EasyJet passengers told 'get off the plane or you will be arrested'
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we don't actually know that the fuel company was to blame do we???
So I dreamt up my defuel last week in Glasgow?
Defuel costs peanuts, you just need the experience and know who to ask.
Oh look a few other posts on this:
Whether it was investigated in this case or not remains to be seen but quite often the problem is with experienced non engineers making decisions without talking to the right people.
What was that about monkeys and library's
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!
Defuel costs peanuts, you just need the experience and know who to ask.
Oh look a few other posts on this:
Yes it can/has been done, requires maintenance and bowser man.
Fuel removed can only go back in the same a/c or same companies other a/c. Or disposed of, the cost of which is picked up by the airline.
Done it several times,
I wouldn't imagine that it would take too long to get 5T off a 320.
Fuel removed can only go back in the same a/c or same companies other a/c. Or disposed of, the cost of which is picked up by the airline.
Done it several times,
I wouldn't imagine that it would take too long to get 5T off a 320.
Whether it was investigated in this case or not remains to be seen but quite often the problem is with experienced non engineers making decisions without talking to the right people.
What was that about monkeys and library's
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joao,
You can argue the merits of your case to your hearts content before a magistrate or police officer, however the ANO does provide the legal basis for the commander to have his instructions complied with.
A breach of contract does not infer that a commanders instruction is in anyway unlawful for the purpose of that order.
I would again make the point that there is nothing to suggest any particular relevance to this incident. The reply was in response to some erroneous statements being made during the course of the thread.
You can argue the merits of your case to your hearts content before a magistrate or police officer, however the ANO does provide the legal basis for the commander to have his instructions complied with.
A breach of contract does not infer that a commanders instruction is in anyway unlawful for the purpose of that order.
I would again make the point that there is nothing to suggest any particular relevance to this incident. The reply was in response to some erroneous statements being made during the course of the thread.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beazelbub
You misunderstand me.
I am not questioning the captain's authority, but am saying I think a clever lawyer could argue that the command was unlawful under the circumstances and with authority comes accountability.
I notice that Piltdown Man, an airline capt I believe, said
Whether the conditions of carriage would still carry much weight under the circumstances, is another question, as the airline seems to have driven a horse and carriage through the contract.
You misunderstand me.
I am not questioning the captain's authority, but am saying I think a clever lawyer could argue that the command was unlawful under the circumstances and with authority comes accountability.
I notice that Piltdown Man, an airline capt I believe, said
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.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 74
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OpsRoomJunke
I totally concur. Well said.
I am not inclined to carry on debating with people who have no real experience and feel they have simple and pompous answers .............
Debate over for me...................
You can take a monkey to a library but you cannot make it read and understand (sic).
Debate over for me...................
You can take a monkey to a library but you cannot make it read and understand (sic).
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OpsRoomJunkie
I guess that life is a learning free zone for you, devoid of external challenge and governed by internal reinforcement?
You should come to my company for a focus group day; we invite our customers to tell us what they think and then we use that feedback to innovate.
Sometimes the people without the experience ask the 'stupid' questions that give us a new perspective on how to solve problems or recognise opportunities.
We never forget where our revenues come from.
I am not inclined to carry on debating with people who have no real experience and feel they have simple and pompous answers .............
You should come to my company for a focus group day; we invite our customers to tell us what they think and then we use that feedback to innovate.
Sometimes the people without the experience ask the 'stupid' questions that give us a new perspective on how to solve problems or recognise opportunities.
We never forget where our revenues come from.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joao da Silva - hang on just a second.
I am a lawyer, although I do not practise aviation law. What I said earlier about the 'endangering' argument did not show the full picture. Apologies. Now that Bealzebub has kindly directed us to the relevant statute - the Air Navigation Order - I stand corrected and recognise that, on a straightforward reading, the Commander's authority would indeed enable him to disembark passengers against their will.
Exactly. Thanks again Bealzebub. JDS - you are muddling the issues here.
No, a lawyer would not be 'clever' if he argued that. Read the statute. As for your comment: 'with authority comes accountability'. Well, yes of course it does, but again that does not change the legal position!
