Refused transport because of 8.5lb dog... why?
Apr 13, 2019, 2:46 pm
#16
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: YVR
Programs: UA Premier Platinum
Posts: 3,759
Agreed that resolution with the airline should be sought before going to court so as not to unduly burden the legal system, but in this case OP indicated that has been done already and the response hasn't been satisfactory.
Apr 13, 2019, 3:37 pm
#17
Join Date: Oct 2016
Programs: DL Gold, AA Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 253
Any thoughts or tips would be appreciated as to any other speculation why we would be offloaded (passenger with allergies on board? Too many pets on board?)
I do plan to pursue them in small claims as AC has said they are refunding our tickets ONLY as a goodwill gesture and ultimately I did not follow their policy.
I do plan to pursue them in small claims as AC has said they are refunding our tickets ONLY as a goodwill gesture and ultimately I did not follow their policy.
IANAL, but if I were you I would not accept the refund/cash the check/accept the debit to your credit card. Wouldn't a court say you accepted their offer and that's that?
Apr 13, 2019, 4:29 pm
#18
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: IN, US
Programs: Mariott SE, HH, SPG SE, LT S, 9W BP
Posts: 63
This is terrible. Please sue these guys and let us know how it goes. I had a somewhat similar experience with an LCC recently. I believe one should not let terrible service go, its a disservice to others.
Apr 13, 2019, 6:13 pm
#20
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: 100,413
I'd look at flightaware and flightstats to see whether there was an aircraft change and to capture your flight's departure and arrival times. I suspect it's too late to see the seat map on any publicly available source to check whether all seats were officially occupied. An AC insider has access to such information, especially if not much time has elapsed, so with any luck someone who participates here might be able to confirm to you that the flight was oversold and/or completely full at departure.
It's too bad that your parents didn't verify that the flight was completely full, although if you file a complaint with a regulatory agency or file in small claims court, AC could be forced to say whether the flight was full, oversold, carried some nonrevs, etc. Given the way AC behaved, I wonder whether they were trying to make sure that some of their own friends and family were able to get space on the flight. It might be interesting to know something about the last two passengers who were boarded.
Can we assume that you didn't observe any other IDBs or VDBs at the gate? Were you aware of any standby passengers being given seats, either before or after you were denied boarding? Did there seem to be some standbys who were not able to get seats?
It's too bad that your parents didn't verify that the flight was completely full, although if you file a complaint with a regulatory agency or file in small claims court, AC could be forced to say whether the flight was full, oversold, carried some nonrevs, etc. Given the way AC behaved, I wonder whether they were trying to make sure that some of their own friends and family were able to get space on the flight. It might be interesting to know something about the last two passengers who were boarded.
Can we assume that you didn't observe any other IDBs or VDBs at the gate? Were you aware of any standby passengers being given seats, either before or after you were denied boarding? Did there seem to be some standbys who were not able to get seats?
Apr 13, 2019, 10:02 pm
#21
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,920
There are two red flags;
i. The denied boarding of the spouse and,
ii. The use of security.
The likelihood of overbooking has already been discussed, but the manner in which security was deployed was inappropriate. A pax denied boarding is not summarily removed from a terminal using security. Refer to the ongoing denied boarding thread and see if anyone mentions being escorted out of the terminal. A non threatening pax must be allowed an opportunity to approach other airlines to secure an alternative flight, or to use a telephone or a washroom etc. This means that in the absence of a threat, an immediate escort out of the terminal is not appropriate.
I do not believe that AC will admit to any wrongdoing nor will it be quick to offer appropriate compensation. The only option here is public shaming through the media. The OP says she was contacted by two media outlets, but is camera shy. Well golly gee, how did the media outlets discover this event then? There isn't much "camera" work involved with a CBC article. Usually, it is the granting of the right to name and quote and perhaps a photo of the implicated critter. I suggest that the OP has a civic duty to say something public that might help prevent a repeat of the event. The next time might involve an elderly or mentally fragile person who suffers emotional or indirect physical trauma (and no I am not being sarcastic, as the events described were downright nasty). My sympathies to the OP on this event.
i. The denied boarding of the spouse and,
ii. The use of security.
