This is a funny thread. Popcorn required

[QUOTE=Low Roller;29502670][QUOTE] I'm more disturbed about the lesson that it is teaching the child. Not only did the father abandon him (and presumably whoever else was flying with him) in order to enjoy the comforts of J, but then he teaches the kid that it's ok to move up front if there are any empty seats. For those of you who use the "he's only a kid" argument, just remember that he won't be a kid forever. He will be an entitled teen in a few years and an entited adult a few years after that. I do agree with Low Roller : AC (nor any other major airlines) wouldn't let a 6yrs old kid fly alone in the back, even if the father is in the front. So the kid must have been with someone...
So, the assumption is probably correct.

And now, I'll do another assumption (and this time, just for fun). Let's assume he was with his mum. I would have loved to be there when the husband was telling his wife that he will fly in First class while she stays with the kid in the back :D :D :D

Why is a child different? I assume there was another parent in back who missed the UG and was with the child.

Nobody who didn't buy an UG or earn one, or pay full fare, should be up in J.

This post by [MENTION=759220]Adam Smith[/MENTION] should be memorialized in a some sort of hall of fame:

Comprehensive, clearly articulated, and unassailable in its logic.

I find it interesting that [MENTION=751176]CZAMFlyer[/MENTION] and [MENTION=461340]RatherBeInYOW[/MENTION] are essentially accusing [MENTION=759220]Adam Smith[/MENTION], [MENTION=742310]24left[/MENTION], myself, and many others of virtue signalling our moral absolutism and thereby being disingenuous. Meanwhile, the exact same thing could be said for them: [MENTION=751176]CZAMFlyer[/MENTION] and [MENTION=461340]RatherBeInYOW[/MENTION] are also virtue signalling, but in their case, the signal being sent is about their greater capacity for compassion and their indifference towards AC's mediocre J product.

Anyways, I think everything that could be said on this topic has been said. Perhaps [MENTION=12159]tcook052[/MENTION] could let one of [MENTION=751176]CZAMFlyer[/MENTION] or [MENTION=461340]RatherBeInYOW[/MENTION] have the last word and then close this thread.

Thanks capedreamer, but I'm not jostling for the last word. These are mine, but others are welcome to follow.

I stated I don't condone adults self-upgrading, but asked the forum if it's a different scenario with a small boy sitting next to his father in an unoccupied seat after the meal had been served. Most reactions were themselves interesting, revealing and very linear. Many people used some slippery logic and all voiced a strong opinion. I believe the comment above about 'quoting poetry' was an (embarrassed?) reaction to what may have been my stinging observation: that the most trivial matters are often those most heatedly opposed.

I think that the SD did a good thing by asking the child to return to his original seat. But I would not have raised an eyebrow in protest had the kid been allowed to stay. It appears my tolerance level is in the minority amongst this crowd.

Long may they fly in blessed, non-discretionary exclusivity.

Nope, the fare collection actually started after reaching cruise altitude and it was cash only. Not suggesting this is germane to the discussion but rather just one of those interesting airline oddities from the past.

Funny thing being, if the dad would have nicely asked the SD instead of self-upgrading, he might have been successful.

Has happened to us on a number of airlines (but never tried on AC).

Perfectly put! :-)

Kids, especially those aged 6 and being smaller than adults, should be fine in Y no? ;)

But not necessarily if by themselves in Y?

This is what I have done the last two times flying with AC. I bought two J seats so we could sit together.

I'm sorry but age is immaterial to this question. The child was in Y. By AC's policies it couldn't be alone if it was 6, so unless they screwed up big time, it was with a parent / guardian / responsible person.

The fact the child moved up to the front and took a seat made them TARGET #1 of Flyertalk and Persona-Non-Grata as far the majority of this board is concerned.

If AC couldn't upgrade pregnant lady who was fearful to go to the bathroom (hah, lets ressurrect that thread), this child has no reason to be in the front.

Pay for the damn ticket, use upgrade credits, points to upgrade, or get back to your seat like everyone else. UNless the kid has no arms, no legs, is colour blind, and lost his pet donkey the week prior, I have zero compassion for saying "sure, go enjoy an upgrade for free".

Next thing you know, this 6 year old kid will taking pictures on his cell phone, posting J selfies to instagram and ruining things for the rest of us. Trust me... if his dad is paying for J, I wouldn't be surprised.

And yes... 99% of FT'ers agree... I'm a dick.

Then I'm a 1%er too. I paid significantly more for a seat in Y and would rather not be interrupted by someone's kid who is up there for free. What level of entitlement does someone need to have to bring their children into the forward cabin without paying the fare? The true "dick" in this case is the parent.

This thread continues to attract self-entitled a-holes like bees to honey. Can we just lock it already?

Who's self-entitlement is greater and who is the greater "a-hole?" The passenger who has paid for a premium product and reasonably expects it not to become a free babysitting service for someone else's children or the self-absorbed parent who is too cheap to spring for a more expensive ticket but instead sneaks their kid into the premium class without paying?

The decision to permit a parent to self-upgrade their child affects everyone. If you let one parent do it then you have to let everyone do the same regardless of age or behavior.

