EasyJet passengers told 'get off the plane or you will be arrested'

[AlpineSkier]

'twould sure save a lot of time and effort - on everyones' part, but then where would be the fun and mystery

So you seem to agree that your previous post was a pointless waste of time then .

[TiiberiusKirk]

I suppose that disobeying any instruction from the pilot - including one to disembark - could be considered to constitute "endangering an aircraft"; On the ground or in the air. As such, it's defintely arrestable and often imprisonable offence. Almost certainly the police would act first, then ask questions.

[Joao da Silva]

I suppose that disobeying any instruction from the pilot - including one to disembark - could be considered to constitute "endangering an aircraft"; On the ground or in the air.

I can't see how refusing to budge is endangering the aircraft, so long as done peacefully and without interfence, but no doubt plod would think of an alternative.

[Nicholas49]

Speaking from a legal standpoint, the police / prosecution (although somehow I doubt it would get that far) would have a lot more difficulty justifying the 'endangering the aircraft' argument when it's parked at the gate. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's a pretty murky situation to get into.

As said above, the police would surely respond to the captain's request to get the passengers off with force, but then the 'fun and games' (aka PR disaster / claims against the airline for 'false imprisonment' / complaints against the police for unjustified arrest) would begin. It really is a situation to avoid at all costs.

In any case, the title of this thread and the newspaper headlines about being 'threatened with arrest' are misleading (surprise surprise) because there is absolutely no indication that's what happened here.

[Piltdown Man]

Speaking from a legal standpoint, the police / prosecution (although somehow I doubt it would get that far) would have a lot more difficulty justifying the 'endangering the aircraft' argument when it's parked at the gate. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's a pretty murky situation to get into.

I totally agree. Passenger handling people will for too often try the "Call the Police" option before they have through what is really going on. The door is open, the plane hasn't started its take off roll, the Tokyo Convention doesn't apply. You would be very hard pushed to make a case saying that those on board are endangering anyone. I also reckon that as along as you remain calm and polite, Plod would stay well clear of you. Staying in your seat against the wishes of EasyJet is probably against their Conditions of Carriage and as such leaves you potentially open to civil legal action, but not a criminal one.

As for the Captain, he was faced with an aircraft that for whatever reason was over fuelled. In Britain, the elf'n'safety brigade and other such morons prevail which means you won't realistically be able to de-fuel. Also, in many companies defuelling is considered to be an "engineering function." (I have none of these problems in Europe.) So you have to reduce your payload or increase your burn. It appears that someone decided to remove the bags to carry the maximum amount of people (£25/per day for missing bags or €250 to offload a person? So with a Brummy accent "Eerrre Bryann, woi don't we offload deese bags instead of puntas cos we'll save a blinking fortune 'ere") early on. But more weight had to be shed than just bags. Not surprisingly, this rapidly turned into a "Cake and Arse party" which nobody took responsibility for, except that Captain who was given the ****ty end of a very ****ty stick.

What should have happened was that all bags should have been offloaded and the passengers bribed with cash to offload themselves. Match the offloaded bags with offloaded passengers, say sorry, reload and whizz off. But no, I reckon somebody tried to save a few quid and left EasyJet with some Mick-the-Gyp type publicity. That saved a few quid, didn't it!

PM

[easybusdriver1]

What an embarrassment! Insider knowledge really changes your thinking. We all know that Mc Donalds ingredients are sh1t but the guys who see the ingredients pressure hosed of the floor really know what the score is and as a result I bet there aren't roo many who'll go to a Mc Donalds and order a big mac. I wonder if easyJet employees feel the same about flying on easyJet? I sure as hell won't risk my holiday being ruined! The skipper probably did get the sh1tty end of the stick and I bet he was left to rot with this situation and zero useful support from the company.

[Joao da Silva]

£25/per day for missing bags

I can see the logic in that approach, but it may be false economy.

Having heard my parents experience of the small claims court in the UK, many, many years ago, over a ruined holiday, they tell me that the judge leant very much in their favour and penalised the tour operator heavily for 'loss of enjoyment' caused by deliberate actions.

In this instance, I think a small claims court judge might take a very dim view of offloading baggage without giving the people the option to go with it, thus destroying a lot of the value of their holiday.

And if the baggage did not arrive for a number of days, I reckon your would be able to claim for a whole set of ski clothes, several hundred euros.

[Parapunter]

completely wrong once again. You really ought to wait until you're in posession of the facts before shooting your Big I Am line

Right, this would be before you shot off to Tech Log to ask whether an aircraft can be defuelled having already denied it on this thread? And I don't have the facts??!!

there was no alternative way for the Captain to handle the situation.

It's this fatalistic attitude that brings Ezy in particular to these pages again & again.

