Lack of Common Sense ?// AC Agent and Supervisor

[Kip Powick]

Passport flap keeps businessman from friend's funeral

ELIZABETH CHURCH

From Monday's Globe and Mail

December 10, 2007 at 5:20 AM EST

What started as a personal tragedy - the sudden death of a dear friend and business partner - has became the latest instalment in the bureaucratic horrors of international travel for a Windsor man desperate to be at a funeral later this week in Hong Kong.

Mike Levesque spent yesterday at Toronto's Pearson Airport after an Air Canada official said his well-used passport was unacceptable, even though he had just flown home from Asia on the same airline a few days before.

"I have to say I've never, ever had this kind of treatment anywhere else in the world," a weary and emotional Mr. Levesque, 38, said yesterday afternoon as he camped out in Pearson's Terminal 3 where he hoped to get on a flight with another carrier. "It's been quite a day."

His day began in the wee hours of the morning with a four-hour drive to Toronto to catch an Air Canada flight to Hong Kong. The quickly planned trip followed news that his business partner and university friend, Kevin Yuen, had been killed on a mountain road in nearby Macau by a drunk driver at the wheel of a dump truck. After days of searching, authorities had located the man's body on a steep hillside and Mr. Levesque was eager to be there for the service and to support the wife and two daughters Mr. Yuen left behind.

But when the ticket agent saw his passport - a frequently used document that also made a trip through the laundry about a year ago - she questioned whether authorities in Hong Kong would allow him entry. This even though the passport contained a 90-day visa for travel there that had been stamped the last time Mr. Levesque arrived in Hong Kong on his most recent business trip on Nov. 16 - the last time he also saw his friend.

Given that he had just travelled in Asia for three weeks and never had his passport questioned, Mr. Levesque was astonished airline staff would prevent him from returning.

"I said there was no way that it wouldn't be accepted and asked to speak to the supervisor," Mr. Levesque recalled. The airline supervisor refused to let Mr. Levesque on his flight, even after Canadian immigration officials at Pearson said the passport was still usable because it scanned and was readable.

"He didn't care that I was going to a funeral. He told me you might as well book a room. You can go to the passport office in the morning. You might be there by Thursday," Mr. Levesque said.

Air Canada spokeswoman Angela Mah said airlines are responsible for checking that passengers have the correct documents for travel, even though it is the countries of entry that ultimately make that decision. "There are hefty fines for airlines, which come into effect for allowing passengers to travel without proper documentation," Ms. Mah said. "With the state of this passport, we just could not be assured of the actions taken by the Hong Kong authorities."

For Mr. Levesque, the ordeal left him bewildered at a time when his world has already been upended. "It's a defining moment," he said searching for words to describe the experience. "It could have been avoided with a little bit of a human touch."

Mr. Levesque struck up a friendship with Mr. Yuen while they were engineering students first at the University of Waterloo and later at the University of Toronto. After Mr. Yuen moved to Hong Kong, the two began working together on business ventures. Mr. Levesque's company, Engineered Systems Inc., designs wind turbines and also does work on solar energy and LED lighting, the part of the business Mr. Yuen oversaw.

Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Yuen greeted his old friend when he arrived at the airport in Hong Kong. They met with a business contact and later had tea before Mr. Levesque left for Shanghai.

"That was the last time I saw him," Mr. Levesque said. "It's all so fresh."

Late last night Mr. Levesque was on standby for a flight with Cathay Pacific that would get him to Hong Kong early tomorrow morning, a few hours before the funeral service. Cathay Pacific had no problem accepting his passport

[CanadaEH]

Nice to see there's compasionate people in this world.

[handyman]

He's better off anyways...at least now he gets a smile and service when he wants!

[Johnny]

He didn't have ANY other picture ID, to support his passport, maybe a drivers license?

As with most stories....there has to be more to the story.

But hey, we just got a bulletin that says when we deadhead, our CISIS approved RAP is not acceptable ID for boarding our own Aircraft.

We must show a Drivers License or Passport, on the whim of the Agent. The MOT, in the infinate wisdom, claims the RAP doesn't show our Birthdate.

The RAP is good enough to fly the Aircraft, but not ride in the back.

[Guest floatrrr]

Regardless if he had any other ID, Air Canada wouldn't accept a VALID passport that was readable by the immigration scanners in Canada. What bureaucratic foolery.

