Easyjet Pilot Refuses 50 Scotish Fans Flying from Amsterdam to Prague
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
I was on the flight in question.
I was dreading the flight having watched the "tartan army" enjoy itself, i was travelling with my wife and 2 children and was seriously considering offloading myself and the family.
A group of 50 noisy and somewhat inebriated people in a small cramped environment is really rather oppresive (for want of a better word) and i breathed a sigh of relief when they were offloaded. so well done to the crew and / or despatcher who made the decision.
I think it took a lot of guts to refuse that large a group so, if you are reading this well done and thank you.
I was on the flight in question.
I was dreading the flight having watched the "tartan army" enjoy itself, i was travelling with my wife and 2 children and was seriously considering offloading myself and the family.
A group of 50 noisy and somewhat inebriated people in a small cramped environment is really rather oppresive (for want of a better word) and i breathed a sigh of relief when they were offloaded. so well done to the crew and / or despatcher who made the decision.
I think it took a lot of guts to refuse that large a group so, if you are reading this well done and thank you.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite Surprised
I am a Scot, and have witnessed the Tartan Army many times.In general everyone behaves themselves and represents their country extremely well. However, I have also witnessed the dark side. I missed a flight one evening ex CDG, to Glasgow. Quickly,with my family, two young children, I travelled up to Beavais, to catch the late night Ryanair, Friday night to Glasgow. The Glasgow Rangers management squad were on, along with a number of 'fans'. I frankly have never witnessed anything like it.
I was mortified, offended, and frankly concerned. Short of pissing in the aisles,there were no holds barred. This is a reflection.unfortunately, of the way it is today. Little respect, consideration, empathy, for anyone else bar themselves.
And before anyone comments, the last paragraph is a general statement. It is not aimed at the 'Tartan Army', nor this incident. It is interesting that we have had some comments on here, standing up for these guys
I was mortified, offended, and frankly concerned. Short of pissing in the aisles,there were no holds barred. This is a reflection.unfortunately, of the way it is today. Little respect, consideration, empathy, for anyone else bar themselves.
And before anyone comments, the last paragraph is a general statement. It is not aimed at the 'Tartan Army', nor this incident. It is interesting that we have had some comments on here, standing up for these guys
I wonder, though, if such incidents are becoming more frequent in the LoCo era?
Mercifully, I've only travelled with a bunch of footballists once. The Iranian national team in Lufthansa Business Class from Friedrichshafen to Frankfurt during some football competition in 2008. They behaved impeccably; I wished them the best of luck when disembarking.
Well done, this captain. I hope the message gets around amongst the Untermensch who behave so abominably and that such rowdy, drunken passengers are made to pay the price more often.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John R
+1 what John R said. I don't think we are getting the whole story, and who knows what kind of crap from similar instances/instance the Captain may have learned from prior to this event. Anywho, that is why a Captain is awarded the four stripes, to be the Commander of his/her ship.
I always get a kick out of sportfans (observers) saying or being said of that "we won!" You were the "we" out on the field??
How dare someone of you prejudge the decision of this captain?
You were not there! You have absolutely no idea what the situation was. I think it is safe to say the decision will not have been taken lightly.
If a few people were inconvenienced because they got caught in a bad lot, tough luck. Perhaps you think it preferable that a dangerous situation materialise at 38,000ft? Or a fight breaking out between drunk passengers? Yes, that would be a much safer course of action, wouldn't it?
His decision is FINAL It is as simple as that.
You were not there! You have absolutely no idea what the situation was. I think it is safe to say the decision will not have been taken lightly.
If a few people were inconvenienced because they got caught in a bad lot, tough luck. Perhaps you think it preferable that a dangerous situation materialise at 38,000ft? Or a fight breaking out between drunk passengers? Yes, that would be a much safer course of action, wouldn't it?
His decision is FINAL It is as simple as that.
I always get a kick out of sportfans (observers) saying or being said of that "we won!" You were the "we" out on the field??
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During my time with a certain Central Pacific airline, the flight was going Hong Kong to Taipei when a drunken oaf tried to feel up the young hosties. The captain got out of his seat and shirt fronted the oaf and in a matter of fact way said that unless he pulled his head in he (the captain) would contact the Taipei gendarmes and arrange for the oaf to be tortured on arrival. No more problems with the oaf. That was the time when the captain was the captain and he didn't send a young FA to sort out drunks and oafs - he did it himself.
