Barred from VS flt for sarcastic remark...2 sides to every story?

[gulf_slf]

Justified or playing 'God'?


Virgin passenger barred for ironic remark to pilot
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 08/11/2003)


A Virgin Atlantic captain has been reported to the authorities for barring a passenger who made an ironic comment when the pilot turned up late.

Clive Warshaw was one of 300 travellers booked on a Miami to Heathrow flight that was delayed more than 13 hours after the scheduled pilot suffered an eye infection.


Michele and Clive Warshaw
The passengers were put up in hotels and told to return for an 8am take-off with a replacement captain.

By 7.20am all the passengers were assembled in the departure lounge but no flight or cabin crew had appeared.

The first of the flight attendants entered the lounge 10 minutes later - to be met by a round of mocking applause.

Another 15 minutes elapsed before the substitute pilot, Capt Simon Crook, approached the gate.

As he walked through the lounge, there was renewed clapping from about six passengers including Mr Warshaw, who said: "Well done."

Mr Warshaw, who had paid £3,500 for a business class return, said he was amazed by the captain's reaction.

"He scowled but did not say anything until he reached the gate," Mr Warshaw said. "Then he spoke to one of the ground crew, turned round and pointed toward me. The ground staff told me he would not let me board.

"I couldn't believe it. I just wanted to get home. I asked the ground manager to tell the captain I would apologise. He went into the cockpit but the captain refused to accept the apology.

"Then they had to hold up the flight further while they took my bags off."

The aircraft eventually departed - with Mr Warshaw's wife, Michele, travelling alone - at 9.30am, a total of 15 hours late.

"I wasn't the only one to make a comment," said Mr Warshaw, of Hampstead, north London. "But I think he singled me out because my suit and white hair made me easily identifiable."

He has lodged a complaint with the US Federal Aviation Administration.

Three other passengers have written to the airline, complaining about Mr Warshaw's treatment.

However, Virgin said Capt Crook "exercised his responsibilities correctly".

An official said: "The captain felt that Mr Warshaw's behaviour suggested that he could be disruptive during the flight. He felt it was more sensible to carry him on a later flight to let him calm down."

The company said an offer of some form of redress to Mr Warshaw was being prepared.

[Jerricho]

I understand a Captain has the ultimate responsibility for his/her aircraft, but isn't this going a little too far?

Anyway, we all know it's the quite one's you have to watch out for.

[Boss Raptor]

Very simply I believe the Captain and airline overstepped their authority and responsibilities. The rights to refuse carriage revolve around the passenger threatening the safety of the aircraft and crew i.e. drunkeness, serious aggression etc.

If I was that passenger I'd sue the arse off them for delay caused and no doubt win when they cannot prove the passenger was a threat of any of the above as laid down by IATA, ICAO and CAA guidelines and make the company and Captain a laughing stock by running the story on through the press etc.

Especially in this case the replacement crew should both understand that passengers are likely to be highly irritated by the events and as such make every effort to appease that situation and communicate/act accordingly to defuse such problems. This Captain appears not to have made any effort to empathise with the situation. A smile and a joke from the Capt. at time of comment not doubt have made for a pleasant atmosphere for everybody, cabin crew and pax. alike.

The success of any flight depends on everyone working together on making the flight a good experience for the customers and that includes the Captain!

Although as airline management one should always support your crews' right and decision to refuse carriage for reasons as detailed in my first paragraph...in this case I would be asking Capt. Crook for a very good explanation :confused:

We've all been there both as the angry pax. and as the staff member receiving the flack of someone elses problem transposed later on to our shift.

[Hand Solo]

Aaah so the crew are the verbal punchbags for the passengers and should take everything with a smile? How about a little respect from the passengers for the crew? I very much doubt this was a 'replacement' crew, more likely they were the crew originally scheduled to operate on the day and were in no way at fault for the delay. They may not even have known about it until they got to the aircraft. If some smart ass passenger wants to get all sarcastic before he even gets on board then off-loading him will teach him a lesson in respect. The crew aren't there as his skivvies.

