AC owes Oakville family $70,000 for passenger rights violation
Sep 7, 2018, 12:20 pm
#16
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,328
I'm in absolute agreement with the rest of your post, so I'll just focus on the bit quoted above.
Had you said, "if I knew I'd be sharing a plane with a contagious person for a 14 hour flight, I wouldn't want them on board," I'd agree with the whole thing. But you can't just decide that a person can't fly because they've thrown up. Planes carry vomit bags and cleaning products and carpet patching kits for a reason -- people throw up on planes. People also throw up for reasons which are completely noncontagious and harmless to others: motion sickness, pregnancy, food poisoning, etc. Heck, babies sometimes throw up because you've fed them
I think it's imperative to make the best medical diagnosis possible given the circumstances (ie non-medically trained personnel working at an airport) whenever a passenger presents themselves with something that could be conceived as a health threat to other passengers (coughs, vomiting, rashes, etc). And if they must be off-loaded, then that process should happen in the most professional and compassionate manner possible.
Had you said, "if I knew I'd be sharing a plane with a contagious person for a 14 hour flight, I wouldn't want them on board," I'd agree with the whole thing. But you can't just decide that a person can't fly because they've thrown up. Planes carry vomit bags and cleaning products and carpet patching kits for a reason -- people throw up on planes. People also throw up for reasons which are completely noncontagious and harmless to others: motion sickness, pregnancy, food poisoning, etc. Heck, babies sometimes throw up because you've fed them
I think it's imperative to make the best medical diagnosis possible given the circumstances (ie non-medically trained personnel working at an airport) whenever a passenger presents themselves with something that could be conceived as a health threat to other passengers (coughs, vomiting, rashes, etc). And if they must be off-loaded, then that process should happen in the most professional and compassionate manner possible.
However, your final paragraph is the challenge. Should they delay the flight 3 hours to get a truly qualified doctor to make a diagnosis?
The child wasn't motion-sick (I hope, given they were still at the gate) or pregnant.
Food poisoning is tough. How do you know if the person's contagious?
But let's drill into that one. What if it gets more severe while the aircraft is over an ocean? Now there's a serious risk to the sick passenger, and the flight may have to divert when it gets in range of an airport.
Throwing up while airborne is different. Mostly because you can't simply offload someone, so the reason is much less relevant (but is much more likely to be caused by alcohol or motion sickness at that point).
I'll accept that in this case, the vomit was caused by Air Canada. But in the general case, I don't think someone throwing up while boarding should be allowed on. Maybe have some exceptions for pregnancy and babies, but not here.
Regardless, that doesn't excuse the treatment of the family after the decision was made to offload. That's where I take issue.
Sep 7, 2018, 12:31 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Plat, Hilton G,Nexus, Amex MR Plat,IHG Plat
Posts: 4,423
Hang on folks, this is not a court, rather a consumer protection body like the CTA that can make quasi-judicial rulings.
+ this body is in the State of Punjab, presumably where the plaintiff lives, rather than in Delhi where AC & Jet have their principal place of business, so whether an order from one state is even enforceable in another state in India is a question that will end up certainly in a real court when AC & Jet are certain to challenge.
And who thinks this is pretty high-handed to include such reference:
"the Commission held while describing the acts of deficiency of service as also violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"(bold added).
And while India is a fabulous place, have multiple opportunity each year to work in various cities across the country, yet AC will fully understand that doing business in India is full of dealing with this.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/63025403.cms
ps...AC & Jet may not challenge for the above link reason as may cost them more to move all this forward without any real sense of what the outcome might be - and for those of you who look at this from a Canadian fairness perspective, good chunks of the world simply do not operate this way.
+ this body is in the State of Punjab, presumably where the plaintiff lives, rather than in Delhi where AC & Jet have their principal place of business, so whether an order from one state is even enforceable in another state in India is a question that will end up certainly in a real court when AC & Jet are certain to challenge.
