Question On Deadheading

[cp fa]

With all due respect, though I might disagree with your opinion, I doubt I would characterize an observation as "nonsense". Many things have changed since you wore the uniform. One of those things is the willingness of agents and IC's (CSD's) to put non-revs in seats to which they are not entitled.

There are many nuances to POS and non-rev travel priorities that I do not profess to understand. I have also found that the vagaries are not understood by all agents. I do know that the YYZ>BRU example was apt because I researched the priorities with the assistance of a company "guide". Unless varied fairly recently, the "rule" was that a SA pax boarded in BRU to YYZ took priority over a YUL pax because only certain seats were assigned to the YUL>YYZ leg. The seat assigned to the BRU pax was part of the BRU>YYZ segment.

I think your initial suggestion of reporting the matter to the company was made without due relection and it appears from your later remarks that you recognize that the initial description of events may have been less than complete.

I prefer to give employees on the front lines the benefit of doubt and wait until all of the relevant facts are known before passing judgment. Nonsensical perhaps---but fair.

I may not have been in uniform for a while but I haven't exactly been living in a cave. I still travel quite frequently, and most of the people that I hang out with are active employees. I am aware that the company has cracked down on disregarding boarding priorities but that doesn't mean it never happens.

Your statement that "Agents do not put "friends" in seats to which they are not otherwise entitled." didn't sound like an observation or an opinion to me, it sounded like a statement of fact, which from my own observations, I know is not true.

[boestar]

in recent times the penalties for ignoring boarding priorities is such cases is very high.

I know there are alot of rules around this and I do not have the "Guide" to look at.

The FA were positive space and there WAS room in J class, so they were upgraded.

This is my question from the get go. WHY?

When I travel POS and a revenue passenger holding a ticket and is eligable for an upgrade is waiting for that upgrade. I would (and do) get bumped to Y or , for that matter, to the lounge to await then next flight. POS travel on business does not guarantee you a J seat ahead of a revenue passenger. Never has. I gave the benefit of the doubt earlier stating that there must be a reason for it. Operational requirements is the only reason I can think of and the back of the bus was full. Other than that I have no idea why we would snub a paying passenger, with status no less.

[cp fa]

And the answer to your question is because it's contractual. Their deadhead priority is pos in Y, space available in J. It's part of their pay packet, and it really has nothing to do with your working conditions. Business travel and crew deadheading are two different issues with different priorities. And despite what you may have been told, under normal circumstances, with priority rules being followed, deadheading crews with J standby priority do not get upgraded ahead of passengers with a legitimate upgrade priority (wait list, certificate, etc.).

[Zan Vetter]

My impression is that this issue from passengers comes from one of two places:

1) that AC employees, particularly flight crew and inflight, are unfairly enriched by virtue of their membership in unions, and have benefits that are far above their true "station" in life.

2) a lack of trust that the rules of boarding priority are being adhered to, and that employees are so greedy as to be unsatisfied with their already too-cushy jobs, that they get in cahoots with each other to "steal" upgrades from passengers.

Both are pretty insulting, which is why airline employees bristle a any suggestion of impropriety.

[Vsplat]

Hmmm.

I am having a hard time reconciling who is drawing what conclusions from this observation. Such is the main drawback of trial by internet.

Air Canada employees, as a group, have to wear whatever negative splashover comes from stuff like this. That includes the dead-on-their-feet gate agents who have spent their evening digging out from an IRROPS event and taking passenger abuse intended for Mother Nature, instead of picking up their kids from care and actually having a normal evening.

People deserve better than this, uniformed or not.

Boestar, you and your friend have an avenue to place a concern. It is a designated, fair process. Please guide them and this concern where it belongs. I would consider it a professional courtesy to the employees involved.

After all, if the belief is that proper process was not followed (boarding priority), then why disregard policy in follow up?

Vs

[IFG]

.... I am having a hard time reconciling who is drawing what conclusions from this observation. Such is the main drawback of trial by internet ....

Well, Vsplat ... ditto

Different perspective tho'. I do not see why so many here are ready to dump on Boe's SE buddy. Zan, look at your characterization of the 'only' things driving his questions - pretty insulting as well, And the snide attitudes about points-holding FF's do leak out at the counter, unfortunately, thanks to a few of your colleagues. I was a tag-holder for a couple of years (almost entirely self-funded without tax relief, thanks acss'), You're good with me, tho', I've got a huge reservoir of goodwill, nay gratitude, for the AC employees over more years than I like to think about

Everybody HERE understands about contractual obligations, but that's not so clear to most FF's, and believe me, they are conditioned by years of bait-and-switch on rewards. It would probably be better if all upgraded travel was out of uniform, to remove the red-flag aspect. Pax' reactions are quite predictable from a human factors viewpoint, really.

