RAT 5

Oh where is Leo H. C. when you really need him? Surely he must have the ear of 'imself, to be sure!

GGV

RAT5 You referred above to a posting of mine. In fact I did not specifiy the Authority to which I made my approach. It would be unfair to assume that it was the CAA. As I said, it was an informal chat (and very useful and candid for that reason) and I would prefer not to specify the Authority involved.

RAT 5

GGV.
Humble apologies. I too try to use the word 'authorities' in a general sense, rather than specific. Any assumptions on my part are unfounded.

I wonder when & how we as an industry will find an answer to this question. Let us keep trying and post when we have news, rather than bar room speculation.

Success.

banana9999

I agree - this is so bad.

Now give me my pilot's hat

JW411

Nov71:

"If smoking on an aircraft is a criminal offence...."

Where exactly does it say that smoking on an aircraft is a criminal offence?

Sunfish

Here is Reuters report:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Six German airline passengers who said they were being held against their will on an aircraft stuck on the runway for hours during a snowstorm have filed "false imprisonment" charges, German police said Saturday.

The passengers filed charges against the pilot of a British Airways Berlin-London flight that sat on the runway for seven hours before it could take off, a federal police spokesman said.

Passengers boarded the plane at Berlin's Tegel airport at 7 a.m. Thursday, but snow and ice delayed their takeoff. At 11:30 a.m. a man named Ingo Q. called a police emergency hotline on his cell phone and said he felt as if he was being "held hostage," the tabloid Bild reported Saturday.

Police boarded the plane and Ingo Q. ran forward and screamed "I want to get out of here." But only three people who only had hand luggage were allowed to leave the plane.

Shortly after noon, Ingo Q told police again that he wanted to leave the aircraft, still waiting on the snow-covered runway. Ingo, his wife and another couple from Biesdorf near Berlin were allowed off the plane at 12:48 p.m., and it finally took off at 2:36 p.m., seven hours late, Bild said.

The Berlin police spokesman said it was an unusual incident. "The plane stood there for a long time ... It's difficult to say whether the passengers are allowed off or not. It's something they have to work out

Sunfish

Despite all the pompous legal claptrap that has been paraded here, I suspect that we are going to end up with the good old common law test of what is "Reasonable". I also think that there is a much more important issue here that has been overlooked.

Is it "reasonable" to have pax sitting in a plane for 7 hours waiting to take off? Personally I don't think so.

Is it "reasonable" to deny people the right to leave an aircraft at an intermediate or diversion stop on the grounds that they originally contracted to fly to another destination? I don't think so.

Is it may be reasonable to deny the right to leave if there are practical difficulties in doing so that make it dangerous for pax or staff? Most definately

Is it reasonable for airlines to sue passengers whose behaviour causes delays? Probably is.



But there is a much more important issue here. Exactly what were the entire crew doing all this time? My personal view having had to sit through a few delays myself, is that the BA crew involved, from the Captain down, deserve a giant foot up the backside for failing to manage the situation. It was probably a crew made up of the thoughtless sneering british idiots who call passengers "self loading freight" and behave accordingly.

The evidence for that statement? Six Germans, the most orderly and law abiding of all Europeans, become irate enough to complain and now take court action. Why were'nt the pax advised regularly of the causes of the delay and the status of the flight? Why were'nt they disembarked after, say, two hours? Why were they boarded in the first place if the Captain knew of the delay? Would you get irate if you were delayed for more than twice as long as the scheduled duration of the flight? I know I would!

So who the $%^& do you think you are to prattle on about your rights to torment the people who pay your wages? So go on being pompous about your legal powers, the publicity generated by this little storm in a tea cup will do wonders for BA's reputation.

As a simple PPL, the rules here state that my pax have to obey my lawful instructions airside. I want to ensure they have a pleasant flying experience. If I strap someone in and they then say "I want to get out" who am I to refuse?

Sunfish

Sorry about the rant Trip. The longest delay I've faced was about six hours.

QF 747 spoiler actuator kaput after we were all boarded for LAX. Captain made an announcement that QF engineers were looking at the problem and would advise in half an hour. At appointed time we were told to disembark and another aircraft was going to take us to Sydney. At Sydney their LAX flight was held waiting for us. At LAX all onward bookings had been changed already.

