Passenger walk out - BA286 - SFO to LHR - Friday 7 March

[creamegg]

I am one of those nervous flyers lol. Having said that I have never stopped a plane from departing and hopefully never will. However I do think that if someone is having a complete wobbly and freaking out and they cant be calmed down or helped then it is the right thing to do for them and everyone else around them to let them of the plane even if it delays subsequent flights. I as a SLF would be understanding if I heard my flight was delayed because of an incident with a nervous passenger, and I think most people would.

Panic attacks are rotten, I have suffered with them all my life, and you never know when they are going to strike! So in that sense it is difficult to pre empt any problem.

Generally though I think if more nervous passengers found out more about how aircraft works and the noises and sounds you are liable to hear etc beforehand then this would help no end. I know it helped me, although on my last flight I was pretty sure I was going to die lol as the turbulence was so bad! However I was wrong and our wonderful captain and crew got us home safely, you are all very talented people in my eyes thats for sure.

[Mr Quite Happy]

Is there anywhere in your world where you cant keep your S*** together? There must have been some time in your life where you almost or did lose it.

Sure, but strangely we're specifically talking about fear of flying and getting on a damned plane. It is not a discussion about some issue I had in 1995 by being shelled for 5 hours by Bosnian Serb artillery, it is to do with somebody getting on a plane, and, more importantly, its to do with the airlines ability to respond.

We are human we are not robots, people have fear, i have fear of flying but when i get off the plane and see the joys of other parts of the world im not fearful. So in your opinion as you say I shouldnt be allowed to enjoy parts of the world that someone like yourself can enjoy?

If it means travelling by plane, basically yes. Though couched in the terms I made earlier, that really, a carrier shouldn't HAVE TO carry you and should be able to bounce you at the booking stage if you previously didn't like the plane you were on and caused a delay/diversion etc. Its nothing to do with you, its to do with your effect on the rest of the plane.

maybe I got you wrong but I see someone who has selfish attitudes towards people with afflictions/fears, which to me surmounts to predjudice.

If you equate my thoughts that airlines should be able to refuse difficult passengers (people with afflictions/fears +) at booking to prejudice then I gotta tell you, you've spent too long getting those two degrees in medicine and not long enough studying economics? Speaking of degrees, its prejudice not predjudice, a surprising mistake for a doctor to make..

[Been hacked]

oh ooops Atishoo made a typo.

I think the poster posted a sensible and plausable argument there. Like they said "we are not robots". But then some people really think they are a cut above "enough said".

[Been hacked]

Mr Quite Happy, just for the record

pre jud ice hee hee

[rasobey]

For the record, I wouldn't voluntarily walk into a room full of snakes.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Once upon a time, pre 9/11, a bit of TLC, support, explanation and a flight deck visit would more often than not sooth the concerns of the nervous flyer.

If the lady had summoned enough courage to get on board and lost her nerve at the last minute it is hardly a hanging offence.

[MR7958]

We are getting into the realm of conjecture here, because none of us know precisely why this lady decided not to fly. Nor do we know whether it was her who had boarded a plane the previous evening, only to demand to be let out once the aircraft had pushed back.

Nevertheless, for the sake of debate let us presume the facts are as follows:

1) On Thursday evening Miss X boards a plane, honestly believing she wanted to fly from SFO to LHR;

2) She had a panic attack as the plane began to move and asked to be let off;

3) On Friday she gets back on a SFO to LHR flight and has the same thing happen;

4) As a result of this two 747s are delayed by more than an hour, with some knock on effect for connecting pax and economic loss of some sort for the airline.

To my mind, the question is for how long can/should an airline allow this to happen. Most of us would agree, I think, that a passenger ought not be allowed to delay a flight a day for the rest of her life. Similarly, it has to be the case that having a panic attack on one flight is not a 'hanging offence' and ought not bar someone from ever flying again.

When do you bring down the guillotine and stop Miss X from getting on board your aircraft, knowing (or at least reasonably expecting) that she will not, in the end, want to fly?

[tablelover]

Hang on guys, if the pax was nervous give her a break! What about banning businessmen/women who delay flights because they are late to the aircraft due using the lounge/belief the aircraft will wait for them? What about banning pax who delay the cabin secure because of refusing to turn off phones/computers when told to thus delaying departure?

There would be no passengers left!

[indamiddle]

as former ground staff and currently cabin crew i have seen over my 27 years in aviation a number of people refuse to board/ refuse to stay on board. these have nearly all involved an element of 'fear of flying'. no-one can force a passenger to remain on an aircraft due to elevating a panic attack to hysteria or worse. 2 problems.possible medical problem in flight, possible legal problem for the airline in the future.
the strangest refuse to board was an operating crew member, their phobia arose while overseas. 15 years later they still do not fly.
ground staff and all crew are very compassionate with all these passengers and will try their best to help but sometimes the passenger (with their bags) have to be unloaded. while a rare event, should this occur on one of your flights try to consider the thoughts or terror being experienced by the passenger

[cockney steve]

inconsiderate? whom?

I consider it selfish and inconsiderate, in the extreme, to hold up a scheduled, commercial transport undertaking due to an irrational fear.

As a doctor (is that a medical doctorate? ) the poster Atishoo should be well aware of the disruption to a lot of other peoples' business that this causes,because of the sufferer's wilful refusal to look at the dozens of relaxed faces surrounding them,and rationalising their own fears...emotional maturity maybe?

There was/is a scheme operated at Manchester Airport,where persons adverse to flying could pay for a course of familiarisation and instruction,culminating in an actual flight.

I do not see any reason why persons unable to overcome their problems,should not make alternative travel arrangements.

In effect, you're saying it's OK for a nervous rail, bus,coach or ship passenger to summarily disrupt the journeyjust because they can't "hack" it.

And NO you don't have a right to holiday in majorca , if you're in an iron Lung or 8 months pregnant, or whatever...life's unfair,get over it.

[barry lloyd]

There's a simple solution to this. Anyone who is a nervous flyer declares this at check-in. A discreet tag is put on their bag, and a note is made of whereabouts on the aircraft it is loaded. If they find that they can't travel, the bag can be quickly located, whether it's a 747 or a 748, and offloaded, keeping the inconvenience to all parties and costs to a minimum.

[Mr Quite Happy]

BAN THEM!!!