Premiair Capt. charged with discrimination
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gulf playing Golf
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Premiair Capt. charged with discrimination
The Commander of a Premiair charter flight from Stockholm to Las Palmas disembarked three arabic pax, who for some reason did not follow the cabin crews instructions. Now he has been charged with discrimination. Caught between a rock and a hard place.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've already had a thread going on this subject, and I pointed out that the gut reaction of many contributors to 'chuck 'em off' might seem attractive...but would have dire consequences later.
Seems I was right yet again.
Seems I was right yet again.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: England
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captains decision should be final if anyone does not comply with cabin crew instructions.
It's not clear as to who has "charged" the captain with discrimination, a legal nightmare I suspect.
It's not clear as to who has "charged" the captain with discrimination, a legal nightmare I suspect.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A captain has always the right to disembark anybody from his aircraft!
If the passenger did not comply to the orders of the cabin crew they have no right to stay on board.
This is for safety reasons and has nothing to do with discrimination.
Well done by the captain!
If the passenger did not comply to the orders of the cabin crew they have no right to stay on board.
This is for safety reasons and has nothing to do with discrimination.
Well done by the captain!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this rumour is true, I hope his company, colleagues and union support him to the end.
There can be no question in my mind, the captain MUST have the final say on who can (or cannot) travel on board any aircraft.
There cannot be any compromise (politically correct?) on this.
There can be no question in my mind, the captain MUST have the final say on who can (or cannot) travel on board any aircraft.
There cannot be any compromise (politically correct?) on this.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's no rumour. If convicted he could face up to a year in the slammer.
There is no doubt that the Captain has the right to remove anybody from his flight, but the passengers also have rights.
If it is found that the passengers were removed for no other reason than their ethnic origin, then the Captain has some explaining to do.
With rights comes responsibility.
There is no doubt that the Captain has the right to remove anybody from his flight, but the passengers also have rights.
If it is found that the passengers were removed for no other reason than their ethnic origin, then the Captain has some explaining to do.
With rights comes responsibility.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd certainly be interested to hear more on the detailed circs of this case. If the pax concerned really did disobey reasonable crew instructions (and it wasn't just a languge difficulty) I can't see how the captain has a case to answer.
On a more general note, while I would normally take a fairly hard line on any challenge to the traditional scope of captains authority (i.e. pretty much final and all-encompasing), some recent cases make that... shall we say a harder position to defend?
I'm thinking particularly of cases in the USA (reported in other threads) where a 'suspicious' pax has been deplaned, interviewed and checked extensively by LE/FBI, declared to present no risk whatever - and STILL refused reboarding by the captain. On the totally specious grounds that some crew or pax found the individual 'objectionable'.
Such thinly-disguised - no, UNdisguised - racism has no place in our profession, and WILL lead to a potentially-dangerous reduction in captains authority if it continues, in the USA at least - the amount of damages that can and will be sued for here in such cases would take your breath away.
On a more general note, while I would normally take a fairly hard line on any challenge to the traditional scope of captains authority (i.e. pretty much final and all-encompasing), some recent cases make that... shall we say a harder position to defend?
I'm thinking particularly of cases in the USA (reported in other threads) where a 'suspicious' pax has been deplaned, interviewed and checked extensively by LE/FBI, declared to present no risk whatever - and STILL refused reboarding by the captain. On the totally specious grounds that some crew or pax found the individual 'objectionable'.
Such thinly-disguised - no, UNdisguised - racism has no place in our profession, and WILL lead to a potentially-dangerous reduction in captains authority if it continues, in the USA at least - the amount of damages that can and will be sued for here in such cases would take your breath away.
Surely the captain can do anything he wants to ensure the "safety and regularity etc" of the flight.
If by taking a certain passenger(s) other passengers may feel inclined to feel less "safe" then perhaps there is an arguement that the captain should refuse to take the former passenger(s).
I hardly think that discrimination features in the arguement - the only person who has the final say as to who boards is the aircraft commander - whether or not anyone else thinks otherwise. This is precisely the sort of decision that the captain is paid to make!
The employer might care to investigate the circumstances but I only hope that any captain, especially in the current climate, is fully backed by the employer.
If by taking a certain passenger(s) other passengers may feel inclined to feel less "safe" then perhaps there is an arguement that the captain should refuse to take the former passenger(s).
I hardly think that discrimination features in the arguement - the only person who has the final say as to who boards is the aircraft commander - whether or not anyone else thinks otherwise. This is precisely the sort of decision that the captain is paid to make!
