24left

However, if someone who bought a "fully refundable" ticket, intended to fly, cleared security, entered the MLL then found out their meetings were cancelled/changed, and thus is forced to either cancel or change their flights...should AC decide to ding this person the cost of entry to the MLL, they are punishing people who buy these very expensive fares because they need the flexibility and pay a high price for it. It looks cheap and punishes the kind of customer they would want to keep.

longtimeflyin

And this is why this case perplexes me thoroughly.

Here's a further example:

Air Canada knows (again, an example) that 20% of this specific route no shows. Thus, revenue management prices fares accordingly, and sells fares accordingly. Air Canada knows of an issue, and mitigates it by pricing and selling accordingly.

Surely, as demonstrated by this civil suit, Air Canada knows of the number of last minute cancellations by patrons who have bought a fully refundable fare and have entered and taken advantage of the "privileges" of a Maple Leaf Lounge. Then why not just price fully refundable fares accordingly? Just save themselves from this whole mess.

Or another option would have been to have corporate security warn Mr. Wong of his actions and or to serve a cease and desist, as opposed to yank status from Mr. Wong and have this legal battle ensue (the latter not being one I think they could forsee). Sometimes Air Canada and corporations should be punished on how they act, and this is an example of such. That said, as I have said countless times, we have only heard one side of the story, so I reserve the right to change my position at a latter date.

24left

Air Canada already prices these fares "accordingly". I see angry customers if AC adds $25 to cover MLL entry, or deducts $25 from the "fully refundable" tickets just because someone entered the MLL. It's not exactly fine dining and no one I know goes there with that expectation. It's place to sit, work, rest, have a tortilla or banana before a flight.

canadiancow

C&D for what? For cancelling a ticket after entering the MLL?

So now if plans change at the last minute, he can't do anything?

That's no more reasonable than revoking the status.

I guess I'm just lucky that 90% of the time I've done this was while in a third party lounge, so I didn't "abuse" anything. Or at least nothing AC cares about.

longtimeflyin

It may end up being up to a court now to decide what is reasonable and what is not. I recall in one of your earlier posts you posited this specific question.

Someone who buys 3 fully refundable fares, enters a Maple Leaf Lounge, and then refunds the ticket has a 100% rate of not flying while taking advantage of the lounge benefit.

Someone who buys 150 round trip fully refundable fares, enters a Maple Leaf Lounge, and then refunds the ticket 25% is not unreasonable. (to me)

The problem therein lies: "What is reasonable?" Short of "to each their own", it will be up to the courts to decide should this get to trial.

jpfamily

I'm sorry but having read this thread and the public news, I don't really have any sympathy for Mr Wong.

It seems very simple, if he had a valid reason to change his travel plans, he should just say it. Don't hide behind "refunds, no questions asked". He admits to gaming the system and he got caught.

It's people like him that abuse the process that make it worse for others.

What was your reason for leaving the lounge Mr. Wong?

The Lev

I've known quite a number of "upper class" (or at least top 1% in terms of wealth) and the vast majority fly commercial - many predominantly in Y.

Mr. Wong appears to have not broken any of AC's rules, but one can also argue that AC hasn't broken any rules either - they allowed him to leave, refunded his airfare and then according to their rules withdrew his privileges.

I do not recall reading anywhere that his 150 flights (not round trips) were all or even mostly on non-refundable fares. Many of those segments appear to be tied to EYW rather than for business purposes that would potentially be more likely subject to change.

longtimeflyin

I'm not sure if you read the case or understand the basic premise behind this suit even being launched. Air Canada sold/is still selling a refundable fare with no questions asked. Thus, your question is irrelevant with respect to this case.

Rundosrun

Ok, but does AC not also have the right to withdraw status as they see fit with no questions asked?

tcook052

Air Canada Altitude status is a privilege, which can be revoked by Air Canada at its discretion.

tinchote

Yes, that's what AC says. Which doesn't make it obvious that they can do whatever they want. They use status in their advertising, so there is some kind of promise that if you fly enough with them you'll get the perks. I never saw and ad that said "fly a lot with us, and maybe, if we want to, we may give you these perks". The qualifying rules do not include, besides the AQM, AQS, and AQD, the "if Air Canada is pleased with you".

Transpacificflyer

1. I maintain that Canadians have an opinion/view that we enter into social "contracts", agreements based upon mutual respect for one another. There is an assumption that Canadian companies will behave ethically and honourably and that customers should do the same. The fact that this is delusional, and not an accurate reflection of the reality isn't relevant, as we are dealing with a perception. That was my point on the ethics. People genuinely believe that we should do the right thing whether or not it is written out. It is why so many comments in other media have ripped into the plaintiff.