Turning slightly blue in the face saying this, but here is where us passengers express our reaction to the twists and turns of the airline business as we experience it. That certain insiders repeatedly expound on technical matters in response is highly enlightening on the narrow thinking that some quarters of the airline business remain saddled with even after god only knows how many opportunities to learn from the past. I don't care particularly whther the captain was at fault, whether a vessel is available to defuel, whether you can fly around with gear down.

What I care about is the response from the business once the cock up takes place. That is what I'm interested in, the experience of the customer after an error is made. This is the point that gets missed again & again. It's depressing to witness I tell you.

[Piltdown Man]

What I care about is the response from the business once the cock up takes place.

Absolutely! This is what "Customer Service" should be all about. But unfortunately, too many companies employ inexperienced and very junior staff to work in this area. They fail to give them any authority or support to solve customer service problems and their managers hide in offices far away from the front line. The only solution is to "fight" noisily in the media and make the culprits spend a fortune in compensation and marketing.

My own company works reasonably well until it is overloaded. Then, those at the front of the queue get excellent service, those in the middle get appropriate service and then unfortunately, those at the rear are left to fume. When they do get to the front, they get handled by tired and tetchy staff, get the scraps from table and don't walk away satisfied. The spare capacity has already been used up looking after those who were in the front of the queue. My company are acutely aware that this is a problem and are working on a solution. I just hope they do it quickly.

[Bealzebub]

Not that I can see it had any relevance in this particular event, but for those that might hope or claim otherwise. Part 19 section 141 of the Air Navigation order states:

Authority of commander of an aircraft

141. Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

It isn't restricted to "endangering" but also the efficiency, and regularity.

It doesn't matter whether an individual or group think something is fair or not. If the commander wants you off then you are required to get off. Refusal to comply would most certainly lay you open to the possibility of criminal prosecution and would provide the justification the police would need for ensuring removal.

[teddybear44]

All true, but I guess the Police would have to assess risk factors involved in boarding an aircraft and attempting to eject such a large number of people with limited resources. In my own mind, not a very pretty picture

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

What You Would Like To Do -v- What Can Actually Be Achieved

Firstly, this was a screw up. Can't be denied. We don't know who or why and to be honest even if we did it would add nothing to this debate (Ezy need to find out and ensure they reduce the risk of it happening again: note I say reduce the risk...to say ensure it never happens again, is fantasy - hopefully it won't but it sadly could..). The main thing is it did happen.
I have been in aviation for over 25years working in most departments, many UK and overseas airfields and have seen this happen (sadly) many times to many airlines at many bases (although not common) - so lets not get complacent and blame Ezy, it 'can' happen to almost any airline at almost any airfield. Ezy could have handled it better, but this is one of the hardest ops -v-customer service issues, especially if your resources are tight (crew hours, aircraft availability, airport closing times and weather issues).
It makes me smile to see all the posts on here about 'de-fuelling'. Now when I started in aviation, yes this would happen. Nowadays I know of no major airport in the UK where you can get de-fuelled, and I do not mean in theory I mean for it to actually happen. Fuel contamination issues and control measurers are so strong that 'practically' on the day for you to find a fuel company that has time (they serve multiple airlines) and the resource - potentially an extra bowser (capital costs of £100k+) that will be treated as 'contaminated' for many days after the event. it just does not happen - yep, in theory we know it 'can' happen and you may find fuel companies that say they will do it..you find me one that will do it on the day when they have so many other paying customers and their requirements to balance off. In the last 15 years I do no know of any UK (major) airport where you can get de-fuelled in such a situation. Not great, but that's the way it is!
Flying around empty - nice idea, but it ain't gonna happen. Apart from environmental issues, what about crew hours? That adds more sectors to their duty day, so get another crew..from where (wasn't this boxing day!) and all the time the night closure and weather at GVA are getting worse.
Best idea would have been (if possible) to swap the aircraft around and/or position this to another base (LTN/LPL) and send their aircraft to BHX...this is IF you have the aircraft and the crew, the crew have the hours and again the clock is ticking all the time.
So you are generally faced with the dilemma - canx the flight, as your logistical solutions are not practicable within the timescales and legal limitations you are faced with, and upset all the pax. Or off-load enough to make the plane able to operate.
This is a horrible situation and one I have sadly faced many times myself (due over-fuelling, last minute notification of broken seats, emergency door u/s etc - where you have more pax checked in than you can carry!
First choice, volunteers. If you are lucky and 'intelligent' enough as an airline to match your compensation to the specific problem and ensure the financial reward outweighs (if possible) the disruption and disappointment the customers will face - you may be lucky! - In my opinion the offer should have been the minimum require x at least 50% - this was a skiing trip/destination at Christmas (for goodness sake) not a quick Edinburgh and back where there are 'other' options available to the customers.
Sadly though if you do not get enough volunteers, you have to look and involuntary off-loads - never, ever a nice situation and sadly one I have been in more than once. I have never had to call the police/security but have had it in the back of my mind that it may have to come to that if my persuasion and negotiating skills do not work. In this situation (GVA skiing trip) the brave decision should have been made to offload more pax and protect the baggage of those travelling - in these days of triple A baggage security it would not take that long to find their bags (lots less than the 2 hours taken to force the passengers off - that the passenger posting on here related). To travel to a ski destination without your bags is pointless, you may as well not go. The decision to take all the bags off and limit the face-2-face confrontation was cowardly and dishonest.
Forget endangering the aircraft, simply if you have to offload these passengers against their will, then they are offloaded - their 'boarding card/documents are therefore revoked and they have no reason to remain in the restricted zone of an airfield. It is against the law to be in the restricted zone without the required permissions - if you are not on the flight, you have no permission to be there. A nasty approach to take, but that is your legal angle if you want it.
Someone said that you have a contract with the airline to fly to to GVA (or wherever) so they can't make you get off. Yes they can, check your contract. You will find that it agrees to transport you, it does not tie the airline down to when or how (you may have booked and have a flight number and times but this is not part of the contract). So therefore they can elect to not carry you today, on this airplane etc. Not saying this is morally correct or great - but that's the way it is.

