Lack of Common Sense ?// AC Agent and Supervisor

[Vsplat]

A few thoughts:

1) If Canada immigration said the document was readable, they should have been able to attest to the fact and that would have been the end of it. There is something missing in the story. When was the document scanned and readable? The day of the mishap or the last entry into Canada?

2) I have faced agents from the entire spectrum, from unbelievably good to friggin unbelievable. AC does not hold a world monopoly on either kind. Of course, the press disagrees.

3) The cautionary tale here is for Air Canada senior management, who have developed a real appetite lately for downloading blame to the front line staff, such that most of those I know feel totally exposed every minute they are at work. If the agents in this case had known that the company would back them up for extending goodwill, I have no doubt the passenger would have travelled. As it is, even the prospect of a deadheading crew boarding an earlier flight puts a shiver up their spine, expecting the bolt from above.

It is one thing for your staff to feel personally committed to the success of the operation. It is another to dehumanise the results into OTP and obsessing on the costs of helping out a passenger in your care. Not saying that's what happened here, but it fits.

Vs

[cp fa]

It is one thing for your staff to feel personally committed to the success of the operation. It is another to dehumanise the results into OTP and obsessing on the costs of helping out a passenger in your care. Not saying that's what happened here, but it fits.

Excellent point. Surely a company of this size should have been able to risk the $3000 fine to get the guy to a funeral. I wonder how much all the negative publicity will end up costing.

[Guest rattler]

Excellent point. Surely a company of this size should have been able to risk the $3000 fine to get the guy to a funeral. I wonder how much all the negative publicity will end up costing.

The fine you mention is what Canada charges, no idea what Hong Kong levies. As far as a company risking the fine just because they are a large one, that is not right. Most countries charge fines based at least part on previous infractions and penalties are increased based on the number & frequency of infraction. No air carrier in their right mind would authorize their employees to put the company into jeopardy in this regard.

As to the document issue itself, as others have pointed out, we only have one side of the story. A classic case of he said and then "they" made up their minds without the "rest of the story". It always amazes me that folks who caution about jumping to conclusions when there is an aviation accident, have no hesitation in doing so when the story is about a "possible" Air Canada passenger mishandling.

[IFG]

"functionary:  The functionary dominates ...." - Kafka.

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 ....

Seeker - I'm familiar with the Kafka quote. If that sort of esoteric 'definition' governs here, can I re-interpret your posting by reference to, oh ... say, Ambrose Bierce? IAC, It might be fun to trade suitably nihilistic Kafka-isms, but you're being way too strident (probably not unlike a couple of your colleagues ).

I read your post. Including the detail about NZ from another forum. It is suggestive, but should not automatically compel a conclusion, any more than any other (2nd-hand) Press story would, now should it. Had that document been authenticated in any way prior to travel, as this one allegedly was (I know, merely by Canadian officials)? Here, we have the appraisal of Canadian border officials, that also of the CX agents (perhaps as skilled and trained as AC's?), the anecdotal facts asserted on this thread, as against the appraisal of two AC employees ... and your favourable assumptions bolstered by a Flyertalk precis of another Press piece.

Notwithstanding that rather meagre presentation, I actually conceded the possibility that you, and the customer service folks involved, were correct (Did you read my post?) I still do - only a possibility tho'. Your view just doesn't resonate to me, but I don't think either of us has any lock on the "truth" in this instance. Kip and Vsplat , I think, hit the nail.

Cheers, IFG

[Seeker]

Seeker - I'm familiar with the Kafka quote. If that sort of esoteric 'definition' governs here, can I re-interpret your posting by reference to, oh ... say, Ambrose Bierce? IAC, It might be fun to trade suitably nihilistic Kafka-isms, but you're being way too strident (probably not unlike a couple of your colleagues ).

I read your post. Including the detail about NZ from another forum. It is suggestive, but should not automatically compel a conclusion, any more than any other (2nd-hand) Press story would, now should it. Had that document been authenticated in any way prior to travel, as this one allegedly was (I know, merely by Canadian officials)? Here, we have the appraisal of two AC employees, against the appraisal of Canadian border officials, CX agents (perhaps as skilled and trained as AC's?), the anecdotal facts asserted on this thread ... and your favourable assumptions bolstered by a Flyertalk precis of another Press piece.

Notwithstanding that rather meagre presentation, I actually conceded the possibility that you, and the customer service folks involved, were correct (Did you read my post?) I still do - only a possibility tho'. Your view just doesn't resonate to me, but I don't think either of us has any lock on the "truth" in this instance. Kip and Vsplat , I think, hit the nail.

Cheers, IFG

Well, bravo, you see my point after all. One news story is posted about a couple of heartless AC agents and I can quickly find two news stories to support their decision. Does that prove they were right? No. Does the first news story prove they were wrong? No. I really have no idea if it was the right decision but I find it the height of arrogance to assume that it was incorrect based on a media account or some pre-existing bias. Especially, as posted earlier by me and a few other posters, by pilots who should know better than to jump to conclusions without the benefit of all the facts.

The primary definition of functionary may be as you claim but as you used it, it has a negative connotation. I don't think that's esoteric at all (I have no idea what this nihilistic stuff is or how it ended up in this thread either).

Strident? Well, OK, I guess it's a handicap to believe that my fellow employees are actually good people trying to do a good job rather than Satan incarnate.

Cheers yourself!

[IFG]

.... The primary definition of functionary may be as you claim but as you used it, it has a negative connotation.  I don't think that's esoteric at all (I have no idea what this nihilistic stuff is or how it ended up in this thread either) ....

The "nihilistic stuff" was a light-hearted jab at your introduction of Franz Kafka into the thread, but since you seem determined to squelch any light-heartedness, perish any more attempts at that! It must be nice to know that your own motives are lofty, and that those who differ with you are hypocrites ... and since "cheers" seems unwelcome .... whatever ....

[Seeker]

IFG;

I hate it when tone doesn't carry. The "Cheers Yourself" was meant to be like "Right back at you" or "and cheers to you too" - check the smiley face.

Look, all I've said in this thread is that you (not you personally) can't really trust the media to give a true and complete account of what happened since their main desire is to fill column inches (or minutes). Air Canada makes a nice familiar target and the funeral aspect gives the story a nice hook. A different airline or no funeral (as Kip mentioned already) - no story.

and

How can you (not you personally) assume that you know more about this than the person who job it is to make these decisions?

I see "functionary" as a derogatory label, kind of like calling someone a "bureaucrat" and I saw your use of the term in that light, if you really didn't mean it in that sense then I apologize for derailing the thread by taking exception to it.

and now, finally, here's a bunch of smiley faces to show that I do take it all light-heartedly;

[IFG]

.... I hate it when tone doesn't carry ....

Thanks, seeker - sorry for late reply, I've been technologically challenged lately. You're right, tone does get misread, and I guess I did it this time; no worries. You're right about blind reliance on Press stories, but that must apply equally to those we cite in our support. The fact is we tend to vary our credence according to the slant we perceive in the story. It's human nature, the best we can gope for is to police each other when we throw them back and forth at each other

Your defence of fellow employees is commendable, but still shouldn't get in the way of a little constructive criticism. For myself, I believe the worst I said was to "doubt this was these two employees' finest day on the job; quite likely both the passenger and AC were poorly served". For the record, been there, done that myself, more times than I'd like over the years; certainly I have no intent to suggest they are "heatrless [or] Satan incarnate".

Polite disagreement will sum up the rest. I do prefer to be in the same trench as you, maybe join you in some religious discussion here ...

Um ... Cheers? IFG