[Seeker]

The guy was trying to travel on a beat up passport that had been through the wash a year ago. He had plenty of time to get a replacement from that mistake. I don't have much sympathy for him. The acceptability of a passport falls on a continuum from brand spanking new to a ratty old scrap. It makes no difference if it was used last month, last week, yesterday or an hour ago since at some point it will cease to be acceptable. The person who is responsible for making that decision made that decision. Very strange comments here from pilots who have no problem understanding that a CRFI of .24 might be acceptable while a CRFI of .23 isn't - explain that to me! Who's to say that buddy didn't do further damage to the passport since the last time he used it. The fact that he was going to a funeral has no bearing on whether the passport should be accepted. Who's to say that the Canadian standards, as checked by Canadian Immigration officials aren't different from Chinese standards - will the agent who said the passport was acceptable be willing to underwrite the fine if it turns out not to be acceptable. As for the comment (in bold) that Cathay Pacific had no problem accepting the passport; this has no relevance either. We do not know if they are correct, if they have ever had to pay a fine or if they get preferencial treatment. I'm surprised at the amount of second-guessing over this. Why assume that the news story is correct and the decision was wrong - based on my experience with the media I would be more likely to assume that the decision was correct and the story is embellished to make it a good read.

[Guest floatrrr]

Let's be completely ridiculous. Maybe AC should put a point system on their travel website for passport condition. " On a scale of 1-10, what is the condition of your passport? " Gimme abreak, if the scanners can read it they can read it.

[Super 80]

My old passport was falling apart and smelled bad when it expired and nobody anywhere, including Air Canada ever objected to it beyond a few customs officers who said they hoped their was a good story behind it.

US Customs said as long as no pages were missing and the laminated page is untampered with they don't care if it has a cover.

My new passport looks like it was printed on my circa 1986 Apple Image Writer II printer. The quality of the picture in my new passport has been more of a concern than the physical condition of my old one.

[IFG]

....  I don't have much sympathy for him.  The acceptability of a passport falls on a continuum from brand spanking new to a ratty old scrap.  It makes no difference if it was used last month, last week, yesterday or an hour ago since at some point it will cease to be acceptable.  The person who is responsible for making that decision made that decision.  Very strange comments here from pilots who have no problem understanding that a CRFI of .24 might be acceptable while a CRFI of .23 isn't - explain that to me!  ....

As for the comment (in bold) that Cathay Pacific had no problem accepting the passport; this has no relevance either ....

Seeker - At what point might you summon up a little sympathy? Out of curiosity, has an airline ever been fined as a result of one of its passenger's valid passport being in tatty condition? The document was valid. A couple of AC functionaries made their own decision about it's acceptability to Hong Kong authorities, disregarding the stamped evidence of their previous approval. We may not know all the details, but I doubt this was these two employees' finest day on the job; quite likely both the passenger and AC were poorly served.

Your own analogy weakens their case rather than strengthening it. You know perfectly well that there's a clear explanation why some CRFI's are acceptable, and some are not, and that as a result of that, pilot's decisions on those matters (just for instance at AC & CX) will likely be consistent. Nothing "strange" at all about exploring inconsistencies elsewhere. What you seem to advocate is that we all make our own individual assessment of our personal comfort with runway conditions, and let the pax deal with the consequence.

Finally, a comparison of the CX decision to accept this passengers valid document seems relevant to several areas, which include operational, customer service, PR ....

Cheers, IFG

[handyman]

As for the comment (in bold) that Cathay Pacific had no problem accepting the passport; this has no relevance either. We do not know if they are correct, if they have ever had to pay a fine or if they get preferencial treatment. I'm surprised at the amount of second-guessing over this. Why assume that the news story is correct and the decision was wrong - based on my experience with the media I would be more likely to assume that the decision was correct and the story is embellished to make it a good read.

You could be correct based on your experience with the media but why does it seem to happen more often to AC? Pi**ed off employees taking it out on the passengers maybe?

[Seeker]

The document was valid when it was stamped. What has happened to it since then, do you know? The functionaries, as you describe them, made the decision that the passport was likely to be refused because that is their job. Neither you nor I saw the passport or would be qualified to pass judgement on it so why do you presume to second-guess those who are charged with this responsibility?