As for the airline overstepping their authority, pu-lease! You buy a ticket it says A to B on it, and the airline are under no obligation to get you there at any given time. They can refuse to carry you at any time, and if they suspect you will be disruptive on the flight then they can off load you. Thats their right. If the guy didn't want to be off loaded then he shouldn't have given the Captain sh1t. You think the TSA would take a more forgiving line if he got call @rsey with them?

[CaptainFillosan]

HS, you are so predictable! Just the sort of story that would get you on your high BA horse again! As usual, everyone can have an opinion so long as it is only yours. :bored:

I agree with BR. The carrier DOES have a responsibility to the passengers. And I also agree that the guy should sue the a@se off VS. You should listen to BR he deals with cases like that! Ummm!

What kind of Captain is it anyway who gets a sarcastic remark because HE is late and holding up the passengers even longer. He shouldn't be late in the first place. Obviously he has no feeling or understanding of the prickles that people who have been let down will undoubtedly feel? How about a bit of respect for the passengers? And then to refuse the guy's apology. And VS stand by their man! Bollix.

Heaven help anyone your flight. You would probably have them chucked out - while airborne. Do you carry a whip as well.

You can reply if you like. I won't be watching out for your usual sanctimonious drivel.

[Boss Raptor]

It reads to me that this was a delayed service from the previous day, carrying the delayed flights 300 pax, not a new or mixed uplift and not a normal schedule.

Yes unfortunately staff and crew do have to take everything with a smile, not fair but that's life and good customer relations. Will that customer and the rest of the passengers have good feelings and customer loyalty re VS in the future, I doubt it.

Change the scenario to any other service industry or even govt. office, if someone complains you have to deal with it sensibly and with tact and servility whether or not the complaint is due to something you have done or not...

Being in aviation just doesn't change the fact that it is a service industry and customer service and handling are vital to a smooth operation (or should be!)

Just because you are being piled onto a metal tube doesn't mean to say you (as a customer) have to accept being treated badly...although as discussed before concern for the customer seem to be on an ever increasing slide with some airlines.

Yes bad situation...handled badly and made worse by a staff member.

[Hand Solo]

Really Fillosan, I think it is you that is being tiresomely predictable once again. No mention of BA in my posting, you're the one who brought up your personal anti-BA witch hunt again! I might even be so bold this time to ask whether you have ever worked for any scheduled airline as your prior postings seem to be confined to nostalgia or ex-military threads. Lay your cards on the table for our benefit - describe your great depth of experience as you sit on the sidelines and pass judgement upon the acts of others.

What kind of Captain is it anyway who gets a sarcastic remark because HE is late and holding up the passengers even longer. He shouldn't be late in the first place.

I suppose you think VS skippers arrange their own transport and pick up times without any coordination from the station manager. And of course, if there was unexpectedly heavy traffic en-route to the airport, thats his fault too I suppose? Or of the station manager cocked up the timings thats the Captains fault. You of course would never be late as you are infallible.

Personally I think its rather good of Virgin to support their Captain, a Captain you would prefer to be strung up by the short and curlies. Now hows that for a volte-face? Me defending Vrigin, you castigating them. I do hope you're not watching out for my 'sanctimonious drivel' as I don't think I anyone wants to read any more of your pious pontifications.

BR - yes its a service industry, but that does not give passengers the right to deliberately antagonise or goad employees, which is what this individual did. I agree that being piled onto a metal tube does not justify bad treatment, but conversely it is not an entitlement to harangue staff or an excuse to abandon common courtesy or good manners.

[Boss Raptor]

As you say no passenger has the right to goad a crew member, however empathy for the passengers aggravations (the delay etc.) and professional response befitting smoothing over the whole sorry incident...a smile, a joke, a 'sorry ladies and gentleman' and a 'free drink courtesy of the Captain, crew and company' announcement goes a hell of a long way...in my experience of similar situations that would have been a happy and content 300 pax. on their way home...who would have had good memories of VS and that delayed flight...

