garykung

Then why the name-asking confrontation?

yscleo

I asked for his name in a composed manner without raising voice. I did not want to confront.

The male agent was the one shouting and being rude.. The male gate agent was the one bullying. But if you think people should not ask for agent's name, that's a different perspective.

Often1

Asking for names in a controlled environment such as this is a passive aggressive approach which rarely ends well (not suggesting that this exchange was warranted).

According to your own posts, there were two GA's working the flight, a male & a female. If you wanted to make a complaint, all it took was a description, e.g. "the male agent working Flight XXX on a given date." One could also add a simple description as well.

I don't blame employees for worrying about providing names. There are a lot of creeps out there and one would be surprised how little it takes to set some people off.

Jagboi

You talking about the gate agent?

garykung

Although there is no obligation, you still have not explain why.

yscleo

You want me to explain why I asked the male gate agent's name?

I asked for his name, in case I want to make a complaint to AC about his rudeness. He was wrong about the rules (he said the card gets priority check-in but not priority boarding), but it would've be alright to just said no and I need to go line up in the other zone, no need to shout and rudely waving hand to direct us in a berating manner.

The female agent's name was clearly shown, his wasn't. Afterwards I learned I can still report/complain without knowing the agent's name, but at the time I thought it's best if I at least have his name. It was shocking to result in further shouting from him that I won't be boarding, and will be deported. At least the female agent didn't back him up on anything.

garykung

I have no doubt you are a nice person. Nevertheless, you were actually confronting the male GA. It is not about your tone. But your intent of asking the name is hostile. I can see why the male GA reacted this way.

Also - the benefit denial wasn't the fault of the GA. Clearly it was an AC issue. As you have said, your BP should show BG2. But it was AC's system that failed you. Sure - the male GA might be uninformed about the credit card benefit. Yet, the BG on your BP did say you belonged to BG4.

My advice is learn the lesson and move on. I am not saying AC was right. In fact, AC was wrong. But you had some responsibility as well.

jugaadkabaap

While at work, Isn't GA acting on behalf of AC or is he acting on behalf of his own? I am not taking sides here, but as a pax - his immediate access to AC is via GA and the pax is reasonable in liaising with the GA for this benefit issue.

As per the description of events - GA claimed he is a priority agent for 5-6 years or so. If that is the case he should know the cobranded credit card benefit. If he / his team is not aware or educated - it is again his / his teams / AC's issue and NOT a PAX issue.

And if he is unsure, he need not cause a scene, rather allow the pax to move forward as in case of ambiguity or loss of clarity (from his part) - benefit of doubt should be given to the pax as he already showed the cobranded card. Now, I agree that GA has minimal time at his disposal to make the judgment call - but i am personally inclined to say that - in this particular scenario the GA should had let the pax board without causing a scene or at-least denied the benefit in a calm and composed manner and support the pax to raise the issue with AC through official channels.

Worst case if the GA feels that he was gamed - he can always escalate the issue later (after due verification of the card benefits) . GA and AC have access to the customers information and their FF number considering it as a AE redemption & if the pax is at fault - they can do a follow up & issue a formal warning. Things can work both ways right ?

As GA is acting as a representative of AC, there is no need to being hostile to a pax for claiming his benefit that is assured by AC.

garykung

AC.

OP did it and failed:

So it is apparent that GAs were not the right persons to address this benefit issue.

True. But at the same time, the benefit should have been reflected on the BP. I am not saying OP did these. But it is possible a person showing an cancalled/expired credit card and claiming the benefit. Also it is possible that a person is not traveling on an eligible reservation.

So without a way to verify, a GA's decision to follow assigned zones on BP for boarding is reasonable.

Also - GA did not cause the initial scene, i.e. denied boarding at Zone 2. OP was the one causing the scene, i.e. attempted to use a Zone 4 BP for Zone 2 Boarding.

We don't and will never know who or which was at fault for the zoning issue. It could be AC (system), the credit card issuer (linkage), or OP (ineligible flight). So GA's denied priority boarding based on zoning seems justified. But I agree that the GA should do this more diplomatically.

I seriously doubt that GAs have ability to verify. AFAICT - the benefit is linked to the associated Altitude and/or AE account. So the only way to verify benefit is to remove the account and add back again. Other than that, there is not much a GA can do.

Yes.

I could also say that OP can board in accordance to the assigned zone, even wrong. Then OP can escalate to AC for a resolution.

As I said again - I believe OP is a nice person. Nevertheless, OP's action was hostile at first.

I understand the frustration of benefit denial. I understand OP felt cheated. But why did OP need to try Zone 2 when the BP said Zone 4? What was the need that OP needed to enforce the benefit into his own hand?

