Stranger

canadiancow

So they were given a directive to do something impossible (sit in a seat that is already occupied), said "I can't", and that warrants a ban?

Normally I'd make a snarky comment along the lines of "I'm surprised they weren't banned from flying", but oh wait...

The FAs have way too much power. Corporate security will issue bans on the word of the crew far too easily.

AC7E7

vernonc

Yes off course. I was not referring to this event in particular - just seem to have a rash of similar events. Like the flight diverted because a elderly lady tried to hand a FA garbage on the serving cart, etc. Or the other event where a mother/son were removed because of the seating issue in J.

Error 601

Intellectually that makes sense, but in my own travels I have seen far more flight attendants begin the process of insane escalation than sober passengers. They're always the first to raise their voices and they're the first to make threats and the target of their ire is usually at worst guilty of no more than confusion and often less than that.

mapleg

Come on man, You know it was not as simple as that. Yes I am aware you have seen AC employees act in a high and mighty manner, but let's not make the magical assumption that all passengers are sweet angels.

How many planes have you been kicked off and banned from? Probably the same number as me. Zero. Matter of fact, I don't know a single person in my life who was kicked off the plane for bad behaviour. It is not common.

canadiancow

Agreed.

I know no such thing.

I think that's a more reasonable assumption than the opposite.

​Probably not.

​I know a bunch. So do you. You just don't know you know.

canopus27

Also, corporate security Work At The Airport™, so we know they must always be right.

Error 601

I know two and both times it would be a charitable interpretation to say it was a mistake on the part of the cabin crew as they got kicked off because they were mistaken as traveling with other people who were being kicked off.

I also know a woman who briefly had a lifetime ban from a US airline for alleged inappropriate behavior in a lounge. The attendant so over-sold her story that management decided they better check the security cameras to see if involving the police was necessary and a phone call making a profuse apology came before the lifetime ban letter arrived in the mail.

rickg523

This. And there should be cameras on the planes for just this reason. But it would probably take losing a major lawsuit claiming an unjustified removal caused significant financial loss to get the carriers to implement them.

tcook052

Why bother when the plane is already full of cell phone cameras? Who knows as maybe a video recording this encounter will yet emerge.

ffsim

Of course the truth lies somewhere between what AC says happened and what the banned passengers say happened. But why can't CBC make a modicum of journalistic effort and track down some other passengers who can offer a 3rd party view of the matter?

There must be more than a handful of other passengers who could offer some colour on what actually happened.

canadiancow

Because when passengers aren't doing anything wrong, no one is recording, so then you don't have video evidence that you're innocent.

The existence of a video would pretty much mean they deserved to be banned, because no one would bother filming otherwise.

Why can't the truth be exactly what the pax say?

"AC" says exactly what the FA told them happened. It's not even AC vs pax, it's one FA vs pax.

ffsim

Come on, you know there's 3 sides to every story. It's not possible that the passengers in question and the FA are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Can either party be completely lying about what happened? Sure. But more likely, there are subtleties that have been omitted from the FA's account to AC and the pax's account to CBC which are critical to determining whether banning these people from the airline was the correct course of action. An independent 3rd party would help add colour to this kind of thing.

I'll give you another example: in Quebec, you're allowed to have a witness provide an outsider's perspective to a vehicle accident. This witness cannot be an occupant of any vehicle involved in the claim, so we're talking about people who are in other cars or on the street. Why? Because, having nothing to gain or lose from the case, they tend to have less incentive to lie or take one party's side.

I'm suggesting that any journalist do the minimum amount of work before publishing a story, and that minimum amount of work increases with the size of the platform to which the journalist has access. I don't know which party is in the right or in the wrong here, but CBC could've done more research here.

canadiancow

Fair enough.

You're just not going to get any useful witness if the pax claims are even remotely accurate.

"Do you remember your flight three weeks ago?"
"Yeah"
"Did you witness an altercation between this woman and a flight attendant?"
"No"
"Do you remember this woman at all?"
"No"