system. Although as several posters on here have said they have shown staff how to do the reset, it could quite feasibly be being disseminated by FA to FA rather than a blanket communication anyway.
As you have direct statements from Air Canada stating that they 'fail from time to time' (despite an individual's poor grasp of the meaning of the word infallible) it seems eminently sensible that they instruct staff on how to remedy the situation and exactly what the Bureau might agree is a suitable interim remedy.