Banning PAX 'for life'

[Ethiopia]

Woman hit with £6,800 fine and lifetime ban from airline following disruptive behavior during flight (http://aviationtribune.com/airlines/europe/item/3134-woman-hit-with-6-800-fine-and-lifetime-ban-from-airline-following-disruptive-behaviour-during-flight)

[Hotel Tango]

All I can say is good for Jet2! :ok:

[ExXB]

For the record she was given an invoice, not a fine. It will be interesting to hear if she pays it, although that's not the type of news to get wide circulation.

[Sober Lark]

How many disruptive passengers are off loaded in Shannon each year?


The aircraft involved wasn't Irish registered so the offence wasn't committed in the State so I'd question why in addition to the fine this passenger shouldn't also be billed by Irish Revenue for the cost to the State of police and courts time.

[UV]

If it's a UK registered aircraft aren't the CAA Investigating this with a view to prosecution? Did Jet2 report it to them?

[Herod]

billed by Irish Revenue for the cost to the State of police and courts time.
And also the £6,500 bill, to make it legally binding.

[PAXboy]

Sounds like a start:

Jet2.com Bans Passengers for Extreme Aggressive Behaviour | Jet2.com (http://www.jet2.com/News/Jet2_com_Bans_Passengers_for_Extreme_Aggressive_Behaviour/)

also reported in various tabloid papers but I thought it better to have the Horse's Mouth, rather than the Daily Fail.

[Armchairflyer]

Minor point: Unless I have missed new trends in gender-neutral naming, the cited source reports a lifetime ban for two men and a six-month ban for a woman. More important: I agree, sounds refreshingly un-permissive.

[Espada III]

New Year Divert - Woman Charged £6800 Costs | Dart Group PLC (http://www.dartgroup.co.uk/Media/News/New_Year_Diversion_Woman_Charged_6800_Costs/)

Think this is the female lifetime ban.

[PAXboy]

Thanks, I was careless on that, I've asked SoS to amend the thread title. Still, let's hope that if the LCCs start doing this, the big boys might take it up too.

[daikilo]

Presumably costs billed to Jet2. Not sure how they can pass them to the passenger given that it was their decision to divert with probably little advance notice. Probably needs a court opinion.

[despegue]

Read the ticket terms and conditions:

The passenger is responsible for all costs involved due diversion for disruptive reasons.

No,court needed.
Pay up bitch.

[PDR1]

Well perhaps.

If she declines to pay then they'll have to sue her for it, and even if they do manage to satisfy the court that a contract existed, they'll also have to show that the litigator to all reasonable steps to minimise their losses before awarding damages.

PDR

[Ivan aromer]

What is the chance that she has a spare, or indeed any thing like £6800.00? May be £6.00.
So there is little point in suing her.

[G-CPTN]

Could the (ex)passenger be made bankrupt if refusing/unable to pay?

You can be made bankrupt if you don’t pay your debts and you owe £5,000 or more (https://www.gov.uk/being-made-bankrupt).

[Piltdown Man]

It appears this disruptive passenger was charged for costs incurred by the airline purely as a result of her unreasonable behaviour. She had a clear contract with Jet2; the terms of which are contained in their Conditions of Carriage. But by going over £5,000 she can be forced into bankruptcy and even though suing her in court might not yield much in cash terms, the publicity would be priceless. Even more valuable would be be "reality TV" type of fly-on-the-wall documentary when the bailiffs arrive and strip her house bare.

I don't care much for anti-social people and it is always nice to hear that they end up paying a heavy price for their unpleasant behaviour.

PM

[pattern_is_full]

Keeping it brief:

Trying to catch a flight 45 years ago (as a teen), we were delayed by an ice storm enroute to the airport. Dashed to the ticketing booth literally at the departure time, told them "We're here and on our way" and ran to the gate (no security stops at all at that time - about 4 minutes). They (Continental) held the flight for us.

A week later, my dad received a polite letter simply pointing out that holding a flight could cost as much as $10000/£3500 (1970 currencies) and requesting that we plan better in future. No bill.

Times have changed, and while I am/was deeply grateful for what the airline did back then, now that I have first-hand knowledge of airline costs, I figure this person got off lightly at £6800 in 2016.

[DirtyProp]

A lifetime ban from that airline doesn't look that light to me.
Or maybe I'm becoming a softie...

Also, instead of diverting with costs, delays and such, wouldn't it be more economical and effective if the cabin crew would have the authority to arrest and detain an unruly pax until destination?
What do you guys think?

