ffsim

Stranger

To the extent that the IRROPS is the fault of the airline no it's not the case.

And no, I have no evidence. But neither do I have evidence of say AC using the clause to cancel and refund when the passenger insists there is a contract in place that AC tries to get out of unilaterally. Like quite often in uneven fine print slipped under your nose that you have no way to disagree with, large organizations often do their best to void testing in court. Like hidden city as another example which as far as I know has not been tested anywhere, bullying letters nonetheless.

skybluesea

RangerNS

The perks of the altitude program has nothing to do with the tariff.

Invalidating one line item of a contract will not change the conditions of the rest of the contract, let alone unrelated contracts.

skybluesea

Well, maybe we are reading different versions of the Tariff.

Might the legally accomplished among us can parse this tariff text for us

Sec 30 - Class of Service
Certain complimentary products and services are offered depending on class of service or fare brand purchased, such as separate check-in, in-flight entertainment, use of headsets/player, reading material, meals, beverages (some alcoholic), etc. These products and services are amenities and their availability is not guaranteed. No compensation will be offered for their unavailability, including for unavailability of in-flight entertainment and choice of meal.

If I recall correctly from my Administrative Law courses long ago, a term "such as" is broadly defined and AC could easily assert that it includes NOT just services in the air but those on the ground e.g. separate check-in. And since access to the MLL is widely advertised as a feature of purchasing Signature Service, can someone explain, legally speaking, that in fact access to the MLL is therefore subject to the Tariff conditions, writ large...

ps...let;s NOT forget that the YYZ Signature Suite is only accessible by J range tickets, without EXCEPTION, and thus Altitude has NO bearing on this amenity, which in reading Sec 30 above, AC could say to any traveler, sorry, suite is closed and here is voucher for McDs in the terminal...

maybe NOT so customer service oriented, but reading SEC 30 cannot see a different interpretation, but let's have some legal expertise weigh in.

Stranger

The contract merely guarantees getting you to destination. Needs not be flying.

Mind you they never gave me a bus or cab ride. However once, in his student's days, my son ended up going from YYZ to Kingston on a bus chartered by AC. After they put him at a hotel at YYZ, even though the issue was weather. All of this on an AE reward.

skybluesea

Stranger

I was talking about flying vs. bus.

However I continue believing that the involuntary cancellation provision that's in the tariffs would be enforceable in court. Of course that would require (1) an event and (2) the victim to take an airline to court.

I am not even sure that airlines even make use of it. Might well be good enough from their perspective that the wording is there. And that people take it at face value.

RangerNS

Status also gets you into the MLL, not (only) fare class. MLL access is subject to the MLL t&c.

That list is about flying & checking in.

skybluesea

I think we are in agreement as yes vs bus, and the provision of involuntary cancellation appears NOT to have much application.

However, unless you have a legal conviction that provision is unenforceable, might others with legal expertise comment ...

skybluesea

NO, the tariff says "such as" - this is an inclusive statement that permits AC to define what is and is NOT included.

my question here to those with legal perspectives to assess whether based on the terms of sale of Signature Class product, which includes MLL access, do the words in Tariff permit denial of service for amenities...

I would agree that it would be clearer that the amenity list was exhaustive, but I suppose a legal perspective would say best to be vague...

skybluesea

para. 42 of Wong claim says that intentionally purchased fares that included MLL access...well, if this is the case, and in fact the MLL is part of Sec 30...and I await a definitive legal perspective, then absolutely the Tariff provisions apply which includes denial of access without redress.

However, Wong also in this section says on other occasions was entitled to MLL access because of status - in this case I would agree that Altitude rules apply ONLY>

So before folks decide whether Tariff or Altitude rules apply, para 51 of the claim does NOT specify which kind of ticket WONG was using that particular day on Jan 16, and thus NONE of us know what set of rules governed WONG entry to the MLL that day.

As few legal folks on this Forum have pointed out, would appear that vagueness of the wording will require considerable interpretation and effort by solicitors to make their case on either side.

RangerNS

While open ended lists in contracts are open, they are open to the context. The tariff is about flying. The list would be interpreted with respect to flying. Cabin service is not ground service.

longtimeflyin

Please be careful with operating under this assumption. No one here can make that decision other than a judge. Both sides may plead their case but one should not operate under firm assumptions as that in the eyes of the law.

jazzsax

IANAL but one would assume if argued in court that in cases where WONG purchased fares that included access to the MLL, he should have been entitled to access to the MLL regardless of whether he had status or not, subject to availability of the service (ie, it being open and functioning). If WONG purchased fares that did not include it, he would require access via other means (ie status, purchase of MLL pass, etc).

If AC was involuntarily denying WONG access to something he paid for as part of their implied offering, that's way different than pulling a published membership offering at any time.

But that's just my layman's reading.