Premiair Capt. charged with discrimination

[Payscale]

The Commander of a Premiair charter flight from Stockholm to Las Palmas disembarked three arabic pax, who for some reason did not follow the cabin crews instructions. Now he has been charged with discrimination. Caught between a rock and a hard place.

[maxalt]

We've already had a thread going on this subject, and I pointed out that the gut reaction of many contributors to 'chuck 'em off' might seem attractive...but would have dire consequences later.

Seems I was right yet again. :D

[Raw Data]

At last, somebody with a larger ego than MOL...!!! ;) :D :D

[Payscale]

MAXALT - we all envy your sharp mind. Definetly astronaut material :eek:

[Spoonbill]

The Captains decision should be final if anyone does not comply with cabin crew instructions.
It's not clear as to who has "charged" the captain with discrimination, a legal nightmare I suspect.

[Fuel to Noise]

A captain has always the right to disembark anybody from his aircraft!

If the passenger did not comply to the orders of the cabin crew they have no right to stay on board.
This is for safety reasons and has nothing to do with discrimination.

Well done by the captain!

[WhiteSail]

If this rumour is true, I hope his company, colleagues and union support him to the end.

There can be no question in my mind, the captain MUST have the final say on who can (or cannot) travel on board any aircraft.

There cannot be any compromise (politically correct?) on this.

[Techman]

It's no rumour. If convicted he could face up to a year in the slammer.

There is no doubt that the Captain has the right to remove anybody from his flight, but the passengers also have rights.

If it is found that the passengers were removed for no other reason than their ethnic origin, then the Captain has some explaining to do.

With rights comes responsibility.

[Ranger One]

I'd certainly be interested to hear more on the detailed circs of this case. If the pax concerned really did disobey reasonable crew instructions (and it wasn't just a languge difficulty) I can't see how the captain has a case to answer.

On a more general note, while I would normally take a fairly hard line on any challenge to the traditional scope of captains authority (i.e. pretty much final and all-encompasing), some recent cases make that... shall we say a harder position to defend?

I'm thinking particularly of cases in the USA (reported in other threads) where a 'suspicious' pax has been deplaned, interviewed and checked extensively by LE/FBI, declared to present no risk whatever - and STILL refused reboarding by the captain. On the totally specious grounds that some crew or pax found the individual 'objectionable'.

Such thinly-disguised - no, UNdisguised - racism has no place in our profession, and WILL lead to a potentially-dangerous reduction in captains authority if it continues, in the USA at least - the amount of damages that can and will be sued for here in such cases would take your breath away.

[fireflybob]

Surely the captain can do anything he wants to ensure the "safety and regularity etc" of the flight.

If by taking a certain passenger(s) other passengers may feel inclined to feel less "safe" then perhaps there is an arguement that the captain should refuse to take the former passenger(s).

I hardly think that discrimination features in the arguement - the only person who has the final say as to who boards is the aircraft commander - whether or not anyone else thinks otherwise. This is precisely the sort of decision that the captain is paid to make!

The employer might care to investigate the circumstances but I only hope that any captain, especially in the current climate, is fully backed by the employer.

[moggie]

The captain has the right to offload anyone he chooses and passengers have rights, too. However, when you buy a ticket you enter into a contract with the airline - they agree to do their best to get you to destination safely and on time whilst you agree to obey the rules.

Now, these rules are not just written by the airlines to stop pax enjoying themselves - many of them are offical regulations with a basis in international law, some are required by insurance companies and some are just damn good sense. If you are not smart enough to obey those rules you place yourself and other passengers at risk - and in doing so you infringe the rights of other passengers.

If you choose not to obey the rules you get booted - that is just good sense and how it should be. Then you get to save up, buy another ticket and try again once you decide to behave yourself.

sdounds reasonable to me - let's just hope the PC lobby don't get the poor chap.

[Devils Advocate]

From a legal standpoint, and I might be wrong here, but I seem to recall (and my Ops manual might seemingly suggest) that an aircraft / ships commander (possibly) only gain their full legal authority when the vessel/ship/aircraft moves under its own power ?!