So, to summarise:
a) the Captain can make the passengers get off if he wants to;
b) the passengers may have a claim for breach of contract against easyJet, depending on many factors, including the Terms of Carriage, which may or may not be applicable. That involves reading through them very carefully, which is not my idea of fun on a Saturday morning. So instead, I am off to make a coffee
I am a lawyer, although I do not practise aviation law. What I said earlier about the 'endangering' argument did not show the full picture. Apologies. Now that Bealzebub has kindly directed us to the relevant statute - the Air Navigation Order - I stand corrected and recognise that, on a straightforward reading, the Commander's authority would indeed enable him to disembark passengers against their will.
A breach of contract does not infer that a commander's instruction is in any way unlawful for the purpose of that order.
I am not questioning the captain's authority, but am saying I think a clever lawyer could argue that the command was unlawful under the circumstances and with authority comes accountability.
So, to summarise:
a) the Captain can make the passengers get off if he wants to;
b) the passengers may have a claim for breach of contract against easyJet, depending on many factors, including the Terms of Carriage, which may or may not be applicable. That involves reading through them very carefully, which is not my idea of fun on a Saturday morning. So instead, I am off to make a coffee
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicholas49
To be clear, I am not saying that the captain cannot disembark the passengers, the statute says that and the police could be summoned to assist. The pax would go. That is clear from a theoretical point of view.
However, post hoc, there may be a price to pay.
Regardless of the terms, what about the implied terms and conditions?
This appears not to have been a denied boarding, but rather that the carrier failed to manage the loading of fuel and as a result did not fulfil their obligation to transport the passengers who were subsequently offloaded.
So surely a passenger contract has an implied term and condition that the carrier will use reasonable efforts to ensure that the passenger will be carried? If the aircraft is loaded well in excess of the fuel load required, it would suggest to me that there was negligence, thus breach of contract.
In summary, I see how my posts may have read ambiguously, all I was saying is that it seems to me that offloading the flight using the ANO may be unlawful in the context of the contract.
It seems clear from the ANO that the passengers cannot refuse the captain's order to disembark, although as Piltdown Man (an airline pilot) says, how it would pan out in reality is another matter.
To be clear, I am not saying that the captain cannot disembark the passengers, the statute says that and the police could be summoned to assist. The pax would go. That is clear from a theoretical point of view.
However, post hoc, there may be a price to pay.
Regardless of the terms, what about the implied terms and conditions?
This appears not to have been a denied boarding, but rather that the carrier failed to manage the loading of fuel and as a result did not fulfil their obligation to transport the passengers who were subsequently offloaded.
So surely a passenger contract has an implied term and condition that the carrier will use reasonable efforts to ensure that the passenger will be carried? If the aircraft is loaded well in excess of the fuel load required, it would suggest to me that there was negligence, thus breach of contract.
In summary, I see how my posts may have read ambiguously, all I was saying is that it seems to me that offloading the flight using the ANO may be unlawful in the context of the contract.
It seems clear from the ANO that the passengers cannot refuse the captain's order to disembark, although as Piltdown Man (an airline pilot) says, how it would pan out in reality is another matter.
Last edited by Joao da Silva; 15th Jan 2011 at 08:48.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, coffee in hand, so let's clear a few things up. I must say I think this is the first time I have ever been able to answer rather than ask a question here!
Good. We agree on that then.
Yes, there may well be a price to pay if the passengers bring a successful claim for breach of contract against easyJet. I have found the Terms and Conditions of Carriage on their website. On a quick glance through, I think they would be unsuccessful in bringing such a claim. Why? Because they contain this provision:
The section in bold is the important bit. And it appears to be relevant to this situation. This plane is too heavy, so some of you and your bags must off-load for safety reasons. You agreed to this when you bought your ticket (even though none of you read that part). (Whether easyJet have a claim against their fuel supplier if it was the fuel-loader's balls-up is an entirely separate matter. I bet their legal department are looking into it, though!)
This is the most problematic comment.
1) Yes, all contracts have implied terms and conditions, but there is no such thing as a 'passenger contract' per se, nor are there implied terms that relate specifically to passenger transport. Yes, the 'reasonable' test is important, but I'm willing to bet the Commander here took all 'reasonable steps' to resolve this situation. He alone knows.
