Easyjet Pilot Refuses 50 Scotish Fans Flying from Amsterdam to Prague

[newirishbabe]

Picked up from an Irish Soccer Forum

Does the pilot seem to have been out of order?

How would the plot justify refusing such a large group of people whos only common denominator may have been going to a match.
The Tartan Army got stopped from boarding a plane in Amsterdam yesterday.

Note obviously all our fans are very responsible drinkers and would never be in that state. http://www.ybig.ie/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif

ANGRY Tartan Army fans were left stranded after an airline refused to fly them to tonight's game in Prague. The group of around 50 supporters were told they were "too drunk" to board the EasyJet flight due to take them to the crunch Euro qualifier.
But the Record was inundated with calls last night branding the decision "a disgrace". The fans were supposed to fly from Amsterdam to Prague at 7.20pm last night. They claim they were told the flight was delayed and were then rounded up and had their boarding cards confiscated. The flight eventually left at 11.43pm - without the 50 Scots fans.

Craig Tweedie, 40, from Paisley, said: "It's a disgrace - some of us have not drunk for two years. We don't know what to do. We have no euros - all our money is in Czech currency. "I have been travelling to away games for ten years and know how to behave. I have never been treated like this before."
EasyJet said the situation was "still ongoing" when contacted by the Record last night. A spokesman said: "Around 50 Scotland supporters were warned about their conduct."The matter was discussed with the pilot and it was decided they were too drunk to fly."

Stuart Fairweather, 20, from Falkirk, said: "We were not drunk or daft. Everyone in a kilt or Scotland top was told they were not flying.
"Police told us it was because four people had been causing trouble."
Trainee lawyer Fraser Gillespie, 21, from Larbert, was left stranded with a group of six friends at Schipol Airport.

He said: "We had a couple of drinks but no more than that.
"Everyone in my group was sensible and coherent and certainly not a risk to safety. "I have been to many away games with the Tartan Army and never encountered anything like the treatment we've had here."
He said his group would attempt to get to Prague today by rail to catch pre-booked flights home.

Mark Scott, 34, from Gorebridge, Midlothian, said: "We are all here on the internet desperately trying to find a way to get to Prague.
"It was EasyJet who gave the boys vouchers to buy drink.
"There are a lot of guys here and they have done nothing wrong. They were not abusive or anything like that.

"Now the guys here have a problem getting to Prague. They can't just go home. A lot of them are booked on flights back to Scotland from Prague."
The Airbus A319 plane with 90 passengers on board was due to land at Prague at 2.30am this morning.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Does the pilot seem to have been out of order?
Not necessarily because...
The matter was discussed with the pilot and it was decided they were too drunk to fly
So he would only have been acting on the information that he was given.


"It was EasyJet who gave the boys vouchers to buy drink.

Err...buy refreshments. But I'm sure he knew that right?!

[Neptunus Rex]

"Refused Boarding" is the Captain's ultimate sanction. I have only had to threaten it in the past, and once the financial ramifications are understood, it brings about a miraculous improvement in the behaviour of recalcitrant passengers.

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/nono2.gifhttp://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/nono2.gif

[newirishbabe]

If it turns out that several of those refused boarding were actuallt teetotallers, and were not even with those who may have been too drunk, what rights would they have.


I know we are flying to Slovakia on Monday, we will be a family, there will be maybe 100 people on the flight going to the match, can we be denied boarding as we are going to a match even when we dont drink, but because the people siting beside us are drunk, who we dont even know?

[DutchBird-757]

I saw the whole group in the bar at EDI yesterday afternoon at 4ish. They seemed in really good spirits at the time.

[Molesworth 1]

I once was on a low cost carrier (which no longer exists) flight from Glasgow which had a number of Celtic fans on board. Their behaviour was an absolute disgrace and the pilot had to ask them several times during the flight to keep it down.

This is very unfair on the rest of the passengers. Was actually the most unpleasant flight on which I have embarked.

[Capetonian]

There's an old saying : if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

A sober person amongst a group of drunks is likely to be influenced by the rowdy behaviour of the drunks and to start behaving in a manner which could cause annoyance, to say the least, to other pax.

I was a teetotaller for some years, and remember very vividly being part of a group which was denied boarding on a flight from Salisbury to Beira in the Air Rhodesia days. The group was about 12 people, 8 were practically legless, 2 were, like myself, teetotallers, and a couple of the others were coherent and able to stand but, to be honest, drunk! We were all barred from flying, and I feel, rightly so, annoying as it was.

[racedo]

Easyjet have form for doing this.

YouTube - Saint Niall Quinn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ca_1oMbuc)

Fans thrown off plane over Niall Quinn's Disco Pants | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/02/football.travel)

[Say again s l o w l y]

I once was on a low cost carrier (which no longer exists) flight from Glasgow which had a number of Celtic fans on board. Their behaviour was an absolute disgrace and the pilot had to ask them several times during the flight to keep it down.

This is very unfair on the rest of the passengers. Was actually the most unpleasant flight on which I have embarked.

Scotland fans are a very different bunch from Celtic or Rangers fans, in general they are a well behaved bunch, more like Rugby fans than football fans.

