Jagboi

That wasn't the way it was presented to the passenger though. She was told she might have to overnight in YVR, which means IDB, not a seat is available.

If the passenger had been assured there was a seat available none of this would have made it to the media.

longtimeflyin

I'm not sure what else Air Canada needs to do to prevent this from being a news story every quarter.

They send an email at T-24 to request you complete online check in. Should there be a bold banner that indicates the consequences if a passenger does not? What else needs to be done?

flyquiet

We don't know what conversations happened between issuance of the GTE BP and the statement to the effect of "you might need to overnight in YVR". It could have been all kinds of escalating shades of belligerent, culminating in the "you might need to overnight in YVR" as an exasperated holding statement, e.g., "what does GTE mean, and why is my bag tagged like that?", "you don't have an assigned seat yet", "why not? I paid for my ticket", "yes, but we don't know where you will sit yet", "but I demand a seat because I paid! Why don't you assign me a seat rightthisminute " etc. etc.
While a lot of flyers fly occasionally to see grandma and don't know a lot of the ins and outs, this story has overtones of entitlement "I expect a seat" and so forth.
As ham-handed as AC can be, I am willing to reserve potential sympathy for the AC agent who could easily have been goaded into presenting the worst case outcome in response to whiny persistent badgering.
We just don't have and never will have a full and balanced account, nor do we have any more need to know beyond prurient interest.
As I posted earlier, I think the greatest blame goes to CBC for running a non-story, although if they had taken a different tone, the coverage could have been educational to those who are not aware of the practice of strategic overselling and the relationship between fare class and IDB.

kwflyer

What many Canadians have a problem with, is AC's wanton disregard to macro events that unravel in the media, which they can plausibly relate to, from their own micro experiences with AC. That, executive compensation (for the gold diggers), is not being properly aligned on social responsibility issues, nor being properly held account to the citizenry they purport to serve. Flying has gotten increasing complicated, and unless you are a OPM McGill treasurer on you're way to YBW for a economics retreat, you probably can't afford to keep up.

If Calin et co. had their compensation weighted more equally to creating positive press/externalities, as opposed to outdated, shallow econometrics, things would be a lot different. And likely for the better. No one, gets up in the morning and says ''I hate big organizations'', it always begins with kindling, then friction, then a spark culminating into a full on, five alarm fire. Most people don't actually expect everything to go perfect, but they do expect, when things don't go well, that a proper response/action plan is created. Telling someone ''you may have to sleep at the airport'' (even better if its accompanied with a sadist grin) is pouring gasoline on someone already playing with a flint starter, in a pine beetled forest.

You do not go to a restaurant expected to be a professional food inspector on what is safe, in a civilized city this is a given. You do not (or should not) have to have a degree in biochemistry to determine if the toy you are buying for a child, is actually safe. You therefore should not require a degree in political science or medieval studies, to meander/decipher AC's arcane rules and play negotiation jujitsu at critical choke/stress points when one is especially vulneralbe .

The story on its on is not that powerful, she ended getting a seat and getting to her destination more/less according to plan. Many on here take a silo case by case analysis on how AC should be judged. That may work well in a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion, where this adds to the cumulative brand degradation. And thats what AC should be worried about.

Just imagine, if AC made it a goal to have no negative new stories in the major media outlet for a whole 12 months. How much better it would become, with that type of process improvement. Instead of just relying on BIS/capacity discipline and other non-aspirational metrics.

tcook052

Oh the hyperbole!

Bartolo

They may send it but we all know this check in now email often doesn't arrive. I've had many flight in the last year where it didn't show up.

znke252

Yes, but this situation is related as overselling is what usually creates this problem. When one checks-in online or at the airport, a seat number should be assigned. Why create unnecessary stress for passengers, especially those with connecting flights?

Perhaps a section can be added as part of the booking process as to whether one would be willing to be bumped. This could also help the airline to determine how many seats could potentially be oversold.

In this situation, based on the info presented to her, the passenger felt that there was a chance that she could be bumped. If this wasn't true, then perhaps there was some miscommunication involved.

znke252

Yes, I've had this happen also. Also, perhaps one is not available to check in earlier... e.g .. at a social, perhaps in a location where one can't access the web...etc..

canadiancow

Due to my status, I do not ever encounter this on AC, but I have booked UA flights in Y when there were no regular seats available, but dozens of E+ seats.

I did not get a seat number.

At check-in, I did not get a seat number.

Some time before boarding, a seat number was assigned.

That being said, it was always explained as "you'll get a seat at the gate".

But then the solution would just require being more clear with the situation. Actually, even lying would have entirely avoided this. "Your seat will be assigned at the gate." Done. No one is really concerned. No article is written. When you have a passenger that immediately runs to CBC, the best option for AC may be to potentially lie (nothing that in this case it would not have been a lie).

canadiancow

No. As far as we know, there was no one on the flight who was denied boarding.

If everyone without a seat assignment was simply told that they would get their seat assignment at the gate, that would have been the end of it.

In GENERAL, telling someone to avoid this by checking in early just deflects this to someone else. But then that's an argument about overselling, and not really related to this situation.

The issue here is that someone made the passenger believe that she was on standby.

CanRulez

I've been on flights recently where I get prompted to do an on-line check in 20+ minutes after the flight has already departed.

Not T-24.

Yukonprince

Indeed!!!

Transpacificflyer

Transparency would be a first step. The airline does not warn passengers at risk that they are at risk. It is doubtful that AC will willingly provide such a warning. Therefore, the federal government must compel the action through legislation much as the government compelled Air Canada to honestly declare its airfares.

Air Canada should warn purchasers of Tango class airfares, that they are at risk of being denied passage. And more importantly, warn that if the customer needs an assured passage, the customer must purchase a more expensive fare. NOWHERE, absolutely nowhere does Air Canada make this disclosure in an open, comprehensible manner during the purchase process. At no point does the company warn the purchasers of airfare classes lowest in the priority hierarchy that they are most likely to be denied boarding and to perhaps be stranded somewhere. I believe that the airline does not wish to tell customers this detail because then the house of cards the airline has built with it's "low" airfare would collapse.

There are obviously a number of sales and service personnel on this thread who subscribe to this sleight of hand sales strategy and who do not appreciate the need and moral obligation to inform a client. The buyer beware caveat can only be used as an excuse up to a certain point. It's why some people are not stuck
stuck flying tens of thousands of kilometers each year, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

CZAMFlyer

Some of us are truly unlucky, repeatedly. This does not sound like the UA I regularly fly. In the same scenarios in which supply of seats exceeds demand to sit in them, I always received a seat assignment at OLCI (latest), even without status.

There is no situation in which a large corporation should lie. This will only exacerbate any conflict and create larger, more enduring PR difficulties while eroding any shred of trust that may remain in peoples' eyes.

Lying to obscure a difficult message is a piss-poor suggestion - even if telling your kids that Fluffy has gone to live on a farm, and sorry, no you can't visit her.

Stranger

Looking at a recent AC ticket confirmation: