Passenger walk out - BA286 - SFO to LHR - Friday 7 March
 

I was on BA286 from SFO to LHR on Friday evening and just after we had pushed back the plane returned to the gate so that one passenger could get off the plane. The captain told us that she had decided she did not want to travel and went to on say a few cryptic things, namely:

1) a similar incident had been reported the previous evening;

2) (something like) the situation had been reported to BA headquarters and they were happy for us to fly; and

3) our security was not jeopardised.


Does anyone know (and feel able) to say what was going on? I saw the passenger in question and she looked pretty agitated. It was particularly curious that something similar had happened the previous day.

Top marks to all the BA staff for keeping us informed and getting us to LHR more or less on time.

Thanks

Could well be a nervous passenger. It happens from time to time.

What happened to her checked-in baggage, if any? Why don't BA put a block on these people ever booking flights with them again? It shouldn't be too difficult and could save a load of time-wasting and other passenger's missed connections etc

We sat at the gate whilst her checked bags were found and taken off the plane. Whilst it was extremely frustrating, it only took about 20 minutes.

On the way out, a transfer passenger's bags made it to my LHR-LAX flight, but the passenger did not. It took an hour for those suitcases to be found and removed.

Couldn't agree more that airlines should take steps to stop repeat offenders flying - that's got to make economic sense, both in terms of not having aircraft sitting on aprons for hours and also by keeping to schedule and pleasing those passengers who do turn up on time and want to fly.

If you can come up with a way to legally stop these people from making reservations, then I'm sure airlines would love to hear from you.

The carrier has the right to prevent anyone boarding that they do not wish to carry and may remove anyone they do not wish to carry and do not have to give an explanation.

Ergo, if they recognise the name and can verify with passport or similar ID number, then they could decline or return the booking.

Preventing pax booking
 

About 15 years ago I visited a major US carrier who was about to implement a program on their reservations system that, working from a list of " must not travel" passengers, would stop a reservation being made.
This was a federal requirement but I do not recall the parameters for getting put on the list. I think it started with drunk on flight and abusive to CC as the common triggers.
The program had phone numbers, addresses, credit card# etc. to try and reduce mis matches thus avoid unhappy punters.

I would imagine that this programme has been significantly enhanced in the meanwhile.

Regardless of all of that, you would be surprised how difficult it is for airlines to actually ban people from travelling. There is a legal process that needs to be followed that, in Europe at least, seem to favour the passenger. As an airline we can offload them, we can have them arrested but to ban them is an entirely different matter.

Can you just see the media hype "BA bans nervous passenger". As much as I'm sure they'd like to, they just can impose these sort of sanctions against someone who really can't help it.

Blacklisting PAX
 

This is all getting a bit off-thread, but:

1) I am sure there are sensible ways in which genuine troublemakers (be they drunkards or habitual late-arrivers) can be stopped from booking flights. Here in the UK, for instance, we have a blacklist of soccer fans who are not allowed to enter stadiums here. The same must be possible for aircraft.

2) I am equally sure that nervous passengers ought not be banned, partly as a matter of justice and partly out of concern for the negative PR that would attach to such an action.

BA's reasons for banning/refusal of carriage

http://www.britishairways.com/travel...public/en_gb#7

Yes, probably just a nervous passenger...don't be too quick to judge. Had the same thing a couple of years ago....a passenger had a mild panic attack as we were taxiing out...the cabin crew tried to calm them down but they was determined they didn't want to travel. No fault of theirs - they could have been having some emotional trouble and maybe it all came to a head there and then.

What are you going to do? You can't keep somebody imprisoned in a long metal tube for hours when they're in no fit mental state to travel as it isn't fair on them or the people around them. Plus, there may be a legal liability arising if you ignore somebody's request for help. We came back on to another stand and it cause a delay, but IMO it was the right thing to do.

You can't "blacklist" somebody for having a bad day. It they were doing it out of mischief then yes, but not if they're not well enough to fly. Maybe this pax just needed a few days to get herself sorted out prior to travelling, not just one?

With 'nervous passenger delays departure', if they did so twice in a row (two successive flights) or twice in a year? As costs rise, anything that can prevent a delay will be considered fair game. The PR response along the lines of, "We have to consider the 300 pax that were delayed last time they booked with us".

If I'm right, we may see more prosecutions for cost of diverts when pax are disruptive. It is sometimes said that a divert can cost £25k.

From the BA listing (linked above) it appears that they have all the powers they need. The use of bold text is BAs.

7a38) If you have behaved in a way mentioned above on or in connection with a previous flight and we believe you may repeat this behaviour.

7b) Our right to refuse to carry you when we have banned you from our route network

7b1) We will be entitled to refuse to carry you or your baggage if weyou a banning notice and you have bought your ticket while the ban applies.

7b2) By a banning notice we mean a written notice we have given to youyou that you are banned from being carried on our route network. (This means you are banned from travelling on all flights we operate.) This notice will give the date when the ban comes into force and the period for which it applies. A banning notice will also ask you not to buy a ticket or ask or allow anyone to do so for you.

7b3) If you try to travel while a banning notice is in force, we will refuse to carry you and you will be entitled to an involuntary fare refund.

"You can't "blacklist" somebody for having a bad day. It they were doing it out of mischief then yes, but not if they're not well enough to fly. Maybe this pax just needed a few days to get herself sorted out prior to travelling, not just one?"