If the crew were not aware of the circumstances of the flight (which I think it would be highly unusual and very unfair to themif they had not been briefed, but that we dont know) then they should have been as the 'TLC' procedures are order of the day ;)

[surely not]

I think I can agree with both sides of this story in part, but both sides inflamed an already difficult situation.

It seems that the passengers had been looked after as well as possible by VS. I cannot understand why a £3500 Business class ticket hadn't entitled Mr Warshaw to a reroute the day before, perhaps it was non transferrable and not full fare?

So having been put into a hotel and been well looked after the passengers decide to be sarcastic and boorish when the crew turn up. They didn't wait for any explanation before launching into this response.

In my experience, and that's 27 years in pax and ground handling, most passengers would be glad to see the crew arriving as that signalled the imminent start of their journey home. If the crew were met by 'mocking applause' then they would have been stoked up by a ring leader. It is also likely that this ring leader had been stirring the day before and at the hotel. Sometimes it is justified, more often it is someone trying to act big in front of the other passengers. Invariably their behaviour is offensive and their claims of injustice exaggerated.

I agree that an announcement by the ground crew explaining why the crew were late to the airport (assuming they were?) would have helped, as would an announcement after they had arrived.

If we accept that the passengers had a right to be sarcastic and mocking to the crew because they were late, then I cannot wait to employ the same rudeness on the many passengers who delay flights by arriving at the boarding gate late!! It cuts both ways don't forget.

To ban the passenger on the basis of what has been reported does seem a tad harsh, but my gut feeling is that there was more to the story than has been told so far. No airline invites bad publicity willingly and banning someone almost always leads to bad publicity.

[Boss Raptor]

Good points SR,

As we both have experienced the Ringleader playing his peer group is a pain but also very dangerous as the peer group will follow if they are aggrieved enough...

Therefore the Ringleader must be appeased and not provoked into providing more hassle and aggrevation out of his fellow already angry passengers...throwing him off (if he was a Ringleader) would have inflamed the fellow pax. even more...

Agreed there is potentially more to this story and was no doubt, as all 'disasters' are, a culmination of a number of errors in the handling of this delay over the proceeding events.

[CaptainFillosan]

Ok HS, I lied! But one thing is clear. You have a penchant to perch yourself on the BA bandwagon and you have to be told that BA are NOT the be all and end of the airline business. Just get down and take a broader look at the business. But perhaps, in your BA tinted glasses you don't know how. I probably have a far greater depth of view than you do so I have learned to be objective. You on the other hand always give the impression of tunnel vision.


I might even be so bold this time to ask whether you have ever worked for any scheduled airline as your prior postings seem to be confined to nostalgia or ex-military threads.


I thought you were bound to ask that at some time. Why you picked on Aircraft Nostalgia and Military I don't know - perhaps it's because I have a very wide interest in aviation - but I have a wide experience in the industry too - 27 years of it - 40 in flying. Owned two airlines, employed over 100 pilots, have flown over 70 different types and there is much more if I care to think about it.

Sad to say then that I have seen your type of arrogance before. But I would have none of it. Passengers are the life blood of an airline and MUST be respected as such. They must be treated properly. If the operation falls down because of incompetence, whoever or howsoever it's cause, that person or persons has to be chastised NOT complimented on his/her ability to ragtail a passenger. Clearly the Captain needed to have his backside kicked not patted. I rather feel that VS did not approve if the truth be known. MIA is a lousy place for a passenger to be holed up anyway - and he was a high paying passenger. The Captain should have taken regard of that for starters!!! But then, of course, he didn't know - which is no excuse.

Now if a passenger is dangerous, he was not. If a passenger is threatening, he was not. If a passenger needs to be restrained, he did not..............want me to go on? If a passenger is snide to a Captain because he felt like being snide after being fecked about for 13 hours and then to further delay, that is NOT cause to have him refused boarding - just because the Captain was offended - that was sheer childishness. For God's sake what next.

[BEagle]

“The first of the flight attendants entered the lounge 10 minutes later - to be met by a round of mocking applause.

