Call people cattle and they will start to act like cattle.
It's not just the passengers who seem to suffer from lack of respect.

I recall reading many years ago of an emergency evac. where the pax wouldn't move quickly, despite the CC instructions, until a steward put his cap on. Seems the peaked cap conferred some authority.
Do CC have caps now? May the captain, with his cap on, be able to convince the offender to calm down? Don't know, and I think I'd rather have the flying crew flying.

As far as I am aware getting involved in any altercation with pax is a complete no-no even on the ground. Disuption sufficient to require that means a call for Police to sort it out. Leaving the flight deck to deal with trouble in flight is, I have to say, almost beyond belief under any circumstances, and to hear of this being done post 11-9? Staggering! If the trouble is that serious it is a diversion matter, surely, and no one will question or criticise that? But I'd hate to be on the carpet to explain leaving the flight deck - and I don't think invoking "Captain's discretion to vary SOPs" would cut much ice in that case somehow.
No doubt the real facts will come out in the wash.

Re
 

Why are we having to listen to so much nonsense on this forum. So many flight sim captains here as per usual. If I diverted for something as trivial as this that I could not sort out by what ever means I would be fired first thing in the morning! End of story!airlines are now controlled by the bean counters and "managers" on bonuses! Rules and most of all CRM are the greatest tools to flight safety but until the airlines wake up to this and pay attention to it then it's just a slippery slope that at best costs the airline a fortune or at worst an accident! It's the old story, "if you think safety and CRM is expensive then look at the cost of the many incidents and accidents!!!
Anyway, rant over and I sincerely hope that the Captain keeps his job with no hassle. Please think about the trouble and hassle you pose to the individual before you post something like this on a "professional" pilots forum!

When you look at what the passenger is subjected to on a modern flight, you start to have a better understanding of the situation. They are lured onto the flight by a low advertised fare, only to find that they have to pay extra for airport passenger duty, for fuel surcharges, for using their credit card, for checking in, for checking their baggage, for a choice of seat and for a pre booked meal. Once they have braved and endured the security gestapo, there's a mad rush to the aircraft to get a good seat (if they haven't booked one) and now they are in a cramped, noisy unpleasant environment decked out in bright colours and have to suffer a constant barrage of PAs telling them to buy the duty free and scratchcards. And if they didn't book the pre ordered meal, they have to pay through the nose for disgusting pap from the pay as you dine service. Couple this with the fact that they no longer have respect for authority, that they know their rights, have been told by the airline's CEO (who hates his staff) that the pilots flying his aircraft are just overpaid underworked glorified bus drivers, have a high sugar and additive diet and also have just rushed to the aircraft from the overpriced bar, it's hardly suprising that there are going to be tensions on board.


I left the UK some time ago and my memories of flying the British holiday maker are mostly a distant memory. However, in the last two years I had reminders while on visit when I took low cost flight and an IT flight. I was suprised at the behaviour of some of my fellow passengers. Most of them were from the shallow end of the gene pool and it wasn't pleasant being crammed into a 28" seat pitch environment with them. I now work in Asia and my passengers are very well behaved in comparison. We do have incidents, they are very rare. In the last seven years, I have only had to offload one passenger - he was an American.

Dan Winterland: spot on. It is no justification for illegal conduct, of course, but it matters. Flying today is now a stressful experience for even the calm-headed folk.

I would add that the fact passengers today hardly ever see the Commander (or F/O for that matter) 'in person' thanks to tight turn-arounds / (understandable) rules on FD crew being in the cabin does absolutely nothing to instill respect for the persons of authority legally in charge of their safety and well-being.

AB: not sure I agree with you that the Commamder shouldn't sort out trouble on the ground, if s/he thinks that is appropriate. Again, if we never actually see you...! Would have thought a visit to said passenger (maximising their embarrassment) along lines 'behave or I'll have you escorted off this flight' is a very effective way to fix a problem?

