CBC Article - Mom, daughter kicked off Air Canada plane, not told they're banned
Aug 17, 2019, 4:31 pm
#91
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
I just read the actual CBC article. The "child" in this case turns out to be a 22 year old woman. The term child is being used only to signify the relationship to the other pax, but it seems people are making other assumptions about the individuals as a result of this wording.
Aug 17, 2019, 4:34 pm
#92
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
I just read the actual CBC article. The "child" in this case turns out to be a 22 year old woman. The term child is being used only to signify the relationship to the other pax, but it seems people are making other assumptions about the individuals as a result of this wording.
That's the daughter, right? The child was sitting in her seat I believe.
Aug 17, 2019, 5:00 pm
#93
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 just read the actual CBC article. The "child" in this case turns out to be a 22 year old woman. The term child is being used only to signify the relationship to the other pax, but it seems people are making other assumptions about the individuals as a result of this wording.
The mess started when there was a child sitting in the daughter's seat when the mother and daughter boarded. AFAIK there's only a single FA in the story, and no SD/purser, captain, or GA.
IMO the daughter comes off as a well meaning but inexperienced traveler. She got to her seat, a child was occupying it, and the child's mother said it was needed for the child. So duaghter, not really knowing what to do, goes up to mother (rather than finding a FA, who might not have been visible if the aisles were clogged with people boarding and stowing bags). Boarding might look like it's close to finished since it's already after scheduled departure time, so (again, with no FA nearby and no FA consulted) daughter just takes the empty seat next to mother, at least on a temporary basis. Mother goes to restroom.
Next French speaking businessmen board (I think there was a group of them traveling together, but it seems strange that one was assigned a lesser seat in the following row so maybe they were strangers), and one takes a seat in the row immediately in front of mother and daughter rather than the less desirable assigned seat which is now occupied by daughter. For some reason FA checks boarding passes of the French speaking businessmen in the row just ahead of mother's seat, and one of them belongs in daughter's seat. However, he resists moving and FA apparently doesn't speak French.
Daughter helpfully offers to translate (what's so terrible about that?) and FA becomes furious. FA orders daughter to return to assigned seat but daughter (logically IMO but this might not have been communicated well) points out that her own seat is occupied. Daughter wants to avoid being sent to some other seat without telling mother where the daughter is moving, which again seems pretty reasonable to me. FA gets impatient/angry. Daughter retrieves mother from restroom and before the seat assignment problems are attempted to be solved, both are kicked off the flight.
Yeah, probably mother and daughter would prefer to sit together, daughter would prefer to sit further forward, or daughter doesn't want to sit next to a lap kid (if the child in daughter's assigned seat was indeed a lap infant not entitled to a seat), but to me the behavior described here seems fairly reasonable except for the French speaking business guy flatly refusing to move back to his assigned seat. The daughter cannot sit on top of the child sitting in her assigned seat and the FA offered no alternative or didn't tell the daughter how to solve the problem. Maybe the FA just didn't listen when daughter said that her assigned seat was occupied.
To me, the entire incident just seems like a horrendous overreaction on the part of the FA. Refusing to carry mother and/or daughter and then calling the cops just seems over the top. Then AC dug in its heels and proceeded to issue the travel ban without even attempting to reasonably notify either customer than they cannot use any AC flight to travel home.
My impression from various incidents seems to be that unless there's violence, significant destruction of property, or a forced diversion, SOP for a "first incident offense" across airlines tends to be to permit the customer to be rebooked to take another flight with different crew, sometimes after a cooling off period (for instance, if the person appears to be drunk). Police should not be called to sort out customer service issues.
Of course we haven't heard much from the other side and no witnesses or videos have come forward, but I'm inclined to be sympathetic based on what we *know* now.
