12/23 AC15 YYZ-HKG 30+ wrongly refused transport (HKG media story)
Dec 25, 2021, 9:19 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Location: PMD
Programs: UA*G, NW, AA-G. WR-P, HH-G, IHG-S, ALL. TT-GE.
Posts: 2,907
12/23 AC15 YYZ-HKG 30+ wrongly refused transport (HKG media story)
GTA-based internet media HongKonger Station revealed on its Facebook about a gross mishandling by a YYZ ground agent supervisor wrongly denying boarding to 30+ pax on 12/23 0020 AC15 to HKG including those connecting from other cities. HKG announced new 48-h (instead of 72-h) PCR requirements for flights departing from 12/24 onward, and this flight should not have been affected. Pax were on the phone with HK government okaying them but the supervisor refused to talk to anyone.
We're not talking about something like the BA LAS/JFK denied boarding incident where people got stuck at home or abroad for a couple extra days. In order to board a flight to HKG, you have to have reserved 21 nights at an approved quarantine hotel. HKG is effectively all-21-days now, hotels are full, and reservations often aren't flexible or refundable. Denied boarding can easily cost a single person or a family a C$7,000 loss.
We're not talking about something like the BA LAS/JFK denied boarding incident where people got stuck at home or abroad for a couple extra days. In order to board a flight to HKG, you have to have reserved 21 nights at an approved quarantine hotel. HKG is effectively all-21-days now, hotels are full, and reservations often aren't flexible or refundable. Denied boarding can easily cost a single person or a family a C$7,000 loss.
Dec 25, 2021, 10:09 pm
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Location: PMD
Programs: UA*G, NW, AA-G. WR-P, HH-G, IHG-S, ALL. TT-GE.
Posts: 2,907
Dec 25, 2021, 11:10 pm
#5
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: 44,302
Dec 26, 2021, 3:58 am
#6
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: LHR, DFW, J Cabins WorldWide
Programs: AA EXP, UA GS, FB Gold, AS MVPG, MR Titanium, VS Gold
Posts: 954
Dec 26, 2021, 4:19 am
#7
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
im lost here…. Quoting your own words
boarding denial happened on 12/23 00:20
new policy in effect for departures from 12/24
boarding denial happened on 12/23 00:20
new policy in effect for departures from 12/24
GTA-based internet media HongKonger Station revealed on its Facebook about a gross mishandling by a YYZ ground agent supervisor wrongly denying boarding to 30+ pax on 12/23 0020 AC15 to HKG including those connecting from other cities. HKG announced new 48-h (instead of 72-h) PCR requirements for flights departing from 12/24 onward, and this flight should not have been affected. Pax were on the phone with HK government okaying them but the supervisor refused to talk to anyone.
We're not talking about something like the BA LAS/JFK denied boarding incident where people got stuck at home or abroad for a couple extra days. In order to board a flight to HKG, you have to have reserved 21 nights at an approved quarantine hotel. HKG is effectively all-21-days now, hotels are full, and reservations often aren't flexible or refundable. Denied boarding can easily cost a single person or a family a C$7,000 loss.
We're not talking about something like the BA LAS/JFK denied boarding incident where people got stuck at home or abroad for a couple extra days. In order to board a flight to HKG, you have to have reserved 21 nights at an approved quarantine hotel. HKG is effectively all-21-days now, hotels are full, and reservations often aren't flexible or refundable. Denied boarding can easily cost a single person or a family a C$7,000 loss.
Dec 26, 2021, 5:52 am
#8
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50k, A3*G, UA*S, MR Titanium, HHonors Gold, Carlson Gold, NEXUS
Posts: 3,669
Dec 26, 2021, 9:14 am
#9
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,743
Moderator note: as this is not a case of denied boarding, I've updated the thread title to use the correct term, which is refused transport. And, since the OP was not there, clarified that this is a story from an HKG media source.