Another 15 minutes elapsed before the substitute pilot, Capt Simon Crook, approached the gate.

As he walked through the lounge......”

The question I have is why on earth the flight and cabin crew should have had to ‘run the gauntlet’ past their passengers in this manner? Or is this the way things have gone since the previously complacent Spam lard-ar$es woke up to security post 11 Sep and now see Reds under every bed? Why do flight and cabin crews not have segregated access to their aircraft?

If I’d seen some arrogant passenger insulting a Virgin stew prior to her having to cope with a busy cabin on a pond-hop, I think I’d have been b£oody cross. Yes, there are ‘rights’ for passengers, but isn’t there also something called manners?

How I wish that things were as civilised as once they were. But low cost charters and the general downward drive of costs has meant that the common herd who once would have travelled 3rd class on British Railways, if at all, now think that they can behave just how they wish......................

Not that I’m a huge fan of RyanAir, but one thing I do admire them for is their very firm gate policy. It closes when it says; if some lager-swilling oaf didn’t leave the bar in time and missed the flight as a result – tough!

[Boss Raptor]

As far as I am aware it's because FAA/DOT require flight/cabin crew to go through the same security point (i.e. the same entry point) as the pax.. This has been going up for some time before 9/11. I thought it was odd when I first came across it at US airports in 2000 and asked an American colleague at the time for the reasons.

Why the mockery? yes it wasn't right but pax. are also entitled to ask why have I to suffer a 12 hour delay causing me stress and inconvenience? which is clearly for whatever deeper reason irritated them all and caused the atmosphere, works both ways...situation could and should have been handled better...

Agreed BE standards of behaviour and civility from both pax. and staff appear to going down :ugh:

For many years I was at the receiving end of pax. complaints and thought many were petty, silly, trivial etc. etc.

Now with a cargo airline and commuting on scheduled passenger services of a number of airlines I can see from the other side that many customer complaints are very valid both about the airlines and most of all about the airports, it's lots of little things that seem to add up and cause the upset and more importantly the stress. It is the stress factor that I believe leads to incidents such as this.

[Rwy in Sight]

An industry magazine some 10 years ago explained that the industry has become a commodity and it is the way an emergency or an anomaly is handled that makes a difference.

Here VS did an excellent job but then it failed, I think, to deliver a good solution overall. I mean why don't make an anouncement at 7:15 that there will be a delay of x minutes due to operational reasons. The crew would have been spared the insults and the pax would be happy.

I tend to get angry when I realise and airline lies to me and I understand they try to hide something or pretend everything is fine when it is not. A positive exemple: Last summer in the middle of the french strikes I was to fly to Paris on AF service. An announcement was made that we would be boarding on time and wait in the aircraf for an hour be ready to depart at first notice but within an hour. I was happy because I knew what to expect.... Is it so difficult to be considered towards both sides of Pax / Crew issues.

I loved Bass Raprto comments about having fair arguments from both pax and crews.


Rwy in Sight

[PPRuNe Pop]

BEagle, the practice of the crew boarding their aircraft from same boarding gate as the pax has been such at least since 1988 when I started travelling to and fro.

I also agree with your view of good manners. But, sadly, you and I know that they are in short supply. Manners are, of course, a 2 way street. The pax in this instance paid over £3000 for a return ticket. I'll bet a pound to a penny the Captain didn't know. Did he care? Probably not. But it is not enough to say that the Captain thought the guy might be a problem once on board. Maybe, maybe not. But I think he probably overstepped the mark.

Did VS no good at all though.

[Final 3 Greens]

But low cost charters and the general downward drive of costs has meant that the common herd who once would have travelled 3rd class on British Railways, if at all, now think that they can behave just how they wish......................

Let me assure you that it is not only airline/airport staff who suffer.

A couple of months ago, a drunken yob (Brit) pushed into the front of the check in queue at Prague and threatened to assault a couple of people who protested.

I asked the check in agent what she was going to do about it and she said 'what can I do?', making it pretty obvious that there was no interest in confronting this kind of behaviour.

