Legal position if a passenger wants to get off?

[excelone]

Hi All, Just a strange subject that came up in conversation this evening - what are passengers rights and company procedures if a passenger wishes to not travel on a flight?

Obviously if they never board, it's not so much of an issue, but what if they are boarded, about to close up and then they want to get off? How about during taxi and/or once in flight?

I realise aircraft on the start of a long flight don't just turn round and land for a pax request but are there any silly paper legal implications of taking someone half way around the globe when they have expressed a wish not to go

Just interested in peoples ideas and if there are any rules about this. I've been flying for several years and never come across the situation.

[Solar]

Just to add to "excelone's" question, what is the real reason why a passenger with only carryon luggage is not allowed to disembark at a more convenient airport after a diversion due to weather or some other non "Tech" problem where immigration or customs are not an issue.
I have been on a flight that diverted to its final destination due to weather bypassing the enroute airport where the CC insisted that we all should remain onboard to fly back to the onroute airport due to "insurance reasons", this resulted in a couple of the passengers actually forcing the issue and insisting that they could disembark which in the end they did.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

are there any silly paper legal implications of taking someone half way around the globe when they have expressed a wish not to goThere are legal implications but they are hardly silly. False imprisonment is quite rightly a serious offence for which you can go to prison for a long time. The passenger would have expressed a "wish to go" when he checked in and then sat in his seat, but he can naturally withdraw that consent at any time, and depending on the circumstances it might be acceptable for him to do so.

At the end of the day the airline would need to demonstate that they had a lawful excuse to take the passenger against his newly declared wishes, and that would be decided by a court, and it would all depend on the facts of the case.

For example. If the aircraft is delayed, it is known the flight is going to be continued to be delayed, they hadn't shut the door, and the passenger only has carry on luggage it would be foolish for the crew not to let him off. They can huff and puff about insurance and security but they really don't override an individual's right to go about his lawful business. Other cases might have different outcomes, if they had started taxying the airline probably has lawful excuse to take him to the destination he had freely bought a ticket for, if the issue was forced a court would ultimately decide.

[Rainboe]

Yes the passenger has a right to demand to get off, but by doing so, he may cause a delay for a security check that he has not left anything on the plane. This would lead to loss of a slot, and a wait for another. Maybe on a time critical flight, the crew may not be able to complete the duty and be replaced, involving at least a further 2 hour delay, maybe an overnight if there is a night curfew, with hotel transport and wasted catering and cleaning costs. 747 delays are priced at over £100 a minute including disruption costs- if hotels are involved, the costs will quicklybe astronomic. I think you will start seeing aggressive recovery costs being sought from the individual 'demanding HIS rights' whereas airlines don't really bother now.

So how do the 'rights' of an individual who freely bought a ticket stack up against the 'rights' of 350 other people to go on the journey without undue delay that everybody bought a ticket for? There's too much emphasis in society on personal 'rights' without any thought that there is also personal 'responsibility' not to make a nuisance of yourself to your fellow man! I would have no hesitation in going to speak to the individual, and allowing all those around to know that they aren't going anywhere and why and who is responsible- it would be unavoidable. I would expect the passengers to find an adequate 'solution'!

[Shack37]

Rainboe said;
"I would have no hesitation in going to speak to the individual, and allowing all those around to know that they aren't going anywhere and why and who is responsible- it would be unavoidable. I would expect the passengers to find an adequate 'solution'!"

Whilst agreeing with most of what you say I have to disagree with the quote above. You are implicitly inviting mob rule on an aircraft of which you are captain.

People do have to realise that with rights come responsibilities but whether a reluctant passenger flies or not should not be decided by his/her fellow passengers.
s37

[Rainboe]

I'm told not to lie on the Public Address. If hundreds of people are going to be unnecessarily detained overnight because of the actions of one individual demanding 'his rights', despite having purchased a ticket for the flight, are you suggesting I should not inform them of the reason for the delay- who and why? Should the victims of this person's 'rights' not have the chance to discuss the matter with him? Strange- everybody complains they don't get told enough stuff on aeroplanes. If one person selfishly decides that delaying hundreds is less important than his 'rights', then I am supposed to collude with him and not reveal why the delay is occurring? Go on- you criticise doing that, but if you are going to say his rights are paramount, why should they knowlingly cause disruption without any comeback? Having purchased a ticket to fly, they have responsibilities to their fellow passengers and to present themselves to the airline ready for the service they have contracted to purchase!

