eigenvector

An admirable sentiment, but I'd never walk away from a power-tripping airline employee. It's far too easy for such workers to summon armed police to ensure they have the final word in any dispute.

longtimeflyin

Flyertalk Pedantic Police Responding...

Please keep in mind police officers are agents of the courts. They do not have the final word in any dispute, a judge does. I don't really understand why people are so scared of the police, but that is neither here nor there and best saved for OMNI or what have you.

RangerNS

tcook052

Is there another kind?

jazzsax

Yes. You forgot about the flyertalk police.

Armed with a keyboard, they are THE MIGHTIEST WARRIORS IN THE LAND!

garykung

You definitely jumped the gun here...

You can talk about all the privileges and rules, the reality remains unchanged that OP is represented, so access to information is quite limited contrary to your beliefs. I never know a law firm/lawyer that will share virtually anything to the clients unless necessary.

How can you tell? I am seeing something else as a matter of fact.

longtimeflyin

Patently untrue. Most lawyers are on the same page as their clients. I have never known of a law firm or lawyer to share anything to anyone other than their clients (that is true), but if a lawyer is not sharing everything he/she knows about the case and on the same page wrt strategy, then I would humbly suggest to fire said lawyer.

Adam Smith

Please, stop pushing this incorrect view.

Even large corporations will typically hire external counsel for many matters, including and especially litigation. This gives companies the ability to get access to people with specialized expertise in litigation, often in a particular area, e.g. employment law or consumer class actions. It would be extremely expensive to employ these people in-house, given that the need for their services tends to be for a limited period and/or requires their attention less than full-time.

(There is also the ancillary benefit that in the event of a cost award, expenses of internal counsel are not reimbursable, whereas costs of external counsel would be eligible for reimbursement, depending on the type of cost award. But this is a minor consideration.)

In-house counsel will typically act as the liaison between management of the company (at whatever level may be appropriate) and external counsel and oversee the work of external counsel on an ongoing basis.

For a consumer-facing company like AC, there are certainly some small matters that they will handle in-house. Something that's in small claims court has a high likelihood of being handled by in-house staff. For example, based on some Googling, it appears that the case of the guy with the IDB on his YHZ-YXY itinerary may well have been handled by someone within AC (although why they bothered to fight that at all, given the preponderance of evidence against them, I don't know); a former colleague of mine also once took Verizon to small-claims court and the in-house lawyer settled the case with him the day before the court date. That type of stuff, sure, they'll probably handle in-house. But a case that has potentially material repercussions for AC if lost - either due to the magnitude of the damages or the potential for a significant precedent - will almost certainly see external counsel engaged. I expect AC sees this case in the latter of those two categories as it challenges their ability to simply do whatever they like when it comes to their FFP.

AC does have a reputation in the legal community for keeping more work in-house than many comparable companies otherwise would, but by no means does this mean that they don't hire outside firms when appropriate.

As for your link to CanLII, I'm not sure what the point of that was (the link itself also doesn't work properly). Have you misinterpreted that when it says a lawyer's name "for Air Canada" means they're an AC employee? That's not the case. Think of "for" as meaning "on behalf of"; it can be an employee of the company, but can also be someone hired to represent it. Just Googling the names of a few people listed on some of the first cases that pop up with that search turns up the names of people who are senior lawyers at major law firms focused on employment law, insolvency and other areas.

Also, reference was made above to hiring external counsel for litigation to avoid conflicts of interest. That's really not a reason to hire external counsel - in-house counsel has no conflict with the interests of the corporation. It is, however, a reason for the rise, in recent years, of firms specializing in litigation or certain kinds of litigation. There are so many big companies and big law firms nowadays that it can be hard, at times, to find a firm that does not have potential issues with conflicts. For example, your company may want to sue RBC but find that many large national law firms have RBC as a client and may be reluctant or unable to take on the work, even if the work for which RBC uses them doesn't appear related to what you want to sue them for. With a litigation boutique, you have a lot less likelihood of them being entangled with your target in some other way.

Yes: unarmed police.

D582

Neither of those have any bearing on the current issue being discussed.

Bohemian1

Yeah, I ran into this when negotiating my last employment contract. Contacted three firms, all came back with conflicts somewhere on the globe. Went to a boutique shop in the end. Probably even more of a problem with larger companies like AC and their complex business relationships.

canadiancow

I lost all respect for the first one after "But since Ismail has been cleared for Global Entry, he couldn’t be on the SSSS list."

I've had SSSS twice, and I have Global Entry.

If my goal is to catch a flight or go home, anything that requires a judge's input is taking WAY too much time out of my day.

rehoult

Also never forget that conflicts are often by design. In my last role I had most of the top litigation firms in the city on for us in different matters, leaving very few options for those who wanted to sue us.

Bohemian1

That made zero sense to me as well. Mind you the whole 'story' was disjointed.

Maybe only twice in 5 years, but I've still had the dreaded Quad-S despite Global Entry.

FlyerTalker70

I agree, that aspect of the reporting is inaccurate to put it generously. For one thing there's no such thing as an SSSS list. Also SSSS is something any traveller (Global Entry or not) could face at random.

Putting that aside for the moment, the way the story was reported, it seems like AC added SSSS to his boarding pass after he got his initial boarding pass, cleared US immigration & security and was getting ready to board by a (presumably) a vindictive AC employee. This story I thought would be indicative of the grudges and disdain some (certainly not all) AC employees have to travellers, especially when they're on a power trip!

Safe Travels,

James

Fiordland

Honestly, I would be more worried about security guards that think they are police than police offices. The famous united events a case in point.

As for what information is available to the MLL gate keepers, I would hope they have proper CRM functions and it is used for that purpose. However more likely it is used for other purposes. I do know going into Amex lounges, I have had the agent at the front say, "I see it is the first time in our lounge here, would you like me to point out our special features, or welcome back, do you need the wifi passport or you already have it form last time." Odd, I have never had such an encounter in a MLL.