Getting trapped airside - when does it become "false imprisonment"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting trapped airside - when does it become "false imprisonment"?
A few days ago I was airside at LGW, about to board a flight with a well known low cost operator. As usual, the flight was delayed, delayed again, and again, then eventually cancelled. The next available flight that they could offer was six hours later. Unfortunately for me, this alternative was of no use at all as I could not make the appointment that I was flying to, so I decided not to go, and reschedule for another day.
I therefore made my way back into the airside lounge and asked at the information desk the procedure for getting back out into the main terminal. I was told to wait, and somebody would come to escort me over. Half an hour later, nobody had turned up. An hour later still nobody came. Eventually, an hour and a half later, a worked from the airline finally turned up to escort me back into the main terminal.
Effectively I was therefore held airside against my will for an hour and a half. Apart from the shoddy customer service from BAA and said airline, is this legal?
I therefore made my way back into the airside lounge and asked at the information desk the procedure for getting back out into the main terminal. I was told to wait, and somebody would come to escort me over. Half an hour later, nobody had turned up. An hour later still nobody came. Eventually, an hour and a half later, a worked from the airline finally turned up to escort me back into the main terminal.
Effectively I was therefore held airside against my will for an hour and a half. Apart from the shoddy customer service from BAA and said airline, is this legal?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport is a secure restricted area. It is governed by various statutes and also by bylaws that you agree to observe and comply with when you enter. You have no right of entry.
From what you have said, because of the delays to your flight you elected not to travel and asked for somebody to escort you out of the airports restricted security area. Your complaint is with the length of time it took for somebody to become available to assist you in your request.
Nobody forced you into that situation against your will, or held you in that situation in order to violate a law, so I think you would have a difficult case convincing anybody that you were falsely imprisoned? Nobody refused to assist you, and it was not inconceivable that it took some time for anybody to become available to assist you in your request.
I am sure you can bring it to the attention of the airport operator (BAA) for a better explanation, and a solicitor can better advise you regarding your legal enquiry. I would have thought a snowball in hell would have a much better chance than your assertion of "false imprisonment" though?
From what you have said, because of the delays to your flight you elected not to travel and asked for somebody to escort you out of the airports restricted security area. Your complaint is with the length of time it took for somebody to become available to assist you in your request.
Nobody forced you into that situation against your will, or held you in that situation in order to violate a law, so I think you would have a difficult case convincing anybody that you were falsely imprisoned? Nobody refused to assist you, and it was not inconceivable that it took some time for anybody to become available to assist you in your request.
I am sure you can bring it to the attention of the airport operator (BAA) for a better explanation, and a solicitor can better advise you regarding your legal enquiry. I would have thought a snowball in hell would have a much better chance than your assertion of "false imprisonment" though?
give us a break sunshine
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all airports of the world that I've visited to far, exit from departure area is close to security check, basically taking the inverse path. There, usually you will find also police officers to address if in doubt.
It is not necessary nor appropriate to ask airline to facilitate your exit. You have the right to leave at any time.
Then if the LGW airport is different in that, someone should explain exactly how and why.
Once, at Madrid I found myself in a situation where the corresponding entry/exit had been closed because it was very late in the night. I walked to an immigration check staffed by police, the officer didn't wanted me to pass in the "wrong direction" first. When I let him know that I had no alternative to leave, he let me through.
It is not necessary nor appropriate to ask airline to facilitate your exit. You have the right to leave at any time.
Then if the LGW airport is different in that, someone should explain exactly how and why.
Once, at Madrid I found myself in a situation where the corresponding entry/exit had been closed because it was very late in the night. I walked to an immigration check staffed by police, the officer didn't wanted me to pass in the "wrong direction" first. When I let him know that I had no alternative to leave, he let me through.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not necessary nor appropriate to ask airline to facilitate your exit. You have the right to leave at any time.
Then if the LGW airport is different in that, someone should explain exactly how and why.
Then if the LGW airport is different in that, someone should explain exactly how and why.
By the way I am not thinking of really taking them to court, I am just intrigued that BAA seemed to think it within their remit to hold me airside.