Finally it always amazes me that people seem to think that aviation is the only industry that screws up. I (sadly) experience terrible customer service almost daily (and yes I do complain, but nearly always in writing to those that are accountable, not the poor sod that is there to face things on the day) this is in banks, supermarkets, the doctors, the hospital, on the roads - almost everywhere. Yet people seem to put up with going to hospital for your operation and being told that it is delayed/cancelled, being stuck in traffic jams for hours as lanes are coned off and no-one is working in them, filling your trolley full of groceries to find few or nil check-outs open..yet with aviation, such a complex logistical operation that is so (thank goodness) governed by multiple safety laws that we should always have a quick and easy solution and be able to rectify any situation.

[wowzz]

ORJ - excellent post.
I feel that if EZY had been more open and honest from the start, and, as you suggest, had offered a serious financial inducement, the issue could have been resolved with the minimum of fuss.
And whoever decided to take the decision to off-load the baggage without telling the pax should have been made to tell them in person, not take the coward's way out and do it in secret.

[Safety Concerns]

another problem are those who probably mean well trying to paper over the cracks but spout nonsense in the process.

It may surprise many on here but engineering for example regularly have a need to defuel. If they couldn't quite a few aircraft would be grounded by now.

It may also surprise some that Captains have the final say on fuel loads and are responsible for the correct amount being on board.

There is no excuse here. The Airbus even has a pretty colour screen in the front showing where the fuel is going and how much. That is independent to whoever was actually refuelling. It is even possible on an airbus to refuel automatically from the cockpit. Somebody just needs to tap in the CORRECT figure. Depends on what extras have been bought by the airline of course.

Bowsers may cost a fortune to buy but then airlines don't generally buy bowsers. So 100k plus is trying to paper over the cracks. It has nothing to do with this and is a completely unrealistic value for a defuel which costs peanuts and possibly the loss of 5,000 kg's of fuel at some ridiculous low price. Yes there is no duty or vat on aviation fuel.

Defuelling costs a couple of hundred quid max and if you are lucky you even get the fuel back.

This is about poor management of a situation and not the error itself. If an airline messes up you don't go around threatening the people who ultimately supply the profits and pay wages if the reported threat was genuine. You do what you can to make your error as palatable as possible. Thats the bottom line here and nothing else.

Mistakes will happen no problem, but don't try and use the ignorance of the passenger to pull one over on them. Put your hands up, explain the situation in a professional manner and things will probably work out ok.

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Safety.

nice too see more finger pointing.

I love those people who subscribe to the view that airline staff would rather p**s off 30-100 passengers (directly) and several more indirectly (such as their relatives, friends etc) and also have to have a face-2-face extreme conversation that is going to be stresfull for all concerned and (seemingly) get so heated that it takes over two hours and threats of police action....than the 10's of 'simple' suggestions all those contributors on here think can be done. Would anyone faced with the option of picking up the phone and saying 'hello Mr Fuel bowser man, would you kindly come back to our aircraft and take off the fuel you have just put on it for us' - not take that option IF IT WERE A REAL POSSIBILITY???

Oh you say, but they won't do that as it costs too much, ..oh but then you said it costs peanuts didn't you?? So again, would you take the option of calling the nice bowser man and spending peanuts or the option of spending loads in pax compensation, short shipped baggage costs and the cost of delays and all the unpleasant dealing with unhappy customers IF IT WERE A REAL POSSIBILITY???