2) 'negligence, thus breach of contract'. Don't know where to begin with this, other than to say that negligence is from tort law and breach of contract is (somewhat predictably) from contract law. They have nothing to do with each other.
No, as said in my earlier post, any contractual irregularities do not negate the authority under the ANO. In addition, you need to consider Article 8 above.
I mean this kindly, but I must say you are misunderstanding fundamental legal principles here to reach wildly erratic, and erroneous, conclusions. I am not an aviation lawyer so I am not an expert in the field, but I hope this helps clarify.
Nick
PS: Thanks, TightSlot.
To be clear, I am not saying that the captain cannot disembark the passengers, the statute says that and the police could be summoned to assist. The pax would go. That is clear from a theoretical point of view.
However, post hoc, there may be a price to pay.
This appears not to have been a denied boarding, but rather that the carrier failed to manage the loading of fuel and as a result did not fulfil their obligation to transport the passengers who were subsequently offloaded.
This appears not to have been a denied boarding, but rather that the carrier failed to manage the loading of fuel and as a result did not fulfil their obligation to transport the passengers who were subsequently offloaded.
Article 8
Refusal and Limitation of Carriage
8.1. Right to refuse carriage
We may refuse to carry you or your Baggage for reasons of safety...
Refusal and Limitation of Carriage
8.1. Right to refuse carriage
We may refuse to carry you or your Baggage for reasons of safety...
So surely a passenger contract has an implied term and condition that the carrier will use reasonable efforts to ensure that the passenger will be carried? If the aircraft is loaded well in excess of the fuel load required, it would suggest to me that there was negligence, thus breach of contract.
1) Yes, all contracts have implied terms and conditions, but there is no such thing as a 'passenger contract' per se, nor are there implied terms that relate specifically to passenger transport. Yes, the 'reasonable' test is important, but I'm willing to bet the Commander here took all 'reasonable steps' to resolve this situation. He alone knows.
2) 'negligence, thus breach of contract'. Don't know where to begin with this, other than to say that negligence is from tort law and breach of contract is (somewhat predictably) from contract law. They have nothing to do with each other.
all I was saying is that it seems to me that offloading the flight using the ANO may be unlawful in the context of the contract.
I mean this kindly, but I must say you are misunderstanding fundamental legal principles here to reach wildly erratic, and erroneous, conclusions. I am not an aviation lawyer so I am not an expert in the field, but I hope this helps clarify.
Nick
PS: Thanks, TightSlot.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 74
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is rather depressing.
As a pilot I guess I've no place on this thread anyway ! ( but I guess I'm not the only one, either )
To discuss the reason for the stuff up is pointless, if you KNOW that the tanker driver started to txt his girlfriend and overfuelled as a result, or that the Captain got his sums wrong, so what ? Are you going to ask Easyjet to ensure that their sub-contractors do their job properly next time, or ask if the Captain has a grasp of simple arithmetic ? That is a normal expectation, and check-in staff are going to regard you as some sort of nutter if you do.
This thread should only have been about how Easyjet handed the stuff up - which in itself was a given - with suggestions as to how the pax. might have been handled better from a customer point of view, the legal considerations are very interesting, thank you, and yes, sometime stupid questions in seminars can be very useful to work towards a solution .
What got ( gets ) my goat is the AUTOMATIC assumption that the pilot stuffed up everytime that there is an aviation incident ( as here, quote " the Captain got his sums wrong " Oh, yeah ? )
If the pilot makes a mistake, and yes, they sometimes do, even me (!) it is usually the last mistake in a chain, and he isn't around to defend his actions, maybe based on mistaken information given by someone else in the chain.
Sorry my paranoia is showing through. I can handle it.
canx the flight, ............., and upset all the pax. Or off-load enough to make the plane able to operate.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etrang
I agree.
Also, I wonder if the people responsible for offloading the bags considered whether anyone was carrying medication?
The airport security advice is "Remember to take only what you need for your journey. Extra supplies and larger containers of medicine can go in your hold baggage" (source DirectGov.)