[A and C]

You simply don't understand the dynamics of the disruptive pax situation, the cabin crew will use all the training they have in conflict resolution to defuse the situation how ever if they can't get the person to behave in a reasonable manor they have to do something before the inccident gets out of control.

An airliner cabin is a toxic place when conflict starts, you can't run away from the situation and people who are near the trouble but are not directly involved are likely to be drawn in, for instance a parents of small children would normally just get their children way from a conflict if they are on the ground but in an aircraft they can't. In this situation even the most mild mannered parent will become violent to defend their the safety of their children.

Effectively with the authority of the captain the cabin crew can restrain the unruly pax but three small girls vs a number of drunk men is not usually a fair contest and given that cabin crew have safety related in normal flight you don't want them unable to perform these duties.

At one time the appearance of the Captain ( or more effective the flight engineer with a large maglite ) was enough to deal with the situation but the security situation as taken away that option.

The only way to defuse the situation is to get the aircraft on the ground once it looks like control of the cabin is likely to be lost. This decision is not taken lightly but sometimes it is the only option.

[Global_Global]

It is time that we should have an industry wide blacklist to ensure that people like this cannot fly at all anymore...

[A and C]

I agree but but the lawyers got there first, in some country's travel is a human right and can't be taken away. In these country's is only when the person starts to misbehave that you can take action to have them removed from the flight.

It seems to me that the lawyers have turned the human rights laws on there head, the normal law abiding people seem to have to put up with all sorts of antics because of the human rights of the rude & disruptive.

My guess is that by ensuring the human rights of the disruptive, the leagal ( so called profession ) ensures a regular income for itself.

[Tu.114]

Here, it becomes difficult.

Travel may be a human right, but there is also some liberty in contractual matters. Can one party A be obliged to enter a contract with another party B, in this case be obliged to sell B a ticket and honour it by transporting B in accordance with it? Bs right to travel is not taken away from her if she has to use other means of transportation like a bus, train or even her two legs. The right to travel does not mean the right to the most convenient means - or does it?

[ExXB]

I don't agree that an industry wide ban should be at the discretion of a single airline.

If that penalty is incorporated into the law of the land and imposed by the courts, fine - but not at the decision of one company.

From Jet2's terms and conditions:

23. Conduct on Board Aircraft and at Airport and Safety
23.1
You must behave appropriately at all times whilst in the airport and on board the aircraft. In particular (but not limited to these examples) you must not:


contravene any applicable law (e.g. by being drunk on board an aircraft);
conduct yourself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board;
obstruct the crew in the performance of their duties;
fail to comply with any instruction of the crew;
use any threatening, abusive or insulting words or actions towards the crew or other passengers;
behave in a disorderly manner or in a manner to which other Passengers may reasonably object;
fail to comply with the terms of any document signed by you following contravention of one or more of the preceding conditions on a previous flight with us.

23.2
If, in our reasonable opinion, you have failed to behave appropriately either in the airport or on board the aircraft or we consider you unfit to fly:

you may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft;
we may decide (in our reasonable discretion) to cancel your flight prior to take-off and/or, after take-off;
divert the aircraft to offload you, in which case you must pay to us all costs and expenses which we incur of any nature whatsoever as a result of or arising out of that diversion;
we may decide to cancel any return flight or other future flights you have with us, without refund;
we may take any other measures we deem necessary to prevent continuation of your inappropriate conduct, including your restraint or removal from the aircraft or airport.

In all of the above circumstances, you shall not be refunded the price of your booking, and we shall not be liable for any costs you incur as a result of us refusing carriage.

You will indemnify us for all costs and expenses (including the legal costs we incur in bringing any action against you) arising from your improper conduct on board the aircraft including (but not limited to) any damage caused to the aircraft.

23.3
We reserve the right to request that you undertake a breath test procedure at any time prior to travel. If you either refuse to take the test or fail the test, we reserve the right to refuse you permission to travel. Notwithstanding this right, even if you pass the test we still remain entitled to act in accordance with clause 23.2 in our absolute discretion.


Not sure if these specific T&Cs have been tested in court but (IMHO) appear to be imbalanced (i.e. they have all the protection, the customer has little) and deny any possibility of appeal. They also appear to be poorly written (for example the title is not good English - and 'Safety' is only inferred. They also (appear to) fail to reserve the right to offload the passenger before departure - only to cancel the flight. Sloppy.

I'd say the refusal to refund unused future tickets is not a 'fair term' and could come back to bite them. Having decided to unilaterally cancel their contract(s), without appeal, they should refund the 'price of your booking' (whatever that is)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that in this specific case they are acting inappropriately but contract terms (particularly those that one party has no ability to modify) cannot be unbalanced. These appear to be exactly that. They need to find a good lawyer to redraft this for them, in terms with UK law.

