Parenthetic, but doesn't everyone tune out those messages anyhow? Six segments within a month, and on each FAs break in to the IFE cranked to eleven, treble all to hell, mumbling, no syncopation (at least they don't go 'um...', they just stop talking until they remember what they wanted to say!). I get the impression that they're carrying on at least one conversation at a time.

Doesn't matter if its the FAs or the flight deck, both are as vague to the point of knowing less after their announcement than before.

CobaltScar wrote:

U.S. airlines are going this route too.

Yup. AC isn’t alone in their decision; B6 has also recently adopted this new policy. How many crewmembers will adhere to it is anyone’s guess (old PA habits die hard), but it’s a start!

Honestly, it really should be a non-issue. Speaking from the reference point of someone who regularly makes public addresses, most customers don’t pay a lick of attention anyway, so making a slight change to facilitate inclusion shouldn’t be anything to create a fuss over.

As for customers feeling offended if they’re referred to as Ms/Mr when they’re gender non-binary: keep in mind that physically, there’s really no way to tell, and many people that are non-binary are very cognizant of that. Therefore, they’ll usually (and politely) correct you to their preferred prefix (Mx) or simply request to be addressed by first name....which amounts to a non-issue.

Not exactly newsworthy, but progressive changes to the status quo is always going to be met with resistance from almost everyone...lest we forget that none of us are actually the same, in many more ways than one.

If I enter my business class seat I want to be addresses as honorable gentlemen. They should also squeeze in my Dr. Title. Even if I am wearing flipflops and shorts and stink like a hippo after two weeks in the Amazon's. Like I will do in a few hours. Hope avianca exceeds my expectations.

What is how I feel about this discussion.

devron wrote:

If I enter my business class seat I want to be addresses as honorable gentlemen. They should also squeeze in my Dr. Title. Even if I am wearing flipflops and shorts and stink like a hippo after two weeks in the Amazon's. Like I will do in a few hours. Hope avianca exceeds my expectations.

What is how I feel about this discussion.

Well, Doctor, perhaps you might consider using/acquiring some lounge privileges to take a shower. If you wish to be treated as honourable, perhaps you could make greater effort to behave in an honourable fashion?

Blerg wrote:

AaronPGH wrote:

I don't think it is a big ask to slightly alter words if it makes someone feel better.

What about those who don't feel better after the change? What about men and women who want to be referred to as ladies and gentlemen? Don't their feeling matter and don't they have a say?

They're not going to notice any change unless they read everyone freaking out on this forum.

Issue is it does nothing to improve exclusivity. It simply is a corporate PR move to avoid being a target of the politically correct movement.

smokeybandit wrote:

Issue is it does nothing to improve exclusivity. It simply is a corporate PR move to avoid being a target of the politically correct movement.

Exclusivity? Or inclusion? Also, by changing three words (ladies and gentlemen) into one (everyone), I fail to see the “issue” anywhere. Do we really think that those who are accustomed to hearing “ladies and gentlemen” during a ‘greeting’ PA are going to be that much at a loss?

NASBWI wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Issue is it does nothing to improve exclusivity. It simply is a corporate PR move to avoid being a target of the politically correct movement.

Exclusivity? Or inclusion? Also, by changing three words (ladies and gentlemen) into one (everyone), I fail to see the “issue” anywhere. Do we really think that those who are accustomed to hearing “ladies and gentlemen” during a ‘greeting’ PA are going to be that much at a loss?

Ah, but it’s the degradation of everything that’s good and right in society. The world’s going to hell in a handbask… HEY!!! You kids get offa my lawn now, ya hear!!!!!

AC should put this much effort into the inclusivity when it comes to the vast multicultural staff they have.

The way I see it the airline is less polite than before to the majority of their customers. That is anti social isn't it?

You're equating formality with politeness here, and to be fair, in English, polite can mean both. The change (at least in English; not sure of the connotations in French) is actually more polite in sense of the primary meaning; having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people. Not using gendered language is respectful of some people and neutral for others. It could be considered less polite in the second; relating to people who regard themselves as more cultured and refined than others (polite society).

I'm thinking that's a win on both counts.

ME720 wrote:

How stupid! Really..
What about the majority who identify as ladies and or gentlemen? People have to compromise and accept that the good morning is meant to everyone on that plane.. good morning ladies and gentlemen includes everyone..
It s like not wishing a happy x Mas anymore but happy holidays! What next? Good morning will sound offensive to someone out there.. we will have to say good day!
Good morning ladies and gentlemen is not the same as good morning everyone ..not as elegant and is less formal.. they will probably have to say: good morning from the crew.. wait that might offend someone as well.. or should be them instead of the crew? Really ridiculous..

