PDA

View Full Version : FlyBe offload 30 pax on Glasgow - Belfast flight


Puritan
13th May 2004, 09:22
BBC News is reporting: Passengers taken off plane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3709911.stm)More than 30 passengers have been taken off a Flybe flight from Glasgow to Belfast after a group began behaving in a rowdy way.

The remaining passengers were flown to Belfast after a three hour delay on Wednesday night.

The 54 passengers had already boarded the plane bound for Belfast City Airport at about 2030 BST.

The captain then decided to off-load the aircraft in order to identify those causing the disturbance.

As a result, 37 passengers who were travelling in a group, were grounded in Glasgow.

The rest were flown back to Belfast via the international airport because of the later time.

Some of the passengers said the airline could have handled the situation better.

"I think it was a gross over-reaction from the pilot involved and in the current climate it is probably a product of the threat of terrorism," said one.

Another passenger said: "I travel with a number of airlines regularly every week and I would agree that this was a complete gross over-reaction.

"There wasn't even a request by the pilot or stewardesses for people to be quiet, to stop talking or lower the noise level.

"There was nothing which happened, other than people having a bit of banter with each other."

"I couldn't see any aggression or anything like that on the plane - all I heard was a few people cheering when someone moved seats and the next thing I knew we were all being taken off and delayed by over three hours" said another passenger.

Late departure

One of those on the flight said passengers had been "extremely inconvenienced" by the incident.

"This was all because of someone having a laugh and a joke on the plane.

"I couldn't see any aggression or anything like that on the plane. All I heard was a few people cheering when someone moved seats and the next thing I knew we were all being taken off and delayed by over three hours.

"The airline over-reacted and the worst thing was that no-one was kept informed."

Flybe said an investigation had already begun to establish what happened.

A spokesman said: "The captain discerned a strong smell of alcohol in the passenger cabin, and in the interests of passenger safety and comfort, he off-loaded the aircraft.

"Given the subsequent late departure of the flight it was diverted to Belfast international where passengers were bussed to Belfast City Airport on arrival.

"Passenger safety is paramount in all of Flybe's operations and an investigation is under way to ascertain the full circumstances of this incident.

"The 17 passengers who travelled should contact customer services in Exeter to seek a refund."Without prejudice, might I say "Well done to the crew !"

Wee Weasley Welshman
13th May 2004, 10:04
I now have a reasonable resolution video phone. In cases where offloading is being contemplated I shall endeavour to film the cabin behaviour prior to offloading. It will give me great pleasure to present this in light of the usual passenger claims of "We were only having a laugh - they totally overeacted".

We all know what they are like.

Cheers

WWW

dicksynormous
13th May 2004, 11:43
So you two are pilots therefore the opinions of the affected pax are worthless as they dont share your pedastal. I hope you two never have to do a football charter, youll off load yourselves before you leave the crew room. At least one of you was a pax yourself not long ago.

Crew over reaction is a reality sometimes, inexperience as a captain, hiding behind safety and professionalism to disguise that inexperience , cabin crew lookin for trouble (drama where there isnt any).. all sorts of reasons. Having an ATPL and a pompous attitude doesnt exempt you from making mistakes or answering for them.

Maybe , just flybe the crew did over react, having spent a season up there and having done many celtic football flights, not to mention paxed on bfs gla easyjet full of orange thugs ( not the crew) my money is on an inexperienced skipper, an easily excitable cabin crew and an over reaction. The demographic of the crewing profile at that end of the market would suggest that such combinations are likely.

There are many noisy excitable people up there but they are generally respectful of maternal authority,ie a firm purser, merciless with gay stewards , cheekier than a shithouse rat, but generally not a THREAT.

Ps cute women as well.

jonathang
13th May 2004, 11:57
:ok: :ok: to FlyBE , Sure the reason was just , easy for drunkin banter to become a dangerous inflight situation with some more beer and at altitude. :

"I travel with a number of airlines regularly every week and I would agree that this was a complete gross over-reaction.

Wonder if that passenger would be saying that when the aircraft returned to base with restrained passengers?

Group behaviour is really quite disturbing.

I dispatched a Celtic football flight last week and the thought did cross my mind. We offloaded one passenger but the rest were also borderline.

A spokesman said: "The captain discerned a strong smell of alcohol in the passenger cabin, and in the interests of passenger safety and comfort, he off-loaded the aircraft.

Air Navigation Order : Drunkenness in aircraft
52.—(1) A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft.

Tom the Tenor
13th May 2004, 12:12
Would it not be better if there no passengers allowed on board aeroplanes - we all know what they are like! :rolleyes:

eal401
13th May 2004, 12:15
That's a good idea, wouldn't have to employ and pay for those pesky cabin crew. :rolleyes:

jonathang
13th May 2004, 12:18
Would it not be better if there no passengers allowed on board aeroplanes - we all know what they are like!

No we all just have to do our best to prevent the dangerous passengers from endangering themselves and others onboard.

Better if they never make it past checkin to be honest.

timmcat
13th May 2004, 12:18
Hang on a min.. if there had been trouble, and Flybe had been saddled with costs involved / negative publicity etc etc.. who would have copped for it by making the decision to proceed with the flight?

No win situation for the Captain IMHO.

Wee Weasley Welshman
13th May 2004, 12:28
dick - should an inexperienced Captain, when faced with cabin behaviour that gives him cause to consider offloading:

a) Offload

b) Decide to run with it


Genuine question.

Cheers

WWW

xyz_pilot
13th May 2004, 12:32
My question is what happened in the gate? Were these pax angels in the gate who turned in to devils at the top of the a/c steps?

In my experience gate staff are very eager to get the pax on the aircraft and the problem off their hands. I am sure there are many reasons for this sort of action. BUT it’s much easier and quicker to sort the problem in the terminal than on board the a/c.

witchdoctor
13th May 2004, 14:37
I would have to agree with the sentiments above relating to how such a large group could be boarded onto the a/c and then require to be offloaded, without the problem being apparent beforehand.

These pax have to be handled by at least three separate individuals (check in, gate and dispatch) before they even reach the a/c, and then are boarded by the cabin crew. GLA to BFS is hardly a long flight, so how did these pax escape scrutiny before turning into undesirables so quickly mid-air?

Whilst I wouldn't expect a teenage, seasonal, female temp to make the decision to confront and deny boarding to the group, the information can certainly be passed up the chain to a duty supervisor/manager or airport security for further assesment and action. At the very least, the cabin crew and captain ought to be made aware of any suspicions relating to the fitness of pax to travel so that a considered decision can be made before the a/c leaves the stand.

Still, I suspose we're all wise old men with the benefit of hindsight.

Wee Weasley Welshman
13th May 2004, 14:46
The safety of the flight lies within the Authority of the Commander - everyone else can pass the buck but he. If he calls them off - then it shouldn't be up for PPRuNe analysis.

Particularly in the absence of nearly any facts. :rolleyes:

Cheers

WWW

jonathang
13th May 2004, 14:51
Witchdoctor , good points.

However it’s not always that clear cut.

The passengers can just come across in good spirit initially.

Check-in agents are trained to warn passengers who turn up at check-in under slight influence of alcohol that they could be denied travel if they do not stop.

For the majority of the population this does work and a note can be entered into the system to say they were warned.

The passengers may have become worse after boarding the aircraft. I have seen passenger’s act sensible until they are passed the gate staff, because they know they are at risk of being offloaded.

