Long Haulier

The following has been issued to all FR Captains.


Is this legal?

What right does a Captain or the state have to prevent a passenger leaving an aircraft which is on the ramp??


MEMO

TO: All Captains
FROM: Chief Pilot
DATE: 22nd December 2005

SUBJECT: Diversion P A

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This PA shall be made by the Captain when a [FR] aircraft has diverted to an alternate and it is intended to continue with the passengers to the original destination. Some passengers could reasonably expect to disembark at this alternate e.g. LTN/STN, FCO/CIA etc.

It is prohibited for any passengers to disembark at these alternates in these circumstances by law for security reasons.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have diverted to xyz airport because of __________________. The circumstances causing this diversion have now changed and we will be departing xyz in ___ minutes and routing to our original destination. It is prohibited by law for security reasons to allow any passengers to disembark at this airport, despite its proximity to your original destination. This situation is completely outside my control. Please be patient and we will have you safely at your original destination approximately ___ hrs. The cabin crew and I thank you for your patience”


Is this legal?

Carnage Matey!

Sounds like a load of cobblers to me. BA regularly have diversions into LTN and STN when there's disruption at LHR and sometimes the company decides to offload the pax there and coach them to LHR. My guess is that this stems from a desire to keep the pax on so you don't have to open the holds and get their bags out (departing with the bags on board would obviously be unacceptable). Barring some local peculiarities with customs I can't think of any reason why the pax couldn't get off.

Bumz_Rush

I assume that if for some reason FR are unable / unwilling to take passengers to their designated destination, that the company shouldtransport them, regardless.....an unfair contrract is not enforcable under english law, but then Irish is a different ball game....it takes two to tango.

I would call it a hijack, what would you call it....????



Bumz

Rainboe

I'm afraid there are times when, to protect the integrity of the whole operation, it is necessary to detain passengers on board. It is also illegal to detain passengers onboard. If Ryanair says it is for legal and security reasons, then that has to be accepted unless proven wrong. I'm afraid these days, there are additional security considerations that were not needed a few years ago- nowadays passenger lists are sent on ahead, and it may very well be that it is true it is a security requirement that all passengers are transported to the original destination airport. But it is also illegal to detain people unwillingly! Sort that one out. But once people start leaving, and having to get their baggage from the hold, you then have to cancel any further progress on the flight for several hours- it is not fair to the other passengers.

Years ago, we had to weather divert into FIU with a load of non-English speaking Italian passengers who were going to transit LHR for FIU. They were overjoyed- this was their real destination! Italian immigration said 'Non!- not allowed to enter- take them away!', probably as 'punishment' for not flying Alitalia- we didn't have traffic rights from Africa to FIU. We had to physically bar the door to stop them getting off- they couldn't understand, we couldn't release them. You can imagine the shouting.

Hamrah

I could be wrong, but I suspect this is more to do with SOME passengers wanting to disembark, and having checked-in baggage. It would be a nightmare to identify and remove the bags of a small number of passengers who " elected" to get off at the diversion airport.

H

Bealzebub

Is it legal ?

Yes why wouldn't it be ?

Passengers enter into a contract with the carrier. The contract is either the ticket and the terms contained therein or in the case of electronic bookings the terms you placed an applicable tick against, to show your acceptance. Most contracts are written by, and to protect the vendor, and hence it is very unlikely to be even handed or provide for reciprocity. Lack of balance, reciprocity or perceived fairness does not make a contract "unfair" in a legal sense. Contracts must be governed by the overriding law in the applicable jurisdiction or they may not protect the client (in this case the airline).

In this case the vendor is a point to point airline whose contract of carriage (read section 9 of their conditions of carriage ) makes it clear what their contractual position is in the event of a diversion. For the avoidance of ambiguity, read carefully the sentence in that section that starts with the word "unless".

I do not work for this particular company, but that would appear to be the part of the contract applicable to this question.

I cannot quite see the fuss about this issue. If an airline diverts and then without deplaning the passengers intends to carry them on to their contractual destination what right would the passenger have to vary that contract without possibly being liable for the repercussions ? The contract makes clear the airlines responsibilities but it does not allow for an individual to disembark en-route at that individuals whim. It does however allow a Captain to disembark an individual or to make a variance for the purpose of safety, flight regularity or the compliance with any applicable law or regulation.

The diversion may in reality be a more convenient destination for a passenger, but that is irrelevant. The contract (in this case) does not necessarily allow for it. The airline might as a result incur delays and additional charges for such a variance (damages), and the applicable route licence may not permit such action outside of an overriding "emergency" such as passenger illness or disruptive behaviour etc.

