cbc.ca: Man upset after grandson left alone in Toronto airport
Jan 15, 2013, 6:45 pm
#31
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: YOW
Posts: 1,024
- The 13-year old had a girlfriend he could call at 2 am? I imagine her parents would have come out the most upset after all of this if he had. 
- Presumably, since he did get a $10 food voucher.
- Track a flight that landed at the airport it departed from at around 2 am? Is that reasonable? Perhaps his mother should have stayed at the airport till his scheduled arrival time in St Johns?
He wasn't a UM. He was, however, entitled to certain services under AC's own policy which AC failed to implement.
- Presumably, since he did get a $10 food voucher.
- Track a flight that landed at the airport it departed from at around 2 am? Is that reasonable? Perhaps his mother should have stayed at the airport till his scheduled arrival time in St Johns?
He wasn't a UM. He was, however, entitled to certain services under AC's own policy which AC failed to implement.
GF = grandfather - sorry didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you.
Presumably? but that does not indicate that he said to someone. "hey I'm only 13, can someone call my mother for me?" It only means that someone handed him a voucher.
The flight didn't depart at 2:00 am, it left and returned to YYZ and as a parent/famliy member, yes it is reasonable to expect they would make sure their child arrived where they were supposed to, no matter what time.
Jan 15, 2013, 8:42 pm
#33
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: UA Gold ,DL Gold,AA,HHonors Diamond, Priority Club Gold,Hyatt Platinum,Marriott Gold
Posts: 154
As a parent, if my child was traveling either myself or my wife would be tracking the flight and confirm that when it arrived he was met by the grandparents. My child would also be given a cellphone with instructions to call us if there was any problems. That is the minimum of what I would consider acceptable parenting.
As to AC, the policy says "taken care of", that is not an indication that the child is going to be watched or supervised by the agents,. In fact if you read the entire policy you will note that only in the UM section does is specify that the child will be continually supervised by an agent until a parent shows up.
So you have to go back to what is appropriate for an 8 hour WX delay, IME that means a couple of meal vouchers. Unless you're an elite, I know of no airline that is going to provide passengers with a hotel voucher in that circumstance. Nor is it a good idea to allow that minor to leave the airport and travel to a hotel.
One thing we don't know is how the agents explained things to the kid, did they offer more help or did they make sure he knew how to ask for help if he felt he needed it? We have no comments as to the boy's mental state either during or after the trip.
Without those pieces to the puzzle it's kind of hard to make any kind of judgement call.
As to AC, the policy says "taken care of", that is not an indication that the child is going to be watched or supervised by the agents,. In fact if you read the entire policy you will note that only in the UM section does is specify that the child will be continually supervised by an agent until a parent shows up.
So you have to go back to what is appropriate for an 8 hour WX delay, IME that means a couple of meal vouchers. Unless you're an elite, I know of no airline that is going to provide passengers with a hotel voucher in that circumstance. Nor is it a good idea to allow that minor to leave the airport and travel to a hotel.
One thing we don't know is how the agents explained things to the kid, did they offer more help or did they make sure he knew how to ask for help if he felt he needed it? We have no comments as to the boy's mental state either during or after the trip.
Without those pieces to the puzzle it's kind of hard to make any kind of judgement call.
Jan 15, 2013, 9:58 pm
#34
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,331
Jan 16, 2013, 3:39 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
As a parent, if my child was traveling either myself or my wife would be tracking the flight and confirm that when it arrived he was met by the grandparents. My child would also be given a cellphone with instructions to call us if there was any problems. That is the minimum of what I would consider acceptable parenting.
As to AC, the policy says "taken care of", that is not an indication that the child is going to be watched or supervised by the agents,. In fact if you read the entire policy you will note that only in the UM section does is specify that the child will be continually supervised by an agent until a parent shows up.
So you have to go back to what is appropriate for an 8 hour WX delay, IME that means a couple of meal vouchers. Unless you're an elite, I know of no airline that is going to provide passengers with a hotel voucher in that circumstance. Nor is it a good idea to allow that minor to leave the airport and travel to a hotel.
One thing we don't know is how the agents explained things to the kid, did they offer more help or did they make sure he knew how to ask for help if he felt he needed it? We have no comments as to the boy's mental state either during or after the trip.
Without those pieces to the puzzle it's kind of hard to make any kind of judgement call.
As to AC, the policy says "taken care of", that is not an indication that the child is going to be watched or supervised by the agents,. In fact if you read the entire policy you will note that only in the UM section does is specify that the child will be continually supervised by an agent until a parent shows up.
