FlyBe offload 30 pax on Glasgow - Belfast flight
Jaq
"May I also point out that the reporter may have been slightly biased as he had also been delayed. One should therefore wonder as to the truthfulness of his report."
May I also point out that the reporter was there whilst nobody here was. If they were causing trouble they deserved to be thrown off. However, it IS possible that the crew made a mistake. They are only human after all.
"May I also point out that the reporter may have been slightly biased as he had also been delayed. One should therefore wonder as to the truthfulness of his report."
May I also point out that the reporter was there whilst nobody here was. If they were causing trouble they deserved to be thrown off. However, it IS possible that the crew made a mistake. They are only human after all.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that the term "banter" was used by a passenger trying to blame the airline - hardly an objective witness. Nobody else called what happened "banter".
Nobody objects to "banter", if you did most crews wouldn't be permitted to fly!
Nobody objects to "banter", if you did most crews wouldn't be permitted to fly!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right. The police have to consider the cost of a prosecution against the likely benefit to the public. In this case, they probably decided that denial of travel was sufficient punishment - it was probably more costly to the Tesco staff than the fine would have been.
I can imagine that conversation when you call the police to investigate your car window being smashed and your radio stolen - 'Thanks for calling us sir, but since the thief is only likely to get a £200 fine and a slap on the wrist we aren't going to bother pursuing the matter since the benefit is minimal. Anyway, it looks like he cut his hand on the broken glass so he has probably suffered enough.'
People are not arrested (let alone charged with an offence) when there is unsufficient evidence.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dicksa............
Your closing comments to your reply to me and others says it all.
As to the other person on here asking if it was correct that the Beeb guy got arrested, well all I know is he was asked to get off the aircraft with the police and to stop filming at the same time. This was seeb by the cabin crew at the time that he was being arrested. But that doesn't mean he was charged or held for long.
I have never heard of it being illegal to film airside but I have since been told its contrary to some law or other. A bit like listening to airband radios is actually illegal in certain ways but rarely is the law used.
May I suggest that with experience we all realise that every situation is different. And therefore warrants a different solution to the problem. Far be it for us, even me who knows a little about the incident from colleagues involved, to actually suggest we know better.
Where there is smoke there is always fire. There are two stories to this and so far you have only heard the one of them.
Your closing comments to your reply to me and others says it all.
As to the other person on here asking if it was correct that the Beeb guy got arrested, well all I know is he was asked to get off the aircraft with the police and to stop filming at the same time. This was seeb by the cabin crew at the time that he was being arrested. But that doesn't mean he was charged or held for long.
I have never heard of it being illegal to film airside but I have since been told its contrary to some law or other. A bit like listening to airband radios is actually illegal in certain ways but rarely is the law used.
May I suggest that with experience we all realise that every situation is different. And therefore warrants a different solution to the problem. Far be it for us, even me who knows a little about the incident from colleagues involved, to actually suggest we know better.
Where there is smoke there is always fire. There are two stories to this and so far you have only heard the one of them.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sparkymarky
You completely miss the point. In the examples you mention, there is physical evidence of some kind or another.
People are often arrested where there is inusufficient evidence. That judgement is not made until after the event, and many cases are dropped every year through insufficient evidence.
My assertion comes from a pre-aviation stint in the Police. What is your background?
Absolute nonsense. Based on your rationale the police would not arrest anyone guilty of anything less than assault or robbery, since the odds on getting jailed are likely to be slim for say a speeding driver, a grafitti vandal, low value car thefts, etc.
People are often arrested where there is inusufficient evidence. That judgement is not made until after the event, and many cases are dropped every year through insufficient evidence.
My assertion comes from a pre-aviation stint in the Police. What is your background?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another thing..... seems that approx two years ago, a Capt for a certain Orange company actually offloaded the whole flight (football hooligans) because of their behaviour. Police asked him to continue with the flight because the said pax were creating uproar in the terminal and they wanted to try and get rid of them. Capt refused. Any thoughts?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
I don't have any police training - I've had my car broken into a few times though! Does that count as legal experience?
I note from your profile you are now a Captain - hence you must have a fair amount of aviation experience. I therefore deduce that your police experience must have been quite some time ago, and is of limited relevance now.