Just a thought, pax don't have to be your enemy

Cheers, IFG

[J.O.]

It was a perfectly valid question, but it was asked in the wrong place. For obvious reasons it is all but impossible to get an unbiased response here, not only because of the personal stakes involved, but also because not one of us was actually there to know what happened! Everything said in response so far is opinion and/or conjecture.

A question posed to the customer service department is the only way to get proper satisfaction.The concerns of top level status holders do not go unanswered.

[Zan Vetter]

Hi V,

Firstly I didn't say only, but boestar's friend was apparently coming from a perspective of being wronged-by-proxy, to wit, his concern was that OTHER status holders weren't getting THEIR upgrades as he'd decided not to list. It takes a really specific mindset to spend your time in the boarding lounge attempting to determine- with access to zero information- that staff aren't taking J seats from passengers. It's all just so tiresome, so what other conclusions can one draw? Heck a few years ago I seem to recall our contingent travel upgrade priority being reduced because the status passengers were polled, and they collectively said that they would rather sit next to an empty seat than have a staff member (not in uniform) beside them in J. The company listened and space-available J disappeared. Sauce for the goose etc...if we want J, we pay (C1), otherwise we get a Y seat on a normal pass and J is either filled with upgrades or the seats remain empty. All part of an effort to maintain the exclusivity of the product, which keeps the price up, which makes money, and that's the whole point.

I think that passengers also need to realize that once the flight is closed and it is within :30 of departure, the willingness of the agents to make changes to seat assignments begins to slowly take a backseat to achieving an on time departure. So yes, mis-boards happen but they are not intentional per se. Show up :30 before departure with a reservation for a later flight, denied upgrade, get on and GASP a first officer is in J in "your" seat well, you haven't been wronged, that's just life.

[Vsplat]

Zan, I get it, believe me.

I've tried my best to focus on the process, because quite frankly there is plenty of ammo on both sides for a nearly indefinite mud slinging match.

As you point out, there are plenty of occasions where optics might suggest something wrong was going on, when in fact it was nothing more than a gate agent trying to launch a flight and give a walk up passenger a seat. There are certainly times when our staff have botched the face-to-face aspects of customer service. While this happens in any company, we Canadians seem to relish shouting out our Air Canada horror story. Hey, I have one about Home Depot. Wanna hear it? I thought not.

On the other hand, like many I suspect, I have had the experience of deadheading in uniform, seated next to a passenger (in either cabin) who decides this is their big chance to vent at Air Canada for everything that has ever gone wrong in their travel life, on any airline. I could be a mannequin, it would not matter. They are ranting at the suit.

And then, of course, there is the infamous 'memo'. Etched into the DNA of an entire generation of employees.

There is simply too much impression, opinion, and frankly, past baggage for a discussion like this to flow fairly on an internet forum. I hope the process is used and the submitter provides a factual, conclusion-free account. After all, if there is one thing we all seem to acknowledge, is that the facts behind what actually occurred to start this thread are not yet known.

All the best

Vs

[IFG]

Hi, Zan - I had a reply up here that seems to have disappeared. IAC, I think some of your last remarks may have been directed at me rather than V'?

As far as 'only' is concerned, it could more properly have been 'from one of two places' [pretty much excluding all others], and neither cast a very good light. Six of one, half-dozen of the other ....

Otherwise, pretty much in agreement with what you say, but it's unfortunately problematic for the employees providing a service to lecture their customers on their obligations, however justifiably, particularly vying for (and "entitled to") the same perk. It's a ... complicated, frustrating relationship

I do like "wronged-by-proxy", though. I'll be using that one ...

Cheers, IFG

[moeman]

There's a new system in place that seats POS and non-Rev passengers at a specific time before the flight departs. Not sure of the exact details, but it's set up to improve our OTP. I've noticed that it can sometimes load the more senior or higher priority POS employees in Y, placing less senior employees or lower priority POS employees in J at the last minute when the J passengers don't show up. There is so much pressure to get out on time that sometimes people are seated out of priority. What I do know is that there is no way in heck any of us would be placed in J ahead of a revenue passenger who is entitled to, or has paid for, the seat.