High-flying barrister, 41, and his family are removed from BA flight at Heathrow
Feb 17, 2022, 1:33 am
#331
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Singapore
Programs: BAEC GFL (Only took 30 years)
Posts: 500
Or in the alternative, that the chain of causation started when BA and/or their servants and/or their agents and/or their assigns had made him "understandably cross", such crossness manifesting as behavior that rightly or wrongly, (don't know wasn't there), resulted in him being offloaded.
Or further in the alternative, that his understandable crossness resulted in him making a complaint to BA and on telling the cabin crew of this complaint they unreasonably and without due cause instructed the Pilot to return the plane to the stand, so he would look like the bad guy and they would not get into trouble for making him "understandably cross."
I've had a look and cannot find any case law whether the test of "reasonable and understandable crossness" is an objective one, (what an independent bystander would consider sufficient to reasonably and understandably warrant crossness), or a subjective one, (whether it is sufficient that the claimant or defendant himself was pushed to "crossness.") An advice will be needed on this point. Anyone know a good QC that could assist?
Last edited by Midships; Feb 17, 2022 at 2:08 am
Feb 17, 2022, 1:38 am
#332
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
To be honest, it’s not a very frequent occurrence that the Club cabin (the one which witnesses and heard reactions would presumably come from) is dominated by cockney accents so I’m not sure this is the setting where an “anti posh” bias would be most likely. And you are absolutely right that independent witnesses do not create a certainty, but ultimately, on a likely scale of bias, wouldn’t you say that a protagonist’s own version (the other account that we have) rates even higher?
For better or worse, at this stage, the downgrade is a bit of a red herring. The key complaint by the passenger is that he and his family were wrongfully kicked out of the plane (ie his attitude did not justify it), and ba’s view seems to be that his attitude was disruptive and thus justified disembarking the passengers. So the passenger’s “attitude” (words, behaviour, timing of reactions etc) is the key point of disagreement, and short of a full recording, independent witnesses’ accounts is going to be the main reference point. In my experience, it is also not the case that passengers always take the airline’s side. They do sometimes, but others, they are in fact very prompt to blame the airline and crew for delays they experience even when those are precisely not caused by the airline itself.
For better or worse, at this stage, the downgrade is a bit of a red herring. The key complaint by the passenger is that he and his family were wrongfully kicked out of the plane (ie his attitude did not justify it), and ba’s view seems to be that his attitude was disruptive and thus justified disembarking the passengers. So the passenger’s “attitude” (words, behaviour, timing of reactions etc) is the key point of disagreement, and short of a full recording, independent witnesses’ accounts is going to be the main reference point. In my experience, it is also not the case that passengers always take the airline’s side. They do sometimes, but others, they are in fact very prompt to blame the airline and crew for delays they experience even when those are precisely not caused by the airline itself.
The ANO, empowers the aircraft Captain to offload passengers, or in the most violent cases to even have a passenger physically restrained, if, from the information they have at the time, they form the opinion that their actions are in order to maintain the safety of the flight.
Note, that opinion does not have to be right as more facts emerge, merely that at the time the decision was made they believed this was the safest course of action.
Verbal abuse, ie swearing at the crew and or disobeying crew instructions constitutes acts which fall within the ICAO passenger threat level 1 category. This alone would provide ample cause for the passenger to be offloaded, particularly as the flight had not got airborne.
Again I emphasize I am talking hypothetically and make no judgment about this incident
Feb 17, 2022, 2:07 am
#333
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Marriott Bonvoy
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Englandshire
Programs: SPG LT Plat, BA G, BD*LG, MG Blue+ ...
Posts: 16,034
All barristers, when called to the Bar, agree to be bound by a Code of Conduct which is regulated by the Bar Standards Board (the Code of Conduct is contained in the BSB Handbook and can be viewed by anyone). There is nothing I have read in any press report so far, or seen in the video mentioned above, that would cause me to believe the chap's behaviour fell short to the degree that the General Council of the Bar or the BSB would wish to instigate disciplinary measures.
Anyway, that's probably irrelevant, since the modern equivalent "don't be such a knob that you get yourself all over the internet" now overrides.
Feb 17, 2022, 2:21 am
#334
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,543
[Considering the witness evidence:[[i]"After this had gone on for considerable time we were completely exasperated by the situation and were understandably cross, as any reasonable people would have been", said Banner.]
Or in the alternative, that the chain of causation started when BA and/or their servants and/or their agents and/or their assigns had made him "understandably cross", such crossness manifesting as behavior that rightly or wrongly, (don't know wasn't there), resulted in him being offloaded.
Or further in the alternative, that his understandable crossness resulted in him making a complaint to BA and on telling the cabin crew of this complaint they unreasonably and without due cause instructed the Pilot to return the plane to the stand, so he would look like the bad guy and they would not get into trouble for making him "understandably cross."