Would any of the group, who could prove by whatever reason, have any grounds to sue the airline for barring transit whist in possession of the valid documents ?
El G.
El G.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would any of the group, who could prove by whatever reason, have any grounds to sue the airline for barring transit whist in possession of the valid documents ?
My Bad.
What I meant to write was :-
Would any of the group, who could prove by whatever reason that they were not under the influence of alcohol, have any grounds to sue the airline for barring transit whist in possession of the valid documents ?
What I meant to write was :-
Would any of the group, who could prove by whatever reason that they were not under the influence of alcohol, have any grounds to sue the airline for barring transit whist in possession of the valid documents ?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was the time when the captain was the captain and he didn't send a young FA to sort out drunks and oafs
It has nothing to do with the willingness, or otherwise of the flight crew to assist their crew.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry, it all worked out well in the end!
Scottish football fans who were refused access to an Easyjet flight to Prague last night thanked the low-cost airline for sparing them the ordeal of watching the ineffable p1sh that passes for their national team.
In an unprecedented act of charity, more than 50 members of the Tartan Army were stopped from boarding a flight.
One returning member of the Tartan Army, Stuart Fairweather, said: "We sat in the bar and had a few swallies instead but I wouldn't say it was out of hand or anyone was all over the place - unlike Levein's muppets.
"They said 'you won't be getting on the flight' - and I'm sure we'll be hearing that again from airlines headed to Poland and Ukraine in a couple of years."
A spokeswoman for Easyjet said: "Easyjet can confirm that on Thursday 6 October, 59 passengers were refused boarding a flight to Prague while at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport for the sake of their own mental health. As Ivor Tiefenbrun ao astutely pointed out this week, Scots are not the sharpest tools in the shed and seem to enjoy spending obscene amounts of cash watching this cack so we had to protect them from themselves really."
"All those who were denied access to the plane will qualify for a full refund, even if they will qualify for shag all else."
Central Scotland SNP MSP Christina McKelvie said she'd whip 'em out to lift the bleak mood of the nation following the Scots' abject defeat.
In an unprecedented act of charity, more than 50 members of the Tartan Army were stopped from boarding a flight.
One returning member of the Tartan Army, Stuart Fairweather, said: "We sat in the bar and had a few swallies instead but I wouldn't say it was out of hand or anyone was all over the place - unlike Levein's muppets.
"They said 'you won't be getting on the flight' - and I'm sure we'll be hearing that again from airlines headed to Poland and Ukraine in a couple of years."
A spokeswoman for Easyjet said: "Easyjet can confirm that on Thursday 6 October, 59 passengers were refused boarding a flight to Prague while at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport for the sake of their own mental health. As Ivor Tiefenbrun ao astutely pointed out this week, Scots are not the sharpest tools in the shed and seem to enjoy spending obscene amounts of cash watching this cack so we had to protect them from themselves really."
"All those who were denied access to the plane will qualify for a full refund, even if they will qualify for shag all else."
Central Scotland SNP MSP Christina McKelvie said she'd whip 'em out to lift the bleak mood of the nation following the Scots' abject defeat.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: dublin
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im amazed at the arrogance of a lot of posters defending the Captain as if he was infallable.
I wasnt there and cant say if he was right or not.
However for comparison, we travelled to Yerevan with BMI last month on a Sunday evening flight, about 14 of us and in our colours and would not have had a lot of good to say about some of the crew, we imagined a dislike for football fans, on the return the plane was over booked and nearly all were in their Irish colours, the crew were brilliant and had flown a lot of supporters on there outbound flight and ended up socialising with some of them.
The only common denominator of the group was going to a football match.
There are two sides to every story but I know that Irish supporters who have seen this incident will give Easyjet a wideberth and not just for football travel. Its actually an expensive hobby travelling all over the world watching your team, and a lot of these supporters are very regular travellers.
Time will tell who was right, I've a feeling that it will turn out that several people will have been unjustifably been denied boarding purely on the basis of the clothes they were wearing and will have a strong case for compensation,
I wasnt there and cant say if he was right or not.