To blanket ban 50 fans when only a couple might have been a bit rowdy seems like an over-reaction, but I wasn't there so I wouldn't want to prejudge a situation that I wasn't involved in.

[Mercenary Pilot]

90% of the time a dispatcher has felt it necessary to say "They're a little worse for wear but I think they will be okay" we have had problems.

Usually its nothing more than loud swearing but even this is unacceptable to other passengers who DO feel intimidated and uncomfortable by this kind of behaviour. A few things that drunk passengers have done on board flights for companies I have worked for over the last few years include: Sexually assaulting a cabin crew member, sexually explicit comments to cabin crew and other female passengers, violent assault of a crew member, hysterical behaviour which was frightening other passengers, threatening behaviour because they were refused more alcohol, fighting with other passengers etc etc.

Also, it is illegal to be be drunk on board an aircraft and an offensive to admit passengers on board who are known to be drunk. The Captain did the right thing both in regards to his legal responsibility and the responsibility to his other passengers.

[racedo]

Usually its nothing more than loud swearing but even this is unacceptable to other passengers who DO feel intimidated and uncomfortable by this kind of behaviour. A few things that drunk passengers have done on board flights for companies I have worked for over the last few years include: Sexually assaulting a cabin crew member, sexually explicit comments to cabin crew and other female passengers, violent assault of a crew member, hysterical behaviour which was frightening other passengers, threatening behaviour because they were refused more alcohol, fighting with other passengers etc etc.


15 years ago as SLF on a Manchester - Malaga flight with Monarch there was an exhuberant stag party on board, senior member of cabin crew went to where around where group seated and asked Who is most responsible person here and then laid down the law, abuse us once we land and you get offloaded and banned, you are responsible for how your friends behave. They behaved and even leader had support of a few more who told mouthy guy, shut up or get hit and he wasn't even in their group.
Leader did go to couple of passengers and ask them to switch seats further up plane with couple of group members as said "we will be a bit loud and don't wish to offend", I ended up sitting next to a very fit BA CC trainer:ok: on way to meet her b/f :(.

Picking up bags when landed chatted to leader asked would they have behaved, he said possibly but also once CC had got group leader it was then up to him to ensure they did, he felt CC were clever in getting using group against themselves.

[Just a spotter]

As a fare paying passenger quite apart from the nuisance that a large group of inebriated fellow travellers will bring to the flight, IMHO the benchmark for allowing them to board should be much starker.

Assume the aircraft has to be evacuated with such a group on board. Apart from the dangers the drunk individuals pose to themselves, what additional and avoidable perils are the crew/company imposing on the other passengers by allowing those "worse for ware" onto the aircraft should such a situation arise.

A group of 50 individuals in "high spirits" on board a 180 ish seat aircraft, even assuming 10 of them were completely sober, you still have 40 or roughly 1 pax in 4 who is at best a human chicane in the midst of the evac, and that's before normal human panic sets in.

How much worse could the outcome of a "British Airtours 28M" type situation be if such a mix existed?

JAS

[glad rag]

Actually, the Tartan Army take their conduct pretty seriously, in that, in the whole, they see themselves as Ambassadors for Scotland.

Tartan Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan_Army)

As for booing the national anthem what do you expect with "May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush,"

far better for Emgland to adopt Barwick Green or it's ilk.

[BOAC]

As football 'fans' they should understand that the referee's decision is final. Well done Easyjet. I have denied boarding and off-loaded quite a few in my time. Neither I nor my crew need the problems, nor the other pax.

[matkat]

I was on a easyjet flight a few years back from STN-EDI there was a few French rugby fans on board one was loud but nothing more, when we got to EDI we were told to stay in our seats the reason being this one fan was arrested, believe me his behaviour was far from being unacceptable, he was sitting directly in front of me:=

[IJM]

BOAC and merlinxx - were all of the 50 supporters who were reported as denied boarding behaving unacceptably?

"Police told us it was because four people had been causing trouble."

[flapsforty]

One: It is against the law to accept passengers who are drunk.

Two: It is dangerous to carry passengers who are rowdy & disorderly.

Three: A captain knows exactly all the kinds of cr@p that will hit the fan when (s)he decides not to carry a group like this. That decision is never made lightly.

If every member of the group was drunk is immaterial, see Capetonian´s post above. When a captain is not comfortable carrying a (number of) pax, for whatever reason, it is his duty to refuse them. He did.

Nothing more to it, and all the Monday morning quarterbacking here is just that.

[Pace]

Something like this is very difficult but the Captain made the right decision.

Faced with a group of 50 people he cannot possibly run around breath testing the ones he will or will not take.

People en masse act in pack instincts! itself not a good situation as those people alone are totally different.

He has to treat the group as one no matter how unfair that appears.

Better to deal with a problem on the ground rather than risk an even bigger or dangerous situation in the air.

He has to be overcautious I would do the same.

Pace

[leftseatview]

Is it not possible to deny boarding only to those members of the group who appear to be drunk, and take the rest....or is that a difficult call to make?
In our part of the world one deals with drunk individuals, rather than a large group of sports fans...so would be interested to know if breaking up the group will work?

[Sir George Cayley]

On the pitch - FIFA rules

On the plane - Captain rules :ok:

Nuff sed, move on, nothing more t see here.

SGC

[HundredPercentPlease]

Actually, the Tartan Army take their conduct pretty seriously, in that, in the whole, they see themselves as Ambassadors for Scotland.
...

As for booing the national anthem what do you expect with "May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush,"

far better for Emgland to adopt Barwick Green or it's ilk.

Oh do get a grip. That verse was created in 1745 and never actually made it beyond then. Nor beyond Newcastle.

Next thing you'll be telling us that Braveheart was based on truth!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Well, I've just spoken to one of the people who wasn't let onto this flight. He wasn't drunk and nor were the families with small children who were denied boarding because they were all tarred by the same brush.

Even then, he says that the people who were mildly noisy, were not rowdy and he reckons the definition of "drunk" is not one that any of us here would probably recognise.

Whilst it is always the captain's decision, me thinks that this one might end up biting him in the bum.

More to come on this I think.

[HundredPercentPlease]

Say again,

It will all depend on how the dispatcher relayed the message to the Captain. If the group, or some of the group, had been winding the dispatcher up - then he or she may have "over-reported" the situation to the Captain. In which case, the dispatcher who will be under the spotlight.

[Neptunus Rex]

To all the "holier than thou" types who profess not to drink - how do you prove that you are a 'Teetotaller?' The very word is laughable.

Simple answer - do not try to board a flight to a fitba' match wearing the kilt, or anything tartan.

[TRW Plus]

Scotland may have to choose between football and whiskey.

Whiskey it is then.

Next on the agenda? :cool:

[Capetonian]

To all the "holier than thou" types who profess not to drink - how do you prove that you are a 'Teetotaller?' The very word is laughable.

I strongly resent this comment. There is nothing 'holier than thou' or laughable about being teetotal. It was simply a choice I made at a certain time, and I stopped drinking, not that I was ever a heavy drinker, and not for any particular reason, I had no health or addiction problems and no moral problem with it, I just felt better for not drinking and it was much appreciated by many of my friends as I was always the sober one and thus the Designated Driver.

I now drink, albeit very little compared to most people, I appreciate good wine and a good Islay Single Malt, a bottle of the latter will last me for a good few months so I don't mind paying £50 or so for such a bottle.

How do you prove you're a teetotaller? To be honest the thought has never crossed my mind, it's not something I would ever need to justify or prove to anyone.

[Trinity 09L]

Commander's (pilot), ship's captain, bus (with wheels) driver, I do not want those person's on board - final. All have the final decision.:ok:

[Piltdown Man]

Football fans are far too often a pain in the bum to travel with. I can do without the constant cheering, shouting, yelling, jeering and so can the rest of the people who are forced to put up with them. To them, behaving means not too much swearing and maybe using the toilet when they need to. So if I'm presented with a large group of people who will probably misbehave, I'll deny them boarding because their manner may be offensive to others. I don't have the time to vet them individually, so I'll paint them all with the same brush.

And if you want to see how to travel in public, watch how the Newcastle Utd. team travels. Smart, polite, quiet, well mannered etc. Even when flying home after being thrashed. It's a shame football fans can't follow their lead.

The bottom line is, if you want to travel as a large group make sure you travel quietly, politely and above all, make sure you don't piss off the wrong people - like me! Or there again, you could always hire your own personal transport.

PM

[Pontius Navigator]

We were on a easyJet flight from Cyprus and two would be pax were denied boarding because another passenger complained of their behaviour in departures and the ground staff kept them separate but did not stop them proceding to the aircraft.

The Cypriot staff and security would be happiest if they had leftthe country. Essentially it falls to the flight crew to pass the problem back to the ground staff.

[kick the tires]

Say again et al,

The Scots are hardly likely to say "oh yes, I was bladdered, good decision Capt!"

Everyone is speculating or setting out their stall and we can all voice opinions based on nothing more than hearsay.

Remember this happened in AMS, an airport where the handling agents and Operations are second to none; it inspires confidence on the ground and in the air.

For a Captain to make such a decision, he will of had reason and very big balls.

[frequentflyer2]

At least this pilot carried the rest of the passengers who had paid to travel on the flight. A Flybe captain once turfed all the passengers off his Dash 8 400 and cancelled the flight from Glasgow to Belfast because of the behaviour of some Tesco representatives on their way home to Northern Ireland after a business trip to Scotland.

[clunckdriver]

The great benifit of being at the very top of the list when flying the heavy metal was that I could simply avoid flying: {a} Gambling charters{b} Pro sports teams{c} Fan clubs of pro sports teams{ d}Political charters during elections. . With a few exceptions they all behaved like morons! The Captain has my vote.

[LH2]

Is it not possible to deny boarding only to those members of the group who appear to be drunk, and take the rest....or is that a difficult call to make?

Look at it from the other side. Surely if you are part of a team, you will not be leaving half (or even one) of your team mates behind, will you? What appears to have occurred if indeed rowdy behaviour occurred is a failure of leadership on the team.

Of course, another possibility is that somebody was having a bad day and they paid for someone else's sins. I wasn't there and I don't know.

[glad rag]

Surely if you are part of a team, you will not be leaving half (or even one) of your team mates behind, will you?

Excellent comprehension of the situation. as has been explained so far. (what Team?)?