The other more unfortunate reason could be the shear time factor. Unfortunately driving force in most turn-arounds. The fact the passengers were slightly happy may have been missed at that stage.

All just suggestions from my own experience.

KTPops
13th May 2004, 15:04
my money is on an inexperienced skipper, an easily excitable cabin crew and an over reaction. The demographic of the crewing profile at that end of the market would suggest that such combinations are likely.
What a patronising comment!

Are you saying that aircrew that work for a regional airline are any less able to make these judgements compared to crew from larger airlines?

I would argue that we are more experienced in dealing with these types of passengers as our low fares tend to attract them! It's all very well speculating on the competence of those involved but I seriously doubt any Captain would take the decision (and the potential flak) to offload such a sizeable group if there wasn't reasonable cause.

SLFguy
13th May 2004, 16:21
I can't believe I'm reading this!

Dicks...what was your seat number - I can only assume from your comments that you were on the a/c.

As for angels at check in/ boarding then devils when boarded........ you ever seen these lads go for the 'duty free slurp' of the vodka etc.. usually neat.

I have also seen groups of lads change dramatically when coming into contact with Cabin Crew - testosterone charge!

I'm sure the boss called it as he saw it and since we were not there we should respect his judgement.

edited for lousy grammar. :ugh:

dicksynormous
13th May 2004, 16:44
OOps i'm sorry guys i've strayed from the mantra of: commanders this and ano that, i do apologise. front seat good back seat bad, front seat good,back seat bad, front seat good back seat bad.

As for patronising comments, whilst working for our Irish friends i had an occasion to carry a bunch of rowdies. The young cabin crew got wind of their rowdiness from the agent and were all worked up , ready to refuse boarding, and geared for a fight. A few quick words with the pax, problem solved , not a murmer. No hassle. Similar issues ex gla, except senior purser of same tribal origins soon sorted them. Some times ther is more than one way to skin a cat.

Quoting the ano as a fix all after a contraversial decision is a sure indicator of a rear guard action in cases like this. Be funny to count the number of times crews quote the ano to highlight their transgressions,and not to exempt them from being liable for misjudgement when making a decision.

Its not a crime to be wrong, just a learning curve, if that is the case here. Like i said my money is on n over reaction.


WWW what I always do is where possible get on the mobile/comms involve everyone in in the loop, spread the load and the blame if it goes pear shaped. This applies to all experience levels and problems(notwithstanding emergencies). I'm not second guessing the skipper , just that from my experience i would put my money on tea and buscuits.Always best to have someone to share the busicuits with.The buck doesnt have to stop in cases like this, it can be more like pass the parcel, you just ratify the best option.Dont get shafted with the big picture fall out if the rest of the picture is lookin the other way whistling

Artificial Horizon
13th May 2004, 18:30
This whole thread is a complete load of ****, I can tell you now the case is far more complicated than the newspaper reports or publicity shows. Just as it is wrong to comment on the cause of an accident before the official investigation is completed it is wrong to speculate on this. So I suggest we stop being critical of the crew and just wait for the outcome of the investigation.

A.H.

P.S. The captain is very very experienced and wouldn't of taken this decision lightly.

Hudson Bay
13th May 2004, 19:02
I find that far too many people get excited about nothing! Yes pax do go funny when they board an aircraft, they are travelling in a way that is not natural and because of that fact, its exciting. That is not the problem. Tell them to be quiet if you can't hear the radio but lets keep it in perspective.

The most excited people I see is dispatchers, cabin crew, duty managers, first officers and Captains!

As soon as there is an abnormality in the operation everyone gets excited about it. That is why old Captains generally speaking are the best in the business, they are relaxed and can deal with situations in a methodical, proffesional and reasonable way. You younger guys should try to model yourselves on them.

So many times I've had a problem and the first thing the guy in the right seat wants to do is call the company and tell the world! And only when he's done that will he even start thinking about the problem.

The best bit of advice is to sit on your hands count to ten and THINK.

Could you imagine your chief pilot off loading 30 pax! I can't. He's too good.

mini
13th May 2004, 19:59
I think the large number of Pax offloaded has opened this incident to speculation.

Bottom line, Skipper is responsible for the a/craft & its safety etc. He made a decision - that's what he's paid to do.

Good luck to him.

:ok:

Midland Maniac
13th May 2004, 21:27
Why should people who do not know how to behave themselves in public be allowed to travel ?? I am with the skipper on this one. Why put other passengers at risk by having a load of louts on board an aircraft?

You all go on about over reaction... I am sure if he had of let them travel and there was an in-flight diversion, I am sure you would have then critisised him for not offloading in the first place!!

Too many people are quick to judge someones decision, whatever it maybe. But there should be a ZERO tollerance for loutish behavour on board an aircraft. In fact there should be ZERO tollerance for loutish behavour in society!!!
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/cussing.gif

ECWK
13th May 2004, 22:01
"better down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here". Does anyone remember these words?

Says it all I think - alcohol and flying don't mix, and if you are in charge and worried there is only one answer: STOP.

Passengers (ie PEOPLE) don't like smells and rowdiness, especially when they are confined and unable to move away.

If you are at work and someone goes to the pub, comes back over the limit and pukes in the wastepaper basket, what is your reaction? Why should cabin crew pick up the bag and dispose of it ?

Two good reasons not to allow ....artists on board without considering the corpses of those who couldn't get out in an emergency due incapacitated (drunk) fellow passengers.

Easy choice in my book - no experience required.

Tony Flynn
14th May 2004, 08:45
Midland Maniac, you read my mind - I worked 14 years in the nightclub industry and one thing that I learned was disruptive people are a minority and behave in the way they are allowed to. Simple - 'my gaff, my rules' 'my aircraft, my rules' I don't know the precise reasons or events at play here but if I was one of the 17 passengers who stayed on then I reckon I'd be buying the crew a drink and no complaints.

Midland Maniac
14th May 2004, 10:19
Thank you Tony, it is nice to see that someone is on my wavelength!

Examples need to be made so that people realise that drunken and abusive behavour will not be tollerated onboard any aircraft. Well done to all involved!!

Dee747
14th May 2004, 10:52
An assumption has been made in previous posts that all 37 pax were drunk (or at least disorderly). Local NI news has reported that they were part of a group of 40 local Tesco managers who were returning back to Belfast. A number of those off loaded stated quite clearly that they do not drink alcohol and were therefore clearly not drunk, while others said that they hadn't drunk anything before the flight as they were driving from BHD after arrival. It serves no purpose to generalise, particularly when you don't have access to sufficient information to make that generalisation.

Reports say that some high spirited banter occurred when one female member of the party was asked to change her seat. No report either from flyBe or those pax on board has given any indication whatsoever that the crew, other pax or the aircraft itself were in any danger. Just that they became raucous (for some reason) at this event.

I wasn't on board, so am basing everything on reports in the local Belfast media, but as someone who has travelled weekly between BHD and GLA for some time with BA before they pulled off the route, and as a result, with a substantial mix of pax on this route over the years, this incident would appear to be a gross over reaction from the crew to an incident involving professional people who would probably have responded positively to a different approach from the crew. These weren't 'tribal' yobs as referred to in an earlier post, returning from an old firm game, who may have over indulged in some alcohol and lost the plot altogether.

Drap-air
14th May 2004, 11:26
Does the a/c not have cctv?

If not why not?

eastern wiseguy
14th May 2004, 12:44
Drap Air wrote

Does the a/c not have cctv?