According to convention, you wouldn’t be one to be called lady or gentleman because they would be educated.

The slippery slope argument is one of few types of logical fallacy.

AaronPGH wrote:

Blerg wrote:

AaronPGH wrote:

I don't think it is a big ask to slightly alter words if it makes someone feel better.

What about those who don't feel better after the change? What about men and women who want to be referred to as ladies and gentlemen? Don't their feeling matter and don't they have a say?

They're not going to notice any change unless they read everyone freaking out on this forum.

Well several news outlets have already reported on it so many will find out eventually. What's next? Punishing people because they are using the wrong pronouns?

aerolimani wrote:

NASBWI wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Issue is it does nothing to improve exclusivity. It simply is a corporate PR move to avoid being a target of the politically correct movement.

Exclusivity? Or inclusion? Also, by changing three words (ladies and gentlemen) into one (everyone), I fail to see the “issue” anywhere. Do we really think that those who are accustomed to hearing “ladies and gentlemen” during a ‘greeting’ PA are going to be that much at a loss?

Ah, but it’s the degradation of everything that’s good and right in society. The world’s going to hell in a handbask… HEY!!! You kids get offa my lawn now, ya hear!!!!!

So you are encouraging tolerance and inclusivity while making ageist comments?

Blerg wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

NASBWI wrote:

Exclusivity? Or inclusion? Also, by changing three words (ladies and gentlemen) into one (everyone), I fail to see the “issue” anywhere. Do we really think that those who are accustomed to hearing “ladies and gentlemen” during a ‘greeting’ PA are going to be that much at a loss?

Ah, but it’s the degradation of everything that’s good and right in society. The world’s going to hell in a handbask… HEY!!! You kids get offa my lawn now, ya hear!!!!!

So you are encouraging tolerance and inclusivity while making ageist comments?

What I wrote doesn’t have anything to do with literal age.

ChasChandler wrote:

Magnolia wrote:

I think it's a little odd, but getting upset over a company deciding to making such a small change is silly. Does it affect you that much that your experience is ruined if you don't hear "ladies and gentlemen"? If it makes some people feel more comfortable, then more power to them.

Death by a thousand cuts.

Kinda funny that the folks who get upset about this sort of stuff wander around calling other people snowflakes.

Anything that challenges your dominant position in the world is a threat, eh?

aerolimani wrote:

Blerg wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Ah, but it’s the degradation of everything that’s good and right in society. The world’s going to hell in a handbask… HEY!!! You kids get offa my lawn now, ya hear!!!!!

So you are encouraging tolerance and inclusivity while making ageist comments?

What I wrote doesn’t have anything to do with literal age.

Right, of course it doesn't. You are just using age related stereotypes to make jokes.

BlueTrue wrote:

As is normal now in much of western society, it is perfectly acceptable to offend the majority but you cannot offend some tiny minority. I am a male, my wife a female, that is how we want to be addressed/treated. But it no longer matters what we think, we are just prejudiced in some way. And you mustn't have any beliefs that don't fit the narrative now. I'm liberal as long as you agree with my views is the new thinking.

And you ARE prejudiced and deserve to hear it.

They are choosing a more inclusive term. It's a term that includes you and your wife. Are you both going to forget who you are if you aren't referred to as specifically male and female? Meanwhile, these other folks have specifically been hearing "men, women... and nothing else, eg. not you" for ages. But it's more important that you hear what you want to hear that excludes other people than it is for everyone to feel welcome?

I don't know this for a fact, but I hope the actual majority can easily get over themselves, regardless of their initial reaction to this.

As someone who is non-binary, I’ll be booking tickets on AC every chance I get. The article posted by the OP that was written in French had nothing but inclusive voices. While Francophones in the East tend to be more progressive than some Anglos out west, Canada in general is way beyond the US in terms of accepting people like myself. US carriers continue to insist that everything and everyone fall on the binary, and I must say that it’s isolating, even though I’m not exactly offended.

ryanov wrote:

BlueTrue wrote:

As is normal now in much of western society, it is perfectly acceptable to offend the majority but you cannot offend some tiny minority. I am a male, my wife a female, that is how we want to be addressed/treated. But it no longer matters what we think, we are just prejudiced in some way. And you mustn't have any beliefs that don't fit the narrative now. I'm liberal as long as you agree with my views is the new thinking.

And you ARE prejudiced and deserve to hear it.

They are choosing a more inclusive term. It's a term that includes you and your wife. Are you both going to forget who you are if you aren't referred to as specifically male and female? Meanwhile, these other folks have specifically been hearing "men, women... and nothing else, eg. not you" for ages. But it's more important that you hear what you want to hear that excludes other people than it is for everyone to feel welcome?

