Nigel won't fly pax with political badge
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd always thought that the ultimate authority granted to the pilot in command of an airplane was to ensure the safe completion of the flight. I know this was a BA plane, but in the US the authority is granted by part 91 of the FARs, so applies to small aircraft too.
MikeGranby, what FAR gives the pilot in command the authority over anything that does not affect the operation of the aircraft? What statute (FAR) would the PIC use to justify the forcing of people to sing Irish Folk Songs? If the order given by the pilot doesn't affect the operation of the flight, I'm guessing it is not a lawful order.
Now the captain wears another hat of authority, that of senior management representative of the airline. If he makes a management decision that the airline doesn't want to transport a passenger, then fair enough. In this case I'd expect the airline to pay compensation, but in this case I'd expect the airline to back the captain's management decision.
Any lawyers?
MikeGranby, what FAR gives the pilot in command the authority over anything that does not affect the operation of the aircraft? What statute (FAR) would the PIC use to justify the forcing of people to sing Irish Folk Songs? If the order given by the pilot doesn't affect the operation of the flight, I'm guessing it is not a lawful order.
Now the captain wears another hat of authority, that of senior management representative of the airline. If he makes a management decision that the airline doesn't want to transport a passenger, then fair enough. In this case I'd expect the airline to pay compensation, but in this case I'd expect the airline to back the captain's management decision.
Any lawyers?
Hi, all,
I think that if the badge is allowed in the streets then it should be in the aircraft, along with f**k tee shirts and so on. Airlines cannot make their own laws, can they ? Here I consider the message on the badge, not the potential danger from the pin.
What is the reason why the FA asked the pax to remove the badge in the first place ? And did he explain him ?
Maybe some overreaction from the CC ?
Second thing is, I think the passenger should have removed the badge without making all this fuss. An airliner cramped cabin at the beginning of a long haul is not the best place to try to make a point on such a touchy matter.
When reported the incident I guess the captain could not disavow the CC and also had to consider the degraded mood in the cabin right before a critical phase of the flight. He had not choice but to go back at the gate and bump off the trouble maker.
Now I think this same trouble maker has a right to demand explanations to the airline, not because he has been offloaded, but because he may have been requested to remove the badge without any substantial reason.
I think that if the badge is allowed in the streets then it should be in the aircraft, along with f**k tee shirts and so on. Airlines cannot make their own laws, can they ? Here I consider the message on the badge, not the potential danger from the pin.
What is the reason why the FA asked the pax to remove the badge in the first place ? And did he explain him ?
Maybe some overreaction from the CC ?
Second thing is, I think the passenger should have removed the badge without making all this fuss. An airliner cramped cabin at the beginning of a long haul is not the best place to try to make a point on such a touchy matter.
When reported the incident I guess the captain could not disavow the CC and also had to consider the degraded mood in the cabin right before a critical phase of the flight. He had not choice but to go back at the gate and bump off the trouble maker.
Now I think this same trouble maker has a right to demand explanations to the airline, not because he has been offloaded, but because he may have been requested to remove the badge without any substantial reason.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: York, Pa.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, it's an ANO which states something about people having to obey any lawful command issued for a variety of purposes. The ANOs are part of the UK's criminal statute, and breaking them can attract the full penalties of the law.
In the US, it's a bit different. You ask about the FARs. Well, there's obviously FAR 91.3(a) and to some extent parts of FAR 121.533 et seq, but remember that the FARs are Administrative Law and thus have both limited scope for penalities (eg. no option for jail) and limited applicability in respect of pax. There have, therefore, to be specific federal or state codes which address particular issues, such as 49 USC 46504 re interferring with aircrew.
Now, whether the comment I referred to about ordering people to begin singing songs would really stand up in court, I don't know, but the point that poster was making remains ie. that, in UK law at least, the test is 'lawful' not 'reasonable', and that the court will be loath to sustitute its judgement for that of the pilot. All this bleating about whether the captain's request was reasonable is thus pointless. If the captian asks you to do something lawful, do it. End of story. You are not in a position to second-guess his decision, and the court won't, either.
In the US, it's a bit different. You ask about the FARs. Well, there's obviously FAR 91.3(a) and to some extent parts of FAR 121.533 et seq, but remember that the FARs are Administrative Law and thus have both limited scope for penalities (eg. no option for jail) and limited applicability in respect of pax. There have, therefore, to be specific federal or state codes which address particular issues, such as 49 USC 46504 re interferring with aircrew.
Now, whether the comment I referred to about ordering people to begin singing songs would really stand up in court, I don't know, but the point that poster was making remains ie. that, in UK law at least, the test is 'lawful' not 'reasonable', and that the court will be loath to sustitute its judgement for that of the pilot. All this bleating about whether the captain's request was reasonable is thus pointless. If the captian asks you to do something lawful, do it. End of story. You are not in a position to second-guess his decision, and the court won't, either.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another aspect is BA´s S.O.P´s don´t allow the Captain to override the in charge cabin crew member if he decides to offload a pax, even if the pax is the Captains´wife. I would imagine that the Captain is merely carrying out company procedures in this case.....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: France
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Big Tudor.
Gilmore obviously is an arse. Besides,..freedom of speech is granted automatically in any public place and quite right too.
But would you you invite a weirdo who openly spoke out about something you strongly disagreed with into your own home?
In your own premises you have the right to insist that your guests don't display or talk about....or use offensive language in front of your family.
Gilmore was deliberately provocative and had taken himself out of what could be called a "public place" and instead entered into someone else's (BA's) premises of which the Captain was in charge.
Captain's the boss there..and when the captain gives a passenger a direct order to be less provocative or whatever, who does Gilmore think he is to refuse?
I agree that some issues of airport security have gone too far, but as an airline industry let's jointly discourage these vermin who deliberately try to intimidate our industry.
Well done to the BA Captain.
Gilmore obviously is an arse. Besides,..freedom of speech is granted automatically in any public place and quite right too.
But would you you invite a weirdo who openly spoke out about something you strongly disagreed with into your own home?
In your own premises you have the right to insist that your guests don't display or talk about....or use offensive language in front of your family.
Gilmore was deliberately provocative and had taken himself out of what could be called a "public place" and instead entered into someone else's (BA's) premises of which the Captain was in charge.
Captain's the boss there..and when the captain gives a passenger a direct order to be less provocative or whatever, who does Gilmore think he is to refuse?
I agree that some issues of airport security have gone too far, but as an airline industry let's jointly discourage these vermin who deliberately try to intimidate our industry.
Well done to the BA Captain.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficult question. I think that anyone who thinks that this one is really clear cut is missing the point - a pretty tough balancing of interests is involved.
My opinion, for what it's worth...
1. "It's Nigel's plane and you do what he says". BA's private property has essentially been opened up to the public for the purposes of commercial gain. This immediately places some limitation on what they can prohibit - the state (whichever it may be) has a greater regulatory interest than would be the case if I prohibited certain speech in my own home.
2. "It's like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater - you can't just say whatever you want and expect it to be protected as free speech". Absolutely correct - the problem is in determining what is legitimate and protected speech and what is tantamount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The distinction which Justice Holmes had in mind when he wrote that passage, and indeed the distinction which he never quite got the U.S. Supreme Court to accept, was the distinction between words and action. When someone's words are just words, even if we find them irritating or offensive, we must tolerate them. When they actually cause adverse reactions with real risks, or incite certain undesirable behaviour, it may be legitimate to limit them.
If something is offensive enough or irritating enough, it may upset people so much that it has crossed that boundary, and we can perhaps legitimately limit it. It may even cause certain types of more tangible harm. Hence the legitimacy of prohibiting racist speech.
With this in mind...