Look, you must agree that at some point a passport would be unacceptable, right? How do you know that this passport was not beyond that point? I can virtually guarantee that this passenger had been made aware of the marginal state of the passport before this but chose to ignore that warning. On a personal level I do feel some sympathy for the guy - he gambled and lost. I have no idea whether AC, or any airline, has been fined in the past but these things do not evolve in a vacuum. I would bet that we have been fined and that the decision to deny travel to this passenger is a direct result of that happening.

The CRFI analogy is valid; one side of an infinitely narrow line is acceptable and on the other it's not. A skilled and trained individual makes a decision based on a set of criteria. A lucky pilot may land the airplane at .23, a lucky person may get a lenient customs officer. Do you rely on luck or follow the guidelines?

BTW, here's a post from Flyertalk about a similar situation:

There is a television program in Australia called Border Security, which follows Australian Immigration and Customs officers doing their business at major airports in Australia. On this week's show they followed a story of a person arriving into Sydney on a Canadian passport that show minimal damage that could have been considered wear and tear. But upon very close examination by a forensic document examiner, it was found to have been photo-substituted. The passport was confiscated and the person deported.

Another story followed a passenger departing Australia to New Zealand. His passort had been through the wash. He was not allowed to board his flight with that passport as the NZ authorities would not accept it in that condition. He had to get another passport issued and flew out a few days later.

So it is not worth the potential problems that you may find when trying to use your passport. If the receiving country officials believe the passport may have been tampered, they are able to refuse you entry. I recommend having a damaged passport replaced before you travel.

[Seeker]

You could be correct based on your experience with the media but why does it seem to happen more often to AC?  Pi**ed off employees taking it out on the passengers maybe?

Oh yah, that makes sense; the employees are PO'd so they make more work for themselves. Are you on some kind of a mission?

Why does AC have more issues with international travel? Cause we do more of it and because it makes good news when it does happen.

[Fido]

Air Canada passenger service people spend too much time 'policing' the passengers.

[Guest rattler]

Carriers are subject to fines and other costs if they transport undocumented (includes invalid passports) passengers into most countries. As an example in Canada

5.1 Obligations and liabilities of transporters

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and its Regulations, transporters have

several obligations, including:

• refusing to provide transportation to persons who are improperly documented;

• presenting the persons who they carry for immigration examination and holding them until

completion of examination;

• carrying persons from Canada who have been ordered removed;

• paying administration fees, medical costs and removal costs for certain classes of inadmissible

persons;

• complying with directions to deposit security; and

• providing, equipping and maintaining adequate facilities at ports of entry for examining,

detaining and removing inadmissible persons.

+ an administration fee (read fine) of $3500.00 per incident. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/man.../enf/enf15e.pdf

[IFG]

The document was valid when it was stamped.  What has happened to it since then, do you know?  The functionaries, as you describe them, made the decision that the passport was likely to be refused because that is their job ....

The CRFI analogy is valid; one side of an infinitely narrow line is acceptable and on the other it's not.    A skilled and trained individual makes a decision based on a set of criteria.  A lucky pilot may land the airplane at .23, a lucky person may get a lenient customs officer.  Do you rely on luck or follow the guidelines?

Hi again, Seeker - a functionary is basically an official, I don't think there's anything perjoritive as your reference to my use of it seems to imply. As to how "skilled and trained" they were in the appraisal of document validity, I don't know about that; maybe you can elaborate? According to the story, the passport was acceptable that day to Canadian Border officials, but what do they know?

Look, maybe all your comments and suppositions about this traveler are accurate, and AC is certainly quite within its rights to refuse travel on any of several grounds. It just doesn't appear to me to have been a particularly fair or wise exercise of those rights in this instance, and it apparently does to you. Potential passengers whose documents are less than pristine should be cautioned about booking AC, and OTOH, 2 AC employees have saved their company from any exposure to the risk involved transporting one of those individuals. The world turns ...

On the specific matter of your analogy, tho', the "infinitely narrow line" you refer to exists in the application of CRFI for the very purpose of deciding upon, and justifying a course of action. There was no line (even finitely wide ) guiding the decision to deny boarding, and between an AC agent's expertise (with supervisory support) and that of Canadian Border officials, AC went with the former.

Carriers are subject to fines and other costs if they transport undocumented (includes invalid passports) passengers ....

I don't think anybody here disputes AC's rights or obligations here, rattler, just their wisdom.