E.g. My Ops Manual / Part A / General / Section 1.4.3 / Authorities, Duties, and Responsibilities of the Commander - states the following: 'The commander shall'....

a). be responsible for the safe operation of the aeroplane and safety of its occupants and cargo during flight time;

b). have the authority to give all commands he deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aeroplane and of the persons or property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aeroplane shall obey such commands;

c). have the authority to disembark any person, or any part of the cargo, which in his opinion, may represent a potential hazard to the safety of the aeroplace or its occupants;

etc........ and accordingly (perhaps) from a legal point of view (rather than a common sense one ;) - just why is there never a lawyer about when you've a need of one ?! ) it could be read into the above that b) & c) can only be applied if the bit in bold within a) above is occuring.

Perhaps it comes down to the point of just when does the commander actually take command of the aircraft ? Is it when he walks out to the aircraft ? or is it when he first enters the aircraft ? or is it when he first enters the cockpit ? or is it when he signs the tech log ? or is it when the doors close ? or is it when the aircraft pushes ? or is it when he start the engines ? or is it when the aircraft moves under its own power ? ...... Well ?
Because, it might be argued that (and you can be sure that some slick lawyer would do just that) until that point when the captain trully assumes command is legally defined, it's open to debate as to just when the commander is able to exercise the authority to exercise his right according to b) or c) above.

Ps. A long time ago somebody, very wisely, told me that an Ops manual is primarily designed to protect the companies a_rse, not the pilots (e.g. that's why it's often loosely worded) and that you should know it backwards and forwards, not for so much as to what it says, but for what it doesn't; i.e. the Devil is in the detail (or lack of it) !

[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: Devils Advocate ]

[maxalt]

Techman got it right. When the rest of you say "There is no doubt that the Captain has the right to remove anybody from his flight..." that's only half the story. Finish the sentence! I would add "...when he has sufficient grounds on which to do so." Techman used the simple point that "the passengers also have rights too" to drive home the point.

Mere suspicion, or personal prejudice may be sufficient for you, but they won't stand up in a court, and your boss probably won't like you getting him sued for nothing either. It is my understanding that the pax in the case in question did nothing more than look a bit too 'brown'.

Techman says pilots get paid for making these kind of decisions. Personally I avoid making decisions except where absolutely necessary...especially on the ground...and much prefer getting someone who is responsible for security to deal with such problems. That's what they get paid for.

Rawdata and Payscale thanks for the compliment, I'm flattered! :D Now how do I apply for that astronaut program???

[DownIn3Green]

Reference the comments above regarding when is the Captain "in charge".

To me it's when I assume responsibility for the flight, which could start when dispatch calls me 3 hours before reporting time when I'm still asleep to inquire about the fuel load. (which interrupts required rest and enables me to reset the clock).

Or how about when the gate agent calls me in the crew room and says (s)he's a seat short so would I mind a non-rev on the jump seat?

Or the ever popular plea from the load controller saying we're 600 lbs over max so would I mind chalking that up to extra "taxi" fuel?

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, my "command" of the flight starts when I'm assigned to it, and have to make the first decision concerning it.

If we're on the ground and someone decides to argue a point to the extent it becomes untenable, the answer is easy. I get my things and leave the plane, telling whomever to call me in the crew room when they have it sorted to my liking.

End of story.

[CoodaShooda]

Devils Advocate
I think you will find that clauses a, b and c have equal weight and operate independently of each other.
If you read each in isolation, it can be argued that the captain has the right to disembark passengers if they appear to pose a threat.
Of course, in this litigious age, he still has to justify his decision ata later time.

[Naked_viking]

Although I am now happily flying a privately owned jet, I do recall from my previous life what it was like flying for a scheduled carrier. Frankly, some of the responses here leaves me wondering if some pilots still live under the illusion that airlines are existing purely for the benefit of those pilots. Well, they do not and will not if they wish to return a profit to the owners.

The first rule of our job is to ensure the safe, secure, comfortable and timely transportation of passengers and freight from a to b. Do try to remember this, it should be rather easy to do.

Since none of us really know what happened onboard that Premiair flight, neither of us can really judge whether the captain took the right decision. However, since a law suit is boiling it would be safe to assume that he got it wrong somewhere. In my opinion, every mistake you overtly make should be made accountable. Just like in any other job, really. So if the captain did off-load the passengers for no valid reason, he has overstepped his area of responsibility and is thus eligble for punishment. And before you start throwing legalites at me, do keep in mind that above all we have a commitment to the passengers and the company we work for.

I am not saying that a captain has no right to decide who goes and who don't, but some kind of framework must have been laid down in the procedures. It's just that the age when a captain could do whatever he pleased is long gone, and all for the better if you ask me. And in my opinion one or more pax arguing with the crew is not a valid reason to off-load them. Who knows, they might have had their reasons to complain but got misunderstood by anxious cabin crew.

