Stranger

Customers can't play the system to their advantages? But airlines, which set the rules in the first place, can?

Sorry, but once the rules are set, nothing wrong in playing them to your advantage. No matter if the airline accuses you of being a bottom feeder.

jazzsax

Maybe this is about the cookies. Or the scotch in the MLL.... maybe some dragon saw him stuffing his pockets and AC got pissed!

garykung

You flew eventually, didn't you? That's the difference.

Harm does not have to be tangible, i.e. have a $ sign. AC can still harm even without losing money, if AC genuinely believes OP is gaming the system.

Beside - per the pleading, Plaintiff has both tangible and intangible harms.

KenHamer

Details on the court case I referenced can be found at: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/show...7&postcount=83

pitz

Are AC's services to Canadians *really* so unique that they couldn't be procured elsewhere with similar terms and conditions? In the case of Mr. Wong, and the IT business, it doesn't appear that he uses AC services to travel to obscure remote destinations for which AC possesses a legitimate monopoly. He's probably not flying to Smithers, Goose Bay, Gaspe, nor Sandspit for which AC (or its codesharing partner) is the only game in town.

If {name almost any other business here} treats a customer in a way that's perceived to be poor, whether justified or not, most of us would just use a competitor.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing anything in the claim, aside from the allegation of "detention", that would give rise to anything that would be actionable.

My prediction -- most of the claim ends up being struck for lack of cause of action. AC carries on minus Mr. Wong's revenue (which may or may not be accretive to their business). And businesses retain the right to treat their customers poorly if they choose to do so, whether deliberately or through omission.

longtimeflyin

Damages have to generally be quantifiable in legal cases. Tort law is at play here
​​​​

garykung

You seem to confuse between harms and damages, which are not synonymous.

longtimeflyin

You are correct; however, you quoted/replied to someone (canadiancow) whose profession is not in the legal profession, and most people would assume that harm = damages.

longtimeflyin

There is a lot of information in your post here which is not relevant in this case.

For starters, it doesn't matter if Mr. Wong had other choices, well, at least it doesn't really, although I could see a legal argument being made that Mr. Wong could have traveled on WS, but even in that case, he suffered damages from Air Canada as a result of their actions and as per tort law, he's entitled to claim for restitution of said damages.

If this case goes to trial, this could materially impact Air Canada as there could be a lot of precedents set as a result of a Justice ruling on various parts of this case.

tcook052

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ourt-1.4717202

Unfriendly skies: 'Super Elite' flyer claims Air Canada clipped his wings
Eric Wong claims airline revoked Altitude status after he refused to explain last minute cancellation

BarrieTravelGuy

I have to say - reading all of this thread and the plaintiffs court filing scares the crap out of me. I believe him based on the fact that @canadiancow does. This guy was paying BIG money for REFUNDABLE tickets. He never checked any bags. He never broke any rules. He cancelled every ticket BEFORE the flight and before the cancellation deadline AC requires. Why does Air Canada think they have the right to ask why he's cancelling. It's not in the contract/tariff. If they don't want people cancelling tickets last minute DON'T SELL A TICKET THAT YOU CANCEL LAST MINUTE AND GET A REFUND. I can't imagine anyone going to that trouble to use the MLL for crappy finger foods and some free booze (maybe the Signature Suite). I know for myself I've had a couple of times this year where I made it to the MLL (or AMEX Lounge) and my customer cancelled the meeting. So I had to cancel and go home. I do this a few times and I'm going to lose my SE status??

khkchan

I kind of believe the humiliation part Mr. Wong has suffered - being experienced first hand.

Back in the days it only took 20k status miles to get A3 *G. Upon presenting my A3 *G card to YVR DOM MLL, the check in agent showed my card to her co-worker and made a comment that "it only takes 20k miles" to get this. Her coworker showed sign of disbelieve and disgust.

I do hope Mr. Wong win.

yyz_atc_qq

I'd have called them on the comment. 100% inappropriate and unprofessional

Stranger

That's not necessarily a good idea. One needs to pick one's battles.

There are worse things in life.

vernonc

Unless AC has something that we do not know about, it seems silly that this would go on for so long. And if AC had something substantial, they would have been more harsh than letting this drag on. IMHO Mr Wong has more of a case than AC. He seems to have followed the terms of the tarriffs for fares and it would have to be on AC to prove he has no intention to travel since their tarriffs do not require a reason - plus Mr Wong did travel when AC says he has not. All the rest is a sideshow.