BA to Ban Rude Pax From Boarding
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the crucial question here is where does "stroppiness" end and genuine "agressive behaviour" begin? Who will be the arbiter? Presumably the check-in staff, which in my opinion is not at all satisfactory.
Travelling by air is, for most people, a far more stressful occurrence than any other form of travel. People are usually travelling to a tight schedule, they know they have to get there two hours in advance but unforseen delays do happen, they may have a connection to make at the other end, they may have people waiting to collect them at their destination whom they cannot contact, they may be about to go on the holiday of a lifetime that they've spent years saving for, they may have a very important business meeting that is worth millions if it falls through, they are probably travelling to a foreign country and may be apprehensive about that. On top of all that, many people are not very comfortable with the whole concept of flying and are already nervous and on-edge. It is really hardly surprising that a lot of passengers are on a short fuse, and that they lose their cool when they get to the check-in desk and they find that they are delayed, or bumped because of over-booking, or denied travel because the flight is closed (after waiting in a queue for an hour). The icing on the cake is a smug or aloof check-in clerk who quite clearly doesn't give a toss that their whole world seems to be falling in around their ears.
This might well make them, by the standards of most normal conversations, appear somewhat rude to say the least. Surely this is not a reason to refuse to let them board? If they are using, or threatening to use violence or physical intimidation, sure. But rudeness??
To digress slightly. Has anyone else, apart from me, attributed any of the increase in air rage to the general practice of banning smoking in long-haul flights? Everyone is aware of the side-effect of nicotine withdrawal that makes addicts irritable. With something like 25-30% of the population regular smokers, isn't it likely that some of those are going to also find themselves on a short fuse some 8 hours into a smoke-free flight? I'm not saying that this is the exclusive reason for the increase in air rage, but surely it must be contributory?
Travelling by air is, for most people, a far more stressful occurrence than any other form of travel. People are usually travelling to a tight schedule, they know they have to get there two hours in advance but unforseen delays do happen, they may have a connection to make at the other end, they may have people waiting to collect them at their destination whom they cannot contact, they may be about to go on the holiday of a lifetime that they've spent years saving for, they may have a very important business meeting that is worth millions if it falls through, they are probably travelling to a foreign country and may be apprehensive about that. On top of all that, many people are not very comfortable with the whole concept of flying and are already nervous and on-edge. It is really hardly surprising that a lot of passengers are on a short fuse, and that they lose their cool when they get to the check-in desk and they find that they are delayed, or bumped because of over-booking, or denied travel because the flight is closed (after waiting in a queue for an hour). The icing on the cake is a smug or aloof check-in clerk who quite clearly doesn't give a toss that their whole world seems to be falling in around their ears.
This might well make them, by the standards of most normal conversations, appear somewhat rude to say the least. Surely this is not a reason to refuse to let them board? If they are using, or threatening to use violence or physical intimidation, sure. But rudeness??
To digress slightly. Has anyone else, apart from me, attributed any of the increase in air rage to the general practice of banning smoking in long-haul flights? Everyone is aware of the side-effect of nicotine withdrawal that makes addicts irritable. With something like 25-30% of the population regular smokers, isn't it likely that some of those are going to also find themselves on a short fuse some 8 hours into a smoke-free flight? I'm not saying that this is the exclusive reason for the increase in air rage, but surely it must be contributory?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Even reading this thread has made my blood pressure rise...!
I agree with some of the comments above - there is a real conflict right now between the high-falutin' personalised customer service the business class airlines trumpet in their ads, and the grim reality of arriving at the airport and taking part in a human lottery which may or may not result in sitting on the right plane, at the right time, in the expected seat.
The main issue here, however, is how one reacts to the slings and arrows of outrageous airline practice, or indeed of other similar situations in life. All the 'hyphen-rages' discussed in the media - road-rage, air-rage, whatever - are about instances where, in a situation where self-control is essential to safety, it is lost.
Fair enough, then, that if a passenger appears so implacable on check-in that he seems likely to endanger an aircraft, he does not get to travel. Yes, the judgment of who does or doesn't cross the line is in the hands of the airline - but who else, reasonably, is in a position to do it? And let's bear in mind that it is not in the interest of airlines to police this rule too forcibly: one has to assume that even the most cavalier airline prefers not to lose its customers by denying them travel.
