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

Air Canada revoked a worker's flying privileges after her daughter complained

Air Canada revoked a worker's flying privileges after her daughter complained

Old Aug 3, 22, 10:15 pm
  #61  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: TK *G
Posts: 2,385
I used to dress a bit nicely for J flights, but after a few flights, I no longer care.

Though I would say on routes/flights with lots if business travellers, I could be quite “noticeable” as I am often the only one not in business attire. Not sure if others care, but I don’t.

Agree that dress code for non rev may need to be updated, as less people seem to care.
Joeyjo likes this.
songsc is offline  
Old Aug 3, 22, 10:59 pm
  #62  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.032MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CWC Au-197; CCC Elite; WoH Dis
Posts: 51,301
Originally Posted by songsc View Post
Though I would say on routes/flights with lots if business travellers, I could be quite “noticeable” as I am often the only one not in business attire.
By "business traveler", you seem to be retricting yourself to non-technical professionals such as financial, legal, and marketing. Few if any technical professionals (at least in North America) would wear what a 20th century person would have called "business attire". That's just not the culture in the industry.
mahasamatman is offline  
Old Aug 3, 22, 11:30 pm
  #63  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: TK *G
Posts: 2,385
Originally Posted by mahasamatman View Post
By "business traveler", you seem to be retricting yourself to non-technical professionals such as financial, legal, and marketing. Few if any technical professionals (at least in North America) would wear what a 20th century person would have called "business attire". That's just not the culture in the industry.
I need to be more specific. By “business travellers”, I mean people in suits or at least “smart causal”, such as dressy shirts, jeans with no holes if not dress pants, and non sneaker shoes. The J cabin of weekday morning YYZ-YVR flights have lots of passengers like that. Me on the other hand, now mostly wear sneakers and sport pants when I fly, even if in J on flights with lots of business travellers.

I am in tech myself, and I would say most of the younger generations wear pretty casually, while the older generation, whether they are middle/senior management or senior level ICs, tend to wear more casually.

For non revs IMO, I don’t think strictly enforcing dress code is still needed. Some one in yoga pants is gonna be quite noticeable in the J cabin of YYZ-YVR flight, but not so much on a flight to the Caribbean. And most importantly, do people really care? DYKWIA type of behaviours, such as the daughter mentioned in the article, is gonna be quite noticeable regardless of her clothes or the flight.
Joeyjo likes this.
songsc is offline  
Old Aug 4, 22, 12:24 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 819
Originally Posted by songsc View Post
I used to dress a bit nicely for J flights, but after a few flights, I no longer care.

Though I would say on routes/flights with lots if business travellers, I could be quite “noticeable” as I am often the only one not in business attire. Not sure if others care, but I don’t.

Agree that dress code for non rev may need to be updated, as less people seem to care.

I used to wear my full dress formal Air Force uniform when traveling and was routinely upgraded. I thought it was a military perk, but eventually I realized it only happened when wearing that specific uniform. That was in the 90's.

These days I couldn't care less either.

I'm in J pajamas as soon as the seatbelt light goes off.

I do admire nice attire, but the "dressing up to fly" culture seems to be at risk of extinction, with that endangered species only to be found in the Archipelago F .
Joeyjo likes this.

Last edited by Ghoulish; Aug 4, 22 at 12:32 am
Ghoulish is online now  
Old Aug 4, 22, 4:14 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YOW
Programs: AC SE, FOTSG Platinum
Posts: 4,907
Originally Posted by songsc View Post
I need to be more specific. By “business travellers”, I mean people in suits or at least “smart causal”, such as dressy shirts, jeans with no holes if not dress pants, and non sneaker shoes.
Originally Posted by mahasamatman View Post
By "business traveler", you seem to be retricting yourself to non-technical professionals such as financial, legal, and marketing. Few if any technical professionals (at least in North America) would wear what a 20th century person would have called "business attire". That's just not the culture in the industry.
100% agree with mahasamatman.

Most of my flying is on business, but I’m in jeans and a t-shirt regardless. Heck, I’m often flying for business with 20-30 of my colleagues on the flight with me, and none of us would be distinguishable from leisure travellers.

Meanwhile, a good friend of mine would never be caught dead flying to his vacation in any less than a collared shirt and slacks.

Books, covers, etc.
ffsim and Norcanair like this.
YOWgary is online now  
Old Aug 4, 22, 9:00 am
  #66  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 3,948
I'm at best in dockers and a corporate polo; usually I'm a walking MEC/REI model user.

But then, dress code was never a condition of the ticket I paid for. So entirely irrelevant to compare myself to someone who has those kinds of conditions put on them.