However for comparison, we travelled to Yerevan with BMI last month on a Sunday evening flight, about 14 of us and in our colours and would not have had a lot of good to say about some of the crew, we imagined a dislike for football fans, on the return the plane was over booked and nearly all were in their Irish colours, the crew were brilliant and had flown a lot of supporters on there outbound flight and ended up socialising with some of them.
The only common denominator of the group was going to a football match.
There are two sides to every story but I know that Irish supporters who have seen this incident will give Easyjet a wideberth and not just for football travel. Its actually an expensive hobby travelling all over the world watching your team, and a lot of these supporters are very regular travellers.
Time will tell who was right, I've a feeling that it will turn out that several people will have been unjustifably been denied boarding purely on the basis of the clothes they were wearing and will have a strong case for compensation,
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast
Age: 60
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read all the posts and I wondered if someone could answer a few questions that have occurred to me.
1 Did anyone in Amsterdam make discreet inquiries about the behaviour of the scottish football fans on their way from Edinburgh to Schiphol? This could have given some indication if any of them were likely to cause disruption.
2 How were those refused carriage selected exactly? Was is simply on the basis they were football fans? Was it because they were wearing scottish football jerseys or kilts?
3 If these people were travelling on separate bookings hadn't they individually entered into a contract with easyJet? The airline's website gives very specific reasons for refusal of carriage. If passengers are travelling on separate bookings and have therefore entered into separate contracts with the airline shouldn't each be checked against the criteria for refusing travel individually. After all, a contract cuts both ways. If someone fulfils the criteria for being refused travel, they should be refused travel. But if someone does not fulfil the criteria for being refused travel they should be allowed on board.
You see to be quite honest I'd be more than a little miffed if Mrs. FF and I were sitting in the departure lounge enjoying a quiet drink before a flight and had our boarding passes removed because of the behaviour of some other people we knew only vaguely or not at all travelling to the same destination.
1 Did anyone in Amsterdam make discreet inquiries about the behaviour of the scottish football fans on their way from Edinburgh to Schiphol? This could have given some indication if any of them were likely to cause disruption.
2 How were those refused carriage selected exactly? Was is simply on the basis they were football fans? Was it because they were wearing scottish football jerseys or kilts?
3 If these people were travelling on separate bookings hadn't they individually entered into a contract with easyJet? The airline's website gives very specific reasons for refusal of carriage. If passengers are travelling on separate bookings and have therefore entered into separate contracts with the airline shouldn't each be checked against the criteria for refusing travel individually. After all, a contract cuts both ways. If someone fulfils the criteria for being refused travel, they should be refused travel. But if someone does not fulfil the criteria for being refused travel they should be allowed on board.
You see to be quite honest I'd be more than a little miffed if Mrs. FF and I were sitting in the departure lounge enjoying a quiet drink before a flight and had our boarding passes removed because of the behaviour of some other people we knew only vaguely or not at all travelling to the same destination.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: glasgow
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read all the posts and I wondered if someone could answer a few questions that have occurred to me.
1 Did anyone in Amsterdam make discreet inquiries about the behaviour of the scottish football fans on their way from Edinburgh to Schiphol? This could have given some indication if any of them were likely to cause disruption.
2 How were those refused carriage selected exactly? Was is simply on the basis they were football fans? Was it because they were wearing scottish football jerseys or kilts?
3 If these people were travelling on separate bookings hadn't they individually entered into a contract with easyJet? The airline's website gives very specific reasons for refusal of carriage. If passengers are travelling on separate bookings and have therefore entered into separate contracts with the airline shouldn't each be checked against the criteria for refusing travel individually. After all, a contract cuts both ways. If someone fulfils the criteria for being refused travel, they should be refused travel. But if someone does not fulfil the criteria for being refused travel they should be allowed on board.
1 Did anyone in Amsterdam make discreet inquiries about the behaviour of the scottish football fans on their way from Edinburgh to Schiphol? This could have given some indication if any of them were likely to cause disruption.
2 How were those refused carriage selected exactly? Was is simply on the basis they were football fans? Was it because they were wearing scottish football jerseys or kilts?
