Refused transport because of 8.5lb dog... why?
Apr 14, 2019, 5:03 pm
#46
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
Without any value judgment to the rest of the story, the carrier being allowed (even "guaranteed") aboard and a particular animal being allowed in the carrier are different things.
You should be prepared to address that.
You should be prepared to address that.
Apr 14, 2019, 5:26 pm
#47
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 492
I’m too new to post a link but if you click the link the above posted (to Sherpa) and then click “Frequently asked questions” at the top of their page it shows you that they measure pets from ground to shoulder. That seems to be the consensus on how they are measured (as it’s not fair to just rely on a manufacturer on this information).
So given that info - if ground to shoulder is 10inches or less in height (and the rest of the dimensions / weight are applicable) then the medium carrier would be the most adequate. The carrier dimensions are above (I have the medium size). I don’t know if that includes the capability for expansion along the top part of the bag that allows at least another 0.5 inch with gentle pressure.
Whisky is: 8.5 lbs (+/- a few oz based on the time of day)
Height from floor to shoulder: approx (a generous) 6 inches
**the Shih Tzu as per the AKC are generally 9-16 lbs & 9-10.5 inches in height.
I understand what you are saying tho- because on IATA they only list recommendations for the hard sided carriers.
I suspect AC will follow IATA although their website is vague as to how one ascertains how much room is needed to stand and turn around.
Apr 14, 2019, 5:42 pm
#48
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Programs: AC SE100K, F9 100k, NK Gold, UA *S, Hyatt Glob, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 5,195
I don't own a dog or have a dog in this fight (pun intended), but random thoughts here:
-OP was doing fellow travelers and even AC's revenue management department a SOLID by paying the pet fee instead of claiming an uncaged false service/emotional support animal.
-Curious if a vet would recommend a dog be in a cargo in a cage or in a somewhat restricted soft sided carrier?
-Flight from YYZ-YQB. Really. Not like it is a transcon flight length. .
-Is it a double standard that on many AC or AC Rouge flights, humans do not have sufficient room to stand tall or to turn around in their seat?
I've seen some folks travel with light dogs with puffy fur, that overstuff/occupy 95%+ of the volume of the carrier. It sounds like OP's photos would show something similar. Sounds like this is what AC's official policy tries to avoid, so I think AC did OP a solid by doing the "exceptional refund." If AC gets bad press they will likely refund rental car fees while still backing their agent 100%. Just to make bad press go away.
-OP was doing fellow travelers and even AC's revenue management department a SOLID by paying the pet fee instead of claiming an uncaged false service/emotional support animal.
-Curious if a vet would recommend a dog be in a cargo in a cage or in a somewhat restricted soft sided carrier?
-Flight from YYZ-YQB. Really. Not like it is a transcon flight length. .
-Is it a double standard that on many AC or AC Rouge flights, humans do not have sufficient room to stand tall or to turn around in their seat?
I've seen some folks travel with light dogs with puffy fur, that overstuff/occupy 95%+ of the volume of the carrier. It sounds like OP's photos would show something similar. Sounds like this is what AC's official policy tries to avoid, so I think AC did OP a solid by doing the "exceptional refund." If AC gets bad press they will likely refund rental car fees while still backing their agent 100%. Just to make bad press go away.
Last edited by expert7700; Apr 15, 2019 at 9:40 am
Apr 14, 2019, 6:08 pm
#50
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: YYZ/YUL
Programs: UA 1K, AC nadda, DL, WS-Nadda
Posts: 1,476
Best people at CBC are [email protected] If you want to call they are based in the Vancouver newsroom.
Apr 14, 2019, 6:39 pm
#52
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,920
Remember, however, that we have only heard one side of the story. Call for security might also have occurred for valid reasons that the OP might have downplayed. I would not jump to conclusions either way at this point. It is possible that the agent was out of order, but if that was followed by an overheated discussion, regardless of which side was actually right, a call to security might be hard to brush off. Anyway, who knows.