Again according to the BBC (NI) news they had a CAMERA crew and reporter on board so there may well be evidence.The BBC reporter basically said that there was a bit of banter but that he had seen much worse.Tescos are apparently not going to let the matter rest.

slf boy

go for the 'duty free slurp' of the vodka etc


If only I could ...might visit Glasgow MUCH more regularly .:ok: :ok:

the story from BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3709911.stm)

simbhoy
14th May 2004, 14:26
The Tescos story would explain a lot of things- This could not have been caused by returning OF fans, as both the OF were actually playing a game when this event happened- 20:30. Therefore, not footy fans as has hastily been assumed...

lomapaseo
14th May 2004, 18:14
As far as making an example of this unacceptable behaviour so that others will think twice, I'm left with the view that

It's doubtful in my mind that 37 people could be singled out as misbehaving without lots and lots of evidence, thus the only lesson that I can surmise the public will accept is that somthing is mighty fishy here.

jonathang
14th May 2004, 18:47
lomapaseo,

Depends how they were checked in.
If they were checked in as one (Tesco) group. May have been difficult to work out who the exact culprets were within the group.

Possibily off-loaded the entire group as a result.

Only a suggestion.

Whispering Giant
14th May 2004, 21:32
I must i am in full agreement with Captains decision to offload these pax's - Why should the other passenger's have there flight possible endageredand disrupted by a group of un-ruelly passenger's.
Why should the remaining pax's as well as the crew have to put up with rowdiness of one group of pax's who are travelling on the flight.
As has been mentioned before flight safety could have been comprimised once the a/c was airborne.
What is even worse was that this was a group of Tesco manager's !!! surely they should know how to behave - i'm sure that they have rule's for there employees and sets of standards that they expect there employee's to follow if they are out on company business - so if they have rule's why dont they follow them selves and abide by the standards that they are supposed to set for there employees.
From what i know they were checked in as a group and it was difficult to find out who the culprit's were hence why the whole group was offloaded. I also heard from several sources that once the group had been offloaded the cabin stank of alcohol.
Really i would have thought management at a major UK company such as Tesco would really know how to behave themselves.

Ignition Override
15th May 2004, 04:29
Maybe your gate agents ("over there") have trouble spotting passengers who are drunk, whether that was the case on said flight, or not.

Over here, agents have trouble spotting those who have a hidden attitude problem-they can become uncooperative when in their seat, with cell phone (or drink) in hand. A flight att. told me that a recent passenger sat at the overwing emergency exit seat and then put on his neck brace:E He was told to change seats and certainly knew that he had broken the rules. When he told the crew, upon arrival, that he wanted their names and employee numbers, the captain said, nope, they were tired and going to the hotel-but the guy's name was entered into the company computers so that future gate agents will be ready for his tricks.

As for alcohol, the FARs prohibit intoxicated people on board, yet the gate agents are not expected to deny boarding to someone, just because he or she is in a jolly good mood. :) :confused:

ElectroVlasic
15th May 2004, 04:34
I'm definitely with the captain on this one. Sort it out on the ground, not on the air. A group of Tesco managers - how come they couldn't manage to all be sober when they got onto an airplane? Not too much to manage, says I.

Why do so many supposedly responsible folks (not just the ones in this case, but countless others) think getting on an airplane is a good reason to get smashed? Can't they forsake tippling just a while in the interest of the safety of themselves and others?

As others have pointed out, those fine managers made the captain choose between keeping them on the airplane versus violating CAA regulations and putting his/her career in jeopardy. Guess what the captain chose to do? Duh! Looks like Tesco doesn't hire the brightest people to manage their establishments (understatement of the day, says I).

--ev--

MaxProp
15th May 2004, 08:55
I dont intend to get involved as I work for Flybe--but the statement above is completely scurrilous. The Commander left the cockpit and over many minutes tried to direct events so as to regain control. Self evidently, he finally decided he was unable to do so.

jonathang
15th May 2004, 08:56
I suspect a bit of light jocular banter was totally mis-read. I believe the commander never even moved from his seat, instead deciding to be an "armchair judge".

Captain could have quite easily acted on the concerns of his No 1 Cabin Crew Member. After all he/she is the one who would have to confront these passengers during flight while the flight deck are safely behind an armed door.

Could this not be a total overreaction by an arrogant crew abusing their position?

How can any decision to off-load passengers be seen as an arrogant crew abusing their position? If the passengers were even happy on alcohol the crew did the right thing. How is a passenger under the influence of alcohol capable to evacuate an aircraft in an emergency?

What right do those passengers have to endanger the safety of the other passengers?

Also, the Captain is not the only one accountable to the airline for preventing disruptive passengers from boarding the aircraft. The Handling Check-in and Gate Staff, Dispatcher and Cabin Crew are too.

er82
15th May 2004, 09:28
I too work for Flybe. Don't know the Captain involved, but if it had been me sat in the RHS, I would fully support him/her in whatever decision they made. Not only do you have to think of the safety of the a/c and it's self-loading cargo, but also the comfort of those travelling. If I had paid a fair amount of money as a passenger, and ended up being surrounded by a group who were noisy and 'unruly', whether drunk or not, I wouldn't be too happy.
If the a/c had departed with the unruly pax, and a situation had developed in the skies, the Capt would have been the first person to receive a telling off from all those who know better - but who weren't actually there and don't know the full story.
Unless anyone on here was actually there, and does know the full facts, don't criticise.
To the Capt involved if you are reading this - :ok:

puddle-jumper2
15th May 2004, 10:18
I wonder what would happen if a loud and disorderly group of customers walked into a Tesco's supermarket ? Do you think that security/management would have a word with them to quieten down. What do you think would happen next if they ignored such warnings ? My guess is they would be asked to leave.

One of the difference's between Supermarkets and Airlines (and there are many) is that Airlines attract more news - period. Have you ever read in a newspaper 'TESCO'S THROW'S OUT DISORDERLY GROUP FROM SUPERMARKET' ? Doesn't have quite the same impact does it.:p

The Captain in question probably does on average 20 sectors a week - something like 1000 flights a year :sad: The fact that this sort of thing only happens once in a blue moon proves quite simply that most passengers know how to behave and therefore do not need to be asked to leave the A/C.

Well done to the whole crew:ok:

Nineiron
15th May 2004, 10:39
Advice from Tesco's travel insurance
"• Local Customs - check out local customs to help you avoid getting into trouble (such as the local alcohol laws). "

Why preach to the converted on this site, contact Tesco.
The Northern Ireland regional manager is Richard Baker and the commercial manager involved is Cliff Kells. Trying to explain why rowdyness (whether caused by drink or not) is unacceptable in the confines and safety environment of a passenger plane maybe difficult to those with retail background, but it's worth a go.

behind_the_second_midland
15th May 2004, 12:28
For info, in BA, before between boarding and push back its the SCCM's decision to carry a passenger or not.

A decision to ofload a passenger at this stage cannot be overruled by the captain except he can offload if the CSD wants to carry.

Saying all that in my experience a quiet word usually does the trick and I've seen many many examples of gross over reaction by crew which has been easily smoothed over with a smiling threat between the teeth.
People usully quieten down when they think they won't get home.

If there is an investigation I hope the truth outs. If then its decided that the captain was guilty of a gross over reaction I hope the company get hung for it.

