24left

Referring back to Kardinal Offishall's comments about eUpgrades and charges, I am one of many who can relate to issues with improper charges.

I had once booked a one-way transcon on Aeroplan in X (economy). J was available at check-in for eUp credits and a copay of $250. I called in and it was processed.

Then my cc statement showed up and I was charged twice. I had screen shots of my single ticket, and info from the eUp page. I called Amex and while they investigated with AC, they credited me the second charge. They could see that I only had that one flight on that date and they obviously had the ticket number.

A few days later, I received this email from "Air Canada Refund Services" (in tiny font which I've magnified a few times)




A few days after that, I received this one. I thought it was weird (at best).

The sentence "your profile will be able to answer the questions you have" was either written by someone whose first language was not English or it is off a template, and made no sense to me. And I wasn't having difficulty with my upgrades, I was billed twice by AC.



Since none of us saw what Kardinal Offishall has as documentation from his repeated attempts to upgrade, and yes, perhaps he should have checked his upgrade page, based on my albeit minimal experiences, I can imagine he might be confused. Further, AC IT is not known for its prowess and efficiency (the AC FT complaints' thread offers so many, many examples).

IMO, his IG post was his frustration at the upgrade and billing experiences that was compounded with other negative experiences he had with AC.

Who among us can't relate?

RangerNS

Fair enough then . Meta privilege.

Or click bait.

Just be another day in these parts.

ctarolf

Davvidd

I have to say that this is however not unique to AC only. I have seen and experienced this with a variety of airlines around the world including airlines from the middle east especially in the middle east. Not on board but usually at the Gate.

Transpacificflyer

We can all relate and as I previously stated, I think that there is universal sympathy. While Mr. Harrow did not explicitly use the term discrimination, he used trigger/code words such as "disrespect" that are common to certain political activists. Having read enough of the polemics of various political action groups I have come to appreciate their styling and flow of words. Mr. Harrow is in a business where promotion and an ability to control public messaging is required. He is good at it too.
His statements were on the surface an indication of frustration, but his use of various trigger/code words gave a different message to people who subscribe to certain political and social positions. That is why some media outlets have run with the discrimination aspect. He didn't need to say it, but he sent out the message that was certain to be explicitly interpreted as such, in effect triggering the interpretation.

Most people here are inherently decent people and try to be respectful of others. As such, they have approached this issue from that perspective. I think everyone on the thread is in near agreement about the core issues; The sometimes rude comportment of personnel, the dismal IT, and the inconsistency of screening of lines, but this should not serve as a vehicle to put aside the presumption of innocence. We do not know how the desk agent was treated or what was actually said between the two. My point is that it is wrong to accuse some nameless AC employee of prejudice when that person isn't around to speak up. We malign all AC employees when we do that.

Once again, AC has adopted the keep quiet strategy in hopes that the issue goes away. If AC believes that Mr. Harrow has misinterpreted the AC position, then it should say so. However, if AC is wrong and made multiple errors or does indeed practice prejudice, then it has a duty to publicly apologize and to correct its behavior.