By the way, my personal closest to causing a scene occurred last Christmas Eve, when I arrived at LGW 1 hour 45 minutes prior to a VS flight to UVF only to be told that my reserved seat in Upper Class - 3A - had become, er, a seat in Premium Economy because 'everyone had showed up'. Yes, I'd paid a truck-load of cash for the ticket; yes, it was my only major holiday last year; yes, I was hung over (it was Christmas, after all) and I'd been looking forward to a decent kip; yes, it was a bloody ridiculous thing to happen - what kind of crapola yield management cannot predict that all Upper Class pax taking a ONCE-WEEKLY FLIGHT TO THE CARIBBEAN ON CHRISTMAS EVE might, in fact, choose to show up?
However, once it became clear that no amount of grousing about my elite FF status, my support of VS as a pax since 1991, etc. etc. was going to make the slightest difference I did shut up, checking myself before saying anything too personally unpleasant to the check-in staff. And, rather than attempting to open the doors mid-flight, trying to get jiggy with one of the hosties, breaking my seat or taking a dump on the food cart (don't laugh, they've both happened!), I shut up - and took the more circumspect route of the hacked-off business customer, which has been to deprive Sir Richard of any of my custom since (for which Big shareholders should be thankful).
I agree with some of the comments above - there is a real conflict right now between the high-falutin' personalised customer service the business class airlines trumpet in their ads, and the grim reality of arriving at the airport and taking part in a human lottery which may or may not result in sitting on the right plane, at the right time, in the expected seat.
The main issue here, however, is how one reacts to the slings and arrows of outrageous airline practice, or indeed of other similar situations in life. All the 'hyphen-rages' discussed in the media - road-rage, air-rage, whatever - are about instances where, in a situation where self-control is essential to safety, it is lost.
Fair enough, then, that if a passenger appears so implacable on check-in that he seems likely to endanger an aircraft, he does not get to travel. Yes, the judgment of who does or doesn't cross the line is in the hands of the airline - but who else, reasonably, is in a position to do it? And let's bear in mind that it is not in the interest of airlines to police this rule too forcibly: one has to assume that even the most cavalier airline prefers not to lose its customers by denying them travel.
By the way, my personal closest to causing a scene occurred last Christmas Eve, when I arrived at LGW 1 hour 45 minutes prior to a VS flight to UVF only to be told that my reserved seat in Upper Class - 3A - had become, er, a seat in Premium Economy because 'everyone had showed up'. Yes, I'd paid a truck-load of cash for the ticket; yes, it was my only major holiday last year; yes, I was hung over (it was Christmas, after all) and I'd been looking forward to a decent kip; yes, it was a bloody ridiculous thing to happen - what kind of crapola yield management cannot predict that all Upper Class pax taking a ONCE-WEEKLY FLIGHT TO THE CARIBBEAN ON CHRISTMAS EVE might, in fact, choose to show up?
However, once it became clear that no amount of grousing about my elite FF status, my support of VS as a pax since 1991, etc. etc. was going to make the slightest difference I did shut up, checking myself before saying anything too personally unpleasant to the check-in staff. And, rather than attempting to open the doors mid-flight, trying to get jiggy with one of the hosties, breaking my seat or taking a dump on the food cart (don't laugh, they've both happened!), I shut up - and took the more circumspect route of the hacked-off business customer, which has been to deprive Sir Richard of any of my custom since (for which Big shareholders should be thankful).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Funny that. My last problem was when my reserved Upper Class seat became a Premium Economy seat too.
The trouble is when a problem happens, as a passenger you're backed into a corner. You can't threaten to transfer your custom to a competitor - even if there happens to be another service you know you'll never get a seat without paying an absolute fortune. You can't threaten to cancel the whole thing because generally people are travelling for a reason and have to get somewhere. There's nobody to complain to who can put things right for you - sure you might get to talk to a supervisor but they're only going to spin you the same line - there's no aviation ombudsman or someone who can make them give you a seat on the flight. You can threaten never to travel with the airline ever, ever, ever again, but you know they don't care about one individual and they know all airlines are the same so it's a hollow threat anyway.