BTSM

er82
15th May 2004, 16:42
>>captain was guilty of a gross over reaction I hope the company get hung for it.<<

The Capt in any situation such as this should never be classed as guilty of a gross over reaction. No matter how many eye-witnesses etc you have, the Capt interprets what he/she sees on the day and makes a decision. Whether other passengers on board were happy to continue, or whether the ground staff thought the passengers behaviour was acceptable is totally besides the point. It is the Capt who would have his head chopped if anything serious had happened from carrying the unruly passengers, so the final decision lies with him.
And as for the company being hung for it - I don't think so.

dicksynormous
15th May 2004, 18:20
"No matter how many eye-witnesses etc you have, the Capt interprets what he/she sees on the day and makes a decision. "

Absolutely, but IF the decisions are wrong they must be answered for.

Throwing up the ANO and commander this and that mantras to give blanket exemption to a possibly poor decision is getting as bad as hiding everything under security or terrorism.Plenty of moaning when the authorities use that smoke screen.

The ANO is not designed to give mandate to those who MAY lack the skills to make an informed decision or wield their warrants in an arrogant superior way.

Holding an atpl and exercising your duty is not an exemption from accountability. Everyday i witness t0ssers deliberatly being awkward and hiding behind their command.

Lets start a thread here for everyone that doesnt follow every little rule in the ANO tomorow,and then quotes it publicly....works both ways. Not many takers I'll wager.

Hypothetically I bet they wouldnt have been offloaded if they were a crew members realtions/friends on a hen or stag or something.Context is everything

My money is still on tea and biscuits.

Right back to the beer
:E

er82
15th May 2004, 18:51
dicksynormous :

>>The ANO is not designed to give mandate to those who MAY lack the skills to make an informed decision or wield their warrants in an arrogant superior way. <<

I'm sorry, I obviouly didn't read the post where the Captain involved in this situation defended his/her decision with 'quotes' from the ANO.................... Whether anyone else has or not (whilst trying to defend the Capt on here) really doesn't bother me, and it shouldn't lead you into thinking that all Commanders do.

>>Holding an atpl and exercising your duty is not an exemption from accountability. Everyday i witness t0ssers deliberatly being awkward and hiding behind their command.<<

Do you know the Captain involved? Have they crossed your path in a bad way before? Were you on the aircraft when the situation developed? Were you one of those off-loaded? You might have witnessed t0ssers being deliberately awkward and hiding behind their command - doesn't mean that all Captains are the same, and your comments, whether you meant them to or not, suggest that you have a certain contempt for Captains on the whole.

I'll gladly hold my hands up and say that I do not know the full facts of what happened, and therefore cannot pass judgement on the decision and outcome. Unless you were one of the pax affected, I can see no reason why this should affect you so much and why you should be encouraged to write such scathing comments. Perhaps you'd already been at the beer when you wrote your post.....

Oh, and on a final note, I doubt very much whether any crew members relations/friends would behave in such a manner. I'd hope that they would know how to behave on an a/c - just a shame that Tesco managers obviously didn't!

Kestrel_909
15th May 2004, 19:07
As someone said earlier,
"better down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here".

There are numerous scenarios that could have unfolded in the air, and get into the whole idea of ‘What If…’ but at the end of the day, the captain made his decision, so he, or she could operate the flight from A-B in the safest possible manner.

With two other similar air rage incidents recently, and incidentally both out of Belfast, on a flight to Liverpool and another to Spain, perhaps he had that in mind. I’m not making a generalisation of Northern Ireland born pax, as I am one J but regardless or where they happened in the Uk, it would make anyone think twice again about making the decision to offload or not.

We now know the flight happened safely with no incidents, and so can are left thinking ‘what if...’ again. 37 pax is a high number to offload, and I’m not going to get into questioning the captains judgement, but as I see it he made the decision to go from GLA-BHD without them, as he thought it wasn’t worth the risk.

and no I don't know the captain in question
:p

Ignition Override
16th May 2004, 04:27
ElectroVlassic: there are often passengers who have a fear of flying ( even a very maladjusted hatred of women...i.e. cabin crew can be treated as unlettered personal serfs...), and they compensate for this in all sorts of ways, however that might not have been the case on the flight in question.

Often it can be the type of communication style between cabin and cockpit crew which can clarify or distort one's impressions of any situation. The more experienced the cabin crew, the more willing they are to offer their advice-or we can ask for their recommendations, in case they might feel a little intimidated by the cockpit crew: especially a young, junior crewmember who is very often forced to be the Lead Flight Attendant, because the more senior crew don't want to work so hard as 'the Lead"..... There can be an age difference, cultural or language issues, or a combination. Even US airlines have a number of FAs and even pilots, from other countries.

I have heard how some captains (at least before 9/11) have not always been supportive of the cabin crews when a passenger 'attitude problem' keeps continues to be a challenge or a major distraction (indifferent, or wimps?):\

Although a pilot should leave the cockpit inflight ONLY to visit the WC/lav (don't try to intervene until the plane is safely on the ground:this can be a well-coordinated trap), other passengers at the rear of the cabin might be requested to help with another person's serious attitude problem.

MOR
16th May 2004, 07:00
There is soooo much crap being written here.

It seems Tescos might take further action. This is now being reported in the media.

Like what...??? Try reading the Conditions of Carriage. NOTHING they can do, short of maybe getting a refund.

If the passengers were indeed unruly were they necessarily a threat to the a/c?

Who cares? Flybe has a carefully thought out policy towards this type of thing, which can essentially be distilled as "zero tolerance". Quite right too- do you want to spend an hour next to a bunch of rowdies? Thought not. The captain was right, if only from a pax comfort perspective.

Could this not be a total overreaction by an arrogant crew abusing their position?

Could this be written by some spotty-faced wannabe...???
:rolleyes:

If then its decided that the captain was guilty of a gross over reaction I hope the company get hung for it.

In what way can the company get hung for it? In no way. Read your ticket.

dicksynormous

...ah, whats the point in responding to such drivel. Username says it all, really.

Grow up, people. Captains don't want to offload unless they have to. Most trust their cabin crew to make an assessment. In almost every case - certainly on the ten or so occasions I have offloaded people - I have received complete support from the company.

In these days, the only acceptable policy towards either alcohol or general misbehavior on an aircraft, is zero tolerance.

witchdoctor
16th May 2004, 09:40
Ah, supermarket managers. That explains it all.

Having worked with these people (not necessarily the same ones involved here I hasten to add) for a number of years, I have to admit that by and large they are a cretinous bunch of narrow-minded bullies, who revel in the harassment of their store teams - including other managers.

Professionals indeed. My eye!:rolleyes:

CaptAirProx
16th May 2004, 11:18
Dicksynormous,

Your initial and later comments are profound to say the least....

The Captain in question is actually one of our most experienced we have. And indeed to any passenger meeting him, you would soon get the impression he was from his appearance! So I am afraid that argument is flawed. He is very professional and holds a managerial position in the company having worked for at least one major airline in his past.

I have also read the senior cabin crews report. Without going into the details, I can sympathise with the crew. The passengers were given umpteen warnings by the Cabin staff, Captain then the police and special branch. They were told the outcome of their behaviour if not stopped would involve offloading etc etc. They persisted. Infact it sounds like they showed little respect for authority, including the police.

I have indeed been cabin crew on large aircraft with the aircraft full of unruly men. It is most frightening even as cabin crew. This was a relatively smaller aircraft with the proportionate amount of unruly pax to go with it. So how you can dare comment from your armchair beggars belief and may I say, a pompous attitude to go with it.