[LH2]

To all the "holier than thou" types who profess not to drink

Well I'm not holier than thou, although I'm certainly smarter than you. :cool:

how do you prove that you are a 'Teetotaller?'

Why would you ever need to? What I choose to drink or not drink is none else's business.

The very word is laughable.

I agree that the word teetotal itself sounds a bit silly. It also has religious connotations which I do not like, much less ascribe to.

[Phileas Fogg]

Many, many years ago Scotland had been playing in Cyprus, from the outbound flight (circa 100 football supporters on a 148Y aircraft) reports had come back of bad behaviour, no doubt by a minority, of groping the cabin crew etc.

For the return flight, rather than, just say, "offload all 100 of the so and so's" a decision was taken to put a couple of ground crew 'bouncers' on board, one of them being myself.

We entered the terminal in LCA, read them the riot act etc, one or two became a bit 'chopsy' but when faced with the ultimatum of offload or not they quietened down, after the confiscation of one piece of hand luggage (bagpipes) to the front hold all were boarded and we were off.

Admittedly it was a night flight so many were knackered but they all behaved impeccably, we even provided a bit of 'unscheduled' (prank) in-flight entertainment for them which they thoroughly laughed at and upon arrival in MAN, at some unearthly hour of the morning, me standing there with the set of bagpipes I had retrieved from the front hold, well the jovialty (winding up) of the disembarking passengers was humor to be enjoyed by all.

The moral of this story ..... when confronted with a situation, a problem, deal with it, establish how to overcome it, rather than just tell the people that ultimately pay your salary to ..................

[rottenray]

leftseatview writes:
Is it not possible to deny boarding only to those members of the group who appear to be drunk, and take the rest....or is that a difficult call to make?

It's an impossible call to make - if you allow those who appear "sober" to board, without the benefit of testing them for sobriety, you set yourself up for suits based on "I was just as drunk as the rest, yet I was allowed to board."

The captain made the right call in this case.

And, obviously, there was no sober member in the group who chose to calm the group down: "Alright, guys, we're getting on an airplane and you have to behave yourselves. Man-up and act like decent people until we land."


Sir George writes:
On the plane - Captain rules http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Nuff sed, move on, nothing more t see here.

'zactly.

If you're a wee bit tipsy and behave well, you might be allowed to fly. If you're part of a great whopping group of boisterous drinkers, don't expect to board.



...

[frangatang]

Phileas, get someone to read you the air navigation order on being pissed on boarding a plane. If you are you run the risk of being offloaded. Tough shyte.

[racedo]

The moral of this story ..... when confronted with a situation, a problem, deal with it, establish how to overcome it, rather than just tell the people that ultimately pay your salary to ..................

Correct

Offloading everybody who just happens to be wearing a football jersey even though having absolutely no connection with anybody else is wrong.

As for how to prove someone is teetotal.............well passenger can just as easily ask how do they know that Pilot or crew has had no alcohol in 24 hours.

I have travelled quite a bit in support of football but rarely wear a football jersey thats through choice but should I be barred access to a plane on the way to a match because someone else in a non connected group is drunk ?

[groundbum]

I would have thought by now some video footage from a phone or somesuch would have surfaced?

It does seem poor to me though that unilaterally the entire group of 50 was offloaded, all those wearing kilts etc. Seems racist. Think if all black people were denied boarding, or all muslims, or somesuch? That wouldn't be allowed would it?

I understand the logistical difficulties of splitting the group up, maybe like the police spotters in riots, where "snatch" squads go in and fetch individual ringleaders back to the police lines? I bet if a few of the noisy ones are talked to by the police and isolated the rest of the group would get the picture?

G

[Capetonian]

Seems racist.

Please don't bring out the race card. People who are wearing kilts, or football shirts, or who are drunk, do not constitute a race. Nor is a nationality a 'race'.

They were unsuitable for transportation and treated appropriately.

[latetonite]

Correct. Captain made his decision. End of story.

[maxred]

Yep - my understanding that 8-10 of them could barely stand up. The 50, apparently were from the same travelling group, therefore, ritghtly or wrongly,we were not there, all were turfed off.

Now, I assume the thing was full, therefore, some 60 or so decent fare paying passengers attepting to get to Pargue, would have had a great flight, not to mention the crew;)

Job done:ok:

How on earth did they expect to watch the match, in the condition they were in prior to leaving Glasgow?? Bonkers

[maxred]

Sorry, I should have spell checked that post. Obviously I am still drunk:\

[LH2]

They were unsuitable for transportation and treated appropriately.

How do you know?

The ground staff could have been a bit shirty and overreacted to behaviour which could have been completely within acceptable limits to the crew and the other passengers... or not, but I don't think you know any more than me, and the second hand accounts on this thread do not tend to support your hypothesis.

[Capetonian]

It seems the Captain made the decision, not the ground crew.

In aviation safety related matters, erring on the side of caution is the better option. That is what happened. Having been on flights with rowdy passengers, I'm glad it tends to go that way.

Finally, how do you know I wasn't there or didn't have an eyewitness account? Your supposition could be wrong.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Even if it is the Captain's decision, they still have to back that up. People do get it wrong sometimes, so simply spouting "the Captain is always right" simply isn't true.

