TATL E U/G plus $500
#106
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
#107
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: YYC
Programs: AC*50K MM
Posts: 276
A number of "P" fares have been showing up (deeply discounted biz class fares).
I fly to AMS frequently, and am about to buy P for the flight to Europe, then whatever is cheapest tango class coming home. (Dont care if im not upgraded on the flight back to YYZ, and the restrictions are actually better than if i booked both segments in P)
I fly to AMS frequently, and am about to buy P for the flight to Europe, then whatever is cheapest tango class coming home. (Dont care if im not upgraded on the flight back to YYZ, and the restrictions are actually better than if i booked both segments in P)
#108
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,698
#109
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: YYC
Programs: AC*50K MM
Posts: 276
#110
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: YVR
Programs: AC*SE MM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 4,604
Firstly, regarding the ticket sold with the enticement of the possibility of a free upgrade (without the $500 add-on): AC would lose miserably in a civil court on this one if they failed to provide a refund. A court will not separate unfair marketing practices/tactics from conditions of purchase as suggested by some of the posters defending AC here.
They changed the Altitude programs benefits. They did this mid year, and in bad faith, potentially alienating loyal customers, but legally they did nothing wrong. Unfortunately AC did not decide to give a full year's notice with add-ons like they did when they diluted E35K and introduced E50K.
https://altitude.aircanada.com/status/terms-conditions
Air Canada Altitude status is a privilege, which can be revoked by Air Canada at its discretion.
Air Canada assumes no liability toward members for anything, including but not limited to, for the cessation of airline partnerships, changes to program benefits & policies, adjustments to mileage accumulation or redemption eligibility, availability of redemption or upgrade seats, definition of and/or revisions to the Air Canada Altitude qualification period or benefit year for status recognition, or access to airport lounges.
Air Canada assumes no liability toward members for anything, including but not limited to, for the cessation of airline partnerships, changes to program benefits & policies, adjustments to mileage accumulation or redemption eligibility, availability of redemption or upgrade seats, definition of and/or revisions to the Air Canada Altitude qualification period or benefit year for status recognition, or access to airport lounges.
Well I travel as little as possible for business and currently spend $30K+ (J or latitude fares) and usually end up in the 60k-70k miles region.
AC has now lost me for most of that revenue - but will keep their bottom-feeding SE's - I just don't see the reasoning behind that.
AC has now lost me for most of that revenue - but will keep their bottom-feeding SE's - I just don't see the reasoning behind that.
#111
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,836
However it is arguably the case that they changed the ticket conditions after the ticket was puchased.
They changed the Altitude programs benefits. They did this mid year, and in bad faith, potentially alienating loyal customers, but legally they did nothing wrong. Unfortunately AC did not decide to give a full year's notice with add-ons like they did when they diluted E35K and introduced E50K.
I can say the opposite just the same. Indeed isn't the FF program and benefits very much part of the purchase decision process? And don't they usually make it very much so? In this sort of situation, courts will often take the side of the consumer rather than the bully.
So, when they like it that way, it is, but when they don't it is not?
Too many folks here are ready to take it without even fighting. Why do people settle so happily in loser mode? Bottom line, this will need to be tested in court. Until then we should assume we have a winning hand.
Some of us will recall that a few years back, they suddenly started doing the right thing: announcing changes to the FF program over a year ahead of time. Then suddenly last year they reverted back to their own way. So it is likely that they are aware that the issue is totally up for grab. But that they decided we are wimps, losers. Who won't even put up a fight, even a winning one.
#113
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: AC SE100K, *G, Hyatt Diamond, Hilton Gold, Scandic 2nd Floor, FoundersCard
Posts: 179
Not talking about legal or illegal. But they might lose in court.
However it is arguably the case that they changed the ticket conditions after the ticket was puchased.
That the claim that the FF program is not part of the contract is merely them saying so. Does not make it true. As in many other cases, large corporations are very good at writing fine print that they know dam*n well would never hold in court. Pure intimidation. By design. Bad faith.
I can say the opposite just the same. Indeed isn't the FF program and benefits very much part of the purchase decision process? And don't they usually make it very much so? In this sort of situation, courts will often take the side of the consumer rather than the bully.
So, when they like it that way, it is, but when they don't it is not?
Too many folks here are ready to take it without even fighting. Why do people settle so happily in loser mode? Bottom line, this will need to be tested in court. Until then we should assume we have a winning hand.
Some of us will recall that a few years back, they suddenly started doing the right thing: announcing changes to the FF program over a year ahead of time. Then suddenly last year they reverted back to their own way. So it is likely that they are aware that the issue is totally up for grab. But that they decided we are wimps, losers. Who won't even put up a fight, even a winning one.
However it is arguably the case that they changed the ticket conditions after the ticket was puchased.
That the claim that the FF program is not part of the contract is merely them saying so. Does not make it true. As in many other cases, large corporations are very good at writing fine print that they know dam*n well would never hold in court. Pure intimidation. By design. Bad faith.
I can say the opposite just the same. Indeed isn't the FF program and benefits very much part of the purchase decision process? And don't they usually make it very much so? In this sort of situation, courts will often take the side of the consumer rather than the bully.
So, when they like it that way, it is, but when they don't it is not?
Too many folks here are ready to take it without even fighting. Why do people settle so happily in loser mode? Bottom line, this will need to be tested in court. Until then we should assume we have a winning hand.