[davidjpowell]

A lifetime ban from that airline doesn't look that light to me.

I have a lifetime ban from that Airline - admittedly self imposed.

A 45 minute flight, with tighter leg room than the notorious budget airlines, departed late as they had not enforced hand luggage requirements (had to pay for hold obviously), and they ran out of room.

While drunk and unruly passengers are a pain, a ban from Jet2 can only be a good thing (unless she does the same on a flight I'm on!).

[111boy]

LOL nice one Despegue, could not agree more.
A shannon offload, good move. It wouldn't be most people's choice for " nearest suitable diversion ". But for an offload, perfect choice ! Pay up bitch ! lol

[A and C]

Why should Shannon not be the nearest sutable diversion ?

[PDR1]

You simply don't understand the dynamics of the disruptive pax situation,

Oh I think we do, but I'm just pointing out that the terms and conditions of passage are a matter of contract law rather than criminal law. If the airline wishes to recover money by issuing an invoice (which is what the article says they did) and the woman declines to pay then their option is to resort to a civil court. Also any Ts&Cs would (in the context of a court action) be reviewable through the eyes of the unfair contract terms act. Many Ts&Cs contain terms which are either unenforceable in law or even in conflict with the law (like web-shops in the whose Ts&Cs say that the goods are your property as soon as they are despatched and that the seller is not responsible if the item doesn't get delivered). MAny Ts&Cs have non-sensical terms. For isntance the abstract someone posted previously gives the airline the right to do breath tests, but does not define a threshold above which they might refuse passage - so the passenger has no way of knowing how much alcohol they can drink in an airport environment which positively promotes drinking before flights - a court would toss this out in a few seconds.

I also suspect that an airline which banned someone from a flight and then cancelled their booking for anotyher in (say) six months' time (under those Ts&Cs) would have a very hard time avoiding refunding the ticket price - civil law usually only permits recovery of damage suffered and it would be very hard to show that the full ticket price was an unrecoverable loss - a small admin cost would be reasonable, but that's about it.

To sue they must enter the court "with clean hands" (ie be very sure that no actions on their part could reasonably be seen as provocation), and they must have taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the losses they are looking to recover.

If there were circumstances which might be seen as sufficient provocation then the airline is on a loser. If the passenger's behaviour was not (in the opinion of the judge) sufficiently disruptive as to make diversion to shannon essential for the safety of the aeroplane or the people on it then they are unlikely to be regarded as having mitigated their losses, so a court wouldn't award damages (or might award damages but wouldn't award costs). And the passenger would have every right to reference (maybe even with expert witnesses) the medical studies which have shown that the poor air quality in the cabin of airliners at altitude can induce aggressive behaviour, espcially in combination with the alcohol which the airline sells (or gives away) on the flight.

I see the matter has been referred to the criminal authorities. If she is convicted of an offence this will support the airline's case for civil damages, but if she isn't then it will make it very much harder.

Finally on the matter of no-fly lists. In the UK it would probably be legal for an airline to operate such a list provided they didn't put people on it "unreasonably" or "capriciously". But a cross-airline list operated without a statutory basis and without a robust system of checks, balances and appeals would almost certainly be seen as operating a cartel and could land the airlines in a whole dish of the smelly stuff.

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

[gcal]

I wonder how you could enforce a life time ban?

Passenger lists are kept for a very short time only for reasons of privacy and space.
If you were a frequent flyer there may be some information saved about you but I do not think there is any reliable way of tracing ad hoc passengers.

Airlines, especially the smaller ones, may not have their own booking systems but rather buy space on a few very large booking engines.

I could foresee all sorts of problems with mistaken identities and about how much personal information is stored.

Jet2 is a relatively small airline and I cannot see anything that would stop this objectionable person taking her future business elsewhere.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

with tighter leg room than the notorious budget airlines

Did you get on the right plane:}? Legroom on Jet2 is amongst the best there is:ok:, certainly better than I have experienced on Monarch, Ryanair and Ezy. Or, had Jet2 subbed your flight out to another operator to help out and as such you experienced their seat pitch not Jet2's, because your recollection certainly doesn't match up with real life:confused:.

ran out of room

Which happens on all airlines these days due to the charges for hold luggage. This issue has been addressed in some way with a redesign of the hat racks to take more stuff:ok:, our new aeroplanes will have larger hat racks that should pretty much eradicate the problem altogether:D.