So the passenger is feeling backed into a corner. The airline holds all the power and the only thing the passenger can do is argue their case and hope to get things changed. The trouble is that the adrenalin's already flowing and some people are really not very good at putting their case. You see it every time you check in - someone's late or their bag's overweight or they've been bumped onto another flight - and they're standing there arguing. It's not surprising that occasionally it boils over.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending it or anything - I'm just saying it's not that surprising.
So BA's reaction is to go even further and say:
Now if YOU argue too much and WE judge you to have been rude then WE're not going to let you fly at all. Oh, and by the way, the check-in deadline applies to when you have received your boarding pass for the flight, not when you joined the check-in queue. So if you arrive twenty minutes before your check-in deadline and because we haven't got enough check-in desks open there's a half hour queue, then WE can stop you boarding because it's YOUR fault for not arriving early enough.
Will this help? I doubt it. The airlines need to take a strong stance against air-rage and stopping trouble makers before they board is an excellent idea. The almost impossible part is accurately predicting who will cause trouble before they've already gone too far, without banning the harmless ones who are just stressed out. Whilst 90% of air-rage offenders may have caused trouble at check-in, I doubt whether 1% of people who cause trouble at check-in turn into air-rage offenders. That makes it absolutely useless as a predictor of who you want to keep off your aircraft and just serves to increase the tension in the pressure cooker.
The trouble is when a problem happens, as a passenger you're backed into a corner. You can't threaten to transfer your custom to a competitor - even if there happens to be another service you know you'll never get a seat without paying an absolute fortune. You can't threaten to cancel the whole thing because generally people are travelling for a reason and have to get somewhere. There's nobody to complain to who can put things right for you - sure you might get to talk to a supervisor but they're only going to spin you the same line - there's no aviation ombudsman or someone who can make them give you a seat on the flight. You can threaten never to travel with the airline ever, ever, ever again, but you know they don't care about one individual and they know all airlines are the same so it's a hollow threat anyway.
So the passenger is feeling backed into a corner. The airline holds all the power and the only thing the passenger can do is argue their case and hope to get things changed. The trouble is that the adrenalin's already flowing and some people are really not very good at putting their case. You see it every time you check in - someone's late or their bag's overweight or they've been bumped onto another flight - and they're standing there arguing. It's not surprising that occasionally it boils over.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending it or anything - I'm just saying it's not that surprising.
So BA's reaction is to go even further and say:
Now if YOU argue too much and WE judge you to have been rude then WE're not going to let you fly at all. Oh, and by the way, the check-in deadline applies to when you have received your boarding pass for the flight, not when you joined the check-in queue. So if you arrive twenty minutes before your check-in deadline and because we haven't got enough check-in desks open there's a half hour queue, then WE can stop you boarding because it's YOUR fault for not arriving early enough.
Will this help? I doubt it. The airlines need to take a strong stance against air-rage and stopping trouble makers before they board is an excellent idea. The almost impossible part is accurately predicting who will cause trouble before they've already gone too far, without banning the harmless ones who are just stressed out. Whilst 90% of air-rage offenders may have caused trouble at check-in, I doubt whether 1% of people who cause trouble at check-in turn into air-rage offenders. That makes it absolutely useless as a predictor of who you want to keep off your aircraft and just serves to increase the tension in the pressure cooker.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think putting in writing the fact that passengers will be denied travel if they are abusive or aggressive seems unusual because my idea of an aggressive pax may not equate to someone elses idea, so denying a pax boarding still appears to be a lottery. The part about the pax having to have a boarding pass issued also seems as one or two have said a bit peculiar. If I turn up 2 hours before a flight and then due to not enough check in desks being open I can't board, I would be extremely p****** off. If BA wants to put these conditions in they are going to have to make sure they have covered their backs. This policy may come back to haunt them.
Looking at the posts related to VS I can't see how there is a need to overbook first class cabins. I would have thought that telling someone that there are no first class seats available on the flight when they booked would have been preferable to telling them they're now downgraded when they get to check in. Are Virgin operating at such tight margins that they need to be sure their are no spare seats in first class?