Dec 26, 2021, 4:18 pm
#11
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Sorry OP, but with HK in particular, there is a consensus here that AC’s YVR agents are super experts on HK policies - much more than the actual HK authorities and (in the case of connecting pax) AC agent at other airports. Hopefully they sent the connecting pax back to their origin, especially the non-Canadian ones.
Could’ve seen this train wreck coming weeks ago based on that ex-SEA pax experience and the bizarre AC attitude demonstrated there (coupled with an equally bizarre defence of it by some posters here).
I think the takeaway here is that HKG-bound pax should fly AC at their own peril. They need to be aware of both what the rules are, and what AC YVR agents think they are (since clarifying it with HK authorities isn’t “their responsibility”).
Could’ve seen this train wreck coming weeks ago based on that ex-SEA pax experience and the bizarre AC attitude demonstrated there (coupled with an equally bizarre defence of it by some posters here).
I think the takeaway here is that HKG-bound pax should fly AC at their own peril. They need to be aware of both what the rules are, and what AC YVR agents think they are (since clarifying it with HK authorities isn’t “their responsibility”).
Dec 26, 2021, 4:55 pm
#12
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Sorry OP, but with HK in particular, there is a consensus here that AC’s YVR agents are super experts on HK policies - much more than the actual HK authorities and (in the case of connecting pax) AC agent at other airports. Hopefully they sent the connecting pax back to their origin, especially the non-Canadian ones.
Could’ve seen this train wreck coming weeks ago based on that ex-SEA pax experience and the bizarre AC attitude demonstrated there (coupled with an equally bizarre defence of it by some posters here).
I think the takeaway here is that HKG-bound pax should fly AC at their own peril. They need to be aware of both what the rules are, and what AC YVR agents think they are (since clarifying it with HK authorities isn’t “their responsibility”).
Could’ve seen this train wreck coming weeks ago based on that ex-SEA pax experience and the bizarre AC attitude demonstrated there (coupled with an equally bizarre defence of it by some posters here).
I think the takeaway here is that HKG-bound pax should fly AC at their own peril. They need to be aware of both what the rules are, and what AC YVR agents think they are (since clarifying it with HK authorities isn’t “their responsibility”).
YVR agents were not involved AFAIK.
So YYZ-ICN-HKG
While there have been multiple episodes with AC pax being denied boarding or being stranded in transit, given the mess in HK with ever-changing rules, there have been comments that perhaps AC should just bail out of pax flights. I'm pretty sure AC doesn't want to lose their slots, plus pax and cargo still needs to get there.
However, if one wanders over to SCMP* or other media, you can see a list of airlines including CX, EK and KE among others, who are banned from flying in for multiple weeks due to carrying pax who didn't meet entry qualifications or had tested positive on arrival or other reasons.
I am NOT suggesting any of the pax on this AC 15 flight had not met the requirements, but I'll assume AC agents might prefer to err on the side of not getting lashed by HQ for allowing pax to fly. I am in no way suggesting that these or other AC agents handled it properly, but if the goal posts keep moving for so many routes and destinations, and the rules often change multiple times a day.....
*He's a writer at SCMP and there are details on his page https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero?...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Dec 26, 2021, 6:35 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,402
Sorry OP, but with HK in particular, there is a consensus here that AC’s YVR agents are super experts on HK policies - much more than the actual HK authorities and (in the case of connecting pax) AC agent at other airports. Hopefully they sent the connecting pax back to their origin, especially the non-Canadian ones.
Could’ve seen this train wreck coming weeks ago based on that ex-SEA pax experience and the bizarre AC attitude demonstrated there (coupled with an equally bizarre defence of it by some posters here).
I think the takeaway here is that HKG-bound pax should fly AC at their own peril. They need to be aware of both what the rules are, and what AC YVR agents think they are (since clarifying it with HK authorities isn’t “their responsibility”).
Could’ve seen this train wreck coming weeks ago based on that ex-SEA pax experience and the bizarre AC attitude demonstrated there (coupled with an equally bizarre defence of it by some posters here).
I think the takeaway here is that HKG-bound pax should fly AC at their own peril. They need to be aware of both what the rules are, and what AC YVR agents think they are (since clarifying it with HK authorities isn’t “their responsibility”).
