Legal position if a passenger wants to get off?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal position if a passenger wants to get off?
Hi All, Just a strange subject that came up in conversation this evening - what are passengers rights and company procedures if a passenger wishes to not travel on a flight?
Obviously if they never board, it's not so much of an issue, but what if they are boarded, about to close up and then they want to get off? How about during taxi and/or once in flight?
I realise aircraft on the start of a long flight don't just turn round and land for a pax request but are there any silly paper legal implications of taking someone half way around the globe when they have expressed a wish not to go
Just interested in peoples ideas and if there are any rules about this. I've been flying for several years and never come across the situation.
Obviously if they never board, it's not so much of an issue, but what if they are boarded, about to close up and then they want to get off? How about during taxi and/or once in flight?
I realise aircraft on the start of a long flight don't just turn round and land for a pax request but are there any silly paper legal implications of taking someone half way around the globe when they have expressed a wish not to go
Just interested in peoples ideas and if there are any rules about this. I've been flying for several years and never come across the situation.
Just to add to "excelone's" question, what is the real reason why a passenger with only carryon luggage is not allowed to disembark at a more convenient airport after a diversion due to weather or some other non "Tech" problem where immigration or customs are not an issue.
I have been on a flight that diverted to its final destination due to weather bypassing the enroute airport where the CC insisted that we all should remain onboard to fly back to the onroute airport due to "insurance reasons", this resulted in a couple of the passengers actually forcing the issue and insisting that they could disembark which in the end they did.
I have been on a flight that diverted to its final destination due to weather bypassing the enroute airport where the CC insisted that we all should remain onboard to fly back to the onroute airport due to "insurance reasons", this resulted in a couple of the passengers actually forcing the issue and insisting that they could disembark which in the end they did.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are there any silly paper legal implications of taking someone half way around the globe when they have expressed a wish not to go
At the end of the day the airline would need to demonstate that they had a lawful excuse to take the passenger against his newly declared wishes, and that would be decided by a court, and it would all depend on the facts of the case.
For example. If the aircraft is delayed, it is known the flight is going to be continued to be delayed, they hadn't shut the door, and the passenger only has carry on luggage it would be foolish for the crew not to let him off. They can huff and puff about insurance and security but they really don't override an individual's right to go about his lawful business. Other cases might have different outcomes, if they had started taxying the airline probably has lawful excuse to take him to the destination he had freely bought a ticket for, if the issue was forced a court would ultimately decide.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the passenger has a right to demand to get off, but by doing so, he may cause a delay for a security check that he has not left anything on the plane. This would lead to loss of a slot, and a wait for another. Maybe on a time critical flight, the crew may not be able to complete the duty and be replaced, involving at least a further 2 hour delay, maybe an overnight if there is a night curfew, with hotel transport and wasted catering and cleaning costs. 747 delays are priced at over £100 a minute including disruption costs- if hotels are involved, the costs will quicklybe astronomic. I think you will start seeing aggressive recovery costs being sought from the individual 'demanding HIS rights' whereas airlines don't really bother now.
So how do the 'rights' of an individual who freely bought a ticket stack up against the 'rights' of 350 other people to go on the journey without undue delay that everybody bought a ticket for? There's too much emphasis in society on personal 'rights' without any thought that there is also personal 'responsibility' not to make a nuisance of yourself to your fellow man! I would have no hesitation in going to speak to the individual, and allowing all those around to know that they aren't going anywhere and why and who is responsible- it would be unavoidable. I would expect the passengers to find an adequate 'solution'!
So how do the 'rights' of an individual who freely bought a ticket stack up against the 'rights' of 350 other people to go on the journey without undue delay that everybody bought a ticket for? There's too much emphasis in society on personal 'rights' without any thought that there is also personal 'responsibility' not to make a nuisance of yourself to your fellow man! I would have no hesitation in going to speak to the individual, and allowing all those around to know that they aren't going anywhere and why and who is responsible- it would be unavoidable. I would expect the passengers to find an adequate 'solution'!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe said;
"I would have no hesitation in going to speak to the individual, and allowing all those around to know that they aren't going anywhere and why and who is responsible- it would be unavoidable. I would expect the passengers to find an adequate 'solution'!"
Whilst agreeing with most of what you say I have to disagree with the quote above. You are implicitly inviting mob rule on an aircraft of which you are captain.