Sorting it out on the ground always worked for me. A little walk down the cabin, a bit of "face time" with the offending article explaning the options and listing the various authorities and conditions they will have to deal with and hey presto a trouble free flight.
If it kicks off in flight take the opinion of the cabin manager, divert or continue. They are best placed to decide whether they can handle the situation and are trained to deal with it. A very supportive PA that even the average IQ challenged brit holidaymaker could understand can work wonders when the yob mentality takes over.
If you do divert make sure you have your ducks in a line coz sure as eggs is eggs the Monday morning quarterbacks back at HQ will pick over everything you have done, in slow time, in a comfy office, to see who takes the blame for the cost. Me, I don't care much about that. I am tasked with getting pax (neanderthal or not) to their destination safely and will make decisions based on that not some spreadsheet.
I have to say though that Easy are very supportive of their crews in these situations.

"Cattle" terminology
 

Whilst it is impossible to definitively deduce the sense in which the OP used the term, I decided to interpret it in the sense of "an airline which treats its passengers like cattle" and my first and subsequent contributions were based on this premise.

Just as it is indeed offensive to label passengers as cattle, so too is it, at least in my opinion, to treat them as such.

Perhaps even more so ?

I have to say I too am somewhat disappointed by the pompous and disrespectful attitude shown by some within the Industry towards those who in actual fact do pay their salaries at the end of the day.

If they find flying passengers so distasteful perhaps they are in the wrong job ? Maybe they should be flying freight ?

As a railway engineer I also have to make decisions which can at worst impact on the safety of hundreds of people when I authorise the handback of the track into operational service, and in the very worst event this could result in a multiple high speed collision. Similarly I am sure there are many others who fly who have equally if not more onerous responsibilities for peoples immediate safety and wellbeing.

Anyway to return to the topic, as a regular long and short haul flyer, I would prefer that the flight deck crew did not come back into the cabin to deal with trouble-makers. We regularly experience violence to staff on the Railways from the lowly scrote, right up to those in high-earning and important positions in life. It can even involve us Engineers at times. No-one without the correct training can necessarily always identify a situation which is quickly going to turn violent, and when passengers do turn to violence to emphasise their inability to interact in a reasonable way on a civilised level, the fact that it is the Captain of the a/c will not feature in their thinking.

Personally I would rather the Captain or the FO were both physically capable of doing what they are paid for which is to manage the safety of the a/c and the flight. Getting into debates with angry passengers may well satiate some of the more "aplha-male" types on here but frankly an airline who would allow its flight deck crew to place themselves into situations where one of the FD crew may be assaulted and effectively disabled from their duties is not an airline that would be towards the top of my preferred list.

Sorry if this upsets anyone but of course I am only a lowly member of the cattle.

I would expect the captain will be in bother for his actions. The SOP of staying the other side of a secure door in such an incidence is to protect the aircraft, passengers and crew. If the cabin crew can't handle a situation like this, the captain is to divert and land the aircraft, not put himself (and everyone) at risk!
Once the aircraft is safely secured on the ground, he can put "himself" at risk if he pleases.

Do we know if it was the 'Captain' in the cabin or were there 3 crew on the flight deck?

'Cattle'
 

In using the term 'Cattle' for the pax, I included myself in that description. It was a commonly used experession for Y class pax when I worked for the world's favourite (as an engineer) and if people take offence that you have my apology. However, it does appear that certainly some of the budget airlines don't always show as much respect to pax as might be expected by the fare-paying public. I have witnessed first-hand the antics that have appeared on the TV for pax when facing some of the customer-service staff for what can only be described as trivial issues. In the case of this Easy flight, I saw no evidence at all of poor customer relations by any of the staff and would commend them for trying to defuse a difficult situation. Whether the Captian should exit the cockpit in flight wasn't the basis of my OP - it was to discuss if the actions of some of the cheap airlines leads to more of the pax disruption that I witnessed.

Captain was wrong. He was doing a Corporals job. He could have been decked and incapacitated - poor risk assessment. Sounds like an ego trip.

CC are trained to deal with such incidents. Highly likely Pax would have "offered a helping hand" should things have got untidy.

Just my tuppence.

Has there ever been a case where an airline has pursued a passenger for the cost of a diversion?