And who thinks this is pretty high-handed to include such reference:
"the Commission held while describing the acts of deficiency of service as also violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"(bold added).
And while India is a fabulous place, have multiple opportunity each year to work in various cities across the country, yet AC will fully understand that doing business in India is full of dealing with this.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/63025403.cms
ps...AC & Jet may not challenge for the above link reason as may cost them more to move all this forward without any real sense of what the outcome might be - and for those of you who look at this from a Canadian fairness perspective, good chunks of the world simply do not operate this way.
It remains to be seen but likely AC/Jet are likely to have been surprised by the size of the judgement. I do not think they will win this one, so more likely to settle if they can reduce the amount on appeal.
Sep 7, 2018, 12:42 pm
#18
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Coast, USA
Programs: Skywards Platinum
Posts: 3,747
IMO, the response was mirroring the judgementalism in the initial post. If Poster A can judge the suit - and by inference the finding of the court - "ridiculous", why can't Poster B express his opinion that Post A is ridiculous? Isn't that too covered by free thought that most humans possess? Is it somehow less appropriate because of the much higher likelihood that the subject of the opinion might actually be reading it, instead of just being a posted reaction to an article
Sep 7, 2018, 12:55 pm
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,409
I agree.
However, your final paragraph is the challenge. Should they delay the flight 3 hours to get a truly qualified doctor to make a diagnosis?
The child wasn't motion-sick (I hope, given they were still at the gate) or pregnant.
Food poisoning is tough. How do you know if the person's contagious?
But let's drill into that one. What if it gets more severe while the aircraft is over an ocean? Now there's a serious risk to the sick passenger, and the flight may have to divert when it gets in range of an airport.
Throwing up while airborne is different. Mostly because you can't simply offload someone, so the reason is much less relevant (but is much more likely to be caused by alcohol or motion sickness at that point).
I'll accept that in this case, the vomit was caused by Air Canada. But in the general case, I don't think someone throwing up while boarding should be allowed on. Maybe have some exceptions for pregnancy and babies, but not here.
Regardless, that doesn't excuse the treatment of the family after the decision was made to offload. That's where I take issue.
However, your final paragraph is the challenge. Should they delay the flight 3 hours to get a truly qualified doctor to make a diagnosis?
The child wasn't motion-sick (I hope, given they were still at the gate) or pregnant.
Food poisoning is tough. How do you know if the person's contagious?
But let's drill into that one. What if it gets more severe while the aircraft is over an ocean? Now there's a serious risk to the sick passenger, and the flight may have to divert when it gets in range of an airport.
Throwing up while airborne is different. Mostly because you can't simply offload someone, so the reason is much less relevant (but is much more likely to be caused by alcohol or motion sickness at that point).
I'll accept that in this case, the vomit was caused by Air Canada. But in the general case, I don't think someone throwing up while boarding should be allowed on. Maybe have some exceptions for pregnancy and babies, but not here.
Regardless, that doesn't excuse the treatment of the family after the decision was made to offload. That's where I take issue.
How would you verify an exception for pregnancy when just about any woman between 12 and 50 could claim to be pregnant? That's a big fraction of the population.
Sep 7, 2018, 1:24 pm
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,328
How about denying boarding to anyone who is vomiting and doesn't have a doctor's note to excuse it? That also seems quite reasonable. If you're pregnant and you know, go to a doctor, get a note. If you don't know, then it could be anything, so you probably shouldn't be flying.
Sep 7, 2018, 2:13 pm
#22
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,691
I don't know. I've never been pregnant. Do you carry a doctor's note? Could you?
How about denying boarding to anyone who is vomiting and doesn't have a doctor's note to excuse it? That also seems quite reasonable. If you're pregnant and you know, go to a doctor, get a note. If you don't know, then it could be anything, so you probably shouldn't be flying.
How about denying boarding to anyone who is vomiting and doesn't have a doctor's note to excuse it? That also seems quite reasonable. If you're pregnant and you know, go to a doctor, get a note. If you don't know, then it could be anything, so you probably shouldn't be flying.