So you have to go back to what is appropriate for an 8 hour WX delay, IME that means a couple of meal vouchers. Unless you're an elite, I know of no airline that is going to provide passengers with a hotel voucher in that circumstance. Nor is it a good idea to allow that minor to leave the airport and travel to a hotel.
One thing we don't know is how the agents explained things to the kid, did they offer more help or did they make sure he knew how to ask for help if he felt he needed it? We have no comments as to the boy's mental state either during or after the trip.
Without those pieces to the puzzle it's kind of hard to make any kind of judgement call.
And some cell providers don't have coverage in NB that have coverage in YVR/YYZ.
(Mobilicity/WIND come to mind)
Jan 16, 2013, 3:59 am
#36
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: A3*G, AC, IHG Plat AMB
Posts: 1,604
In terms of the story, though, I haven't yet seen the one consideration that nobody seems to be taking into account: This is a 13-year-old boy, presumably left to his own devices in a large airport overnight. Maybe it's just me, but just maybe he didn't want to get taken care of. Maybe he got his hands on the food voucher, told the agent he was alright, and then hoofed it. Maybe he just wanted to play video games all night and eat junk food without someone telling him where to go, what to do, and holding his hand all night. How many boys that age, presented with the opportunity to do just keep their mouth shut to gain a (relatively) large degree of freedom, wouldn't jump on that opportunity? How many boys that age would also make a short-sighted decision to just run free in the airport and not think to tell anyone that he's not going to be where they think he is? Nobody ever mentioned what the kid felt, and I bet if they asked him he'd probably say "It was great!"
I think they made a movie about exactly this situation once. If memory serves, it was called Home Alone 2.
Jan 16, 2013, 4:01 am
#37
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Morbihan, France
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 19,179
Dear All - sorry to parachute in from nowhere but this caught my eye.
I have worked for airlines for longer than I care to mention and there are several things that caught my eye.
I have had UMs aboard the flight and whilst they are in our care we look after and keep an eye on them. Were I his Mother, I would have gone with him as far as security had I allowed him to fly without UM status which in fact I would not.
What I find inexplicable are two things. Firstly, someone - presumably an adult was going to meet him at St John? Why, when the diversion was announced, did this person not call his Mother at once and notify her? Had I known this I would have been off to the airport whatever time of day or night that this was in order to prevent exactly this. I would not want my 13 year old going into a hotel with a bunch of strangers alone. God knows who he might meet - you get my drift.
Secondly and even more inconceivable to me is why the police did nothing about this. I know things are different in the UK or France but there are regular patrols of the airport and a young person alone would have instantly triggered questions and he would never have been allowed to lie or sit and sleep alone. Even if another adult had been nearby questions would have been asked.
Finally - sorry to say this - but what on earth were the airline thinking of about - assuming everything that we have read is true - just handing out a voucher to someone of clearly young age. His age has got to be in the system somewhere. Someone somewhere must have noted him to fly the next day. Why did not one there call his Mother. I can only assume that they may have been swamped but even so - someone must have looked in the system to give him a voucher? Indeed if these situations someone on board the aircraft should have looked at the manifest to see who was onboard.
Forgive my intrusion but something in this story does not quite add up as it stands. I think that the Mother was negligent, the Grandfather derelict, and the security services lacking. I think that Air Canada were contributory and that everything which should have prevented this failed. That is the part that I find troubling.
I have worked for airlines for longer than I care to mention and there are several things that caught my eye.
I have had UMs aboard the flight and whilst they are in our care we look after and keep an eye on them. Were I his Mother, I would have gone with him as far as security had I allowed him to fly without UM status which in fact I would not.
What I find inexplicable are two things. Firstly, someone - presumably an adult was going to meet him at St John? Why, when the diversion was announced, did this person not call his Mother at once and notify her? Had I known this I would have been off to the airport whatever time of day or night that this was in order to prevent exactly this. I would not want my 13 year old going into a hotel with a bunch of strangers alone. God knows who he might meet - you get my drift.
Secondly and even more inconceivable to me is why the police did nothing about this. I know things are different in the UK or France but there are regular patrols of the airport and a young person alone would have instantly triggered questions and he would never have been allowed to lie or sit and sleep alone. Even if another adult had been nearby questions would have been asked.
Finally - sorry to say this - but what on earth were the airline thinking of about - assuming everything that we have read is true - just handing out a voucher to someone of clearly young age. His age has got to be in the system somewhere. Someone somewhere must have noted him to fly the next day. Why did not one there call his Mother. I can only assume that they may have been swamped but even so - someone must have looked in the system to give him a voucher? Indeed if these situations someone on board the aircraft should have looked at the manifest to see who was onboard.