I am not trying to blame the victim here. Personally, I believe AC was in the wrong. But again - why OP needed to take matters into his own hand is beyond me. Bottom line - OP's experience with that particular GA was not solely AC's fault.

canopus27

As a legitimate zone 1 passenger (SE), I appreciate that the GA was taking the time and energy to enforce the zone boarding process.

I'm sorry if the OP had an incorrect zone printed on his BP ... but that's something that needs to be taken up with AC - or better yet, the bank; not because they were responsible, but because I'm sure they will have a lot more leverage with AC if their CC customers are being denied a legitimate privilege.

But to try and litigate this with the GA *during the boarding process* was wrong, and to be passively aggressive with the GA by asking for his name was not a good idea either.

The rules are clear: follow the zone numbers on the BPs during the boarding process - and I for one appreciate that the GA was following those rules. Far too many GA's don't.

YXUhomebase

Asking a name is normal when wanting to raise a complaint. And if GA is justified then nothing to worry about.

if as SE the boarding pass is printed incorrectly who here would not raise the issue? Or would you all meekly just board at 4 if the boarding pass said that?

ffsim

Let's grant you that OP was confronting the GA and that OP's intent was hostile. I disagree wholeheartedly, but I'll play along. The bolded bit is nonsense; no customer-facing employee carrying identification should ever react in the way described in this thread when a customer attempts to take note of the employee's name.

It would be equally unacceptable if the employee turned over his ID badge or removed his name tag upon noticing OP reading his name. Would you consider reading a confrontational provocation, too?

Come on, when you're at an AC boarding gate dealing with a "clear" AC issue, it's up to the GA to resolve it.

MSPeconomist

Somehow the GA has access to the passenger's complete name and other personal information but the customer isn't allowed to ask the employee's first name or fake name? This seems wrong to me, and there have been recent reports of airline employees inappropriately harassing passengers after getting their personal information.

jugaadkabaap

Is this mandated or made as a pre-requisite for the required benefit as per communication provided by AC? The verbiage only says that this benefit will be recognized in the BP when zonal boarding is available but doesn't mandate that Zone 2 should be written on BP to get Zone 2 boarding.

Personally, I came to know about this long back when I had an AE reservation which showed Zone 2 when i got my initial BP - but i changed to my UA FF and the zonal descriptor changed to zone 4 i guess. I changed back to AE FF, still it gave me zone 4 instead of zone 2 (i explained this case in my earlier post).

I contacted Aeroplan at that time and was advised to flash my CC with BP to an AC agent. I did that and no qualms by anyone. Next time it happened while i was unable to complete a web checkin (system issue) - so i checked in at the airport - same story - no zone 2; i spoke to the AC staff at the desk - they gave me priority check in and told me that they cant manually update the zonal preference unless they modify seats (and the flight was nearly full) & advised me to board when zone 2 is called and show GA the card + BP and tell this issue happened. From then on - I never asked anyone, instead flash my card when zone 2 is called and always got approved. No qualms till date - always pleasant smile from GA.

Further AC clearly states that Board with zone 2*:

• when you travel in Premium Economy Class, or in Premium Rouge on an international flight
• when you purchase a Latitude fare
• as an Altitude Elite 75K, 50K, 35K or Star Alliance Gold member

as the Primary Cardholder of select TD and CIBC Aeroplan-affiliated financial cards when travelling on an eligible ticket (conditions apply).

Reference : https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/...g-by-zone.html

so if GA does not have this knowledge even after 5 years & becoming hostile & outright denying a pax need to get better training.
I am assuming it is same with OP. OP had already stated - this used to work multiple times for him so he tried Zone 2 boarding because he has right to get zone 2 boarding as per benefits of the cobranded card.

AC need to own this up and provide crystal clear clarity on the benefits and train their staff equally. The pax is liaising with AC through its employees - if multiple past instances got it through without qualms and if one guy is making up rules - the pax will be inclined to report that incident. Now I am not getting into hostility between entities as thats a way different story.

I can say from my personal experience that both AE and AC in the past advised me to board when zone 2 is called and flash my BP & CC. Agreed that, I don't have it in writing - but this was what was told to me in the past. If a GA denies me contradicting to all info thats shared to me over multiple instances. , i will be like the OP and get it escalated.

This is exactly similar to I work at the airport/for the airline. You're wrong thread.


Sorry but doesn't BP zoning get overridden for innumerable reasons? Elderly, Family boarding, heavy luggage, children - what not - all these pax might have Zone 5/6 boarding but overridden on a case to case basis. Does all these cases need to get their BP changed ? Nope. OP's scenario is also similar.

100%.

james dean

Especially if the SE was told "Your are not boarding tonight, you're being deported"