A Canjet "fail"

[Kip Powick]

CanJet Airlines needs a lesson in public relations after leaving an Australian family of five in the lurch.

The Halifax-based charter company ruined their Christmas holiday and then did not get back to them for four weeks — and only after The Public Citizen contacted CanJet’s executive vice president directly.

It also looks like CanJet needs a lesson on what travel documents Mexico requires of Australians to holiday there.

And that’s not all the guff. If what CanJet now says is the real reason it denied the family from boarding a Christmas Day flight from Ottawa to Mexico — that the parents didn’t have their Canadian working papers in order — why is it changing the story that Jeremy Michell and his wife, Sushma Mathur, say they were told?

To make matters worse, it appears the couple has lost the $8,000 they paid upfront for the trip, unless the charter airlines and the Mexican resort where they were supposed to stay with their three children — Emily, 11, Sarah, 10, and Zachary, 8, — decide to refund their money.

The family was looking forward to being pampered at the Akumal Beach resort, near Playa del Carmen, on the Caribbean Sea. The kids helped the parents with the holiday itinerary. There would be snorkelling, swimming and visits to Aztec temples. And all the fun would start around noon, Christmas Day.

So imagine the disappointment when the family found themselves back at their O’Connor Street home that morning, after getting up around 3:30 a.m. to catch a 6:30 a.m. flight.

“We were shattered,” says Mathur. “We lost out on a holiday.”

Mathur says it was terribly hard on the kids because they had wanted to go to Canberra for Christmas as they missed their friends. The family moved here in March 2011 after Michell accepted a job at Statistics Canada under a temporary work-exchange program between the Canadian and Australian governments. Mathur found work at the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Despite the children’s pleas for a Canberra holiday, their parents convinced them that Mexico, with its hot weather and sandy beaches, would be a good alternative.

Their problems started as soon as they arrived at the CanJet check-in desk at Ottawa airport. The attendant was unsure whether she could allow them on the plane with expired work documents, though they were in the process of being renewed. She called in a manager to help.

Mathur says they explained to the manager that their jobs, which were to end this past Dec. 14, had been extended last spring until Aug. 31, 2013. They told him they applied for work extensions last August, but had not received them yet because of a three-month backlog at the Immigration Department. In the meantime, they had “implied status,” which means they were still considered temporary residents in Canada, and would be allowed re-entry at the end of their holiday.

Mathur says the manager left and returned 15 or 20 minutes later to say he got the all-clear from Canada Customs. But he had another question: Did they have tourist visas in addition to their passports? he asked, explaining that Australians holidaying in Mexico require the visa.

Not so, the couple told him. They had checked with their travel agent and on websites weeks before. Australian visitors to Mexico, as is the case with Canadians and Americans, only require their passports, they said. Again, the manager left and upon his return told them that they were out of luck. He explained he had spoken to Mexican as well as CanJet officials, both of whom said Australians required tourist visas. He said that if he allowed them on the plane, they would be returned to Canada.

Mathur says they tried to convince him the information was wrong. She even called up a Mexico tourism website on her iPad which indicated that only passports were required. But he wouldn’t listen. “He was trying to end the discussion, and then he ran off because he had to open another counter.”

Mathur says that when they arrived home they tried to contact CanJet by phone and email to see if they could quickly rebook or get a refund. Someone who answered the phone assured them he would leave the airline an urgent message on their behalf. Their email prompted an automated reply, promising that CanJet would be in touch within 48 hours.

But they didn’t even get a peep from CanJet afterward. The family took a three-day holiday in Quebec to try to raise their spirits. It didn’t, and when they got back home, they called and emailed CanJet again. There airline still didn’t respond.

After they complained to The Public Citizen, I left numerous voice messages for Nicole Blanchard, CanJet’s senior manager of guest experiences. She did not reply, even though a receptionist said she was in the office. But after making contact Tuesday with Kent Woodside, CanJet’s executive vice president, he promised to look into the matter.

Within a couple of hours, Mathur received a phone call from Lisa Ross, senior supervisor of guest relations. Ross told her that CanJet uses the Travel Information Manual (TIM), which some airlines and travel agents rely on for regulations regarding passenger documentation. Sushma says Ross told her that according to TIM, Australian tourists require a visa for Mexico.

But that isn’t so. Various travel and tourist websites, the Mexican Embassy in Australia, and TIM itself say a visa is not required for Australian nationals. TIM says it is only required if the visit exceeds six months.

Mathur eventually received an email Tuesday from Ross, explaining that “an ‘expired Work Visa’ was the reason you and your family were denied boarding (and) not that you required a (visitor’s) visa to travel to Mexico.”

The couple recalls the manager telling the attendant to indicate “incomplete travel documentation” on their check-in records.

Michell immediately challenged Ross’s explanation by email. The couple was still waiting for a reply Wednesday afternoon.

[Super 80]

Can't GoNow Agent rules be used to generate a correct list of required documents based on nationality and destination? Getting a western visa requirement wrong is inexcusable.

But for REAL travel bliss, try travelling with an expired US visa.

[dagger]

I also wonder where their travel agent was in all of this? Shouldn't the agent have handled the intervention to make things right? They seem to have done all of the crisis interventions themselves. I can understand that the agent couldn't help at the airport, but given that even with today's commission rates an $8000 booking is not trivial, that agent should have been roused from his or her egg nog special to do a little hell-raising through the agent channel.

[AME]

They should have let them board and then let the Mexican authorities deal with them trying to re-enter Canada with expired documents...