Forgive my intrusion but something in this story does not quite add up as it stands. I think that the Mother was negligent, the Grandfather derelict, and the security services lacking. I think that Air Canada were contributory and that everything which should have prevented this failed. That is the part that I find troubling.
Jan 16, 2013, 5:33 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
In terms of the story, though, I haven't yet seen the one consideration that nobody seems to be taking into account: This is a 13-year-old boy, presumably left to his own devices in a large airport overnight. Maybe it's just me, but just maybe he didn't want to get taken care of. Maybe he got his hands on the food voucher, told the agent he was alright, and then hoofed it. Maybe he just wanted to play video games all night and eat junk food without someone telling him where to go, what to do, and holding his hand all night. How many boys that age, presented with the opportunity to do just keep their mouth shut to gain a (relatively) large degree of freedom, wouldn't jump on that opportunity? How many boys that age would also make a short-sighted decision to just run free in the airport and not think to tell anyone that he's not going to be where they think he is? Nobody ever mentioned what the kid felt, and I bet if they asked him he'd probably say "It was great!"
Jan 16, 2013, 5:41 am
#39
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Its amusing, as always, to watch the lengths some folk will go to, to blame anyone other than the airline.
As I scroll down, I see some posters are have either missed, or are deliberately ignoring, the some key points:
1. AC appears to have a default UM policy for 12-17 year olds in the case of IRROPs.
2. AC failed to implement this policy.
What the kid/parents/grandparents/you should have/could have/would have done is wholly irrelevant insofar as it wouldn't matter at all if the airline had implemented ITS OWN policy.
When an airline fails to deliver its own policy, it takes quite a leap of faith to blame everyone else for not building in double or triple redundancies. When you buy a service, and its not delivered as promised by the seller, I suppose you could blame yourself for trusting the seller, but all the same, in most civilized countries, people expect others to keep up their end of the deal(for whatever reason, this does not seem to apply to AC in the eyes of the Canadian flyertalkers here, which raises questions about the integrity of the businesses they run).
We can bemoan the behaviour of the parents and grandparents till the cows come home, but the simple fact is that if AC had implemented its own policy, this news story, thread etc would not exist. Even if the parents/grandfather knew the flight was late, they would, have access to AC's policy and a quick read of that would tell you that the kid is taken care of. Far be it from me to tell anyone how to run their business, but its generally a good idea to know your own company's policy and err on the side of caution in assuming that other's may know it as well, instead of hoping that nobody's noticed it.
That aside, I think some folk have raised interesting points. Given that the airline has a policy of taking care of 12-17 year olds, I can only guess that, in the eyes of regulators, the airline is liable in some way for minors. I mean, AC has a policy of providing this service for free despite trying to sell it. I doubt they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The presence of this policy also suggests to me that 13 year olds do not, in fact, have the choice of opting out (even if they're so riddled with crack that they look like they're 18). There is a liability issue here - the airlines (all airlines operating to/from Canada) are obviously somewhat liable here.
I suspect that the simplest explanation is the best one - the AC employees on the ground probably didn't know about the policy and left it at that. That, to me, is a failure in implementation that goes down to poor management. The policy was always there - any confusion about its existence or how to implement it, is down to management.
FWIW, Home Alone was about a kid getting separated from his family by mistake. Not travelling alone.
As I scroll down, I see some posters are have either missed, or are deliberately ignoring, the some key points:
1. AC appears to have a default UM policy for 12-17 year olds in the case of IRROPs.
2. AC failed to implement this policy.
What the kid/parents/grandparents/you should have/could have/would have done is wholly irrelevant insofar as it wouldn't matter at all if the airline had implemented ITS OWN policy.
When an airline fails to deliver its own policy, it takes quite a leap of faith to blame everyone else for not building in double or triple redundancies. When you buy a service, and its not delivered as promised by the seller, I suppose you could blame yourself for trusting the seller, but all the same, in most civilized countries, people expect others to keep up their end of the deal(for whatever reason, this does not seem to apply to AC in the eyes of the Canadian flyertalkers here, which raises questions about the integrity of the businesses they run).
We can bemoan the behaviour of the parents and grandparents till the cows come home, but the simple fact is that if AC had implemented its own policy, this news story, thread etc would not exist. Even if the parents/grandfather knew the flight was late, they would, have access to AC's policy and a quick read of that would tell you that the kid is taken care of. Far be it from me to tell anyone how to run their business, but its generally a good idea to know your own company's policy and err on the side of caution in assuming that other's may know it as well, instead of hoping that nobody's noticed it.