The employer might care to investigate the circumstances but I only hope that any captain, especially in the current climate, is fully backed by the employer.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The captain has the right to offload anyone he chooses and passengers have rights, too. However, when you buy a ticket you enter into a contract with the airline - they agree to do their best to get you to destination safely and on time whilst you agree to obey the rules.
Now, these rules are not just written by the airlines to stop pax enjoying themselves - many of them are offical regulations with a basis in international law, some are required by insurance companies and some are just damn good sense. If you are not smart enough to obey those rules you place yourself and other passengers at risk - and in doing so you infringe the rights of other passengers.
If you choose not to obey the rules you get booted - that is just good sense and how it should be. Then you get to save up, buy another ticket and try again once you decide to behave yourself.
sdounds reasonable to me - let's just hope the PC lobby don't get the poor chap.
Now, these rules are not just written by the airlines to stop pax enjoying themselves - many of them are offical regulations with a basis in international law, some are required by insurance companies and some are just damn good sense. If you are not smart enough to obey those rules you place yourself and other passengers at risk - and in doing so you infringe the rights of other passengers.
If you choose not to obey the rules you get booted - that is just good sense and how it should be. Then you get to save up, buy another ticket and try again once you decide to behave yourself.
sdounds reasonable to me - let's just hope the PC lobby don't get the poor chap.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a legal standpoint, and I might be wrong here, but I seem to recall (and my Ops manual might seemingly suggest) that an aircraft / ships commander (possibly) only gain their full legal authority when the vessel/ship/aircraft moves under its own power ?!
E.g. My Ops Manual / Part A / General / Section 1.4.3 / Authorities, Duties, and Responsibilities of the Commander - states the following: 'The commander shall'....
etc........ and accordingly (perhaps) from a legal point of view (rather than a common sense one 
- just why is there never a lawyer about when you've a need of one ?! ) it could be read into the above that b) & c) can only be applied if the bit in bold within a) above is occuring.
Perhaps it comes down to the point of just when does the commander actually take command of the aircraft ? Is it when he walks out to the aircraft ? or is it when he first enters the aircraft ? or is it when he first enters the cockpit ? or is it when he signs the tech log ? or is it when the doors close ? or is it when the aircraft pushes ? or is it when he start the engines ? or is it when the aircraft moves under its own power ? ...... Well ?
Because, it might be argued that (and you can be sure that some slick lawyer would do just that) until that point when the captain trully assumes command is legally defined, it's open to debate as to just when the commander is able to exercise the authority to exercise his right according to b) or c) above.
Ps. A long time ago somebody, very wisely, told me that an Ops manual is primarily designed to protect the companies a_rse, not the pilots (e.g. that's why it's often loosely worded) and that you should know it backwards and forwards, not for so much as to what it says, but for what it doesn't; i.e. the Devil is in the detail (or lack of it) !
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: Devils Advocate ]
E.g. My Ops Manual / Part A / General / Section 1.4.3 / Authorities, Duties, and Responsibilities of the Commander - states the following: 'The commander shall'....
a). be responsible for the safe operation of the aeroplane and safety of its occupants and cargo during flight time;
b). have the authority to give all commands he deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aeroplane and of the persons or property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aeroplane shall obey such commands;
c). have the authority to disembark any person, or any part of the cargo, which in his opinion, may represent a potential hazard to the safety of the aeroplace or its occupants;
b). have the authority to give all commands he deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aeroplane and of the persons or property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aeroplane shall obey such commands;
c). have the authority to disembark any person, or any part of the cargo, which in his opinion, may represent a potential hazard to the safety of the aeroplace or its occupants;
- just why is there never a lawyer about when you've a need of one ?! ) it could be read into the above that b) & c) can only be applied if the bit in bold within a) above is occuring.Perhaps it comes down to the point of just when does the commander actually take command of the aircraft ? Is it when he walks out to the aircraft ? or is it when he first enters the aircraft ? or is it when he first enters the cockpit ? or is it when he signs the tech log ? or is it when the doors close ? or is it when the aircraft pushes ? or is it when he start the engines ? or is it when the aircraft moves under its own power ? ...... Well ?
Because, it might be argued that (and you can be sure that some slick lawyer would do just that) until that point when the captain trully assumes command is legally defined, it's open to debate as to just when the commander is able to exercise the authority to exercise his right according to b) or c) above.