[SNS3Guppy]

If the passenger is having a panic attack and absolutely has to get of the airplane, then safety of flight dictates the passenger is removed. If the passenger simply wants to disembark for personal reasons or because the passenger doesn't want to wait any longer, this isn't a right the passenger has...and no, it's not false imprisonment.

Terms like "false imprisonment" get bantied around by shadetree attorneys and barristers who have spent too much time on the internet and not enough in law school. It's not false imprisonment.

As a general rule, when you prepare to board an airplane, your options begin to narrow the closer you get to the airplane. As you enter secure areas, your options to turn around and walk away diminish. As you approach security, if you elect to simply walk away...you are subject to search all the same. Imagine a terrorist who gets cold feet at the last moment and attempts to turn around...not going to happen. At that point, having already entered the process, that individual is going to be stopped and examined, possibly interrogated, and then released. It may be as simple as a handshake, or it may become a custody issue. You can imagine the same thin as someone approaches a drunk driving checkpoint, and stops and turns around...chances are that police who are watching through binoculars will chase that person down and stop them. Same for security at the airport.

If you reach the airplane and board, then decide to get off, the same principle applies, but one more...the closer you get to the airplane, the less options you have.

You're not in charge of the airplane. There are more concerns at stake than your own. An airplane is not a city bus that allows passengers on and off freely. It's a device for taking a number of passengers from A to B. There's generally much more involved than simply opening a door and allowing someone on or off.

As far as legal rights, that's really something to challenge in court. However, bear in mind that the full and ultimate authority of operational control of the flight, and the last word, belongs to the Pilot in Command...not to the passenger. The PIC shares operational control responsibility...the responsibility of initiating, operating, and terminating a flight...jointly with the company director of operations and his or her delegates. But the ultimate, last word, beyond which there isn't any higher authority, belongs to the pilot.

The pilot, in turn, adheres to company operational procedures which dictate how he will do his job. Again, this isn't something to which the passenger has access, and it isn't something which gives rights or privileges to the passenger. It's an operational document, and an operational issue.

If you delay a flight unnecessarily by placing your wants or needs ahead of the aircraft in your desire to get off, the ramifications are far greater than simply opening the door. If one person does it, more may want to. With each new person's change, a new flight manifest must be generated, which affects the flight release and other documentation. If the airplane is away from the gate, ground personnel become involved. Push and taxi times and slots, as well as gate availability come into play. Not just at the airport where this takes place, but in some cases thousands of miles away as the delay ripples to connecting flights, departing flights, etc.

If the delay resulting from the selfish passenger becomes signficant, aircraft may be slowed, diverted, or held, resulting in substantial costs for multiple aircraft...many others besides that one flight are affected. If you're operating where there are slots, then dozens or hundreds of other aircraft may be affected. Checklists and procedures that have been started must be restarted. Fuel may need to be reapplied (we use 3,000 lbs of fuel taxiing to the runway, and 1,100 lbs of fuel per hour just from our auxilliary powerplant)...much of a delay outside the expected and now we're burning reserve fuel and can't depart...more problems.

Add to that the security issues (why is this person getting off, and do we need to re-secure the aircraft?)...there's much more than simply opening the door and letting someone off. This is all just the tip of the iceberg.

Be careful with terms like imprisonment. Unlike unlawful imprisonment, you volunteered to get on the airplane. More than that, you paid for the privilege, and in so doing, have agreed to a number of terms...which includes being subject to the operating rules, practices, procedures, etc, of the governing body, the airline, the airport, and so forth. You're there by privilege, and by right, and no one has forced you to be there. It's hard to argue otherwise, when you freely bought the ticket.