Oh I disagree, if someone came to your house party and had a nervous evening and generally caused a downer for your other 00's of guests, you'd not invite him or her back. Airlines should be perfectly in their right to do the same thing.

:)What happened to human rights?!?!?!?

Give us nervous passengers some slack. You people obviously dont suffer from fear of flying. I dont think we should be banned, we all want to see the world too you know.

I have personally never stopped a flight, but i can understand the fear. You must have some fears? spiders? snakes? Actually that would be a good thread starter. "are Pilots, and CC nervous about anything"? LOL:)

It's all well and good to have clauses in the T&Cs but implementing it is another story. Believe me I know.

Another thing you may not realise is that bans are very rarely for life, so banning a nervous flyer for 6 months probably wouldn't really achieve much.

Put yourself in the place of an airline employee. Do you think we want to be inconvenienced like this. Do you think a crew member wants their lucrative BKKSYD jeapordised if they run out of hours on the ground sorting out situations like this?

I really wish passengers who post on these forums claiming 'airlines should do this' and 'airlines should do that' would actually listen to the responses given instead of arguing the toss and in a lot of cases putting us and our career choices down. You have plenty of opportunities to make our lives miserable when you fly with us. Why invade our spare time as well?

Bottom line, airlines don't ban people in situation like this because they can't. Accept it.

@ Atishoo. Its only my opinion but to me human rights are eating, drinking, voting, living without fear, freedom and maybe one or two others. The basic human right to fly whatever provider I damn well want in Europe is bull. It is a privilege, not a right. Our using PPRUNE is a privilege extended to us by its owners and moderators, not a right because we've been on a plane. So if I start swearing and ranting and pulling threads off topic, I expect to be banned. Passengers that can't keep their sh*t together for a flight should also be able to be banned by the airlines.

@ VS LHRCSA, not sure who you're ranting at but for me, my opinion is for airlines to "be able to ban", not "should ban", not "must ban" but "be able to ban". Let us remember that the lady flying from SFO has probably 25 airlines that will through a hop-skip-and-a-jump get her to anywhere in the world. Getting banned by one airline, does not prevent her from getting on another plane. For my two pennies worth, I spend a reasonable amount of my time on the security side and airlines have watch lists, otherwise one day you'd jump into your seat 3K and Osama Bin Laden would be sitting in seat 3A across the aisle from you. So the technology exists, the will to use it is something else. If, in Europe, an individual has a right to fly by whatever airline they choose then this is fine, but that should not be a human right. It should be a privilege.

Mr Quite Happy,

Is there anywhere in your world where you cant keep your S*** together? There must have been some time in your life where you almost or did lose it.

We are human we are not robots, people have fear, i have fear of flying but when i get off the plane and see the joys of other parts of the world im not fearful. So in your opinion as you say I shouldnt be allowed to enjoy parts of the world that someone like yourself can enjoy? maybe I got you wrong but I see someone who has selfish attitudes towards people with afflictions/fears, which to me surmounts to predjudice. :)

I am a Doctor, you may come to my Hospital with something that you consider scary wrong with you. I may think its trivial, but I wouldnt have you banned from my Hospital, because I think you are wasting my time. So maybe you should think next time before you spout off about people who have a fear of flying, and think again if you come to a Casualty department with a thorn in your foot !!! :eek: Because us Doctors may just not want you there, and we will go to our Doctors forums and make comments about the likes of you :)

...hummm...hope I'm not near your hospital, doc.

Seems to me that if it's a one-off, first time, then it happens. Bad luck. We all understand. No problem.

But if I know that (for example) I'm afraid of spiders, I may well want to get over it, but I probably ought to do it in a way that doesn't inconvenience 50/100/200/300 other people.

And if I am running a business that depends on people being OK with (insert potential scary fear here) then it's reasonable to expect that people suffering from (insert scary fear) might want to reconsider their potential to disrupt the lives of lots of others by, nonetheless and in spite of their known fear, interacting with my business.
Further, if I know that they are suffering from said fear from previous experience it seems reasonable that I should at least have the option to decline their business. This has nothing to do with human rights, victimisation or prejudice.

Most people don't travel for the enjoyment of travelling. Whether they are going on holiday or on business, most people have deadlines/timings to meet. It seems somewhat discourteous to put so many others to inconvenience in those cases where someone has a known and unresolved fear that may or may not rear its head.

Like most things in life, this is a whole lot simpler if people just act responsibly rather than there having to be laws and regulations in place.

Fear of flying is more widespread than you might think and manifests itself in different ways. If someone just can't go on with the flight, then no crew member, including the Captain, has the right to imprison them on the aircraft. I suspect the disruption was minor compared to recent weather related disruptions. It is inconvenient to search and offload bags in these circumstances, but there is no alternative if a pax genuinely displays fear. Banning them will not help them overcome that fear! Have some understanding that not all your fellow pax are as comfortable with flying as you may be.
In the pre-911 days I found that taking a nervous pax to the flight deck and giving a brief explanation of our job, helped them relax - sadly OBL and his cronies put paid to that idea.
In these days of inflated hotel prices, a diversion of a full 747 or 380 will cost much more than £25k - it's the hidden costs of the aircraft and crews being out-of-position.