Sep 7, 2018, 2:29 pm
#23
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: TK *G
Posts: 3,099
IMO the focus should be on the handling of the offloaded passengers, rather than the decision about offloading passengers.
We have had enough threads to suggest that offloaded passengers, either for medical reasons (I remember there was a CBC article last summer where AC offloaded someone with non-contagious disease), or alleged behavior problems (the influencing agency one), are not happy with AC's handling after offloading. The bigger problem is that many AC front line employees promise customers X but Y or nothing at all was delivered.
We seem to mostly agree on it's ok to remove someone for medical reason.
We have had enough threads to suggest that offloaded passengers, either for medical reasons (I remember there was a CBC article last summer where AC offloaded someone with non-contagious disease), or alleged behavior problems (the influencing agency one), are not happy with AC's handling after offloading. The bigger problem is that many AC front line employees promise customers X but Y or nothing at all was delivered.
We seem to mostly agree on it's ok to remove someone for medical reason.
Sep 7, 2018, 2:46 pm
#24
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Plat, Hilton G,Nexus, Amex MR Plat,IHG Plat
Posts: 4,423
IMO the focus should be on the handling of the offloaded passengers, rather than the decision about offloading passengers.
We have had enough threads to suggest that offloaded passengers, either for medical reasons (I remember there was a CBC article last summer where AC offloaded someone with non-contagious disease), or alleged behavior problems (the influencing agency one), are not happy with AC's handling after offloading. The bigger problem is that many AC front line employees promise customers X but Y or nothing at all was delivered.
We seem to mostly agree on it's ok to remove someone for medical reason.
We have had enough threads to suggest that offloaded passengers, either for medical reasons (I remember there was a CBC article last summer where AC offloaded someone with non-contagious disease), or alleged behavior problems (the influencing agency one), are not happy with AC's handling after offloading. The bigger problem is that many AC front line employees promise customers X but Y or nothing at all was delivered.
We seem to mostly agree on it's ok to remove someone for medical reason.
Anyway if the press story is to be believed as well as the judgement, it may be in this case the child was not sick. I have had my young kid throw up a couple of times, once at the airport and once on the plane. One time it was just the time difference and lack of sleep, other time turbulence. She was not 'sick' any of the times.
And yes, the handling of offloaded passengers is of concern. DEL as in this case does have staff as does BOM, there are plenty of them milling around, not sure why they could not aid the passengers since they had their passports for 2 hours.
Sep 7, 2018, 3:17 pm
#25
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: TK *G
Posts: 3,099
I agree to remove for medical reason - hopefully a realistic medical reason. Should they remove for coughing, fever, vomiting.....what's the cutoff ?
Anyway if the press story is to be believed as well as the judgement, it may be in this case the child was not sick. I have had my young kid throw up a couple of times, once at the airport and once on the plane. One time it was just the time difference and lack of sleep, other time turbulence. She was not 'sick' any of the times.
And yes, the handling of offloaded passengers is of concern. DEL as in this case does have staff as does BOM, there are plenty of them milling around, not sure why they could not aid the passengers since they had their passports for 2 hours.
Anyway if the press story is to be believed as well as the judgement, it may be in this case the child was not sick. I have had my young kid throw up a couple of times, once at the airport and once on the plane. One time it was just the time difference and lack of sleep, other time turbulence. She was not 'sick' any of the times.
And yes, the handling of offloaded passengers is of concern. DEL as in this case does have staff as does BOM, there are plenty of them milling around, not sure why they could not aid the passengers since they had their passports for 2 hours.
I agree that most of the time coughing, vomiting, or even fever are not an issue, but there are many flu outbreaks happening right now, and many flights are grounded upon landing this week due to medical concerns, so IMO it's perfectly reasonable for crew to offload them in this incident.
As for getting help after offloading, even getting help at YYZ/YVR can be very challenging sometime. Most of the agents are not willing, or not capable of doing something complicated, I usually have to try concierge.