This is also an ideal incident to bring forward because the OP has her incident documented, is calm and organized. She is doing this by the book, with a restrained response and the soliciting of advice from others with experience, as per the use of the husband's contacts for expertise. I look forward to her updates as this will certainly be an interesting case.
Apr 14, 2019, 7:32 pm
#53
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: YYZ
Posts: 57
My argument (this particular make of carrier aside) my carrier is within the limits if anything 0.5 inches short of it. My dog is within the limits (13 lbs smaller then the max - far thinner and about an inch shorter in height). Why wasn’t that taken into account when I had all the documents to prove this?
I don't own a dog or have a dog in this fight (pub intended), but random thoughts here:
-OP was doing fellow travelers and even AC's revenue management department a SOLID by paying the pet fee instead of claiming an uncaged false service/emotional support animal.
-Curious if a vet would recommend a dog be in a cargo in a cage or in a somewhat restricted soft sided carrier?
-Flight from YYZ-YQB. Really. Not like it is a transcon flight length. .
-Is it a double standard that on many AC or AC Rouge flights, humans do not have sufficient room to stand tall or to turn around in their seat?
I've seen some folks travel with light dogs with puffy fur, that overstuff/occupy 95%+ of the volume of the carrier. It sounds like OP's photos would show something similar. Sounds like this is what AC's official policy tries to avoid, so I think AC did OP a solid by doing the "exceptional refund." If AC gets bad press they will likely refund rental car fees while still backing their agent 100%. Just to make bad press go away.
-OP was doing fellow travelers and even AC's revenue management department a SOLID by paying the pet fee instead of claiming an uncaged false service/emotional support animal.
-Curious if a vet would recommend a dog be in a cargo in a cage or in a somewhat restricted soft sided carrier?
-Flight from YYZ-YQB. Really. Not like it is a transcon flight length. .
-Is it a double standard that on many AC or AC Rouge flights, humans do not have sufficient room to stand tall or to turn around in their seat?
I've seen some folks travel with light dogs with puffy fur, that overstuff/occupy 95%+ of the volume of the carrier. It sounds like OP's photos would show something similar. Sounds like this is what AC's official policy tries to avoid, so I think AC did OP a solid by doing the "exceptional refund." If AC gets bad press they will likely refund rental car fees while still backing their agent 100%. Just to make bad press go away.
I doubt my vet would recommend cargo VS cabin as this breed is actually banned from travelling in cargo on certain airlines (snub nose?).
We joked about that afterwards as well too- how Rouge is known to have such tight seats/legroom but all of a sudden they were so concerned about the dog for an hour. We were trying to find information on how much room is indeed available below the seat in front of you on Air Canada. I have a hard time believing it’s 11 inches across the board aside from the 777. There have been occasions my purses (tote style) have been pretty snug underneath there.
Yes, we only have one side. However, if the OP was as calm as she has indicated, I expect that the circumstances did not necessitate the presence of security. Also, the OP has provided a response from the security entity at the airport which supports her position. This is one of the reasons why I would like the events investigated.
This is also an ideal incident to bring forward because the OP has her incident documented, is calm and organized. She is doing this by the book, with a restrained response and the soliciting of advice from others with experience, as per the use of the husband's contacts for expertise. I look forward to her updates as this will certainly be an interesting case.
This is also an ideal incident to bring forward because the OP has her incident documented, is calm and organized. She is doing this by the book, with a restrained response and the soliciting of advice from others with experience, as per the use of the husband's contacts for expertise. I look forward to her updates as this will certainly be an interesting case.
I wanted to rule out that they would turn it against us which is why I wanted the information from YQB security. If anything- I questioned the GA’s decision by offering him all the documents I had and we requested to speak to a supervisor (this was a span of 10 minutes). I was very confident this could be worked out until I saw securities’ confusion and failed attempt to reason with him. I wonder as a manager how he deals with passengers who are actually aggressive?