I hate this being used as an excuse for sloppy adherence to SOP.

For one to apply this rule and deviate from a major SOP the alternative consequence has to be utterly dire and I think too many pilots these days use it as an excuse to be sloppy.

In 15 years of flying airliners I have never come across an occasion where I have needed to deviate from SOP. There have been a few occasions in the Simulator but the alternative was the aeroplane burning up in flight.

BTW I like to think that I still manage to engender a relaxed atmosphere on the FD.

Note, to ensure the safety of the aircraft and passengers, not to endanger them.
If you deviate from SOP's you need a good reason, ie to save life, not to risk it!

Wiggylamp
Regrettably the answer to that has to be yes.

At the risk of being accused of arrogance or being pompous, etc, etc, the cheap airlines are targetting a market that would not ordinarily fly. They are also operating a pricing policy that is not understood by those at the lower end of the social scale, who if they can read, can only read poorly, and inevitably do not read the terms and conditions. They therefore turn up and place themselves in conflict situations even before they checkin simply because they have not bothered to get all the facts in a row.

You can see this regularly on the various TV programmes. Because they do not have the disposal income to pay further money their only route is their natural route of agressiveness.

The cheap airlines in some cases do appear to go out of their way to appease these people which broadcasts the idea that if you are aggressive enough then the staff will give you what we want, indeed I have actually seen at least one person boasting that they had been allowed to transfer to another flight simply because they had in their words "caused a scene and shouted loud enough".

Many of these people are the ones who can be found lying in gutters and on street corners completely out of their minds on cheap lager, and doubtless covered in blood following some fight or other with the locals.

As long as airlines derive the majority of income from this level of society they will continue to attract and have to deal with such problem individuals, and I feel for the staff who have this tedious job.

That is not to say that obnoxious passengers from higher levels of society do not exist, they clearly do and in many cases it is those with little power or control over their lives who are travelling on Company tickets, who know that they have an opportunity to be in the driving seat so to speak. These people really are a pain in the arse.

Prior to going into engineering I spent many years on frontline operations in BR. The really powerful and important people in First Class for example were the nicest people you would meet, the most obnoxious were those in junior positions who had gained a little power for the day.

From my experiences in flying I am sure the same applies in avitation as well.

I've used EZY many times and always found them to be professional.
Yes you have to hang around a bit but a recent aircraft change at LGW was handled efficiently with a total delay of 20 mins.
Some of the cabin crew are young but not all and at least they do not bombard you with PAs.
All and any airline could do with sharpening up service skills! Easy makes a pretty good fist of it by and large.
On a descending scale I reckon they come just under BA; sort out the herding, where it exists, and they'll have it sorted.

I remember a possibly appocryphal tale from an airline I worked for then, some thirty plus years ago, on a UK to somewhere sunny charter flight, when a fracas broke out among a couple of passengers in the back.

A friend of mine, also an F.O. as gentle as a lamb, but very large in stature,
got up out of his seat, picked up the crash axe and slowly and impressively strolled down the aisle with it in his hand.

The cabin went absolutely silent, and the troublemakers retook there seats and behaved beautifully from then on.

At that base and Company, the crash axe was always referred to from then on as 'Hugecroft's hatchet'. Now that would never ever happen these days would it??! Sadly, he is no longer with us.

always remember a few years back when you had to get a tourist visa in advance for Oman

the Sultan (God Bless Him) having served in/with the British Army is only in favour of "discerning tourism"

I remember that if you were Swiss you paid USD10 but it was USD 70 for the Brits...

I fly a fair amount as a passenger only but do not presume to comment on what whichever member of the cockpit crew may have done in the OP's case - I know my place! However, even though flying clearly falls more into the "Public Transport" model now than it did in my youth and is beset, justifiably or not, with the pre-boarding hassle of which others here make so much, I am with gcal. In my experience the low cost model is almost always unfairly criticised, perhaps sometimes by those who have an axe to grind, or maybe they don't pay their own full fares. I almost exclusively fly with the orange line and do so many, many times each year - as do my family. I am continually delighted by their efficiency, good sense and the personal charm of their staff. My daughter had to change aircraft last week at Stansted due to mechanical failure. She had the common sense to be delighted to be given the opportunity to use an aircraft which met requirements. There was an aircraft ready and a replacement crew to hand. Nothing got lost and she arrived here about ninety minutes late. Given that they spent a little time trying to fix things at first, I don't see how one could expect better. She tells me that, after a public groan, the passengers went with the flow with no fuss at all.