Let's try a reality check here people; if the industry continues to deny boarding or even off-load boarded passengers for the slightest of misdeads then we are headed for the abyss. What we need is for the public to regain confidence in the industry, and the actions of the Premiair captain does not serve this purpose.

Keep cool guys, and whatever you do remember that without those people down the back of the aircraft there will be no jobs to hold.

[Payscale]

Summing all these mails I'd say. We as captains have great authority and must use it with great care. I have never disembarked any pax(other than PADs). I have however disembarked a Cabin Crew member once, because of a nervous breakdown (hers :D ).

Lets not judge this Commander before all the info comes out. If he has disembarked these pax because of their tannedskin, I wish him a nice stay in jail, BUT untill then I'm 100% behind him. Things are NEVER just black and white, and everone turns to you for a quick decission......what would you have done? Exactly...me too...need more info.

[flapsforty]

Viking, at first read your argument seems reasonable. But I must say that I strongly disagree with you none the less.

Yes we are there for the pax and to ultimately make money for the shareholders. But the "being there for the pax" has for many years now taken on preposterous dimensions. And while not doubting the fact that you were as much involved with what happened in the cabin of your AC as is humanly possible with a cockpit door firmly closed and your own work to think about, I do think that,bottom line, you do not really know what goes down in the cabin when pax start to misbehave.
And in my opinion one or more pax arguing with the crew is not a valid reason to off-load them.
Example.
We now have to check every boarding card of pax entering teh AC to see if flight number and date match our flight. On a short haul this week, a businessman boarded, got extremely annoyed by my polite request to see his card. Started shouting at me and the other FA's, created general uproar and made the other pax most anxious.

Before sept 11th, this man would have been allowed to board and fly with us, while with his erratic behaviour inducing a very high stress load for both the other pax and the cabin crew. We would have tried to calm him down, usually unsuccesfully, and devoted a large part of our attentions and thoughts to keeping him pacified during the flight.
Using a lot of energy and concentration on a problem which should not have been there in the first place, and using up brain capacity better spent on giving good service to
all the pax, keeping an eye on the flight safety and all the myriad things we do simultaneously in the cabin.

And no I'm not exaggerating, one unruly pax can keep a whole cabin crew so preoccupied that it goes to the detriment of our other duties! Seen it happen many times.

I had a word with the Captain of our flight, asking him if it was OK to off-load this bloke, and I'm very happy to say that the Captain told me to take whatever measures I saw fit.
So O told the pax he couldn't travel with us due to his non compliance with a reasonable request from the crew, and he was swiftly removed from the AC by ground staff and myself.

Viking, yes we do have responsabilities, but so do our pax! And if they see fit to argue, create a scene or otherwise think they can freely upset a plane-load full of passengers and crew, OFF WITH THEM.

For far too many years, the travelling public and ourselves have had to put up with total f*ckwits terrorizing aircraft cabins with scary and unpredictable behaviour.

If anything good has come out of sept 11th, it is the fact that such behaviour is now no longer tolerated by flight crews.

my two cents worth..............

[Bigmouth]

Well said flapsforty.
If this had been pre-9/11 I would have agreed with most of you, BUT IT AIN´T!

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Flaps,

I am afraid that prejudices which have been formed since 11 September are on the whole just that. In your example that passenger was obviously unreasonable and you were right to offload him. But we are not talking about him are we.

The crew and ultimately the captain has the right to offload anyone they like and quite rightly so. However the reason they do it must be justified. If you cannot justify it for anything other than preconceived prejudices or having a bad day and are short of patience or there is some confusion, and this is what appears to have happened in this case otherwise why the charge, then the people concerned should face the consequences.

You cannot throw people off the aircraft for every minor infraction of the rules, which may arise because of confusion, post September 11 or not! If you do so then besides not having many passengers you will have charges/lawsuits like this one.

Don’t misunderstand me I am on your side on the whole. I am not disagreeing that aircrew should be able to refuse carriage but the reason for doing so MUST be justified and reasonable every single time. Aircrew is NOT a law unto themselves, as some are starting to think but must comply with the rules the same as everybody else.