We've all made bad decisions at times and anyone who doesn't admit that isn't fit to sit in the left hand seat of an aircraft.

[BOAC]

So you are agree:

"Even if it is the Referee's decision, they still have to back that up. People do get it wrong sometimes, so simply spouting "the Referee is always right" simply isn't true."?

[racedo]

So you are agree:

"Even if it is the Referee's decision, they still have to back that up. People do get it wrong sometimes, so simply spouting "the Referee is always right" simply isn't true."?

When the Ref gets it wrong he may find his career is over or he spends the next month in charge of minor games. This has happened quite a number of times.

[racedo]

Now, I assume the thing was full, therefore, some 60 or so decent fare paying passengers attepting to get to Pargue, would have had a great flight, not to mention the crew

Quite a sweeping generalisation there isn't it.

[Say again s l o w l y]

There's a big difference sometimes between a referee's decision and a correct one.

Whilst a ref's decision might stand, that doesn't automatically make them correct. Just look at the decision over the disallowed goal during the England/Germany game at the world cup, or the fact that teams can now ask for an umpire's decision to be checked in during a test match in cricket.

Humans make mistakes at times and if you take a contentious decision, then you have to be prepared for potential consequences. That's why Captains get paid more than f/o's. They do the same basic job, but the responsibility is why they get more and should things go T/U then they're the ones with the target on their back.

[iamaviator]

I've been on a flight with a group of football fans on-board during the 2010 World Cup and it really isn't at all that pleasant. I don't know if it's peer pressure but no-one seems to want to do as they're told. Listening to the Spanish National anthem for the duration of your 2hour flight is something I never wish to endure ever again!

The easyJet captain made his decision and I'm sure he had very good reasons to off load the certain passengers, it's very hard to decide whether his actions were correct because we were not actually there to witness the behaviour of the football fans. An aircraft is a very confined space with no exits after takeoff, it's better to be safe than sorry.

[BOAC]

The big difference is that the ref can walk off the field. The Captain has to decide whether to take a potential hazard up in a metal tube at 40,000ft and also to consider the other 100+ pax. You all seem to think that this is 'over and done with', but rest assured there will be an investigation by the company. Yes, of course it is possible the Captain was just having a bad day and felt grumpy and said no, but there are always more people involved than just him/her. I have always consulted the agent, cabin crew AND co-pilot in reaching my decisions. If they all say there was no problem then no doubt the Captain alone will have to justify the decision. If it turns out there was no justification then yes, "he may find his career is over" at worst or certainly action would be taken.

[pitotheat]

Remember that for most of our passengers a flight is still a relatively rare event. They therefore have little to compare with when faced with these situations.
For the crew and groundcrew who operate and dispatch countless flights a month it is a skill finely honed in identifying the difference between high spirits and situations likely to get out of hand. We see on a daily basis hen parties, stag trips, football fans, birthday trips and many more occasions where our passengers are out for a great flight and time away. Most will acquit themselves with consideration and will moderate their behaviour after being spoken to by gate staff prior to boarding or the crew once aboard. Regrettably sometimes, despite reasonable requests by groundcrew or flightcrew, these instructions are ignored. The trick is to identify this problem before the aircraft leaves the gate to prevent a return to the gate or a diversion once in the air. The offload of passengers is a pain for all concerned. The groundcrew are left with difficult and belligerent passengers to deal with. There is an inevitable delay to the flight and of course it generates extra paperwork to justify the actions taken. Believe me on our long and demanding days nobody wants this. Offloading is seen by most as a last resort but one necessary to maintain the safety of the flight, the comfort and peace of mind for the remaining traveling passengers and the protection of our own crew.
Non of us, even those passengers who were offloaded, are in a position to make a judgment. You may well have been there but you would certainly not be in possession of all of the facts presented to the crew.

[overthewing]

Situations like this have cropped up from time to time for decades. I wonder, though, if such incidents are becoming more frequent in the LoCo era?

Passenger experience used to be fairly civilised and calming, with a lot of politeness on the part of the gate / cabin crew that tended to promote reciprocal respect. An Easyjet gate, however, can be a highly stressful place. 'Speedy boarding', and the infractions of that system, and the anxiety associated with trying to get on the plane fast enough to get a seat beside your travelling companions, and huge carry-on luggage filling up the overhead lockers...none of this contributes to a relaxed journey for the pax, and the gate crew seem untrained in the arts of defusing situations rather than escalating them.

Treating pax as cattle tends to make them behave like animals.

[Jamesie]

#44 - "Yep - my understanding that 8-10 of them could barely stand up. The 50, apparently were from the same travelling group, therefore, ritghtly or wrongly,we were not there, all were turfed off."

I would find it very surprising if the whole 50 were in the same travelling group and I think that is one of the most common misconceptions, most likely due to the fact that this group is referred to as the "Tartan Army", which is an umbrella, catch-all phrase which is used to refer to those who follow Scotland abroad. The fact that most of the supporters may have been dressed similarily will likely have compounded matters.

Anyone with any savvy (and sober enough) would have nipped into the toilets (I'm guessing most of these guys would be travelling hand luggage only) and got changed out of the kilt and Scotland shirt into jeans and t-shirt.