The pot calling the kettle black me thiinks.


If it hadn't been for a Beeb reporter being onboard who started filming the event, none of this would have hit the headlines. Indeed the reporter was arrested on the aircraft for filming in a restricted area.

As a Captain myself now, I respect the right of the cabin crew to have a passenger offloaded if they so wish. It is they who have to put up with them aswell as the well being of the passengers around them.

If this behaviour is seen to be acceptable it is a very dangerous and slippery slope to follow down. You can't just park the aircraft at the kerb side and kick them out if their behaviour has escalated.

dicksynormous
16th May 2004, 11:49
MOR,

There is too much crap being written here. You are writing it.
Please dont tell me to grow up, your arrogant uncompromising rant says it all. If you want to insult me as a reaction to your dislike of my opinion, PM me and well take it from there. Be my pleasure to re-educate you.

Air prox,

Some of my posts also included IF , and MAY so its an opinion based on my extensive experience with these situations not an individual, and that decisions should not be blindly defended because we are aircrew. Re read them in that context.

Apart from that i cant be arsed with this anymore.This whole board is intolerant of any sort of dissent vis a vis the professionalism or judgement of its members so it defeats its own purpose.

Midland Maniac
16th May 2004, 11:53
The handbags will be out next.....were gonna have Forum Rage!!! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/fight.gif


http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/biggrinshoot.gif

er82
16th May 2004, 12:10
Dicksynormous : too many truths hitting home? Suddenly finding yourself surrounded by people who might actually know more than you... or just too stubborn to admit you may have been slightly off the mark about said situation....????

BEagle
16th May 2004, 12:33
"YOU! Sit down, shut up or get off. Your choice - because you'll do one or the other. NOW!" To hell with the huggy-fluffy 'But they're our customers' approach, order the unruly oiks to do what they're told and don't put up with any backchat!

Now that the unwashed, pierced, tattoo-ed dregs of society are habitually flown around in airliners to drink themselves into oblivion in some sunny part or other of the world, when they later start working for a living (even for Tesco), is there any wonder that their yob culture comes to the surface when they travel on freebie trips in groups?

Well done to the captain and crew involved.

dicksynormous
16th May 2004, 13:04
One final parting shot for those that cant read.

er82 stubborn yes, as for knowing more than me i doubt it , at least not in your case looking at your profile,probably more theory than susbstance, product of your enviroment i'll wager. Fatpl doesnt that mean less than 1500 hrs. Not a huge database of experience to draw from eh?
As for the others probably in many cases but i never said they didnt, i gave my opinion, and last time i checked this isnt the USA.

Now if anyone else would like to insult me for exercising my rights to an opinion please pm me and lets remove the anonimity.Im in lgw soon er82 so you can regale me in person with your wisdom.

Thank you and good night.:yuk:

Ranger One
16th May 2004, 15:42
CaptAirProx:

If it hadn't been for a Beeb reporter being onboard who started filming the event, none of this would have hit the headlines. Indeed the reporter was arrested on the aircraft for filming in a restricted area.

Say again?

With all respect, offloading 37 pax is a sufficiently unusual event that it would undoubtedly attract media attention in any case.

Not picking a fight - from the wording of your post it's clear you fly with FlyBe, you presumably have considerably more and better information than the rest of us - but I've read a few reports on this incident, and they all say no-one was arrested. No hint of this elsewhere on the thread either.

Was this *really* a BBC reporter? Was s/he *really* arrested? What were the circumstances, as far as you know?

Arresting a reporter is a serious step for any police officer to take, especially in a situation like this. I'd have thought they would be pleased to have the footage as evidence. I wasn't aware the cabin of an aircraft could be construed as a 'restricted area' in the meaning of the act... are you sure the reporter wasn't arrested for failing to obey lawful commands (e.g. to stop filming)?

If a reporter really was arrested I would expect it to be all over the media, it's a bigger story than the original incident!

R1

Following myself up... my *wife* has found the video on the BBC website, which I overlooked! Grrrrrrr. Seems the reporter was \'stopped\' but not formally arrested, and the BBC say that footage shot was \'confiscated\'. The footage shown on the website stops on the apron, a few seconds after the reporter had come down the steps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40150000/rm/_40150983_flybe_edit_vi.ram

So he wasn\'t arrested, and he was allowed to film on the aircraft, but stopped on the apron (which IS a restricted area; fair enough).

Phew!

R1

TightSlot
16th May 2004, 20:32
Folks - if you want to discuss this incident, or matters arising, then this is the place to do so. If you simply want to hurl abuse at each other, then take it outside. Use PM's, e-mail or pistols at dawn, but don't use this thread for a slanging match!
You have been warned!

Tony Flynn
17th May 2004, 10:20
Maybe we should organise a grudge bash once a year....... Now I'd definately go to that!

Hudson Bay
17th May 2004, 12:57
Look on the bright side, more people have now heard of flybe in the last few days than anytime in their 30 year history! Tesco and the BBC should be thanked!

Jaq
17th May 2004, 13:56
Dear dear dear, what a hullabaloo over nowt.

I'm going to throw my 2pence in.
I've had to offload rowdy punters in the past and it was in an almost identical situation as this one.
However I only offloaded two of about 30 pax who were 'excited' (Previously described) and who were causing the worst of the disturbance.
I live to regret it to this day

Once airborne the rest of the group began drinking (Their own) singing and verbally abusing the cabin crew and other passengers. This lasted 'till the end of the flight, which had the cabin crew in a terrible state at the other end.
Not to mention how the rest of the passengers felt.

Anticipating some of your responses, "NO, I'm not a new Captain, I've been one for too many years now".

I repudiate any of your suggestions that the Captain over reacted and would suggest if anyone says anything to the contrary it is because of YOUR own lack of experience.
This guy, all be it a competitor of mine, has my full support for his professional decision.

Put yourself next to one of these guys and try to imagine how uncomfortable it would have been for you. Low cost or not, these types of people must be made to behave in a sociable manner while travelling on public transport and most definitely not be allowed to act like the scum they are. (Purposely emotive)

May I also point out that the reporter may have been slightly biased as he had also been delayed. One should therefore wonder as to the truthfulness of his report.

Lastly…….. May I point out to some of the earlier posters that just because another’s opinion is not identical to your own that this does not necessarily mean their opinion is wrong.

PHEW :D

sparkymarky
17th May 2004, 22:11
There is soooo much crap being written here.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems Tescos might take further action. This is now being reported in the media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like what...??? Try reading the Conditions of Carriage. NOTHING they can do, short of maybe getting a refund.



Actually, the FlyBE statement (as reported in the news clip) says that Tesco staff were drunk and disorderly. The police statement (as reported in the news clip) says that noone was arrested.

Consequently a possible defamation case?

Nineiron
17th May 2004, 22:42
The fact that the police did not arrest them does not mean it wasn't true. The police aare not obliged to arrest all who are drunk and disorderly. If the situation was contained, why should they?
After public humiliation, the threat of retaliatory action aginst the airline is coming from the same loud mouths that got them into trouble in the first place.

MOR
18th May 2004, 00:51
Absolutely right. The police have to consider the cost of a prosecution against the likely benefit to the public. In this case, they probably decided that denial of travel was sufficient punishment - it was probably more costly to the Tesco staff than the fine would have been.