[edited cos I can't spell]

[ 24 October 2001: Message edited by: Vortex what? ]

[ft]

fireflybob:
If by taking a certain passenger(s) other passengers may feel inclined to feel less "safe" then perhaps there is an arguement that the captain should refuse to take the former passenger(s).

There are probably passengers who would feel safer without children on board, without women, without men, without that fellow three rows in front who seems to cough a lot and probably is spreading multiresistent pneumonia, without that man who keeps glancing at his briefcase... Heck, there's an old lady in first class who thinks that even the F/O looked suspicious when boarding. Better have the captain throw'em all off! And waitaminnit, the captain... a lot of passengers probably think that he looks awfully young for a captain. He better replace himself with someone older as well. Paranoia is all around, especially now.

Weak argument.

However, the first reports on the Premiair incident before it was all hushed down due to the impending legalities claimed that at least one of the involved pax had been walking up and down the aisle, waving a book and talking with at least one of the other two and furthermore not taking his seat when asked to do so by a F/A.

If that is the case, I do hope that the captain will be judged not guilty. If it isn't, I'll want to hear the full story after the trial to have an opinion.

Cheers,
/ft

[radeng]

You can imagine the problem, can't you? Someone of apparent middle eastern origin, on a flight in the US, speaking little or no English, quite possibly little or no experience of being a pax, finds their allocated seat occupied, and can't sit down. Quite possibly can't easily communicate with any cabin crew,(who are all harassed and pushed for time anyway) and gets thrown off. Misses connecting international flight as a result.......the lawyers will be round as fast as pilots offered free beer!

We had the thread the other day of the guy refused the flight on United. Especially with largeish companies, that sort of thing could lose an airline the total business of a multi national company - and in the current climate, no airline can afford that.

Doubtless the head office will hold the flight crew responsible whatever happens...

[maxalt]

Down3green, would you really get up and walk off if someone questioned your authority?

What if security refused to disembark all the pax at your request (let's say you wish to disembark because there are a dozen 'suspects' scattered throughout a full cabin).

Security say they can't allow them all into the terminal again.

As far as responsibility is concerned, it's my understanding that once the doors are open then local security have precedence, especially in this example where you wish to 'land' pax in their jurisdiction.

So here we are, sitting on a full a/c with a dozen possible terrorists(?)...and because security (and I mean the police) overrule you...you get up and walk off? Leaving your innocent pax unaided? Really?

Sounds like another carpeting at the FOMs office to me!

(Not attacking you here, but I just don't think it's practical, or that you'd really do it!) :)

[Stagnation Point]

Devil Advocate

Your opinion as a captain must have a valid reason behind it, having been caught by this before. It doesn't matter what the situation is, at the end of the day you have have to be able to explain your actions reguarding any decision you have made, and have a logical and legal reason for it.

I flew a couple of days after the 11th and had a couple of pax with Islamic origin and I would have to admit to feeling a little, or quite a bit nervous. They had been thoroughly searched by the Airport Gestapo and questioned for a considerably period of time before being allowed to board. Where they being discriminated against, after all they were the only pax on a full flight that were searched.

I hope it all works out for the best for the Captain in this incident and he gets my full support if he is in the right.

[flapsforty]

Vortex what? agree with you that prejudice can not, and must not be a justifiable ground for off-loading a pax.

My previous post was to explain why I disagree with Naked_Viking's statement: one or more pax arguing with the crew is not a valid reason to off-load them

All in all I reckon we mean the same thing here! ;)

[Herod]

Why is everybody going down the prejudice road here? As I see it, the passengers were behaving in an unacceptable manner, and not following the instructions of the cabin crew. We can't talk about language difficulties either, because it seems two of them were Swedish nationals. If the captain is going to assume full responsibility for the safety of the flight, then he also has the authority to ensure that safety, i.e. ensuring potentially disruptive passengers do not remain on board. If there had been an incident (not necessarily terrorist related) after take-off, who would have said "not your fault captain, you were right to allow those people to travel"? Unless there is something we do not know in this case, I hope the pilot's unions, not just in Scandinavia but across the EU, back the captain.

[moggie]

On the subject of when the capatain takes responsibility for the flight - is it not a shade difficult to offload the guys when on the move? Therefore, discretion should be applied and the intention to begin the flight must equate.

However, I do believe that he may not peform marriages unless over international waters (same as marine captain).