However, I'm sure you will be aware of the Scottish term 'breach of the peace'. An offence which needs no physical evidence and which would be easily applicable if the customer behaviour was as alleged by FlyBe.
I'm also sure you will equally be aware there is no such crime as 'guilt by association'. Therefore you will no doubt be clear that if one Tesco manager misbehaves, not all Tesco managers are guilty. Hence there is no justification for throwing all of them off the flight. That really is absolute nonsense.
Can you imagine the furore if ethnicity or religion was brought into it. 'Right we've got a drunk Catholic on the plane. Chuck him off and get rid of all the other Catholics too just in case they kick up once we are airborne.' That would make for interesting headlines.
The fact is the airline has a responsibility to all their paying customers to ensure they are all treated well, so long as their behaviour is within decent civilised standards. In this case, it may well be that some people breached those standards, but if 30 people breached them are you saying the police are so ineffective they couldn't even find enough evidence to arrest one of them?
I don't have any police training - I've had my car broken into a few times though! Does that count as legal experience?
I note from your profile you are now a Captain - hence you must have a fair amount of aviation experience. I therefore deduce that your police experience must have been quite some time ago, and is of limited relevance now.
However, I'm sure you will be aware of the Scottish term 'breach of the peace'. An offence which needs no physical evidence and which would be easily applicable if the customer behaviour was as alleged by FlyBe.
I'm also sure you will equally be aware there is no such crime as 'guilt by association'. Therefore you will no doubt be clear that if one Tesco manager misbehaves, not all Tesco managers are guilty. Hence there is no justification for throwing all of them off the flight. That really is absolute nonsense.
Can you imagine the furore if ethnicity or religion was brought into it. 'Right we've got a drunk Catholic on the plane. Chuck him off and get rid of all the other Catholics too just in case they kick up once we are airborne.' That would make for interesting headlines.
The fact is the airline has a responsibility to all their paying customers to ensure they are all treated well, so long as their behaviour is within decent civilised standards. In this case, it may well be that some people breached those standards, but if 30 people breached them are you saying the police are so ineffective they couldn't even find enough evidence to arrest one of them?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sparky - I think that you are deliberately trying to cloud the issue. If you watch some of the police documentaries that show practically 24/7 on cable you will see that many drunks do not get arrested, despite being drunk and disorderly. This incident involved (apparently) the airline, ground staff and police.. The Police seem to have been happy with how it was all handled. Maybe the whole group objected, maybe the whole group were getting rowdy, maybe maybe maybe. Judging by the extreme lack of any info on here, we can't draw a conclusion either way, but you seem to think that because nobody was arrested, the captain must have been wrong.
Rubbish.
If Tesco thought they had been so hard done by, this would have been front page of the Sun by now. It hasn't been.
Rubbish.
If Tesco thought they had been so hard done by, this would have been front page of the Sun by now. It hasn't been.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sparkymarky
At the risk of turning this into a debate about law, let me just answer your points.
The law in this area hasn't changed a whole lot over the years, so I doubt there is any substantive change from what I said originally.
"Breach of the Peace", or any similar offences, all require witness evidence... the problem is, that if you cannot clearly identify the perpetrator, you have no choice (in aviation terms) but to remove everyone from the aircraft until you are sure that all those who are a risk, are identified and refused passage. The rest can then continue. This is, in fact, what seems to have happened. "Guilt by association" is a complete red herring.
Nobody is even remotely suggesting that religion or ethnicity have anything to do with this (or any similar cases).
In this case, the behaviour of some was NOT within decent civilised standards. More to the point, it was behaviour that was of significant concern from a safety standpoint, not to mention from the standpoint of the rights of the crew members to NOT suffer abuse at the hands of the passengers.
Police are trained to NOT go in with all guns blazing, all of the the time. If it is possible to calm the situation down, and satisfy all parties without making arrests, then that is what they do. If you want to see evidence of this, attend any reasonably-sized music festival, any Premier Division football match, etc.
Boisterous passengers don't necessarily commit a crime if they are considered likely by the crew to pose a threat - only if they actually become a threat. On the other hand, a crew only needs to have reasonable grounds to believe that they COULD pose a threat, to take the action that forms the basis of this thread.