Some of us will recall that a few years back, they suddenly started doing the right thing: announcing changes to the FF program over a year ahead of time. Then suddenly last year they reverted back to their own way. So it is likely that they are aware that the issue is totally up for grab. But that they decided we are wimps, losers. Who won't even put up a fight, even a winning one.
Last edited by hitsmith; Apr 16, 2014 at 3:51 pm Reason: Typo
#114
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,946
Actually, small claims court (25k limit in ON) is pretty painless and he has excellent chances of winning using some of the arguments posted in here. AC would probably not even show up...
I am on the side that the 2 are involved in making a purchasing decision no matter what drivel AC spews to serve themselves.
I am on the side that the 2 are involved in making a purchasing decision no matter what drivel AC spews to serve themselves.
#115
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC: Ac*A, , Nexus: Expired
Posts: 1,489
Actually, small claims court (25k limit in ON) is pretty painless and he has excellent chances of winning using some of the arguments posted in here. AC would probably not even show up...
I am on the side that the 2 are involved in making a purchasing decision no matter what drivel AC spews to serve themselves.
I am on the side that the 2 are involved in making a purchasing decision no matter what drivel AC spews to serve themselves.
Again, Ill point out that the TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EUPGRADES state you need a minimum of a flex fare. No where on the flex fare does it mention eupgrades. You are applying terms and conditions of a completely separate program to suit your case. It doesnt work like that.
Furthermore, AC has not made flex ineligible for upgrades. The ability to upgrade as outlines when the OP bought his ticket still stands, he just now needs to pay a co-pay.
I really want to point out that I am in NO WAY defending AC as the way this rolled out was pretty shaddy and absolutely in bad faith. But ticket terms were not changed, and therefore no right to recourse.
#116
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Programs: UA 1K, AC MM E75, Marriott LT Ti, IHG Dia Amb, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 15,533
Kind of wish I had some skin in this game. It might be fun to do the small claims thing just to see who is right.
I didn't call you an idiot, but I also didn't realize that you bought the ticket before the changes were announced. I empathize and would be upset as well if I was in your shoes.
thanks Tax Dude and yes that was my point....how many are saying screw it and just sitting in the back. And btw...thanks for some of you calling me an idiot etc. This was a long planned vacation where unlike some of you SEs, I do not pay J on AC or others and am willing to play aerolotto. AND, as I said in the second post I will not be flying AC TATL in 2015 and yes i will shop around...wow...ask a simple question....
#117
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
I disagree completely. Just because something isn't in an agreement doesn't mean it's not implied or that it can't be read in. 'Outcome based judgments' are a fact of life in the legal world like it or not, and provincial court Judges eat up stories like this all the time because the facts just look so bad for the company. You only argue the law if they facts aren't on your side.
Not that it would ever get there because the second the claim hit a lawyer's desk they'd advise the AC to refund the money as:
a) Losing is a very real possibility;
b) If they lose it's precedent and maybe a news story, if they settle it's not, especially if the settlement contains a non-disclosure clause;
c) Even if they win they won't get any legal costs back, and it's a $2000 ticket vs $500/hr lawyers at a minimum of 10 hours.
Part of my day job is managing litigation a group of companies, and in the situation where they bought the ticket before the rule change, I'd choose to argue the pax's position every time.
Not that it would ever get there because the second the claim hit a lawyer's desk they'd advise the AC to refund the money as:
a) Losing is a very real possibility;
b) If they lose it's precedent and maybe a news story, if they settle it's not, especially if the settlement contains a non-disclosure clause;
c) Even if they win they won't get any legal costs back, and it's a $2000 ticket vs $500/hr lawyers at a minimum of 10 hours.
Part of my day job is managing litigation a group of companies, and in the situation where they bought the ticket before the rule change, I'd choose to argue the pax's position every time.
#119
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: various
Posts: 623
AC would not lose anything in court and they did not do anything illegal. They did not change the ticket's conditions of carriage! Posters that continue to point this out are not defending AC, we're just simply stating the facts.
They changed the Altitude programs benefits. They did this mid year, and in bad faith, potentially alienating loyal customers, but legally they did nothing wrong. Unfortunately AC did not decide to give a full year's notice with add-ons like they did when they diluted E35K and introduced E50K.
They changed the Altitude programs benefits. They did this mid year, and in bad faith, potentially alienating loyal customers, but legally they did nothing wrong. Unfortunately AC did not decide to give a full year's notice with add-ons like they did when they diluted E35K and introduced E50K.
As stated above (and by other posters) AC would not allow this to ever get near a court for good reason - they would get their arse kicked. It's clear you don't have a clue about civil court or the civil process. Again, a court will not separate AC tactics to get you to buy a certain fare with their subsequent and arbitrary change to the conditions in place at the time of that purchase. The ticket purchases were made in good faith but the subsequent change affecting those few purchasers was not.
By the way, the remedy is a simple one - it's refund - not a million dollar suit but AC's arrogance in these kind of issues pees me off.
I can't imagine AC wanted to chase customers like me away but that's the net result.
#120
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Plat, Aeroplan dDiamond
Posts: 364
The upgrade is not guaranteed and is contingent on available space i.e. AC willingness to offer an upgrade.
How is that a "condition" of the flex ticket purchased? Seriously would like to see the analysis laid out, don't agree or disagree at this point...
How is that a "condition" of the flex ticket purchased? Seriously would like to see the analysis laid out, don't agree or disagree at this point...