Consider the inverse implications. You might feel your rights are being trampled by not being allowed to do as you please...but the crew has rights and responsibilities, too. Push what you think are your rights, and you may well be interfering with a crewmember and his or her duties, and the tables are turned...you become the bad guy, and that's a place you don't want to go.

Certainly it would be wonderful to be able to accomodate every single person individually per their separate wishes...but that's not usually possible, or the case.

[The Real Slim Shady]

I had a passenger "demand" to get off after we had boarded, closed up, called for push and start and then had the airfield close for snow clearing. We were on a remote stand, the pax having been bussed out, and due to the snow only essential traffic was moving on the ramp. We were advised that it would take 45 minutes to re-open the airfield.

Matey boy starts banging on about wanting to get off: he had bags in the hold ( full 737) and the cabin crew tried to explain the problems he would cause. When he became aggressive with the cabin crew I went back to speak to him and explain the situation, no one on the ramp due to the snow, off loading all the bags to find his, full security check etc but he wouldn't back down. Why not wait and see if the airfield does reopen in 45 minutes etc but he wouldn't have it.

OK says I the company will probably charge for the baggage check etc are you happy to pay this? And then he lost it completely; so much so that we had to get the police out ( so he did get off in the end) and paramedics for a woman in the next row who became extremely distressed and ill as a result of his behaviour.

The guy in the row behind was ready to chin the passenger in question and had to be asked to chill out, which he did.

Once you are onboard, locked up ready to go, if you want off, you can get off but you get the bill for the delay. Equitable solution.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

So how do the 'rights' of an individual who freely bought a ticket stack up against the 'rights' of 350 other people to go on the journey without undue delay that everybody bought a ticket for?The others have the right to sue in a civil court for monetary damages, as does the airline. Neither the other passengers nor the airline nor the crew have any right to detain a passenger who wants to get off unless the airline/other passengers have lawful excuse. The passenger who wants to get off can use reasonable force to prevent what he believes to be his unlawful detention, but he needs to remember that if he gets it wrong and the detention is later found by a court to have been lawful he is also in big trouble, probably more so as he would probably find himself in a criminal court for failing to obey a lawful instruction of the crew.

[SNS3Guppy]

The passenger who wants to get off can use reasonable force to prevent what he believes to be his unlawful detention, but he needs to remember that if he gets it wrong and the detention is later found by a court to have been lawful he is also in big trouble, probably more so as he would probably find himself in a criminal court for failing to obey a lawful instruction of the crew.


NO!!! Very dangerous, very wrong counsel.

A crew which does not take orders from a passenger and allow the passenger to do as he pleases...is not illegally detaining the passenger. The passenger most decidedly does NOT have the option to use force to get his way.

Doing so makes the passenger guilty of interference with a crewmember.

Using force to get off the airplane is going to see you being treated as more than simply an unruly passenger. Likely you're going to do prison time, you'll be facing some very serious charges, and failing to obey a lawful instruction by the crew will be the least of your concerns.

[Bealzebub]

The "legal position" would rely on the interaction of a number of statutes and issues of contract law. A passenger enters into a contract with the airline when they purchase their ticket. I am sure very few people ticking the box or reading the terms of purchase bother to read the pages of terms contained therein, but it might help in understanding their obligations if they did.

The Captain of the aircraft (in the UK) is empowered by the Air Navigation order in respect of his authority, and this is further extended by other statutes for example the Aviation & Maritime security Act. In conjunction with this authority, the Commander is also responsible for ensuring that other things within his command responsibility are undertaken properly. For example there may be restrictions and traffic rights, that prevent an airline from carrying passengers between certain airports. So if an aircraft requires a technical stop en-route or a diversion there may be no authority (other than in an emergency) to allow for the routine disembarkation of passengers.

Once a flight has dispatched, the Commander is under no obligation to return to stand in order to satisfy a passengers request to disembark. Having said that, it is hard to imagine a scenario where a passenger whose behaviour ( by action or verbal demand) became sufficiently disruptive, wouldn't result in the aircraft returning to stand and the passenger being offloaded. In all likelyhood the Police would be called because of the possible security implications.

In flight much the same would hold true, the flight would continue on to it's destination unless the passengers behaviour warranted a diversion. In that case again, the police would likely be called and the airline may seek civil recovery for damages and costs.

In the case of a passenger wishing to disembark en-route at a point other than their ticketed destination, they may well find themselves incurring a significant cost penalty in respect of their contract terms and any disruption costs caused by their action. If the action results in security or other relevant concerns for the commander, the police may well be called again.

Obviously any individual disruption caused to the safety or regularity of the flight will be judged on its merits and in the circustances that are prevalent.
Passengers most certainly do have rights, however those rights are not always supreme to the rights and obligations of the aircraft commander and those crewmembers and others who may be acting under the instruction of, or the authority transferred to them by the commander. That is why your "Freedom of speech" doesn't allow you to use your mobile phone when instructed otherwise. "Freedom of expression" doesn't allow you to verbally abuse the crew or other passengers. Once the aircraft has dispatched, just like a train or a ship, you will have to wait until it arrives at its destination in order to replan your travel arrangements.

The passenger is carried (and has contracted) in accordance with the "conditions of carriage". These and the statutes already mentioned would no doubt form the airlines legal position in the event of a civil claim or criminal proceedings being actioned.

In reality of course this very rarely arises. Common sense and good judgment normally prevails and a satisfactory outcome for all parties results.

[Skipness One Echo]

So what are the security checks involved if a passenger with no hold luggage having cleared security decides to get off a delayed flight as his meeting began 10 minutes ago and there is no point in going to London now? I've seen it happen many a time in the past.

[nofly]

From my experience at MUC airport: no additional checks as far as the passenger is concerned.
If you are behind the security controls you can always leave through marked doors (had myself to get back to let checkin change the ticket some time ago in MUC).
Just a customs officer asking you if you really know what you're doing :rolleyes:

[Shack37]

Informing passengers of the reason for their being delayed is one thing, "expecting them to find an adequate solution" is quite another. The whole matter should be handled by crew not a free for all by other passengers.
s37

[MarcJF]

So let's just think about this, I'm on the aircraft, delayed, missed my meeting so no need to go anymore. It's a daytip for me, no bags, so I want to get off. What security checks do you need exactly? I can't even get a tube of toothpaste through our jobsworths, so my fellow SLF have nothing to worry about. Or do they?

[Final 3 Greens]

As you enter secure areas, your options to turn around and walk away diminish. As you approach security, if you elect to simply walk away...you are subject to search all the same.

Based on my lay understanding, I would imagine it wold be something like this.

In the United Kingdom, the security staff at an airport do not have the authority to search an individual, which is why they must ask for permission.

Neither do they have the right to arrest someone, so detaining a person would be a case of citizen's arrest.

Under UK law, a citizen's arrest is only lawful when an offence has been committed or a person is in the process of committing an offence. There is another reason, but it isn't relevant int his context.

A person deprived of their liberty (part of the definition of arrest) by someone who is not authorised, would be (a) entitled to use reasonable force to go about their lawful business and (b) if they remained and subsequently were found to have committed no crime, would be able to sue for damages in the civil courts for false imprisonment.

I remember reading such an event in the local newspaper years ago, when a store detective 'arrested' a person who was subsequently cleared of theft. It did sound as if the person was involved in a gang, but the detectives did not get enough evidence to convict.

It may different in the USA, but in the UK that's the way I understand it to be, before entering the search area.

By the way, I post this view only out of interest and do not receommend people to behave this way :}

[Rainboe]

There is some very bad counsel here! How does someone claim they are being illegally detained, when they have, of their own free will and volition, purchased a ticket for that very flight which they are now trying to disrupt? How do I stand when I have a deportee on board who is being transferred unwillingly? Can a person trapped in a stuck elevator claim he is 'being kidnapped and detained unwillingly'?

I think some of you seem unable to accept that your 'rights' are not as solid as you imagine. You may attempt to pursue those rights and sue for illegal detention in the High Court. Can you imagine the legal costs, especially as you are likely to lose. How many people would practically try it on?