Mind you, I don't feel that I'm treated like cattle with that airline so perhaps nobody felt resentful in the slightest. I like low cost flying and my experience has been that I always get rather more than it says on the tin. New rules seem to have more or less sorted my only quibble which was with the inflation of the ticket price as one finalises the booking process but then I knew to expect it anyway.

I know I have strayed from the OP's line of thinking and I apologise for that but nearly everyone else already had wandered before me! I have no link to the airline other than as a perfectly happy frequent passenger - just like gcal, I suspect.

Easy, Vueling and BA are the three airlines I use most. They each have their own character and pros' and cons'.
I tend to fly out of London and Barcelona mostly and in all honesty have had very little reason to complain. Plus, though I have had indifferent flights I've rarely had a bad one. What problems there have been have generally been sorted out pretty efficiently.
Yes some of the ground staff/cabin crew, and pilots look not old enough to be out by themselves! But then time marches on.
I get a reasonable product for a decent price.

if you encourage passengers to drink for a couple of hours before boarding what do you expect?

Cut check-in times and return airports to places to fly from rather than shop and drink in.................

Worst lot I ever saw was an icelandair flight at Schipol - security had fenced the whole flight in around one bar and everyone over the age of 14 was flinging it down like lunatics. the security guy told me "they're allways like this - no trouble but completely out of their minds by the time the plane leaves..........."

Good points!
I've still got the itinerary from a school trip many moons ago. A coach to leave deepest south London at 0730 for a 0930 flight from LHR.
Ok there was less traffic and less pax flying but the time scale would be almost unbelievable these days.
At AMS they generally do security by flight at the gate, there being no central security area. Which is a very different set up to that generally found in the UK and elsewhere.

Obviously there are a number of reasons why passangers act in a disruptive manner and a number of threats they represent.

The reality is that in many cases it takes about a 10 seconds intevention by the Captain to convert the trouble maker into a meek&mild non event. In the pre 9-11 days it would have been viewed as a very standard way of dealing with the problem.

Of course this doesn't detract from the current situation where we have to assume it's a decoy for a greater threat so flight crew should no be leaving the flight deck in these circumstance. But those that are saying the Capt will have no better ability than the cabin crew to control trouble makers are pretty ignorant.

I ain't gettin outa my seat. There are specific procedures for disruptive pax at the Aussie company I fly for and all flight and cabin crew are fully aware of and trained for. Unfortunately LCC around the world attract these morons but excessive alcohol or drugs in an aircraft is not a good combination and should not be tolerated. The law in general needs to be tougher.

New era
 

The last thing a pilot should do is to leave the flight deck to fix an issue like an unruly pax., not just for security reasons, but to avoid a total loss of authority. Period.

I am there to operate the Aircraft in a safe manner according to all the rules of aviation...airspace and sops and manufacturers guidelines etc etc etc....there is no way in the world I would ever come out of the flight deck to attend to any situation in the cabin.....there are all the normal procedures in place and CC training and if after all this the situation cannot still be contained/resolved depending on the situation I will divert but going out of the flight deck in flight is certainly not something any pilot should be doing...and if i was a pax on this flight its certainly not something i would even want to see.

CC can try and resolve etc using their training and sops and procedures..they can give the pax the written warning from the captain explaining that if they don't comply the aircraft maybe diverted or they may be arrested on arrival. CC can ask for assistance from pax if required....and if i was to intervene at all the only thing I would do is from the flight deck make a PA to remind the pax that this is the Captain speaking and if you dont comply with the instructions of the CC then I will have no choice but to divert immediately and hand the matter over to the airport police etc...but opening that door is 100% never going to be an option...it might be a ploy with a group of 4 terrorist onboard...one play the fool and lets hope the Captain comes out as the others are seated in row 1 ready to charge the door...anyone leaving the flight deck should give their licence back.

