Jay103

You seem to have come around to understanding what the "fault" is here.. a heated argument with the agent that involves swearing = cancelled tickets, possible ban. Period.

However, I'm going to quote your posts on this subject, just so you can see what you're saying.

Okay, so.. He was in a "heated argument" at the end of a longer interaction (of "lying", etc.). But that heated argument was only 3 sentences long. During this, he used 2 curse words DIRECTED TOWARD HER. So not like he muttered "goddammit" in frustration, but more like he called her a f----ing b----. You have this entire interaction only second-hand, but even what you're reporting is enough to have him removed. Hopefully you've gotten that from this thread. You say things like "I know this was unacceptable", but really you're accepting it and defending it as insufficient to merit any punishment by the airline. That you can "make sure it doesn't happen again" isn't really relevant.. the airline isn't asking that of you, and "it won't happen again" isn't a great defense in general.

The rest of this is just muddying things. Your frustrations with delays and cancellations justify your state of mind to us, but not the actions themselves. And as for what started it, if you were 5 minutes late for the check-in, then you were late, and the rest is irrelevant.

TemboOne

The whole situation is puzzling in that now with the realisation that OP may be a US resident, possibly already in Canada on a visit (she did mention their trip) and seemingly was trying to check-in for a flight and being unable to do so, instead made a 10 hour drive. On the other hand she mentioned Uber and having to return home and back to the airport next day.

We really don't have any facts to try figuring out this whole situation.

OP declines to even tell us which airport the alleged incident(s) occurred at, so I think we are just wasting our time.
For that matter, she has not told us who made the reservations.
If she was on a reservation made by the husband then will AC even "talk" to her?

The Lev

A number of people on this thread seem to be making an assertion along the lines of the above. Can any of you point to where in AC's conditions of carriage it says that?

It seems to me that the Canadian Transportation Agency has a tendency to closely scrutinize the carrier's conditions of carriage. If the explicitly say one member of a party is assessed as a danger/threat the whole group gets bounced, then AC will likely prevail. If that is not explicitly spelled out, then the OP and her children will almost certainly win their case should they decide to bring one forward.

sperkins921

Fine. Next time your spouse acts up at work and gets fired, you should be too. After all, guilt by association. (Edit: It did not quote the person I was responding to, but it was directed at Master Bill's comment "How often is your seat mate booked on the same reservation as you are if they're not part of your family or your SO?")

OP has already said that they (OP) was with the children in another part of the airport. Was not there when whatever happened happened. OP only knows what DH told them. Yet, people are saying OP is guilty b/c OP didn't try to intervene or didn't admonish their husband. Really? What good is giving a tongue lashing going to do when they (the family) are already in a stressful situation? Probably would've escalated the DH. And those who say OP should've intervened or admonished don't know the dynamics of this marriage. Maybe in your own both spouses can communicate and correct, but you do not know if OP comes from a culture or is in a marriage where that is unacceptable behavior.

Yes, they were late to check in, and in reading this and other posts it seems to me that there's a domino effect here- one bad thing leads to another and another and another. I don't read that OP is asking was their arriving late wrong, was DH's language wrong, etc. OP says they don't condone the behavior. So, it seems OP is at the heart of the matter simply asking if he/she and the children should be banned since they weren't (per OP's story) involved.

So I say again, if OP genuinely wasn't there and wasn't involved, then one ticket or not- OP is not guilty. That's IF the story is as they posted. Plus, there's children. Should THEY be banned for DH's behavior?

We also still do not know if this is truly a banning or just denied boarding for this flight. Based on OP's recollection of what gate agent next morning said to him/her- it sounds like a banning. Which brings us around again: is the banning of the children and spouse if none were involved in the altercation justified?

janetdoe

Let's assume the most favorable circumstances for you, and assume what I write below is what happened. Please correct any details that are false or misleading, I am certainly trying to interpret this is a way that gives you the strongest case, but it is critically important that we know exactly what happened to help you navigate the issue.

--You had a flight scheduled for 10:00 and the cutoff time for the original flight was 9:00. You were in the checkin queue at 9:05 and reached the checkin desk at 9:20.
--(Was the flight already delayed at this point, and if so, how much had it been delayed?)
--The gate agent took an apparent dislike to you (because your special needs son was bouncing on the luggage scale/conveyor belt?) and said you were late for checkin and scolded you for not hearing her call out earlier for anyone on your flight to come to the front of the line, and moved you to standby for the next flight.
--(Is there a race or ethnicity issue here, or are you alleging discrimination solely based on disability?)
--Your flight later became delayed (or more delayed), and the checkin agent allowed other people who were booked on your original flight to check in after you had already been denied check-in.
--Your husband confronted the agent with this disparate treatment, the agent lied, and you husband briefly lost his temper and said something like, "This is f'ing unbelievable, how can you sit there and f'ing lie to my face?" (IMO, it's very different if he said, "You are a f'ing c@#t!")
--The supervisor later said that your whole family was banned and suggested that the fact that you were unable to control your special needs son was part of the problem.

