cmnmia

I think we agree on the fact people likely have biases outside of their perceived groups, but the 'cockney accent' reference threw me off. This stems from the fact that I have my doubts that the majority of people in Business these days on an intra-Europe BA flight are in a similar socio-economic group to the barrister. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong, but I can only base this on my experiences, which is that you get a mix of people in the cabin from different backgrounds.

The reference to his profession wasn't an issue, but rather the negative conclusions that this garnered. That was what I was referring to - people's tendency to be judgemental - I was making the point that I could picture someone from a certain background on a plane, and people instantly have less sympathy than someone from a different background.

Well, I have to be frank, the state of governance is not great and the way laws are executed is not fantastic either. I don't think the legal process is beneficial to anyone when a well paid lawyer can find a nonsense technicality that absolves his/her client of any wrong-doing/jail time. And don't get me started on the whole 'public interest' factor, I find this ludicrous - to my mind, a law is broken or not, irrespective of this - there should be no exceptions.

But you did mention judicial process and my response is that it isn't close to perfect from what I can see. I think it would be a great revolution if there was greater awareness that 'independent witnesses' are fallible, and also have their own interests. It would be naive to think they may only be pro-BA, or pro-protagonist, and that they may not have another driving motivation, interest or bias. To park them as an independent witness who can be relied upon just because they say so, well, no, like I said before I couldn't do that. Our experiences drive us into interpreting the environment as we do - without wanting to repeat about biases, I do feel that people's accounts are largely affected by their backgrounds as much as what actually happened.

My first feeling about BA's response was that their response is likely to be driven by PR and corporate image rather than the actual case itself. This is the message from companies these days, image focused. I suspect it was a boiler-plate response which was confined within certain parameters and similar to responses that they produce whenever someone is removed from a trip. As to whether I think BA, the witnesses, or the main protagonist are the most reliable. Well, I have no reason to think any of them is more reliable than the others. I would keep an open mind.


I agree. The legal systems the world over rely on people to be credible, reliable, and honest, etc. I wish I could see more of that in day to day behaviour to make me feel more confident in this.

Edit: I should add that it isn't my preference to discuss this in a legal context, bur rather that as you have responded to me in such a way, I have had to accordingly direct my answers along similar lines.

orbitmic

In the original article, BA's spokesperson's response was: "we do not tolerate disruptive behaviour". Of course, they are never going to discuss the specifics of a case with the press (not in this case, not in any other), but it makes it as clear as it gets that this is the line of their narrative (they also chose to comment, which they were absolutely not obliged to and which airlines often choose not to).

The video you refer to is interesting in that it is the only glimpse any of us saw of any aspect of the actual events (though very late in the day) but it was not provided by BA nor is any BA employee either visible or audible.

Schultzois

Well, to be fair, that’s not much more than taking a picture of the various signs distributed around Heathrow (especially close to security screening). Often I’ve winced at such signs after having been addressed quite rudely and wondered to myself, “Well why are you doing so much to provoke it then.”

BA haven’t suggested any real evidence of disruptive behaviour, only that they may have had some manner in provoking it, and don’t tolerate it once provoked.

If there is indeed actual “disruptive behaviour” then I should think charges should have been filed.

Tobias-UK

Disruptive behaviour doesn’t necessarily need to be criminally disruptive.

orbitmic

As I was mentioning in my previous post, BA (or for that matter other airlines) would never comment on the specifics of a case in the media. Indeed, it would be very silly/counterproductive of them to do so.

As Tobias UK mentions, disruption does not in any way need to meet a criminal threshold (thankfully!) and it is in fact very unusual for airlines to press charges against passengers even when they would be able to, except in rather extreme cases (e.g. if there were people injured, etc). Zero tolerance means just that, that they will not tolerate disruptive behaviour, not that they will necessarily ask others to qualify it or act on it, especially as airlines have a number of retaliatiory measures at their disposal that they can and occasionally do use without requiring anyone's permission.

Let's not reverse the situation here: BA have no case to make, and it is not BA who have contacted the press or anyone else about this story. For them, it has been resolved and they are perfectly content considering that that's the end of it as far as they are concerned. They do not have to initiate anything, say anything, prove anything, and they would be very ill advised to do so. It is the passengers who are unhappy and therefore they who might or might not do anything about it, and who will need to build a case if they choose to do so.

