BA offloads couple at Portuguese military base over business class row [LGW-KIN]
Apr 27, 2017, 7:42 am
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Programs: BAEC Gold, Delta Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, AMEX Platinum (US)
Posts: 18,486
Can we get one thing straight...this aircraft is a 3 class 777 with no First. Yes, to the 20yr old journos at the Daily Mail anything above FR is probably First but still... 
Ha! I was on an AA flight out of JFK last year where the crew were literally seconds away from timing out (resulting in an overnight in NYC) if we didn't get the door shut. In order to do that all passengers had to be seated. As we boarded the aircraft the Captain told us we were told to take a seat, any seat and not stow any bags in the overhead. We very nearly missed it because one old lady didn't follow the instructions. The guy next to me who had been trying to get back to CLT for 4 days (rolling delay issues with weather) almost rugby tackled her and the majority of the F cabin was barking at her. I can only imagine what would have happened if that crowd were on this BA flight.
Wading through the comments on the Daily Mail site to see if any other passengers had commented:
"My friend was on the flight. He was apparently verbally abusive and asked several times to return to his seat. He refused. And if he needed to just stretch his legs, why didn't he just walk round the economy section. Plenty do. He was warned several times."
So assuming the friend is more reliable than the Daily Mail (not exactly tricky, IMO) then perhaps the crew actions were justified.
Oxymoron?
Yepp. Sitting hours in a metal tube to go nowhere. Surprised that unruly passengers haven't been lynched in these kind of situations when the PIC comes on the PA: "Ladies and gentlemen. Due to the dangerous behavior of the couple sitting in 45A and 45B, we see no other way than to divert to a rock in the middle of the Atlantic. As a result of this diversion, we are no longer able to fly to our destination and will return to London."
"My friend was on the flight. He was apparently verbally abusive and asked several times to return to his seat. He refused. And if he needed to just stretch his legs, why didn't he just walk round the economy section. Plenty do. He was warned several times."
So assuming the friend is more reliable than the Daily Mail (not exactly tricky, IMO) then perhaps the crew actions were justified.
Oxymoron?
Apr 27, 2017, 7:44 am
#77
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: GLA
Programs: BAEC: BRONZE (Basic member: KLM, Emirates, United)
Posts: 134
Apr 27, 2017, 8:04 am
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
Given the context created by global attention to the United forcible-removal incident (and current groveling and policy changes at UA to win back lost public sympathy) I can't imagine what BA can say to help its case here. Even if they're technically right they're politically wrong.
Apr 27, 2017, 8:14 am
#79
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,404
I disagree. Most people are still very happy if unruly, drunk and/or violent passengers are removed. The only reason why the UA was (rightfully) so criticised by customers (me included) is that a passenger was removed after he had boarded and because UA wanted their seat back. The whole thing was then worsened by cops essentially beating the passenger up.
In the majority of cases, the other passengers will be very happy if a passenger is removed or restraint in his seat.
In the majority of cases, the other passengers will be very happy if a passenger is removed or restraint in his seat.
Apr 27, 2017, 8:24 am
#80
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,140
The United case was, of course, a PR disaster for UA created in part by the heavy handling of the situation by Airport [not airline] Security people [think G4S, for UK readers].
As further details emerge on this incident, it starts to paint a picture of Mr. Bantu trying his luck, then when caught playing the 'elderly health card', and when that didn't work kicking off in a non-untypical Jamaican manner. The fact that the Flight Deck got involved suggests that he was really getting excited, to the serious detriment of the pax in CW ... and incidents near the Flight Deck door in flight are NOT appreciated by the Captain.
Sorry to hear about your 'health issues', Mr. Bantu, and I'm sure you would have liked a flat-bed seat in CW. You tried your luck, and it didn't work ... BIG time.
We of course wait to hear why Ms Stoney was off-loaded as well.
As further details emerge on this incident, it starts to paint a picture of Mr. Bantu trying his luck, then when caught playing the 'elderly health card', and when that didn't work kicking off in a non-untypical Jamaican manner. The fact that the Flight Deck got involved suggests that he was really getting excited, to the serious detriment of the pax in CW ... and incidents near the Flight Deck door in flight are NOT appreciated by the Captain.
Sorry to hear about your 'health issues', Mr. Bantu, and I'm sure you would have liked a flat-bed seat in CW. You tried your luck, and it didn't work ... BIG time.
We of course wait to hear why Ms Stoney was off-loaded as well.
Apr 27, 2017, 8:34 am
#81
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sin, HKG
Programs: SQ, BA CCR GGL
Posts: 626
Put him at the back. Tie him up if necessary. Throw drinks and avios at the other passengers and voila you've arrived. Alternatively invoke "ultimate authority" and divert, return and climb into the high moral ground.
Captains have ultimate authority rightly but are also accountable in the event their ultimate authority results in a stupid decision (which this one looks like but may not have been if there is something we don't yet know). One might conclude that BA is not commenting because, you know, they screwed up.
Apr 27, 2017, 8:46 am
#82
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,140
The Indepenent has this ...
So what are BA supposed to do? Let him get away with it? He was SITTING in CW, not stretching his legs. He self-upgraded, simple as that.
Yes, Nuster, there are options. But a 65-yo can still do physical harm, or do something 'dramatic' near the Flight Deck. My sympathy factor still hovers around ZERO.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/...-a7705711.html
British Airways told the Independent: “We take great care to handle these difficult situations as sensitively as possible. Our cabin crew and one of our pilots repeatedly asked a customer to return to his booked seat in economy after he sat in our business class cabin without permission. He repeatedly refused, verbally abused crew members and disturbed other customers.”
“As a last resort, our cabin crew felt they had no option but to restrain the customer in the interests of the safety of everyone on board and helped him walk back to his original seat.”
“As a last resort, our cabin crew felt they had no option but to restrain the customer in the interests of the safety of everyone on board and helped him walk back to his original seat.”
Yes, Nuster, there are options. But a 65-yo can still do physical harm, or do something 'dramatic' near the Flight Deck. My sympathy factor still hovers around ZERO.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/...-a7705711.html
Apr 27, 2017, 8:51 am
#83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: AA
Posts: 14,727
Not to mention, if he really did have medical issues that meant he couldn't sit in his seat for the full flight, then if they had continued the transatlantic flight and something happened, the story would be "BA ignores medical issue brought to their attention."
Apr 27, 2017, 8:56 am
#84
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,474
Not sure there was a threat to the flight or passengers safety. I have been on Saturday night charters (not today or yesterday) and football/rugby planes and it was far from pleasant.But it was not a threat to the flight. A 65 year old as pictured is no threat to a flight and the biggest disturbance was probably to the calm serenity of the mid flight galley.
Put him at the back. Tie him up if necessary. Throw drinks and avios at the other passengers and voila you've arrived. Alternatively invoke "ultimate authority" and divert, return and climb into the high moral ground.
Captains have ultimate authority rightly but are also accountable in the event their ultimate authority results in a stupid decision (which this one looks like but may not have been if there is something we don't yet know). One might conclude that BA is not commenting because, you know, they screwed up.
Put him at the back. Tie him up if necessary. Throw drinks and avios at the other passengers and voila you've arrived. Alternatively invoke "ultimate authority" and divert, return and climb into the high moral ground.
Captains have ultimate authority rightly but are also accountable in the event their ultimate authority results in a stupid decision (which this one looks like but may not have been if there is something we don't yet know). One might conclude that BA is not commenting because, you know, they screwed up.
Can you even begin to imagine the furore that would emerge if the Captain had taken the decision that it would be acceptable for a man who claimed to be suffering from cancer and diabetes coupled with a swollen leg to remain restrained with clearly highly limited movement for a minute longer than was absolutely necessary? There were probably something approaching a further 6 hours of flight remaining. The DVT risk given the reported symptoms must have carried great weight. A death on board as a result of crew actions would hardly be great for anyone, surely?
Yes, it seems the action was needed to ensure the safety of the other passengers. Even if the miscreant was calmer, if I happened to be on that plane I wouldn't want a chance taken on removing those restraints - either they remained to destination, or there needed to be a divert. The apparent underlying medical issues left the Captain with little or no choice.
No question, given all the evidence so far, that it was the right decision.
Apr 27, 2017, 9:07 am
#85
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
It's entirely possible that the passenger needed to be restrained to keep others safe but keeping him restrained for an extended period would have put him at risk.
Un-restraining him and putting other passengers and crew at risk, keeping him restrained and put him at risk, or offload him and keep other passengers and crew safe as well as the person himself? I know which one I'd go for.
I'm sure the decision to divert wouldn't have been taken lightly - think of the paperwork it must have created for the captain and the cabin crew involved. Even that in itself would put anyone off taking the decision lightly
even before considering all other consequences.
My facetious comment on paperwork aside, I totally trust that it is not something that crew would have done lightly.
I think it's worth remembering that by and large crew members want to get you to your destination safely as much as you want to get there safely (if not more) and they would do their best to do so.
Un-restraining him and putting other passengers and crew at risk, keeping him restrained and put him at risk, or offload him and keep other passengers and crew safe as well as the person himself? I know which one I'd go for.
I'm sure the decision to divert wouldn't have been taken lightly - think of the paperwork it must have created for the captain and the cabin crew involved. Even that in itself would put anyone off taking the decision lightly
even before considering all other consequences.My facetious comment on paperwork aside, I totally trust that it is not something that crew would have done lightly.
I think it's worth remembering that by and large crew members want to get you to your destination safely as much as you want to get there safely (if not more) and they would do their best to do so.
Last edited by LTN Phobia; Apr 27, 2017 at 9:17 am
Apr 27, 2017, 9:12 am
#86
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,404
What next? "I booked a city car and Avis had me arrested when I tried driving of in the Porsche?
Apr 27, 2017, 9:13 am
#87
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,060
Not sure there was a threat to the flight or passengers safety. I have been on Saturday night charters (not today or yesterday) and football/rugby planes and it was far from pleasant.But it was not a threat to the flight. A 65 year old as pictured is no threat to a flight and the biggest disturbance was probably to the calm serenity of the mid flight galley.
Put him at the back. Tie him up if necessary. Throw drinks and avios at the other passengers and voila you've arrived. Alternatively invoke "ultimate authority" and divert, return and climb into the high moral ground.
Captains have ultimate authority rightly but are also accountable in the event their ultimate authority results in a stupid decision (which this one looks like but may not have been if there is something we don't yet know). One might conclude that BA is not commenting because, you know, they screwed up.
Put him at the back. Tie him up if necessary. Throw drinks and avios at the other passengers and voila you've arrived. Alternatively invoke "ultimate authority" and divert, return and climb into the high moral ground.
Captains have ultimate authority rightly but are also accountable in the event their ultimate authority results in a stupid decision (which this one looks like but may not have been if there is something we don't yet know). One might conclude that BA is not commenting because, you know, they screwed up.
Apr 27, 2017, 9:14 am
#88
Join Date: Jul 2008
Programs: I am a lowly ant
Posts: 1,751
Can you even begin to imagine the furore that would emerge if the Captain had taken the decision that it would be acceptable for a man who claimed to be suffering from cancer and diabetes coupled with a swollen leg to remain restrained with clearly highly limited movement for a minute longer than was absolutely necessary? There were probably something approaching a further 6 hours of flight remaining. The DVT risk given the reported symptoms must have carried great weight. A death on board as a result of crew actions would hardly be great for anyone, surely?
Yes, it seems the action was needed to ensure the safety of the other passengers. Even if the miscreant was calmer, if I happened to be on that plane I wouldn't want a chance taken on removing those restraints - either they remained to destination, or there needed to be a divert. The apparent underlying medical issues left the Captain with little or no choice.
No question, given all the evidence so far, that it was the right decision.
Yes, it seems the action was needed to ensure the safety of the other passengers. Even if the miscreant was calmer, if I happened to be on that plane I wouldn't want a chance taken on removing those restraints - either they remained to destination, or there needed to be a divert. The apparent underlying medical issues left the Captain with little or no choice.
No question, given all the evidence so far, that it was the right decision.
Last edited by meester69; Apr 27, 2017 at 9:34 am
Apr 27, 2017, 9:15 am
#89
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sin, HKG
Programs: SQ, BA CCR GGL
Posts: 626
Can you even begin to imagine the furore that would emerge if the Captain had taken the decision that it would be acceptable for a man who claimed to be suffering from cancer and diabetes coupled with a swollen leg to remain restrained with clearly highly limited movement for a minute longer than was absolutely necessary? There were probably something approaching a further 6 hours of flight remaining. The DVT risk given the reported symptoms must have carried great weight. A death on board as a result of crew actions would hardly be great for anyone, surely?
Yes, it seems the action was needed to ensure the safety of the other passengers. Even if the miscreant was calmer, if I happened to be on that plane I wouldn't want a chance taken on removing those restraints - either they remained to destination, or there needed to be a divert. The apparent underlying medical issues left the Captain with little or no choice.
No question, given all the evidence so far, that it was the right decision.
Yes, it seems the action was needed to ensure the safety of the other passengers. Even if the miscreant was calmer, if I happened to be on that plane I wouldn't want a chance taken on removing those restraints - either they remained to destination, or there needed to be a divert. The apparent underlying medical issues left the Captain with little or no choice.
No question, given all the evidence so far, that it was the right decision.
Apr 27, 2017, 9:19 am
#90
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,474
Not sure I follow you - the plane diverted as a kind/humanitarian/thoughtful gesture to the old man who was causing a bit of havoc or it diverted because there was a danger to other passengers?Was it a medical emergency given the police don't seem to feel a crime has been committed?