DrunkCargo

Since this is related: https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea...now-hes-suing/

longtimeflyin

On a balance of probabilities (which is how it works in civil litigation), it was most likely the lawyer's call w/ the client's consent of course.

That said our very own prolific FlyerTalk poster is now unsuspended I see, so perhaps Mr. Wong can confirm or deny this.

garykung

Actually, it does not sound like the Plaintiff went to the media.

It sounds like to be that the reporter is simply stationed at the BC Supreme Court, which eventually allows him to get wind of this.

DrunkCargo

I could, but unfortunately, no comment.

yyz_atc_qq

I can believe, with very reasonable certainty, that if I made comments about the "lounge dragons" and how cheap they were, and made it look like I was looking down on them or was disgusted with them as I said it, I'd be in trouble.

Why should it be acceptable for them to make disparaging comments about me, but I can't make them about them?

CZAMFlyer

Interesting final sentence: "However I suspect that Air Canada is within its rights to suspend elite benefits (though not to refuse refund) for tickets they believe were booked for the purpose of obtaining lounge access or going airside in an airport without intent to fly."

Is it possible that the plaintiff did indeed seek access to the lounge merely for the pleasure of doing so, rather than having so many intended trips canceled at last minute? There exists lots of FT evidence to suggest easy access to free drinks was of interest to several members; the plaintiff included. Perhaps the airline's claims are not entirely without merit.

As an aside, "going airside without intent to fly" is an airline concern as an airport stakeholder, but is not their matter to enforce.

mapleg

Indeed. Every AC article on CBC attracts the demographic that think this is the highest wit of them all "AC-we're not happy till you're unhappy" . You'd think after repeating this so called joke countless times they would get tired of it.

jasdou

Transpacificflyer

Technically, one can indeed play the "rules" to get the most out of a scheme. This does not mean that it is morally or ethically correct. Tax lawyers and accountants do this and we end up with people who legally park assets in offshore jurisdictions to minimize their tax liabilities. The result is that people who don't resort to such schemes shoulder the brunt of paying taxes. Retailers provide generous conditions for the return of products . There are some people who use clothes or products , but then return them for a refund. The result is higher costs for other consumers who do not take advantage of the "rules". And then we have the people who exploit the loopholes and rules of the Air Canada FF program. Behaviour like the plaintiff's results in a cost to the airline. This cost is passed on to other customers, most of whom are not FF.

Your argument is based upon the assumption that a company should word its agreements in a strict draconian manner such that there is no room for accommodation or common sense, or a means to cut some slack when it is needed. Keep in mind that the frequent flyer program is a benefits scheme extended to Air Canada customers for which those customers are not directly charged. It is also a social contract where there is an expectation that both parties will be reasonable in the interpretation of the rules and in the use of the program.

I have no doubt that the plaintiff used the AC FF program to its fullest and this in turn generated significant costs to the airline. Your position is that it was allowed and that if AC was unhappy, it should change its rules. My view is that if AC tightens its rules, then everyone suffers because of a few people like the Eric Wongs of the world. I say no to collective punishment and that AC should instead target the people causing the issues and get rid of them; By getting rid of people like the plaintiff, the airline need not penalize the thousands of other customers who need the easy application of rules, and who do not play the system.


A loss will have no impact on customer service. It will however, most likely result in tougher program rules such that others will see benefits reduced, all thanks to Mr, Wong.

Do you really believe that "upper class" people have time to chase coupons and play the system as the plaintiff has, let alone have anything in common with an IT services contractor? Upper class and the wealthy do not play EYW, nor do they add segments to flights just to earn miles because;
1. They can't be bothered to engage in such stupidity;
2. They have enough income that they do not need to chase upgrades, or points.
Playing the FF point games is a waste of time for those who have full lives or who have the money As such, the upper class people you reference, most likely are oblivious to this event.

Bohemian1

No, here's really why: They don't fly commercial.

Any "upper class" people I have flown with fly private. It truly is the only way to fly, but a total red herring with regard to this thread topic.

Bohemian1

I think that is alluded to here:

"After January 20, 2016, Air Canada corporate security has engaged in
surveillance and monitoring of the Plaintiff's online and offline activities, kept
records of such activities which are made available to Air Canada staff and
persons unknown to the Plaintiff in an effort to unfairly characterize the Plaintiff
as a person deserving of restrictive treatment and to retroactively justify their
high-handed actions taken against the Plaintiff to that date."

CZAMFlyer

We've seen this before in numerous enhancements: the loss of the 500-mile segment minimum (mtacchi) and the tightening of hidden-city routings (lots of guilty parties).

It's not that the rules were being exploited, it's likely the blatancy while doing so that caught the eye of the airlines.

canadiancow

It sounds like they got a quote from Eric's lawyer, so I suspect there was contact there.

Would that not suggest they did NOT have grounds for suspension when they initially suspended it?

"Upper class" may be the wrong choice of words, but I'd say I'm below the median income/wealth of the EYW top 10. EYW is not about the points as much as the fun. The game. The challenge. There needs to be a prize in order for there to be competition, but I don't do it for the miles. I can afford my own flights.

Likewise, just because I buy $800 r/t Europe J mistake fares doesn't mean I can't afford regular sales or full price (not to be confused with full fare) J tickets.

Playing the points game is fun. It's a challenge. It's not about saving $50.

mapleg

I would not feel humiliated by the check in agent's comment. In fact, I would feel proud. Kind of like getting a good discount ..nothing to be embarrassed about.

Stranger

Let's be real here. When we are talking about playing the rules, this is about say getting six times lounge access, at best a $150 value, by someone who probably spent something like at least $20k/year, perhaps $30k, with AC.

Comparing that with parking assets in offshore holes in order not to pay taxes is in a different league altogether, and it is usually illegal too BTW. Even comparing with returning used clothes for refund after having worn them is in a different league.

But to me, what takes the cake is coming up with an expectation of "moral or ethical" behavior on the customer side, when in truth no such rule exists o the business side, and the whole relationship is heavily biased in favor of the business. Whose only "ethical" obligations apparently are to their shareholders. If any such obligations, of course. (Just look at the thread about customer information finding their ways to places where they should not, for instance. May not be illegal unfortunately, but ethical?)