Ryanair pax refuse to leave a/c ( Merged) [Archive]

st7860

17th Nov 2010, 14:42

supposedly the flight deck door was left open too

Furious Ryanair passengers protest in plane - Yahoo! Canada News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/101117/world/belgium_ireland_protest_airline_company_ryanair_2)
More than 100 angry Ryanair passengers sat in a dark cabin without food or water for four hours Wednesday, refusing to leave their plane after it was diverted to Belgium, authorities and passengers said.

The passengers, mostly French tourists who were supposed to land near Paris after returning from holidays in Morocco, refused to come out of the aircraft even after the crew had left it at the Liege airport in southern Belgium.

Reda Yahiyaoui, a business owner who was travelling with his wife, a two-month-old baby and a three-year-old, said the passengers had no water and the toilets in the plane were locked.

"The pilot left and he even left the cockpit door open," he said.

After several hours of negotiations with furious passengers, officials convinced them to leave the plane and wait inside the airport for buses that would take them to their original destination, a firefighter told AFP.

"The negotiation was so difficult that we weren't sure they would come out," the firefighter said by telephone.

"People are obviously outraged. I'm just trying to look out for their well-being," he said.

Passengers on the plane told AFP that the flight had left Fes, Morocco, three hours late at 7:15 pm local time on Tuesday but had been unable to land in Beauvais, France, because by that time the airport there had closed.

The plane landed in Liege at around 11:30 pm and passengers only agreed to come out after 3:30 am the next morning.

"This is unacceptable," Mylene Netange, who runs a network on social responsibility for business leaders, told AFP.

"The plane didn't land in Beauvais but in Liege without warning us. Consequently, we refused to leave the plane," she said.

A Ryanair spokesperson was not immediately reachable for comment.

Ex Cargo Clown

17th Nov 2010, 14:54

I read this story as well and was tempted to post, but I cannot believe it is the story I have read.

A professional crew leaving an unsecured aircraft with PAX onboard, I honestly can't see it.

What I can see is this turning into an RYR bashing thread, and I dislike MOL as much as most people, but I cannot see this story being the whole truth.

If it is then :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

d105

17th Nov 2010, 15:03

Another Ryanair bashing thread, here we go again. Passengers were not left alone on the aircraft. Being a Ryanair employee doesn't mean you lose all common sense as a human being. Bars can not be opened on the ground as Ryanair does not have a license to sell while on the ground. But by all means, keep on bashing. -_-

d105

17th Nov 2010, 15:06

There's another thread on the subject. Needless to say reporting if off by a long shot. "The pilot". There's two, and 4 cabin crew. No mention of those either. Can we start a Ryanair bashing sub-forum?

CISTRS

17th Nov 2010, 15:16

Bars can not be opened on the ground as Ryanair does not have a license to sell while on the ground.

I don't think we are talking about bars.

Something has gone seriously wrong here, and could have been much more serious than just a sit-in.

Invicta DC4

17th Nov 2010, 15:24

Really sorry about this, but I can't resist any longer.......

Why didn't they just call Liege "Beauvais East"?

Sorry, going now.

d105

17th Nov 2010, 15:26

To clarify.

In Ryanair the word "bars" covers everything related to drinks and food. It's a general term. Ryanair does not have permission to sell anything while the aircraft is on the ground. You need a specific permit from the country you are in, which costs money of course, to perform a commercial transaction on board an aircraft.

This is something passengers don't know or don't understand. it's also very difficult to explain to hungry passengers that you can't sell them anything because of some bureaucratic rule.

Journalists don't know this and don't bother to actually interview someone who knows the system. That's how you get these typical anti-Ryanair reactions from passengers or the general public.

It's pretty normal they diverted to Liege.It is a common alternate for our operations. Don't think it is the pilot's choice either. They were probably informed way ahead in time by Dublin operations they were going to Liege.