From what you have said, because of the delays to your flight you elected not to travel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best thing is to call their bluff, make them call the Police and have them escort you out. I suspect that so long as you do not swear or become aggresive they are unlikely to charge you.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read certain threads here, you will see how security in the UK doesn't really know their own rules and is generally staffed by a bunch on incompetent underpaid monkeys.
Do not hesitate in having police summoned if that happens to you a next time.
Take the name of the people that has treated your rudely, including supervisors. They will refuse, you insist - again in presence of the police.
Tell them that you will write a formal complain, (to which they invariably reply that they don't care) - then write the complain for real at that point they may indeed be replaced, as monkey labour is cheap.
Do not hesitate in having police summoned if that happens to you a next time.
Take the name of the people that has treated your rudely, including supervisors. They will refuse, you insist - again in presence of the police.
Tell them that you will write a formal complain, (to which they invariably reply that they don't care) - then write the complain for real at that point they may indeed be replaced, as monkey labour is cheap.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next available flight that they could offer was six hours later. Unfortunately for me, this alternative was of no use at all as I could not make the appointment that I was flying to, so I decided not to go, and reschedule for another day.
I am just intrigued that BAA seemed to think it within their remit to hold me airside.
I can understand your frustration at it taking 90 minutes to get somebody to escort you back landside, and in regards to this complaint I wouldn't otherwise comment, however it isn't false imprisonment. The security staff would be absolutely correct in calling the Police if you refused to comply with the proper security procedures and it would be most unwise to argue the point unless you were absolutely sure of your assertion. To the poster who refers to these staff as "monkeys", they are individuals doing their job. However much you dislike that job, or anybody employed to do it, they are required to follow rules (even if they dislike those rules), or face dismissal.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub, would be good to know if what you're saying comes from a position you have or other direct experience.
Go read the thread in "security and pilots", the moniker I've used is actually kind compared to right reaction to harassment routinely reported. You are welcome in venting your defense of the security worker in there, I pretty much guarantee that this will resize your attitude of defending the undefendable (stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance).
Your pompous writing, all inclined to demonstrate that "you better not challenge authority" is of the exact kind that out friend Flying Lawyer dispelled all the time. Luckily for the ones he routinely demonstrated wrong, he has now moved to higher duties (UK Magistrate) to have the time to respond here.
Finally:
pass back from that area without following the appropriate procedures
Please let us know what document states the procedures. Hope you won't use the excuse that this cannot be disclosed for security reasons, as that would be definitely laughable.
I suspect the only procedure is to take the dedicated corridor.
Go read the thread in "security and pilots", the moniker I've used is actually kind compared to right reaction to harassment routinely reported. You are welcome in venting your defense of the security worker in there, I pretty much guarantee that this will resize your attitude of defending the undefendable (stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance).
Your pompous writing, all inclined to demonstrate that "you better not challenge authority" is of the exact kind that out friend Flying Lawyer dispelled all the time. Luckily for the ones he routinely demonstrated wrong, he has now moved to higher duties (UK Magistrate) to have the time to respond here.
Finally:
pass back from that area without following the appropriate procedures
Please let us know what document states the procedures. Hope you won't use the excuse that this cannot be disclosed for security reasons, as that would be definitely laughable.
I suspect the only procedure is to take the dedicated corridor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for reversal might be as in your case, elective. It might be denied boarding on the airlines part for whatever reason.
If my flight had been delayed, I would agree with you that it was elective that I chose not to wait for the delayed flight. But in this case my flight was CANCELLED, and I was given a full refund.
I could have chosen to accept the offer of an alternative flight, but as my booked flight had been cancelled I was equally entitled to accept the refund and leave the terminal.
The issue is whether BAA and/or the airline are then entitled to hold the passenger airside at their own convenience, which is what happened to me.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The position is from a Gatwick based pilot for over 20 years and a familiarity with the operation at that airport as well as seeing the changes that have taken place over that same time period.
I have read the thread in "Rumours & News", however its relevance here is tenuous. Your "moniker" is not kind. It is insulting churlish and infantile, just as it is when it is directed against sportsmen and racing drivers. Far from "venting" a defence, I am stating the defacto situation.