In the case of this thread I believe they may have erred.
Dec 27, 2021, 9:09 am
#14
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
YVR agents were not involved AFAIK.
So YYZ-ICN-HKG
While there have been multiple episodes with AC pax being denied boarding or being stranded in transit, given the mess in HK with ever-changing rules, there have been comments that perhaps AC should just bail out of pax flights. I'm pretty sure AC doesn't want to lose their slots, plus pax and cargo still needs to get there.
However, if one wanders over to SCMP* or other media, you can see a list of airlines including CX, EK and KE among others, who are banned from flying in for multiple weeks due to carrying pax who didn't meet entry qualifications or had tested positive on arrival or other reasons.
I am NOT suggesting any of the pax on this AC 15 flight had not met the requirements, but I'll assume AC agents might prefer to err on the side of not getting lashed by HQ for allowing pax to fly. I am in no way suggesting that these or other AC agents handled it properly, but if the goal posts keep moving for so many routes and destinations, and the rules often change multiple times a day.....
*He's a writer at SCMP and there are details on his page https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero?...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
So YYZ-ICN-HKG
While there have been multiple episodes with AC pax being denied boarding or being stranded in transit, given the mess in HK with ever-changing rules, there have been comments that perhaps AC should just bail out of pax flights. I'm pretty sure AC doesn't want to lose their slots, plus pax and cargo still needs to get there.
However, if one wanders over to SCMP* or other media, you can see a list of airlines including CX, EK and KE among others, who are banned from flying in for multiple weeks due to carrying pax who didn't meet entry qualifications or had tested positive on arrival or other reasons.
I am NOT suggesting any of the pax on this AC 15 flight had not met the requirements, but I'll assume AC agents might prefer to err on the side of not getting lashed by HQ for allowing pax to fly. I am in no way suggesting that these or other AC agents handled it properly, but if the goal posts keep moving for so many routes and destinations, and the rules often change multiple times a day.....
*He's a writer at SCMP and there are details on his page https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero?...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Same template though - AC agent at origin thinks paperwork is ok (Why? Who knows.) Pax is boarded and flown to connecting airport. AC agent at the connecting airport decides paperwork is not okay. Pax refused transport.
No attempts are made by AC agents making these decisions to verify requirements with HKG authorities because (we are reliably informed here) ‘it’s not their job’.
One would imagine that if it’s so complex and the stakes are so high, AC would make sure they’re catching the issue earlier, and staying in constant touch with the HK authorities. Instead, they’ve chosen to go with the laziest option - let outstations do what they want, stay away from seeking verification from HK authorities (effectively creating 2 sets of rules - HK’s and whatever the AC agent of the day thinks HK’s rules are), and pin it all on the pax for not knowing both, and being stupid enough for trusting the outstation agent.
The reluctance to pick up the phone is … well… it’s self-explanatory, isn’t it.
Not sure if you are referring to this thread? I am fed up with Air Canada and I am suing them But in that thread I believe AC agents acted correctly.
In the case of this thread I believe they may have erred.
In the case of this thread I believe they may have erred.
This case reinforces the template there - right hand doesn’t know what the left hand’s doing (AC outstation and AC YVR/YYZ), and AC doesn’t bother checking with the HK authorities.
The ‘rules’ now seem to depend less on what will actually allow one to enter HKG, than what whichever AC gate agent working decides is acceptable.
Last edited by Adam Smith; Dec 27, 2021 at 10:38 am Reason: Merge consecutive posts by same user
Dec 27, 2021, 10:07 am
#15
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YQR
Posts: 2,741
I am NOT suggesting any of the pax on this AC 15 flight had not met the requirements, but I'll assume AC agents might prefer to err on the side of not getting lashed by HQ for allowing pax to fly. I am in no way suggesting that these or other AC agents handled it properly, but if the goal posts keep moving for so many routes and destinations, and the rules often change multiple times a day.....
Last edited by arf04; Dec 27, 2021 at 3:51 pm