Looking at the posts related to VS I can't see how there is a need to overbook first class cabins. I would have thought that telling someone that there are no first class seats available on the flight when they booked would have been preferable to telling them they're now downgraded when they get to check in. Are Virgin operating at such tight margins that they need to be sure their are no spare seats in first class?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hamburg,Germany
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
' would say 90% of air rage happens under the influence of alcohol.
So, why do the airlines sell alcohol on board ? You are not allowed to smoke (on most flights/airlines) , so why are you allowed to get drunk on board ?
(and through the pressurization in a plane the effect of alcohol increases !!!)
If the airlines depend on the money earned by selling alcohol on board they shouldn't complain about the consequences which can happen (and do happen).
ef
So, why do the airlines sell alcohol on board ? You are not allowed to smoke (on most flights/airlines) , so why are you allowed to get drunk on board ?
(and through the pressurization in a plane the effect of alcohol increases !!!)
If the airlines depend on the money earned by selling alcohol on board they shouldn't complain about the consequences which can happen (and do happen).
ef
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just one point for Covenant regarding the nicotine deprivation and air rage, the two may be linked combined with many other factors such as free alcohol. A possible solution is providing nicotine gum, patches, inhalators etc - not the same as smoking but could only help.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hamburg,Germany
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In times of modern computer technology with worldwide online connections a flight never should be overbooked !!!!!
But this seems to be policy because the airlines know that not all passenger booking a flight will really fly, so they sell some seats more hoping that some pax really don't use their tickets, isn't it so ?
ef
But this seems to be policy because the airlines know that not all passenger booking a flight will really fly, so they sell some seats more hoping that some pax really don't use their tickets, isn't it so ?
ef
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding overbooking: Mr. Businessman can book three consecutive flights from A - B on the same day being unsure of when his meeting will finish. He only takes one of those flights and indeed only has to pay for one flight. If airlines only booked to aircaft capacity most flights would leave with empty seats. We are not talking one or two but as an example AMS - LHR the number would be nearer 25 - 30.
Until it becomes normal practice that all airlines require all booked seats to be paid for then overbooking will remain a frustrating fact of life for passengers and airline staff alike. For an airline to unilaterally go down this road would be akin to commercial suicide.
I believe hotels have similar problems.
Theatres don't, if you book a seat you pay for it!
Overbooking is a remarkably precise art but unfortunately not perfect and some will always face the appalling situation of either being downgraded or denied boarding.
Until it becomes normal practice that all airlines require all booked seats to be paid for then overbooking will remain a frustrating fact of life for passengers and airline staff alike. For an airline to unilaterally go down this road would be akin to commercial suicide.
I believe hotels have similar problems.
Theatres don't, if you book a seat you pay for it!
Overbooking is a remarkably precise art but unfortunately not perfect and some will always face the appalling situation of either being downgraded or denied boarding.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is there a price differential between Premium Economy and Upper Class on VS?
If so, then there surely is a hefty refund if the booked and paid for seat isn't available.
Not that I fly VS - there's been too many reportable incidents in the AAIB Bulletins relative to the size of the fleet for my liking. Admittedly, not recently.....but.
If so, then there surely is a hefty refund if the booked and paid for seat isn't available.
Not that I fly VS - there's been too many reportable incidents in the AAIB Bulletins relative to the size of the fleet for my liking. Admittedly, not recently.....but.
Guest
Posts: n/a
WeeWillyWinky, I'm not disagreeing with the requirement for overbooking - the industry would go bust in a week without it - but in the case I discussed before it was a question of overbooking a once weekly holiday flight to St. Lucia. There was little chance of my holding mutliple reservations to get there, given the lack of alternative direct flights, or deciding to travel the next day (there would be no flight!)... thus I'm not sure that airlines' overbooking (yield management) systems are as perfect as you think. Yes, executives flying between London and Amsterdam are buying business class mostly so they can change their flights - and LHR-AMS has a flight every hour or so. But on some routes pax are buying business for the comfort factor and are much, much less likely to change their bookings - e.g. LGW-UVF.
It seems to me greedy on the part of the airlines that they are so concerned to fill to brimming their premium cabins that they are prepared to hack off regular customers to achieve this. I don't know if this is particularly bad at VS (a sample of 2 is inconclusive).
It seems to me greedy on the part of the airlines that they are so concerned to fill to brimming their premium cabins that they are prepared to hack off regular customers to achieve this. I don't know if this is particularly bad at VS (a sample of 2 is inconclusive).
Guest
Posts: n/a
J-Class
I agree on the face of it your experience does seem rather odd.
radeng
That is rather a sweeping, and I would say unfair, assertion. I do not work for VS but would suggest that unless you are prepared to justify your statement that you consider withdrawing it.
I agree on the face of it your experience does seem rather odd.
radeng
That is rather a sweeping, and I would say unfair, assertion. I do not work for VS but would suggest that unless you are prepared to justify your statement that you consider withdrawing it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The last time I looked passengers can decide which airline they want to book on and are entitled to their opinion, personal minima if you will. This being the case, Radeng doesn't have to fly with anyone and doesn't have to justify it to anyone, so itisn';t a silly comment.
Good on BA for stating a resonable policy, now all they have to do is make it work. Suspect the staff dealing with the chaeckin will behave like Mk 1 Mod 0 humans and get it right most of the time, the passengers will behave like the passengers and most of the time it will work out. What BA (and the pax) need to worry about is the close calls on whether someone is "rude" or "abusive". Without a really well defined criteria for staff to use this should leave BA open to some really horrendous lawsuits. There will be suits anyway, but BA will be on much better legal standing if they have a very clear and uniform policy that they can prove is uniformly and impartially applied. Can't you just imagine the checklist?
1. appearance on one to ten scale
2. alcohol/drugs (tick yes or no, if yes how many sheets to the wind)
3. Rude Language- F*&#%#, S*^(&, etc. More than 5 usages in 2 minutes and boarding denied.
.
.
.
could get really silly, but should provide for safer and more pleasant flight for all concerned, and is to be commended.
Good on BA for stating a resonable policy, now all they have to do is make it work. Suspect the staff dealing with the chaeckin will behave like Mk 1 Mod 0 humans and get it right most of the time, the passengers will behave like the passengers and most of the time it will work out. What BA (and the pax) need to worry about is the close calls on whether someone is "rude" or "abusive". Without a really well defined criteria for staff to use this should leave BA open to some really horrendous lawsuits. There will be suits anyway, but BA will be on much better legal standing if they have a very clear and uniform policy that they can prove is uniformly and impartially applied. Can't you just imagine the checklist?
1. appearance on one to ten scale
2. alcohol/drugs (tick yes or no, if yes how many sheets to the wind)
3. Rude Language- F*&#%#, S*^(&, etc. More than 5 usages in 2 minutes and boarding denied.
.
.
.
could get really silly, but should provide for safer and more pleasant flight for all concerned, and is to be commended.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BRAVO BA! The key concept here is really abusive and/or aggressive behaviour/language. The problem with airline travel is that prices have come down so low that many more people are travelling by air. Unfortunately, that brings in a larger percentage of jerks. Video/audio recorders at gates and check-in counters would be in order, I would think. Even jerks think twice if they know they're being recorded.
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 31 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 31 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Admittedly, my comment refers to early days some years ago when the fleet was older, and doubtless smaller, but the incidents are there in the AAIB Bulletins. As RATBOY says, we have a choice as to who gets our money, and j-class' experience doesn't convince me to use them.
Nobody has answered if the downgrading leads to refunds? I know it does with BA: when I got bounced from business class on AA, they rerouted me 1st Class all the way from LAX to LHR, paid for a meal, and gave me a cash voucher.
Nobody has answered if the downgrading leads to refunds? I know it does with BA: when I got bounced from business class on AA, they rerouted me 1st Class all the way from LAX to LHR, paid for a meal, and gave me a cash voucher.
Guest
Posts: n/a
radeng,
In theory you get the difference between the Upper Class and Premium Fare refunded to you. However, on checking my VISA statements recently I discovered this never happened... I wrote to Virgin two weeks ago to 'remind', haven't heard back yet.