People do have to realise that with rights come responsibilities but whether a reluctant passenger flies or not should not be decided by his/her fellow passengers.
s37
"I would have no hesitation in going to speak to the individual, and allowing all those around to know that they aren't going anywhere and why and who is responsible- it would be unavoidable. I would expect the passengers to find an adequate 'solution'!"
Whilst agreeing with most of what you say I have to disagree with the quote above. You are implicitly inviting mob rule on an aircraft of which you are captain.
People do have to realise that with rights come responsibilities but whether a reluctant passenger flies or not should not be decided by his/her fellow passengers.
s37
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm told not to lie on the Public Address. If hundreds of people are going to be unnecessarily detained overnight because of the actions of one individual demanding 'his rights', despite having purchased a ticket for the flight, are you suggesting I should not inform them of the reason for the delay- who and why? Should the victims of this person's 'rights' not have the chance to discuss the matter with him? Strange- everybody complains they don't get told enough stuff on aeroplanes. If one person selfishly decides that delaying hundreds is less important than his 'rights', then I am supposed to collude with him and not reveal why the delay is occurring? Go on- you criticise doing that, but if you are going to say his rights are paramount, why should they knowlingly cause disruption without any comeback? Having purchased a ticket to fly, they have responsibilities to their fellow passengers and to present themselves to the airline ready for the service they have contracted to purchase!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the passenger is having a panic attack and absolutely has to get of the airplane, then safety of flight dictates the passenger is removed. If the passenger simply wants to disembark for personal reasons or because the passenger doesn't want to wait any longer, this isn't a right the passenger has...and no, it's not false imprisonment.
Terms like "false imprisonment" get bantied around by shadetree attorneys and barristers who have spent too much time on the internet and not enough in law school. It's not false imprisonment.
As a general rule, when you prepare to board an airplane, your options begin to narrow the closer you get to the airplane. As you enter secure areas, your options to turn around and walk away diminish. As you approach security, if you elect to simply walk away...you are subject to search all the same. Imagine a terrorist who gets cold feet at the last moment and attempts to turn around...not going to happen. At that point, having already entered the process, that individual is going to be stopped and examined, possibly interrogated, and then released. It may be as simple as a handshake, or it may become a custody issue. You can imagine the same thin as someone approaches a drunk driving checkpoint, and stops and turns around...chances are that police who are watching through binoculars will chase that person down and stop them. Same for security at the airport.
If you reach the airplane and board, then decide to get off, the same principle applies, but one more...the closer you get to the airplane, the less options you have.
You're not in charge of the airplane. There are more concerns at stake than your own. An airplane is not a city bus that allows passengers on and off freely. It's a device for taking a number of passengers from A to B. There's generally much more involved than simply opening a door and allowing someone on or off.
As far as legal rights, that's really something to challenge in court. However, bear in mind that the full and ultimate authority of operational control of the flight, and the last word, belongs to the Pilot in Command...not to the passenger. The PIC shares operational control responsibility...the responsibility of initiating, operating, and terminating a flight...jointly with the company director of operations and his or her delegates. But the ultimate, last word, beyond which there isn't any higher authority, belongs to the pilot.
The pilot, in turn, adheres to company operational procedures which dictate how he will do his job. Again, this isn't something to which the passenger has access, and it isn't something which gives rights or privileges to the passenger. It's an operational document, and an operational issue.
If you delay a flight unnecessarily by placing your wants or needs ahead of the aircraft in your desire to get off, the ramifications are far greater than simply opening the door. If one person does it, more may want to. With each new person's change, a new flight manifest must be generated, which affects the flight release and other documentation. If the airplane is away from the gate, ground personnel become involved. Push and taxi times and slots, as well as gate availability come into play. Not just at the airport where this takes place, but in some cases thousands of miles away as the delay ripples to connecting flights, departing flights, etc.
If the delay resulting from the selfish passenger becomes signficant, aircraft may be slowed, diverted, or held, resulting in substantial costs for multiple aircraft...many others besides that one flight are affected. If you're operating where there are slots, then dozens or hundreds of other aircraft may be affected. Checklists and procedures that have been started must be restarted. Fuel may need to be reapplied (we use 3,000 lbs of fuel taxiing to the runway, and 1,100 lbs of fuel per hour just from our auxilliary powerplant)...much of a delay outside the expected and now we're burning reserve fuel and can't depart...more problems.