Given this flight was on Boxing day, finding an available doctor/dispensing pharmacy in a ski resort might have been something of a challenge and at the extreme may have required a trip to the nearest hospital for treatment.
The same applies to people travelling with babies, although food is probably easier to find, sterilising equipment for bottles may not be.
I would think that they should be at least aware their bags would not be waiting for them.
I agree.
Also, I wonder if the people responsible for offloading the bags considered whether anyone was carrying medication?
The airport security advice is "Remember to take only what you need for your journey. Extra supplies and larger containers of medicine can go in your hold baggage" (source DirectGov.)
Given this flight was on Boxing day, finding an available doctor/dispensing pharmacy in a ski resort might have been something of a challenge and at the extreme may have required a trip to the nearest hospital for treatment.
The same applies to people travelling with babies, although food is probably easier to find, sterilising equipment for bottles may not be.
I would think that they should be at least aware their bags would not be waiting for them.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yorkshire tyke you don't get off the hook that easy. You as the responsible person, paid quite well to ensure flights get from A to B safely, have quite a major role to play.
Please correct any of these statements:
You are responsible for deciding final fuel load
You are responsible for flt plan calculations based upon weight
To make those calculations you need the weight of the fuel
To obtain the weight of the fuel you need to know how much is in the tanks
To know how much is in the tanks you need to look at the gauge and the fuel chit delivered by the fuel firm prior to flight.
With pax on board the error was detected very very late. If the aircraft had already been fuelled why wasn't the captain aware of the extra fuel load prior to boarding?
If the aircraft was fuelled immediately prior to boarding then he should have been paying attention anyway.
The bowser driver is way down the chain (if he was responsible) and its all too easy to blame an external supplier. External supplies need to checked anyway but fuel, fuel is critically important and yet nobody discovered until very very late that it was wrong.
Sorry, that comes back to the Captain in my book
Please correct any of these statements:
You are responsible for deciding final fuel load
You are responsible for flt plan calculations based upon weight
To make those calculations you need the weight of the fuel
To obtain the weight of the fuel you need to know how much is in the tanks
To know how much is in the tanks you need to look at the gauge and the fuel chit delivered by the fuel firm prior to flight.
With pax on board the error was detected very very late. If the aircraft had already been fuelled why wasn't the captain aware of the extra fuel load prior to boarding?
If the aircraft was fuelled immediately prior to boarding then he should have been paying attention anyway.
The bowser driver is way down the chain (if he was responsible) and its all too easy to blame an external supplier. External supplies need to checked anyway but fuel, fuel is critically important and yet nobody discovered until very very late that it was wrong.
Sorry, that comes back to the Captain in my book
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 74
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, I know nothing about Easyjet procedures, so won’t blame the Captain until someone tells me the precise order of events – if they ever can, and if you can’t – shut up and stop talking bo*****s, it is precisely this automatic assumption that the pilot is always wrong to which I fiercely object.
Not prepared to answer anymore uninformed comment, so pls. go away
Not prepared to answer anymore uninformed comment, so pls. go away
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not prepared to answer anymore uninformed comment, so pls. go away
Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft
52 The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
that the aircraft is in every way fit for the intended flight
in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine
coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil and engine coolant have been complied with;
in the case of a flying machine, that having regard to the performance of the
flying machine in the conditions to be expected on the intended flight, and to any obstructions at the places of departure and intended destination and on the intended route, it is capable of safely taking off, reaching and maintaining a safe height thereafter and making a safe landing at the place of intended destination;
52 The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
that the aircraft is in every way fit for the intended flight
in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine
coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil and engine coolant have been complied with;
in the case of a flying machine, that having regard to the performance of the
flying machine in the conditions to be expected on the intended flight, and to any obstructions at the places of departure and intended destination and on the intended route, it is capable of safely taking off, reaching and maintaining a safe height thereafter and making a safe landing at the place of intended destination;
Its a very poor captain that shoves the blame for fuel error onto somebody else. If the schedule is tight then extra attention should be paid to the fuel load. There are 2 of you up front and the screen is in colour with pretty boxes highlighting the tanks. Even if you are chatting away or doing something else it is no action to check.
