Canada’s Supreme Court Rules Against the French and Fast Track to Top Tier Hotel Elite!

News and notes from around the interweb:


About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »

Comments

  1. Weird title. I know we sometimes refer to each other as the French or francophones and English or anglophones (I’ll spare you all the other cute nicknames) in Canada but the plaintiffs are not actually French.

  2. Piece on Quebecois (yes they are no more “French” than Mexicans are “Spanish”) is amusing and I have relatives living in Montreal but I gotta say I sympathize with the position of the Francophones in Quebec and Canada in general. They are a minority surrounded and bombarded with the English language and US culture and they want to feel at home in their own country, where French is indeed one of the official languages. I wouldn’t resort to a lawsuit (except perhaps to make a point) but I’d be pretty annoyed if I couldn’t communicate in English with airline staff flying on one of the US carriers.

  3. Gary, your headline is misleading.

    The Supreme Court actually ruled in favour (with a “u”) of the plantiffs because AC violated the Official Languages Act, which requires the airline to offer bilingual service as a former government-owned company.

    The court ruled they were not entitled to financial damages, however, because (a) the Montreal Convention limits the claims that can be made against airlines flying internationally, and (b) the official apology from AC was considered fair and adequate compensation for the offense caused.

    BTW, while these two are obviously dicks for making a big deal of this in the first place, it was actually the government’s Commissioner of Official Languages who took the case to the Supreme Court on their behalf. Obviously there are larger legal issues related to bilingualism in this case or the SCOC wouldn’t have heard it.

  4. @kanor the availability source i wrote about in my original draft — which i failed to take out of the headline when the post was published but had already been removed from the body of the post — is already unavailable. For the first time ever a blogger killed a deal before even publishing a psot!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *