Pax beat up pilot, airline has to pay compensation for delay
 

Transavia have been ordered to pay compensation to passengers after a flight was delayed because two passengers beat up a pilot, rendering him unfit to fly. Presumable Transavia will be billing the two passengers concerned for the cost.

Transavia ordered to pay compensation for flight delay caused by passengers beating up pilot | NL Times

I can see the court's point.

It's fair enough making everyone deplane if that includes a couple of aggressive passengers.

But to then depart and operate the flight without letting anyone back on board seems rather draconian., not to say pointless.

Maybe United and Transavia can compare notes on how to handle passengers issues after boarding.

I had to ask for three volunteers to offload from my flight the other day, to accommodate positioning Crew required downroute to operate a rescue flight. No shortage of willing volunteers, especially when I made a PA that 250 euros will be offered as compensation plus a guaranteed seat on the next flight in 3 hours. One volunteer thanked me for not dragging him down the aisle with a bloody nose. What did UA offer?

According to news reports, UA offered at least $800.

In that case EU pax are happy to settle for less, or maybe they are just more co-operative?

Or the existence of another flight 3 hours later may have reduced the inconvenience sufficiently.

Nightstop, you know it's just your natural charm that does it. :)

Excuse me?

Any words of condemnation that the industry has sunk to this level?

When you allow drunk people on planes then this will happen. It's illegal to be drunk on a plane, so how does it happen?

I could not give a :mad: about passenger compensation, but I do want to know how many years in prison the offenders got.

And, YES, if your fellow passengers beat up the pilot, the flight might be delayed.

Unbelievable.

The incident happened on July 16th, 2015 after a flight from Schiphol to Barcelona. The pilot wanted to confirm the identity of two intoxicated passengers who behaved poorly during the flight. They refused to cooperate and the police were called in. The passengers tried to flee, and when the pilot tried to stop them, he was assaulted.

Afterwards the pilot and crew did not feel safe to fly back with new passengers and returned to Schiphol on their own. Another plane was sent for the waiting passengers, who eventually departed for Schiphol over 4 hours late.


Knowing their seats means you know their names.
It's that easy.
Didn't seem necessary to get involved in a scuffle then 'not feel safe' and fly back empty.
Strange sequence of events.
Yes to the court ruling.

B2N2,

Knowing where they SHOULD sit does not equate to WHERE they sat. The pilot was right to get the identity.
Otherwise a lawyer would have easily wriggled out of that on a technicality.

I am surprised how fast they were on their way and I am astonished on crew's thinking. The "bad" people boarded in AMS not in BCN, so chances are BCN pax would be OK. Plus your next flight out of AMS would be screened by the same people who let the "bad" people board the incident flight.

Regarding compensation 250 € vs 800$ maybe it was more cash vs vouchers comparison.

But isn't a case of pax beating up a pilot an unplanned, unforeseen event ? Still got me Perry Mason hat & ironside wheelchair. Could have done a better job for my fave Transavia myself !

I don't understand the thinking of the crew. IMHO there are only two options:

1) You're unfit to fly, because of a physical/psychological problem, as a result of the beating. ==> Nobody flies.

2) You're fit to fly. ==> Everybody, apart from the 2 perpetrators, flies.

Everyone seems to be suggesting that the crew had not been on contact with Mission Control back home, and made this decision on their own. That I very much doubt. Therefore the conversation with Ops needs to be included in the maligning of the crew.

I was surprised when it was reported that the same crew flew back.

I can only assume they were medically checked and cleared after being assaulted. Otherwise a risky game to play had something gone wrong at 35,000 feet.

I can understand that following a beating you don't want to fly. I can also understand the the cabin crew might unfit as a direct result of witnessing one of their colleagues getting whacked. But you can't be fit enough to operate empty but unfit to operate with passengers. Therefore I can understand the courts ruling.

Interesting though, isn't it Piltdown ? Whilst suffering the beating and aftermath, one might, just wish to offload , a little , the burden of responsibilty by opting for an empty ferry rather than fully, commercially laden operation.

People are drunk on airplanes because airports are full of bars. After drinking in the bars the people then board the aircraft where the airlines serve them additional drinks and then pretend to be shocked that passengers end up drunk.
Alcohol is a big profit maker for airports and airlines so it's not going to change.

If one, or more, of the CC is not fit to fly you can't take pax with you on the flight back. The FC must have been shaken up by this which is also a good reason not to take pax on the flight to AMS. The court ruling compromises flight safety and if I was Transavia I would appeal.