[NG_Kaptain]

The great benifit of being at the very top of the list when flying the heavy metal was that I could simply avoid flying: {a} Gambling charters{b} Pro sports teams{c} Fan clubs of pro sports teams{ d}Political charters during elections. . With a few exceptions they all behaved like morons! The Captain has my vote. At least one Heavy Metal group has it right. Iron Maiden has their "Front Man" as their front man with Bruce Dickinson flying the bands aircraft.

[Airbrake]

Any group of passengers that make the mistake of getting themselves noticed for inappropriate behavior in an Airport are very mistaken if they think they will just walk onto their flight. This is especially true if alcohol is involved. It is impossible to separate the innocent from guilty in such groups, and even if this was an option some of those who did fly would no doubt make life miserable for the crew and other passengers.

This Captain made the only decision he could make and removed them from the flight. Some of those effected will have been guilty by association but that's the way it is if you travel as a group.

[Jorge Newberry]

As someone who has a had to share a flight with drunk and rowdy passengers on more than one occasion I'd like to say that I'd be very happy for Captains to use their discretion like this more often.

[NG_Kaptain]

When I travel as a passenger I like a quiet subdued atmosphere and really hate to be on board when any group is traveling together. Individually they are okay but when together they tend to feed on each other making the ride uncomfortable for the rest of us.
The captain was right off loading them.

[Icanseeclearly]

.

I was on the flight in question.

I was dreading the flight having watched the "tartan army" enjoy itself, i was travelling with my wife and 2 children and was seriously considering offloading myself and the family.

A group of 50 noisy and somewhat inebriated people in a small cramped environment is really rather oppresive (for want of a better word) and i breathed a sigh of relief when they were offloaded. so well done to the crew and / or despatcher who made the decision.

I think it took a lot of guts to refuse that large a group so, if you are reading this well done and thank you.

[maxred]

I am a Scot, and have witnessed the Tartan Army many times.In general everyone behaves themselves and represents their country extremely well. However, I have also witnessed the dark side. I missed a flight one evening ex CDG, to Glasgow. Quickly,with my family, two young children, I travelled up to Beavais, to catch the late night Ryanair, Friday night to Glasgow. The Glasgow Rangers management squad were on, along with a number of 'fans'. I frankly have never witnessed anything like it.:uhoh:

I was mortified, offended, and frankly concerned. Short of pissing in the aisles,there were no holds barred. This is a reflection.unfortunately, of the way it is today. Little respect, consideration, empathy, for anyone else bar themselves.

And before anyone comments, the last paragraph is a general statement. It is not aimed at the 'Tartan Army', nor this incident. It is interesting that we have had some comments on here, standing up for these guys:ugh::ugh:

[BEagle]

I wonder, though, if such incidents are becoming more frequent in the LoCo era?

It would appear so... Those TV programmes involving the orange airline often show a so-called 'party' atmosphere on board. Kids acting the part of cabin crew seem to encourage this behaviour. Not involving drink, just a 'culture' of 'let's all share the fun'. Which is not very British; please would such oiks just sit the f*** down and shut the f*** up - they can make all the noise they want and drink themselves into oblivion after they get off.

Mercifully, I've only travelled with a bunch of footballists once. The Iranian national team in Lufthansa Business Class from Friedrichshafen to Frankfurt during some football competition in 2008. They behaved impeccably; I wished them the best of luck when disembarking.

Well done, this captain. I hope the message gets around amongst the Untermensch who behave so abominably and that such rowdy, drunken passengers are made to pay the price more often.

[SKS777FLYER]

John R How dare someone of you prejudge the decision of this captain?

You were not there! You have absolutely no idea what the situation was. I think it is safe to say the decision will not have been taken lightly.

If a few people were inconvenienced because they got caught in a bad lot, tough luck. Perhaps you think it preferable that a dangerous situation materialise at 38,000ft? Or a fight breaking out between drunk passengers? Yes, that would be a much safer course of action, wouldn't it?

His decision is FINAL It is as simple as that.

+1 what John R said. I don't think we are getting the whole story, and who knows what kind of crap from similar instances/instance the Captain may have learned from prior to this event. Anywho, that is why a Captain is awarded the four stripes, to be the Commander of his/her ship.

I always get a kick out of sportfans (observers) saying or being said of that "we won!" You were the "we" out on the field??

[A37575]

During my time with a certain Central Pacific airline, the flight was going Hong Kong to Taipei when a drunken oaf tried to feel up the young hosties. The captain got out of his seat and shirt fronted the oaf and in a matter of fact way said that unless he pulled his head in he (the captain) would contact the Taipei gendarmes and arrange for the oaf to be tortured on arrival. No more problems with the oaf. That was the time when the captain was the captain and he didn't send a young FA to sort out drunks and oafs - he did it himself.

[El Grifo]

Would any of the group, who could prove by whatever reason, have any grounds to sue the airline for barring transit whist in possession of the valid documents ?

El G.

[Capetonian]

Would any of the group, who could prove by whatever reason, have any grounds to sue the airline for barring transit whist in possession of the valid documents ?

Why? Having valid documents is not the only criterion which makes someone fit to travel.

[El Grifo]

My Bad.