To the question, "What right does a Captain or the state have to prevent a passenger leaving an aircraft which is on the ramp?? " I would think the Captain and the State have many rights in this regard. Those that are applicable would presumably depend upon the situation and the jurisdiction. A couple that sping to mind are the UK air navigation order , The aviation and maritime security act (UK).

The statement, "I assume that if for some reason FR are unable / unwilling to take passengers to their designated destination, that the company shouldtransport them, regardless.....an unfair contrract is not enforcable under english law, but then Irish is a different ball game....it takes two to tango.

I would call it a hijack, what would you call it....????"

is from a common sense viewpoint, a little tortured, but again read the contract on their website. It is clearly not a "Hijack" as the captain is de facto "in charge" and has not seized control nor taken the passengers as hostages. He is complying with applicable regulations and the terms of carriage enshrined in the contract between the company and the passenger. I am not sure why this contract is unenforcable or unfair. Has it been judged as such ? Once again reciprocity is not a legal requirement unless it is a requirement of an applicable statute.

FlyingIrishman

That's precisely how I understood it. I presume that when it is clear that the flight can continue to the original destination, a situation where 5 passengers might want to get off at the alternate will cause havoc in terms of handling issues such as baggage, etc.

By the looks of it, this memo is NOT aimed at situations where the flight has diverted and passengers are provided with alternative transport to their destination. As it says clearly, the circumstances of the diversion have changed.

Empty Cruise

Had similar situation recently - a small no. of pax wanting to get off aircraft after diversion. Fair & square...

So we used some of the time waiting for coaches to explain to the passengers that it was an "all in one go" operation. We told them that we could not stop them from leaving the aircraft once the coaches were there - but that for the sake of their fellow passengers, it would be advisable to remain on the aircraft until a fresh crew arrived to take them to their original destination where the wx had now improved.

Amazingly, the punters sorted it out amongst themselves (a 6 ft. 4 in bricklayer in the "stay on board"-camp did help ) - so despite a few who insisted to take it out on the cabin crew (there always seem to be a few ), the pax got to their destination with about 3 hours delay.

However, before the coaches arrived, a few threathends to walk off the aircraft. A few of the Greater Manchesters finest on stand-by saw to that not happening - a big thank you goes out to them. But that was the only part of the incident where we detained some of the passengers against their will - and quite legally so. So the period where you can legally detain passengers onboard the aircraf starts when the first door opens and ends when transportation arrives. Beyound that point, sounds like you're in a lot of trouble if you forcefully detain people on board. The immigration case is resolved at the IO desk - not at the doors.

Empty

PaperTiger

The legality or otherwise of forcible detention notwithstanding, it seems to me the wording is the standard post-9/11 party line. Tell the punters it's because of "security" and most will blindly go along.
BS or not.

stagger

The wording suggests not simply that it is legal to detain the passengers - but that it would be illegal not too.

Now while the former may be true (it may be legal) that latter is almost certainly not.

NigelOnDraft

The "legality" is possibly dubious. It is likely to be illegal to "hold" anybody on an aircraft, or anywhere against their will.

However, it is somewhat semantics. On a diversion to LTN (dest LHR) and Operator's plan was to take all to LHR ASAP i.e. not disembark anyone, no facilities were made available at LTN for passengers to disembark. One passenger tried the "imprisoned" trick on me, and I stated I was not holding him on the aircraft. The steps were there, and if he wished to walk down them, then fine. However, I would be calling the police to say he was wandering around the apron, sans ID etc., and he would no doubt get a night in the cells... and that continuing to LHR might be preferable. He chose to stay... And FR's security line probably corresponds to this.

On other diversions, it has been possible to disembark some passengers, especially if it can be established that they have no hold baggage. Bear in mind that disembarking the few can really scr*w up life for the rest in baggage, loadsheets etc.

Seat1APlease

I suspect this one will have to go to court and probably to appeal to get a definitive answer. A civil contract is not valid nor enforceable if it involves a criminal act. If a dying man enter into a contract for someone to help him to die then an offence would still take place and the contract would be held invalid.

If a person contracts themselves or others into what is effectively slavery, then that would also be held invalid.

Just because you have a contract term which says that you can be detained does not make it right to unlawfully detain someone, and therein lies the problem.

Are they acting reasonably under the circumstances and within the law, or are you being illegally held against your will without due cause. The court's interpetation of what is reasonable or not is open to question, I suspect they might accept the security aspects of the situation or immigration's refusal to permit entry but saving on baggage handling cost is another matter.