No matter how big, tough and pit bull-y you are, there is always somebody bigger, tougher and more pit bull-y than you are. And there you are, flat on your back in the aisle with a broken nose and fewer teeth than you had a moment ago.

Often, a meaasage from the Captain relayed through the CC is enough. When one pax was causing trouble, I sent a message back that we would divert if the trouble continued and as the nearest airport was Irkutsk, the passenger could explain his actions to the Russian Police on landing. The thought of a Siberian prison was enough to make him calm down.

I work for a company where Pilot presence outside of the flightdeck is actually rewarded and encouraged, in effect, by winning the accolade of being a "customer orientated people person"...you can even win a trip to Disney, if enough of your pals nominate you! Draw your own conclusions......

Enjoy Mickey Mouse then:suspect:

Yeah.... try not to let your preconceptions get the better of you. I'm not talking about going back down there to physically intimidate someone. The simple facts are that as the Skipper you have an automatic authority that most people will respond too. Usually it's people being loud, awkward and uncooperative. Your simple presence is enough to make them recognise they've stepped over the line and to behave. However if your cabin crew advise you that someone is being *physically* agressive then that's a different matter; steer well clear. A simple matter of communication and using your brain.

Actual example: Single mother insists on repeatedly letting 2 year old toddle around the Cabin (during taxi, initial climb and a patch of turnbulence. Cabin crew return the toddler and tell mother to secure it. As soon as they leave her, mother releases the kid again. Crew advise me. I assess zero physical threat but real risk of unsecure cabin during approach/landing so I amble back and have a quite, polite but very firm word. Problem solved.

Also note that I am writing in the pre 9-11 context. As I very clearly stated (but you chose not to quote) in these days the risk of it being a decoy means that no-one should leave the flight deck during a disruptive passenger incident. The industry has quite correctly responded with SOP changes and warning letters for handout etc.

but only if you fly faster than anyone else :rolleyes:

KTT,

Harsh but fair, it does make it a bit of a joke:ok:

I had always the opinion that a Capt. should never leave the cockpit. Never.

The cabin crew has a Purser who is the person trained and entitled by the company to access these situations.

If the purser is having problems to dela with it , and I`m still on ground pax stays on ground. I don`t even see him. Just call the police. And they take him/her.

Once , bound to S.Tomé and Prince , one became violent , I asked two mail flight attendants to retain him.He finished the flight laid in the aft galley.Police upon arrival.

Another flight. Flight was delayed 20 hours.A group of about 10 guys entered shouting and saying they would be a motin on board. Purser to came to cockpit. I told her to tell them to sit down, shut up and behave as everyone else. They refused and kept disturbing. All group stayed on ground. Never saw them.

Cabin crew are trained to deal these situations. If they are not managed to do it , it means the situation has exceded the reasonability.Time to call police.

The Capt has nothing to do in the cabin.

Said technique worked well in the neighborhood bar I frequented in my teens years ago, except it was a baseball bat as opposed to a crash axe. It was kept in full view but out of reach of the patrons, and everyone knew that the keeper knew how to use it.

Such great heroic acts go totally tits up with terrible consequences when the bluff is called.

As I was not there I cannot be certain, but consider this. I am prepared for a bit of flak and abuse for this post.

The Captain should not leave the flight deck for all sorts of good reasons, but the modern low coat airline doesn't always select the best leaders for cabin crew. Locos are well staffed by eager young people, but they are not necessarily blessed with age, maturity and experience of dealing with stroppy, argumentative passengers. It may be that the Captain was having to make up
for the inability of the cabin crew to deal with the situation, or the inexperience or the youth, and immaturity of an otherwise able stewardess.

The cheap availability of high volume air transport has not only lowered the "quality" of the passengers.

Fair points but it should be remembered that it is not only the low cost carriers that are employing young people with little track record of people contact.
A certain large airline employs cabin crew supervisors straight off the street, and it shows!