This brought a wry smile to my pompous face. I am sure the distinguished gentleman would appreciate a well presented argument although I am not sure he would count amongst his friends those who call people "monkeys" in an attempt to be "kind"? Perhaps he will respond, who knows?
In order to procure the "appropriate document" you would need to contact the airport operator or possibly the DfT. I cannot disclose it without having access to it, however the rules do not permit an individual to pass back through the security point at Gatwick as the complainant was clearly told.
CirrusF,
Yes I understand your flight was eventually cancelled, but you stated the airline then offered you a choice. Take a flight 6 hours later, or cancel. You chose (elected) the latter. Presumably there were others in the same position? Some of them would have had to retrieve baggage. The airline would have arranged for them to be escorted to baggage reclaim and then back into the terminal. Did they all have to wait for 90 minutes? Were you the only one? Did you not wait for the airline/agents instruction?
In any event you cannot simply decide for yourself how you will leave the secure area as indeed you didn't, and again it is unfortunate you had to wait 90 minutes for somebody to escort you through.
I have read the thread in "Rumours & News", however its relevance here is tenuous. Your "moniker" is not kind. It is insulting churlish and infantile, just as it is when it is directed against sportsmen and racing drivers. Far from "venting" a defence, I am stating the defacto situation.
Your pompous writing, all inclined to demonstrate that "you better not challenge authority" is of the exact kind that out friend Flying Lawyer dispelled all the time. Luckily for the ones he routinely demonstrated wrong, he has now moved to higher duties (UK Magistrate) to have the time to respond here.
In order to procure the "appropriate document" you would need to contact the airport operator or possibly the DfT. I cannot disclose it without having access to it, however the rules do not permit an individual to pass back through the security point at Gatwick as the complainant was clearly told.
CirrusF,
Yes I understand your flight was eventually cancelled, but you stated the airline then offered you a choice. Take a flight 6 hours later, or cancel. You chose (elected) the latter. Presumably there were others in the same position? Some of them would have had to retrieve baggage. The airline would have arranged for them to be escorted to baggage reclaim and then back into the terminal. Did they all have to wait for 90 minutes? Were you the only one? Did you not wait for the airline/agents instruction?
In any event you cannot simply decide for yourself how you will leave the secure area as indeed you didn't, and again it is unfortunate you had to wait 90 minutes for somebody to escort you through.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus, it doesn't make any difference for what reason you wanted to leave.
You have the right to leave anytime and nobody can stop or delay you from doing so.
That is true for all the countries of the world.
However to claim that one was imprisoned, that would to be confined in a physically segregated area, while actually you were left free to wander around finding your way out
You have the right to leave anytime and nobody can stop or delay you from doing so.
That is true for all the countries of the world.
However to claim that one was imprisoned, that would to be confined in a physically segregated area, while actually you were left free to wander around finding your way out
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the rest aside..
however the rules do not permit an individual to pass back through the security point at Gatwick.
Nor in any other Airport of the world. You leave using a dedicated corridor, that usually has a door (might be of the kind that can be opened from inside only) and might be guarded to make sure it is used for exit only. Usually this corridor is just by the side of the security check, but not necessarily have to. If the airport need to escort you through this exit, that is OK too.
as the complainant was clearly told.
He never asked to pass security backwards... again please pay more attention to what he actually wrote.
I rest my case, you would benefit from an exchange on the matter with your fellow pilots. Or it is that you have the right to creative naming, while PAX doesn't ?
it is unfortunate you had to wait 90 minutes for somebody to escort you through.
It's not just unfortunate, is unacceptable.
however the rules do not permit an individual to pass back through the security point at Gatwick.
Nor in any other Airport of the world. You leave using a dedicated corridor, that usually has a door (might be of the kind that can be opened from inside only) and might be guarded to make sure it is used for exit only. Usually this corridor is just by the side of the security check, but not necessarily have to. If the airport need to escort you through this exit, that is OK too.
as the complainant was clearly told.
He never asked to pass security backwards... again please pay more attention to what he actually wrote.