Add to that the security issues (why is this person getting off, and do we need to re-secure the aircraft?)...there's much more than simply opening the door and letting someone off. This is all just the tip of the iceberg.
Be careful with terms like imprisonment. Unlike unlawful imprisonment, you volunteered to get on the airplane. More than that, you paid for the privilege, and in so doing, have agreed to a number of terms...which includes being subject to the operating rules, practices, procedures, etc, of the governing body, the airline, the airport, and so forth. You're there by privilege, and by right, and no one has forced you to be there. It's hard to argue otherwise, when you freely bought the ticket.
Consider the inverse implications. You might feel your rights are being trampled by not being allowed to do as you please...but the crew has rights and responsibilities, too. Push what you think are your rights, and you may well be interfering with a crewmember and his or her duties, and the tables are turned...you become the bad guy, and that's a place you don't want to go.
Certainly it would be wonderful to be able to accomodate every single person individually per their separate wishes...but that's not usually possible, or the case.
Terms like "false imprisonment" get bantied around by shadetree attorneys and barristers who have spent too much time on the internet and not enough in law school. It's not false imprisonment.
As a general rule, when you prepare to board an airplane, your options begin to narrow the closer you get to the airplane. As you enter secure areas, your options to turn around and walk away diminish. As you approach security, if you elect to simply walk away...you are subject to search all the same. Imagine a terrorist who gets cold feet at the last moment and attempts to turn around...not going to happen. At that point, having already entered the process, that individual is going to be stopped and examined, possibly interrogated, and then released. It may be as simple as a handshake, or it may become a custody issue. You can imagine the same thin as someone approaches a drunk driving checkpoint, and stops and turns around...chances are that police who are watching through binoculars will chase that person down and stop them. Same for security at the airport.
If you reach the airplane and board, then decide to get off, the same principle applies, but one more...the closer you get to the airplane, the less options you have.
You're not in charge of the airplane. There are more concerns at stake than your own. An airplane is not a city bus that allows passengers on and off freely. It's a device for taking a number of passengers from A to B. There's generally much more involved than simply opening a door and allowing someone on or off.
As far as legal rights, that's really something to challenge in court. However, bear in mind that the full and ultimate authority of operational control of the flight, and the last word, belongs to the Pilot in Command...not to the passenger. The PIC shares operational control responsibility...the responsibility of initiating, operating, and terminating a flight...jointly with the company director of operations and his or her delegates. But the ultimate, last word, beyond which there isn't any higher authority, belongs to the pilot.
The pilot, in turn, adheres to company operational procedures which dictate how he will do his job. Again, this isn't something to which the passenger has access, and it isn't something which gives rights or privileges to the passenger. It's an operational document, and an operational issue.
If you delay a flight unnecessarily by placing your wants or needs ahead of the aircraft in your desire to get off, the ramifications are far greater than simply opening the door. If one person does it, more may want to. With each new person's change, a new flight manifest must be generated, which affects the flight release and other documentation. If the airplane is away from the gate, ground personnel become involved. Push and taxi times and slots, as well as gate availability come into play. Not just at the airport where this takes place, but in some cases thousands of miles away as the delay ripples to connecting flights, departing flights, etc.
If the delay resulting from the selfish passenger becomes signficant, aircraft may be slowed, diverted, or held, resulting in substantial costs for multiple aircraft...many others besides that one flight are affected. If you're operating where there are slots, then dozens or hundreds of other aircraft may be affected. Checklists and procedures that have been started must be restarted. Fuel may need to be reapplied (we use 3,000 lbs of fuel taxiing to the runway, and 1,100 lbs of fuel per hour just from our auxilliary powerplant)...much of a delay outside the expected and now we're burning reserve fuel and can't depart...more problems.
Add to that the security issues (why is this person getting off, and do we need to re-secure the aircraft?)...there's much more than simply opening the door and letting someone off. This is all just the tip of the iceberg.
Be careful with terms like imprisonment. Unlike unlawful imprisonment, you volunteered to get on the airplane. More than that, you paid for the privilege, and in so doing, have agreed to a number of terms...which includes being subject to the operating rules, practices, procedures, etc, of the governing body, the airline, the airport, and so forth. You're there by privilege, and by right, and no one has forced you to be there. It's hard to argue otherwise, when you freely bought the ticket.
Consider the inverse implications. You might feel your rights are being trampled by not being allowed to do as you please...but the crew has rights and responsibilities, too. Push what you think are your rights, and you may well be interfering with a crewmember and his or her duties, and the tables are turned...you become the bad guy, and that's a place you don't want to go.