Apr 14, 2019, 7:53 pm
#54
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: YYT
Programs: M-Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Aeroplan 50K, DragonPass, AMEX MR, NEXUS
Posts: 1,715
It seems the infamous Gabor Lukacs has arrived to save the day with this case! I could not help but notice the photo of a Shih Tzu on his Twitter page. @Blondie85 run away while you still can! He is not a very popular guy on FT, and I think I speak for all members when I say that.
Getting him involved in a dispute like this will only pour gasoline on the fire in terms of how AC will respond to your case (and you for that matter). I wish you well in fighting this all the same!
Getting him involved in a dispute like this will only pour gasoline on the fire in terms of how AC will respond to your case (and you for that matter). I wish you well in fighting this all the same!
Apr 14, 2019, 9:54 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
My husband has a firm he deals with for his business matters and contacted them on Monday. They were the ones who advised to wait 30 days before filing in small claims and to continue to find a resolution with AC directly as this would prove to the courts we exhausted our options with them. The person he spoke to forwarded us some emails addresses of the executive office. I heard back from AC last week. I will copy and paste the response below since I can’t screen shot/add attachments. I will have him check tomorrow if by accepting the refund we can no longer pursue Air Canada. My understanding is given the situation, that since we paid for a service and were denied a refund would be required?
As a practical matter, all judges would like to see the plaintiffs have worked to resolve the problems first before filing (i.e. making a legal demand), in order to prevent waste of judicial resources. But it does not mean a plaintiff has to compromise for a solution. Also - exhaustion of options is more like an administrative law aspect rather than civil litigation (because usually administrative law does not usually apply in civil litigation).
To make thing simple - in this case, assuming OP is asking for $3,000 from AC. AC is only willing to cough up $1,000. Then OP has done enough to file the case. OP needs not to further communicate with AC for a higher demand or else.
Also - unless specified by statutes, there is no such thing as a 30-day waiting period. Of course, I am not saying that you file a lawsuit 1 day after you sent the demand. But what it needs is a reasonable time frame for the another side to respond (which is where the 30-day comes from). Once responded, that reasonable time frame no longer exists and whoever sent the demand is free to do whatever needed as necessary.
Apr 14, 2019, 10:33 pm
#56
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: YYZ/YUL
Programs: UA 1K, AC nadda, DL, WS-Nadda
Posts: 1,476
It seems the infamous Gabor Lukacs has arrived to save the day with this case! I could not help but notice the photo of a Shih Tzu on his Twitter page. @Blondie85 run away while you still can! He is not a very popular guy on FT, and I think I speak for all members when I say that.
Getting him involved in a dispute like this will only pour gasoline on the fire in terms of how AC will respond to your case (and you for that matter). I wish you well in fighting this all the same!
Getting him involved in a dispute like this will only pour gasoline on the fire in terms of how AC will respond to your case (and you for that matter). I wish you well in fighting this all the same!
Apr 14, 2019, 11:17 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Apr 15, 2019, 4:08 am
#58
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 205
One worry I had was the argument brought forward by another poster, who I'm not sure if was trying to helpfully play the devil's advocate or something else. The GA may claim that in his view, it was "inhumane" to keep such an, objectively speaking, "big" dog in such an, again objectively speaking, "small" carrier. The OP seems to be a step ahead on this with her recording a video of the dog in the carrier, presumably in order to get a statement from the carrier manufacturer (a professional), and already she has statements from the vet (another professional), which will contradict any such claim from the GA (a power-tripping, obnoxious, non-professional). Never the less, the GA, and thus AC, may try to claim this as an excuse for not letting the dog on, in which case a good answer should be prepared.
Not sure what excuse they will attempt to use for denying boarding to husband and call security though. Maybe they will invent some story about the passengers acted threatening or something? Public media coverage may catch the notice of a few other passengers boarding the same flight, who may want to step forward to bear witness that passengers appeared calm and non-threatening all the time.
Also agree with other posts that OP seems like a prime case for beating some sense into AC, and hopefully that particular GA. Calm, collected, organised, and extremely well prepared. Even favourable mentioned by security. I find it hard to imagine a better passenger vs obnoxious gate agent case.