Quite notable that the VS capt allegedly threw off a guy for making and insult and the Czech check in agent (no pun intended) would not intervene when a drunk threatened violence.

Is this lack of consistency or a culture thing I wonder?

[West Coast]

Don't worry about correcting Beagle. He was just looking for away to take a swing at the US as he does from time to time. It must be tough to be a bitter old man, but you wear it well.

[BEagle]

Westie - Bolleaux

Had the US enforced the same check-in rules as have been commonplace in Europe for ages, perhaps some of the Arab terrorists would have been intercepted. That's an oft made statement; personally I don't agree. Those mad ba$tards would have found another way.

The US pioneered very rapid kerb-to-seat check-in and had a very slick operation as a result - but it made the sad mistake of assuming that the world was populated by reasonable people who behaved like members of the human race....... But equally there were some very complacent checkers for international flights. More interest in "Are you now, or have y'ever been a member of the Comm'nist party" than "Open the bag, please sir".

However, the excesses of some security screening border on the extreme. Take the airline pilot who delivered an aircraft for servicing and was then due to fly back with his own airline. Single passenger, one-way ticket, no hold luggage.....the Feds' computer went nuts and the poor chap found himself "Assumin' the position" whilst a more thorough and intrusive search was carried out. That's what I mean about ridiculous 'Reds under the bed' behaviour.

Personally, I think the way ahead for Business Travel is fractional flight ownership from discrete locations with rapid check-in for passengers known to the flight operator and guaranteed by their employers. The airport authorities won't like that though as it would deprive them of a target audience in the shopping areas!

(PS - Westie, I hope that you and yours were spared any loss in the recent west coast wildfires. There's not much on the news here about them any more - have they all now been contained?)

[Final 3 Greens]

Edited by F3G due to realisation that postings had 'crossed!'

[West Coast]

Well then if you don't agree, why waste the time to type it?

Until your country has an El Al type of security, you have holes in your security apparatus also. Your pinko commie analogy is a bit over the top. I am on the road 150 days a year, that means I am subject to 150+ inspections per year. Other than head of the line privledges, I am subject to the same inspection every one else is. While I question my requirement as a pilot to have to be inspected, I accept that I must. Unless you travel within the US to this degree, then I have to believe my experiences far exceed yours with US security. Care to disagree? The actual inspection takes about 30-45 seconds and that includes removing shoes.
Your hyperbole and antecdotal stories aside, I find the screeners to be professional and not interested in my political affiliations. I am also not stupid enough, ala Air France to jokingly say I have a bomb in my flight case.

On another note...

The physical fires have been contained, the fire at city hall is just starting to burn as it is deduced why San Diego has a second rate, under staffed fire department with no air assets when the fires started. That one will be burning for awhile. The Ceder fire (the monster one) made it about 1 1/2 to 2 miles from the house.

[maxalt]

The Skipper was abso-bloody-lutely correct and I congratulate him for having the backbone to do what he did. He removed an obvious troublemaker from his flight.
Better off than on.
Better Safe than Sorry.

Well done sir!:ok:

[DSR10]

"The Skipper was abso-bloody-lutely correct and I congratulate him for having the backbone to do what he did. He removed an obvious troublemaker from his flight.
Better off than on.
Better Safe than Sorry."

Oh yeah...lets see who gets a bollicking and who gets a lifetime Upper Class upgrade and two weeks in Necca

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

I,like everyone else on this forum was not there at the time.The skipper in question was.
Now ,I don't know this guy or his history or personality but I will bet a wad of cash on the following..This was probably the first time he had done anything like this.At best he may have had one or two vaguely similar scenarios in his entire working life.He has probably flown tens of thousands of passengers around and "refused" a mere handful.To use a horrible yank expression,"do the math!"
He was obviously an experienced pilot who was trusted with Sir Dickies big shiny jets and the lives of his little pink/yellow/brown/passengers.(long- haul commands being noticably absent in any lucky-bags I've ever looked in)
When he made this decision he must have been aware of the possible flak both he and the company would recieve and I doubt he took it lightly or in a "fit of pique"
He exercised HIS authority to refuse carriage.He made a COMMAND decision(a difficult one)based on his experience,knowledge and judgement of the situation at the time.I don't know, but I would expect he discussed his course of action with the F/O in the spirit of good CRM.
I may not have made the same decision but I wasn't there.Shame on all you so called "pro's" out there who would deny any skipper his right to exercise his judgement and utilise this basic and important facet of command authority.