2. I do not see it as heavy handedness or vindictiveness, and I don't have a dog in this fight. You have a vested interest because you are a true AC FF and are more at risk than folks like me who I call AC IFF (infrequent frequent flyers). Customers like me don't care, and to be blunt, I rolled my eyes and snickered as soon as I read that the plaintiff was in IT as I had an instantaneous image of the guy in my mind. (Not fair, and it speaks to a prejudice I have, but my point is to illustrate how a large number of people will see this.) I expect that a majority of customers will not even pay attention to the story or know of it; In plain language, Aside from the Super Elites, no one cares, or will care.

3. Considering the past treatment of cases, I do believe that it won't matter if AC drags the case out, since the public doesn't pay attention. Think of the past fiasco with the poor pax stuck on Air Transat or mishandled by SunWing. It hasn't hurt them as the customers are still using them. I have been been poorly served over by AC during past IROPS on my TPACS, and yet I am about to get on a TPAC with them. The tiff over the plaintiff's status has no connection to me, and the majority of AC pax and will have little negative effect on the brand image. It may cause some consternation amongst the Super Elites, but I doubt anyone will stop flying with AC because of it.

4. I believe that chief legal counsel would have been made aware of it in the weekly litigation report. I believe that he is aware of material facts that are not public.

1. The issue of a suspension vs. revocation can't really be addressed until we know what AC had done. Did the defendant attempt to resolve the issue or was there a dispute such that the investigation was ongoing? I suggest we must wait and see.

2. Damages? If the program is a benefit given by the airline, a perk, an extra that is voluntarily provided and one which is governed by a condition that says it can be stopped at any time, it is a difficult case to claim damages. If I give you $10 every time I see you because I like your snazzy belt buckle, but then stop because you started wearing suspenders, sure, you suffer a loss of the $10, but it the money was awarded by me subject to my conditions of giving, you cannot claim for the $10.

3. As for jurisdiction, I am currently watching an action of significant size be contested. Filed in BC, but being argued that the case should be tried in ON because of the jurisdiction clause. (Plaintiff also lives in BC). First court agreed with defendant, and now in appeal.
2+ years of back and forth with defense legal fees close to $300K. Anyway, my point was that I expect to see the venue contested.

4. News Cycle: You are considering it from the perspective of an engaged person who pays attention to the world around him, as are most people on this forum. However, I offer that most people live in their respective bubbles and are oblivious to this. Sure, folks react when there is an horrific event like a mass death, but then a few weeks pass and it's on to the next important event like whether or not Justin's eyebrow was glued on. (I kid you not, this was actually a top news item.) I don't think this case will have much of an impact for the simple reason that the general public will not be able to emotionally connect to the plaintiff. He's not some child abandoned in the airport or an elderly granny mistreated. Instead he will be seen as "a rich guy flying in first class and complaining about his champagne and caviar treats". Keep in mind that many people, particularly those who do not fly AC, still call domestic J, first class and assume the pax are waited on hand and foot. (No guffawing please.)


I think we all can agree that there are insufficient facts available on this case. We don't know if the plaintiff did something wrong. Nor do we know if the airline was a bully and screwed up. We all have our assumptions and hunches, but until there is a discovery, pleading or arbitration/mediation event with a release of info, we will be in the dark. At this stage, we will only be given info favourable to the plaintiff's position since the airline cannot release its material facts and information because of privacy constraints. It's one sided, in favour of the plaintiff. That is why the airline's best strategy is to keep quiet until the discovery and hearings get under way.

longtimeflyin

Advertising and legal terms and conditions are two wholly separate items and legal action typically ensues when they clash - as is with this lawsuit at hand.

Typically speaking though, the terms and conditions (e.g. the legalese that no one cares to or wants to read) ultimately prevail in the eyes of the law. Thus, Mr. Wong is facing an uphill battle while being dragged back towards zero elevation by a giant rock.

Stranger

Until one deals with Bell, and what the salesman told you was pure lies, and they hide behind the fine print "Bell does not allow their employees to speak for them..." that you were not shown until later.


If Mr. Wong abused lounge "privileges" and they think they should do something about it, there was a hosts of much more reasonable things they could have done, such as sending him a bill, before "revoking his altitude 'privileges.'" The measure they took is disproportionate in relation to the violation.

In other words, it sounds like the real reason they went after the guy is not really what they claim, but something they would have a more difficult time to justify, but which in the mind of whoever at AC made that decision, must have been perceived as much more significant or costly. Which BTW reads between the lines in the filing.

That most of us have experienced some form of high handedness on AC's part at one point or another does not help either with perceptions.
Sounds like you are referring to now, after he filed the suit. Which is pretty much obvious. I was trying to say that the previous cancellation of his SE status probably never made it very high on the totem pole within AC. And that I suspect upper management would not have condoned it. I other words, that vindictiveness is still alive and well at mid levels within the corporate culture, even if the top guys don't participate or disapprove.

The Lev

One potential problem with this line of defence is that Air Canada encourages its customers to pay higher prices sometimes primarily to earn more AQM - this puts a lie to status simply being a "free" discretionary perq.