Still, I never take my shoes (er, boots) off.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Aug 4, 22, 9:07 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYZ ✈ YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 2,741
I also fly primarily for work, and find attire tends to vary mainly by the day of the week. People doing day trips or overnighters between Monday and Thursday are more likely to be in a suit or business casual. Fridays (and Sundays on TATL legs) the uniform is jeans, a t-shirt (ideally with a small hole in it somewhere), a smart suit jacket and $600 loafers.
Symmetre is offline  
Old Aug 4, 22, 9:35 am
  #68  
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, DL PM, WS Silver, BA Bronze, Marriott Titanium, Hilton/Radisson Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 14,915
Moderator note: as interesting as the discussion of what people wear while they travel might be, we're getting pretty far from the incident that's the topic of this thread. Let's please try to get back to the AC employee whose travel privileges were suspended and the daughter who caused it.
Adam Smith is offline  
Old Aug 4, 22, 1:36 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 22
Edit: Didn’t see the comment from the moderator about the topic.

To salvage the relevance of this post, I’ll say that my view is that Air Canada was very merciful. I can imagine that the 62 year old employee was on the verge of retirement and, presumably, hoped to make use of her benefits and it would be quite unfortunate to be deprived of them.
LETTERBOY and commaspace like this.
TorTraveler is offline  
Old Aug 4, 22, 10:38 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Programs: AC
Posts: 560
Yes, that was the part that struck me. At 62 there is a short window to take advantage of employee perks that have now been stripped. Being within spitting range of the sponsors age, I can't imagine how I would have reacted to one of my kids pulling something similar. Without exaggeration there would have been a discussion regarding their share of the inheritance.
LETTERBOY likes this.
FlY2XS is offline  
Old Aug 5, 22, 1:48 am
  #71  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 819
Originally Posted by FlY2XS View Post
Yes, that was the part that struck me. At 62 there is a short window to take advantage of employee perks that have now been stripped. Being within spitting range of the sponsors age, I can't imagine how I would have reacted to one of my kids pulling something similar. Without exaggeration there would have been a discussion regarding their share of the inheritance.
Business Insider: "Vengeful Mother Disowns Child For Speaking Up About Poor Service"

Huffington Post: "Thousands Offer To Adopt Child Abandoned By Mother Who Sided With Billion $ Corporation"

MSNBC: "After Loyal Daughter Condemned to Poverty by Mother, Is It Time To Redefine Child Abuse?"

NYT Guest Editorial: "How Capitalism Ruined My Family"
krayZpaving, Adam1222 and DELee like this.
Ghoulish is online now  
Old Aug 5, 22, 1:50 am
  #72  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: YXE
Programs: Curb Your Enthusiasm, Fraggle Rock
Posts: 110
Notwithstanding some interesting commentary on this thread, the public details of the initial incident are so thin that I’m left wondering how much substantive judgment can be made here, beyond the daughter’s poor choice of cc’ing the media as a first course of action.
respectable_man likes this.
Norcanair is offline  
Old Aug 5, 22, 1:58 am
  #73  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 819
Originally Posted by Norcanair View Post
Notwithstanding some interesting commentary on this thread, the public details of the initial incident are so thin that I’m left wondering how much substantive judgment can be made here, beyond the daughter’s poor choice of cc’ing the media as a first course of action.
Beside the prohibition in terms for a complementary ticket, and common decency about not trying to publicly defame the company who gifted it, one detail was quite clear, as no organization in a country with libel laws would've made publically if they couldn't back it up:

She intentionally misrepresented herself as a paying passenger in order to receive compensation.

Though carefully worded, they've quite literally said she attempted to criminally defraud the airline through deception for gain.

On another note, common sense would inform us that had the original complaint had merit and been reasonable, thereby making the media's beloved "victim" an even more sympathetic figure, it would've been included in the multitude of stories sourced by the daughter herself. It's very, very unlikely the story would've been published without her explaining that. It must make her look quite bad so was left completely unaddressed.

Last edited by Ghoulish; Aug 5, 22 at 2:07 am
Ghoulish is online now  
Old Aug 5, 22, 3:02 am
  #74  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: YXE
Programs: Curb Your Enthusiasm, Fraggle Rock
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by Ghoulish View Post
one detail was quite clear, as no organization in a country with libel laws would've made publically if they couldn't back it up:

She intentionally misrepresented herself as a paying passenger in order to receive compensation.
Libel doesn’t apply to private communication. The email appears to have been sent from the airline to the employee, subsequently made public by the daughter: "An email sent to the employee suggested her daughter had misrepresented herself as a revenue-generating customer." Even then, the email only appears to have “suggested” misrepresentation.
Norcanair is offline  
Old Aug 7, 22, 9:02 pm
  #75  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,220
Putting aside this particular case I do find something kind of odd and off-putting about the "flight privileges are a privilege that the employer has complete control over and isn't part of your employment contract" thing. They're highly valuable and a big draw the airline is happy to use to recruit people. I understand the contract is negotiated with the union and the union has presumably made some calculated decision that they're better off picking battles elsewhere but the result sure feels weird from the outside.
zkzkz is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread