canadiancow

That's not what happens. With 6 people per row on a 320, when row 33 boards, they end up standing in the aisle blocking rows 28-33. Which means row 32 then blocks a bunch of rows. Etc.

Random boarding is provably more efficient than back to front. As are many other methods. Back to front, I believe, is actually the least efficient boarding policy.

Eh, I'll take the word of a friend over someone on FT any day.

To reiterate, I was not there. Which is why I left it as I did. But I've heard two sides of this story so far, and they do not match.

I wonder if AC would ever attempt to contact witnesses in a case like this. I have my doubts.

canopus27

Am I the only one who's curious to find out if the OP has any problems boarding today's flight? I suspect that the attitudes on both sides may be a little raw ....

DrunkCargo

To OP, Buy Business next time. Then, you will be "Zone" 1 (but still not wheelchair). I hear you can yell all you want; the curtain blocks all noise and the SDs are trained to smile in response!

As to Designated High Profile (DHP), having "trouble checking in" (upthread) would manifest itself in several ways:
- No online check-in; confusing error message with no reason.
- Check-in agent cannot check you in, blocked by system (this is worse than SSSS)
- Agent is forced to call some mysterious number and relay a minimum of your birthdate from your passport...
- Eventually, you will be handed your boarding pass(es) or denied boarding with no disclosed reason.

You will never be informed of your DHP status by AC, even if asked point-blank. I seem to recall AC does not acknowledge DHP exists.

I doubt you've been DHPed. But I'd also suggest not trying for that status.

Bohemian1

This DHP thing sounds pretty nasty.

A travel milestone that I think I will try to avoid.

DrunkCargo

Wouldn't he have just bought a last minute on UA 460 yesterday (I took the $1k economic cost to be the lost AC fare and UA replacement)? While I've never been denied boarding this way, when IRROPs or whatever happen, this is what I think I'd do if millions of dollars were riding on it. Heck, it's what I do when I want a drink onboard immediately. Pre-departure bevvies... mmmmm...

Greyhound or Amtrak would also have beat a 24-hr ban on AC.

Edit: Also, I'm assuming a 24-hr ban would preclude him from flying AC any time on Friday (original banning occurred past check-in cutoff for AC569, Thursday) thus making earliest AC option Saturday.

Sopwith

I find it fascinating that AC empowers its employees to declare a passenger a security risk and deny boarding on the basis of a relatively inconsequential verbal exchange, but they are not empowered to look after customers when things are going sideways. This is characteristic of the Air Canada culture, I'm afraid.

More and more I'm believing that the traveling public needs some form of protection from unruly GAs and FAs. This is becoming as big a problem as unruly passengers.

yvr76

I never raise my voice with customer service as I don't find it's the most effective way to communicate my grievances. While others may feel differently the fact remains that it doesn't behoove you to do it in cases where the opposing party is in a position of power - airports, immigration / customs etc. Punishments (whether or not warranted) are handed down quickly and arbitrarily, and disputes always come afterwards and are not very effective.

tcook052

Please note that a number of off topic posts have been deleted and some members will be receiving a reminder about the importance and sticking to the thread topic as per FT Rules.Please work harder at confining comments to the thread topic at hand.

tcook052
AC forum Mod.

Sunny Day

I am wondering about 2 things. 1. If OP asked the GA he being deemed a threat warrants calling airport security. If not, why not? Or insist on calling security himself to escalate the situation with the hopes of drawing attention from a manager from AC. 2. If OP at the end of boarding, walked up to GA, and expressed regret and apologize for the heated exchange, would it have helped OP get back on that flight? A lot of stress of boarding early is created by airline itself especially in winter. Add on the bulky jackets on top of fighting for bin space, people are cranky and stressed. I have learned to bite my tongue these days though. Recently, I got lectured from a CATSA employee about being at security early. I was getting what I want (him letting me get to the front of the line), so I just zipped my lips, thanked him, smiled and moved on.

Often1

I would advise against any of this. Escalating this to law enforcement when law enforcement is not involved is a poor idea. It creates all kinds of records which most people do not want created and may also back AC into a corner. Same thing with approaching the agent again. I doubt that the agent has the authority to board someone having determined that they are a security risk and anything OP says may be taken the wrong way and further escalate the situation.

jjclancy

Engaging law enforcement isn't an appropriate recourse -- there's nothing criminal afoot.

Relevant to the thread:
https://www.aircanada.com/content/da..._Tariff_en.pdf
RULE 75 - REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT
B. Passenger's Conduct - Refusal to Transport Prohibited Conduct & Sanctions
(1) b) The person's conduct, or condition is or has been known to be abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or otherwise disorderly and in reasonable judgement of a responsible, carrier employee there is a possibility that such passenger would cause disruption or serious impairment to the physical comfort or safety of other passengers or carrier's employees, interfere with crew member in the performance of his/her duties aboard carrier's aircraft, or otherwise jeopardize safe and adequate flight operations;
d) The person fails to observe the instructions of carrier and its employees, including instructions to cease prohibited conduct;

"Move out the way of the boarding line"
[arguing, token move]
"You're in the way"
[yelling]

The response seems in line with the (2) Sanctions section following that.

vernonc

Given my experience at SFO - I flew thru SFO with AC more than 12 times last year, I will say this about the SFO staff. Concierge team has been great. GAs have been great at enforcing Zone boarding. They are also super super aggressive in measuring bags and I have seen some nasty interactions between customers and GAs as the sizer contortion happens with mandatory gate check. A couple of GAs and one in particular while enforcing AC policy has IMHO very poor 'bedside manners' if you get my drift.
It does seem like a major over reaction from the GA if the OP is to be believed. If you yell at customers, you should not expect smiling faces in return. DHP, denied boarding, rippng BPs should not be the first remedy.

Bohemian1

The same rules includes this reason:
"i) The person is barefoot or otherwise inappropriate (sic) dressed;"

canadiancow

I heard there was (slightly paraphrased) "cursing and screaming in the gate area".

vernonc

Maybe. Who knows what was said by both parties. Descalation is preferable than ripping boarding passes. You obviously also travel thru SFO a ton. While we would both attest to liking the enforcement of zone boarding and the general helpful concierges, I think perhaps you understand what I mean about bedside manners. Never impacted me but i have seen a few testy interactions with zone boarding and bag sizing.