It's not uncommon for the YYC Concierge office to have only one person in it, either at times when traffic is light and there's only one on duty or when there are 2-3 but the other(s) is/are on lunch break, at a gate, etc. Furthermore, their duty schedule isn't posted or distributed anywhere. If I write in, expecting a response in 10-15 minutes (I don't know whether that's formally documented, but that's what various concierges have told me over the years is the general expectation), I can't know that this person is (a) on duty at all and (b) the only one in the office at that time.

Last night, I did need something from concierge when I arrived at the airport, but when I saw this person was in the office, I walked right on past and called central concierge. But that's not an appropriate solution in the long term. I shouldn't have to avoid someone who's incapable of performing their job when that job is to help frequent travellers like me.

That's not hurting someone's ability to earn a paycheque, it's expecting a basic level of competence. If a person is incapable of doing their job to a bare minimum (or unwilling) to do so, they're damaging their own ability to keep that job. But if we want to talk dollars and cents, it's a union job. Getting fired is nearly impossible and it's probably very difficult to be demoted back to check-in/GA from being a concierge.

To be clear, I'm not out to have this person fired. I want the YYC concierge office to be staffed by competent people who can perform the services that AC advertises as benefits of the concierge service (the flight-related stuff, not whatever dusty old page AC has forgotten to take down that still says they do restaurant reservations and concert tickets or whatever). If they can be retrained and provide an adequate level of service, that's fine. But I'm tired of the negative impact this person's lack of basic competence is having on me.

You seem to be confusing "harsh" with "emotional".

This isn't a case of someone did something a little bit wrong one time or was having a bad day and brought a poor attitude to one interaction. It's a litany of incidents over the course of more than a year. It's someone who can't be relied on to perform some of the most basic functions of the position.

This person has demonstrated themselves to be far below the standard for this position and needs serious retraining or to be reassigned elsewhere. That's harsh, but it needs to be said, because it's the truth.

I was obviously referring to doing so on the forum. There's clearly no point in writing in about an individual if that person isn't named in the correspondence.