The likelihood of overbooking has already been discussed, but the manner in which security was deployed was inappropriate. A pax denied boarding is not summarily removed from a terminal using security. Refer to the ongoing denied boarding thread and see if anyone mentions being escorted out of the terminal. A non threatening pax must be allowed an opportunity to approach other airlines to secure an alternative flight, or to use a telephone or a washroom etc. This means that in the absence of a threat, an immediate escort out of the terminal is not appropriate.
I do not believe that AC will admit to any wrongdoing nor will it be quick to offer appropriate compensation. The only option here is public shaming through the media. The OP says she was contacted by two media outlets, but is camera shy. Well golly gee, how did the media outlets discover this event then? There isn't much "camera" work involved with a CBC article. Usually, it is the granting of the right to name and quote and perhaps a photo of the implicated critter. I suggest that the OP has a civic duty to say something public that might help prevent a repeat of the event. The next time might involve an elderly or mentally fragile person who suffers emotional or indirect physical trauma (and no I am not being sarcastic, as the events described were downright nasty). My sympathies to the OP on this event.
Apr 13, 2019, 10:06 pm
#22
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: SFO/YYZ
Programs: AC 25K, AS MVP Gold, BA Bronze, UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 2,470
OP I personally think you will get compensated faster by going to the media than in small claims court, although you can obviously do both but I would not toss away the media option even if you're camera shy. You'll also potentially prevent a repeat of such an incident for someone in the future.
Apr 13, 2019, 11:34 pm
#23
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7
OP I personally think you will get compensated faster by going to the media than in small claims court, although you can obviously do both but I would not toss away the media option even if you're camera shy. You'll also potentially prevent a repeat of such an incident for someone in the future.
Apr 14, 2019, 1:06 am
#25
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Programs: Miles and More
Posts: 16
This is the reason why I stopped flying with my dog in cabin, she always goes in cargo hold. The rules state, that the dog needs to be able to stand up fully (holding head up) and turn around in the carrier. The 'holding head up' eliminates most of the dogs, even the ones under the weight limit. Just like you, I've taken numerous flights with my pet in cabin, even though my dog couldn't really stand up fully (I have a 14 pound westie) and nobody cared. But my fear of bumping into some super-strickt-by-the-book gate agents won, and now it's cargo all the way.
Can your dog stand in the carrier while holding it's head high?
Can your dog stand in the carrier while holding it's head high?
Apr 14, 2019, 6:56 am
#26
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 698
This is the reason why I stopped flying with my dog in cabin, she always goes in cargo hold. The rules state, that the dog needs to be able to stand up fully (holding head up) and turn around in the carrier. The 'holding head up' eliminates most of the dogs, even the ones under the weight limit. Just like you, I've taken numerous flights with my pet in cabin, even though my dog couldn't really stand up fully (I have a 14 pound westie) and nobody cared. But my fear of bumping into some super-strickt-by-the-book gate agents won, and now it's cargo all the way.
Can your dog stand in the carrier while holding it's head high?
Can your dog stand in the carrier while holding it's head high?
there are stats by airline i believe on how many die per year
Apr 14, 2019, 7:33 am
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,344
In a situation like this, if you took your phone out and started recording it (video and/or audio) would you be within your rights to do so or could the agent say stop recording me? I know Google will have the answer but wondered what people would likely do in this situation too.
Apr 14, 2019, 10:09 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
There are two red flags;
i. The denied boarding of the spouse and,
ii. The use of security.
The likelihood of overbooking has already been discussed, but the manner in which security was deployed was inappropriate. A pax denied boarding is not summarily removed from a terminal using security. Refer to the ongoing denied boarding thread and see if anyone mentions being escorted out of the terminal. A non threatening pax must be allowed an opportunity to approach other airlines to secure an alternative flight, or to use a telephone or a washroom etc. This means that in the absence of a threat, an immediate escort out of the terminal is not appropriate.
i. The denied boarding of the spouse and,
ii. The use of security.
The likelihood of overbooking has already been discussed, but the manner in which security was deployed was inappropriate. A pax denied boarding is not summarily removed from a terminal using security. Refer to the ongoing denied boarding thread and see if anyone mentions being escorted out of the terminal. A non threatening pax must be allowed an opportunity to approach other airlines to secure an alternative flight, or to use a telephone or a washroom etc. This means that in the absence of a threat, an immediate escort out of the terminal is not appropriate.
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.