Couldn't fault Qf's response to a mechanical problem or their customer service. We were kept informed the whole way through. Only problem was I finally arrived at the Riverside Hilton in New Orleans at midnight on Mardi Gras instead of 7pm

qfcabin

Interesting discussion gentlemen (and ladies). Several years ago, I was working a QF from SIN to CDG..due weather we had to divert into FRA for fuel..as it happened FRA was the final destination for quite a large number of our pax.
However, as it was 0300 Fra time, no customs, minimal QF ground support, no possibility of baggage handling, being located on a remote fuelling bay with no access to a gate combined to prohibit pax leaving the aircraft; (oh, and the presence of several large uniformed police or airport security personnel).
In that instance even though we had many pax vociferously demanding to be allowed to disembark (and after 12 hours or so in the air from SIN and being able to see the FRA terminal from the aeroplane, who could blame them?) we had no options but to continue with pax and baggage to CDG.Had we remained in FRA till it opened , the bulk of our pax with CDG as their ultimate destination would have been unfairly delayed.
Any thoughts?

GGV

qfcabin as I see it this is a bit easier to answer than may initially appear. The key is that it appears that it was the German (airport) authorities that denied access due to non-available facilities (no customs, etc. and you did not mention immigration which probably would not have been available if customs were not available). The argument is then between the airport and government authorities and any pax that want to leave the aircraft. (In fact airports do from time to time deny access to terminal buildings, especially in the case of multiple diversions where the facilities are overwhelmned. The justification for substantial delays is often safety, due to congestion in the building). The key to such a situation is the role of the National authorities and any safety arguments that might apply.

That being said, the same principle of "detaining the unwilling" arises and one can see a situation where an individual could insist on getting off and various fun and games starting. At a minimum it could be forecast that (a) they would need a good reason (not just convenience) to sustain their argument and (b) they might get off, but they would not be processed through the airport in the absence of the necessary facilities - leading, at a minimum, to a stay in the transit lounge. The consequences of that could be probelmmatic for everyone else ... but would be no different than removing a passenger for medical reasons ... What about their bags .... and the lack of unloading facilities... but that this a different matter.

P.S. RAT 5 thanks for your fine and humble apology ... which was unnecessary. Just setting the record straight.

normal_nigel

Has David Learmount commneted yet in the media?

Surely all discussion if futile until he has appeared in a paper/ on Sky News and told us all how it is?

unwiseowl

Well I wish DL/Flight would comment, because that comment would be based on investigation and research.

NigelOnDraft

Interesting, more in-house, discussions appear to indicate that there is legal precedant (multiple) [and training on this basis] basically indicating that once a journey has begun, then you are with the crew / vehicle to the end of that journey.

I am not suggesting this extends to "detaining" a passenger on board because of the cost implications of a delay / retrieving baggage. However, it would apply to once you have pushed back, and until you arrive at the designated destination, the crew / Captain are under no obligation to make specific / additional arrangements / stops / detours should one now decide not to travel / travel no further. Goes back to US railroad days - which as many will appreciate - are the precedant for much of aviation law.

I am quite aware that there are numerous updated laws, both national and international, that may (or may not) override. However, a pPrune debate, or even a DL leader, is unlikely to resolve the issue

el @

Please mention specific, verifiable cases. "You are" or you "You must be" ?!!
This vague, uncircumstantiated sentence is not bringing much to this discussion.

Let's stay on topic. Nobody is talking about specific / additional arrangements / stops / detours.
We are talking about the right of leaving a stopped airplane.

Excuse me? The US railroad days precedent for aviation law? Including shooting at Native Americans as seen in the old movies? Does that apply to my contry too? Interesting opinion, but must be your own only.

See, the concept that apparently is so hard for some to grasp, is that no specific laws are needed to let a free human being to decide where he wants to go (or not go).
To the contrary, I applaude the fresh and sincere posting by Sunfish, he has been hable to summarize and stigmatize much of the arrogant attitude kept by what I understand is only a minority of the Piloting Crews.

NigelOnDraft

el @

This will be my last post whilst you (and others) take such an aggressive attitude to what I am trying to "debate" at a rational level.