I rest my case, you would benefit from an exchange on the matter with your fellow pilots. Or it is that you have the right to creative naming, while PAX doesn't ?
it is unfortunate you had to wait 90 minutes for somebody to escort you through.
It's not just unfortunate, is unacceptable.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did ask the BAA security people if I could leave by the way I came in but they told me I couldn't.
He never asked to pass security backwards... again please pay more attention to what he actually wrote
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep... I have misread a sentence, and lost the argument.
CirrusSLF, it's all right, please promise not to use the wrong term again when wanting to leave airport, they were just in delaying and hassling you. That is just unfortunate, but it was elective of you wanting to leave after been given so many reasons to stay.
I also defeat on the hope of ever seeing Bealzebub take such a lovely attitude when championing airport secuirty to other Pilots. On the other hand, he must have a reputation already.
CirrusSLF, it's all right, please promise not to use the wrong term again when wanting to leave airport, they were just in delaying and hassling you. That is just unfortunate, but it was elective of you wanting to leave after been given so many reasons to stay.
I also defeat on the hope of ever seeing Bealzebub take such a lovely attitude when championing airport secuirty to other Pilots. On the other hand, he must have a reputation already.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was more or less what I thought. Surely it should be the airport security who facilitate exit, not the airline? I did ask the BAA security people if I could leave by the way I came in but they told me I couldn't. I asked them on what authority they could hold me, to which they said if I argued then they would call the police. So I asked them to call the police, at which point they started to get quite aggressive.
You were never imprisoned. That doesn't happen in airports, save for those who commit criminal acts, or unusual circumstances when security dictates so.
You copped an attitude with the airline personnel, and it's little wonder that you didn't get what you wanted right away.
Nobody "broke a contract" with you. One cannot hold up a ticket and say "This ticket represents a contract, and I'm holding you to it...fly me there now."
Flights are always subject to change, or cancellation, and cancellation or delaying of a flight is right and proper when the conditions warrant. You can imagine, perhaps, the hazard that might be posed if as a pilot I were forced to make a flight, or take an airplane that might not be safe or ready to fly. From a pilot perspective, when I make a safety of flight decision, it's not open for debate or discussion, and it's subject to no "contract." There's no authority which exceeds the pilot's authority in making that call; it's final.
A passenger doesn't have that authority.
While I certainly agree that an airline--any airline--should do whatever it can, within it's power, to serve the customer...you don't own the airline, and you don't set the security rules and regulations. Not having been there it's hard to say, but your comments strongly suggest you became arguementative with the people in the terminal. When you ask "By what authority can you hold me," you're accusing those personnel of "holding" or imprisoning you...surely you understand how this might be offensive?
A passenger who is excited, difficult, argumentative, combative, or otherwise problematic is a safety risk. In the same way you don't really want to use certain key words in the terminal, you also don't want to cop an attitude, because it probably won't be tolerated well.
It's not exactly the same as your situation, but I'll give you the example anyway. Some years ago I had a flight from A to C with a technical fuel stop at B, in between. I had a single passenger; a friend of the owner of the company, an investor, and a part owner of the airplane I was flying. When we arrived for fuel, the fueler had mysteriously vanished, and the fuel was locked...no fuel. This meant calls to dispatch and a change in plans. The passenger, clearly inconvenienced, became irate. He began to scream and yell. He jumped up and down. He turned a reddish purple color, balled up his fists, and was spitting as he screamed at me. He told me to do exactly what he said, told me he owned me, told me to get in the airplane and fly him where he wanted to go.
I politely approached him and informed him that he was a safety risk, and that I had just grounded the airplane and cancelled the flight. This did not improve his attitude. I then contacted the company and informed them of the same.
A short time later he was able to regain his composure. I made alternate arrangements, diverted to a nearby airfield for fuel, and eventually took his destination.
