mikeyyz

Yup, I pay for J for our little one to sit with us all the time and would not be impressed if this was let slide...

canopus27

I presume the child was being accompanied (by the mother?) back in economy.

If Dad wanted to sit beside his child, there's a very simple answer; put Mom in the business class seat, and Dad gets to sit beside the child in Y. Simple, and completely within the rules.

CZAMFlyer

Assumptions are unhelpful.

By following this suggestion, all we've accomplished is changing the title of this thread.

I suspect this underlies the real reason for peoples' opposition: the fact that others are receiving a perceived benefit, despite the net effect on themselves being nil.

ffsim

I agree with this.

I'm not talking about rules, and I'm not talking about the expectation of an upgrade -- everyone should pay to sit in the seat they want to sit in, regardless of which cabin that seat happens to be in. Heck, I'm not even talking about the kid who went to sit up front with his dad. I think you missed the point of my post.

All I'm saying is that the use of an empty seat hardly constitutes "stealing." Stealing involves taking something of value from somebody, and as AC has absolutely no method of monetizing that empty seat, you're not damaging them in a dollars and cents kind of way. That's all.

CZAMFlyer

You raise a fair point, but I wasn't suggesting I'd feel entitled to sit up front on a future flight. My point was that I paid nothing extra to sit up front, in reply to the statement that some form of currency must be exchanged for the privilege.

24left

No, the example in the OP was one child.

This discussion understands that example but also extends the self-upgrading behaviour to those who may consider doing so in the future and for me, that is a key issue. I also think Air Canada does not have a clearly defined enforcement policy because based on posts on this forum, some cabin crew do not seem to want to enforce the rules or seem intimidated by pax who do what they want and thus the cabin crew choose to avoid confrontation.

trooper

OK.. I'll play. A 6 year old is fine.... How about a 17 year old (Still a "child" legally) No? OK...... Where is the line then? Kind of important to have one if 6 is OK and 17 isn't. So? A small 14 year old vs a big 10 year old?
The problem with "discretion" is that it leads to the "but they were allowed to bring their kid forward/ but he/she was allowed to do XXX" Inconsistency...which is one of the MAJOR complaints on FT..... and rightly so.

Low Roller

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 entitled adult a few years after that.

CZAMFlyer

.
There is a distinction between wanting to sit in a more comfortable cabin versus wanting to sit beside Dad and/or following Dad's instructions.
How did hypothetical future flights enter the debate? Neither I nor the OP introduced the concept.

Does anybody here know AC's enforcement policy on cabin upgrades? Note, this is separate from the policy disallowing said upgrades. It seems to me there's a lot of assumptions being made on what cabin crew want to do, how they may feel, and how they choose to address those feelings.

CZAMFlyer

So, can anybody advance an argument based upon the event in question, rather than on hypothetical events in the future?

As an aside, the bolded piece above is a fantastic example of twisting or inventing facts to fit a desired narrative.

24left

If Dad wants his child to sit beside him in J, dad can pay for the seat.
If Dad wants to provide instructions to the child, Dad can go sit in Y with the child or pay for the child to sit in J.

I'm sorry that some of you are mildly offended by my stand on this. This forum isn't the only one that has debated self-upgrading pax. And yes, perhaps for some of us, it is black and white.

Stranger

Where is the cat?

Rowyourboat

I am 24 years old, but many people in int'l J could be my parent. Next time I will have to use this trick and see how it goes :-)
Hopefully in a deflated pod, so I can get a cash voucher out of it too. Getting paid to sit next to "pops"

/sarcasm of course.

On topic, I personally think it's fine. live and let live. If the kid is quiet, I'm fine with the FA letting him stay or telling the kid to go back. Doesn't bother my flight.

CZAMFlyer

Last thoughts, and then I'm going to get on with my day:

This has been made abundantly clear by several posters. I wonder why the strong stance, given that nothing was taken from any other passenger; nobody else was affected. Why are some people are such strong defenders of the airline's (now diminished) asset? A reminder: I'm not advocating adults self-upgrade.
The "instructions" referred to Dad going back and asking the kid to follow him forward. Few 6 year olds would defy a parent in this scenario.
Lots of ink has been spilled here, assuming how other FT members and cabin crew feel about the issue. I can only speak for myself.
Should we all be on those other pages instead?
Ironically, it often doesn't seem to be with the airline, which is the only entity who has skin in the game.

Look at the time...it was a slice!

RatherBeInYOW

Nothing gets this forum more upset than self-upgrading pax.

Seriously. As long as the kid wasn't being disruptive, why else would anyone care?

Reminds me when a certain pompous Air Canada rep posted on this forum that eUps "cheapened" the J cabin. Like a place with a seat and food that on the ground would amount to dinner at a two-star hotel could really be further cheapened.