Advice Required
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem ASB is in your expectation.
The Captain doesn't have to investigate further, or indeed investigate at all. He/she has the right to refuse carriage as they see fit. They cannot be compelled to carry anybody or anything that they are unhappy with. Certainly the carrier can replace the commander if they wish, but that would be highly unusual and certainly impractical. The captain as well as their statutory powers, are also representatives of the company. Away from base, they are often the senior representative of their company. If you believe their action has been detrimental to you, then you might have a case for breach of contract against the company concerned.
I understand your annoyance, and your distress. However having tried to explain what happens generally in these type of circumstances, you seem to be going round in circles. From what you have said, the captain made a decision to exclude you based on the information provided to him. Clearly that decision affected you adversely. The action he took was nevertheless lawful for the reasons already given. You claim that the captains decision meant that the airline with whom you had a contract, failed in its fulfillment of that contract.
You need to speak to a solicitor for advice on how to proceed.
Maybe, but provided he has acted within the legal framework of his authority and has safely operated the aircraft and safely conveyed the passengers, crew and cargo to a destination, then he has done his job. In consideration of this, he has the right to refuse carriage to any passengers and cargo he sees fit, and he is under no obligation to operate the flight unless he is absolutely satisfied to do so.
The Captain doesn't have to investigate further, or indeed investigate at all. He/she has the right to refuse carriage as they see fit. They cannot be compelled to carry anybody or anything that they are unhappy with. Certainly the carrier can replace the commander if they wish, but that would be highly unusual and certainly impractical. The captain as well as their statutory powers, are also representatives of the company. Away from base, they are often the senior representative of their company. If you believe their action has been detrimental to you, then you might have a case for breach of contract against the company concerned.
I understand your annoyance, and your distress. However having tried to explain what happens generally in these type of circumstances, you seem to be going round in circles. From what you have said, the captain made a decision to exclude you based on the information provided to him. Clearly that decision affected you adversely. The action he took was nevertheless lawful for the reasons already given. You claim that the captains decision meant that the airline with whom you had a contract, failed in its fulfillment of that contract.
You need to speak to a solicitor for advice on how to proceed.
Co-incidentally, the captain may have just demonstrated the same ignorant characteristics that the chief executive of the airline has shown in the past.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub,
I agree, I'm going to seek legal advice on my position. It just seems the t&c's are fully loaded against me, and as I behaved in a fully compliant manner all round, I deem them to be unfair, but you're right, one for the legal profession.
As per my aim of the post, I seek precedent's I could call upon, however and rather alarmingly, they seem very thin on the ground.
I agree, I'm going to seek legal advice on my position. It just seems the t&c's are fully loaded against me, and as I behaved in a fully compliant manner all round, I deem them to be unfair, but you're right, one for the legal profession.
As per my aim of the post, I seek precedent's I could call upon, however and rather alarmingly, they seem very thin on the ground.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously fella, I'd just let it go and get on with your life. Put it down to experience...
In over over 150 sectors commuting to AMS & occasionally ABZ, I've only ever seen one person off-loaded by a Captain (with 2 burly baggage handlers lurking about...!) and that was for some seriously obnoxious behaviour towards the lone cabin crew on an EMB145, so I'm quite convinced that something precipitated this situation and you may just be prolonging your misery by pursuing this in the courts as the airline was well within their rights to eject you.
Same as a pub landlord can basically refuse you entry to his premises for whatever reason he wishes.
In over over 150 sectors commuting to AMS & occasionally ABZ, I've only ever seen one person off-loaded by a Captain (with 2 burly baggage handlers lurking about...!) and that was for some seriously obnoxious behaviour towards the lone cabin crew on an EMB145, so I'm quite convinced that something precipitated this situation and you may just be prolonging your misery by pursuing this in the courts as the airline was well within their rights to eject you.
Same as a pub landlord can basically refuse you entry to his premises for whatever reason he wishes.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's strange! aScottishBloke must feel that the airline's decision was unjustified.
Putting the boot on the other foot, I was working at Gatwick at the time we had the "nutter" storm the BA2069 NBO flight with a knife and the 747 aircraft went out of control while the Flight Crew and the Upper Deck Club passengers fought him. The "nutter" acted suspiciously all the way through the airport and was assessed by check in staff, the police and the flying crew - all of whom thought he was screwy but well enough to fly!
Given that instances of "ground rage" and "air rage" are at unprecedented levels, the airline and the captain must retain the right to offload a passenger on suspicion. The collective safety of the crew and the other passengers must come first. Similarly, if a passenger appears unwell, the captain should refuse to take him/her (a) because of the risk of other passengers becoming infected and (b) the risk of diversion, together with the costs involved and the inconvenience to other passengers.
In giving the airline, through its staff, the right to deny boarding, for sure the odd mistake is going to happen! (It certainly did in the fallout from 09/11 when anyone who wore a long beard might be offloaded or relegated to a rear seat where the crew could keep an eagle eye on you!)
Now we can see the angle from both viewpoints. The answer I think lies in people behaving "normally". All too often, groups of lads going to stag weekends behave in the airport like yobs and either receive a stern "talking to" or are denied travel with no hope of refund! Sometimes, in a big show of bravado, they try to steal life-jackets from the aircraft - as far as BA is concerned, that is serious and can result in a travel "ban", if not prosecution, for interfering with the safety of an aircraft! We even had a group of Italian schoolchildren trying to vandalise the interior of a B737!
Given that most captains will have been involved in a fair few serious incidents involving passengers, and most members of our judiciary will have read about the growing problems of air/ground rage, I think you have an uphill climb to prove you were discriminated against unfairly!
Keep us posted on what Flying Lawyer thinks and what outcome, if any!
Putting the boot on the other foot, I was working at Gatwick at the time we had the "nutter" storm the BA2069 NBO flight with a knife and the 747 aircraft went out of control while the Flight Crew and the Upper Deck Club passengers fought him. The "nutter" acted suspiciously all the way through the airport and was assessed by check in staff, the police and the flying crew - all of whom thought he was screwy but well enough to fly!
Given that instances of "ground rage" and "air rage" are at unprecedented levels, the airline and the captain must retain the right to offload a passenger on suspicion. The collective safety of the crew and the other passengers must come first. Similarly, if a passenger appears unwell, the captain should refuse to take him/her (a) because of the risk of other passengers becoming infected and (b) the risk of diversion, together with the costs involved and the inconvenience to other passengers.
In giving the airline, through its staff, the right to deny boarding, for sure the odd mistake is going to happen! (It certainly did in the fallout from 09/11 when anyone who wore a long beard might be offloaded or relegated to a rear seat where the crew could keep an eagle eye on you!)
Now we can see the angle from both viewpoints. The answer I think lies in people behaving "normally". All too often, groups of lads going to stag weekends behave in the airport like yobs and either receive a stern "talking to" or are denied travel with no hope of refund! Sometimes, in a big show of bravado, they try to steal life-jackets from the aircraft - as far as BA is concerned, that is serious and can result in a travel "ban", if not prosecution, for interfering with the safety of an aircraft! We even had a group of Italian schoolchildren trying to vandalise the interior of a B737!
Given that most captains will have been involved in a fair few serious incidents involving passengers, and most members of our judiciary will have read about the growing problems of air/ground rage, I think you have an uphill climb to prove you were discriminated against unfairly!
Keep us posted on what Flying Lawyer thinks and what outcome, if any!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That I find it extremely hard to believe that a lady just took dislike to you.. if you had done NOTHING. It sounds rediculous and I am sure your holding something back.
People don't just take dislike and risk themselves being offloaded for no reason!
People don't just take dislike and risk themselves being offloaded for no reason!
If I were you aScottishBloke, I wouldn't waste my time going to court, in this case it seems like you would loose anyway as has been stated, the odds are heavily against you. Trial by media would probably have a much better result. Get on to the Daily Record or other similar paper. The bad publicity may well loose the airline more business from other football fans than it would have cost them to re-imburse you and your group.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIAR
You have proved yourself to tell stories and mistruth's on many forums on other sites.I like ur dating agency profile btw.
PS:I would have also refused to board with horrible inbred lout like yourself.Much lve from you know who!
PS:I would have also refused to board with horrible inbred lout like yourself.Much lve from you know who!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FarFarAway
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear....
Anyone up for Jeremy Kyle/ Jerry Springer?
Stand by, don't start before i get me popcorn and the required fizzy drink.
(mins later)
Got them. Let the games begin!
Rgds,
ATS
Anyone up for Jeremy Kyle/ Jerry Springer?
Stand by, don't start before i get me popcorn and the required fizzy drink.
(mins later)
Got them. Let the games begin!
Rgds,
ATS
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 56
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spamfritters
I've seen people ejected from various premises because of the say-so of one person when they have done nothing wrong.
I've seen people escorted from Heathrow on the say-so of one nervous passenger despite doing nothing whatsoever.
I've seen people taken off trains because one person said "he tried to grope me/said things sexually offensive" when all he did was hold out a hand to stop her falling or she heard a conversation that was nothing to do with her.
Let me put it this way, if you have a nervous/ panicky/tipsy/drugged/whatever woman and she says something, whether she claims it was abuse/they are drunk/whatever then most times they will believe the woman, especially if anything sexual is involved. For all we know, ASG could be lying. But, on the other hand, the woman could have taken offence because she tried to chat up one of his friends and he told her he wasn't interested. It is as simple as that, and what happens on the streets of London DOES have bearing on the actions of the crew as it is EXACTLY the same scenario no matter where it is.
Yes, they had been drinking but how do you know she wasn't under the influence or suffering the after effects of some sort of drug, legal or otherwise? After all, if ASG is to believed, she had already been refused carriage so that should have set alarm bells ringing with the Captain.
Peace
I've seen people ejected from various premises because of the say-so of one person when they have done nothing wrong.
I've seen people escorted from Heathrow on the say-so of one nervous passenger despite doing nothing whatsoever.
I've seen people taken off trains because one person said "he tried to grope me/said things sexually offensive" when all he did was hold out a hand to stop her falling or she heard a conversation that was nothing to do with her.
Let me put it this way, if you have a nervous/ panicky/tipsy/drugged/whatever woman and she says something, whether she claims it was abuse/they are drunk/whatever then most times they will believe the woman, especially if anything sexual is involved. For all we know, ASG could be lying. But, on the other hand, the woman could have taken offence because she tried to chat up one of his friends and he told her he wasn't interested. It is as simple as that, and what happens on the streets of London DOES have bearing on the actions of the crew as it is EXACTLY the same scenario no matter where it is.
Yes, they had been drinking but how do you know she wasn't under the influence or suffering the after effects of some sort of drug, legal or otherwise? After all, if ASG is to believed, she had already been refused carriage so that should have set alarm bells ringing with the Captain.
Peace