I work for Ryanair, I'm not a fan-boy of the company, I just want to point out that there's always two sides to these stories.

CISTRS

17th Nov 2010, 15:48

They stayed on board for four hours in complete darkness after the plane landed, despite the pilot and crew members having already left the aircraft.

And no access to the toilets - not food & beverage (bars).
And the flight deck was (allegedly) not secured...

100 or so disgruntled pax can begin to behave like a mob when mishandled and abused.

I am not gunning for Ryanair. But there is something seriously wrong here - more to come out of the woodwork...

Who was in charge of the aircraft and pax?

epreye

17th Nov 2010, 15:54

There's always two sides to every story.

Here's the latest from today's Irish Independent.

It gives a slightly different slant.

Wednesday November 17 2010

Around 90 angry passengers spent almost five hours on a Ryanair plane refusing to disembark after their flight was diverted to Liege instead of landing at Beauvais airport in northern France.

Passengers from three other diverted Ryanair planes accepted an offer of bus transport to France when fog shut down the Beauvais airport, 225 miles away.

But the mostly French tourists returning from Morocco on a fourth Ryanair plane refused to leave when it landed about midnight in Liege.

A spokesman for the Liege Airport, said the situation was tense and some passengers "were very aggressive, very rude."

He said passengers finally left the plane at the request of police.

Press Association

GA Button

17th Nov 2010, 16:02

I'll put money on the fact the passengers were not left alone. they were not left in darkness and the toilets were not locked.

Who allows this sort of retarded journalism? It's pathetic - and no, I don't work for Ryanair.

CISTRS

17th Nov 2010, 16:04

Passengers from three other diverted Ryanair planes accepted an offer of bus transport to France when fog shut down the Beauvais airport, 225 miles away.

But the mostly French tourists returning from Morocco on a fourth Ryanair plane refused to leave when it landed about midnight in Liege.

A spokesman for the Liege Airport, said the situation was tense and some passengers "were very aggressive, very rude."

He said passengers finally left the plane at the request of police.

Were they told of the diversion earlier? Sounds like a communication problem, combined with tired and emotional pax (and crew?)

Potentially dangerous...

willl05

17th Nov 2010, 16:13

Aren't there airports that are closer to the intended destination?

Loose rivets

17th Nov 2010, 16:14

d105 says: hey were probably informed way ahead in time by Dublin operations they were going to Liege.

And if this was the case, my guess is that the passengers were not told ahead of time.

Uncle Wiggily

17th Nov 2010, 16:26

Actually, it's all quite brilliant. When the passengers call RYR to voice a complaint they will be charged 1.99 euros per minute. (1.99 euros x 130 pax = extra revenue). I'm sure this a new revenue generating scheme.

Rwy in Sight

17th Nov 2010, 16:35

Shouldn't the airplane return to its intended destination for next day's rotation?

I understand it could be done with crew only - as non schedule flt but I a curious why it did not happened. Also why the crew left the plane?

Rwy in Sight

Jetset320

17th Nov 2010, 16:50

A Ryanair crew used some harsh tactics to put down a passenger mutiny last night. When passengers refused to leave their plane—which had landed in the wrong country—they say the crew locked the bathrooms, turned out the lights, and left them sitting on the tarmac for four hours without food or water, the Daily Mail reports. “They just walked off and left us there,” says one passenger.

The flight was originally headed to Beauvais, France, but fog delayed it for so long that the Beauvais airport closed. The plane instead landed 200 miles away in Belgium, and passengers were so furious that they refused to disembark. "We said they could sit in comfort in a transit lounge," says one airport official, "but it was a difficult negotiation and they refused to budge." Finally, at 3:30am, airport police came and demanded the passengers disembark and take complimentary buses to Beauvais.