Engineers may defuel aircraft for mtce, but this is rare that they need to do this. When they do it is usually into a much smaller company bowser at the mtce facility (don't think BHX is a mtce base for Ezy) and for smaller amounts it is hand-pumped.
I have no reason to lie about facts on here and as I work for a major competitor of Ezy it would be nice to lie and point the finger at them (especially on a passenger forum) but that would not be honest. I work for a major UK airline and have worked for several others over the years at major UK airports - I am not sure where you work of for what airline but what you claim just simply does not stack up.

OBTW, The figure of £100k+ (was for capex) read the post. It was not suggested to de-fuel would cost £100k, simply that for a fuel company to have a bowser 'free and available' to be loaded with fuel that would then be considered contaminated and not required for the next week or so, is unlikely due to the capital costs of purchasing and maitaining such a specialised piece of kit! The figure to de-fuel and aircraft at a major UK airport, who knows...a bit like asking how much it would cost to walk across the water to France..you may get a price but in practical terms it wont't happen!

[Joao da Silva]

Beazalbub

I am not a lawyer, but I do think that you could make an argument that the command is not lawful.

As the company has made a contract with the pax and accepted them on to the aircraft (so it is not a cancelation or denied boarding), one would then get into an argument about whether it was lawful to choose a number of people by virtue of the fact that they boarded last.

The clear fact would seem to me to be that easyJet is in breach of contract due to the negligence of its supplier, which is clearly under easyJet's control and is there the company's accountability.

Therefore, if easyJet is a seriously breaching contract with these people (itself an unlawful act), then (to my mind and I stand to be corrected by a lawyer), it is not clear to me (with the doors open and on stand) that the captain is issuing a lawful command.

[Joao da Silva]

Now when I started in aviation, yes this would happen. Nowadays I know of no major airport in the UK where you can get de-fuelled, and I do not mean in theory I mean for it to actually happen. Fuel contamination issues and control measurers are so strong that 'practically' on the day for you to find a fuel company that has time (they serve multiple airlines) and the resource - potentially an extra bowser (capital costs of £100k+) that will be treated as 'contaminated' for many days after the event. it just does not happen - yep, in theory we know it 'can' happen and you may find fuel companies that say they will do it..you find me one that will do it on the day when they have so many other paying customers and their requirements to balance off.

How about the airline saying "remove the unsolicited goods you placed on our aircraft, or else."

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

How about the airline saying "remove the unsolicited goods you placed on our aircraft, or else."

..and?

How about when you go to the supermarket and cannot get in to do your weekly shop as there has been a power-cut due to the supplier having a failure. The shop is closed, you have to go home with no shopping. The store staff are abused by customer who have been inconvenienced. Simple, how about saying the store saying to their power supplier 'restore the power to our store, to which you are contracted to do' Job done, simple!

As I say, everyone thinks there is a simple solution, if there were would the airline and staff really endure the costs, bad PR and confrontation.
Next we will hear the line, 'apparently they overfulled on purpose as they hadn't sold all the seats and it wasn't worth them operating'!

[Joao da Silva]

How about when you go to the supermarket and cannot get in to do your weekly shop as there has been a power-cut due to the supplier having a failure.

That is clearly force majeuere.

The easyJet incident is not.

And sorry, but your scenario is nothing like what occured at BHX.

As I say, everyone thinks there is a simple solution

There is

(a) cancel the flight (fair to all, no one travels without luggage)

(b) hold the fuel company accountable for removing the excess fuel, charge them for losses arising

(c) manage the pax situation under EU261/04

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Life In A Bubble

ah got it.

So in your scenario then.
All 130+ pax have their holidays ruined, rather than perhaps the sixty it would take with their bags to be offloaded and the flight operate.

Several other flights are potentially cancelled over the next few days as your plane is grounded as you argue point of principal and law with your supplier.

The passengers get compensated under EU law but that does not replace their holiday and plans.

You are right, so simple and so effective. I bow to your superior experience and knowledge (not sure the airline or the 60 pax who could have travelled would be so happy). I suggest you write this off to each airline so they can capture these three bullet points as their foolproof tested SOP for any such occasions. I think you may make £1000's in consultancy here as you have cured the age old problem.

Nice to know Ryanair handling agents post on this forum

As I said, I have no reason to lie. I have every reason to throw mud at Ezy, I was simpling giving the facts of 25 years experience and stating here how it is - same facts I would tell my familiy if they were on this flight. No lies, no paper over cracks but also no pretence that this is a simple situation.

I am not inclined to carry on debating with people who have no real experience and feel they have simple and pompus answers to a really difficult situation - for passengers, crew and ground staff.

Debate over for me. Enjoy yourselves with your finger pointing, hindsight and legal arguments.

You can take a monkey to a library but you cannot make it read and understand (sic).