I don't know this for a fact, but I hope the actual majority can easily get over themselves, regardless of their initial reaction to this.

Who exactly are they doing this for? Certainly not for the straight people, certainly not for the gays, certainly not for the trans... since all of them are either or think they are one of the two genders there are out there So basically this is a move for a tiny minority out there that declares itself as sexless. Now, the gays already make up a small fraction of the population, the genderless ones an even smaller one.

The moment we get over such small things we get to face much bigger ones such as this one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

At the end of the day these things are not about being inclusive but about power and control.

It's not going to ruin my day to board a plane that announces everyone instead of ladies and gentlemen. However, the reality is that it's only a way for an airline to pronounce their gender neutral inclusiveness. Someone got it right when they said it still covers transgender. The truly gender neutral... personally they live in a gendered world. And have heard ladies and gentlemen all their lives. I personally doubt it's even going to effect them a whole great deal.

In reality what can an airline do to show inclusiveness? Lavatories haven't ever been gendered as far as I can recall. Unless the airline refuses to allow openly gay and transgendered or gender neutral/neither people, there's not really any way of showing it. The good morning ladies and gentlemen encompasses nearly all of the the LGBT. The truly gender neutral is so rare that one airline who says everyone instead of ladies and gentlemen won't effect their profit. The gender neutral themselves will still likely choose the lower fare, better performing airline over the greeting. But, rock on Air Canada we can't say your biased, even though there's no way to be biased unless you refuse the LGBT service.

Blerg wrote:

Who exactly are they doing this for?

The poster directly above you, among others.

Certainly not for the straight people, certainly not for the gays, certainly not for the trans... since all of them are either or think they are one of the two genders there are out there So basically this is a move for a tiny minority out there that declares itself as sexless. Now, the gays already make up a small fraction of the population, the genderless ones an even smaller one.

The moment we get over such small things we get to face much bigger ones such as this one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

You are concerned about a law which punishes harassment. How bizarre. Your articles states that it punishes “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use a transgender person’s “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.” When someone tells you they want to be referred to by a specific pronoun there's no real reason not to just do so.

At the end of the day these things are not about being inclusive but about power and control.

No, at the end of the day it's pretty much just an airline realizing that a fairly minor change can make some of their customers feel better, leading to slightly higher overall satisfaction. Changing the use of language which excludes a tiny minority to language which excludes absolutely no one is a net good. No one is harmed. Bravo, Air Canada.

NASBWI wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Issue is it does nothing to improve exclusivity. It simply is a corporate PR move to avoid being a target of the politically correct movement.

Exclusivity? Or inclusion? Also, by changing three words (ladies and gentlemen) into one (everyone), I fail to see the “issue” anywhere. Do we really think that those who are accustomed to hearing “ladies and gentlemen” during a ‘greeting’ PA are going to be that much at a loss?

That's just it. It's an easy way for the airline to avoid the PC police. But I guarantee you the airline cares a lot more about avoiding the PC police than making the 1-2 people on the flight that might be offended by "ladies and gentlemen" (which truly is as pitiful as being offended by "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah") have a better day.

Blerg wrote:

ryanov wrote:

BlueTrue wrote:

As is normal now in much of western society, it is perfectly acceptable to offend the majority but you cannot offend some tiny minority. I am a male, my wife a female, that is how we want to be addressed/treated. But it no longer matters what we think, we are just prejudiced in some way. And you mustn't have any beliefs that don't fit the narrative now. I'm liberal as long as you agree with my views is the new thinking.

And you ARE prejudiced and deserve to hear it.

They are choosing a more inclusive term. It's a term that includes you and your wife. Are you both going to forget who you are if you aren't referred to as specifically male and female? Meanwhile, these other folks have specifically been hearing "men, women... and nothing else, eg. not you" for ages. But it's more important that you hear what you want to hear that excludes other people than it is for everyone to feel welcome?

I don't know this for a fact, but I hope the actual majority can easily get over themselves, regardless of their initial reaction to this.

Who exactly are they doing this for? Certainly not for the straight people, certainly not for the gays, certainly not for the trans... since all of them are either or think they are one of the two genders there are out there So basically this is a move for a tiny minority out there that declares itself as sexless. Now, the gays already make up a small fraction of the population, the genderless ones an even smaller one.

The moment we get over such small things we get to face much bigger ones such as this one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

At the end of the day these things are not about being inclusive but about power and control.