This thread perfectly defines why AC takes the art of discretion out of the hands of front line employees, to the level that it can.

Good on SD fo sending the kid back, when this situation presents itself with us, we do one of the following.

Adult takes J seat and another adult sits with kid. I was once upgraded travelling with my ten year old, very simply turned down upgrade and sat with my kid. Not difficult decisions here people. Kids are now 13 and 11 and are fine in Y by themselves.

There's discretion and there's discretion.

My opinion is (and likely always will be) that the system should be good enough that the employees don't need discretion.

But until that happens, discretion needs to be reasonable.

Upgrades need to happen at the gate, except for extraordinary circumstances (like "do we have a doctor onboard?"). I don't care if you're AC*SM on a full J fare, who is somehow sitting in Y. You should have dealt with it at the gate. blah blah YBYL blah blah. I have complained to the SD about people crossing the curtain on a couple occasions. It's always been dealt with to my satisfaction. It's disruptive (and you can't dispute this - the fact that I noticed it means it's disruptive).

Isn't that what this thread is about? Differing opinions about what is reasonable? Some of those opinions appear to be rather firm.

Seriously?

Last I checked, this was a fairly interesting discussion with some differing viewpoints.

Respectfully, if one doesn't like the conversation, one can find a different one.

And if you don't think someone helping himself or a family member to something they did not pay Air Canada for doesn't affect the rest of us, I beg to differ. It might not affect you, it might not be any of your business, but it affects Air Canada and it affects all of us who pay for a product or service for which we are entitled.

But sure, feel free to throw some sand. FT is great therapy if nothing else. :D

Hilarious. That kid who was up front visiting dad was devaluing your precious J seat! Oh my god, the humanity!

Seeya FT, I'm done.

Oh darn, I know, I know I said I'd written my last word on this topic. Leave it to 24left to pique my interest with a comment. Rather than launch into a rebuttal, I'd like to ask questions about the above quote.

How does a child moving forward to sit, merely sit, beside Dad in J affect a fellow passenger in that cabin? How does it alter your "product or service": the experience, the space, the use of on-board amenities, the business-class benefits, the miles accrual, the time spent en route, the attention from staff or the ability to purchase that same product in future? One may begrudge somebody receiving a product for which they didn't pay full price, but my question here is: why?

I'd venture that - unless the kid raided the Kit-Kat bin (!) - it would difficult to point to a tangible diminishment of another passenger's current, in-the-moment experience.

No way. I don't believe it.

This reminds me when I was sat next to a kid (teen vs aged 6) who spent the entire flight going back and forth to J.

I was the aisle in Y. And so had to keep getting out of my seat to let this kid to visit presumably her parent(s) in J. And it was damned inconvenient.

Stay in the cabin you paid for, exit your seat as infrequently as possible (not every 15 minutes), and unrecline your seat during meal service.

Disclaimer, I have nothing against J making a single trip back to Y to visit a friend/family whatever. This is because not only have I done it (once), it doesn’t tend to disturb anyone in J more than that person using the washroom and Y isn’t exactly as conductive to peace quiet and sleep.

If we’re fine with kids going into J where do we draw the line? One child, 3, 10, 28? Should all those aged 0-6 be permitted and those aged 7+ banned? Is a parental guardianship required or can it be grandkids and cousins?

See: slippery slope, thin edge of the wedge, creeping normality, boiling frog & gateway drug theories, snowball effect, death by a thousand cuts, foot in the door, camel's nose in the tent, First They Came etc etc ad infinitum. I'm sure there exist many other metaphors.

I thought we'd been through these. Are people who advance these arguments trying to convince themselves that A inevitably leads to B?

Ok. I give up too. One last reply from me.

Yes.

I am.

I honestly believe that a father who is prepared to travel in J, while his 6 year old child and an accompanying adult sit in Y, and who is successfully able to bring his child up to J for free, will inevitably lead to that father concluding that he doesn't need to pay for J for his child on the next flight, either.

I also believe that a father who is unsuccessful at bringing his child up to J for free, will at least *consider* paying for J for his child on the next flight.

That's what I believe. I also don't think we're ever going to agree on this issue.

That said, I will admit to being curious.

• Do you honestly believe that the scenarios I describe above will never happen, and that there is *zero* chance that AC will ever induce any incremental revenue in the future, by their consistent adherence to a no-self-upgrading policy? (BTW I meant zero. Keep in mind that even a tiny chance, multiplied across the entire AC fleet, will result in a significant revenue opportunity for AC)
• Alternatively, do you acknowledge that AC could drive extra revenue this way, but they should forgo that revenue in the interest of (reason)?

I'm honestly curious.

Of course I think it's possible. What I don't understand is why it matters to you or any other passenger.

As for the revenue, therein lies the argument for discretion. Few decent people favour corporations that consider maximum possible income as the end-all, be-all.

It seems to matter to many here. It seems to matter to Air Canada since they charge different fares for different cabins and expect people who sit in the Premium cabins to be paying for them.