If that is the case, then I would say the most important thing you can do is ask AC to verify if anyone was permitted to check in for your original flight after you were denied checkin. Once you establish that other people were checked in after you were denied, you have a much stronger case from a "discrimination" viewpoint. The angles of "attack" I would take are:

1. Disparate treatment that you were not allowed checkin, but other people were allowed checkin later. (This is huge and validates your husbands legitimate cause for anger versus him raging. Doesn't excuse the cursing, but goes a long way towards validating that the employee was acting in bad faith.)

2. You can understand that your husband was banned, but the only reason communicated so far that you and the children were banned was because the agent and supervisor judged that you didn't have good enough control over your special needs child. Is AC seriously banning you (permanently) for this reason - that your children were unruly? And from that they are extrapolating that you will never be able to control your children ever again and deserve a lifetime ban?

imverge

You could file a complaint with DOT.

skybluesea

1Newflyer

And AC agents rest ... I hope.

arttravel

I am still unclear as to the chronology let alone location.

The OP was late; says others were allowed late check in. Then what? Put on another flight? Where did the swearing incident happen? At the gate, as the reference is to a gate agent? So this was not at the check in?

Maybe a rough chronology as in

Arrived at x hour for flight Y

Not allowed to check in at X:20; later passengers allowed to check in to flight Y.

Put on standby/other flight

Went to gate and waited.

Five hours later husband got into an altercation

If one looks at the decisions in the complaints against Air Canada for banning a passenger it does not appear that there is guilt by association ban:

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/444-c-a-2012

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/278-c-a-2006

global happy traveller

i am still a little confused...........

1. OP said she and the kids were away
2. OP said the kids were stepping on the luggage conveyor belt and was told off by agent


Then this reminds me of a story back in college......

My lawyer-in-training friend assisted an ESL student + his girlfriend over a fare dispute with the TTC and did some property damage. When we went on scene, the girlfriend was crying, ESL student arrested/ticketed and both of them claimed the TTC staff was racist / prejudice against them.

Fast forward to court date and meeting the prosecutor before hand. Security video surveillance showed both of them caught evading fare, both causing a scene when caught before the boyfriend did property damage. That "crying" girlfriend was slamming, yelling and cursing staff beforehand and against law enforcement when arrested. They ended up plea deal by compensating the TTC for property damage and to leave Canada within 90 days.

Anyways been very entertaining thread

skybluesea

jerry305

Hey, OP.
How would you pronounce that handle of yours?

YEG USER

janetdoe

As far as I can tell, three incidents:
1. Everyone denied checkin and presumably kid acting up on luggage scale conveyor belt. Family moved to standby on later flight.
2. After 5 hours waiting for later flight at airport, husband confronted original checkin agent while OP was taking care of kids in the distance.
3. The next morning, supervisor tells them they are all banned from AC, suggesting that keeping the kids behavior issues was a big part of the issue.

As far as any insinuation that OP is completely lying, I think it makes more sense to probe specific details of the story rather than just saying, "This reminds me of a time when an accuser was totally full of crap!" It's just not productive.

sfo88

STAY STRONG Mnyclfyer! It seems many of the comments here come from a privileged perspective. I’m not so privileged. I have been discriminated against in airports. And when it happens in the presence of children, the effects of the assault are even more insidious (subtle and harmful).

Prejudice (pre-judging not based in reason) is insidious and it’s obvious your family was pre-judged negatively, subtly, by the GA BEFORE the first word was said and BEFORE your family approached the gate. The GA then acted on their pre-judgment of your family, you were singled out, embarrassed, uniquely humiliated (unique because it is such a large public place) …. I’m guessing the first exchanges between your husband and the GA happened after all of that occurred.

In the same way almost all of the comments in this forum have ignored everything that happened BEFORE your husbands actions, you should ignore everything that happened AFTER your husband’s actions. Ignore all of the marriage counseling, expert etiquette advice, amateur lawyering about AC regulations …..

The GA’s prejudice and then their acting on it in a harmful and humiliating way, is the focus. The training the GA should have received from the airline before being allowed to make such judgements, makes the airline’s entire training system the focus as well. And I’m sure these things will be the focus of your lawyer.