Ryanair Crew Locks Toilets as Passengers Stage Sit-In - Passengers say they were left on Tarmac for four hours (http://www.newser.com/story/105541/ryanair-crew-locks-toilets-as-passengers-stage-sit-in.html)

Honestly

17th Nov 2010, 18:30

GA Button you are on the button, complete tosh,,,, the full story will unfold in the next few days. I already know it.

The Ryanair bashing at every turn surprises me no end, they are aircrew same as most on here but still every report is a mountain/molehill event. Are the posters here really so stupid to believe the MOL hating press??

Tal66

17th Nov 2010, 23:27

Tarq57

17th Nov 2010, 23:52

The crew should be criminally charged for this. Hopefully someone will name and shame them and they will never get jobs anywhere else, hopefully banned from flying altogether. The pax should have torn the plane to shreds.
I nominate this for anti-post of the day.
Surely you jest?
You must know more about this than is being reported.

Tal66

18th Nov 2010, 00:05

No jest, accept the last part about pax messing with the plane, which was mostly my point.
The crew were the first to leave the aircraft, leaving 200 pax on a what, 80 million dollar aircraft? They left the cockpit unlocked, yet the toilets locked, with everyone unsupervised. I see that as encouraging trouble makers to go at it. How would you have felt if your family was on the flight the next day and some of the not-so-upstanding, unsupervised, tired, angry passangers went to town on some of the aircraft equipment without the next crew realising? Also, the poor treatment of the airlines customers (locking of the toilets, no food, no water) and making an assumption here, the way the crew went about it in the first place to anger 200 people, the lack of respect ryanair always has for the generally poorer people it serves, I think there is definetly wrong doing here. So yes, I am serious.

angels

18th Nov 2010, 07:20

Honestly - Don't get paranoid! I've flown a few times with Ryanair and have never had a problem, but lets face it when you have a boss like MoL you are going to cop some flak from time to time.

Ryanair's PR (sic) is cretinous and you don't help that image.

the full story will unfold in the next few days. I already know it.

Well whooppee doo! You know what happened. Well tell the story for crying out loud!!! If you don't the press will speculate.

Can I precis the facts? What we do (apparently) know is that four flights were diverted -- probably because of low viz -- to an airport a long way (225 miles?) from their destination. On one flight from Morocco, an undetermined number of pax refused to disembark.

Why the big secrecy about the rest?

Finally, akrapovic has a point about CDG. Why not go there? Money?

I await your considered reply.

Cheers.

Dit

18th Nov 2010, 11:47

Finally, akrapovic has a point about CDG. Why not go there? Money?

Probably, we don't carry the charts for CDG, LHR or AMS on the aircraft, so diverting there would have been problematic to say the least.

the full story will unfold in the next few days. I already know it.

Angels, the 'it' can refer to either the story, or the fact it will unfold in the next few days. Maybe you should read what is written, not what you want to see.

Coquelet

18th Nov 2010, 12:21

The spokesman of Liège Airport, Christian Delcourt, in the Belgian newspaper "Le Soir", today, page 10 (my translation from French) :

The passengers were already very excited after the delay when leaving Marocco; they became mad with rage when they were told that, because of fog at Beauvais, their plane would land at Liège.
Still in flight, the captain called the airport to ask for police assistance at landing.
After landing, only a few passengers disembarked; the others were very agressive towards the crew and the airport personnel : insults, spittles, emptying cans of drinks on the seats, breaking open the food containers.
The diversion was made for security reasons, we don't understand their reaction. Busses were ready (to bring them to Beauvais).
A complaint might be lodged against them.

Agaricus bisporus

18th Nov 2010, 12:40

Beauvais Airport's own website says it is closed to the public fom 2330 to 0600, so this may or may not have been due to bad vis.

Whatever the pax thought they were up to is beyond me, they must have been a bolshie lot to start with, but a sit-in situation like that is hardly credible without shockingly bad communications to the pax.
It would be instructive to learn what they had gone through during their delay in Morocco.

