EA CO AS wrote:
How would you expect AC to prevent someone from boarding a flight on another airline, exactly?
There are no bigger issues. AC doesn’t want their business, and declined to board them. Sometimes things really ARE that simple, and that’s the case here. Your proposal would have required AC extra time and money, followed by spending even more money taking them to court to recover costs no court would grant because AC had no legal obligation to provide them with travel on another carrier in the first place.
I keep reading your solution as saying, “Well, it would be nice if AC had done this...” but the fact is they weren’t required to.
By telling the other airline they wouldn't be able to complete their journey. Which tends to be something of a big deal on international itineraries.
As to bigger issues, I suppose those of us who travel internationally understand that immigration authorities do not take kindly to non-citizens being stranded in their countries (just ask the US CBP). The pax didn't know they were banned, so they aren't at fault. LH didn't know, so they aren't at fault. Prima facie, the fault lies with AC here for failing to communicate the ban to both other parties.
The cost to airline is immaterial here. German immigration would be within their rights to force AC or LH to carry the pax to OTP or YUL at the airlines cost, with no recourse for the airline. Hence check-in travel document/visa checks around the world. If the ban has a legal leg to stand on in Canada (ie pax wrongdoing) I doubt cost recovery will be denied. Either way, arbitrarily banning pax in situations where they haven't committed a crime - or more importantly, just on FA say-so - resulting in them being stranded in a 3rd country should never be a cost-free course of action.
Immigration authorities can only force airlines to carry passengers without proper travel documents and pay a fine. This is not the case, as she is still within the EU and yes it is relevant.
You know, I hate to put like this, but it is quite simple; my aircraft, my property, there are rules and regulations, you've been asked and given a choice. She made hers. Life is all about choices and I have learned that "you never argue with the nurses, as they have the needle in their hands". Like I've said, if you feel so strongly about an issue, you take it further.
I do not believe that the crew, would put their jobs on the line without merits and for Air Canada to banned arbitrarily. And in any case, I am sick and tired of people entitlements in regards to the airlines obligations IE to be ethical as you mentioned. Their only obligations is too carry you from A to B.
We will never know, as the airline is bound by privacy laws, but I can assure you, that internally they have the whole picture!
With current levels of regulatory capture in Canada (just ask the pilots about their vuews on flight duty rules), I'm not sure one can do anything without taking airlines to court. Until CBSA forces TC or CTA to act.
Your position seems to be that AC was ok doing this because it was (likely) an EU citizen in the EU. Are we to infer from that that AC would not do this to a pax connecting from AI at LHR? I'm not convinced that's the case. They're going to see the same message flash up on the screen - so we're probably down to a CSA exercising their discretion, rather than any thought out policy.
I don't think airlines self-exempting themselves from ethical considerations puts them above being criticized for questionable ethics. Dice it a million ways, stranding a connecting passenger in a third country simply doesn't pass the smell test for any reasonable person. In this case, it stinks.
Let me be clear here - I'm not contesting AC's right to decline service to an abusive pax. I am, however, contesting its non-challant attitude towards leaving a connecting pax stranded at the connection point because it couldn't be bothered enough to tell the pax or the airline in a reasonable amount of time.
Like I've suggested earlier, I don't think CBSA would take kindly to a non-Canadian pax coming off a CA flight to YUL connecting to Latin America on AC being stranded in YUL because AC decided to ban him but failed to inform him or CA. I'm just really not convinced that any of the explanations you put forward will carry water with them. I doubt they care about *A IT systems.
As to what AC knows or doesn't know, I don't know how any of it can be used to justify stranding connecting pax in 3rd countries. Seems like AC's attitude - and that of many here - is that this is a problem AC can offload to other countries.