CBC Article - Mom, daughter kicked off Air Canada plane, not told they're banned
Aug 19, 2019, 2:18 pm
#136
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: 44,342
As long as it's $0.50 cheaper, (or appears to be so) people will continue flying AC anyway. Except if banned of course... But back to the issue, in the current scenario until proven otherwsie I give the crew the benefit of the doubt. Even if initially the FA was wrong it's clear that the exchange escalated, the passengers were rude, to the point where the captain had to get involved. Otherwise the police would not have been called.
In both cases, the captain never left the flight deck, and based his decision entirely on the FA's word.
In one of those cases, I was the passenger, but the entire exchange started with me saying "I'm not feeling great and don't think I should fly", so I think getting the captain involved was unnecessary as I did not WANT to fly.
In the other case, the pax allegedly wouldn't obey crew instructions. But again, the captain just took the FA's word for it.
So don't assume the captain "got involved" beyond passing the message from the FA to the police.
Exactly.
Aug 19, 2019, 2:41 pm
#137
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
Boarding isn't musical chairs.
Aug 19, 2019, 2:48 pm
#138
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: IHG Gold
Posts: 4,820
"Someone's already sitting there" is a pretty good excuse in my books.
I've been on two flights where a captain decided someone would not be flying.
In both cases, the captain never left the flight deck, and based his decision entirely on the FA's word.
In one of those cases, I was the passenger, but the entire exchange started with me saying "I'm not feeling great and don't think I should fly", so I think getting the captain involved was unnecessary as I did not WANT to fly.
In the other case, the pax allegedly wouldn't obey crew instructions. But again, the captain just took the FA's word for it.
So don't assume the captain "got involved" beyond passing the message from the FA to the police.
I've been on two flights where a captain decided someone would not be flying.
In both cases, the captain never left the flight deck, and based his decision entirely on the FA's word.
In one of those cases, I was the passenger, but the entire exchange started with me saying "I'm not feeling great and don't think I should fly", so I think getting the captain involved was unnecessary as I did not WANT to fly.
In the other case, the pax allegedly wouldn't obey crew instructions. But again, the captain just took the FA's word for it.
So don't assume the captain "got involved" beyond passing the message from the FA to the police.
Aug 19, 2019, 2:51 pm
#139
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
Proper according to what rules? Please supply a source, ideally as part of the AC CoC, even though most customers never read it and inexperienced travelers might not even know that there is such a document? I don't think Emily Post ever offered an opinion on this situation.
Your rule, etiquette standard, or law--whichever it's supposed to be--would result in someone (in this case, the daughter) standing in the aisle and blocking it during the boarding process, which often isn't good and can tend to delay departure. She also would be moving her carry on items around once again, possibly for no reason.
Your rule, etiquette standard, or law--whichever it's supposed to be--would result in someone (in this case, the daughter) standing in the aisle and blocking it during the boarding process, which often isn't good and can tend to delay departure. She also would be moving her carry on items around once again, possibly for no reason.
Aug 19, 2019, 3:00 pm
#140
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: 44,342
My point is more that "the captain got involved" doesn't mean "an impartial peace officer made an impartial decision". It just means it was escalated, and the captain (obviously) backed the FA.
Aug 19, 2019, 3:13 pm
#141
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Plat, Hilton G,Nexus, Amex MR Plat,IHG Plat
Posts: 4,428
Sure, and I don't think I'd want the captain and the FAs disagreeing over stuff like this.
My point is more that "the captain got involved" doesn't mean "an impartial peace officer made an impartial decision". It just means it was escalated, and the captain (obviously) backed the FA.
My point is more that "the captain got involved" doesn't mean "an impartial peace officer made an impartial decision". It just means it was escalated, and the captain (obviously) backed the FA.
In this case seems like AC made the decision based on the word of the FA. I very much doubt that they could have done even a cursory investigation or read anything anyone would have sent in within 24 hrs.
Aug 19, 2019, 3:21 pm
#142
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
Sure, and I don't think I'd want the captain and the FAs disagreeing over stuff like this.
My point is more that "the captain got involved" doesn't mean "an impartial peace officer made an impartial decision". It just means it was escalated, and the captain (obviously) backed the FA.
My point is more that "the captain got involved" doesn't mean "an impartial peace officer made an impartial decision". It just means it was escalated, and the captain (obviously) backed the FA.
The decision to ban this family from future flights, is that a decision that captain can make? My guess is probably not, there is someone at HQ that likely reviews the reports from the field and makes that decision.
Aug 19, 2019, 3:22 pm
#143
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
To me, issuing a lifetime ban for two people based on (direct) information from one probably inexperienced FA is really over the top. The same holds for calling the cops, especially in some foreign country where dealings with police could be very different from standards in Canada.
Aug 19, 2019, 3:54 pm
#144
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: No single airline or hotel chain is of much use to me anymore.
Posts: 3,279
I can't find it now but years ago a pilot posted on FlyerTalk explaining why they really can't intervene in disputes between the cabin crew and passengers. It ultimately came down to the fact they have things to do during the boarding process and none of them include dispute resolution.
Aug 19, 2019, 4:06 pm
#145
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 can't find it now but years ago a pilot posted on FlyerTalk explaining why they really can't intervene in disputes between the cabin crew and passengers. It ultimately came down to the fact they have things to do during the boarding process and none of them include dispute resolution.
Sorry, but I think it's worth a couple minutes of pilot time before a customer is banned for life. It might not be very important to the employees (beyond the involved FA being able to gloat and reflect on how important she must be with all that power to use solely at her discretion), but it can be very significant for the passenger.
Aug 19, 2019, 4:38 pm
#146
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
And is a ban for life truly that?
Rumours are that some FTers have been banned for various bad acts, yet still seem to be flying. So can the ban be reversed?
Rumours are that some FTers have been banned for various bad acts, yet still seem to be flying. So can the ban be reversed?
Aug 19, 2019, 4:50 pm
#148
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: 44,342
Sign the undertaking, return it to AC, ban lifted.
Aug 19, 2019, 5:18 pm
#149
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
"Constantin and Paun can try to get their flying ban lifted by writing Air Canada and promising they won't behave badly again. Constantin said she won't be doing that because they have no future plans to fly with the airline."
Sign the undertaking, return it to AC, ban lifted.
Sign the undertaking, return it to AC, ban lifted.
Aug 19, 2019, 5:21 pm
#150
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
To me, issuing a lifetime ban for two people based on (direct) information from one probably inexperienced FA is really over the top. The same holds for calling the cops, especially in some foreign country where dealings with police could be very different from standards in Canada.
Would be over the top indeed. Which is precisely why I expect there has to be more to the story in addition to the one-sided fairy tale we heard so far.