The in-flight disruption is an interesting event, perhaps they were told of a diversion due to fog when they could see it was a clear night, or even see Beauvais - but again this is surely down to communications?

Maybe Bulgarian pilots without any French?

Abusing_the_sky

18th Nov 2010, 14:12

The crew should be criminally charged for this. Hopefully someone will name and shame them and they will never get jobs anywhere else, hopefully banned from flying altogether. The pax should have torn the plane to shreds. That's very clever of you to say that. At first i thought you were clinically retarded, but now i've seen the light; you are a genius! :ugh:

Do you know the actual facts behind this story to make comments like that? I don't, i'm just waiting to hear the other side of the story.
Your ignorance, however, is appalling. Would you have made the same comments if the story was about, i don't know, BA, VS, easyJet and so on?
Do you even know what you're talking about? Prey tell, what on earth do you mean by "criminally charged", "name and shamed", "not getting a job anywhere else"? . Whatever happened that night, i'm sure the crew followed the company's procedures; and before you open your precious mouth again, i know what i'm talking about. I used to work for FR for many years as CC.
And then you bang on about the pax should have torn the plane to shreds; they could have done that i suppose, but that, my dear braincell challenged friend, is against the law. In fact, it's an Air Navigation Order. So, would that have happened, the company would have taken them all to court to recover the costs of defacing and damaging the a/c.

As for your next little "gem":

The crew were the first to leave the aircraft, leaving 200 pax on a what, 80 million dollar aircraft? They left the cockpit unlocked, yet the toilets locked, with everyone unsupervised. I see that as encouraging trouble makers to go at it. How would you have felt if your family was on the flight the next day and some of the not-so-upstanding, unsupervised, tired, angry passangers went to town on some of the aircraft equipment without the next crew realising? Also, the poor treatment of the airlines customers (locking of the toilets, no food, no water) and making an assumption here, the way the crew went about it in the first place to anger 200 people, the lack of respect ryanair always has for the generally poorer people it serves, I think there is definetly wrong doing here. So yes, I am serious. Do you know for a fact that crew left the a/c? If so, can you prove it? As for the 200 pax, sunshine, i'll have you know that FR's Boeing 737-800 capacity is 189pax. You do the maths...
Should a pax have tried to fiddle with anything in the aircraft or flight deck, believe you me, both pilots and CC would have noticed; that's why there are security checks in place that are carried out before and after each flight and on turnarounds; not to mention the engineers maintenance checks.
So basically, your comments are utter rubbish and for whatever reason, spiteful.

And to make it clear to you: for any airline, safety is number 1 priority. Without safety, there is no airline thus no business.

Please, for everyone's sake, refrain from commenting on something you have no clue about. Hear the facts first (all of them, on both sides), and then form and voice your opinion.

Joao da Silva

18th Nov 2010, 14:25

9.3 DIVERSIONS
If, for reasons outside our control, we are unable to land at the airfield at your destination and are diverted so as to land at another airfield then the carriage by air shall, unless the aircraft continues to the original destination, be deemed to be completed when the aircraft arrives at that other airfield. We shall, however, arrange or designate alternative transportation, whether by our own services or by other means of transportation specified by us to carry you to the original destination as set out in your Ticket without additional cost.The above is the Ryanair general condition about diversion.

It would be interesting to see the outcome of a small claims case, on the basis that it was unreasonable to land 225 miles away from destination, when other, closer, options were allegedly available.

In my (limited) experience, judges are pretty hard on what they perceive was unfair tactics by business against consumers.

A friend of mine stayed in a ski chalet that was advertised as '150 m from the village centre', which was true in terms of line of sight. But to walk was 600m and very tough for a family with young children.

The judgment was made for the full cost of the holiday, plus a further amout for loss of enjoyment.

Justin Cyder-Belvoir

18th Nov 2010, 15:17

Other, closer options, for any airline may not be suitable on the basis of handling.