Of course, if they are on an aircraft, and are drunk, they HAVE committed an offence- it is irrelevant how they came to be there.
What the Police do is at their discretion, unless there is a criminal offence, or the airline wishes to pursue a complaint based on the passengers behaviour.
At the risk of turning this into a debate about law, let me just answer your points.
The law in this area hasn't changed a whole lot over the years, so I doubt there is any substantive change from what I said originally.
"Breach of the Peace", or any similar offences, all require witness evidence... the problem is, that if you cannot clearly identify the perpetrator, you have no choice (in aviation terms) but to remove everyone from the aircraft until you are sure that all those who are a risk, are identified and refused passage. The rest can then continue. This is, in fact, what seems to have happened. "Guilt by association" is a complete red herring.
Nobody is even remotely suggesting that religion or ethnicity have anything to do with this (or any similar cases).
The fact is the airline has a responsibility to all their paying customers to ensure they are all treated well, so long as their behaviour is within decent civilised standards. In this case, it may well be that some people breached those standards, but if 30 people breached them are you saying the police are so ineffective they couldn't even find enough evidence to arrest one of them?
Police are trained to NOT go in with all guns blazing, all of the the time. If it is possible to calm the situation down, and satisfy all parties without making arrests, then that is what they do. If you want to see evidence of this, attend any reasonably-sized music festival, any Premier Division football match, etc.
Boisterous passengers don't necessarily commit a crime if they are considered likely by the crew to pose a threat - only if they actually become a threat. On the other hand, a crew only needs to have reasonable grounds to believe that they COULD pose a threat, to take the action that forms the basis of this thread.
Of course, if they are on an aircraft, and are drunk, they HAVE committed an offence- it is irrelevant how they came to be there.
What the Police do is at their discretion, unless there is a criminal offence, or the airline wishes to pursue a complaint based on the passengers behaviour.
Beagle described some of the passenger attitudes in the US-I know nothing about in Britain.
Over here, our society now looks for cheap things and for everything at a steep discount. A "Walmart attitude". Many people put on their lousiest clothes when they fly-are they ashamed to travel by air? Appearance can unconsciously affect behavior. Unfortunately, some of them forgot, somewhere along the way, that "good manners cost nothing", or were never taught......
Heard that expression on Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon"
If any passengers ever went out of control and refused to calm down (continue to interfere with cabin flight/ground duties), I would not hesitate, especially if the other crewmembers agree, to have airport security pull them off. If it were to be a long flight, might consider a diversion if threats were made by any passengers-but having loud drunks might not be clear cut, depending on the effects on those people not in their clique. The FARs (ANOs?) should back us up, but at least company policies would.
Over here, our society now looks for cheap things and for everything at a steep discount. A "Walmart attitude". Many people put on their lousiest clothes when they fly-are they ashamed to travel by air? Appearance can unconsciously affect behavior. Unfortunately, some of them forgot, somewhere along the way, that "good manners cost nothing", or were never taught......
Heard that expression on Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon"
If any passengers ever went out of control and refused to calm down (continue to interfere with cabin flight/ground duties), I would not hesitate, especially if the other crewmembers agree, to have airport security pull them off. If it were to be a long flight, might consider a diversion if threats were made by any passengers-but having loud drunks might not be clear cut, depending on the effects on those people not in their clique. The FARs (ANOs?) should back us up, but at least company policies would.
MOR, re:
"Of course, if they are on an aircraft, and are drunk, they HAVE committed an offence"
Out of interest what is the offence, if say the passenger is drunk but quiet and co-operative, or asleep?
And what is the definition of "drunk" under this offence.
"Of course, if they are on an aircraft, and are drunk, they HAVE committed an offence"
Out of interest what is the offence, if say the passenger is drunk but quiet and co-operative, or asleep?
And what is the definition of "drunk" under this offence.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/3/PAS_travelsafely.pdf
... noting particularly "It is an offence to enter an aircraft whilst drunk or to be drunk on board an aircraft"
Or this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF
Section 1, Part V, Article 65 refers. This is more specific than the first one, which is meant for passengers.