3 If these people were travelling on separate bookings hadn't they individually entered into a contract with easyJet? The airline's website gives very specific reasons for refusal of carriage. If passengers are travelling on separate bookings and have therefore entered into separate contracts with the airline shouldn't each be checked against the criteria for refusing travel individually. After all, a contract cuts both ways. If someone fulfils the criteria for being refused travel, they should be refused travel. But if someone does not fulfil the criteria for being refused travel they should be allowed on board.
1. Probably not.
2. Once boarding started, the Scottish supporters were asked to step
aside to allow the other passengers to board. They were then taken to
another room, were their boarding cards were taken from them and
they were informed they wouldn't be flying. Supporters at the front
boarded without problem. There were Scotland supporters on the flight.
3. This was not a single group of 50-60 whatever the number is. They
were small groups of friends, family groups and induviduals who all
happened to be travelling to the same event.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that ....... supporters who have seen this incident will give Easyjet a wideberth
Perhaps the message that this incident will send to 'supporters' is that they should behave and dress in such a way as not to advertise what they are. That might be a solution that would benefit everyone, including themselves.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is fair to agree with a Commanders decision where he has instructed denied boarding to individuals because they are drunk or otherwise not fit to fly or are potentially violent but this seems different. 59 passengers were apparently collectively denied boarding NOT because they were drunk but because they were dressed in a particular way i.e. wearing national dress or the colours of the national team, as Newirish babe validly points out. They were not, it appears in a large group, they were in many sub groups. If passengers were denied boarding on this 'common denominator' basis and then told they could not travel, I understand why many of them feel aggrieved. I presume there must have been some identifiable transgressions to raise concerns in the first place which by the bY the same token those were not applicable to the balance of the group. It should have been those concerned who were dealt with IMHO. Someone said earlier that football fans should understand the referees decison is final.....true, but very regrettable in some cases.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't only drunk passengers a captain can off load. A captain can off load anyone who he considers is a risk to flight safety.
So picture the scene. A lot of footy fans travelling in a group. Some are drunk. Most are not although may have had a drink or two.
The captain only off loads those who are drunk and the rest of the group are allowed to board. The doors are closed and they wing their way to thirtywhatever thousand feet. A few people then have another drink (either bought on board or sneaked in - yes it happens). Everyone knows how altitude and alcohol mix and subsequently the 'may have had a drink or two' bunch decide to air their grief about their missing friends.
What follows is what could/may/would have happened if everyone was allowed to board in the first place.
If you come across an angry snake you don't prod it with a stick you chop it's fecking head off.
And lastly: The captain only has to justify his decisions to his company, nobody else.
So picture the scene. A lot of footy fans travelling in a group. Some are drunk. Most are not although may have had a drink or two.
The captain only off loads those who are drunk and the rest of the group are allowed to board. The doors are closed and they wing their way to thirtywhatever thousand feet. A few people then have another drink (either bought on board or sneaked in - yes it happens). Everyone knows how altitude and alcohol mix and subsequently the 'may have had a drink or two' bunch decide to air their grief about their missing friends.
What follows is what could/may/would have happened if everyone was allowed to board in the first place.
If you come across an angry snake you don't prod it with a stick you chop it's fecking head off.
And lastly: The captain only has to justify his decisions to his company, nobody else.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast
Age: 60
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It is telling that in the past many posters have criticised crews for an apparent unwillingness to intervene in this sort of situation. Here is an example of a Commander who is not afraid of exercising his authority. Then people respond with: "Oh, well, maybe there was another side to the story". Of course there was! But that is to miss the point."
I think you misunderstand what many people contributing to this thread are saying. They do not wish to travel with rowdy obnoxious drunks. They agree rowdy obnoxious drunks should be denied carriage. However, they want only rowdy obnoxious drunks banned from flights - not people who happen to be travelling to the same sporting event or wearing similar clothes.
This is exactly the type of incident which is acceptable to many people - until it happens to them. Imagine the scene. You're travelling to an event you've looked forward to for some time - a rugby match for example. You're sitting in the departure lounge enjoying a quiet drink and reading a book with your rugby jersey on. A number of people sitting nearby whom you don't know but who are travelling to the same event become drunk and rowdy. You join the boarding queue and you see these people being off loaded. "Good," you think, "I'm not going to have to put up with that during the flight." You would be fully justified in thinking this - no-one should have to tolerate that sort of behaviour. Then you get to the gate. The person checking the boarding cards looks at you, at your card and asks you to step to one side. You find yourself in the same room as the the rowdies and a number of other people who have been asked to leave the queue at the gate. You're told the Captain has decided none of you, drunk or sober, abusive or polite, is going to be allowed to travel.
