Wpgjetse

Maybe look at the big picture. AC will have your legal address as US. You are CDN, flying from CDN to US? Do you have the proper paperwork in your passport to enter if asked?

Stranger

Last time I checked a Canadian passport was sufficient both ways, no?

Transpacificflyer

Is that a call for an oncologist, infectious disease specialist and cardiologist, because the kind of flying time described combined with the AC menu and lengthy periods of inactivity will most likely result in an illness requiring those specialists.

AC is a bus company. A nice one sometimes, but nothing more than that. It is not worth killing oneself for just to earn a gold star.


I welcome the decision to keep the family members of the E35 out of the MLL. I hope they do it with Gold too. The MLL at Gate E during the winter is unbearable with these people. Not nice I know, but consider this; People are paying $5,000+ for a J long haul to Asia and can use use the MLL because of the connection times. They often cannot find a seat or have a quiet drink or get any food because the locusts on the Rouge flight to Punta Caca have swarmed the lounge devouring everything in sight. At the very least, create a section for J class or International J class customers. Don't treat the higher end customers the same as the junketeers in Y. AC needs to show some courtesy to the customers who are paying premium prices.

YHZ_Flyer

For now you won't see any reduction of people in the Int MLL. E35K never had access there in the first place. This will only reduce crowding in domestic and TB MLLs, which in my opinion aren't really that bad.

Wpgjetse

No, a Canadian that is living/working in the US requires extra paperwork. That what you are telling AC you are doing and they pass that info to customs every times you cross into the US flying AC or using your Aeroplan number on file.

aventure

Could not agree more ! The locusts ....

Shareholder

Family leave for new parents is rather discriminatory considering an increasing number of people in the 40-50++ range are now confronted with caring of infirmed parents or partners. Not to mention those who are inflicted by a "grounding" disease themselves. Pregnancy and parenting are planned life decisions, so why worthy of any Altitude status consideration that unplanned life incidents are not?

quantumofforce

If I can't have something nice, then no one can have something nice!!!

rehoult

^ Exactly this.

24left

I think this is a valid question.

Many companies offer employees leave options that cover both pregnancy and eldercare etc. Air Canada is not our employer, so I'll assume they are under no obligation not offer anything.

I wonder how the decision-makers determined that the "parental leave" option was important and the only one to offer.

Is it possible that the decision-makers looked in the mirror, saw or assumed the majority of its employees and customers were in the demographic group most likely to have children and thus have their travels affected?

Perhaps AC determined that while there may be those in the 40+ or 50+ age group with current issues regarding caring for parents or partners, AC made the assumption that this demographic group has more money and can afford outside care and thus continue to travel.

Obviously I don't know. We don't know.
.

rehoult

If I had to guess, it's defined period vs unknown period, and the associated complexity.

Implementing parental leave policy is easy: the leave is at max 12 months and typically (though not always) involves a complete absence from work.

Elder care is a very different game, and can (and most often does) go on for years. It is also typically in addition to existing workloads, as quitting a job for an unknown period of time is not financial possible for most people. Personal injury would be a little easier, but even there are a lot of variables at play.

Probably the best they could do is say "Deferrals will be provided if the person is going to be off work for at least 6 months to care for an elder / recover from an injury, and the employer is holding their position for them". That would be roughly equivalent to the new policy, but even that would result in negative PR as it leaves out everyone who can work but not travel.

I'd encourage them to look at options, but in the meantime applaud their efforts to make life easier on new parents, and in particular, new mothers.

ridefar

As do I.

But.

Quick survey: when was the last time that you saw a pregnant woman traveling for work? What percentage of FFers are expectant females?

So while I too think this is a fair and reasonable thing for AC to offer, I have a suspicion that it is a lot more about PR than it is about doing something positive for any significant number of people. My guess is that a) the demographic in question is a tiny fraction of 1% to start with, and that people that use this and continue to be FF after maternity (or paternity) will be an even smaller number. Just sayin'.

Transpacificflyer

I wouldn't call it discriminatory. As explained by others above, it is a definable easily established period. That doesn't mean I don't agree with your point, because you have just highlighted the health crisis our nation is facing: Elder care. I don't think there is anyone who hasn't seen the impact of it and it's awful.

The problem we run into with trying to extend something to address the condition you describe is that it is next to impossible to define and enforce the characteristics to apply. It would be open to significant abuse. How do we prove that a family member we care for has dementia requiring our curtailment of activity? Parental leave is easy to determine as per the specified requirements. I'll never benefit from maternity leave as I do not have a uterus (that I am aware of). Nor will I qualify for parental leave as I am not currently in a relationship with anyone with a fertile uterus willing to offer up its reproductive capacity such that I might avail myself of paternity leave. However, I don't begrudge those that wish to use the altitude option.

canadiancow

What part of changing my "mailing address" would lead to any legal issues?

rehoult

There are no immigration issues with it; all the various Governments care about is what you declare to them, not what you happen to tell a random private company.

OTOH, if I was AC I'd cross-reference anyone who changed their residency with them against their ATIS entries. And if someone was declaring Canadian residency to all Government agencies, but telling AC they were US resident, that's an easy status revocation.