That aside, I think some folk have raised interesting points. Given that the airline has a policy of taking care of 12-17 year olds, I can only guess that, in the eyes of regulators, the airline is liable in some way for minors. I mean, AC has a policy of providing this service for free despite trying to sell it. I doubt they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The presence of this policy also suggests to me that 13 year olds do not, in fact, have the choice of opting out (even if they're so riddled with crack that they look like they're 18). There is a liability issue here - the airlines (all airlines operating to/from Canada) are obviously somewhat liable here.
I suspect that the simplest explanation is the best one - the AC employees on the ground probably didn't know about the policy and left it at that. That, to me, is a failure in implementation that goes down to poor management. The policy was always there - any confusion about its existence or how to implement it, is down to management.
FWIW, Home Alone was about a kid getting separated from his family by mistake. Not travelling alone.
Jan 16, 2013, 6:49 am
#40
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: A3*G, AC, IHG Plat AMB
Posts: 1,604
Originally Posted by wikipedia
In the confusion and rush to reach the airport on time, Kevin gets onto a flight to New York City, carrying Peter's bag containing his wallet and a large amount of money; the family does not realize it until after they land in Florida.
Policy or not, if this kid wanted to "run free" in YYZ I would believe he could have and the only thing AC could have done is called in security to find him, at which point they'd possibly be pointing fingers at AC for their heavy-handedness in dealing with minors. About the only likely time to catch it would have been when they checked every person against the passenger manifest when handing out compensation and noticed his name with a warning that says "this kid is travelling alone". Because it doesn't take a 13 year old to say "no, my parents are just over there" to someone who's swamped with angry people demanding handouts and may not stop to check.
I'm not specifically calling him a liar, I'm just saying that absolutely everyone involved in this story is at fault to some degree and I have little patience for the family immediately taking this story to the news to try and pin it entirely on AC.
Last edited by DJ Bitterbarn; Jan 16, 2013 at 6:54 am
Jan 16, 2013, 8:07 am
#41
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Trying to absolve AC here by trying to argue that the kid may have done this, that or the other, is obfuscation plain and simple (I use that word in its most literal sense, not as an insult or slight). What we know for a fact is that AC has a policy, and that AC failed to implement it. Trying , as many others have done here, to pin it on:
1) the kids alleged appearance
2) the kid lying about his status as an unaccompanied youth
3) the kid wanting to run free at 2 am
4) the kid being 'experienced' enough to know better
5) the kids judgement (laughable, given that a kid is expected to have the judgment of a kid, as is amply evident in our laws)
... all of it amounts to little more than grasping at straws in an attempt to make this situation more complicated than it is, and use this complicated nature as an excuse to deflect blame for what is a very straightforward case:
- policy exists
- policy not implemented
Why not? Well, everyone here is casting aspersions about the kids appearance and character. Could it, just could it, boil down to the ground staff simply being unaware about the policy?
As for media coverage, I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe people now will build in double and triple redundancies that all of you are advocating, and while it amounts to little more than a waste of money at a time when no one should be wasting money, hey, it's your own fault for assuming AC will, you know, follow its own policies. On the bright side, less complaints against AC, ergo issue solved. After all, you contend that policy is irrelevant. I disagree.
1) the kids alleged appearance
2) the kid lying about his status as an unaccompanied youth
3) the kid wanting to run free at 2 am
4) the kid being 'experienced' enough to know better
5) the kids judgement (laughable, given that a kid is expected to have the judgment of a kid, as is amply evident in our laws)
... all of it amounts to little more than grasping at straws in an attempt to make this situation more complicated than it is, and use this complicated nature as an excuse to deflect blame for what is a very straightforward case:
- policy exists
- policy not implemented
Why not? Well, everyone here is casting aspersions about the kids appearance and character. Could it, just could it, boil down to the ground staff simply being unaware about the policy?
As for media coverage, I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe people now will build in double and triple redundancies that all of you are advocating, and while it amounts to little more than a waste of money at a time when no one should be wasting money, hey, it's your own fault for assuming AC will, you know, follow its own policies. On the bright side, less complaints against AC, ergo issue solved. After all, you contend that policy is irrelevant. I disagree.
Jan 16, 2013, 9:13 am
#42
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: A3*G, AC, IHG Plat AMB
Posts: 1,604
I don't take the term "obfuscation" as a slight. But I do take issue with the implication that I am "casting aspersions about his appearance and character" in order to absolve AC. I am not. In a perfect world someone should have been waiting at the gate to personally oversee that this 13-year-old who was not accounted for would be kept aside somewhere and dealt with personally. That didn't happen and AC needs to take responsibility for that. In fact, we don't know how they have taken responsibility for that because there's no information on it. And this is not a perfect world.