[SunSeaSandfly]

flapsforty
Agree with you. Talking pre 9/11, I usually relied on the judgement of the purser as to the frame of mind of the passenger, as they have direct contact, and their people skills are usually very good.
In two instances I allowed ground staff to sway me by reporting that they had spoken with the passenger in question, and they had promised no more disruptive behaviour. In both cases, soon after airborne, fights broke out in cabin. (One over smoking in the bad old days of smoking. The other over use of seat recline.) It is amazing how quickly one disruptive person can change dozens of seemingly normal, amiable, passengers into hooligans.

Having had a number of scares I tend to be conservative now, but insist that the utmost tact, and maximum number of impartial witnesses, be used.

Post 9/11 the problem has assumed even greater complexity, as the definition of "non-normal" behaviour has been broadened immeasurably.
I am absolutely not any kind of lawyer so I can only view the subject from the point of view of a normal and reasonably prudent person.My view is that in these times of heightened sensitivity, the litmus test must be some sort of demonstrable "non-normal" behaviour, including failure to follow reasonable instructions.
One would think that a reasonable person would comply after one warning, and that anybody who failed to comply after such warning could be deemed to be a "risk", and subject to offload.
As usual the utmost tact, and a goodly supply of impartial witnesses would be desirable.

In fact, this would probably be safest for the "questionable" passenger too, because trigger happy passengers these days are not going to tolerate any non-normal inflight behaviour.

[Gulf Babe]

As cabin crew, we are the eyes and hears of the flight deck in the cabin. If I feel that a Pax may cause some problems in flight I will imform the Captain, he would be given all the information regarding this pax as to why he/she should be offloaded. I would be more then happy to get rid of that pax,rather then have a problem inflight. As long as there is a valid reason to offload i.e drunk, sick, overly disruptive pax who can not be reassured, otherwise get them off. Pax and crew alike what to feel safe on their flight.

With regards to boarding cards checks it is and always has been our policy, that nobody boards the A|C without a I.D card or a boarding (both must be valid). So why is it so hard for them to show crew their boarding card? Do they think I enjoy looking at 300+ (depending on the sectors) cards a day!!

[Dick Deadeye]

Naked_Viking

Since none of us really know what happened onboard that Premiair flight, neither of us can really judge whether the captain took the right decision.

Fully agree with you. End of meaningful discussion of the Captain's actions until we know the facts.

Why then do you go on to say:

However, since a law suit is boiling it would be safe to assume that he got it wrong somewhere.

Complete bollocks. It would be very unsafe to assume anything of the sort.

The fact that a lawsuit has been initiated, in this litigious day and age, says nothing and means nothing about the merits or otherwise of the case.

Ask any US airline's legal department, and you would be amazed what people will sue for these days. If you are involved in any sort of aviation incident in the USA, you will be sued.

Interesting how the eventual outcome of these cases never seems to be reported!

[Naked_viking]

Dick,

You cannot readily compare Swedish with British, or even worse, US law. Belive me, so far scandinavia is a rather safe haven when it comes to civil law suits. I will wager that the lawsuit has been filed by the authorities rather than the offended party.

Flaps,

I will have to disagree with you, but then again I have never worked in the cabin and as such have only been told by cabin crew what it can be like. However, if a passenger is behaving badly by venting his temper at crew, that is in my opinion not sufficient grounds for an off-load. The company I used to work for put cabin crew through conflict solving psychology courses (or something along those lines) to provide them with the tools to deflate a situation where pax becomes tempremental. I will assume that your company does the same, but if they don't then you are left in a pretty bad spot. Most passengers doesn't go flying in order to p1ss crew off, rather to get from a to b. As we all know things do go wrong from time to time (lost bags, missed connections, poor service, no information, delays, cancellations you name it) and it is not uncommon for a passenger who has been subjected to the worst avaition can muster to lose his or her cool. In my opinion that is an understandable human reaction and both ground and air crew should be prepared and trained to defuse such situations without resorting to off-loading the offending passengers. After all, we do want their money and we do wish to see them, and their money, back on board another day.

Obviously there are valid grounds to off-load pax, which have been mentioned earlier on this thread.

[GeofJ]

As a frequent pax this discussion is somewhat disquieting - what with all of the I'm the captain and I'll decide who flys rhetoric. Of course the captain has the ultimate authority on board but that is not freedom to eject anyone because their race disturbs crew or other pax. All the lamenting about the flight crew being held responsible if something going wrong - who cares - do your job the best you can and deal with the consequences - happens every day in this mixed up world. As the comments about instant offloading of pax who are not following flight crew instructions or argumentative - you have to be careful to apply reason here. If the pax is interfering with crew, safety or operation of the aircraft by all means show them the door - use the toe of you boot if needed - but remember some people who appear to be problems may not understand, may not travel regularly or may just be trying to express a legitimate complaint.