The best alternate for BVA is CRL as it is a Ryanair base with handling, engineering and crew availabilty. LLQ is a good choice but doesn't have engineering and crew: all depends on weather, approach available ( Cat1 or 2 or 3 - and maybe if BVA was Cat 3 the crew needed an alternate wth non precision or Cat 1 minima) and commercial considerations. Next is NRN or EIH.

Too many variables for any uninformed speculation: I have, in the past, used my departure airfield as my alternate as the weather everywhere else was below minimums!

Joao da Silva

18th Nov 2010, 16:20

Other, closer options, for any airline may not be suitable on the basis of handling.That may be reasonable from an operations perspective, but might be a hard sell to a judge who is concerned with companies treating individual consumers fairly, thus my comment.

It would be interesting to see the outcome of such a case.

A lower court in Germany found against Lufthansa and ruled that they should not have cancelled a ticket when the customer did not use use all the flights, on the basis that a restaurant would not force someone to eat all the courses on a special price menu!

So who knows?

ExXB

18th Nov 2010, 18:24

A lower court in Germany found against Lufthansa and ruled that they should not have cancelled a ticket when the customer did not use use all the flights, on the basis that a restaurant would not force someone to eat all the courses on a special price menu!And a higher court in Germany overturned such decision stating that Lufthansa's conditions of contract are very clear and enforceable. They state If carriage on a previous leg of the journey is not used or not used in the sequence anticipated on the ticket, the fare charged for that flight will be the fare that would have applied to your differing but actual route at the point of booking. If this fare is higher than the fare for the route indicated on your ticket, we can make further carriage conditional on you subsequently paying the additional charge which has accrued

The point here is LH does not want passengers substituting one service with another service that has a different (and likely higher) price.

Joao da Silva

18th Nov 2010, 18:57

ExxB

You completely miss the point.

ExXB

18th Nov 2010, 19:18

Joan,
No I didn't miss your point, but your comment on what a German court did needed clarification. That ruling is no longer part of German jurisprudence and I wanted to ensure that Ppruners had all of the facts.

Joao da Silva

18th Nov 2010, 20:05

You just confirm that you missed the point.

The point was that lower courts do crazy things. I never stated that this ruling still stood and believe that I perfectly wrote in the past tense.

Of course higher courts restore sanity.

why don't you go back to you cuckoo clock collection? Such comfort in certainty ;)

ExXB

19th Nov 2010, 08:29

Cuckoo clocks originate in Germany (Schwarzwald) :oh:

TightSlot

19th Nov 2010, 08:51

Ahem!!!...

That'll do ladies

Diplome

19th Nov 2010, 10:05

Pardon me while I remain a bit cynical about this story and am waiting to hear specifics.

Its hard to imagine any flight crew abandoning an airplane filled with passengers.

The cheekiest part of this story in my opinion is the passengers complaining about no service, restrooms, etc., when they are REFUSING TO DISEMBARK. Did they expect the Cabin Crew to continue their service and go about the business of selling water and lottery tickets???

There are avenues available for compensation and complaint after a flight but while sitting in that metal tube you give yourself up to the authority of the Captain...period.

Why do people have such difficulty with that concept?

Joao da Silva

19th Nov 2010, 10:21

Why do people have such difficulty with that concept?Because, doors open, on the ground, it ain't so.

Diplome

19th Nov 2010, 10:47

Joao De Silva:

We can go around and around regarding the technicalities but I am sure that AT NO TIME do the passengers have authority or legal control over the aircraft.

If you're told to disembark then move your glutamus maximus off the plane. You can call your lawyer (or the press) when you're in the terminal.

Lord Spandex Masher

19th Nov 2010, 11:01

Because, doors open, on the ground, it ain't so.

So you're telling me that, while I'm outside doing the walkaround, I have no authority over my passengers and crew? Who's in charge then?!