Certainly it would be wonderful to be able to accomodate every single person individually per their separate wishes...but that's not usually possible, or the case.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a passenger "demand" to get off after we had boarded, closed up, called for push and start and then had the airfield close for snow clearing. We were on a remote stand, the pax having been bussed out, and due to the snow only essential traffic was moving on the ramp. We were advised that it would take 45 minutes to re-open the airfield.
Matey boy starts banging on about wanting to get off: he had bags in the hold ( full 737) and the cabin crew tried to explain the problems he would cause. When he became aggressive with the cabin crew I went back to speak to him and explain the situation, no one on the ramp due to the snow, off loading all the bags to find his, full security check etc but he wouldn't back down. Why not wait and see if the airfield does reopen in 45 minutes etc but he wouldn't have it.
OK says I the company will probably charge for the baggage check etc are you happy to pay this? And then he lost it completely; so much so that we had to get the police out ( so he did get off in the end) and paramedics for a woman in the next row who became extremely distressed and ill as a result of his behaviour.
The guy in the row behind was ready to chin the passenger in question and had to be asked to chill out, which he did.
Once you are onboard, locked up ready to go, if you want off, you can get off but you get the bill for the delay. Equitable solution.
Matey boy starts banging on about wanting to get off: he had bags in the hold ( full 737) and the cabin crew tried to explain the problems he would cause. When he became aggressive with the cabin crew I went back to speak to him and explain the situation, no one on the ramp due to the snow, off loading all the bags to find his, full security check etc but he wouldn't back down. Why not wait and see if the airfield does reopen in 45 minutes etc but he wouldn't have it.
OK says I the company will probably charge for the baggage check etc are you happy to pay this? And then he lost it completely; so much so that we had to get the police out ( so he did get off in the end) and paramedics for a woman in the next row who became extremely distressed and ill as a result of his behaviour.
The guy in the row behind was ready to chin the passenger in question and had to be asked to chill out, which he did.
Once you are onboard, locked up ready to go, if you want off, you can get off but you get the bill for the delay. Equitable solution.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how do the 'rights' of an individual who freely bought a ticket stack up against the 'rights' of 350 other people to go on the journey without undue delay that everybody bought a ticket for?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The passenger who wants to get off can use reasonable force to prevent what he believes to be his unlawful detention, but he needs to remember that if he gets it wrong and the detention is later found by a court to have been lawful he is also in big trouble, probably more so as he would probably find himself in a criminal court for failing to obey a lawful instruction of the crew.
A crew which does not take orders from a passenger and allow the passenger to do as he pleases...is not illegally detaining the passenger. The passenger most decidedly does NOT have the option to use force to get his way.
Doing so makes the passenger guilty of interference with a crewmember.
Using force to get off the airplane is going to see you being treated as more than simply an unruly passenger. Likely you're going to do prison time, you'll be facing some very serious charges, and failing to obey a lawful instruction by the crew will be the least of your concerns.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "legal position" would rely on the interaction of a number of statutes and issues of contract law. A passenger enters into a contract with the airline when they purchase their ticket. I am sure very few people ticking the box or reading the terms of purchase bother to read the pages of terms contained therein, but it might help in understanding their obligations if they did.
The Captain of the aircraft (in the UK) is empowered by the Air Navigation order in respect of his authority, and this is further extended by other statutes for example the Aviation & Maritime security Act. In conjunction with this authority, the Commander is also responsible for ensuring that other things within his command responsibility are undertaken properly. For example there may be restrictions and traffic rights, that prevent an airline from carrying passengers between certain airports. So if an aircraft requires a technical stop en-route or a diversion there may be no authority (other than in an emergency) to allow for the routine disembarkation of passengers.
Once a flight has dispatched, the Commander is under no obligation to return to stand in order to satisfy a passengers request to disembark. Having said that, it is hard to imagine a scenario where a passenger whose behaviour ( by action or verbal demand) became sufficiently disruptive, wouldn't result in the aircraft returning to stand and the passenger being offloaded. In all likelyhood the Police would be called because of the possible security implications.
In flight much the same would hold true, the flight would continue on to it's destination unless the passengers behaviour warranted a diversion. In that case again, the police would likely be called and the airline may seek civil recovery for damages and costs.
