Easyjet throwing woman off flight for 'abuse'

robt_2

inchinga wrote: »

Why should this be of any significance if I had?

That is called avoidance.

You are the only person who thinks the airline is in the wrong (which it is not) which is pretty suspicious.

You mentioned 9/11 - which has very little to do with it.

If a member of staff thinks a passenger may pose a risk to the flight (such as 'kicking off' on it) then they deny them boarding, it is pretty simple and standard procedure with every airline all over the world.

inchinga

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/3074136/Family-from-Hell-thrown-off-plane-plan-legal-action.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580018/Doctor-thrown-off-Ryanair-flight-%27for-talking%27.html


http://consumerist.com/consumer/babies-on-a-plane/mom-and-toddler-kicked-off-continental-flight-for-talking-too-much-277696.php


http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/monique thrown off plane after racist incident_1003504

I am very surprised that no one else sympathises with people who get chucked off. And before you go on and on about how childish / aggressive / abusive the woman was, we still don't know that she was.

That is called avoidance.

You are the only person who thinks the airline is in the wrong (which it is not) which is pretty suspicious.

Suspicious of what exactly, Inspector Clouseau?

I'm not avoiding answering, I just thought the way you (Rob) asked was rude, and aggressive, actually! So I refuse to give you the information you want (hope you catch the irony there). A bit of 'tit for tat' that you should agree with hey?

Besides, I wonder why you have made this a personal thing about me? I saw something I thought was not on and made a post about it. Everyone disagrees with me :mad::p , but I still have the right to put my opinion across don't I?

Whether or not I have been thrown off a plane before, does that make any difference to whether I'm allowed to post or not about what I saw on telly at around 11 ish today? No? I didn't think so.

moonrakerz

Caz3121 wrote: »

I worked for many years in an airport and came to the conclusion that people had a personality change when they stepped over the door and left their brain outside.

Please don't take this personally - but your statement applies to many (but not all) airline ground staff !

PS: I don't really know what the OP is bleating about !

Marty_J

inchinga, you keep saying that no one here saw the original altercation, and this is true. However, the airline staff did see it, and they obviously judged that she should not be flying.

You're the one making assumptions which fly in the face of the facts which we do have. Maybe she didn't deserve it, and the whole thing was an ego trip by some maniacal employee; however, you have nothing to substantiate this claim in the slightest.

On the other hand, people who are saying she deserved it do have something to justify their opinion. Namely, that people who were actually present at the time thought she did.

Unless you were there, the airline staff's opinion of the situation is more informed than your own.

inchinga

Marty_J wrote: »

Unless you were there, the airline staff's opinion of the situation is more informed than your own.

That is exactly what is the problem, and the reason for me posting. The staff have more of a say than the customers.

Are you saying all the staff are never subject to pettiness?

Just look at the links I provided, all found within about 2 minutes.

Marty_J

inchinga wrote: »

That is exactly what is the problem, and the reason for me posting. The staff have more of a say than the customers.

Are you saying all the staff are never subject to pettiness?

Just look at the links I provided, all found within about 2 minutes.

Of course the staff have more say than the customers - that's their job. It would be pretty silly if the customers decided who should fly or not.

And of course the staff are subject to pettiness; they're only human.

I doubt however, that airline staff are in the habit of regularly preventing people from flying just because they don't like them.

Unless there's reason to think otherwise, it would appear in this instance that the staff were justified in refusing to allow her to board. Their decision was based upon her actions; they didn't just single out some one for punishment.

I'm really surprised after the events of 9/11 people still mess around when it comes to air travel.

alwaysskint96

Umm last year I was boarding a flight from Stansted with Ryanair. I had checked in online and bought a cup of coffee at one of the coffee shops near the gate- where a sign stated "Drink here or take on board"

When I got to the gate the crerw member said to me "oh you cant take that on- you are not allowed to take hot drinks on board" so I merely replied "Oh Ive never heard of that before and bought it at the coffee shop iover there that said drink here or take on board. I'll sit and drink it and get on after Ive finished then"

Her reply "Well if you take that attitude with me I can stop you flying you know"

Now I hadnt taken ANY attitude- but that particular member of staff certainly seemed to have one. I wasnt insisting on taking the coffee on- merely went back in the queue to sit and drink it- then went to the front of queue once Id finished ( had priority boarding and all other PB were on by this time) where she glared at me again- in reply I just smiled at her LOL

Ironically after I had gone back to drink my coffee before boarding- LOADS of people were hiding hot drinks in bags/pockets etc- none of them were refused boarding ( despite 2 of them being right behind me and saying loud enough for the staff to hear- "oh they are being funny about drinks- put in in your bag" called to aa friend further down the line

greenface

When did they stop allowing crackers on planes? and why

robt_2

inchinga wrote: »

Suspicious of what exactly, Inspector Clouseau?

I'm not avoiding answering, I just thought the way you (Rob) asked was rude, and aggressive, actually! So I refuse to give you the information you want (hope you catch the irony there). A bit of 'tit for tat' that you should agree with hey?

Besides, I wonder why you have made this a personal thing about me? I saw something I thought was not on and made a post about it. Everyone disagrees with me :mad::p , but I still have the right to put my opinion across don't I?

Whether or not I have been thrown off a plane before, does that make any difference to whether I'm allowed to post or not about what I saw on telly at around 11 ish today? No? I didn't think so.

It wasn't rude or aggressive, but if that is the way that you have decided to take it then fair enough. It is you that is being deliberately awkward in the post I have quoted.

I asked you a reasonable question, because you started the thread, that is not making it a 'personal thing'. No one has said you don't have the right to an opinion or the right to post, so that doesn't wash.

I also fail to see what the links you provided are meant to prove? Someone thrown off because he was disrupting the safety demo? Seems fair enough to me. The fact that they were a doctor has no relevance. A baby disrupting the safety demo? Once again, fair enough. A news story with only one side of the story (the 'family from hell' one). Who knows what actually happened? Because I don't believe that the family ran to the papers with the full unbiased version of events, do you?

hollydays

greenface wrote: »

When did they stop allowing crackers on planes? and why

That was a question I never thought I would read....