Plumber

LOL- ohh- maybe I have a reading problem.....Even after several reads, I did not see it....but of course now that I focus on it I see it clearly- thanks....

I guess I may be a 'big-picture' person...

mapleg

if it does, can we have a do there and sit in the gallery?

garykung

This case won't go for summary judgment.

This case is not really complex. But instead there is a genuine issue requiring trial - Plaintiff claimed "several occasions" cancelling the travel in the last minute. How many times exactly? If AC was on a witch hunt, then yes - AC should be liable. However, if the number was excessive enough, the Court may not side with Plaintiff as Plaintiff could be seen as bad faith.

canadiancow

But what number matters? The absolute number? I believe they alleged 5 or 6 cases. To a FOTSG, that's insanely high. To someone who took 150 flights that year, half of which were also BOOKED at the last minute, it's not actually a very high relative number.

jazzsax

And I can tell you in 2011/2012 I called in and rebook flights at least 10 times for later flights in the day (sometimes multiple times) due to meetings getting delayed.

Only diff was I didn't do it after getting to the lounge. It's not like AC doesn't see this happening. Someone was on a witch hunt.

longtimeflyin

In that case a subpoena is quite handy. Discovery is always an issue and a judge may well order AC to hand over information that they don't want to and if they don't they will ultimately pay the price. I disagree with you that discovery usually is all that challenging once the case proceeds to the conference stage. Parties may be reluctant but that is what the judge is there to assist with during various case and or settlement conferences. I highly doubt AC would still deny the plaintiff the information a judge has ordered, and at the very least at the trial management conference all pertinent info would be disclosed and exchanged. It'll probably also be settled at that point if not shortly right before trial.

garykung

It will be up to the Court to decide. Hence, a genuine issue for trial.

But IMHO - relativity is not what AC relies on. Don't forget - regardless of classes, each last-minute cancelled ticket harms airlines financially. While I agree that this is definitely a classic AC screw-up, it does not mean Plaintiff is not completely correct.

canadiancow

There isn't much harm I can see (excluding the actual cost of a lounge visit ) from cancelling last minute unless the flight was full.

And I doubt AC would want to set a precedent that cancelling refundable tickets will get your status revoked.

jc94

longtimeflyin

And airlines mitigate this by overbooking, and AC charges a premium for these fully refundable fares. Airlines also do benefit from the same scenario that you are articulating to show that the airline in question suffers a loss.

I agree with you that on this topic alone it is a genuine issue best decided at trial.

canadiancow

What is your flight is delayed 3 hours? 1 hour? 30 minutes? Mechanical? Weather?

jc94

longtimeflyin

It is without a doubt a safe bet to say that AC felt that their actions were pretty fair given the fact that they chose to go after a pretty prolific and well known poster on FT, and this is a board that their employees frequent on a regular basis, and at one point, their executives did as well. I second the Do suggestion if this gets to trial, although if I were a betting man, I would say this gets settled within the next month.

Transpacificflyer

I do not share the same shock and horror as some. I read the filing as the usual over the top embellishment of facts common to claims.
A few items stick out for me;
- Plaintiff alleges that he was "detained" in the lounge, yet he was free to go any time he wished as he was not physically restrained.
- Plaintiff will have to prove that he sustained damage. Good luck on trying to prove that on a "bonus" program. These type of complaints go back to the grocery store trading stamp programs of the 1950's. The claims back then were dismissed and I don't think much has changed since then.
- I had a chuckle at the plaintiff occupation: IT . I was expecting something like that. or perhaps, community organizer/activist.. Sorry to say, but I expect that there will be a lot of eye rolling and laughter at the law firms and at AC.
- The plaintiff is not going to get sympathy or support from the majority of AC customers who are not SE and who are not hobby flyers. From our perspective, we pay for ur tickets and collect our AP miles with the intent of cashing them in. We can't do it when we want to because guys like the plaintiff are gaming the system. Yes, I get it, AC encourages it, but it's the gamers who keep us regular folk from redeeming our points on reasonable schedules. I see him as someone who got caught playing the system and working the rules to get an advantage.

KenHamer

Really?

This is the same airline that told a passenger at YVR that it was physically impossible for him to be there so they off-loaded him from the connecting flight to YYJ (I think - might have been Whitehorse.) Notwithstanding they admitted in court they had no way to track who was on a flight an who wasn't, notwithstanding the passenger had a BoB receipt with the date and flight number on it, and notwithstanding he really, actually was in YVR, they went to court insisting he was not actually on the flight from YYZ to YVR.

I think AC knows it screwed up here, but is so pig-headed they refuse to acknowledge it. They then hoped if they resisted long enough the passenger would, like most, give up.

I commend the passenger for seeing it through.