IMO the daughter comes off as a well meaning but inexperienced traveler. She got to her seat, a child was occupying it, and the child's mother said it was needed for the child. So duaghter, not really knowing what to do, goes up to mother (rather than finding a FA, who might not have been visible if the aisles were clogged with people boarding and stowing bags). Boarding might look like it's close to finished since it's already after scheduled departure time, so (again, with no FA nearby and no FA consulted) daughter just takes the empty seat next to mother, at least on a temporary basis. Mother goes to restroom.
Next French speaking businessmen board (I think there was a group of them traveling together, but it seems strange that one was assigned a lesser seat in the following row so maybe they were strangers), and one takes a seat in the row immediately in front of mother and daughter rather than the less desirable assigned seat which is now occupied by daughter. For some reason FA checks boarding passes of the French speaking businessmen in the row just ahead of mother's seat, and one of them belongs in daughter's seat. However, he resists moving and FA apparently doesn't speak French.
Daughter helpfully offers to translate (what's so terrible about that?) and FA becomes furious. FA orders daughter to return to assigned seat but daughter (logically IMO but this might not have been communicated well) points out that her own seat is occupied. Daughter wants to avoid being sent to some other seat without telling mother where the daughter is moving, which again seems pretty reasonable to me. FA gets impatient/angry. Daughter retrieves mother from restroom and before the seat assignment problems are attempted to be solved, both are kicked off the flight.
Yeah, probably mother and daughter would prefer to sit together, daughter would prefer to sit further forward, or daughter doesn't want to sit next to a lap kid (if the child in daughter's assigned seat was indeed a lap infant not entitled to a seat), but to me the behavior described here seems fairly reasonable except for the French speaking business guy flatly refusing to move back to his assigned seat. The daughter cannot sit on top of the child sitting in her assigned seat and the FA offered no alternative or didn't tell the daughter how to solve the problem. Maybe the FA just didn't listen when daughter said that her assigned seat was occupied.
To me, the entire incident just seems like a horrendous overreaction on the part of the FA. Refusing to carry mother and/or daughter and then calling the cops just seems over the top. Then AC dug in its heels and proceeded to issue the travel ban without even attempting to reasonably notify either customer than they cannot use any AC flight to travel home.
My impression from various incidents seems to be that unless there's violence, significant destruction of property, or a forced diversion, SOP for a "first incident offense" across airlines tends to be to permit the customer to be rebooked to take another flight with different crew, sometimes after a cooling off period (for instance, if the person appears to be drunk). Police should not be called to sort out customer service issues.
Of course we haven't heard much from the other side and no witnesses or videos have come forward, but I'm inclined to be sympathetic based on what we *know* now.
Last edited by MSPeconomist; Aug 17, 2019 at 5:05 pm
Aug 17, 2019, 5:14 pm
#94
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: IHG Gold
Posts: 4,820
My guess is the mother's interaction with staff is the wild card here....the "do not pass go" card as it were.
Aug 17, 2019, 5:20 pm
#95
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
Tiger mom defending her (young adult) young?
She might not have appreciated being told to return from the lavatory in the middle of "number two" (but that's almost the least credible part of the daughter's story, as what mother would give this form of too much information to their own adult kid?).
She might not have appreciated being told to return from the lavatory in the middle of "number two" (but that's almost the least credible part of the daughter's story, as what mother would give this form of too much information to their own adult kid?).
Aug 17, 2019, 5:51 pm
#96
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50k, A3*G, UA*S, MR Titanium, HHonors Gold, Carlson Gold, NEXUS
Posts: 3,669
I mean, it doesn't take a genius to know that if someone's spending >2 mins in the bathroom, they're probably not urinating.
Aug 17, 2019, 6:06 pm
#97
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Police would not be called without the captain being involved.
Police should not be called to sort out customer service issues.
Police should not be called to sort out customer service issues.
And in all likelihood it was not for that sort of reason, but because of stuff we have not heard off. BTW wasn't there some report that they used inappropriate language with the FA?