Schultzois

So basically we also don’t know that either a cabin crew member or even another passenger who was upset didn’t escalate this situation to the point that it reached.

In my experience it’s not like BA cabin crew to get things so terribly wrong, but I will say that my last couple of “pandemic” flights showed crew who genuinely made me feel like I wasn’t sure they could handle an emergency. Yelling at passengers, running up and down the aisles… like nothing I had seen before, and together with a friend who had never before flown CW, I quietly told him that it’s not usually like this, and to keep quiet. We were both basically worried even to talk to several of the crew members. One or two were good, but there were some who had been downright rude from the beginning. The one who appeared from his uniform to be the most senior cabin crew was yelling at people and seemingly had lost all control. I’d never seen something like that before, but did comment to my friend that probably he had unfortunately set the protocol for the rest of the crew.

This was not long after a number of services had been restored… I chalked it up to crew who forgot their training or some such, and were also in an unfamiliar working condition. It’s been awhile longer now, but we shall see how it all works out.

orbitmic

If you mean talking to the press, passenger is possible (in my view, far less likely than the affected passenger himself but that is merely my perception and by no means a certainty), but crew member would strike me as extremely unlikely. For one thing, they could easily be losing their job over something like that, and secondly, the article was very clearly framed around "what a rubbish airline" narrative rather than the "what a crazy passenger" narrative. Had an incensed crew member made contact, they would have presumably mentioned such things as the swearing the passenger himself admits to in the video, but which was not mentioned in the original article. Incidentally, that means that similarly, if it is another passenger, it would be one unwilling to blame the affected passenger for the same reason.

The video itself, clearly, was provided by another passenger, but that came a lot later (most certainly by a passenger who read the original DM article and offered to send the paper the video I would imagine for some cash).

Schultzois

A lot seems to be getting attributed to his having “sweared.”

In what context? At whom? Did another passenger try to interrupt his conversation and he said “mind your own f-in business” or there was some discourse over using the right side row 2 bulkhead for the nanny with the children and he said “there’s a d@nd bassinet so yes there are enough oxygen masks.”

Nothing that’s been shown yet suggests actual threatening behaviour, but I have been on the wrong end of authority figures, especially in UK, claiming that my speaking with a certain definition (not yelling and certainly not swearing) was suddenly aggressive behaviour. So I am a bit sensitive to this reverse abuse, which is that when we’ve been done wrong we’re not even allowed to speak up about it or try to find a solution.

Schultzois

No, I’m talking about escalation onboard. To the point that someone would take a small situation and say to the captain that they need to turn the plane around .
Those critical moments I’m talking about.

i_concur

Who are we saying went to Eton?

hydro001

Unlikely to be swearing about bassinets as there are no bassinet positions on A320.

Regardless of what context, swearing in general, and particularly if directed at another person or persons, is not acceptable on an aircraft , or indeed in most public areas. There's no ifs or buts on that. Others may take offense or feel uncomfortable at the use of swear words and that in itself is not acceptable.

Schultzois

Until we really know what happened, zero tolerance against passenger abuse may have been ignored here. For all we know there might have been aggression against the passenger, and that’s why he was saying it’s “unfair.”
And, as you point out, it’s the corporation here who in most cases holds all the trump cards.
Zero tolerance, at least in my observation in the UK, protects only corporations and can actually cause physical and financial harm to individuals who don’t have a corporate facade for avoiding personal responsibility.
I don’t know that this is what’s happening here, but it’s certainly difficult to eliminate it.

Schultzois

Way to totally miss the point.

Point being we have virtually no context here (and also historically that bulkhead on any CE service would usually have a bassinet… but that’s apparently been enhanced).

And if you’ve never been in a situation where someone slipped a foul word, I don’t know if I should be happy for you or sorry for you.

This must be one of those things that the brits are just terribly fragile about.

scottishpoet

i doubt the captain would have returned to stand for one f*** off from an upset passenger.

Returning to stand is not a decision that would have been taken lightly.

How often have you been on a flight that has returned to stand for a disruptive PAX?

I was not on board but I suspect it had got to the stage the guy would not let it go and this was preventing the crew perform the safety breifing and cabin secure checks.

Speculation yes, just trying to think what would have been happening on board that would be serious enough for the captain to return and involve the police

cauchy

Maybe discussed above, but do the Conditions of Carriage allow BA to deboard the whole traveling party - i.e. Banner's wife, kids (&nanny)? Or could they claim IDB compensation?