Oh, that is rich!!! First, you accuse me of being ageist, presumably in a way you find offensive, or surely you wouldn’t have felt any need to mention it. Then, you get bent out of shape over a law intended to protect the dignity of at-risk seniors.

Back quasi-on topic… just the other day, I noted the consistent usage of “Señores pasajeros” on an Aeroméxico flight. It was too conspicuous not to be purposefully done. I didn’t pay attention to the English announcements, unfortunately.

aerolimani wrote:

Blerg wrote:

ryanov wrote:

And you ARE prejudiced and deserve to hear it.

They are choosing a more inclusive term. It's a term that includes you and your wife. Are you both going to forget who you are if you aren't referred to as specifically male and female? Meanwhile, these other folks have specifically been hearing "men, women... and nothing else, eg. not you" for ages. But it's more important that you hear what you want to hear that excludes other people than it is for everyone to feel welcome?

I don't know this for a fact, but I hope the actual majority can easily get over themselves, regardless of their initial reaction to this.

Who exactly are they doing this for? Certainly not for the straight people, certainly not for the gays, certainly not for the trans... since all of them are either or think they are one of the two genders there are out there So basically this is a move for a tiny minority out there that declares itself as sexless. Now, the gays already make up a small fraction of the population, the genderless ones an even smaller one.

The moment we get over such small things we get to face much bigger ones such as this one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

At the end of the day these things are not about being inclusive but about power and control.

Oh, that is rich!!! First, you accuse me of being ageist, presumably in a way you find offensive, or surely you wouldn’t have felt any need to mention it. Then, you get bent out of shape over a law intended to protect the dignity of at-risk seniors.

I don't find anything you say offensive, I find it outright stupid and delusional- from the beginning to the end. And your last sentence proves me right, that you are ready to curb freedom of speech in order to satisfy your views on this matter.

Here is a perfect solution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN0ANxAhkxk

smokeybandit wrote:

NASBWI wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Issue is it does nothing to improve exclusivity. It simply is a corporate PR move to avoid being a target of the politically correct movement.

Exclusivity? Or inclusion? Also, by changing three words (ladies and gentlemen) into one (everyone), I fail to see the “issue” anywhere. Do we really think that those who are accustomed to hearing “ladies and gentlemen” during a ‘greeting’ PA are going to be that much at a loss?

That's just it. It's an easy way for the airline to avoid the PC police. But I guarantee you the airline cares a lot more about avoiding the PC police than making the 1-2 people on the flight that might be offended by "ladies and gentlemen" (which truly is as pitiful as being offended by "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah") have a better day.

This is not driven by people being "offended by "ladies and gentlemen"". Starting with that premise naturally leads you to a false conclusion.
This is about a modern and progressive airline, based in a modern and progressive country, opening itself and its culture up to the diversity of its fare paying customers.

You, and plenty of others here, are completely missing the point. It's not simply to help someone "have a better day". It's about a culture of openness and inclusivity. The mere use or not of words on a single flight will make little to no difference to anyone on the flight (on either side of the argument), but little changes like this help to develop a culture. It's not merely transactional in it's nature.

openskies88 wrote:

The very definition of social privilege is being upset over something as trivial as a move toward more inclusive language.

It’s a small change, but moves such as this force us to think critically about the power and structures that create and maintain an unequal society. Well done, Air Canada.

Or they have been done haven’t received this sort of attention or reconciliation and are therefore envious

BN727227Ultra wrote:

Parenthetic, but doesn't everyone tune out those messages anyhow? Six segments within a month, and on each FAs break in to the IFE cranked to eleven, treble all to hell, mumbling, no syncopation (at least they don't go 'um...', they just stop talking until they remember what they wanted to say!). I get the impression that they're carrying on at least one conversation at a time.

Doesn't matter if its the FAs or the flight deck, both are as vague to the point of knowing less after their announcement than before.

Yes exactly!

I put on my headphones while boarding, and don't take them off until I get off the plane.

I do 60+ flights a year, and over time realized that FA's or Pilot's have never even once said anything of importance over the loudspeaker. Not once. It's all just noise, so now I block it out.

They explain how to use a seatbelt, babble on about how happy they are we chose their airline, hard pitch a credit card, then the pilot tells us about the weather at a connecting airport. None of it is important. So, AC can call me whatever they want, I won't be listening anyway.

Hell, real news would be if an airline decided to just keep their cabin quiet and let passengers fly in peace!

Blerg wrote:

Who exactly are they doing this for? Certainly not for the straight people, certainly not for the gays, certainly not for the trans... since all of them are either or think they are one of the two genders there are out there So basically this is a move for a tiny minority out there that declares itself as sexless. Now, the gays already make up a small fraction of the population, the genderless ones an even smaller one.