Aug 17, 2019, 6:40 pm
#98
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
But that sort of situation is not supposed to happen, the gate agent scans the boarding pass and surely his/her computer will react violently if someone tries boarding the wrong flight... Really would entail the gate agent not doing things right. Just like not pulling a coupon. Which probably would not have happened in that scenario. More typical of two people with same seat assignment is that one of them has been upgraded or moved to another seat after boarding.
also you can always print BP, change seats, reprint BP etc...
Aug 17, 2019, 6:44 pm
#99
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
Aug 17, 2019, 8:17 pm
#102
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
The daughter's assigned seat was occupied, which is what started the whole mess. Presumably she would have been told to take some other seat on the aircraft, mother returns from lavatory, and doesn't know where she is or even if she's still on the flight as the doors close. I can imagine a considerate young adult daughter (especially if a relatively inexperienced traveler) wanting to avoid this situation. Think of the people who stress out about whether the entire family can board together.
Aug 17, 2019, 9:17 pm
#103
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
The daughter's assigned seat was occupied, which is what started the whole mess. Presumably she would have been told to take some other seat on the aircraft, mother returns from lavatory, and doesn't know where she is or even if she's still on the flight as the doors close. I can imagine a considerate young adult daughter (especially if a relatively inexperienced traveler) wanting to avoid this situation. Think of the people who stress out about whether the entire family can board together.
The mother knew the daughter had already change seats (inappropriately). It doesn't take much reason to understand why ones companion who changes seats isn't there when you get back from the lav. And this was an aircraft, not the Queen Mary. Who can't see a few rows away?
Aug 18, 2019, 12:37 am
#104
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
The mess started when there was a child sitting in the daughter's seat when the mother and daughter boarded. AFAIK there's only a single FA in the story, and no SD/purser, captain, or GA.
IMO the daughter comes off as a well meaning but inexperienced traveler. She got to her seat, a child was occupying it, and the child's mother said it was needed for the child. So duaghter, not really knowing what to do, goes up to mother (rather than finding a FA, who might not have been visible if the aisles were clogged with people boarding and stowing bags). Boarding might look like it's close to finished since it's already after scheduled departure time, so (again, with no FA nearby and no FA consulted) daughter just takes the empty seat next to mother, at least on a temporary basis. Mother goes to restroom.
Next French speaking businessmen board (I think there was a group of them traveling together, but it seems strange that one was assigned a lesser seat in the following row so maybe they were strangers), and one takes a seat in the row immediately in front of mother and daughter rather than the less desirable assigned seat which is now occupied by daughter. For some reason FA checks boarding passes of the French speaking businessmen in the row just ahead of mother's seat, and one of them belongs in daughter's seat. However, he resists moving and FA apparently doesn't speak French.
Daughter helpfully offers to translate (what's so terrible about that?) and FA becomes furious. FA orders daughter to return to assigned seat but daughter (logically IMO but this might not have been communicated well) points out that her own seat is occupied. Daughter wants to avoid being sent to some other seat without telling mother where the daughter is moving, which again seems pretty reasonable to me. FA gets impatient/angry. Daughter retrieves mother from restroom and before the seat assignment problems are attempted to be solved, both are kicked off the flight.
Yeah, probably mother and daughter would prefer to sit together, daughter would prefer to sit further forward, or daughter doesn't want to sit next to a lap kid (if the child in daughter's assigned seat was indeed a lap infant not entitled to a seat), but to me the behavior described here seems fairly reasonable except for the French speaking business guy flatly refusing to move back to his assigned seat. The daughter cannot sit on top of the child sitting in her assigned seat and the FA offered no alternative or didn't tell the daughter how to solve the problem. Maybe the FA just didn't listen when daughter said that her assigned seat was occupied.
To me, the entire incident just seems like a horrendous overreaction on the part of the FA. Refusing to carry mother and/or daughter and then calling the cops just seems over the top. Then AC dug in its heels and proceeded to issue the travel ban without even attempting to reasonably notify either customer than they cannot use any AC flight to travel home.