Cheers, IFG

[handyman]

Oh yah, that makes sense; the employees are PO'd so they make more work for themselves. Are you on some kind of a mission?

Why does AC have more issues with international travel? Cause we do more of it and because it makes good news when it does happen.

No mission here but your rose colored ideology is tough to swallow here.

PO'd employees are sometimes a**holes with everyone around them and it's really not that hard to say "NO" now is it?

You do more of it? Get off that high horse buddy...we don't hear stories about the 1 or 2 other carriers that operate Internationally into Canada do we.

...and no it makes very bad news for AC and as a Canadian...I take objection to that as you do represent Canadians whether you know it or not.

Why do I bother...it will never change at AC!

[handyman]

Carriers are subject to fines and other costs if they transport undocumented (includes invalid passports) passengers into most countries. As an example in Canada

+ an administration fee (read fine) of $3500.00 per incident. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/man.../enf/enf15e.pdf

They will not get fined for a document in poor but readable condition. If it's expired or not theirs...now that is a different story.

Believe me...this is a huge issue with Asian flights as many are denied.

[Seeker]

Hi again, Seeker - a functionary is basically an official, I don't think there's anything perjoritive as your reference to my use of it seems to imply.  As to how "skilled and trained" they were in the appraisal of document validity, I don't know about that; maybe you can elaborate? According to the story, the passport was acceptable that day to Canadian Border officials, but what do they know? 

Look, maybe all your comments and suppositions about this traveler are accurate, and AC is certainly quite within its rights to refuse travel on any of several grounds.  It just doesn't appear to me to have been a particularly fair or wise exercise of those rights in this instance, and it apparently does to you.  Potential passengers whose documents are less than pristine should be cautioned about booking AC, and OTOH, 2 AC employees have saved their company from any exposure to the risk involved transporting one of those individuals.  The world turns ...

On the specific matter of your analogy, tho', the "infinitely narrow line" you refer to exists in the application of CRFI for the very purpose of deciding upon, and justifying a course of action.  There was no line (even finitely wide ) guiding the decision to deny boarding, and between an AC agent's expertise (with supervisory support) and that of Canadian Border officials, AC went with the former.

I don't think anybody here disputes AC's rights or obligations here, rattler, just their wisdom.

Cheers, IFG

"functionary: The functionary dominates the apparatus through controlling its exterior (input and output), and is in turn dominated by the opacity of its interior. In other words, functionaries are people who dominate a game for which they are not competent. Kafka.

www.equivalence.com/labor/lab_vf_glo_e.shtml"

Yes, the passport was acceptable to the Canadian officials (did you actually read my reply to you?) so what? The question was; would the passport be acceptable to the Chinese? Please re-read my posting above regarding passports being denied in Australia and New Zealand. Do you assert that the Canadian officials are familiar with the Chinese requirements and standards? I would bet that the AC supervisor was more conversant with the requirements than the Canadian officials.

By this passenger's own admission the passport in question had been washed and was well used for over a year. This is far from "pristine". I expect all my fellow employees to follow the guidelines they are given and not to be browbeaten into submission. The choice to deny travel to this passenger may have saved AC many thousand dollars so by that standard it was a good decision.

How do you know there is no line governing passport acceptance? I'll bet the guidelines clearly state that it must be clean, complete and undamaged.

Once again you mention that the agents did not act "wisely". This is an assumption on your part that there would be no problem with customs at the destination. I disagree.

[Seeker]

No mission here but your rose colored ideology is tough to swallow here.

PO'd employees are sometimes a**holes with everyone around them and it's really not that hard to say "NO" now is it?

You do more of it?  Get off that high horse buddy...we don't hear stories about the 1 or 2     other carriers that operate Internationally into Canada do we. 

...and no it makes very bad news for AC and as a Canadian...I take objection to that as you do represent Canadians whether you know it or not. 

Why do I bother...it will never change at AC!

I don't think it's rose-colored ideology to say that I trust my fellow employees more than the media. Newspaper reporting is ridiculously inaccurate and your assumption that the story is true, complete and caused by a disgruntled employee is a huge leap on shakey ground.