If the police thought that the Captains complaint was frivolous, they could just as easily charge him with wasting police time. But they didn't, did they...???

jaq

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, did you consider an en-route divert to halt the drinking, and abuse of your crew? I have done that before now. Usually just the warning is enough, but an actual turn or early descent tends to quiet things down really fast. If it doesn't, you really need to be on the ground.

I won't tolerate any abuse of my crew by passengers, verbal or otherwise. That isn't what they signed up for, and may easily be dangerous for them, as many cabin crew have found out to their cost. You have to support and protect your crew, wherever possible.

Off on a tangent for a sec, we had a couple of rowdies on a flight to Innsbruck a year or so ago, who were threatening our crew. Police were called, they turned up in full riot gear with automatic weapons. The two lads were frog-marched off the aircraft, handcuffed, and chucked in a van for half an hour whilst the facts were established. The handling agents informed the tour company, who disowned them, refusing them hotel accommodation or return flights. Not only that, they faxed all the other hotels in Innsbruck and our miscreants found they had nowhere to stay on what was a very cold night! They ended up hitching a ride to a bus station, and returning to Scotland by rail.

Now, ask me if I felt the least bit sorry for them...

The police were happy, our company was happy, the tour company was happy, and our cabin crew felt as though somebody cared about them.

Result!

etrang
18th May 2004, 08:12
Jaq
"May I also point out that the reporter may have been slightly biased as he had also been delayed. One should therefore wonder as to the truthfulness of his report."

May I also point out that the reporter was there whilst nobody here was. If they were causing trouble they deserved to be thrown off. However, it IS possible that the crew made a mistake. They are only human after all.

MOR
18th May 2004, 09:17
Note that the term "banter" was used by a passenger trying to blame the airline - hardly an objective witness. Nobody else called what happened "banter".

Nobody objects to "banter", if you did most crews wouldn't be permitted to fly!

sparkymarky
18th May 2004, 20:03
Absolutely right. The police have to consider the cost of a prosecution against the likely benefit to the public. In this case, they probably decided that denial of travel was sufficient punishment - it was probably more costly to the Tesco staff than the fine would have been.

Absolute nonsense. Based on your rationale the police would not arrest anyone guilty of anything less than assault or robbery, since the odds on getting jailed are likely to be slim for say a speeding driver, a grafitti vandal, low value car thefts, etc.

I can imagine that conversation when you call the police to investigate your car window being smashed and your radio stolen - 'Thanks for calling us sir, but since the thief is only likely to get a £200 fine and a slap on the wrist we aren't going to bother pursuing the matter since the benefit is minimal. Anyway, it looks like he cut his hand on the broken glass so he has probably suffered enough.'

People are not arrested (let alone charged with an offence) when there is unsufficient evidence.

CaptAirProx
18th May 2004, 22:50
Dicksa............

Your closing comments to your reply to me and others says it all.

As to the other person on here asking if it was correct that the Beeb guy got arrested, well all I know is he was asked to get off the aircraft with the police and to stop filming at the same time. This was seeb by the cabin crew at the time that he was being arrested. But that doesn't mean he was charged or held for long.

I have never heard of it being illegal to film airside but I have since been told its contrary to some law or other. A bit like listening to airband radios is actually illegal in certain ways but rarely is the law used.

May I suggest that with experience we all realise that every situation is different. And therefore warrants a different solution to the problem. Far be it for us, even me who knows a little about the incident from colleagues involved, to actually suggest we know better.

Where there is smoke there is always fire. There are two stories to this and so far you have only heard the one of them.

MOR
19th May 2004, 00:19
sparkymarky

Absolute nonsense. Based on your rationale the police would not arrest anyone guilty of anything less than assault or robbery, since the odds on getting jailed are likely to be slim for say a speeding driver, a grafitti vandal, low value car thefts, etc.

You completely miss the point. In the examples you mention, there is physical evidence of some kind or another.

People are often arrested where there is inusufficient evidence. That judgement is not made until after the event, and many cases are dropped every year through insufficient evidence.

My assertion comes from a pre-aviation stint in the Police. What is your background?

er82
19th May 2004, 08:00
Just another thing..... seems that approx two years ago, a Capt for a certain Orange company actually offloaded the whole flight (football hooligans) because of their behaviour. Police asked him to continue with the flight because the said pax were creating uproar in the terminal and they wanted to try and get rid of them. Capt refused. Any thoughts?

sparkymarky
19th May 2004, 19:45
MOR

I don't have any police training - I've had my car broken into a few times though! Does that count as legal experience?

I note from your profile you are now a Captain - hence you must have a fair amount of aviation experience. I therefore deduce that your police experience must have been quite some time ago, and is of limited relevance now.

However, I'm sure you will be aware of the Scottish term 'breach of the peace'. An offence which needs no physical evidence and which would be easily applicable if the customer behaviour was as alleged by FlyBe.

I'm also sure you will equally be aware there is no such crime as 'guilt by association'. Therefore you will no doubt be clear that if one Tesco manager misbehaves, not all Tesco managers are guilty. Hence there is no justification for throwing all of them off the flight. That really is absolute nonsense.

Can you imagine the furore if ethnicity or religion was brought into it. 'Right we've got a drunk Catholic on the plane. Chuck him off and get rid of all the other Catholics too just in case they kick up once we are airborne.' That would make for interesting headlines.

The fact is the airline has a responsibility to all their paying customers to ensure they are all treated well, so long as their behaviour is within decent civilised standards. In this case, it may well be that some people breached those standards, but if 30 people breached them are you saying the police are so ineffective they couldn't even find enough evidence to arrest one of them?

Mr Chips
19th May 2004, 20:28
Sparky - I think that you are deliberately trying to cloud the issue. If you watch some of the police documentaries that show practically 24/7 on cable you will see that many drunks do not get arrested, despite being drunk and disorderly. This incident involved (apparently) the airline, ground staff and police.. The Police seem to have been happy with how it was all handled. Maybe the whole group objected, maybe the whole group were getting rowdy, maybe maybe maybe. Judging by the extreme lack of any info on here, we can't draw a conclusion either way, but you seem to think that because nobody was arrested, the captain must have been wrong.

Rubbish.

If Tesco thought they had been so hard done by, this would have been front page of the Sun by now. It hasn't been.

MOR
20th May 2004, 04:56
sparkymarky

At the risk of turning this into a debate about law, let me just answer your points.

The law in this area hasn't changed a whole lot over the years, so I doubt there is any substantive change from what I said originally.

"Breach of the Peace", or any similar offences, all require witness evidence... the problem is, that if you cannot clearly identify the perpetrator, you have no choice (in aviation terms) but to remove everyone from the aircraft until you are sure that all those who are a risk, are identified and refused passage. The rest can then continue. This is, in fact, what seems to have happened. "Guilt by association" is a complete red herring.

Nobody is even remotely suggesting that religion or ethnicity have anything to do with this (or any similar cases).


The fact is the airline has a responsibility to all their paying customers to ensure they are all treated well, so long as their behaviour is within decent civilised standards. In this case, it may well be that some people breached those standards, but if 30 people breached them are you saying the police are so ineffective they couldn't even find enough evidence to arrest one of them?

In this case, the behaviour of some was NOT within decent civilised standards. More to the point, it was behaviour that was of significant concern from a safety standpoint, not to mention from the standpoint of the rights of the crew members to NOT suffer abuse at the hands of the passengers.

