Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

CBC Article - Mom, daughter kicked off Air Canada plane, not told they're banned

CBC Article - Mom, daughter kicked off Air Canada plane, not told they're banned

Old Aug 16, 19, 5:29 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: YGK
Posts: 18
CBC Article - Mom, daughter kicked off Air Canada plane, not told they're banned

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-...furt-1.5247640

Interesting that CBC said they couldn't verify what happened, even though the tone seems to side with the passengers.

Last edited by tfoxx76; Aug 16, 19 at 7:27 am
tfoxx76 is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 6:17 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Programs: AC MM E50 , Former SPG, now Marriott LT Plat
Posts: 5,295
Link goes to a story about RMB devaluation?

here is the correct link:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air...furt-1.5247640
IluvSQ is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 6:22 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: YOW
Programs: AC*SE100K BA-S HH-D IHG-Plat Accor-G MR-S
Posts: 3,480
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air...furt-1.5247640
Seat13F_AC_CRJ is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 6:22 am
  #4  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 48,708
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air...furt-1.5247640
tcook052 is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 8:03 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 3,182
For the denied boarding situation in FRA, Air Canada needs to pay EUR 600 in EC261/2004 compensation per passenger plus the costs of the OS replacement ticket.
The fact that LH issued the ticket, is irrelevant in terms of compensation and refund issues.
warakorn is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 8:13 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 2,574
Originally Posted by warakorn View Post
For the denied boarding situation in FRA, Air Canada needs to pay EUR 600 in EC261/2004 compensation per passenger plus the costs of the OS replacement ticket.
The fact that LH issued the ticket, is irrelevant in terms of compensation and refund issues.
Is that true if one is kicked off "for cause"?
RangerNS is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 8:16 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Programs: air miles
Posts: 198
These CBC articles are becoming cut and paste jobs. Every story reads the same. AC staff were rude, customer was co-operative and calm. Yet the AC staff felt it necessary to ban them? What's the other side of this story?
JustSomeGuy1978 is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 8:28 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AC SE*100K
Posts: 1,186
Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy1978 View Post
These CBC articles are becoming cut and paste jobs. Every story reads the same. AC staff were rude, customer was co-operative and calm. Yet the AC staff felt it necessary to ban them? What's the other side of this story?
I'm not sure which article you read, but this sounds like the pax were at fault and got kicked off the flight, by police.

Then AC screwed up and basically banned them without letting them know, stating they could book a flight the next day and then subsequently denying them boarding in FRA from a BUD-FRA-YUL flight. And not issuing a refund. If they were not going to be able to board AC flights in the future that should have been abundantly clear right away.

I'm not sure why any of this is news though.
RatherBeInYOW is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 8:28 am
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 48,708
Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy1978 View Post
These CBC articles are becoming cut and paste jobs. Every story reads the same. AC staff were rude, customer was co-operative and calm. Yet the AC staff felt it necessary to ban them? What's the other side of this story?
As always I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It seems however that the incident escalated after the passenger allegedly swore at the FA which I'm sorry is never a good way to react regardless of the perceived provocation. That is of course merely MHO as a poster.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 8:32 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 1,631
I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that both sides are technically telling the truth and yet a seemingly minor detail is omitted

Paun said she and her mother were ordered to leave the plane after a flight attendant asked Paun to return to her assigned seat, and she replied that she couldn't because someone else had been seated in it.
”I can’t return to my assigned seat because someone else is sitting in it, you ....ing idiot*” or words to that effect

i’m sure we’ve all thought it when dealing with a surly employee. The secret is to keep it in your head rather than verbalising it

does this warrant a ban? Hard to say, but I suppose you can’t really say you won’t tolerate abuse of your staff members and also do nothing
Yoshi212 likes this.
nancypants is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 9:05 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC Tangerine FTTC
Posts: 583
Originally Posted by nancypants View Post

”I can’t return to my assigned seat because someone else is sitting in it, you ....ing idiot*” or words to that effect
Or perhaps the FA misunderstood the passenger saying ”I can’t return to my assigned seat because some ....ing idiot is sitting in my seat, can't you see?"

OTP - YUL is a Rouge flight. I've seen more than one Rouge FA with questionable language skills... But let's blame the passenger and let's say the passenger was indeed disruptive. Why the passenger wasn't advised about the ban? If advised, the passenger would have several options how to get from OTP to YUL avoiding AC (or *A whatsoever). There would be absolutely no problem. But not, AC happily took the passenger's money again not intending to fulfill the contract. Something's telling me that AC owes the lost fare to the passenger (and EU 261 compensation too)
strickerj and nancypants like this.
WildcatYXU is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 9:13 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 1,631
Quite

so often I read these kind of stories in the press and on here and feel that some de escalation perhaps was in order (potentially on both sides, potentially on one or the other side). Seemingly a skill set that is decreasing unfortunately

nb I don’t have a horse in the air canada race at all so not taking a side
skybluesea likes this.
nancypants is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 9:30 am
  #13  
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: 83,599
I'm curious how this started. It sounds like FAs were ordering people on board to change seats so that some family could sit together, which to me is inappropriate unless there's a small child sitting alone without an adult from the family. It's not necessary that the entire family have seats together, nor that spouses sit together or parents with older teen (and beyond) offspring. I'd resist moving too, especially being asked to do it several times and without a GA giving me a new boarding pass for the *officially* reassigned seat. For all we know, the passengers who were booted had paid extra or booked especially early to secure better seats for themselves.

BTW I'd love to be able to avoid any future dealings with people who use the F bomb (if this happened here) toward me at work, but it doesn't happen, nor does the government perform mandatory searches of members of the public to prevent them from bringing weapons (or bottles of water) to my workplace. If FAs are on board for my safety, they shouldn't be such snowflakes.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 9:38 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 1,631
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
BTW I'd love to be able to avoid any future dealings with people who use the F bomb (if this happened here) toward me at work, but it doesn't happen, nor does the government perform mandatory searches of members of the public to prevent them from bringing weapons (or bottles of water) to my workplace. If FAs are on board for my safety, they shouldn't be such snowflakes.
Totally agree- would make my job very cruisey

however, having been on the wrong end of an assault in a “zero tolerance of assaults on staff” workplace, where the police wouldn’t even investigate and my workplace kindly sent me a huge bill for medical expenses, I suppose i’m glad of the occasional workplace actually doing “zero tolerance”


(equally while annoying I can see why the ban is delivered in a legal letter- I suspect that’s a requirement or at least good practice. However I can’t see any reason it wouldn’t be followed up fairly promptly with either a phone call, email or in person “you’re barred/get out of my pub!”, Peggy Mitchell-style)

Last edited by nancypants; Aug 16, 19 at 10:03 am
nancypants is offline  
Old Aug 16, 19, 10:02 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC S100K, SPG G, Hilton G,Nexus/GE, Amex MR Plat, Hyatt Plat,IHG Plat E
Posts: 3,556
Not sure what happened here with the original argument with the pax and FA.
However it seems like we have now entered a phase where you can discuss/argue with a police officer more than you can with a FA. Disruptive/security risk seem to be thrown around quite easily with pax being ejected/banned by multiple airlines. Many of these issues seem trivial. Do we get to remove FA's for being disruptive/surly/rude ?
The Lev, arf04, skybluesea and 5 others like this.
vernonc is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread