Seems to me that the passenger who took it upon herself to help him ended up being as loud as, if not louder, than him.

This is a whole other dimension and problem, this scenario of strangers who suddenly decide it is their call to be referee, sheriff or teacher and invariably end up making a situation much worse. We saw it last week in the American Airlines stroller incident, where that guy almost got into fisticuffs with the CC member. If he had just held his peace, things would have calmed down a lot quicker.

I actually really hate self-appointed sheriffs and I think they get some enjoyment from stirring things and making them worse, far from really wanting to help. I've seen it happen a couple of times on Swiss trains (which I am riding every day at the moment) and there is almost never a good ending to it (but I see very few incidents for all the hours I spend on the trains, in truth).

There's not much that adds up on this one. In particular, why was the second passenger, who was not traveling with him, also removed (note the thread title should be changed as they were not a couple).

Stop trying to fit events to your own personal agenda.Have you ever experienced a self upgrader plunk himself down and make a nuisance of himself? I have, and it is not pleasant.

Where was a passenger in need? If you a referring to his self described "cancer" and "diabetes", so what? Diabetes is a chronic condition. It's not easy, but it does not compel one to be rude and pushy. Millions of people live with cancer. They go on with their lives and don't attempt to play the system. If the man was in "need", why was he flying? Seriously, if he was that ill, why was he on a holiday to visit his family?

His treatment was justified because he very clearly attempted to secure goods and services that he had not paid for and was causing a disturbance. Screaming, and having a tantrum and then playing the pity card does not justify what was attempted.

What business is it of yours if BA personnel are occupying seats in F or J?
Is it your company? Are you a shareholder who will suffer? If not, then mind your own affairs. The airline has agreements with its personnel to provide seats under specific conditions. If you don't agree, take a financial stake in the company and exercise your legal rights to intervene.

While that's always the risk, there's been a lot of press lately at least in the US about the bystander effect. I tend to not just stand by if I see something that is clearly not right or just, and I would hope if someone saw me being treated poorly that they would say something. I've not watched the video of the AA flight, just speaking generally.

A few years ago after spending the night at JFK during a major AC fire in JS (all hotels were full by the time my flight was canceled) and then over to EWR at 4am to have a better chance of getting home, a woman was going a bit crazy with some US agents because she did not make her flight (thousands of people had been stranded). I saw that the gate agents were losing their cool and were clearly going to call the police, so I walked over to the woman and asked her what was wrong. Apparently she was on a trip to spread the ashes of her recently deceased husband, and just wanted someone to listen to her story.

So I listened, and after she had calmed down, I calmly explained that all the flights were full and it was obviously not an ideal time for this to happen for her, but that it certainly would not make things better if she got arrested. After she was calm, I walked up to the agents, explained that the woman was going through a difficult time, that her husband had recently died, and asked if they could they try to get her on the next flight, and they found a way. I was also standby on a different flight and made it home thanks to those same agents, and I ended up giving the gate agents the US equivalent of a golden ticket. They asked me what I had said to calm the lady down, and I said I just simply let her talk and listened.

My point is, being a bystander doesn't mean you need to start a fight of your own, but it also doesn't mean you must ignore things going on around you. I think every major IRROPS I've been in I've ended up helping at least a few passengers get on their way.

Now, I have no idea what this passenger was like on the flight or the actual facts as I was not onboard, but in hindsight at least, there must be a better way to handle this than having to tie up a 65 y/o man and then landing such that they had to return the entire flight to London, and stranding two passengers on a remote island.

The Azores police seem to disagree with you.

You maybe on to something here.

I wonder how this guy would have dealt with his medical needs if every seat in J had been occupied.

I have a solution. Given CW is way to dense as a product viz the competition, they should us some of the spare space created to have medieval stocks up there - whenever a self-upgrader is caught the perpetrator can be safely restrained (in a foot-swelling friendly way of course) in them, allowing angry/bored CW pax to throw eggs at the naughty pax for the remainder of the flight.

Can you provide a source to this information? Otherwise this is speculation which isn't helpful.

Moderator Notice:
This is the final warning. Post with respect to your fellow members and abide by the rules of FT. Yes, there are rules, who would have thought?
Under HELP you'll find a link to the rules section.

This thread has already gone to the dogs a few times. Closure is imminent.
Thanks for cooperating.

Petrus, Moderator BAEC forum

I wouldn't hesitate for a moment.

^^

See post #17 . Click link.

Will not copy & paste, as it probably violates some rules.

One of the passengers on the flight, who was quite reasonable and did not go screaming about brutality or whatever, has been told by BA that he won't get a penny in compensation.

Only very anecdotal and from my own terrible memory, but I don't recall many stories of flights being diverted stating that those passengers were arrested on arrival and charged with any offence. Again anecdotally, these stories often end with the line 'after sobering up the passenger was allowed to continue his journey'.

Maybe some legal experts could comment on which laws a British owner carrier traveling between the LGW and KIN would be privy to in this instance?

A (probably bad) analogy might be an SV flight from LHR - JED. Passenger smuggled alcohol onboard, refuses CC requests to stop, becomes abusive and is ultimately restrained,plane diverts to somewhere like FRA. Now drinking on a plane is not illegal in Germany, does mean the SV cabin crew acted without reason?

Um, with all due respect, a report from the Daily Mail doesn't even deserve as much trust as one of Rupert's pathetic rags.