3. Asking Gilmore to take off the pin was unnecessary - it had not been noticed and was not inciting any passengers to misbehave. It was not upsetting anyone or making them feel uncomfortable. A little hypersensitive and paranoid, I think. However, if the badge was having such an effect on pax, there might have been a case for making the demand, although only if it was causing *real* concern.
4. Once Gilmore had been asked to remove it, it had been brought to the attention of all and, more importantly, he started behaving like an arse. He could have removed it and complained (in my view legitimately) at a later time, but he chose to misbehave and cause a problem. If the Captain decided to remove him for this reason, well done. His political speech had turned to action which would have got him removed from the flight in any event (i.e. regardless of whether he was engaging in political speech). If he was removed because he refused to conform to the Captain's order to limit his speech, that would be illegitimate.
Of course, there is a fine line between getting thrown off for your behaviour and getting thrown off for expressing a view that leads to that behaviour - this is why it is such a difficult issue.
I admire the point Gilmore was trying to make, but the way he made it affected too many other people, and could have been made in a manner that was less selfish but equally effective. I think that he behaved, if the facts are reported correctly, like a complete arse!
Cheers
Flaps_45
My opinion, for what it's worth...
1. "It's Nigel's plane and you do what he says". BA's private property has essentially been opened up to the public for the purposes of commercial gain. This immediately places some limitation on what they can prohibit - the state (whichever it may be) has a greater regulatory interest than would be the case if I prohibited certain speech in my own home.
2. "It's like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater - you can't just say whatever you want and expect it to be protected as free speech". Absolutely correct - the problem is in determining what is legitimate and protected speech and what is tantamount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The distinction which Justice Holmes had in mind when he wrote that passage, and indeed the distinction which he never quite got the U.S. Supreme Court to accept, was the distinction between words and action. When someone's words are just words, even if we find them irritating or offensive, we must tolerate them. When they actually cause adverse reactions with real risks, or incite certain undesirable behaviour, it may be legitimate to limit them.
If something is offensive enough or irritating enough, it may upset people so much that it has crossed that boundary, and we can perhaps legitimately limit it. It may even cause certain types of more tangible harm. Hence the legitimacy of prohibiting racist speech.
With this in mind...
3. Asking Gilmore to take off the pin was unnecessary - it had not been noticed and was not inciting any passengers to misbehave. It was not upsetting anyone or making them feel uncomfortable. A little hypersensitive and paranoid, I think. However, if the badge was having such an effect on pax, there might have been a case for making the demand, although only if it was causing *real* concern.
4. Once Gilmore had been asked to remove it, it had been brought to the attention of all and, more importantly, he started behaving like an arse. He could have removed it and complained (in my view legitimately) at a later time, but he chose to misbehave and cause a problem. If the Captain decided to remove him for this reason, well done. His political speech had turned to action which would have got him removed from the flight in any event (i.e. regardless of whether he was engaging in political speech). If he was removed because he refused to conform to the Captain's order to limit his speech, that would be illegitimate.
Of course, there is a fine line between getting thrown off for your behaviour and getting thrown off for expressing a view that leads to that behaviour - this is why it is such a difficult issue.
I admire the point Gilmore was trying to make, but the way he made it affected too many other people, and could have been made in a manner that was less selfish but equally effective. I think that he behaved, if the facts are reported correctly, like a complete arse!
Cheers
Flaps_45
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this is just like a Scottish pub with a "No Football Colours" sign up.
It is a private business - open to the public, but the landlord decrees what is acceptable.
Even if the US Laws of free speech protected this idiot at the US airport they could have had him arrested with impunity as soon as they got to London.
It is a private business - open to the public, but the landlord decrees what is acceptable.
Even if the US Laws of free speech protected this idiot at the US airport they could have had him arrested with impunity as soon as they got to London.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: england
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel won't fly pax with political badge
RE: Celtic Frog's comment about freedom of speach. This is not applicable to BA as Britain does not have a legal right to free speach, we do have law forbidding certain types of statements in public though.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here I consider the message on the badge, not the potential danger from the pin.
Just a minor point...
Dave