Police are trained to NOT go in with all guns blazing, all of the the time. If it is possible to calm the situation down, and satisfy all parties without making arrests, then that is what they do. If you want to see evidence of this, attend any reasonably-sized music festival, any Premier Division football match, etc.

Boisterous passengers don't necessarily commit a crime if they are considered likely by the crew to pose a threat - only if they actually become a threat. On the other hand, a crew only needs to have reasonable grounds to believe that they COULD pose a threat, to take the action that forms the basis of this thread.

Of course, if they are on an aircraft, and are drunk, they HAVE committed an offence- it is irrelevant how they came to be there.

What the Police do is at their discretion, unless there is a criminal offence, or the airline wishes to pursue a complaint based on the passengers behaviour.

Ignition Override
21st May 2004, 07:49
Beagle described some of the passenger attitudes in the US-I know nothing about in Britain.

Over here, our society now looks for cheap things and for everything at a steep discount. A "Walmart attitude". Many people put on their lousiest clothes when they fly-are they ashamed to travel by air? Appearance can unconsciously affect behavior. Unfortunately, some of them forgot, somewhere along the way, that "good manners cost nothing", or were never taught......

Heard that expression on Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon"

If any passengers ever went out of control and refused to calm down (continue to interfere with cabin flight/ground duties), I would not hesitate, especially if the other crewmembers agree, to have airport security pull them off. If it were to be a long flight, might consider a diversion if threats were made by any passengers-but having loud drunks might not be clear cut, depending on the effects on those people not in their clique. The FARs (ANOs?) should back us up, but at least company policies would. :)

etrang
21st May 2004, 08:12
MOR, re:
"Of course, if they are on an aircraft, and are drunk, they HAVE committed an offence"

Out of interest what is the offence, if say the passenger is drunk but quiet and co-operative, or asleep?

And what is the definition of "drunk" under this offence.

MOR
21st May 2004, 08:47
Try this:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/3/PAS_travelsafely.pdf

... noting particularly "It is an offence to enter an aircraft whilst drunk or to be drunk on board an aircraft"

Or this:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF

Section 1, Part V, Article 65 refers. This is more specific than the first one, which is meant for passengers.

What does "drunk" mean? Good question. I tried finding a definition and failed miserably. However, I doubt you could go far wrong by using the drink/drive limit as a basis. It should also be possible to apply sobriety tests, as some police forces are now doing in the UK (particularly in Scotland).

I don't really care, in any case. If I think a person is drunk, they won't be getting on any aircraft I command. If they can prove to me (or a police officer) that they are not drunk, I'll let them travel.

sparkymarky
22nd May 2004, 18:01
Hi again. Sorry for the delay replying - been a bit busy for the last few days.

Just to be clear on one thing, if anyone was proved to be committing any wrongful action then I've no sympathy for them, and of course they, and they only, should be denied travel. However, it seems to me there are a few things which don't add up here...

For passengers to be ejected, the cabin crew and (probably) flight crew must have witnessed something. Hence witnesses exist. Otherwise their behaviour would be incorrect.

If, as alleged, passengers were drunk on the aircraft, why would the airline not wish to pursue a complaint? After all we are supposed to be operating in a zero tolerance environment, where people who make daft jokes to check in staff end up behind bars.

Most importantly, unless someone can prove that all of the passengers who were ejected were behaving incorrectly, then they have been badly treated by the airline. This is why I made the point about 'guilt by association' not being a valid attitude.

Paying customers - who committed no wrongful action - appear to have been denied travel by the airline without justifiable cause.

As for Mr Chips, how many of the police documentaries you watch on cable showed people who were drunk and disorderly on board aircraft? If you are trying to compare the treatment of drunks outside a nightclub at 3am with the treatment of drunks on board a commercial aircraft then that is an extremely flawed comparison. It's an even more flawed argument to say that because some people get away with it, everyone should - two wrongs do not make a right!

Frankfurt_Cowboy
22nd May 2004, 18:19
How come this is open to debate and yet the Astreaus non-incidents were deleted almost immediately? Oh hang on....

jmc-man
22nd May 2004, 19:59
Good question, Frankfurt Cowboy.

However, when I went back and looked, there was around 7 or 8 pages of debate on the issue at the time, that ran for around 2 weeks or so.

It was all much along the same lines as this one, except that one took longer to come to court.

I also believe the legislation has changed since then, giving judges and magistrates some new "tools" to deal with Air Rage/ Drunken / Disruptive Passengers.

MOR
23rd May 2004, 02:47
For passengers to be ejected, the cabin crew and (probably) flight crew must have witnessed something. Hence witnesses exist.

Sure.

If, as alleged, passengers were drunk on the aircraft, why would the airline not wish to pursue a complaint?

I'm sure they did, but the Police do not have to prosecute. The airline could bring a civil action, but it would be very expensive and unlikely to have the desired effect.

Of course I do not know (and neither do you) how far down the track any complaint has gone.

Most importantly, unless someone can prove that all of the passengers who were ejected were behaving incorrectly, then they have been badly treated by the airline. This is why I made the point about 'guilt by association' not being a valid attitude.

You miss the point, yet again. The other pax were not being denied passage because of "guilt by association"; the process of identifying all the troublemakers, making sure you have the right ones, taking statements etc all takes time. The flight did leave (late), and did carry pax. From experience with this, 2-3 hours is about right.

In any case, once the police are called, it is their hands.

Paying customers - who committed no wrongful action - appear to have been denied travel by the airline without justifiable cause.

They weren't denied travel, they were delayed. And it wasn't the fault of the airline: it was completely the fault of the (few) pax who chose to behave in an offensive manner (drunk, or not).

Dashed
23rd May 2004, 12:31
I also work for the company and have flown with the Captain involved on many occasions. Was also with him when we had a similar problem with a young squaddie, (think he was drunk), being abusive to our No.1.
I know he wouldn't make any rash decisions and I would back his actions 110%.
The Captain, (commander of the aircraft remember!) made a decision and had the pax offloaded, end of story.

PPRuNe Radar
23rd May 2004, 15:42
How come this is open to debate and yet the Astreaus non-incidents were deleted almost immediately? Oh hang on....

So Cowboy ... are 4 threads on the Cardiff Astraeus incident (all searchable and open to public view on this site) not enough for you ??

Two are still open, one was closed with around 285 posts since it was starting to go around the same buoy over and over, and the other was closed presumably since the topic was well covered in the other three and added nothing new.

Oh hang on .... can't spoil a good conspiracy theory ;)

Frankfurt_Cowboy
23rd May 2004, 17:52
And what about the other one? Eh? ;)

sparkymarky
23rd May 2004, 18:12
MOR

I think we are almost at the 'buoy circling' point in this debate, but your last post has a very interesting point to be addressed...

They weren't denied travel, they were delayed. And it wasn't the fault of the airline: it was completely the fault of the (few) pax who chose to behave in an offensive manner (drunk, or not).

According to the following quote from the BBC website which was linked to at the start of this thread......

"'The 54 passengers had already boarded the plane bound for Belfast City Airport at about 2030 BST.

The captain then decided to off-load the aircraft in order to identify those causing the disturbance.

As a result, 37 passengers who were part of a group of Tesco store managers, were grounded in Glasgow.

The 17 passengers remaining on the plane did make it home, but those taken off spent the night in Glasgow and were forced to pay for new tickets for flights on Thursday morning."

So, if this is true, 17 passengers unconnected to Tesco were allowed to travel, 37 passengers connected to Tesco were not allowed to travel. This certainly seems to me to be guilt by association.