I've had a look and cannot find any case law whether the test of "reasonable and understandable crossness" is an objective one, (what an independent bystander would consider sufficient to reasonably and understandably warrant crossness), or a subjective one, (whether it is sufficient that the claimant or defendant himself was pushed to "crossness.") An advice will be needed on this point. Anyone know a good QC that could assist?
Or in the alternative, that the chain of causation started when BA and/or their servants and/or their agents and/or their assigns had made him "understandably cross", such crossness manifesting as behavior that rightly or wrongly, (don't know wasn't there), resulted in him being offloaded.
Or further in the alternative, that his understandable crossness resulted in him making a complaint to BA and on telling the cabin crew of this complaint they unreasonably and without due cause instructed the Pilot to return the plane to the stand, so he would look like the bad guy and they would not get into trouble for making him "understandably cross."
I've had a look and cannot find any case law whether the test of "reasonable and understandable crossness" is an objective one, (what an independent bystander would consider sufficient to reasonably and understandably warrant crossness), or a subjective one, (whether it is sufficient that the claimant or defendant himself was pushed to "crossness.") An advice will be needed on this point. Anyone know a good QC that could assist?
As for the notion (suggested by the passenger) that the offloading was due to him making a complaint, I expect that he would have an extraordinarily difficult time making a credible case.
Feb 17, 2022, 2:28 am
#335
Join Date: Nov 2018
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 876
Bear in mind that the passenger admits - at the very least from all we know - to swearing. Unlike you, I haven't checked case law, but I imagine that the threshold for anyone to make a case that somehow the BA behaviour would have made the swearing understandable/inevitable to the point that it should not be considered a potentially legitimate cause for offloading would be pretty high.
As for the notion (suggested by the passenger) that the offloading was due to him making a complaint, I expect that he would have an extraordinarily difficult time making a credible case.
As for the notion (suggested by the passenger) that the offloading was due to him making a complaint, I expect that he would have an extraordinarily difficult time making a credible case.
7a9) If you have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or another passenger or a member of the crew of the aircraft.
7a10) If you have behaved in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly way towards a member of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft.
There do not appear to be any exceptions to this, so it would seem that legally, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Feb 17, 2022, 2:30 am
#336
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,543
The ANO, empowers the aircraft Captain to offload passengers, or in the most violent cases to even have a passenger physically restrained, if, from the information they have at the time, they form the opinion that their actions are in order to maintain the safety of the flight.
Note, that opinion does not have to be right as more facts emerge, merely that at the time the decision was made they believed this was the safest course of action.
Verbal abuse, ie swearing at the crew and or disobeying crew instructions constitutes acts which fall within the ICAO passenger threat level 1 category. This alone would provide ample cause for the passenger to be offloaded, particularly as the flight had not got airborne.
Again I emphasize I am talking hypothetically and make no judgment about this incident
Note, that opinion does not have to be right as more facts emerge, merely that at the time the decision was made they believed this was the safest course of action.
Verbal abuse, ie swearing at the crew and or disobeying crew instructions constitutes acts which fall within the ICAO passenger threat level 1 category. This alone would provide ample cause for the passenger to be offloaded, particularly as the flight had not got airborne.
Again I emphasize I am talking hypothetically and make no judgment about this incident
Feb 17, 2022, 2:32 am
#337
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
Bear in mind that the passenger admits - at the very least from all we know - to swearing. Unlike you, I haven't checked case law, but I imagine that the threshold for anyone to make a case that somehow the BA behaviour would have made the swearing understandable/inevitable to the point that it should not be considered a potentially legitimate cause for offloading would be pretty high.
As for the notion (suggested by the passenger) that the offloading was due to him making a complaint, I expect that he would have an extraordinarily difficult time making a credible case.
As for the notion (suggested by the passenger) that the offloading was due to him making a complaint, I expect that he would have an extraordinarily difficult time making a credible case.
Last edited by Waterhorse; Feb 17, 2022 at 3:58 am
Feb 17, 2022, 2:48 am
#338
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 10
Yes if Mr Banner is reading this thread. Ignore those wusses telling you to drop it. You've got this. Don't be a chicken. Fight on. Use the chewbacca defense if neccessary 
.
I am curious what the rest of the £4k is. I'm assuming 2 rooms at the sofitel = £300 , uber xl from heathrow to gatwick =£120 2 rooms at a punchy chalet =£700 the straightforward jet flights =£1000.
No doubt we'll find out in the next episode.
. I am curious what the rest of the £4k is. I'm assuming 2 rooms at the sofitel = £300 , uber xl from heathrow to gatwick =£120 2 rooms at a punchy chalet =£700 the straightforward jet flights =£1000.
No doubt we'll find out in the next episode.
Feb 17, 2022, 2:56 am
#339
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,986
I don't know what exactly happened, but I can't see anything which has been reported would meet that.
Feb 17, 2022, 3:10 am
#340
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,929
Indeed!
Feb 17, 2022, 4:22 am
#341
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,937
[Considering the witness evidence:[[i]"After this had gone on for considerable time we were completely exasperated by the situation and were understandably cross, as any reasonable people would have been", said Banner.]