What do you say? Is it: "Aye aye captain. God bless you, your A320 and all who flies in her." I don't think so.
If it happened to me I would have the whole situation checked out by a solicitor as soon as possible. As I said in an earlier post I believe a contract cuts both ways.
If it's acceptable for a pilot to bar the innocent from a flight as well as the guilty in terms of rowdiness and drunkeness easyJet should state this on its website. The site clearly lists the reasons for refusal of carriage. Perhaps they should add at the end: "Of course the captain has the final word. So even if you have behaved impeccably in the departure lounge he or she may decide they don't like the cut of your gib in which case you will not be allowed to board the flight."
By the way, before making a decision like this is the captain obliged to go and observe those involved or does he make it on the basis of information from ground staff?
I think you misunderstand what many people contributing to this thread are saying. They do not wish to travel with rowdy obnoxious drunks. They agree rowdy obnoxious drunks should be denied carriage. However, they want only rowdy obnoxious drunks banned from flights - not people who happen to be travelling to the same sporting event or wearing similar clothes.
This is exactly the type of incident which is acceptable to many people - until it happens to them. Imagine the scene. You're travelling to an event you've looked forward to for some time - a rugby match for example. You're sitting in the departure lounge enjoying a quiet drink and reading a book with your rugby jersey on. A number of people sitting nearby whom you don't know but who are travelling to the same event become drunk and rowdy. You join the boarding queue and you see these people being off loaded. "Good," you think, "I'm not going to have to put up with that during the flight." You would be fully justified in thinking this - no-one should have to tolerate that sort of behaviour. Then you get to the gate. The person checking the boarding cards looks at you, at your card and asks you to step to one side. You find yourself in the same room as the the rowdies and a number of other people who have been asked to leave the queue at the gate. You're told the Captain has decided none of you, drunk or sober, abusive or polite, is going to be allowed to travel.
What do you say? Is it: "Aye aye captain. God bless you, your A320 and all who flies in her." I don't think so.
If it happened to me I would have the whole situation checked out by a solicitor as soon as possible. As I said in an earlier post I believe a contract cuts both ways.
If it's acceptable for a pilot to bar the innocent from a flight as well as the guilty in terms of rowdiness and drunkeness easyJet should state this on its website. The site clearly lists the reasons for refusal of carriage. Perhaps they should add at the end: "Of course the captain has the final word. So even if you have behaved impeccably in the departure lounge he or she may decide they don't like the cut of your gib in which case you will not be allowed to board the flight."
By the way, before making a decision like this is the captain obliged to go and observe those involved or does he make it on the basis of information from ground staff?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frequentflyer2
Well said sir! I was wondering myself exactly what questions the commander bothered to ask himself, of the ground staff about the information given to him or what observations he made himself before making this robust decison inconveniencing the travel, accommodation and recreation plans of many. I think as it encompassed so many at least a few basic clarifications about matters should be asked e.g who have you observed as being a risk to the safe operation of this flight...e.g is it all 50 odd or just a few who are causing trouble?What has been observed, and by whom, to raise concerns? Are they all in one large booking of 50 or are they all travelling seperatley? I cannot see that the answers to these questions, if asked, would tend to support offloading all 50 odd. I'm just curious about how you get to e.g. OK, lets offload anyone travelling to PRG for the football match (selected by virtue of their attire one presumes) What the pax business at the other end is exactly that...his / her business (even if it is assumed as being to watch a football match at the destination) as is his mode of dress (within reason). To use this e.g same Reason for travel and similar mode of dress to the actual culprits, as primary reasons to collectively offload 50 odd passengers, regardless of their fitness to travel, seems debateable IMHO.
Last edited by teddybear44; 13th Oct 2010 at 10:34.
Are they entitled to the €300 or whatever for denied boarding? At this stage, it must be impossible to prove who was or was not inebriated, so it could be that the lawyers will have a fun time, as the company cannot prove drunkenness....