You are responsible and not the poor bowser driver.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns: your argument is ridiculous.
So in your ideal world, every flight would see the Captain (obviously the First Officer could not be trusted to do this, it must be the Captain) loading the fuel himself?! You better be prepared to wait a long, long time at the gate in that case.
Should he load the bags into the hold himself to make sure the job has been done properly?
Should he pass through the cabin before landing to check everyone's seatbelt is fastened, just to make sure the cabin crew have done their job?
And if he doesn't, is he still a 'very poor Captain'? Don't be ridiculous.
No one is saying he is not ultimately responsible for everything. But he has to delegate.
So in your ideal world, every flight would see the Captain (obviously the First Officer could not be trusted to do this, it must be the Captain) loading the fuel himself?! You better be prepared to wait a long, long time at the gate in that case.
Should he load the bags into the hold himself to make sure the job has been done properly?
Should he pass through the cabin before landing to check everyone's seatbelt is fastened, just to make sure the cabin crew have done their job?
And if he doesn't, is he still a 'very poor Captain'? Don't be ridiculous.
No one is saying he is not ultimately responsible for everything. But he has to delegate.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nicholas, lawyer or no lawyer there are enough cases that have already taken place where responsibility has been decided. I will also remind you of your own words
Of course nobody expects the captain to do the job himself but there are company procedures in addition to the ano and they tend to be crystal clear.
In fact I will quote from one company:
We are not discussing street corner law, it is more complicated and there are a number of different layers that have to be complied with.
I would love to see you successfully challenge the above.
My comment still stands and is far from ridiculous. It is the every day norm and one of the reasons why pay is good.
I am a lawyer, although I do not practise aviation law.
In fact I will quote from one company:
The commander shall ensure that before each flight a weight and balance calculation is prepared using the correct procedure and that it complies with the aircraft weights and C.G. certified limitations.
The correct fuel loading of the aircraft is the legal responsibility of the commander.
The correct fuel loading of the aircraft is the legal responsibility of the commander.
I would love to see you successfully challenge the above.
My comment still stands and is far from ridiculous. It is the every day norm and one of the reasons why pay is good.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am totally baffled by the jobsworth's paranoia that "defuelled" fuel is/could be contaminated.
They just loaded the bloody stuff....so are they admitting that their procedures/couplings/hoses/bunkers are so lax and poorly -maintained that they dump a half-pound of sand/dust/water/into ~10 tonnes of fuel?
Oh, sorry, I forgot....the aircraft arrived full of contaminated fuel that the last lot of lazy/incompetent suppliers shoved into the tanks.
(the fact that a load of crud floats around in there from build/maintenance, is a side-issue...BA 038 ? the heathrow glide-in...had all sorts in the fuel system but it had flown for a longtime with that "contamination" ! )
So, Yes, I concede that a lax system (or incompetent/lax/suicidal pilot) COULD see an A/C with almost empty (apart from miscible contaminants) could contaminate a load of freshly-boarded fuel, but it's about as likely as the Pope taking a mistress.
OMHO it's Ezy's ballsup, the knobber who decided to screw-up ALL the Pax's holidays,needs demoting back to his level of incompetence
They just loaded the bloody stuff....so are they admitting that their procedures/couplings/hoses/bunkers are so lax and poorly -maintained that they dump a half-pound of sand/dust/water/into ~10 tonnes of fuel?
Oh, sorry, I forgot....the aircraft arrived full of contaminated fuel that the last lot of lazy/incompetent suppliers shoved into the tanks.
(the fact that a load of crud floats around in there from build/maintenance, is a side-issue...BA 038 ? the heathrow glide-in...had all sorts in the fuel system but it had flown for a longtime with that "contamination" ! )
So, Yes, I concede that a lax system (or incompetent/lax/suicidal pilot) COULD see an A/C with almost empty (apart from miscible contaminants) could contaminate a load of freshly-boarded fuel, but it's about as likely as the Pope taking a mistress.
OMHO it's Ezy's ballsup, the knobber who decided to screw-up ALL the Pax's holidays,needs demoting back to his level of incompetence