They told him they applied for work extensions last August, but had not received them yet because of a three-month backlog at the Immigration Department. In the meantime, they had “implied status,” which means they were still considered temporary residents in Canada, and would be allowed re-entry at the end of their holiday.

That's 4 possibly 5 months and they've yet to receive something they claim was only backlogged for 3 months. I'm not sure I would have let them on either.

Just saying.....

[melcrothers]

Dagger, with the resort they chose and the destination...... the prime contact at that time of year would have been the tour operator.

CanJet just have to suck it up and treat the pax fairly. Kent Woodside is a great guy, and I'm struggling to understand his failure to call it an airline screwup. The data in the online visa system is always current within 72 hours.

I wonder if Ken Rowe is calling the shots here!

IMHO....

[John S.]

I also wonder where their travel agent was in all of this? . . .

"Christmas Day flight from Ottawa to Mexico" and you think the travel agent would be answering a phone?

To answer your question: I'll bet that the travel agent was at home celebrating Christmas.

[dagger]

"Christmas Day flight from Ottawa to Mexico" and you think the travel agent would be answering a phone?

To answer your question: I'll bet that the travel agent was at home celebrating Christmas.

As I mentionned, I wouldn't expect the travel agent to be of any help on Xmas at the airport. This is about the followup.

[John S.]

As I mentionned, I wouldn't expect the travel agent to be of any help on Xmas at the airport. This is about the followup.

Sorry, I missed that part when skimming the thread earlier.

Good question: what can, should or will the travel agent do?

[Moon The Loon]

Hey Kip: I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but your post is uncredited. Where did it come from?

Lots of comments, but what is the source of this story?

Like Mel above, I too know Kent as a 100% fellow without which CanJet would not be the operation it has grown into today.

My wife works as a corporate travel agent. She avoids vacation travel like the plague. People say one thing then demand something else, then complain about everything in the end. On the face of this story, and knowing that the onus to provide correct papers at check-in is not with the agent, not with the travel agent, but with the passenger. I too wonder why the passenger did not attempt to contact their travel agency as that is where the correct information about visas etc. should have originated.

But back to my original statement: Where did this article come from?

[Moon The Loon]

They should have let them board and then let the Mexican authorities deal with them trying to re-enter Canada with expired documents...

They told him they applied for work extensions last August, but had not received them yet because of a three-month backlog at the Immigration Department. In the meantime, they had “implied status,” which means they were still considered temporary residents in Canada, and would be allowed re-entry at the end of their holiday.

That's 4 possibly 5 months and they've yet to receive something they claim was only backlogged for 3 months. I'm not sure I would have let them on either.

Just saying.....

The airline could have been liable for added expense to return the passenger to Canada, AND probably pay hefty fines. They would only be looking after themselves, I would think, when seemingly incomplete and/or improper documents are presented at check-in. As for the post-event follow-up? I don't know. Still waiting to learn the source of the above story.

[Kip Powick]

Hey Kip: I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but your post is uncredited. Where did it come from?

++++++++++++.

But back to my original statement: Where did this article come from?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/Hugh+Adami+CanJet+fails+travel+rules+public+relations/7829119/story.html

Here's a tip for all...

.....on any forum if you feel that a posting comes from a source other than just someones posted opinion and the poster " forgot/failed" to include the link, copy the first line or two and paste into Google and quite often the source will pop up.

[Moon The Loon]

If you go here, a Mexican government site: http://mexico.visahq.ca/requirements/Australia/resident-Canada/ and enter Australia citizenship and living in Canada, a visa for tourist purposes of 30 days of less is not required.

If you substitute living in Australia, which is where this family's residence would default to (I would think) with expired Canadian documents, they would be allowed up to 180 days without a tourist visa.

It would seem the question outstanding is the debate about the family's eligibility for re-entry into Canada. Seemingly, that was answered by the CSBA folks:

" In the meantime, they had “implied status,” which means they were still considered temporary residents in Canada, and would be allowed re-entry at the end of their holiday.

Mathur says the manager left and returned 15 or 20 minutes later to say he got the all-clear from Canada Customs. But he had another question: Did they have tourist visas in addition to their passports? he asked, explaining that Australians holidaying in Mexico require the visa." © Ottawa Citizen

My question: What is "implied status" and how is it indicated in one's travel documents?

PS: Thanks for the link, Kip

[Super 80]

Implied Status is irrelevant to anyone other than an employer or educational institution provided one is otherwise admissible to Canada. Basically if you apply to remain in Canada before your visa expires you can remain in Canada status quo until an actual decision is made. However one is not supposed to leave Canada while in limbo. However exceptions are made for bereavement or other emergencies. You can also be readmitted as a visitor provided you can support yourself until a final ruling is made. But while the law as written is black and white there are tons of exceptions by contravening policies. As this guy was participating in a government exchange program he probably would have been in effect reapplying for his resident status upon his return which wouldn't have been in doubt as his employment had been extended. I will settle for the account that CBSA confirmed his readmissibility.

[Spinnaker]

You'd think Canadian airlines would be experts at getting temporary foreign workers in the air...

[Wolfhunter]

"You'd think Canadian airlines would be experts at getting temporary foreign workers in the air..."

LOL...That was my first thought too. I was tempted to say that about 8 or 9 posts ago.

[Moon The Loon]

You'd think Canadian airlines would be experts at getting temporary foreign workers in the air...

BRILLIANT COMMENT!!!!