Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
British Airline Bans Passenger For Life  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8305 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Flybe has banned a passenger for life after he refused to comply with instructions from the crew. Flybe announced the measure after the courts sentenced David McDowell to seven weeks in prison for unruly behaviour. McDowell, who lives in Jersey, has to £2,000 compensation to the airline for the incident which happened on 20 July.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/3939149.stm

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8183 times:

The article does not elaborate on what crew instructions the passenger would not comply with but obviously they must have been important to justify the matter proceeding to Court and the £2,000 fine. Perhaps he endangered the safety of the aircraft?

I say "Well done" to flybe. It is high time tough action was taken on unruly passengers.

Let's hope all other airlines serving the passenger's airport also ban him for life so this will make unruly passengers think twice before committing an offence or ignoring instructions from the crew in future.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineSevenair From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 1728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8028 times:

good, i know that flyBE are very fair in its approach to customer service, so he would have been doing something quite serious if this is the outcome

User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7926 times:

What I find amazing is that this happend on July 20 and the guy's already been tried, convicted and sentenced. You guys are doing something really right in the UK.

Something like this would take months if not years in the US.

-76M


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7891 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What is really amazing to me is that some people assume that they have the absolute right to fly on a private carrier and behave in any way they wish, as if they were in their own home or pub. They have zero regard for the airline, the other passengers or crew. If someone were to come into your restaurant or club and behave in a way inconsistent with the rules or good order and safety there would be no question that he or she would be expelled (forcibly if need be) so why is there any surprise on anyones part that an airline would or could do the same.

I hope this idiot enjoys swimming to wherever he needs to get from Guernsey. (Yeah, he could take the ferry to Dinard, but maybe he'll get seasick)



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7872 times:

Its good that the airline have banned this idiot, but one wonders how this works in practise. Not that many airline res systems maintain actual passenger name blacklists. I don't know where JY are hosted these days (probably Navitaire) - maybe Navitaire has this feature.

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7856 times:

Might be a silly question but if some airline res systems maintain passenger name blacklists, surely they would be more effective if other airlines could access them so they could find out if a passenger had a bad history?


MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7835 times:

BCAL - ooooh HUGE data protection issues ! Normal pax data is sensitive enough, imagine how sensitive a blacklist would be. You'd have to have an ombudsman to make sure that you don't get put on there by mistake, yada yada yada ! Not a good idea - that's probably why these blacklists don't actually exist at the moment.

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7758 times:

Good point JGPH1A. Should have thought about this before asking Embarrassment


MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7749 times:

I know that he is never flying that airline again.  Laugh out loud  Big grin

-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 7613 times:

In Germany banks and retail stores have long ago founded an organisation called Schufa, where people with bad records concerning paying back loans are registered. All member companies can and will check your record if you apply for a loan or you want to buy somethingon installment base.
Why can´t e.g. theEuropean airlines have a similar registry for people causing trouble on flights?

Jan


User currently offlineBOAC From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7508 times:

In answer to the original question the important point is that it is not UK justice that should be credited. As the Channel Islands have their own government and judicial system, they are responsible. Due to the fact that there are rather less people and therefore one assumes crime, they can get the cases through court more rapidly.


Sorry this was supposed to have been posted in the similar thread in Non-AV which linked to this one. I followed the link and got myself confused as to which thread I was replying in. However it is in answer to N6376M's comment.


[Edited 2004-07-30 17:14:55]

User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7336 times:

Most major airlines have nofly list, this isn't new.

UAL 777 CONTRAIL


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7265 times:

UAL777Contrail - re: Most major airlines have nofly list, this isn't new.

Yes that may be so, but if they do have such a list, in what system (if any) does it reside, and how does it work ? I have never seen evidence that an airline rejects a passenger's booking based on their identity.


User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7183 times:

If an airline bans a customer for life then he is no longer allowed to fly. Many folks approach our counters with the same name as the bad boys or girls who cant fly. I was always told it is from a national data base that is linked to the FBI and/or local law enforcement lists. We get many folks because of same name that are banned, you must call to clear them. Those that are banned have a profile, when holding lets say a government issued photo ID you read off the info. Full name, birthdate, drivers ID number, and such, and then the person either gets cleared or a ticket refunded. I have had it happen only once where the person was not allowed to fly, ticket was refunded and he was told to go look elsewhere for travel.


UAL 777 CONTRAIL


User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

It is only for those folks who have made trouble for crews, assaulted crews, or anything to do with aviation. It doesn't include shop lifting charges when you were 14. Smile

UAL 777 CONTRAIL


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7150 times:

UAL777 - so, does some kind of flag pop up in Apollo when you try and check in or board these bad boys/girls ? Not at Res time ?