Apr 15, 2019, 4:22 am
#59
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 492
I think a public media shaming is likely to have a much more long-lasting and positive effect on AC's behaviour than some small claims suit. It also does not sound like the OP is out to make any sort of payday for herself here, so her self-professed media shyness aside, I suspect much more good will come from public media or consumer advocacy picking up this case.
One worry I had was the argument brought forward by another poster, who I'm not sure if was trying to helpfully play the devil's advocate or something else. The GA may claim that in his view, it was "inhumane" to keep such an, objectively speaking, "big" dog in such an, again objectively speaking, "small" carrier. The OP seems to be a step ahead on this with her recording a video of the dog in the carrier, presumably in order to get a statement from the carrier manufacturer (a professional), and already she has statements from the vet (another professional), which will contradict any such claim from the GA (a power-tripping, obnoxious, non-professional). Never the less, the GA, and thus AC, may try to claim this as an excuse for not letting the dog on, in which case a good answer should be prepared.
Not sure what excuse they will attempt to use for denying boarding to husband and call security though. Maybe they will invent some story about the passengers acted threatening or something? Public media coverage may catch the notice of a few other passengers boarding the same flight, who may want to step forward to bear witness that passengers appeared calm and non-threatening all the time.
Also agree with other posts that OP seems like a prime case for beating some sense into AC, and hopefully that particular GA. Calm, collected, organised, and extremely well prepared. Even favourable mentioned by security. I find it hard to imagine a better passenger vs obnoxious gate agent case.
One worry I had was the argument brought forward by another poster, who I'm not sure if was trying to helpfully play the devil's advocate or something else. The GA may claim that in his view, it was "inhumane" to keep such an, objectively speaking, "big" dog in such an, again objectively speaking, "small" carrier. The OP seems to be a step ahead on this with her recording a video of the dog in the carrier, presumably in order to get a statement from the carrier manufacturer (a professional), and already she has statements from the vet (another professional), which will contradict any such claim from the GA (a power-tripping, obnoxious, non-professional). Never the less, the GA, and thus AC, may try to claim this as an excuse for not letting the dog on, in which case a good answer should be prepared.
Not sure what excuse they will attempt to use for denying boarding to husband and call security though. Maybe they will invent some story about the passengers acted threatening or something? Public media coverage may catch the notice of a few other passengers boarding the same flight, who may want to step forward to bear witness that passengers appeared calm and non-threatening all the time.
Also agree with other posts that OP seems like a prime case for beating some sense into AC, and hopefully that particular GA. Calm, collected, organised, and extremely well prepared. Even favourable mentioned by security. I find it hard to imagine a better passenger vs obnoxious gate agent case.
I suspect that AirCanada could justify the decision not to accept the animal in that travelling cage because would most certainly be able to find somebody that would prove / atttest to the fact that the dog could not stand up with his head up. The fact that other gate agents or other airlines have not enforced that isn’t necessarily a defence. They would just argue were protecting the welfare of the animal
The lack of clarity on their website and the way that this was handled however is unforgivable especially when a family travelling together was split up and somebody was left stranded in an airport late at night, or even worse forcibly escorted out of the building.
That’s just really really bad management.
and - I think those rules are overkill for a short flight with a dog who is used to travelling In his travel carrier and is almost certainly perfectly happy. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t rules that AirCanada would default to to justify their position. Or indeed to deny boarding with an oversold plane or for some other reason it isn’t immediately apparent.Maybe someone saw the dog and advised they had allergies and GA decided to manage this way.
Last edited by lallied; Apr 15, 2019 at 4:28 am
Apr 15, 2019, 6:00 am
#60
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Programs: AC SE100K, F9 100k, NK Gold, UA *S, Hyatt Glob, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 5,195
It was YQB after all. The gate agents there ALWAYS follow policy. Except when they can deny Super Elites same day standby on qualifying tickets so that nonrevenue buddy pass/employee ticketholders are not inconvenienced.