In the case of a passenger wishing to disembark en-route at a point other than their ticketed destination, they may well find themselves incurring a significant cost penalty in respect of their contract terms and any disruption costs caused by their action. If the action results in security or other relevant concerns for the commander, the police may well be called again.
Obviously any individual disruption caused to the safety or regularity of the flight will be judged on its merits and in the circustances that are prevalent.
Passengers most certainly do have rights, however those rights are not always supreme to the rights and obligations of the aircraft commander and those crewmembers and others who may be acting under the instruction of, or the authority transferred to them by the commander. That is why your "Freedom of speech" doesn't allow you to use your mobile phone when instructed otherwise. "Freedom of expression" doesn't allow you to verbally abuse the crew or other passengers. Once the aircraft has dispatched, just like a train or a ship, you will have to wait until it arrives at its destination in order to replan your travel arrangements.
The passenger is carried (and has contracted) in accordance with the "conditions of carriage". These and the statutes already mentioned would no doubt form the airlines legal position in the event of a civil claim or criminal proceedings being actioned.
In reality of course this very rarely arises. Common sense and good judgment normally prevails and a satisfactory outcome for all parties results.
The Captain of the aircraft (in the UK) is empowered by the Air Navigation order in respect of his authority, and this is further extended by other statutes for example the Aviation & Maritime security Act. In conjunction with this authority, the Commander is also responsible for ensuring that other things within his command responsibility are undertaken properly. For example there may be restrictions and traffic rights, that prevent an airline from carrying passengers between certain airports. So if an aircraft requires a technical stop en-route or a diversion there may be no authority (other than in an emergency) to allow for the routine disembarkation of passengers.
Once a flight has dispatched, the Commander is under no obligation to return to stand in order to satisfy a passengers request to disembark. Having said that, it is hard to imagine a scenario where a passenger whose behaviour ( by action or verbal demand) became sufficiently disruptive, wouldn't result in the aircraft returning to stand and the passenger being offloaded. In all likelyhood the Police would be called because of the possible security implications.
In flight much the same would hold true, the flight would continue on to it's destination unless the passengers behaviour warranted a diversion. In that case again, the police would likely be called and the airline may seek civil recovery for damages and costs.
In the case of a passenger wishing to disembark en-route at a point other than their ticketed destination, they may well find themselves incurring a significant cost penalty in respect of their contract terms and any disruption costs caused by their action. If the action results in security or other relevant concerns for the commander, the police may well be called again.
Obviously any individual disruption caused to the safety or regularity of the flight will be judged on its merits and in the circustances that are prevalent.
Passengers most certainly do have rights, however those rights are not always supreme to the rights and obligations of the aircraft commander and those crewmembers and others who may be acting under the instruction of, or the authority transferred to them by the commander. That is why your "Freedom of speech" doesn't allow you to use your mobile phone when instructed otherwise. "Freedom of expression" doesn't allow you to verbally abuse the crew or other passengers. Once the aircraft has dispatched, just like a train or a ship, you will have to wait until it arrives at its destination in order to replan your travel arrangements.
The passenger is carried (and has contracted) in accordance with the "conditions of carriage". These and the statutes already mentioned would no doubt form the airlines legal position in the event of a civil claim or criminal proceedings being actioned.
In reality of course this very rarely arises. Common sense and good judgment normally prevails and a satisfactory outcome for all parties results.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are the security checks involved if a passenger with no hold luggage having cleared security decides to get off a delayed flight as his meeting began 10 minutes ago and there is no point in going to London now? I've seen it happen many a time in the past.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: ham
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my experience at MUC airport: no additional checks as far as the passenger is concerned.
If you are behind the security controls you can always leave through marked doors (had myself to get back to let checkin change the ticket some time ago in MUC).
Just a customs officer asking you if you really know what you're doing
If you are behind the security controls you can always leave through marked doors (had myself to get back to let checkin change the ticket some time ago in MUC).
Just a customs officer asking you if you really know what you're doing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Informing passengers of the reason for their being delayed is one thing, "expecting them to find an adequate solution" is quite another. The whole matter should be handled by crew not a free for all by other passengers.
s37
s37
So let's just think about this, I'm on the aircraft, delayed, missed my meeting so no need to go anymore. It's a daytip for me, no bags, so I want to get off. What security checks do you need exactly? I can't even get a tube of toothpaste through our jobsworths, so my fellow SLF have nothing to worry about. Or do they?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As you enter secure areas, your options to turn around and walk away diminish. As you approach security, if you elect to simply walk away...you are subject to search all the same.