What does "drunk" mean? Good question. I tried finding a definition and failed miserably. However, I doubt you could go far wrong by using the drink/drive limit as a basis. It should also be possible to apply sobriety tests, as some police forces are now doing in the UK (particularly in Scotland).
I don't really care, in any case. If I think a person is drunk, they won't be getting on any aircraft I command. If they can prove to me (or a police officer) that they are not drunk, I'll let them travel.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/3/PAS_travelsafely.pdf
... noting particularly "It is an offence to enter an aircraft whilst drunk or to be drunk on board an aircraft"
Or this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF
Section 1, Part V, Article 65 refers. This is more specific than the first one, which is meant for passengers.
What does "drunk" mean? Good question. I tried finding a definition and failed miserably. However, I doubt you could go far wrong by using the drink/drive limit as a basis. It should also be possible to apply sobriety tests, as some police forces are now doing in the UK (particularly in Scotland).
I don't really care, in any case. If I think a person is drunk, they won't be getting on any aircraft I command. If they can prove to me (or a police officer) that they are not drunk, I'll let them travel.
Last edited by MOR; 21st May 2004 at 09:26.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again. Sorry for the delay replying - been a bit busy for the last few days.
Just to be clear on one thing, if anyone was proved to be committing any wrongful action then I've no sympathy for them, and of course they, and they only, should be denied travel. However, it seems to me there are a few things which don't add up here...
For passengers to be ejected, the cabin crew and (probably) flight crew must have witnessed something. Hence witnesses exist. Otherwise their behaviour would be incorrect.
If, as alleged, passengers were drunk on the aircraft, why would the airline not wish to pursue a complaint? After all we are supposed to be operating in a zero tolerance environment, where people who make daft jokes to check in staff end up behind bars.
Most importantly, unless someone can prove that all of the passengers who were ejected were behaving incorrectly, then they have been badly treated by the airline. This is why I made the point about 'guilt by association' not being a valid attitude.
Paying customers - who committed no wrongful action - appear to have been denied travel by the airline without justifiable cause.
As for Mr Chips, how many of the police documentaries you watch on cable showed people who were drunk and disorderly on board aircraft? If you are trying to compare the treatment of drunks outside a nightclub at 3am with the treatment of drunks on board a commercial aircraft then that is an extremely flawed comparison. It's an even more flawed argument to say that because some people get away with it, everyone should - two wrongs do not make a right!
Just to be clear on one thing, if anyone was proved to be committing any wrongful action then I've no sympathy for them, and of course they, and they only, should be denied travel. However, it seems to me there are a few things which don't add up here...
For passengers to be ejected, the cabin crew and (probably) flight crew must have witnessed something. Hence witnesses exist. Otherwise their behaviour would be incorrect.
If, as alleged, passengers were drunk on the aircraft, why would the airline not wish to pursue a complaint? After all we are supposed to be operating in a zero tolerance environment, where people who make daft jokes to check in staff end up behind bars.
Most importantly, unless someone can prove that all of the passengers who were ejected were behaving incorrectly, then they have been badly treated by the airline. This is why I made the point about 'guilt by association' not being a valid attitude.
Paying customers - who committed no wrongful action - appear to have been denied travel by the airline without justifiable cause.
As for Mr Chips, how many of the police documentaries you watch on cable showed people who were drunk and disorderly on board aircraft? If you are trying to compare the treatment of drunks outside a nightclub at 3am with the treatment of drunks on board a commercial aircraft then that is an extremely flawed comparison. It's an even more flawed argument to say that because some people get away with it, everyone should - two wrongs do not make a right!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question, Frankfurt Cowboy.
However, when I went back and looked, there was around 7 or 8 pages of debate on the issue at the time, that ran for around 2 weeks or so.
It was all much along the same lines as this one, except that one took longer to come to court.
I also believe the legislation has changed since then, giving judges and magistrates some new "tools" to deal with Air Rage/ Drunken / Disruptive Passengers.
However, when I went back and looked, there was around 7 or 8 pages of debate on the issue at the time, that ran for around 2 weeks or so.
It was all much along the same lines as this one, except that one took longer to come to court.