[Dogma]

Here here, Captain Cook! I suspect more to this than meets the eye.

However, such is the ill-mannered character of this wretch that I think he / she should have perhaps been made to swim back to the UK.

And to think that they write for one of the finest News papers in the world! Stop the rubbish!:ok:

[ChrisVJ]

Unfortunately this seems to be typical of the kind of thing goiung on at the moment.

Technically the capstain may be allowed so to do. He may have been having a bad day, late at the gate, stressed. We all like to take out our frustrations at someone lower down the pecking order, and just for a moment he did. It is a pity he did not have the grace or time to stick out his hand and say how terribly sorry he was to have been late but........ Embarrassing someone is far more effective than ending up paying them.

Passengers too have their frustrations and maybe a snide or OTT comment is just an outlet.

Frankly, as a disinterested non observer, I would say you'd have to make a really serious remark or a direct threat to be considered a danger to plane or passengers.

What is far more important to me is the whole way this is going. Just look at people lining up at airports, we are becoming a cowed, timid population, scared of speaking out of turn. We no longer have the respecteful but self respecting attitude toward people doing a necessary job but we appear as prisoners is some awful Russian Gulag drama, resentful of authority but feasrful of being picked on.

I am dreadfully afraid this episode is a symptom of our new world. The terrorists are winning, not becuase they are right but because in the end we will become just an as authoritarian state as they wish, only the pigs will have a different nomenclature.

[maxalt]

we are becoming a cowed, timid population, scared of speaking out of turn

You think?

Not where I come from. Anything but!

[skybird]

I don't think it's about being a threat the the aircraft or pax, but if this guy has made the crew feel s*** before operating a long haul flight, then it's not really helpful.

Captain Cook was protecting his crew and the experience that other pax would have on board the aircraft. If he felt that the crew would feel uncomfortable serving someone who had behaved badly toward them, then it was the right decision to make. In the interest of good CRM and all that - BOTH sides of the cabin door.

[Jet II]

Just a thought

Virgin said Capt Crook "exercised his responsibilities correctly".

So the captain was in the right?

The company (Virgin) said an offer of some form of redress to Mr Warshaw was being prepared.

So the customer was in the right???


Now I can see that the Captain might be a bit peeved about being mocked in front of the rest of the passengers, but this is a customer service industry - not a private flying club.

Would it not been better customer service for the Captain to have a quiet word with the disgruntled PAX, explain the reasons for the delay and generally pour oil on troubled waters. If all Captains went around banning disgruntled passengers from flying then there would be an awful lot of empty aircraft flying around.

[Bob Upndown]

One wonders, as it was VS, whether the same would have happened had it been Courtney Love/Vinnie Jones/Richard E Grant/any celeb and not just a regular punter?

[Globaliser]

Don't forget that there's also a thread running here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108458) on Rumours and News which may be starting to tease out some more details.

[FJJP]

Although not a flying business, we come into daily face-to-face contact with the general public. 99% of them are courteous and polite, as are ALL my staff. When I receive a complaint, I immediately send a holding reply and then investigate. If we are at fault I say so and apologise. If I find that the customer was rude or aggressive I make the point that such behaviour is unacceptable and invite the individual to apologise to the staff member concerned. It's called Customer Relations Management and HR management.

If you treat your staff and customers fairly then you are more likely to have a successful business, otherwise you will drive them away. Failure to communicate would seem to have been a major factor in this case. Had the crew kept the check-in manager informed of their delay, that could have been relayed to the passengers, and perhaps their sarcastic attitude would have been quelled - not knowing what's happening to them often gets some people p:mad: d off (not that I'm excusing lack of manners).