This is a Professional Pilots' board, and one would expect a level of knowledge of Aviation law to post here. Various "treaties" apply to Aviation, called various names (e.g. "Tokyo Convention") and it is historical fact that many of these orginate from US Railroad Law - surprisingly enough

I have tried time and again to point out that I will make no attempt to stop you leaving a stopped aeroplane. However, I need not make (as far as I am aware) specific / additional arrangements / stops / detours. . If you can show me I must, then I will... but until then I will act in the interests of the majoprity of passengers who want to get to their destination, and/or my company's instructions.

So, we are diverted to XYZ, and parked off stand. The doors are closed. How are you going to get off? I won't stop you, unless you attempt to open the door. If you attempt to open the door you are committing an offence, since you may well kill someone the other side, and/or yourself when you fall out. I can therefore restrain you (but would prefer to discourage you).

We are stuck in / post a de-icing queue. You want to get off. The aircraft is "stopped" (your arbitrary criteria that I will ask you to quote a law defining this as a state where you are allowed to "get off"). What must I do to facilitate this? Anything?

What a lot of people (including you) call here "arrogant attitude kept by what I understand is only a minority of the Piloting Crews" is, IMHO, a misunderstanding or over-emphasis of what we can do. Piloting an aircraft is subject to so many laws. I cannot taxi an aircraft 1 metre without permission from ATC. I cannot disembark a passenger without the agreement, or in accordance with the rules of, the police, airport security company, airport operator, immigration, customs and probably others. I cannot demand a parking stand, nor steps. Yes - in a medical emergency I can summon police / ambulance / steps etc. but only in a genuine health or life threatening case.

So I pose the question back. We are parked off stand. You want to get off. What am I legally obliged to do to comply with your legal rights? And to quote yourself, please quote the actual law and/or example case.

GGV

Nigel, I think I now understand you better, but I also think you contribute to making the matter more complex than it needs be. First, this thread started in response to a claim by Ryanair about legalities (claims that appears to be incorrect), and some of us keep going back to that. Second, other topics having crept in, it appears like some people are looking for legal advice here (and such advice should be sought elsewhere).

In response to your question I am not qualified to answer this definitively, but try to think of it from the other point of view. Here we find you as a pax on an aeroplane at a diversion airfield and you have genuine fears about continuing on the flight (for whatever reason). You ask that arrangements be made to get us off. You do so politely and, having been visited by the captain, you explain that you are unsatisified with some aspect of how the flight was conducted, safety equipment, cabin crew (non)performance of safety related duties, etc. You say that there is no rush to get you off and you are willing to help in any way possible, bar continuing on the flight.

Can the captain stop you? That is the question that needs to be answered. One can add colour and complication by adding the fact that the immediate consequence of allowing any passenger off will be to ensure that the flight will not be able to continue without a prior overnight stop.

So this time it is you who wants off, and your reasons/fears are genuine. Can the captain make you stay on board? Do you think he would have such an entitlement? At least if we can answer that question, we can then move on to the more complex ones.

Nov71

Please will a RYR Captain please invoke Company policy so it can be contested in Court along with a disruptive passenger ejected en-route to Tenerife for abusive behaviour

Faire d'income

GGV, as usual you put it more succinctly than I or others could ever put it.

I cannot answer your question. However it could happen to me or many others here tomorrow and we would have to act without the legal opinion we all desire.

Most of us would plead, persuade said pax to stay aboard....reassure any doubts etc but after that if the pax was determined to deplane we would have the original problem.

Irish courts have tended to back up Irish crews quite well with disruptive pax in the recent past but this is different.

*You are not in flight by any definition and the doors holding the pax were closed by your crew.
*You can argue semantically about no steps, but that does not reasonably give you the right to force the pax to remain on board for a flight which they dont want to undertake and which hasn't begun yet.

It is a massive inconvenience to all involved not least the other pax to have the perpetrators disembarked but in the absence of clear legislation protecting me I will be letting them off. The only thing I might consider is a chat with the local constabulary but that really would be a last ditch effort to persuade the pax to remain on board.

NigelOnDraft

GGV - thanks for an interesting, debate level reply, unlike some others further up

You are right that I am relating things more to my experience, and other known incidents, than the "blanket" directive issued by RYR. That said, it is very hard for any passenger to know the exact circumstances, and whether or not the crew on the day are engineering the situation, or concealing information.