Ps. A long time ago somebody, very wisely, told me that an Ops manual is primarily designed to protect the companies a_rse, not the pilots (e.g. that's why it's often loosely worded) and that you should know it backwards and forwards, not for so much as to what it says, but for what it doesn't; i.e. the Devil is in the detail (or lack of it) !
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: Devils Advocate ]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Techman got it right. When the rest of you say "There is no doubt that the Captain has the right to remove anybody from his flight..." that's only half the story. Finish the sentence! I would add "...when he has sufficient grounds on which to do so." Techman used the simple point that "the passengers also have rights too" to drive home the point.
Mere suspicion, or personal prejudice may be sufficient for you, but they won't stand up in a court, and your boss probably won't like you getting him sued for nothing either. It is my understanding that the pax in the case in question did nothing more than look a bit too 'brown'.
Techman says pilots get paid for making these kind of decisions. Personally I avoid making decisions except where absolutely necessary...especially on the ground...and much prefer getting someone who is responsible for security to deal with such problems. That's what they get paid for.
Rawdata and Payscale thanks for the compliment, I'm flattered! Now how do I apply for that astronaut program???
Mere suspicion, or personal prejudice may be sufficient for you, but they won't stand up in a court, and your boss probably won't like you getting him sued for nothing either. It is my understanding that the pax in the case in question did nothing more than look a bit too 'brown'.
Techman says pilots get paid for making these kind of decisions. Personally I avoid making decisions except where absolutely necessary...especially on the ground...and much prefer getting someone who is responsible for security to deal with such problems. That's what they get paid for.
Rawdata and Payscale thanks for the compliment, I'm flattered!
Now how do I apply for that astronaut program???
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference the comments above regarding when is the Captain "in charge".
To me it's when I assume responsibility for the flight, which could start when dispatch calls me 3 hours before reporting time when I'm still asleep to inquire about the fuel load. (which interrupts required rest and enables me to reset the clock).
Or how about when the gate agent calls me in the crew room and says (s)he's a seat short so would I mind a non-rev on the jump seat?
Or the ever popular plea from the load controller saying we're 600 lbs over max so would I mind chalking that up to extra "taxi" fuel?
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, my "command" of the flight starts when I'm assigned to it, and have to make the first decision concerning it.
If we're on the ground and someone decides to argue a point to the extent it becomes untenable, the answer is easy. I get my things and leave the plane, telling whomever to call me in the crew room when they have it sorted to my liking.
End of story.
To me it's when I assume responsibility for the flight, which could start when dispatch calls me 3 hours before reporting time when I'm still asleep to inquire about the fuel load. (which interrupts required rest and enables me to reset the clock).
Or how about when the gate agent calls me in the crew room and says (s)he's a seat short so would I mind a non-rev on the jump seat?
Or the ever popular plea from the load controller saying we're 600 lbs over max so would I mind chalking that up to extra "taxi" fuel?
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, my "command" of the flight starts when I'm assigned to it, and have to make the first decision concerning it.
If we're on the ground and someone decides to argue a point to the extent it becomes untenable, the answer is easy. I get my things and leave the plane, telling whomever to call me in the crew room when they have it sorted to my liking.
End of story.
Devils Advocate
I think you will find that clauses a, b and c have equal weight and operate independently of each other.
If you read each in isolation, it can be argued that the captain has the right to disembark passengers if they appear to pose a threat.
Of course, in this litigious age, he still has to justify his decision ata later time.
I think you will find that clauses a, b and c have equal weight and operate independently of each other.
If you read each in isolation, it can be argued that the captain has the right to disembark passengers if they appear to pose a threat.
Of course, in this litigious age, he still has to justify his decision ata later time.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: On the 7 seas
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I am now happily flying a privately owned jet, I do recall from my previous life what it was like flying for a scheduled carrier. Frankly, some of the responses here leaves me wondering if some pilots still live under the illusion that airlines are existing purely for the benefit of those pilots. Well, they do not and will not if they wish to return a profit to the owners.
The first rule of our job is to ensure the safe, secure, comfortable and timely transportation of passengers and freight from a to b. Do try to remember this, it should be rather easy to do.
Since none of us really know what happened onboard that Premiair flight, neither of us can really judge whether the captain took the right decision. However, since a law suit is boiling it would be safe to assume that he got it wrong somewhere. In my opinion, every mistake you overtly make should be made accountable. Just like in any other job, really. So if the captain did off-load the passengers for no valid reason, he has overstepped his area of responsibility and is thus eligble for punishment. And before you start throwing legalites at me, do keep in mind that above all we have a commitment to the passengers and the company we work for.