[DownIn3Green]

Max,

I've only had to remove a pax 3 times in the 9+ years I've been on the left side, and none of those times were for the topic of this thread.

I believe my point was (although not entirely clear from my post, I must admit)I am not about to get into an argument with a gate agent about any issue regarding safety or equipment, etc.

For instance, if the weather radar won't ground test, and maint says it's OK, it works in the air, and I say we'll have to move the a/c and radiate it on the ground away from the gate (as per the MEL), and everyone is in a hurry for some reason or another and doesn't want to do that, well, that would be a time I'd leave and let the people who are paid to sort these things out do so.

There would be no point to me or my crew staying to argue this point further, as the decision has been made and the solution is black and white: Either fix the unit so it tests on the ground or move the a/c so it can be observed "painting" targets on the ground. Otherwise it's a no-go item.

If I am ever in the situation of having to decide to off-load a pax for whatever reason, of course I will not leave the aircraft.

Hope this clears up my previous input.

[Herod]

BizSLF. Your quote:"All the lamenting about the flight crew being held responsible if something going wrong - who cares - do your job the best you can and deal with the consequences - happens every day in this mixed up world." Yes it does, but the average person is not then subject to the full force of the law. Crew can, and have been, imprisoned for their actions. Doing the job as best you can includes preventing possible airborne problems at the best point; before they are taken into the air. Let's assume at least that the captain had good reasons in his mind, and give him the benefit of the doubt until we know the full facts.

[flapsforty]

Gentlemen, as happens more often on these pages, I get the impression that the written word gets in the way of the fact that we are basically in agreement.
Would we meet over a pint in a nice seedy bar or pub somewhere :D I'm sure we'd see pretty much eye to eye on this whole matter.

The following is the "pep talk" with which I usually end my pre-flight cabin briefings:

People, let's go out of our way to give our pax the best bl**dy service we possibly can. Remember that most of the sh!t is not aimed at you personally but at your uniform and the company it represents so deal with it professionally. Let's see if we can enjoy the people we meet today, and let's see if we can make them come back to us next time they fly. But keep in mind that passengers do not decide what happens on our aircraft, and that we're responsible for nipping any trouble in the bud before it endangers the safety and well being of all the other people on the plane. Let's go and have some fun!

[tony draper]

I always thought that the Captain of a Aircraft would have the same powers as the Captain of a merchant ship, and they were conciderable.
Because Merchant ships were concidered soverign territory of the country they were registered in,Ships Captains had almost diplomatic immunity and similar powers to a Govenor of a small state.
Used to be said that a Captain could do anything he wanted to you bar give you a baby, and some of them were likely to try even that. ;)

[Orca strait]

Earlier in this string the question of when the Captain's authority came into play. There are many layers to this authority, however the ones that would apply to this situation are (under Canadian law):
*Criminal Code Chapter C-46
2. In This Act, "peace officer includes"
(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft while the aircraft is in flight.

It further defines in-flight as:
(8) For the purposes of this section, of the definition "peace officer" in section 2 and of sections 76 and 77, "flight" means the act of flying or moving through the air and an aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight from the the time when all extenal doors are closed following the embarkation until the later of:
(a) the time at which any such door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation*

The Aeronautics Act, Chapter A-2 stated:
* "pilot-in-command" means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft durin flight time.*

Researching the operations manual comes up with various definitions in several different sections, from flight planning to bagage handling and dangerous goods. The flight planning puts the onus on the Captain when he(she) signs the flight plan release at dispatch. The Captain is responsible for the safety and security of all passengers and crew from the commencment of boarding until the end of de-planing.

Flaps forty has made a valid statement and argument. As a Captain, I to have had to make the decision of leaving unreasonable passengers behind (usually alcohol). This decision was not made lightly but was done after consultation with the Purser (whom generally have vast experience in dealing with all types of personalities) Flight Attendants, Gate Agent and First Officer. In the end the decision and responsibility rests with the Captain. The process to reach that decision...Crew Rescource Management.