In the United Kingdom, the security staff at an airport do not have the authority to search an individual, which is why they must ask for permission.
Neither do they have the right to arrest someone, so detaining a person would be a case of citizen's arrest.
Under UK law, a citizen's arrest is only lawful when an offence has been committed or a person is in the process of committing an offence. There is another reason, but it isn't relevant int his context.
A person deprived of their liberty (part of the definition of arrest) by someone who is not authorised, would be (a) entitled to use reasonable force to go about their lawful business and (b) if they remained and subsequently were found to have committed no crime, would be able to sue for damages in the civil courts for false imprisonment.
I remember reading such an event in the local newspaper years ago, when a store detective 'arrested' a person who was subsequently cleared of theft. It did sound as if the person was involved in a gang, but the detectives did not get enough evidence to convict.
It may different in the USA, but in the UK that's the way I understand it to be, before entering the search area.
By the way, I post this view only out of interest and do not receommend people to behave this way
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some very bad counsel here! How does someone claim they are being illegally detained, when they have, of their own free will and volition, purchased a ticket for that very flight which they are now trying to disrupt? How do I stand when I have a deportee on board who is being transferred unwillingly? Can a person trapped in a stuck elevator claim he is 'being kidnapped and detained unwillingly'?
I think some of you seem unable to accept that your 'rights' are not as solid as you imagine. You may attempt to pursue those rights and sue for illegal detention in the High Court. Can you imagine the legal costs, especially as you are likely to lose. How many people would practically try it on?
I refer again to a previous incident with a nervous woman at SYD demanding to get off at the moment of pushback. I decided the best way to handle it was sharp treatment. A bit of reasurance followed by 'loud demands' that she not disrupt the other passengers. It worked. She might have been a bag of nerves, but she did her journey and I heard no more from her. I hope she even conquored her nerves. It was actually better for her to force her through with it than let her get off and spend the rest of her life being frightened to fly. Sometimes an emotional 'slapping' is better than holding hands and 'there there'.
I think some of you seem unable to accept that your 'rights' are not as solid as you imagine. You may attempt to pursue those rights and sue for illegal detention in the High Court. Can you imagine the legal costs, especially as you are likely to lose. How many people would practically try it on?
I refer again to a previous incident with a nervous woman at SYD demanding to get off at the moment of pushback. I decided the best way to handle it was sharp treatment. A bit of reasurance followed by 'loud demands' that she not disrupt the other passengers. It worked. She might have been a bag of nerves, but she did her journey and I heard no more from her. I hope she even conquored her nerves. It was actually better for her to force her through with it than let her get off and spend the rest of her life being frightened to fly. Sometimes an emotional 'slapping' is better than holding hands and 'there there'.
'My crew will not physically obstruct your leaving the aircraft, but our handling agent is not able to accept you. You will be trespassing on the airfield. You may not gain access to the terminal. You will be wondering around the ramp in breach of health and safety regulations.Customs and immigration staff may not be available to accept you. I do not recommend you do this and will be informing the police and the airport authority.'
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can a person trapped in a stuck elevator claim he is 'being kidnapped and detained unwillingly'?
As I understand the law (and I am a layman), detained involves someone being unwillingly deprived of their liberty by someone else.
Unless someone deliberately causes the lift to stop in betwwen floors, I cannot imagine how this could equate to kidnap/unlawful arrest?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Zebedie
Just out of interest and purely hypothetically, what would you do if the passenger said "thanks very much, I will arrange my own handling agent, let me call them on my mobile now"
I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would arise, but if you didn't then let the passenger call up Swissport or Servisair or whoever, you would then be detaining them.
Of course this is all about as likely as being hit by an asteroid, but interesting to contemplate.
Actually, on second thoughts, maybe I could imagine a scenario, involving a celeb who might call their agent to call a handling agent.
Just out of interest and purely hypothetically, what would you do if the passenger said "thanks very much, I will arrange my own handling agent, let me call them on my mobile now"
I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would arise, but if you didn't then let the passenger call up Swissport or Servisair or whoever, you would then be detaining them.
Of course this is all about as likely as being hit by an asteroid, but interesting to contemplate.
Actually, on second thoughts, maybe I could imagine a scenario, involving a celeb who might call their agent to call a handling agent.