My experiences:

• Div ex-LHR to LTN due Wx. Aircraft parked remote, set of steps provided to apron (by definition airside in area regulated by Aviation & Security Act hence a crime to be there unauthorised, and probably a crime by me to aid & abet someone else to be there). 1 handling agent person available from time to time to co-ordinate refuelling. Some passengers request to disembark, passed by RT to handling agent. "Not permitted" is reply. All pasengers bar one accept situation. That one takes up most of the CC's and my time making arguments about this that and the other, and single handly is actually extending the diversion. When he tries the "restraining against my will" trick I state I am not - he is free to walk down the steps and do as he wishes - but I am advising him I will call the police, and I suspect he will end up in the Luton cells. He backs down and we go to LHR.
• Div DUS ex AMS (weather). Parked remote again, but handled by the usual BA staff. They say "nobody can get off", but in fact, some "discussion" (perusasion ) by me, and they agree to let passengers with hand baggage only off, but they have to say so now. Worked well, then went to AMS.

These are more typical of BA, where as Captain we are allowed, indeed encouraged, to manage the situation as seen fit on the day, rather than given prescriptive memos like the RYR one. However, our hands are somewhat tied - if a handling agent refuses to provide the means to legally disembark, I might have 4 stripes, but it doesn't count for a lot. We still cannot disembark any passengers!

I think that is a separate question, again, but an interesting one. I won't go through "persuading" the passenger or addressing their concerns because I know your reply will be "unsuccessful". I would have to establish what they propose to do if I do not disembark them. If they are reasonable ( you make out they are), and the fear is genuine, and they think they will have a fit etc., we might be able to swing a medical / safety reason. I am not sure it is exactly relevant to the law, since you indicate they are happy to be held on the aircraft ad infinitum, just not fly (again) in it / with this crew etc. I would emphasise that I still disagree with the way the question was posed <<Can the captain stop you?>> which implies a positive action by the Captain ('stop you') which if true, would tend more easily to be shown as an "action" which might be deemed "criminal" etc. Whereas from my point of view I would rephrase "Is the Captain obliged to make specific arrangements to disembark you?".

F'dI make some points I think addressed above.

I will bow out of this one now, since we are slightly going around in circles. It is ironic since the thread started we have the BA in TXL situation. The topic is interesting, and I doubt ever clear cut - but must be handled "on the day". I had some idea about these "detention" actions, and indeed had to act on these at LTN as above. As I said above, there are BA pilot discussions going on, and there seem some legal precedents that will help crews decide better - I am also sure that I and others will be actively seeking some clarification from BA and BALPA. Finally, as GGV puts, a calm rational discussion with the crew is always likely to result in a better situation for all than a fist thumping tanter quoting various laws that don't really or necessarily apply

Curious Pax

Speaking from a pax point of view I think a lot of the problem with this thread is that there are 2 separate questions which many are trying to give the same answer for.

The first question relates to the original post re Ryanair. To me, and I suspect to many on here who are aware of RYR's desire to minimise costs wherever possible they are tenuously using the legal argument to avoid anything that a) might cost them money (I am guessing that an airport would charge them a fee for pax that disembarked, but would not for those that remained on board), and b) might cost them time (having to disembark pax when all you want is a quick gas-and-go or to be in a position to take up a slot at seconds notice). Saying it is illegal usually makes for a shorter argument that saying that it is inconvenient or costly to the airline.

The second question relates to how long an airline can reasonably expect pax to remain on board due to either a diversion or extensive departure delay. This is really a piece of string question - depends on the circumstances. Northwest had a class action with several thousand passengers after up to 11 hours delays in Detroit in 1999 due to snow, where they weren't allowed to leave the aircraft. Unfortunately this was settled out of court, so doesn't give a precedent, but I had a little sympathy with Northwest, as it seemed that the volume of snow meant that they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. However in general I would have thought that if a delay has gone on for more than a couple of hours a crew would need to have pretty pressing reasons for insisting that pax remain on board - such as a reasonable expectation that departure is imminent, or dangerous weather conditions making disembarkation unwise.

Personally I find that although a business, it is sometimes unclear whether commercial air travel is a customer service or not. Some posters here seemingly from the sharp end give the impression (unwittingly I suspect) that it is not, and as such the paying customers should just shut up and do what they are told.