I refer again to a previous incident with a nervous woman at SYD demanding to get off at the moment of pushback. I decided the best way to handle it was sharp treatment. A bit of reasurance followed by 'loud demands' that she not disrupt the other passengers. It worked. She might have been a bag of nerves, but she did her journey and I heard no more from her. I hope she even conquored her nerves. It was actually better for her to force her through with it than let her get off and spend the rest of her life being frightened to fly. Sometimes an emotional 'slapping' is better than holding hands and 'there there'.

[ZeBedie]

'My crew will not physically obstruct your leaving the aircraft, but our handling agent is not able to accept you. You will be trespassing on the airfield. You may not gain access to the terminal. You will be wondering around the ramp in breach of health and safety regulations.Customs and immigration staff may not be available to accept you. I do not recommend you do this and will be informing the police and the airport authority.'

[Final 3 Greens]

Can a person trapped in a stuck elevator claim he is 'being kidnapped and detained unwillingly'?

Having experienced this in Cairo last month, it never crossed my mind to think this way :eek:

As I understand the law (and I am a layman), detained involves someone being unwillingly deprived of their liberty by someone else.

Unless someone deliberately causes the lift to stop in betwwen floors, I cannot imagine how this could equate to kidnap/unlawful arrest?

[Final 3 Greens]

Zebedie

Just out of interest and purely hypothetically, what would you do if the passenger said "thanks very much, I will arrange my own handling agent, let me call them on my mobile now"

I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would arise, but if you didn't then let the passenger call up Swissport or Servisair or whoever, you would then be detaining them.

Of course this is all about as likely as being hit by an asteroid, but interesting to contemplate.

Actually, on second thoughts, maybe I could imagine a scenario, involving a celeb who might call their agent to call a handling agent.

[SNS3Guppy]

I'd certainly obstruct the passenger. A passenger opening a door without authorization and getting out...that's not an option the passenger has, short of an emergency. It may very well disable the aircraft, deploy slides, and threaten both the safety of those on board as well as the passenger who is attemptin to deplane. Aside from issues of height above the ground, with engines turning hot exhaust suck zones from the engines, etc...it's a real safety hazard.

A passenger attempting such an action in the US would nearly certainly be forcibly detained by the other passengers, and with resistance, most likely be beaten into submission and restrained. Very unwise.

Calling the local authority and asking to be removed does not supplant the authority of the pilot in command, and a PIC who does not bow to the passenger's wishes when the passenger attempts to call out for someone to come get him or her, is still in no wise guilty of illegal detention. Once onboard the airplane, no authority supercedes that of the PIC...certainly not that of the passenger, certainly not that of swissport or anyone else. Furthermore, this is also true regarding the PIC's application of the guidelines, company policy, and regulations which cover his operation.

The term "pilot in command" isn't a misnomer. It means exactly what it sounds like it means. Before counsel is bantied about discussing passengers exercisizing "rights," making demands, or forcibly attempting to get their way, one would do well to remember this.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

I think you significantly exaggerate the powers legally exercisable by the PIC, SNS3Guppy.

[TightSlot]

I'm not sure that he does, however... decide for yourself. This link (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226) takes you to a .pdf download of the Air Navigation Order. The relevant section would be Section 1 Part 5 Page 29 - Authority of commander of an aircraft.

Clearly, interpretation is open to all.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

What that says is:

1) The command has to be lawful
2) The command has to be related to safety

Other regulations say the PIC can deviate from any aviation regulation if there is a pressing requirement, though his actions will be judged once the pressing requirement is over.

The PIC is not 'God'. His actions are reviewable by his regulating authority and any court with jurisdiction. His very limited 'excess' authority while the aircraft is in flight do not permit him to detain somebody without lawful excuse. What is lawful is determined by a court and not the PIC.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Easy Peasy Scumbag.......Fastens Belts ON.

Lawful command....safety related.

"Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts, return yor tray ables to the upright position and ensure your armrests are down and window blinds fully open. There is to be no walking or standing in the aisles and use of the washrooms is no longer permitted"

Let him try to get off now.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

Don't think there is a regulation that says seat belts have to be worn when the door is open - if it was considered dangerous to be standing in a stationary plane at the gate then how would we get to our seats? When the taxy starts certainly there is a legal requirement to be strapped in, and when there is turbulence - but that is the safety related command.

When does this limited excess PIC authority kick in?

Anyway, I can only refer you to my first post on the matter.

[Bealzebub]

What that says is:

1) The command has to be lawful
2) The command has to be related to safety


No.
What it actually states is:


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

The emphasis is my own in order to highlight the words being glossed over or omitted.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

I omitted it as I didn't consider it relevant, and I still don't (though I do accept your post to be correct).

I do not believe that "efficiency or regularity of air navigation." is sufficient lawful excuse to prevent somebody getting off a plane that is parked at the gate. Safety could be lawful excuse yes, efficiency no. The remedy for upsetting the efficiency of your operation is found in the civil court, it does not permit your detaining this person against his will.

As I have said all along, a court would decide the importance of all the relevant facts in the case.

[Final 3 Greens]

I agree with the command authority of the captain.

My (hypothetical) point to Zebedie is if the commander says the handling agent cannot accept the passenger, it opens the door to the passenger to offer to engage their own.

If the commander then refuses, the passenger might have an argument.

Anyway, how often does this circumstance happen?

I can only think of one reported instance recently, when some Spanair pax allegedy asked to get off and were refused.

[SNS3Guppy]

When the taxy starts certainly there is a legal requirement to be strapped in, and when there is turbulence - but that is the safety related command.


When you're in the airplane, you're under obligation to fasten your seatbelt when told.

As it turns out, I was in the gate several years ago when struck by another airplane. You may think you have the big picture, but there's a reason that there's no Passenger in Command. Think about it.

Recently a passenger on Delta in Guyana elected to leave the airplane after he became frustrated from sitting on board. He felt he had rights, too. He opened the escape, and exited the airplane. He was arrested. Take a lesson from that.

[Bealzebub]

Well whether you believe it or not, is a matter for you, however the relevant extract from the Air Navigation Order most clearly gives the Commander of an aircraft the authority to take the necessary action to ensure that the "safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation" is undertaken and complied with. The same paragraph makes it incumbent on all the occupants of that aircraft to comply with the instructions of the commander.

Whatever might or might not be challenged in a court, the commander would certainly be able to rely on this statute as necessary. In addition it is well worth reading the airlines "conditions of carriage" which from a civil standpoint, form a contract between the airline and the passenger.

I am not looking to argue for arguements sake. I am simply pointing out the statutes and regulations that in part govern the conditions of carriage that you as a passenger have entered into, agreed to, and are subject to. None of this will necesssarily result in a particular course of action for a specific situation, but is stated to highlight where the Commanders authority originates, and extends. Any passenger (indeed any individual or company) has the right to seek redress (legal or otherwise) for any damage or costs they might have incurred, but they do not have the right in the ordinary course of events to disobey a Commanders instruction (which might be given through another party), where that instruction relates to the safety, efficiency or regularity of the flight or for securing the safety of the aircraft and its occupants or any property carried therin.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

When you're in the airplane, you're under obligation to fasten your seatbelt when told. Only if a lawful command. If fact I would also argue that if the seat belt sign is on inappropriately that is a false imprisonment itself. :)

Having said that... Bealzebub, I don't wish to argue either. However there are 'higher laws' than than the ANO.

With that it's time to go clear up the garden.

[OldChinaHand]

I think there are two different scenarios here.
1. The pax who wants to get off while the aircraft is still on the ground. A reasonable case
2. The pax who wants to get off while the flight is Airborne, demanding return/diversion. The unreasonable case.

In scenario 1. I return to stand and offload, if the pax is insisting the want to get off. Scenario 2, I continue unless it becomes a very difficult situation i.e medical emergency or violent situation. To say that buying a ticket for a flight committs your to not wanting to get off that flight is not enough. Occurances/situations may rapidly cause someone to decide they do not wish to travel after boarding.