Naked Vikings argument works well in the corporate field, yes we have paying customers in the back and we want them to return, but at what cost? I've seen cases where a few very rowdy passengers have upset the quiet passengers to the point that the passengers that you want to return as customers vow "never to fly with this airline again".

Let the facts come out for the Premiair Captain before we rush to judgment. Unless he is completely autocratic and has no background in CRM, the decision to remove said passengers is the result of consulting with other learned people under his command.

Anybody have access to criminal code definitions for other countries?

[flapsforty]

Orca, since I don't work for a Scandinavian company, I can't provide you with any criminal code definitions.
But I did have a look at the website of 2 swedish newspapers ( link (http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,97312,00.html) and link (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=140&a=229303) ) and found that Viking's guess as to the law suit having been brought by the authorities is correct!

The pax concerned contacted the Discrimination Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman's office filed the lawsuit.
Anders Kandelin, the ombudsman's spokesman says the following: If their arabic looks were the reason for their off-loading, it's a question of ethnic discrimination, and therefor un-lawful. But it might have been their behaviour, and then the captain was correct to refuse them passage. To clear up this question, a juidicial procedure will be useful.

[Miles Magister]

I find it hard to imagine that the captain concerned took his decision lightly. He should therefore receive the full support of his company and union. We are all responsible and sensible people who are fully aware of the possible consequences of our actions. I applaude his brave decision and say well done that man!

[Dick Deadeye]

Naked_viking

I'll happily defer to your knowledge of Swedish law, as it is undoubtedly much greater than mine (non-existent!).

You are also correct, it now seems, that the authorities brought the case, and not the passengers.

Even so, to those of us who work in other parts of the world, to say

"...since a law suit is boiling it would be safe to assume that he got it wrong somewhere..."

would appear to show a faith in your authorities that most of us would not place in ours, particularly in cases of alleged racial discrimination! I'll just wait for a jury to decide if he got anything wrong.

As I said earlier, I agree with the rest of your post.

Regards,

Dick

[virgin]

Naked Viking has made valid points.
I hope the increase in security won't be used as an excuse by the more bolshy CC (the minority) to throw their weight around armed with the threat of offloading 'difficult' passengers. There is an attitude in some quarters that the passenger is always wrong. I worked as CC for a year before flying and saw then, and have seen since, situations getting completely out of hand because of bad handling by CC. Just like pilots, not all CC are perfect!

Years ago, I share a flat with a policeman at a time when London Transport introduced free bus travel for cops. He thought it was great at first, and then he and many colleagues started paying rather than let on they were cops because they found that bus staff were inclined to throw their weight and cause or aggravate situations because they knew there was a cop on board. I assume it settled down eventually.

[Cosmo]

Heeding Devils Advocate’s call, an attempt to clarify applicable law might be in order. Regrettably, I fall short of DA’s preferred requirements. And the standard exemption clause obviously applies: these are just my opinions, nothing more.

The contention that a captain has an absolute right to disembark anyone form his aircraft seems at first legitimate. However, the law paints a different picture and imposes limitations on this authority. The powers of the commander are in no way absolute. Assuming that they are, is asking for trouble.

As this incident took place in Sweden, it follows from my understanding that the aircraft is obliged to comply with Swedish legislation. Where the aircraft is registered is of little significance.

The Swedish Aviation Act states in Chapter 5 paragraph 3 section 2 that the Commander may disembark or refuse boarding of crew members, passengers or goods when the circumstances require it (my translation). The wording of this paragraph, read alone, gives the commander a rather extensive power of judgement.

The preparatory papers are not of much help in establishing concrete examples of circumstances that require off-loading of passengers, other than stating that good aviation custom should be followed (again, my translation). I’ve also tried to find previous case examples to no avail.

Judging by previous posts, it seems as if the Captain has been charged with unlawful discrimination (Chapter 16 paragraph 9 of the Swedish Criminal Code. Simplifying a bit, unlawful discrimination takes place when someone is intentionally being treated unfairly in comparison to others (by an enterprise, business or employee of one).

If an action is found to fulfil the requisites of unlawful discrimination, then the circumstances have not required off-loading. I suspect that one of the key questions is whether or not these passengers had been off-loaded had they had different features and lighter skin colour.

I haven’t taken part of any concrete facts, therefore, these points are just of a hypothetical nature. However, when a prosecutor in Sweden takes a case to trial, he/she does it on the grounds that they believe in a conviction. It is therefore not comparable to civil suit fishing expeditions.


Cosmo