If (and we don't know because there's very little information about what happened) he made the effort to get in touch with a responsible adult on the other side, why did nobody think to get concerned at the time and tell him to go find an agent so they could "take care" of him. If he didn't have a phone or money for a payphone, why didn't he approach someone from the airline and go "hey, I'm travelling alone and somebody's there to pick me up, how do I let my grandpa know that I'm not going to be there". And my point is not that he's wrong to not do it, my point is that he's 13 and probably didn't even think of it. So in that respect, okay. Still a fault of AC that they didn't search him out after they'd dealt with the planeload of livid pax who have had their life ruined by this diversion and need their pound of flesh from the GA RIGHT NOW. Once that's sorted, yeah, they should have tracked him down.
It's also, however, not clear what happened when his grandpa showed up and found the flight returned to YYZ. How did he try to get in touch with the airline? I'm sure he didn't just say "there's a policy in place, it's their problem. I'll come back in the morning." He must have done something to try and get in touch, so where's the breakdown there? Why were the responsible adults satisfied when they had not physically talked to him on the phone? Why is a 13-year-old even travelling without a cell in 2012? If I wanted to cast aspersions about things I'd be all over this part of the story, and I just deleted a big paragraph that probably-unfairly paints this family in a negative light because it's not fair. It referenced McDonalds coffee.
I still tell my parents when I get to my destination and I haven't lived with them for a long time. It's just personal responsibility to let the person on the other end know when plans are going to go wrong (or right). I'd be furious if I were the parent in this situation, but it would be both at the airline AND at my own kid for dropping the ball like that.
EDIT: to clarify, that the kid was left alone was the fault of AC. That the kid remained that way for eight hours is, in my opinion, the fault of the parents
If (and we don't know because there's very little information about what happened) he made the effort to get in touch with a responsible adult on the other side, why did nobody think to get concerned at the time and tell him to go find an agent so they could "take care" of him. If he didn't have a phone or money for a payphone, why didn't he approach someone from the airline and go "hey, I'm travelling alone and somebody's there to pick me up, how do I let my grandpa know that I'm not going to be there". And my point is not that he's wrong to not do it, my point is that he's 13 and probably didn't even think of it. So in that respect, okay. Still a fault of AC that they didn't search him out after they'd dealt with the planeload of livid pax who have had their life ruined by this diversion and need their pound of flesh from the GA RIGHT NOW. Once that's sorted, yeah, they should have tracked him down.
It's also, however, not clear what happened when his grandpa showed up and found the flight returned to YYZ. How did he try to get in touch with the airline? I'm sure he didn't just say "there's a policy in place, it's their problem. I'll come back in the morning." He must have done something to try and get in touch, so where's the breakdown there? Why were the responsible adults satisfied when they had not physically talked to him on the phone? Why is a 13-year-old even travelling without a cell in 2012? If I wanted to cast aspersions about things I'd be all over this part of the story, and I just deleted a big paragraph that probably-unfairly paints this family in a negative light because it's not fair. It referenced McDonalds coffee.
I still tell my parents when I get to my destination and I haven't lived with them for a long time. It's just personal responsibility to let the person on the other end know when plans are going to go wrong (or right). I'd be furious if I were the parent in this situation, but it would be both at the airline AND at my own kid for dropping the ball like that.
EDIT: to clarify, that the kid was left alone was the fault of AC. That the kid remained that way for eight hours is, in my opinion, the fault of the parents
Last edited by DJ Bitterbarn; Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33 am
Jan 16, 2013, 10:25 am
#43
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,875
I am not making excuses but there are so many variables here that are unknown any number of things could have happened. Maybe the agent asked him if he needed help and he said no I will call my mom and he decided not to. Maybe the kid lied to his parents under that scenario so he wouldn't get into trouble. Maybe the agent was negligent. There are so many gaps in the story that you could swing it either way. What I would like to know if the plane turned back because of bad weather why didn't the grandfather call the mother and make sure she was aware? He must have known if he was picking him up.
Jan 16, 2013, 1:44 pm
#44
formerly known as DeltaNYC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: YYZ, mostly...
Programs: AC SE100K / BA Bronze / Marriott Ambassador (LT Plat) / Hilton Diamond / IHG Plat
Posts: 1,704
I don't know about you guys but I would have LOVED to spend 8 hours overnight at an airport as a teenager. How cool would that be!!
BTW, great post Pucci Galore ^
BTW, great post Pucci Galore ^
Jan 16, 2013, 4:26 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046