You also get 50,000 free airmiles, which I believe is enough for a Premium-to-Upper Class upgrade on another Virgin flight. I suppose this is not derisory as compensation - but definitely plays second best to actually receiving the service one wanted, and paid for, in the first place!
We've come along way from discussing air rage, haven't we - we should rename the topic 'downgrade anxiety!'
In theory you get the difference between the Upper Class and Premium Fare refunded to you. However, on checking my VISA statements recently I discovered this never happened... I wrote to Virgin two weeks ago to 'remind', haven't heard back yet.
You also get 50,000 free airmiles, which I believe is enough for a Premium-to-Upper Class upgrade on another Virgin flight. I suppose this is not derisory as compensation - but definitely plays second best to actually receiving the service one wanted, and paid for, in the first place!
We've come along way from discussing air rage, haven't we - we should rename the topic 'downgrade anxiety!'
Guest
Posts: n/a
Radeng: Re: refunds. Passengers do usually receive a refund, the difference between the fare paid, and the full fare for the level of service they actually received. The fact that, had the customer wanted, they could have paid less for the premium economy fare (i.e. in some markets, several tiers of fares are offered for this enhanced economy product), so the passenger ultimately loses out. Also, in most instances, it is a company paying for the ticket (J-Class you are an exception to this), so the company gets the refund, the traveller doesn't get the seat and service they originally paid for, and is the ultimate loser. Okay, sometimes extra mileage is accrued, but airlines should think of something that benefits the passenger who has been inconvenienced.
Re: multiple bookings (WeeWillyWinky), the fare charged by airlines for flexible, multiple booking itineraries is commensurate with this option (i.e. we pay a lot of money). Some airlines (American, I believe) have a computer system which scans for same names on same day itineraries, and repeated requests are made to the agent to confirm just one sector and cancel the rest, or risk having all sectors cancelled. So Airlines are getting wiser to this.
Re: Alcohol (EngineFailure) - in Europe, airlines give booze away free on most flights (low-cost flights excluded). It is also available free in lounges prior to travel, so yes, alcohol does play a part! Still, remember this topic is about being rude at check-in, and BA's interesting announcement.
Good discussions, keep the comments flowing!
Re: multiple bookings (WeeWillyWinky), the fare charged by airlines for flexible, multiple booking itineraries is commensurate with this option (i.e. we pay a lot of money). Some airlines (American, I believe) have a computer system which scans for same names on same day itineraries, and repeated requests are made to the agent to confirm just one sector and cancel the rest, or risk having all sectors cancelled. So Airlines are getting wiser to this.
Re: Alcohol (EngineFailure) - in Europe, airlines give booze away free on most flights (low-cost flights excluded). It is also available free in lounges prior to travel, so yes, alcohol does play a part! Still, remember this topic is about being rude at check-in, and BA's interesting announcement.
Good discussions, keep the comments flowing!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I suppose that part of the problem is that in general, we've become somewhat ruder, as well as more prepared to complain. It then gets very easy for what starts out as a simple complaint to degenerate into a shouting match.
Difficulty is that if you've paid for something, you expect to get it.
Another danger is the hidden unknown. For example, a diabetic passenger re routed because of a cancellation could turn up too late for an onward flight after missing a meal, rushing across an airport and so suffering from hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar). This can produce apparently drunken aggressive behaviour, and may not even be immediately realised by the sufferer. Yet it would have brought on by the airline's behaviour. Then what?
Probably in the US, an expensive court case!
You can see that denying boarding to 'rude PAX' needs to be very carefully implemented and monitored.
Difficulty is that if you've paid for something, you expect to get it.
Another danger is the hidden unknown. For example, a diabetic passenger re routed because of a cancellation could turn up too late for an onward flight after missing a meal, rushing across an airport and so suffering from hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar). This can produce apparently drunken aggressive behaviour, and may not even be immediately realised by the sufferer. Yet it would have brought on by the airline's behaviour. Then what?
Probably in the US, an expensive court case!
You can see that denying boarding to 'rude PAX' needs to be very carefully implemented and monitored.