The guy who wrote the post after mine, for one. Also, I don't think your understanding of what everyone wants is necessarily "with the program" if that's your conclusion. Who cares how few people it is? It literally does not affect me AT ALL to be referred to less specifically. If it does anything for anyone else, have at it.

Blerg wrote:

The moment we get over such small things we get to face much bigger ones such as this one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

At the end of the day these things are not about being inclusive but about power and control.

Don't post articles on these subjects from those idiots and expect a point to be made. Anyone who's watched FOX talk about LGBT issues even once knows better.

Most people won't notice/be affected, a few people will greatly appreciate it, and a bunch of boomers will be offended.

ryanov wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Who exactly are they doing this for? Certainly not for the straight people, certainly not for the gays, certainly not for the trans... since all of them are either or think they are one of the two genders there are out there So basically this is a move for a tiny minority out there that declares itself as sexless. Now, the gays already make up a small fraction of the population, the genderless ones an even smaller one.

The guy who wrote the post after mine, for one. Also, I don't think your understanding of what everyone wants is necessarily "with the program" if that's your conclusion. Who cares how few people it is? It literally does not affect me AT ALL to be referred to less specifically. If it does anything for anyone else, have at it.

Blerg wrote:

The moment we get over such small things we get to face much bigger ones such as this one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

At the end of the day these things are not about being inclusive but about power and control.

Don't post articles on these subjects from those idiots and expect a point to be made. Anyone who's watched FOX talk about LGBT issues even once knows better.

So if it pleases a small group then it's ok regardless if a much larger group is bothered by the change? You know, since pleasing these people is what matters the most. Society can't change by forcing one view onto others. That's how you got Trump elected and how you will get him re-elected next year so keep it up.

Hi all, this thread has gone beyond aviation field. It will be moved to Non-Aviation.

Blerg wrote:

ryanov wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Who exactly are they doing this for? Certainly not for the straight people, certainly not for the gays, certainly not for the trans... since all of them are either or think they are one of the two genders there are out there So basically this is a move for a tiny minority out there that declares itself as sexless. Now, the gays already make up a small fraction of the population, the genderless ones an even smaller one.

The guy who wrote the post after mine, for one. Also, I don't think your understanding of what everyone wants is necessarily "with the program" if that's your conclusion. Who cares how few people it is? It literally does not affect me AT ALL to be referred to less specifically. If it does anything for anyone else, have at it.

Blerg wrote:

The moment we get over such small things we get to face much bigger ones such as this one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

At the end of the day these things are not about being inclusive but about power and control.

Don't post articles on these subjects from those idiots and expect a point to be made. Anyone who's watched FOX talk about LGBT issues even once knows better.

So if it pleases a small group then it's ok regardless if a much larger group is bothered by the change? You know, since pleasing these people is what matters the most. Society can't change by forcing one view onto others. That's how you got Trump elected and how you will get him re-elected next year so keep it up.

A much larger group being offended is unproven. We get that you are irrationally bothered by it. No one is really sure why you seem to feel Air Canada Saying, essentially, "Hello everyone" instead of "Hello ladies and gentlemen" is a big deal to anyone else.

The easiest and safest way today would be to say "XX and XY chromosomes". This would include every person on the planet and encompass all 75 plus Facebook genders.

So, as an interesting side note, that's actually wrong. https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content ... ormissing/

The easiest and safest thing is to just say "everyone" or "everybody.".

I can only speak for me here. I do not understand all the different sexual identities. I do not understand why someone wants to switch genders. I have read peer reviewed articles and understand from that point, but from a personal point, I don't get it.

That being said, I also remember what it was like to be bullied and beaten and ostracized and hated for me being me. I hated that and I do not wish that on anyone. Whatever gender someone identifies, whatever sexual orientation one identifies, so what? I will accept them. If an airline wants to stop using two genders, so what? What difference does it make to you if there may or may not be someone on your flight who identifies as a different gender?

How do you deal with this one???

The 'blob,' an organism with no brain but 720 sexes, debuts at Paris zoo

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/pari ... -1.5325747

afcjets wrote:

The easiest and safest way today would be to say "XX and XY chromosomes". This would include every person on the planet and encompass all 75 plus Facebook genders.

What about xyy? There is a fraction born with extra chromosomes. Apparently one in a thousand men.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

There is also xxy, apparently slightly more common, but less than 1 in 500:
https://m.wisegeek.com/what-are-xxy-chromosomes.htm

There is also xxx syndrome:
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/triple-x-syndrome

Most of the above are just talker, although xyy can have learning/speech disorders.

Lightsaber