CBC Article - Mom, daughter kicked off Air Canada plane, not told they're banned
#61
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
Quoting the quoted quote "needed the seat for the child" isn't "has this seat assigned for the child". Or how big the child was. Maybe they mean "baby", who doesn't get a seat assignment at all, paid or free.
In any case, PAX decided to solve the own problem without engaging the crew. And when the crew did their job by attempting to resolve the inevitable follow on problem PAX refused to comply, and indeed, further involved themselves in tangental problems.
Air Canada has bilingual crew. There is little way to interpret someone reassigning their seats and attempting to "translate" as the root of the problem and an additional problem.
#62
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 968
Since the mother had the aisle seat and Paun had the middle seat right beside her, I suspect the child was a lap child. There is no such thing as free seat assignment for lap children.
#63
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,916
I have used the lav probably a dozen times before takeoff, always when I'm positioned so I don't have to go against the flow of traffic. Once or twice I've been told it's not allowed. This is another one of those made-up rules to suit the FA's convenience. What they want you to do when you board is sit down and shut up ASAP so they can get going on time.
#64
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 968
Talking about lap children and arguing with FA's reminded me of my niece's experience on KL. It happened 8 years ago. She was traveling to the old country on KL with her son who was just under 2 years old. She doesn't like the lap child thing, so she booked a seat for him. After they boarded the MD-11 at YYZ and settled into their seats, the FA shows up ordering her to take the boy to her lap as they need the seat. She refused arguing she paid for the seat. The FA was insistent and eventually called the purser. When the purser arrived, my niece already had the paperwork proving she paid for the seat ready. She changed her tactic too and offered to sell the seat back for some crazy sum. The purser eventually gave up. The funny part is that KL later really liked the picture showing the MD-11 wing with KLM logo on the winglet she posted on FB.
I wonder how would this ACR crew handle her situation and if they'd order her out from the aircraft.
I wonder how would this ACR crew handle her situation and if they'd order her out from the aircraft.
Last edited by WildcatYXU; Aug 16, 2019 at 7:36 pm
#65
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Of course that's possible. But really the picture that is emerging is that boarding had more or less turned into a disorganized free for all, with quite a few people disregarding seat assignments. Forgetting they were not flying a Romanian airline perhaps? :-) Anyway, the situation must have been challenging for the crew and I could see that in order to control the mess, they went after these guys, who might have been among the loudest or most aggressive offenders. Who because they were not the only ones disregarding the rules may have felt they were not in the wrong and that they were singled out unfairly,
#67
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 968
Of course that's possible. But really the picture that is emerging is that boarding had more or less turned into a disorganized free for all, with quite a few people disregarding seat assignments. Forgetting they were not flying a Romanian airline perhaps? :-) Anyway, the situation must have been challenging for the crew and I could see that in order to control the mess, they went after these guys, who might have been among the loudest or most aggressive offenders. Who because they were not the only ones disregarding the rules may have felt they were not in the wrong and that they were singled out unfairly,
What I have a problem with is episode two. AC bans the passengers and notifies them by letter. Sent to their home address while they are in Europe. (Honestly, this part alone is a definition of idiocy. Do we really want to fly with an outfit capable of this?) And then when the passengers purchase a ticket through AC's partner, they deny them boarding. And then AC simply says they have no way to flag customers in their system. If not, why there is no grace period on a ban where a customer is notified by snail mail and has no chance to know about it?
Whichever way I look at it, AC sold via their partner a service it was not intending to fulfill. I don't care they have no way to identify banned customers in their electronic booking environment. It is a technical problem and it is AC's problem. Therefore as I see it AC simply committed a fraud
#70
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
Found this while reading the comments on the article on reddit, but appears the daughter involved made a (now deleted) post on reddit prior to it making the news cycle:
Still, I agree with the rest of your comments. She got involved in too much of the FA's business. I'd suggest that's down to a lack of experience rather than any malicious intent worthy of an outright ban.
#71
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
You know Stranger, you may be right. And I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that the travelers caused a disruption and they were rightfully removed from the flight. Now, I'm not sure what does the CoC and the law say about the unused fare. Is it forfeit? Is it not? But honestly, I don't care about this part of the story. The passengers screwed up and lost. End of the first episode.
What I have a problem with is episode two. AC bans the passengers and notifies them by letter. Sent to their home address while they are in Europe. (Honestly, this part alone is a definition of idiocy. Do we really want to fly with an outfit capable of this?) And then when the passengers purchase a ticket through AC's partner, they deny them boarding. And then AC simply says they have no way to flag customers in their system. If not, why there is no grace period on a ban where a customer is notified by snail mail and has no chance to know about it?
Whichever way I look at it, AC sold via their partner a service it was not intending to fulfill. I don't care they have no way to identify banned customers in their electronic booking environment. It is a technical problem and it is AC's problem. Therefore as I see it AC simply committed a fraud
What I have a problem with is episode two. AC bans the passengers and notifies them by letter. Sent to their home address while they are in Europe. (Honestly, this part alone is a definition of idiocy. Do we really want to fly with an outfit capable of this?) And then when the passengers purchase a ticket through AC's partner, they deny them boarding. And then AC simply says they have no way to flag customers in their system. If not, why there is no grace period on a ban where a customer is notified by snail mail and has no chance to know about it?
Whichever way I look at it, AC sold via their partner a service it was not intending to fulfill. I don't care they have no way to identify banned customers in their electronic booking environment. It is a technical problem and it is AC's problem. Therefore as I see it AC simply committed a fraud
Air Canada doesn't have the ability to ban "a name" from reserving something on their system without also banning several thousand John Smiths at any given moment. There is no unique identity required until check-in, and arguably, not even then.
The FAs and GAs (if there was any GA involvement) would likely not know the outcome of some sober (ha!) corporate security decision. Should the GAs have the ability and authority to ban PAX for "a few days"? Perhaps. Should they have told them if they did? For sure.
For comparison sake, and not that I've been kicked out of a bar since slightly before I was 19, you don't go back there. For sure not the same night.
#72
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
That's a very unfavourable reading of the woman's comments. And the bolded bit is outright false: "Turns out, one of the men was in the wrong seat and my seat was his seat. So I said ok I will move but where, since there is a child in my seat." She offered to move -- once her mom came back from the lav -- and the man definitely didn't want his assigned seat: "the man who was supposed to be in my seat did not want to take his seat (the one I’m in) because it’s a middle seat"
"OK, I'll move" and then not moving, isn't complying.
This situation sounds like a selfish noob obstinate busybody well deserved in her comeuppance.
#73
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: No single airline or hotel chain is of much use to me anymore.
Posts: 3,279
What I have a problem with is episode two. AC bans the passengers and notifies them by letter. Sent to their home address while they are in Europe. (Honestly, this part alone is a definition of idiocy. Do we really want to fly with an outfit capable of this?) And then when the passengers purchase a ticket through AC's partner, they deny them boarding. And then AC simply says they have no way to flag customers in their system. If not, why there is no grace period on a ban where a customer is notified by snail mail and has no chance to know about it?
#74
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
#75
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569