Joao da Silva

19th Nov 2010, 11:55

The cheekiest part of this story in my opinion is the passengers complaining about no service, restrooms, etc., when they are REFUSING TO DISEMBARK. Did they expect the Cabin Crew to continue their service and go about the business of selling water and lottery tickets???

There are avenues available for compensation and complaint after a flight but while sitting in that metal tube you give yourself up to the authority of the Captain...period.Lord Spandex manager, of course you have authority, for example you could decide not to fly the aircraft if you are not happy with something, but is that the same as having 'authority.... period?' (i.e. total authority.)

For example, can you arrest a passenger or forcibly remove them in an arm lock?

Can you prevent the police visiting the flight deck and breath testing your FO?

Diplome made an absolute statement that does not hold true in the real world, with the doors open (I have friends who are airline captains and they are quite sensitive to this.)

Th epassengers stayed (I imagine) because they perceived they may get a better deal by remaining onboard and they were upset and also acting irrationally.

Understand that I am not condoning their behavour.

Joao da Silva

19th Nov 2010, 11:58

We can go around and around regarding the technicalities but I am sure that AT NO TIME do the passengers have authority or legal control over the aircraft.

If you're told to disembark then move your glutamus maximus off the plane. .Or else?

At no time have I said that the passengers have any legal authority or control over the aircraft, so stop trying to change the debate please.

Lord Spandex Masher

19th Nov 2010, 12:06

For example, can you arrest a passenger or forcibly remove them in an arm lock?

Can you prevent the police visiting the flight deck and breath testing your FO?

I can have a passenger arrested, yes. Can I conduct a citizens arrest? Dunno really, I'll look into it. Yes I can forcibly remove someone in an armlock, in fact I can use all reasonable force to subdue an aggressive passenger, I can also authorise anyone else to do the same!

Your second point, I honestly don't know and have never considered it. I'm thinking about a conflict of authority now. However, I'm not sure I would want to prevent them breath testing the FO because, either way, I'd like to know, assuming the police had reasonable suspicion.

Joao da Silva

19th Nov 2010, 12:20

LSM

Your captain's authority does not include the power of arrest, as you confirm by saying "I can have someone arrested" but you can make a ctizen's arrest, the difference being that you must have evidence of a crime and a passenger acting very aggressively is providing that, where as an authorised person can arrest on suspicion (e.g. a policeman.)

Having said that, I can do the same thing from seat 6F, without your permission (doors open.)

If you try to stop the policemen, you will be arrested at some stage. I am a little surprised that an airline captain is not aware of this, as airlines normally cover this type of thing in command courses.

In flight, the authority is a very different manner, e.g. AA the recent ''we are landing move all the traffic out of our way" indicent at JFK and the captain can override other laws in the interests of safety.

I'm not downgrading the captain's authority and recognise that this is an industry concern, but am just pointing out that the authority varies between air and ground.

Lord Spandex Masher

19th Nov 2010, 12:55

If you try to stop the policemen, you will be arrested at some stage. I am a little surprised that an airline captain is not aware of this, as airlines normally cover this type of thing in command courses.

Actually, despite my poor answer, I am.

The point I didn't make is that I will try and prevent the police entering my flight deck by asking them to conduct the breath test elsewhere (out of sight of the passengers). If they didn't agree then there would be a bit of a stand off. My point would be that it's a flight safety issue if I allow unqualified people who are unfamiliar with aircraft into the flight deck. Flight safety is where I have absolute authority, on the ground or in the air.

Joao da Silva

19th Nov 2010, 13:33

Sorry, my misunderstanding of your reply and I completely understand your reasoning.

Agaricus bisporus

19th Nov 2010, 14:42

Your captain's authority does not include the power of arrest ... but you can make a ctizen's arrest,

My! That's a contradiction if ever I saw one!