My impression from various incidents seems to be that unless there's violence, significant destruction of property, or a forced diversion, SOP for a "first incident offense" across airlines tends to be to permit the customer to be rebooked to take another flight with different crew, sometimes after a cooling off period (for instance, if the person appears to be drunk). Police should not be called to sort out customer service issues.
Of course we haven't heard much from the other side and no witnesses or videos have come forward, but I'm inclined to be sympathetic based on what we *know* now.
IMO the daughter comes off as a well meaning but inexperienced traveler. She got to her seat, a child was occupying it, and the child's mother said it was needed for the child. So duaghter, not really knowing what to do, goes up to mother (rather than finding a FA, who might not have been visible if the aisles were clogged with people boarding and stowing bags). Boarding might look like it's close to finished since it's already after scheduled departure time, so (again, with no FA nearby and no FA consulted) daughter just takes the empty seat next to mother, at least on a temporary basis. Mother goes to restroom.
Next French speaking businessmen board (I think there was a group of them traveling together, but it seems strange that one was assigned a lesser seat in the following row so maybe they were strangers), and one takes a seat in the row immediately in front of mother and daughter rather than the less desirable assigned seat which is now occupied by daughter. For some reason FA checks boarding passes of the French speaking businessmen in the row just ahead of mother's seat, and one of them belongs in daughter's seat. However, he resists moving and FA apparently doesn't speak French.
Daughter helpfully offers to translate (what's so terrible about that?) and FA becomes furious. FA orders daughter to return to assigned seat but daughter (logically IMO but this might not have been communicated well) points out that her own seat is occupied. Daughter wants to avoid being sent to some other seat without telling mother where the daughter is moving, which again seems pretty reasonable to me. FA gets impatient/angry. Daughter retrieves mother from restroom and before the seat assignment problems are attempted to be solved, both are kicked off the flight.
Yeah, probably mother and daughter would prefer to sit together, daughter would prefer to sit further forward, or daughter doesn't want to sit next to a lap kid (if the child in daughter's assigned seat was indeed a lap infant not entitled to a seat), but to me the behavior described here seems fairly reasonable except for the French speaking business guy flatly refusing to move back to his assigned seat. The daughter cannot sit on top of the child sitting in her assigned seat and the FA offered no alternative or didn't tell the daughter how to solve the problem. Maybe the FA just didn't listen when daughter said that her assigned seat was occupied.
To me, the entire incident just seems like a horrendous overreaction on the part of the FA. Refusing to carry mother and/or daughter and then calling the cops just seems over the top. Then AC dug in its heels and proceeded to issue the travel ban without even attempting to reasonably notify either customer than they cannot use any AC flight to travel home.
My impression from various incidents seems to be that unless there's violence, significant destruction of property, or a forced diversion, SOP for a "first incident offense" across airlines tends to be to permit the customer to be rebooked to take another flight with different crew, sometimes after a cooling off period (for instance, if the person appears to be drunk). Police should not be called to sort out customer service issues.
Of course we haven't heard much from the other side and no witnesses or videos have come forward, but I'm inclined to be sympathetic based on what we *know* now.
So in an attempt to over simplify things.
This is an aircraft operated by the leisure division of the airline going to a predominantly leisure (visit friends and family) destination. Basically an aircraft with a high percentage on non-frequent fliers traveling with kids, and relatives to a destination where English is not he primary language.
As long as there are more seats than passengers this should be solved by the flight crew just say "Everyone just site down we are all going to the same place. If there is a problem with the seat your in, let me know and we will sort this out.".
Aug 18, 2019, 3:35 am
#105
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, Bonvoy Life Plat
Posts: 2,803
I'll assume you meant before doors are closed, takeoff irrelevant. I think if you meant the cabin doors are closed, and flight is between gate and takeoff, the answer to question is self evident.
Edit: read to the Reddit post and it makes a lot more sense now.
Last edited by DrunkCargo; Aug 18, 2019 at 3:49 am