The whole affair was badly handled throughout; the Captain could have greeted the businessman and asked him if there was a problem. That would in effect have invited said pax to explain his behaviour and put him politely in his place - probably to his embarrassment. He wouldn't have repeated his mistake and given a lesson in good manners to the surrounding pax as well. As it stands, if VS pays him any compensation he will feel that he has won and will continue to be the arrogant a:mad: hole that he undoubtedly is.

By the way, can we please not use these pages to wage a pan-Atlantic slanging match?

[BEagle]

Some people really do think that rules apply only to others...

Checked-in at that dump known as LHR T2 on Friday. Long queues at the LH Economy Class check-ins, but Business and First pretty quiet. As I checked in at Business ( a perk if you have 'FTL' status, even if travelling Economy), I was aware of an altercation at the First Class check-in next to me. "I'm sorry, Sir, but we have you down as travelling Economy" said the polite staff member. "I don't care what goddam class I'm in, just check my goddam bags in. Period" came the reply from the loud, ill-mannered passenger. Of whose nationality there was little doubt...

Hope his bags (those things that look as though they're made out of old carpets) received a 'special' service from the handlers!!

[Coconuts]

I can't help compare the attitude of this captain to the attitude of a captain I flew with recently, although it was a much smaller aircraft. The airline in question allowed the carriage of animals in the cabin once they were well caged in, important since there was no cockpit door. As I was boarding there was a frantic search for tape going on by pilot & dispatchers, nosy me couldn't resist enquiring why, turned out they needed it to tape a dog into a cardboard box who kept escaping.

Eventually the pilot began to lose his patience & ordered the two biddies with the dog off the plane as we were running late. They refused, then the chief dog owner among them launched into a long tirade to the poor captain about how she had a stroke last year (miind you she did look a bit pale) & that the captain was about to give her another one. The captain ordered her off the aircraft again along with her friend. She refused to budge. Then she launched into a further tirade at the captain that the airline were going to have to pay for hotel rooms for them if they were put off the aircraft as they'd no where to stay. Infuriated at this stage I chipped in support of the captain that they should have come equipped with a suitable carrier for airtravel (incidentally which I have for my pet and the furthest globetrotting he's done is down to the local vet & back). Eventually the dispatcher persuaded the captain to wait as one last attempt was made to tape the dog into the box, yards of tape was put on & the captain, satisfied that the dog was adequately secured, took off. Five minutes later I glanced back & the (thankfully for us) docile dog was happily sitting on his owners knee.

Mind you a few words were said to the pair of them by me in the airline shuttle to our accommodation about how you should & should not speak to a captain of an aircraft. Just two contrasting incidents regarding two very different levels of provoking & how they we re handled. They just expressed to me their relieve that the captain hadn't turned back mid flight as they had half expected him too.

From the information here I feel the Virgin captain overreacted & may have bit the hand that feeds him. Never a good idea in business IMHO. Word of mouth is the best form of marketing, sounds to me like many of the pax on this flight will be mouthing off to anyone who cares to hear for a long time to come, to the detriment of a company who relies on its high paying pax to generate most of its profits. Lickarsing you may call it, I call it (& practice it) good business sense not to rub your customers up the wrong way.

[Helen49]

With reference to the disgusting comments of HS it is about time the likes of him realised that passengers are actually customers who believe it or not actually pay the wages! Probably difficult to comprehend for the likes of him but nevertheless true!!

[bealine]

I reserve judgement on this thread 'cos I think everybody needs to lighten up a wee bit!

I can't help feeling, going back to the original story, that there are facts that have been omitted from the story! One thing that will result in a passenger offload, with most airline staff, is using the "F" or the "C" word used in a threatening manner. It could be that this is the bit missing from the article.

Can you really imagine a Captain offloading a passenger just for uttering a sarcastic "Well Done!"

- No, neither can I!!!