[ExXB]

Well, for the life of her passport, it would be the details contained therein. As UK requires APIS for all passengers inbound (including returning) to the UK, that would be one check. Wouldn't work for internal flights but do they have them?

[A and C]

Your post shows you know the contracts that airlines issue and the leagal issues surrounding them, but it also shows that you have now idea of the of the dynamic of the disruptive passenger issue as it unfolds in the air.

The theory that you speak of retreats to the back of your mind as the the cabin crew are being assaulted and the normally law abiding passengers becoming involved as they try to defend family members as there is no chance to run away on an aircraft, add to this a little fear of flying that a lot of passengers have and the mix that is toxic. When the the situation starts moving this way the only place to be is on the ground with the help of the police.

[crewmeal]

I wonder how you could enforce a life time ban?

Passenger lists are kept for a very short time only for reasons of privacy and space.
If you were a frequent flyer there may be some information saved about you but I do not think there is any reliable way of tracing ad hoc passengers.

If insurance companies can keep tabs and flag up on bogus claims using some sort of software then I'm sure airlines can come up with something similar. I'm pretty sure if Jet2 banned someone for life then Monarch Thomson BA etc would also like to know the history and take appropriate action if necessary.

[El Bunto]

Quoth ExXB:


Not sure if these specific T&Cs have been tested in court but (IMHO) appear to be imbalanced (i.e. they have all the protection, the customer has little) and deny any possibility of appeal
I'd say that's a very important point and the reason why airlines shy away from pursuing 'costs' in courts, even the small claims court.

Airline contracts are adhesive and homogenous; that is, they all impose un-negotiable terms and they are all essentially identical between carriers. An airline can put whatever it likes in its T&Cs but a court has the ability to strike-out the term as being unreasonable given the manner in which the contract was imposed.

And 'he could have taken the train instead' isn't considered a defence against unreasonable terms.

[ExXB]

It is ironic but (again IMHO) these T&C's could be redrafted to be almost bullet-proof.

If I was with Jet2's legal department I would make it a priority to get these right, to protect their interests and the interests of their staff and crew.

It would be a real embarrassment for them if any prosecution was tossed out of court because of sloppy drafting. Just imagine the hysterics in the media.

[xtypeman]

A UK registered airline operating on a UK AOC also requires that the T and C's are also approved by the CAA and form part of there operating licence. As for the law on a disruptive passenger then that is encompassed within the Air Navigation Order (ANO).

[ExXB]

CAA approval would be meaningless to the courts. They are, allegedly, aviation law experts and not experts in contract and consumer law.

Based on history the views of the Office of Fair Trading would be much more significant. IIRC the OFT spent some time in the late 1990s / early 2000s negotiating with IATA on it's members' T&Cs. An amicable agreement was reached with clarified a number of provisions.

I've not seen this requirement mentioned before, can you possibly give me the reference for this? Many thanks. I'm always happy to improve my knowledge.

[PAXboy]

This is not airlines but about blacklists - irrespective of the reason:

Butlin's and Pontin's accused of keeping secret 'blacklists' of Traveller families | Home News | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/butlins-and-pontins-accused-of-keeping-secret-blacklists-of-traveller-families-a6808231.html)

Butlin’s said: “As with all large party sizes for breaks around the festive period, our terms state that all UK-based adults in the party must appear on the electoral register… It is essential that we can be certain who our guests are. The safety and security of all those who visit a Butlin’s resort is our primary concern.”The client states that he is on the electoral register and can prove it and is taking legal advice.

[Piltdown Man]

Call me a snob, but I do to want to spend any time near 'travellers', especially in a confined space. I've not had one pleasant experience in their company. But am I allowed to say that? The PC brigade are too quick to prohibit comments like mine and too slow to condem poor behaviour.

PM

[PAXboy]

China's leading airlines joined forces on Monday to blacklist rowdy passengers who have become an increasing problem as the number of travellers grows.

Air China, China Eastern, China Southern, Hainan Airlines and Spring Air said they would share the names of passengers who misbehave and ban them from any of their flights.
Air passenger blacklist: Chinese airlines to ban unruly passengers from flights (http://www.traveller.com.au/air-passenger-blacklist-china-airlines-to-ban-unruly-passengers-from-flights-gmj8g4)

[S.o.S.]

I have renamed the thread as I think it is of wider interest and will be easier for people to find when searching for the topic. Other examples of this are welcome as it seems to be catching on.

[ExXB]

In China they have the 'advantage' of a common ticket issuer, which could aid in enforcing the blacklist.

But what happens if they Blacklist the wrong Wong?

[S.o.S.]

ExXB You are very naughty and should be banned for life from this thread. ;)