Air Canada is a familiar corporate entity in Canada. Everyone in the country has probably traveled with us at some time so any story written about AC is golden. As a reporter you could take any minor situation, embellish it for a few column inches and please your editor; nobody cares what happens to Air Pakistan at terminal 3. That doesn't make AC better but it certainly makes the story better. The same thing goes for any foreign airline, it just doesn't strike the average Canadian as being as newsworthy. Canadians like to read news about Canadian companies and about things they can identify with. Air Canada is a bigger company and does more international flying than any other Canadian company so the combination of more opportunity for incidents plus the greater media focus means that we're in the news more often. Take the chip off your shoulder.

[handyman]

Take the chip off your shoulder.

No chip here, I just don't understand why you need a public inquiry to see something is fishy here.

AC is a large Canadian company with many great hard working employees but it only takes a few to spoil the good hard work done by others. Too bad some can't see that!

[newgirl]

As a retired airport checkin agent, I have handled some pretty beat up passports. The majority were oil field workers who worked 3 months in Saudi and then had a month back home in Canada.

What bothered me was that we were expected to be up to date on every country in the world as to passport, visa regulations etc. And yes if someone slipped through the system our station was billed for the 3000.00 fine.

My point is that we are not Customs officials nor should we be subject to that role. For international flights Customs should be on hand to make the determination that the passport is unacceptable not our agents.

[deicer]

PO'd employees are sometimes a**holes with everyone around them

Not gonna argue with you over that statement, however.........

If it is allowed for the passengers to carp over the service received, then I think it should also be allowed to report passengers who are being, shall we say, more difficult than what the fare paid allows?

Oh...

I forgot, there wouldn't be enough newsprint around to cover it.

And with the media feasting on the negative news, it wouldn't sell as well, would it?

Iceman

[Johnny]

If it is allowed for the passengers to carp over the service received, then I think it should also be allowed to report passengers who are being, shall we say, more difficult than what the fare paid allows?

HUH? Last I checked, we were in the "Service Business!"

[Kip Powick]

I think there is enough to go around from both points of view.

IE......we flew the Blue Jays one day. The, then, 3rd baseman KG read all his fan mail during the flight and as he read each letter he ripped them in half and just threw the remains on the floor....perhaps bad fan mail...every one of them ??

We were doing a YWG-YYZ-YOW and when we stopped in YYZ the FA called me back and pointed at the floor near a window seat about half way back. Every book/document in the seat back ahead had been shredded into confetti and dropped on the floor.Nervous flyer or ignorant?

The fwd washroom was for "J" class in the A310. One female pax went in and cleaned out every "freebee"there was in the washroom. When she came out, she could not close her purse because of all the "gifts" she had lifted. Christmas gifts or a Klepto?

The FA was going down the aisle with the basket of individually wrapped candies they handed out during descent...one guy grabbed the candy basket, dumped all the candy in his brief case, handed back the empty basket and said nary a word. Needy family or greedy/not familiar with the procedure or what we call "sharing"?

For the most part, I have found the agents OCP/OAC/NAC/WJ and others most accommodating but naturally there are horror stories from both sides of the red/blue fence, pre and early post merger.

This thread was started just to illustrate that a simple procedure got out of hand and how the press played it up. Had the pasenger just been going to Asia, the story would not have made the news...but a funeral.......well that was the hot button in the story. I can only imagine how the story would have evolved had the passenger been a minority, fanatically religious, or non gender specific.

If any of you have watched the series that concerned South West on TV you would know that incidents of this type happen everyday and it is no big deal..no one runs a perfect airline and no one can please everyone............. all the time.

[Super 80]

I ran this by the station manager of a US airline and his observations were,

1. He does not know of any time when his airline was fined as the holder of a beat up passport was refused entry anywhere, nor has he ever refused boarding to the holder of a beat up passport or even remembers such a matter being brought to his attention. These types of events are reported in emails sent to every station.

2. Their only frequent problem with passports is passengers "losing" them inflight and then going on to declare they are refugees upon arrival in the United States. Apprently alot of people spontaniously become Zimbabweans or Sudanese inflight.

They can get out of the fine if they can produce the discarded passport, but finding it can be very difficult/disgusting/impossible as they are usually flushed or in the lav garbage or thrown away/flushed airside before immigration.

3. They used to have a problem with passengers checked through from unstaffed stations and their documents were not correctly checked by the contract handler at that station. But this was always an extremely small problem.

And the classic and largest by far "I dun't need no passpurt, uh'm Amerikun"