You also state the passengers were not 'denied travel'. I'll admit in a strictly legal sense they were not completely denied travel - they were merely denied travel on the flight they had paid for, and forced to spend an extra night away from their homes. They were allowed to travel on a flight the next day, after, according to the BBC, being 'forced to pay for new tickets'.

So, according to you, only a few of the 37 passengers misbehaved. According to the BBC all of the passengers had to buy new tickets. Is this correct? If so, what is the justification? If any of the passengers who were kept behind were non Tesco staff would they have been forced to buy new tickets too?

MOR
24th May 2004, 02:03
Yes, I have seen this buoy before - but then, in every boat race I have taken part in, that was the whole idea! :p

I can't comment on specifics, as I wasn't there - and neither were you. I can only paint broad strokes.

So - the following in a dashing shade of vermillion...

Being denied travel, and being delayed, are two quite different things. They carry different responsibilities on both sides. Your ticket (reverse side) refers. You don't buy travel on a particular flight, you buy travel from point A to Point B. The time that you travel is dependent on a number of things, such as weather, aircraft serviceability, industrial action, war etc.

As the decision to exclude the 37 Tesco folk was made with the Police present, it is logical to assume that the Police concurred with this course of action (and may even have suggested it).

If you are guilty of misbehaviour in an aircraft, you lose the right to travel on that flight - in the same way that if you start misbehaving in a cinema, you will probably be ejected without a refund. You lose certain rights if you break the law.

First you say the 37 pax were denied travel, then you say all had to buy new tickets - I assume you mean all of the 37?

So, according to you, only a few of the 37 passengers misbehaved.

I never said that. I wasn't there, so I don't know.

If any of the passengers who were kept behind were non Tesco staff would they have been forced to buy new tickets too?

That is a particularly silly question, as the inference is that the company has some vendetta against Tesco. Quite the reverse is true - I'm sure flybe welcome their custom, but they require appropriate behaviour.

In any case, this sort of mob behaviour is most common amongst groups travelling together. One misbehaves, the others egg them on, and then support them when action is taken. It is often more sensible to take them all off. I have had to do this with groups ranging from rugby teams to "hen night" parties.

If this was just one rogue captain on an ego trip, I might concede some of your points. But I'm sure it wasn't. The final decision would have involved input from the rest of the crew, the Police, the Duty Manager, and the company Operations department. The buck stops with the captain, and that is what gets reported.

See you at the upwind mark... ;)

Mr Chips
24th May 2004, 12:16
SparkyMarky

As I type this reply, i am actually wondering why I am bothering. It appears to me that you selectively read what gets posted, and then apply your own assessment to what is being said...
As for Mr Chips, how many of the police documentaries you watch on cable showed people who were drunk and disorderly on board aircraft? If you are trying to compare the treatment of drunks outside a nightclub at 3am with the treatment of drunks on board a commercial aircraft then that is an extremely flawed comparison. It's an even more flawed argument to say that because some people get away with it, everyone should - two wrongs do not make a right!

Someone suggested that obviouslty nothing happened as nobody was arrested (my words, their meaning). I pointed out, using an example, that the Police don't necessarily always arrest those who have commited an arrestable offence. personally, I would lock up many more people than the police do!

I have been present at incidents when the Police have threatened to arrest the complainant (which in this case would be the captain) for making spurious claims. It clearly didn't happen here, so one can take it that the Police agreed with the Captain's actions...

Now, unless someone has some ACTUAL news about what ACTUALLY happened... I bid you all good night

sparkymarky
24th May 2004, 19:21
Cheers MOR. Glad to see we can have a nice healthy debate without getting narky but I think I got you on one point at least :p

They weren't denied travel, they were delayed. And it wasn't the fault of the airline: it was completely the fault of the (few) pax who chose to behave in an offensive manner (drunk, or not).

So you did specifically say only a few passengers chose to misbehave. I took this to mean you had some specific knowledge of the situation.

Anyway, onwards.........I think broadly speaking we'd both have similar ideas on what does and doesn't constitute acceptable behaviour. What I still don't get is this:

1. Alleged disturbance occurs
2. 37 people offloaded and kept behind for a night - not allowed to travel on this flight
3. 17 people allowed to travel
4. Next day - all 37 people who were kept behind are allowed to travel with the same airline but on condition they pay for new tickets

This can't make sense!

If I was the man in command and 37 people were justifiably offloaded, I wouldn't be taking cash off them the next day and flying them home; I'd be pointing them in the direction of Stranraer.

If they weren't justifiably offloaded I'd be flying them home at no cost.

I'd also be curious to know how the conversation with the crew went the next morning - 'yeah heavier load than normal today, we're putting the 37 folk we chucked off yesterday onto your flight'. Bet that went down well!

Anyway, I think I just heard the bell for the end of the 15th round, so I'll sign off at this point. Regards.


Mr Chips

I notice you couldn't back up your spurious example and have veered off at a rather bizarre tangent(the captain wasn't arrested hence the police clearly agreed with his actions? hmmm). So I'll say goodbye to you too.

MOR
25th May 2004, 13:46
sparkymarky

So you did specifically say only a few passengers chose to misbehave. I took this to mean you had some specific knowledge of the situation.

Ah yes, well, the reason I said "it was completely the fault of the (few) pax who chose to behave in an offensive manner (drunk, or not)", with the (few) in brackets like that, was that I didn't know how many there were - I just assumed it was a small number.

What happened, why, who said what etc, I have no idea. All I can say is that the Police seemed to concur with the captain, from what I have heard, which must mean something!

Nice, as you say, to discuss without becoming base and foolish.

bealine
25th May 2004, 20:12
It is only a prime fool who would say the decision to offload was "over-reaction"!!!

We have first-hand experience of what happens when you're a "soft touch". The following incident occurred because check-in, gate staff, the police, duty managers and cabin staff missed the potential danger signs and decided Mr Mukonyi was fit to travel.

I think if you had been one of the passengers or crew on BA2069, you would want a decisive captain who "offloads first and asks questions later"

Quote From ABC News 01/01/01

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2000/12/item20001231133633_1.htm
BA passenger believed he was being followed

A passenger who attacked the pilot of a British Airways jet en route to Kenya had been cleared by police in London to board the flight.

Paul Mukonyi was said to have been "confused" at the check-in desk at Gatwick airport and later asked for police, claiming someone was following him.

A British Airways spokeswoman says Mr Mukonyi was escorted to the gate and the police were called at his request.

After talking to him, police decided he was fit to travel.

Several hours later during the overnight flight, Mr Mukonyi burst into the plane's cockpit and fought with the pilot.

The fight lasted around two minutes, during which the 747 dived almost 3,000 meters.

Two members of the flight crew were injured as they wrestled with the man who attempted to take control of the aircraft.

The man was overpowered and the plane landed safely in Nairobi.

British Airways says it will review the security arrangements on board its aircraft.

The airline says under current guidelines, the cockpit is normally locked during take off and landing.

But, the latest incident occured more than six hours into a flight between London and Nairobi. Kenyan police have arrested the man responsible for the attack.

dicksynormous
25th May 2004, 23:28
Knowing BA sop on refusals i would hazard a guess that it didnt even get as far as the captain. Some mincing wrinkly over paid csd who is the real commander probably made the decision to carry.

MOR
26th May 2004, 15:06
Some mincing wrinkly over paid csd who is the real commander

Yes, and about time that was stopped, too!