Remember guys/gals, it is YOU as commander, will face the INDICTMENT FOR, LAWSUIT FOR holding someone against their will (or its legal term in whatever country). Its your ass will be locked up, your money will be gone in a fine, or your houses(s) will be sold to pay monetary award of compensation should it become a legal issue. Also the laws of your home country may be very different to the laws applicable in the case.

Make your decision on the merits of each case, be sure you can stand over it under legal scrutiny. We all dont work for operators who will bail us out of these situations.

[SNS3Guppy]

Only if a lawful command. If fact I would also argue that if the seat belt sign is on inappropriately that is a false imprisonment itself.


Clearly your interest here isn't learning, but arguing for the sake of argument. I'm done with this conversation.

[sunnybunny]

I did meet someone, back in 1987, at Boston airport in the US, who told me the following story.

He worked in Birmingham Alabama and asked the airline before purchasing his ticket at the airport if the flight was going there non stop direct and was assured it was. The point being that a competing airline had a flight to Birmingham leaving about 30 minutes later he could take, but he was assured it was a non stop direct flight leaving on time. He also asked the same thing when checking in. When the doors were closed the Pilot announced there were some passengers at another airport to be picked up and they would be diverting there before arriving at the final destination.

This passenger then demanded to be let off the flight as the airline had lied to him but was refused, the excuse being that the doors were closed. The inference being that the airline did not want to lose custom to a rival airline and kept the information from passengers until it was too late to do anything about it. Apparently airlines had a habit of doing this back then and this was the reason for his asking before purchase.

This person then told me he sat down as requested and was late arriving and missed a meeting and was suing the airline for kidnapping. (his words)

As our paths crossed only whilst standlng waiting for a table at a restaurant and over lunch then I never discovered if he had any joy but it certainly made a fascinating lunch discussion.

[Bealzebub]

Remember guys/gals, it is YOU as commander, will face the INDICTMENT FOR, LAWSUIT FOR holding someone against their will (or its legal term in whatever country). Its your ass will be locked up, your money will be gone in a fine, or your houses(s) will be sold to pay monetary award of compensation should it become a legal issue. Also the laws of your home country may be very different to the laws applicable in the case.

No that isn't really a concern. Redress is nearly always sought against the company for whom the Captain is an agent. Lawsuits are cheap to talk about on internet forums. They are usually very expensive and often result in very dissappointing or inadequate remedy even where they are successful for the claimant. Claimants will normally seek redress against the target best able to satisfy and answer their claim. It would be very rare for that to be the individual since failure would often negate having a second bite at the cherry.

If passengers want to test their own "laws" against those that actually exist let them. They do not have the right to disrupt the regularity of the flight in order to satisfy their own schedule. In fact this sort of scenario is very unlikely to arise often and even if it does would be sensibly dealt with by the commander (if necessary,) in order to achieve a satisfactory resolution. This discussion has really outlived its usefulness, since the realities have been made clear.

People who miss their exit on motorways and reverse up the hard shoulder. People who miss their train stop and pull the emergency cord, People who decide they want to leave a ship after it has sailed, people who want to leave an aircraft after it has loaded. All may suffer some inconvenience if they elect to change to change their travel plans, but that doesn't allow them to inconvenience everybody else, or disrupt the regularity of that service, or invent ridiculous offenses or personal inalienable rights in supremacy of the laws that already exist.

In my experience, a Captain making sensible judgments and operating within the regulations that exist, has very little to concern themselves with in these regards.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should also make clear that (as Crew,) we do not regard our passengers as adversarial or anything less than customers who have every right to expect an absolute duty of care at all times. I believe they have every right to be kept properly informed and treated with the utmost respect. Equally I believe that almost all passengers act with due diligence and respect, even when they may be subject to individual or collective disruption and inconvenience.

[TightSlot]

The Devil always has the best lines... On that happy note, let's put this one to bed now - I think we've covered all the bases.