I am not saying that a captain has no right to decide who goes and who don't, but some kind of framework must have been laid down in the procedures. It's just that the age when a captain could do whatever he pleased is long gone, and all for the better if you ask me. And in my opinion one or more pax arguing with the crew is not a valid reason to off-load them. Who knows, they might have had their reasons to complain but got misunderstood by anxious cabin crew.
Let's try a reality check here people; if the industry continues to deny boarding or even off-load boarded passengers for the slightest of misdeads then we are headed for the abyss. What we need is for the public to regain confidence in the industry, and the actions of the Premiair captain does not serve this purpose.
Keep cool guys, and whatever you do remember that without those people down the back of the aircraft there will be no jobs to hold.
The first rule of our job is to ensure the safe, secure, comfortable and timely transportation of passengers and freight from a to b. Do try to remember this, it should be rather easy to do.
Since none of us really know what happened onboard that Premiair flight, neither of us can really judge whether the captain took the right decision. However, since a law suit is boiling it would be safe to assume that he got it wrong somewhere. In my opinion, every mistake you overtly make should be made accountable. Just like in any other job, really. So if the captain did off-load the passengers for no valid reason, he has overstepped his area of responsibility and is thus eligble for punishment. And before you start throwing legalites at me, do keep in mind that above all we have a commitment to the passengers and the company we work for.
I am not saying that a captain has no right to decide who goes and who don't, but some kind of framework must have been laid down in the procedures. It's just that the age when a captain could do whatever he pleased is long gone, and all for the better if you ask me. And in my opinion one or more pax arguing with the crew is not a valid reason to off-load them. Who knows, they might have had their reasons to complain but got misunderstood by anxious cabin crew.
Let's try a reality check here people; if the industry continues to deny boarding or even off-load boarded passengers for the slightest of misdeads then we are headed for the abyss. What we need is for the public to regain confidence in the industry, and the actions of the Premiair captain does not serve this purpose.
Keep cool guys, and whatever you do remember that without those people down the back of the aircraft there will be no jobs to hold.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gulf playing Golf
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Summing all these mails I'd say. We as captains have great authority and must use it with great care. I have never disembarked any pax(other than PADs). I have however disembarked a Cabin Crew member once, because of a nervous breakdown (hers ).
Lets not judge this Commander before all the info comes out. If he has disembarked these pax because of their tannedskin, I wish him a nice stay in jail, BUT untill then I'm 100% behind him. Things are NEVER just black and white, and everone turns to you for a quick decission......what would you have done? Exactly...me too...need more info.
).Lets not judge this Commander before all the info comes out. If he has disembarked these pax because of their tannedskin, I wish him a nice stay in jail, BUT untill then I'm 100% behind him. Things are NEVER just black and white, and everone turns to you for a quick decission......what would you have done? Exactly...me too...need more info.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viking, at first read your argument seems reasonable. But I must say that I strongly disagree with you none the less.
Yes we are there for the pax and to ultimately make money for the shareholders. But the "being there for the pax" has for many years now taken on preposterous dimensions. And while not doubting the fact that you were as much involved with what happened in the cabin of your AC as is humanly possible with a cockpit door firmly closed and your own work to think about, I do think that,bottom line, you do not really know what goes down in the cabin when pax start to misbehave.
Example.
We now have to check every boarding card of pax entering teh AC to see if flight number and date match our flight. On a short haul this week, a businessman boarded, got extremely annoyed by my polite request to see his card. Started shouting at me and the other FA's, created general uproar and made the other pax most anxious.
Before sept 11th, this man would have been allowed to board and fly with us, while with his erratic behaviour inducing a very high stress load for both the other pax and the cabin crew. We would have tried to calm him down, usually unsuccesfully, and devoted a large part of our attentions and thoughts to keeping him pacified during the flight.
Using a lot of energy and concentration on a problem which should not have been there in the first place, and using up brain capacity better spent on giving good service to
all the pax, keeping an eye on the flight safety and all the myriad things we do simultaneously in the cabin.
And no I'm not exaggerating, one unruly pax can keep a whole cabin crew so preoccupied that it goes to the detriment of our other duties! Seen it happen many times.
I had a word with the Captain of our flight, asking him if it was OK to off-load this bloke, and I'm very happy to say that the Captain told me to take whatever measures I saw fit.
So O told the pax he couldn't travel with us due to his non compliance with a reasonable request from the crew, and he was swiftly removed from the AC by ground staff and myself.