I also believe the legislation has changed since then, giving judges and magistrates some new "tools" to deal with Air Rage/ Drunken / Disruptive Passengers.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For passengers to be ejected, the cabin crew and (probably) flight crew must have witnessed something. Hence witnesses exist.
If, as alleged, passengers were drunk on the aircraft, why would the airline not wish to pursue a complaint?
Of course I do not know (and neither do you) how far down the track any complaint has gone.
Most importantly, unless someone can prove that all of the passengers who were ejected were behaving incorrectly, then they have been badly treated by the airline. This is why I made the point about 'guilt by association' not being a valid attitude.
In any case, once the police are called, it is their hands.
Paying customers - who committed no wrongful action - appear to have been denied travel by the airline without justifiable cause.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also work for the company and have flown with the Captain involved on many occasions. Was also with him when we had a similar problem with a young squaddie, (think he was drunk), being abusive to our No.1.
I know he wouldn't make any rash decisions and I would back his actions 110%.
The Captain, (commander of the aircraft remember!) made a decision and had the pax offloaded, end of story.
I know he wouldn't make any rash decisions and I would back his actions 110%.
The Captain, (commander of the aircraft remember!) made a decision and had the pax offloaded, end of story.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come this is open to debate and yet the Astreaus non-incidents were deleted almost immediately? Oh hang on....
Two are still open, one was closed with around 285 posts since it was starting to go around the same buoy over and over, and the other was closed presumably since the topic was well covered in the other three and added nothing new.
Oh hang on .... can't spoil a good conspiracy theory
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
I think we are almost at the 'buoy circling' point in this debate, but your last post has a very interesting point to be addressed...
According to the following quote from the BBC website which was linked to at the start of this thread......
"'The 54 passengers had already boarded the plane bound for Belfast City Airport at about 2030 BST.
The captain then decided to off-load the aircraft in order to identify those causing the disturbance.
As a result, 37 passengers who were part of a group of Tesco store managers, were grounded in Glasgow.
The 17 passengers remaining on the plane did make it home, but those taken off spent the night in Glasgow and were forced to pay for new tickets for flights on Thursday morning."
So, if this is true, 17 passengers unconnected to Tesco were allowed to travel, 37 passengers connected to Tesco were not allowed to travel. This certainly seems to me to be guilt by association.
You also state the passengers were not 'denied travel'. I'll admit in a strictly legal sense they were not completely denied travel - they were merely denied travel on the flight they had paid for, and forced to spend an extra night away from their homes. They were allowed to travel on a flight the next day, after, according to the BBC, being 'forced to pay for new tickets'.
So, according to you, only a few of the 37 passengers misbehaved. According to the BBC all of the passengers had to buy new tickets. Is this correct? If so, what is the justification? If any of the passengers who were kept behind were non Tesco staff would they have been forced to buy new tickets too?
I think we are almost at the 'buoy circling' point in this debate, but your last post has a very interesting point to be addressed...
They weren't denied travel, they were delayed. And it wasn't the fault of the airline: it was completely the fault of the (few) pax who chose to behave in an offensive manner (drunk, or not).
"'The 54 passengers had already boarded the plane bound for Belfast City Airport at about 2030 BST.
The captain then decided to off-load the aircraft in order to identify those causing the disturbance.
As a result, 37 passengers who were part of a group of Tesco store managers, were grounded in Glasgow.
The 17 passengers remaining on the plane did make it home, but those taken off spent the night in Glasgow and were forced to pay for new tickets for flights on Thursday morning."
So, if this is true, 17 passengers unconnected to Tesco were allowed to travel, 37 passengers connected to Tesco were not allowed to travel. This certainly seems to me to be guilt by association.
You also state the passengers were not 'denied travel'. I'll admit in a strictly legal sense they were not completely denied travel - they were merely denied travel on the flight they had paid for, and forced to spend an extra night away from their homes. They were allowed to travel on a flight the next day, after, according to the BBC, being 'forced to pay for new tickets'.
So, according to you, only a few of the 37 passengers misbehaved. According to the BBC all of the passengers had to buy new tickets. Is this correct? If so, what is the justification? If any of the passengers who were kept behind were non Tesco staff would they have been forced to buy new tickets too?