What I meant to write was :-

Would any of the group, who could prove by whatever reason that they were not under the influence of alcohol, have any grounds to sue the airline for barring transit whist in possession of the valid documents ?

[TightSlot]

That was the time when the captain was the captain and he didn't send a young FA to sort out drunks and oafs
SOP's on a majority of airlines these days are that the pilots do not leave the flight deck for any reason whatsoever, most especially to involve themselves in a potentially physical situation where they might be incapacitated.

It has nothing to do with the willingness, or otherwise of the flight crew to assist their crew.

[ninja-lewis]

Don't worry, it all worked out well in the end!

Scottish football fans who were refused access to an Easyjet flight to Prague last night thanked the low-cost airline for sparing them the ordeal of watching the ineffable p1sh that passes for their national team.

In an unprecedented act of charity, more than 50 members of the Tartan Army were stopped from boarding a flight.

One returning member of the Tartan Army, Stuart Fairweather, said: "We sat in the bar and had a few swallies instead but I wouldn't say it was out of hand or anyone was all over the place - unlike Levein's muppets.

"They said 'you won't be getting on the flight' - and I'm sure we'll be hearing that again from airlines headed to Poland and Ukraine in a couple of years."

A spokeswoman for Easyjet said: "Easyjet can confirm that on Thursday 6 October, 59 passengers were refused boarding a flight to Prague while at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport for the sake of their own mental health. As Ivor Tiefenbrun ao astutely pointed out this week, Scots are not the sharpest tools in the shed and seem to enjoy spending obscene amounts of cash watching this cack so we had to protect them from themselves really."

"All those who were denied access to the plane will qualify for a full refund, even if they will qualify for shag all else."

Central Scotland SNP MSP Christina McKelvie said she'd whip 'em out to lift the bleak mood of the nation following the Scots' abject defeat.

:{

[newirishbabe]

Im amazed at the arrogance of a lot of posters defending the Captain as if he was infallable.


I wasnt there and cant say if he was right or not.

However for comparison, we travelled to Yerevan with BMI last month on a Sunday evening flight, about 14 of us and in our colours and would not have had a lot of good to say about some of the crew, we imagined a dislike for football fans, on the return the plane was over booked and nearly all were in their Irish colours, the crew were brilliant and had flown a lot of supporters on there outbound flight and ended up socialising with some of them.

The only common denominator of the group was going to a football match.

There are two sides to every story but I know that Irish supporters who have seen this incident will give Easyjet a wideberth and not just for football travel. Its actually an expensive hobby travelling all over the world watching your team, and a lot of these supporters are very regular travellers.

Time will tell who was right, I've a feeling that it will turn out that several people will have been unjustifably been denied boarding purely on the basis of the clothes they were wearing and will have a strong case for compensation,

[frequentflyer2]

I've read all the posts and I wondered if someone could answer a few questions that have occurred to me.

1 Did anyone in Amsterdam make discreet inquiries about the behaviour of the scottish football fans on their way from Edinburgh to Schiphol? This could have given some indication if any of them were likely to cause disruption.

2 How were those refused carriage selected exactly? Was is simply on the basis they were football fans? Was it because they were wearing scottish football jerseys or kilts?

3 If these people were travelling on separate bookings hadn't they individually entered into a contract with easyJet? The airline's website gives very specific reasons for refusal of carriage. If passengers are travelling on separate bookings and have therefore entered into separate contracts with the airline shouldn't each be checked against the criteria for refusing travel individually. After all, a contract cuts both ways. If someone fulfils the criteria for being refused travel, they should be refused travel. But if someone does not fulfil the criteria for being refused travel they should be allowed on board.

You see to be quite honest I'd be more than a little miffed if Mrs. FF and I were sitting in the departure lounge enjoying a quiet drink before a flight and had our boarding passes removed because of the behaviour of some other people we knew only vaguely or not at all travelling to the same destination.

[short term visitor]

I've read all the posts and I wondered if someone could answer a few questions that have occurred to me.

1 Did anyone in Amsterdam make discreet inquiries about the behaviour of the scottish football fans on their way from Edinburgh to Schiphol? This could have given some indication if any of them were likely to cause disruption.

2 How were those refused carriage selected exactly? Was is simply on the basis they were football fans? Was it because they were wearing scottish football jerseys or kilts?

3 If these people were travelling on separate bookings hadn't they individually entered into a contract with easyJet? The airline's website gives very specific reasons for refusal of carriage. If passengers are travelling on separate bookings and have therefore entered into separate contracts with the airline shouldn't each be checked against the criteria for refusing travel individually. After all, a contract cuts both ways. If someone fulfils the criteria for being refused travel, they should be refused travel. But if someone does not fulfil the criteria for being refused travel they should be allowed on board.

To answer these questions as best I can with my limited knowledge of the situation.

1. Probably not.

2. Once boarding started, the Scottish supporters were asked to step
aside to allow the other passengers to board. They were then taken to
another room, were their boarding cards were taken from them and
they were informed they wouldn't be flying. Supporters at the front
boarded without problem. There were Scotland supporters on the flight.

3. This was not a single group of 50-60 whatever the number is. They
were small groups of friends, family groups and induviduals who all
happened to be travelling to the same event.