Viking, yes we do have responsabilities, but so do our pax! And if they see fit to argue, create a scene or otherwise think they can freely upset a plane-load full of passengers and crew, OFF WITH THEM.
For far too many years, the travelling public and ourselves have had to put up with total f*ckwits terrorizing aircraft cabins with scary and unpredictable behaviour.
If anything good has come out of sept 11th, it is the fact that such behaviour is now no longer tolerated by flight crews.
my two cents worth..............
Yes we are there for the pax and to ultimately make money for the shareholders. But the "being there for the pax" has for many years now taken on preposterous dimensions. And while not doubting the fact that you were as much involved with what happened in the cabin of your AC as is humanly possible with a cockpit door firmly closed and your own work to think about, I do think that,bottom line, you do not really know what goes down in the cabin when pax start to misbehave.
And in my opinion one or more pax arguing with the crew is not a valid reason to off-load them.
We now have to check every boarding card of pax entering teh AC to see if flight number and date match our flight. On a short haul this week, a businessman boarded, got extremely annoyed by my polite request to see his card. Started shouting at me and the other FA's, created general uproar and made the other pax most anxious.
Before sept 11th, this man would have been allowed to board and fly with us, while with his erratic behaviour inducing a very high stress load for both the other pax and the cabin crew. We would have tried to calm him down, usually unsuccesfully, and devoted a large part of our attentions and thoughts to keeping him pacified during the flight.
Using a lot of energy and concentration on a problem which should not have been there in the first place, and using up brain capacity better spent on giving good service to
all the pax, keeping an eye on the flight safety and all the myriad things we do simultaneously in the cabin.
And no I'm not exaggerating, one unruly pax can keep a whole cabin crew so preoccupied that it goes to the detriment of our other duties! Seen it happen many times.
I had a word with the Captain of our flight, asking him if it was OK to off-load this bloke, and I'm very happy to say that the Captain told me to take whatever measures I saw fit.
So O told the pax he couldn't travel with us due to his non compliance with a reasonable request from the crew, and he was swiftly removed from the AC by ground staff and myself.
Viking, yes we do have responsabilities, but so do our pax! And if they see fit to argue, create a scene or otherwise think they can freely upset a plane-load full of passengers and crew, OFF WITH THEM.
For far too many years, the travelling public and ourselves have had to put up with total f*ckwits terrorizing aircraft cabins with scary and unpredictable behaviour.
If anything good has come out of sept 11th, it is the fact that such behaviour is now no longer tolerated by flight crews.
my two cents worth..............
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps,
I am afraid that prejudices which have been formed since 11 September are on the whole just that. In your example that passenger was obviously unreasonable and you were right to offload him. But we are not talking about him are we.
The crew and ultimately the captain has the right to offload anyone they like and quite rightly so. However the reason they do it must be justified. If you cannot justify it for anything other than preconceived prejudices or having a bad day and are short of patience or there is some confusion, and this is what appears to have happened in this case otherwise why the charge, then the people concerned should face the consequences.
You cannot throw people off the aircraft for every minor infraction of the rules, which may arise because of confusion, post September 11 or not! If you do so then besides not having many passengers you will have charges/lawsuits like this one.
Don’t misunderstand me I am on your side on the whole. I am not disagreeing that aircrew should be able to refuse carriage but the reason for doing so MUST be justified and reasonable every single time. Aircrew is NOT a law unto themselves, as some are starting to think but must comply with the rules the same as everybody else.
[edited cos I can't spell]
[ 24 October 2001: Message edited by: Vortex what? ]
I am afraid that prejudices which have been formed since 11 September are on the whole just that. In your example that passenger was obviously unreasonable and you were right to offload him. But we are not talking about him are we.
The crew and ultimately the captain has the right to offload anyone they like and quite rightly so. However the reason they do it must be justified. If you cannot justify it for anything other than preconceived prejudices or having a bad day and are short of patience or there is some confusion, and this is what appears to have happened in this case otherwise why the charge, then the people concerned should face the consequences.
You cannot throw people off the aircraft for every minor infraction of the rules, which may arise because of confusion, post September 11 or not! If you do so then besides not having many passengers you will have charges/lawsuits like this one.
Don’t misunderstand me I am on your side on the whole. I am not disagreeing that aircrew should be able to refuse carriage but the reason for doing so MUST be justified and reasonable every single time. Aircrew is NOT a law unto themselves, as some are starting to think but must comply with the rules the same as everybody else.
[edited cos I can't spell]
[ 24 October 2001: Message edited by: Vortex what? ]