Max Angle

None whatsoever would be me answer.

(I guess a state could in theory order a person to remain onboard on the basis that they are being refused entry to the country.)

unwiseowl

You don't have to bar the door. You just explain that they'll be walking airside, unaurthorised, no ID, no yellow jacket, no customs. The authorities will see them as potential terrorists. Then see how many get off! And Hamrah is right about the bags.

Bealzebub

This subject seems to be a confusion of issues. If a passenger insists on getting off an aircraft whilst it is on the ground then it is difficult to imagine a scenario where such a demand would not be agreed to by the aircraft commander. Nobody wants a disruptive or non compliant person on board.

The passenger would then be handed over to the appropriate agencies at that airport to be dealt with accordingly. The passenger would normally, in the absence of any overriding safety concerns, be in breach of their contract of carriage, and the airline would be within its right to seek recovery of any damages incurred as a result of that breach. In addition there may be other concerns with regard to security, immigration, or legal matters that might warrant the attention of that countries police or other security agencies.

However where a passenger wishes to disembark purely as a matter of convenience it is incumbent on the commander to point out that this is not permitted for whatever reasons may apply. The passenger is carried in accordance with the general conditions of carriage and has contractually agreed to those terms. The Captain is empowered to give instructions that ensure that the "efficiency and regularity of air navigation" is maintained, and passengers are required to obey all lawful commands given in this regard. Anyone who wishes to disembark an aircraft in contravention of those instructions would in all probability be permitted to do so, however they would likely find themselves in difficulty on a number of points.

Article 77 of the ANO 2005 states:


Authority of commander of an aircraft

Every person in an aircraft shall 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 therein, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

Daysleeper

I was paxing on a flight in the United States when we had a very rough approach on the fringes of a tornado to Birmingham (Alabama) we diverted from minima all the way to Florida. A quick fuel stop and away we went minus 6 of the 45 other passengers who refused on grounds they felt it unsafe to fly in such conditions.

I dont see how you can force people to continue on the aircraft in such circumstances.


Of course a panic attack, sudden onset of fear of flying or similar should do the trick nicely if ever detained against your will.

standbyils

I suspect that this might be something to do with some of the 'alternates' used by FR. The airline may well have been told by a particular airfield (deliberately not using word airport) that Pax handling ain't possible.

Detaining pax is not legal - generally - but FR don't mind playing with fire!

Bealzebub

I still think of some of you are missing the point.

Nobody is "forcing" passengers to be detained against their will. This is a case of contracts, efficiency and regularity of air navigation. Flying is not usually analogous to jumping off a number 7 bus. That is you can disembark at some point other than your original destination because it suits you to do so. If you are contracted to fly from A to B and the aircraft has to make a stopover in point C, you cannot elect to disembark at that point simply because it suits you to do so. There are many examples of routes particularly in the United States, but in other countries as well where a scheduled stopover is made, however passengers are paying a cheaper fare to fly beyond that stopover than they would if they had contracted to it in the first place. In such circumstances anyone disembarking to avoid the higher fare would be in breach of their contract and likely charged accordingly.

In this example the airline has carriage rights between the origin and destination and has diverted for extraordinary considerations. To allow a passenger to disembark for anything other than accepted "emergency" considerations might place the carrier in violation of its traffic rights. It would almost certainly involve the carrier in additional delays and extra costs. The passenger has no right to place the carrier in such a position and failing any extraneous reasons, would be in breach of contract and possibly be liable for any damages that may result.

This might not be an obvious consideration to some people and the Captain has a duty to point this out as he sees fit or in this case is advised. That is not an illegal detention.

A.viator I think you glossed over this sentence . unless the aircraft continues to the original destination. You might also care to have a read through this as it provides in conjunction with the Tokyo convention on these matters even more "food for thought".

el @

Interesting discussion.

On the matter of an Italian citizen willing to desenbark at FCO (i it was menat?) or otherwise enter the country, I can assure you that he/she has that right at any time and circumstance, as long you have a valid ID (passport mainly).
Immigration police can say whatever, fill the guy with a lecture about regolamention that exist only in their minds, but because natural law, once he is firm on ground in italy he has the right to enter it, only subjet to custom obligations of course. There isn't even any fine they can possibly impose, the right for a national citizen to go back on is natural law.
I think this is the same for any country of the world.

woodpecker

Forget restraining passengers from leaving the plane, recently we were herded OFF the plane at Bournemouth to join three hundred queuing for immigration in the rain.

The local airport manager had approached the Captain to ask that we were kept onboard until the queue's end was inside the building but he refused.