Or in the alternative, that the chain of causation started when BA and/or their servants and/or their agents and/or their assigns had made him "understandably cross", such crossness manifesting as behavior that rightly or wrongly, (don't know wasn't there), resulted in him being offloaded.
Or further in the alternative, that his understandable crossness resulted in him making a complaint to BA and on telling the cabin crew of this complaint they unreasonably and without due cause instructed the Pilot to return the plane to the stand, so he would look like the bad guy and they would not get into trouble for making him "understandably cross."
I've had a look and cannot find any case law whether the test of "reasonable and understandable crossness" is an objective one, (what an independent bystander would consider sufficient to reasonably and understandably warrant crossness), or a subjective one, (whether it is sufficient that the claimant or defendant himself was pushed to "crossness.") An advice will be needed on this point. Anyone know a good QC that could assist?
Or in the alternative, that the chain of causation started when BA and/or their servants and/or their agents and/or their assigns had made him "understandably cross", such crossness manifesting as behavior that rightly or wrongly, (don't know wasn't there), resulted in him being offloaded.
Or further in the alternative, that his understandable crossness resulted in him making a complaint to BA and on telling the cabin crew of this complaint they unreasonably and without due cause instructed the Pilot to return the plane to the stand, so he would look like the bad guy and they would not get into trouble for making him "understandably cross."
I've had a look and cannot find any case law whether the test of "reasonable and understandable crossness" is an objective one, (what an independent bystander would consider sufficient to reasonably and understandably warrant crossness), or a subjective one, (whether it is sufficient that the claimant or defendant himself was pushed to "crossness.") An advice will be needed on this point. Anyone know a good QC that could assist?
I doubt that police boarding the aircraft to escort a passenger off is an everyday occurence either,
I do sympathise with the passenger if his nanny was downgraded and it scuppered his plans, but there is a time to decide not to argue any longer, . This gentleman seems to have got that badly wrong.
As you said in your post "this had gone on for some considerable time and we were .... extremely cross"
Did he really believe that by dragging it out for a considerable period that the situation would somehow change. He asked, he was told no. Asked again, told no again, why keep on asking for a considerable period? If he was unhappy at the downgrade he should have refused to board
I am sorry but while I sympathse with him that his plans were scuppered, everything I read about this suggests he just did not know when to let go.
How often have you known the plane to return to stand to have the police escort someone off the plane before departure? In 35 years of flying I have seen it happen once. I suspect most people here have never seen it happen
Feb 17, 2022, 4:47 am
#342
Join Date: Nov 2004
Programs: BA Gold, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 574
I have witnessed this twice. Both times in the US, once on AA and once on DL. Both times resulted in the disruptive passenger being removed, rather that escorted. No polite request to disembark - just cuffed and hauled off.
Feb 17, 2022, 5:48 am
#344
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold; FB Silver; SPG; IHG Gold
Posts: 2,985
I am sorry but the captain deciding to return to stand is not a decision that the captain would have been taken lightly. I have sat on the apron for 3 hours at heathrow as the captain did not want to return to stand, albiet the circumstances were different.
I doubt that police boarding the aircraft to escort a passenger off is an everyday occurence either,
I do sympathise with the passenger if his nanny was downgraded and it scuppered his plans, but there is a time to decide not to argue any longer, . This gentleman seems to have got that badly wrong.
As you said in your post "this had gone on for some considerable time and we were .... extremely cross"
Did he really believe that by dragging it out for a considerable period that the situation would somehow change. He asked, he was told no. Asked again, told no again, why keep on asking for a considerable period? If he was unhappy at the downgrade he should have refused to board
I am sorry but while I sympathse with him that his plans were scuppered, everything I read about this suggests he just did not know when to let go.
How often have you known the plane to return to stand to have the police escort someone off the plane before departure? In 35 years of flying I have seen it happen once. I suspect most people here have never seen it happen
I doubt that police boarding the aircraft to escort a passenger off is an everyday occurence either,
I do sympathise with the passenger if his nanny was downgraded and it scuppered his plans, but there is a time to decide not to argue any longer, . This gentleman seems to have got that badly wrong.
As you said in your post "this had gone on for some considerable time and we were .... extremely cross"
Did he really believe that by dragging it out for a considerable period that the situation would somehow change. He asked, he was told no. Asked again, told no again, why keep on asking for a considerable period? If he was unhappy at the downgrade he should have refused to board
I am sorry but while I sympathse with him that his plans were scuppered, everything I read about this suggests he just did not know when to let go.
How often have you known the plane to return to stand to have the police escort someone off the plane before departure? In 35 years of flying I have seen it happen once. I suspect most people here have never seen it happen
) the passenger offloaded himself and we were on our way.
Feb 17, 2022, 5:52 am
#345
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Programs: Mucci des Hommes Magiques et Magnifiques
Posts: 19,105
However Waterhorse, if the aircraft was still on stand with the door open the SCCM could refuse to carry a passenger and the Captain would have to agree to this, the only way around this being offloading the SCCM?