Sep 7, 2018, 4:02 pm
#26
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
I am all for airlines paying their fare share when they screw up but this is excessive to put it politely! Even in the EU, a litigious and highly regulated air travel market, this type of compensation would not fly (i.e. would be capped at the 600 EUR/pax statutory maximum). Presumably the IATA/ICAO conventions will protect the airlines here. No doubt the passenger rights warriors (who shall remain nameless) will be partying in the streets this weekend from this announcement.
If there's one thing that we should take away from the story it's this: there should be an international compensation scheme that supersedes all national/regional compensation schemes for things like IDB/VDB/MX and WX related issues. In particular, there should be no reason why pax should have to cover hotel when their forced to overnight due to WX/MX on an international flight. There is no reason why MX and delays within the airlines control should receive some type of in-kind compensation (i.e. $100 ETC). They're already doing this in the EU, and the airlines there have managed to not only survive, but thrive in way more competitive markets (i.e. RyanAir and EasyJet).
Just a thought!
Safe Travels,
James
If there's one thing that we should take away from the story it's this: there should be an international compensation scheme that supersedes all national/regional compensation schemes for things like IDB/VDB/MX and WX related issues. In particular, there should be no reason why pax should have to cover hotel when their forced to overnight due to WX/MX on an international flight. There is no reason why MX and delays within the airlines control should receive some type of in-kind compensation (i.e. $100 ETC). They're already doing this in the EU, and the airlines there have managed to not only survive, but thrive in way more competitive markets (i.e. RyanAir and EasyJet).
Just a thought!
Safe Travels,
James
Sep 7, 2018, 4:06 pm
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
No need to worry. This is exactly why the Montreal Convention exists and why India is a signatory.
Lets some numpty local consumer official go off the rails and it all gets fixed at more senior levels when the adults become involved.
Lets some numpty local consumer official go off the rails and it all gets fixed at more senior levels when the adults become involved.
Sep 7, 2018, 4:17 pm
#28
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC 50k 1MM, Marriott LT Titanium Elite
Posts: 3,400
I don't think there is a perfect solution for determining if the medical reason is valid or not. It's all about doing the best effort giving the limited time and resource. Front line employees are not certified medical professionals, so they can make wrong judgement. However, it's not realistic to have medical professionals stationed at the airport to assess each individual passenger either, unless there is a real emergency situation (for example, SARS, H5N1).
I agree that most of the time coughing, vomiting, or even fever are not an issue, but there are many flu outbreaks happening right now, and many flights are grounded upon landing this week due to medical concerns, so IMO it's perfectly reasonable for crew to offload them in this incident.
As for getting help after offloading, even getting help at YYZ/YVR can be very challenging sometime. Most of the agents are not willing, or not capable of doing something complicated, I usually have to try concierge.
I agree that most of the time coughing, vomiting, or even fever are not an issue, but there are many flu outbreaks happening right now, and many flights are grounded upon landing this week due to medical concerns, so IMO it's perfectly reasonable for crew to offload them in this incident.
As for getting help after offloading, even getting help at YYZ/YVR can be very challenging sometime. Most of the agents are not willing, or not capable of doing something complicated, I usually have to try concierge.
For just the reasons you cited: how are they to know?
I personally think that if that is true, it is not smart. What if the person has clear and obvious signs of ebola? (Just to pick an extreme, substitute measles or something similar if you like.)
Sep 7, 2018, 4:42 pm
#29
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE100K, Bonvoy Platinum Elite, IHG Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 2,132
I would also like to not fly with sick people. In this instance the complainant claims and the court agrees that the child threw up because of the smell from the closed washroom and was not actually 'sick'. And most of the judgement also revolved around treatment of the passengers - berated the child, off loaded them without providing any service like food/water/accomodation and sending their bags to TO without the pax. The fine was levied jointly on Jet/AC because it was a codeshare. More details here.
Sep 7, 2018, 4:47 pm
#30
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
-James