: Too Sensitive ???


eMacMan
Apr 27th, 2018, 02:37 PM
So here's the story as it appears in the Calgary Herald:
Woman says Air Canada humiliated her, booted her off flight over non-contagious rash | Calgary Herald (http://calgaryherald.com/news/edmonton-woman-says-airline-humiliated-her-because-of-non-contagious-rash/wcm/7a047f90-1be0-4c54-bf2d-c173d765ff58)

No doubt Air Canada badly mismanaged an awkward situation, but seriously needing a shrink because of it?

HALIFAX — An Edmonton woman says she was publicly humiliated and booted off an Air Canada flight after a rash was mistakenly labelled as contagious.

Jeanne Lehman, a community activist and officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, said she is seeing a psychologist for mental trauma she endured boarding a plane at Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

“How they treated me, I didn’t feel like someone who is an important client,” she said in a phone interview. “I feel, like, rejected and (given a) lack of consideration, you know. This is a shame for me.”

Lehman is a black, French-speaking woman who calls the treatment systemic racism.

Her trouble began when a rash appeared on the right side of her face during a trip to Halifax last week. Over the course of two days, the rash got worse and left her eye swollen.

“At first I thought it was because I ate a lot of seafood and thought it was an allergy

She went to an emergency room on Friday where the doctor told her she had a non-contagious rash and was OK to travel.Long story short. The airline booted her from the flight telling everyone aboard she had a contagious skin condition. Had her checked out by an emergency doctor (Shingles=non contagious). Put her up in a hotel then flew her home first class the next day.

As I said at the beginning the initial incident was very badly handled. Highly likely a nearby passenger heard only the word contagious and reported it to staff. Overall a typical AC Fubar but hardly racist and IMO AC has done what it could to make it right, although a free round trip flight would be a good idea. Of course they might go ten toes up if the gave a free flight to every passenger upon whose toes they tread.

Beej
Apr 27th, 2018, 08:53 PM
So here's the story

Based on the reporting, we agree. Terrible process by Air Canada, with some reasonable but inadequate amends, and an unreasonable response by the passenger.

Hopefully the trend is not towards the crappy insurance company relationship where the spiral ends with many customers lying, and the company treating every claimant as a liar. Or is that what happened to United Airlines?

eMacMan
Apr 28th, 2018, 01:30 PM
https://globalnews.ca/news/4174332/air-canada-boots-mom-son-seats/

Rather needlessly long winded. Mom booked side by side seats for son and self. Airline told her policy insisted she sit behind her son. When she asked to see the policy, she was booted from the flight, and had to shell out an extra 3000 euros to get home.:eek:

The lame policy explanation makes absolutely no sense, as the description of the seats makes it clear that it would make it almost impossible for the mother to assist her son should he need the oxygen mask.

This time AC came up way short of making it right. A refund of the gouge tickets and a free flight are certainly in order.

A quote from the end of the article:
However, consumer advocacy group Air Passenger Rights reviewed Air Canada’s domestic tariff rules (https://www.aircanada.com/content/dam/aircanada/portal/documents/PDF/en/ac_domestic_tariff_en.pdf) and pointed to guidelines on the transportation of passengers under the age of 18.

“Children under age eight must be accompanied by an adult age 16 or older when travelling,” the policy on Air Canada’s website read.

“The accompanying adult must occupy a seat in the same cabin and be seated adjacent to the young child.”

CubaMark
Apr 28th, 2018, 03:28 PM
The lame policy explanation makes absolutely no sense, as the description of the seats makes it clear that it would make it almost impossible for the mother to assist her son should he need the oxygen mask.

Worse than that: Air Canada's actual policy, pasted at the end of the article, clearly indicates adjacent seats, not parent-behind-child:

https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/air-canada.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&strip=all