Joao, for your info of course you have the power of arrest as long as we're talking UK law and UK juristiction, Captain's "power" doesn't enter into it. How the hell could citizens arrest exit without it? In fact you have exactly the same powers of arrest as any police officer, and they have no more or less than you do. They just have more training in the ins and outs of the business, and certain extra powers, but arrest is the same. They are citizens too, remember; servants thereof, as they sometimes need reminding.

As Captain of an aircraft or ship you too have certain extra powers, once the doors are shut. They do not exist with doors open though, as then the local civil power is deemed to be in charge.

Leastaways, that's my understanding.

pilot_ygc

19th Nov 2010, 20:46

It is my understanding that:

"Authority of commander of an aircraft
141 - Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation."

AND

"Acting in a disruptive manner
142 - A person must not while in an aircraft:
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew of the aircraft;
(b) behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a
member of the crew of the aircraft; or
(c) intentionally interfere with the performance by a member of the crew of the aircraft of the crew member's duties."

Link: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf

In essence, a crew member who is PIC of a UK registered aircraft, not only has the authority to ensure flight safety, but would be required to take action on any issue involving the aircraft's safety, whether this be a disruptive passenger, damage to property or indeed a police officer on the flight deck (which, in theory, could cause any PAX alarm, thus endangering the safety of the aircraft).

Just my twopenceworth ;)

willl05

19th Nov 2010, 22:01

"The best alternate for BVA is CRL as it is a Ryanair base with handling, engineering and crew availabilty." Not the best, just the most convenient for the airline.

Lord Spandex Masher

19th Nov 2010, 22:17

...with handling...
...Not the best, just the most convenient for the airline.

Passenger handling is fairly important no? What about having a tow bar? It's not all about convenience to the airline.

willl05

19th Nov 2010, 22:33

No airports closer to the intended destination are equipped to handle that?

Lord Spandex Masher

19th Nov 2010, 22:38

I don't know. Maybe they were already full of diverts and couldn't 'handle' any more passengers - I've been sent around from short final because the airport had reached capacity shortly beforehand and ended up further away than the primary divert. Tow bars are specific to the type so if you have to park nose in your aircraft is stuck there until you can get a towbar in.

kenhughes

20th Nov 2010, 06:23

You are all missing a wonderful opportunity here.

Instead of this being a Ryanair-bashing thread, it should be a French-bashing thread.

Most of the passengers were French. The passengers were rude (well yes, they were mostly French).

Just to change the target - all this ire is the result of a newspaper report! Who here even believes the date in a newspaper without checking a calendar?

:)

Joao da Silva

20th Nov 2010, 09:04

My! That's a contradiction if ever I saw one!

Joao, for your info of course you have the power of arrest as long as we're talking UK law and UK juristiction, Captain's "power" doesn't enter into it. How the hell could citizens arrest exit without it? In fact you have exactly the same powers of arrest as any police officer, and they have no more or less than you do. They just have more training in the ins and outs of the business, and certain extra powers, but arrest is the same. They are citizens too, remember; servants thereof, as they sometimes need reminding.

There is a big difference between the power vested in, say a constable, compared to a citizen.

Succinctly, the citizen must have reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable offence is being or has been committed, whereas a constable only has to have a reasonable suspicion.

If you perform a citizens arrest and an indictable offence has not been committed, you could find yourself in all sorts of trouble, as well as being subject to the person you have 'arrested', using reasonable force against you in self defence.

All I was saying is that an aircraft captain cannot arrest someone on suspicion, as they do not have this power.

Pilot YGC, Lord Spandex Master is an airline captain and he says he would negotiate a meeting with a constable off the aircraft; in my opinion this is a reasonable and wise view. However, if the aircraft is not in flight, it is non sequitur that the captain can overrule local authorities.

When the aircraft is in flight, it is another matter completely and the captain has very high levels of authority, including choosing to break other laws to ensure the safety of aircraft and occupants.

This whole diversion came from Diplome making an incorrect assertion, perhaps it is now time to return to the theme?