1. Air Canada's website tells us that seats in J cost more.
2. Anyone who wants to sit in those J seats can buy them if they choose to. Or they can sit in Y
3. They can pay for these J seats with cash, eUpgrade credits (and copays), a LMU or a Bid Upgrade.
4. They do not get to sit in J because they felt like moving up from Y

Some in this thread seem to be focusing on the child and oh my, what harm could their be to the fragile J pax if the child is brought to sit in J by his father.

The father did not pay for that seat and while some of you are focusing your emotions on the child, others here are focusing on the fact that the seat that child occupied was not paid for by his father.

So, we can call this argument a draw but no way should Air Canada or its cabin crew allow people to just wander up and sit where they want, thus taking what they did not pay for.

Perhaps the fine folks at AC HQ are reading this thread and wondering how frequent this activity is and whether their employees need to follow more "defined" procedures for when pax behave this way.

We are never going to agree on why it matters, but it clearly does. IMHO.

I’m with those who think the kid should stay in the cabin he was ticketed in. Would it have affected me? I don’t know—I don’t know the kid and I wasn’t there. Maybe he would have been an extra person making me wait for the lav.

But it I also don’t think the need to have someone ticketed in Y sitting next to you in J for free is one the cabin crew should indulge either. I was on CDG—YYZ recently, and there were a lot of empty J seats. The guy in front of me asked if his wife (in Y) could take one of the empty seats after the meal service, and he was told no. I’m guessing it’s not an AC policy to open the J cabin up for complimentary upgrades after the meal service, so I think the decision was a good one.

If people can’t stand to be separated from their child/SO/whomever, they should buy the right ticket or follow established upgrade procedures. And make sure they select seats together, where applicable.

We've been through them and you've summarily dismissed them without a single argument against them. I don't know whether it's ignorance or naiveté, but people watch and they learn. It's possible that on this one flight, no one would notice and no one would replicate the behaviour. But when people notice that rule-breaking goes unpunished, it tends to lead to more rule-breaking. On flights where SDs don't police the J lav, for instance, it frequently becomes a cavalcade after more and more people see it happening.

Your mentality seems to embrace a Homer Simpson-esque disregard for the collateral damage that seemingly innocent actions can have.


Obviously one kid sitting in J on one flight doesn't mean that the next day every empty J seat is going to be filled with a self-upgrader, but the reason a policy needs to be in place is that, without one, over time, that would ultimately be the outcome.

So you keep telling us :rolleyes:

It makes a difference to me because I strongly dislike children and their disruptiveness so I pay for J since there is a smaller likelihood of having kids in there. There. I said it and fully expect to be labeled heartless and evil. It's more today's parents fault than the kids themselves to be fair.

Not everyone wants or likes kids, some of you should stop pushing your milquetoast worldview on everyone else.

Not sure what the issue is here. Self upgrading adults are just fine, as are self-loading Y pax carry-ons in J bins.

​​​​​

What about another J pax upgrading the kid in to a J bin? Or what if all the J pax voted and a quorum agreed to upgrade the kid? Could we build this survey system in to the IFE?

I love using the word victimless sarcastically.

I am revolted by children in general. Too many self entitled parents act as if there should be no issue with having to put up with them in grown up restaurants, bars, and movies.

Personally, I think they should be banned from any class above Y altogether. Put them in the back of coach where the smokers used to go. And put their parents back there with them.

name checks out... you know, my kids say elitists should only get to fly y seats, in the middle, by the lav. I guess everyone is an a-hole in their own small way.

I currently have an empty seat in J beside me.

Do I deserve it? No. But I'll have a better experience with it than without it. And I'm paying for J.

Why encourage theft when you can, instead, give the whole cabin a better experience, by reducing the number of people in it?

I think its pretty simple. Don't let it happen regardless of age. Why? Well that seat could have gone to someone that was waiting for an upgrade. Perfect example was 2 days ago SFO-YVR. I had a confirmed upgrade on a lat fare and my colleague who waited too long and was waitlisted. At the gate he was told J Class was full. Before the door was closed and boarding seemed complete, my friend went and asked the SD about the 2 empty J Class seats. SD said that sorry but it's too late to do an upgrade and they were going to close the doors soon. My friend and another passenger also waiting for their upgrade were not impressed. I don't know about the other passenger but my friend is a 2 MM and flies over 200K/year with AC. The doors eventually closed and we left with 2 empty J Seats. First, I don't know how this could happen and they couldn't check the upgrade list. Second, if I saw someone self upgrade themselves to either of these seats regardless of age, I'd be incredibly pissed. I've seen when seats have opened up[ because of no shows right before departure and they've actually went to the back to bring waitlisted upgrades up to the front but never this.

Flying in J lowers the odds of sitting next to a plane full of people who act like they belong on a greyhound bus. Also, J zeros out the chance of flying next to a fake emotiomal support animal.

The seat is not always much bigger, pitch between seats is still small. Especially on narrow body flights. Most of the time I could
pick a bulkhead/priority seat for free, often an exit seat with no seat in front of me. However, I sit in J to be around less people.

If I am in J, stay in your Y cabin please.

If I am in Y, I won't sneak up to J. But I have to do my best to pretend that the J cabin does not exist.