I'm not suggesting that you're that person. That was a very extreme case; almost cartoon-esque in it's exaggerated behavior. However, it does illustrate the difference in perspective. From the passenger's perspective, he was paying a lot of money, and had a lot invested, and felt he had a lot of rights. From my perspective, it was a little different, as I explained to him:
"Sir, I appreciate your frustration, and can only apologize on behalf of the company for this situation. I am unable to take off and fly in search of fuel. We will need to make arrangements and a new flight plan to a location where we will fuel. Until that time, please let me offer you something to eat and drink and a quiet place to relax, and we shall be underway as soon as possible."
To my mind, that's customer service at the grass roots level. However, had we been in a location where secure procedures were in effect, I wouldn't have had that opportunity. He probably would have been arrested for his behavior, with or without my input. Being at the airport, in the terminal, in a secure location, becoming argumentative with the airport or airline personnel won't do anything to help your case; you can only dig yourself into a deeper hole. You may not like to hear this, but it's probably the best advice you can get all day. Yes, you're a paying customer, and yes, your patronage is valued and important. Yes, you're important. Yes, you deserve to be escorted promptly and if you wish, to receive a refund or a rebooking. HOWEVER...drop the attitude because it does not help you in any way...particularly not in the circumstances being discussed.
I've no doubt you're a good person who was placed in a frustrating situation. I've been there too...as I suspect have most others here. I can sympathize. I will conclude by saying that what you want at a time like that is to not make a frustrating situation worse...and cooperation goes much farther than conflict. Best of luck in the future.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not the case that if we need (or elect or choose, or whatever) to go from secure airside to landside, we are returning to the rest of the planet from which we came to go airside. Why is "Security" concerned about anybody returning to the normal world? Bags already loaded could be an issue, but not if the flight is cancelled.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Gatwick and Heathrow, once in the lounge and Airside you are allowed to mingle with transitting passengers who MAY have no right to enter the UK. Hence the need to be sure that they are allowed to let you back out. This farce is so that the greedy money grabbers at the BAA need as many people as possible to spend lots of money in their shops.
This is the reason for the removal of the dedicated domestic search at LHR. At BAA Glasgow and EDI you would be able to exit the lounge via domestic arrivals as they don't rely on transit passengers. It's just another example of BAA being unable to provide a basic service and everyone being trated like an undesirable, as in this case you need an escort.
At LHR and LGW they prefer you to have your passport even when flying in the UK as it suits their own crap prcedures. Hence there IS a compelling reason as to why you just can't walk back out from the lounge at these two airports, so be careful.
This is the reason for the removal of the dedicated domestic search at LHR. At BAA Glasgow and EDI you would be able to exit the lounge via domestic arrivals as they don't rely on transit passengers. It's just another example of BAA being unable to provide a basic service and everyone being trated like an undesirable, as in this case you need an escort.
At LHR and LGW they prefer you to have your passport even when flying in the UK as it suits their own crap prcedures. Hence there IS a compelling reason as to why you just can't walk back out from the lounge at these two airports, so be careful.
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify the legal position an international, or domestic, airside terminal (in Europe) is still a public place albeit with some specific legislation. However, the restrictive movement of individuals can only be enforced by certain bodies, this is normally immigration, customs and police. Security and airline staff have no such authority in public places. For example, if you refuse to adhere to security procedures at a check then the staff member can refuse you entry to the airside area but he must call a police officer to enforce that action should you insist on access.
The point raised by the original poster just illustrates an airport which is badly run and I'm not sure why he's being criticised by various people who work for airlines. All the guy wanted to do is leave an airport, hardly an unreasonable or unusual request.
There are various conventions enshrined in the human rights act (relevant only in Europe) which guarantee freedom of movement and, certainly, these are relevant in an airport but you can't really claim any infringement of those rights unless they were denied by a person in authority. An airline or security person (except in some European countries where security is carried out by police officers) is not such a person.
The point raised by the original poster just illustrates an airport which is badly run and I'm not sure why he's being criticised by various people who work for airlines. All the guy wanted to do is leave an airport, hardly an unreasonable or unusual request.
There are various conventions enshrined in the human rights act (relevant only in Europe) which guarantee freedom of movement and, certainly, these are relevant in an airport but you can't really claim any infringement of those rights unless they were denied by a person in authority. An airline or security person (except in some European countries where security is carried out by police officers) is not such a person.