[Capetonian]

I know that ....... supporters who have seen this incident will give Easyjet a wideberth

Great, if I never have to travel again with a crowd of rowdy 'supporters' of any sport, I'll be delighted.

Perhaps the message that this incident will send to 'supporters' is that they should behave and dress in such a way as not to advertise what they are. That might be a solution that would benefit everyone, including themselves.

[teddybear44]

I think it is fair to agree with a Commanders decision where he has instructed denied boarding to individuals because they are drunk or otherwise not fit to fly or are potentially violent but this seems different. 59 passengers were apparently collectively denied boarding NOT because they were drunk but because they were dressed in a particular way i.e. wearing national dress or the colours of the national team, as Newirish babe validly points out. They were not, it appears in a large group, they were in many sub groups. If passengers were denied boarding on this 'common denominator' basis and then told they could not travel, I understand why many of them feel aggrieved. I presume there must have been some identifiable transgressions to raise concerns in the first place which by the bY the same token those were not applicable to the balance of the group. It should have been those concerned who were dealt with IMHO. Someone said earlier that football fans should understand the referees decison is final.....true, but very regrettable in some cases.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It isn't only drunk passengers a captain can off load. A captain can off load anyone who he considers is a risk to flight safety.

So picture the scene. A lot of footy fans travelling in a group. Some are drunk. Most are not although may have had a drink or two.

The captain only off loads those who are drunk and the rest of the group are allowed to board. The doors are closed and they wing their way to thirtywhatever thousand feet. A few people then have another drink (either bought on board or sneaked in - yes it happens). Everyone knows how altitude and alcohol mix and subsequently the 'may have had a drink or two' bunch decide to air their grief about their missing friends.

What follows is what could/may/would have happened if everyone was allowed to board in the first place.

If you come across an angry snake you don't prod it with a stick you chop it's fecking head off.

And lastly: The captain only has to justify his decisions to his company, nobody else.

[frequentflyer2]

"It is telling that in the past many posters have criticised crews for an apparent unwillingness to intervene in this sort of situation. Here is an example of a Commander who is not afraid of exercising his authority. Then people respond with: "Oh, well, maybe there was another side to the story". Of course there was! But that is to miss the point."

I think you misunderstand what many people contributing to this thread are saying. They do not wish to travel with rowdy obnoxious drunks. They agree rowdy obnoxious drunks should be denied carriage. However, they want only rowdy obnoxious drunks banned from flights - not people who happen to be travelling to the same sporting event or wearing similar clothes.
This is exactly the type of incident which is acceptable to many people - until it happens to them. Imagine the scene. You're travelling to an event you've looked forward to for some time - a rugby match for example. You're sitting in the departure lounge enjoying a quiet drink and reading a book with your rugby jersey on. A number of people sitting nearby whom you don't know but who are travelling to the same event become drunk and rowdy. You join the boarding queue and you see these people being off loaded. "Good," you think, "I'm not going to have to put up with that during the flight." You would be fully justified in thinking this - no-one should have to tolerate that sort of behaviour. Then you get to the gate. The person checking the boarding cards looks at you, at your card and asks you to step to one side. You find yourself in the same room as the the rowdies and a number of other people who have been asked to leave the queue at the gate. You're told the Captain has decided none of you, drunk or sober, abusive or polite, is going to be allowed to travel.
What do you say? Is it: "Aye aye captain. God bless you, your A320 and all who flies in her." I don't think so.
If it happened to me I would have the whole situation checked out by a solicitor as soon as possible. As I said in an earlier post I believe a contract cuts both ways.
If it's acceptable for a pilot to bar the innocent from a flight as well as the guilty in terms of rowdiness and drunkeness easyJet should state this on its website. The site clearly lists the reasons for refusal of carriage. Perhaps they should add at the end: "Of course the captain has the final word. So even if you have behaved impeccably in the departure lounge he or she may decide they don't like the cut of your gib in which case you will not be allowed to board the flight."

By the way, before making a decision like this is the captain obliged to go and observe those involved or does he make it on the basis of information from ground staff?

[teddybear44]

Well said sir! I was wondering myself exactly what questions the commander bothered to ask himself, of the ground staff about the information given to him or what observations he made himself before making this robust decison inconveniencing the travel, accommodation and recreation plans of many. I think as it encompassed so many at least a few basic clarifications about matters should be asked e.g who have you observed as being a risk to the safe operation of this flight...e.g is it all 50 odd or just a few who are causing trouble?What has been observed, and by whom, to raise concerns? Are they all in one large booking of 50 or are they all travelling seperatley? I cannot see that the answers to these questions, if asked, would tend to support offloading all 50 odd. I'm just curious about how you get to e.g. OK, lets offload anyone travelling to PRG for the football match (selected by virtue of their attire one presumes) What the pax business at the other end is exactly that...his / her business (even if it is assumed as being to watch a football match at the destination) as is his mode of dress (within reason). To use this e.g same Reason for travel and similar mode of dress to the actual culprits, as primary reasons to collectively offload 50 odd passengers, regardless of their fitness to travel, seems debateable IMHO.

[radeng]

Are they entitled to the €300 or whatever for denied boarding? At this stage, it must be impossible to prove who was or was not inebriated, so it could be that the lawyers will have a fun time, as the company cannot prove drunkenness....