User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6587 times:

It is good thet FlyBE Banned him but arent we getting into what the European Governments are all apposed to now that the US is trying to implement....CAPS II????
Personally I find CAPS II and any database that based on your financial status as a determining factor as to whether you are deemed by some unknown "god-like avition authority" to board a plane irrelevent and an Invasion of privacy.

The last thing we need is for our government to tell us we cannot travel on a well earned vacation because we had a problem in the past with our finances. And if you dont agree with me, just how many of our rights should we give up in the name of security? All of them?

But yes, FlyBE was right in doing what they did as does ANY company have the tright to refuse services to anyone that they deem so. Especially if their behaviour is a major disruption to normal operations.

I know its sounds like I'm double talking but We have to be careful with all of this stuff and make very sure that our descions are well thought out and not just knee jerk....

FlyBE's wasa sound descion....

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2027 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6551 times:

Let me try to answer the question and UAL777CONTRAIL, if my information is dated, please correct me.

It is my understanding that blacklisted passengers names are built into the airline's res system's database. How it works is that, at the time the res agent hits end, a warning will come up asking the res agent to refer to a profile (since there are many people with the same name) and crosscheck the information. If the information matches, a supervisor is brought into discuss the issue with the passenger and remind him that he has been banned for travel on that airline.

With regard to comments that state that it takes a long time in the US for someone to be banned, that is not correct. It really depends on two factors: 1) what kind of offense and 2) how often is the person guilty of doing it. If, for example, a passenger "interferes" with flight attendants, if it is not a big offense, then the passenger will receive a warning (after paying their fine). If the offense happens a second time, then the passenger is banned. If the offense is big, say, the inteference causes a danger to the cabin staff or passengers, then the airline will take action right away (based on the investigation) and ban them either for a period of time or for life.

Lastly, no one has the "right" to fly on an airline. The purchase of air travel is a contract between the airline and the passengers, with certain requirements for both parties As long as the passenger adheres to the airline's standards of passenger conduct (which are pretty similar in the US), then once the airline gets the passenger from A to B with his bag, then the contract is concluded. The only other thing the airline has to keep in mind is that they do not discriminate against people of color, as that is a violation of Federal Law. However, if the passenger pop up on the federal list (which is in the airport's computer system), then that person can expect anything from additional questions all the way up to and including denied boarding.

If a passenger breaches those standards of conduct (which by the way tend to be legal standards on board an aircraft), then the airline has the right and the duty to ban the passenger for life. While the passenger who (allegedly) committed the offense is afforded due process in our legal system, the airline is not required to afford the passenger due process if, in its investigative conclusion, the passenger could present a danger to cabin crew or passengers, so long as they do not violate the law doing it.

Each airline has a security division that is dedicated to assuring the security of the airline (property, employees, passengers,etc.). They do the investigation and pass the recommendation on to a company officer, who is usually the person who makes the final decision regarding any lifetime ban. I can tell you during my career as a Area Manager, I had been contacted three times from our internal security department about certain passengers based on reports of bad behavior. I received a report from our Station Manager every time there was an incident. Only once did our airline ban a local passenger for life. Thankfully, I did not have to inform that person of the airline's decision.

In this day and age, airlines are no longer tolerant of bad behavior on board an aircraft (not to say that they were lenient before). Their is no democracy on board an aircraft. The Captain is the final authority, as he has ultimate responsibility for the lives on board his/her aircraft. That said, if a passenger does not follow a crew member instruction, the Captain at his/her discretion (within the limitation of the regulations) can and will have authorities standing by at the gate to detain the offender.

These days, any kind of activity when someone is approaching the front or rear of the aircraft is highly scrutinized. In fact, I know of one airline who requires their flight attendant to stand in the galley across from the forward lav every time a passengers enters the WC. Nothing is too extreme these days.

The short of it is, if you are unruly, there will be consequences. If you present a possible danger to the passengers or crew, you will be put in jail upon arrival.

It would be really handy if airlines would offer voluntary training courses for passengers for what to do (or not to do) in the case of an unruly passenger or, in the case of the post regarding the NW flight with the 12 Arab passengers who were acting VERY suspiciously on board, how to act so that the crew is kept informed, but that no one is dealt with unfairly. Unless of course, something happens. As a former airline manager, I have no problem assisting the crew in an emergency and am prepared to follow their instructions to protect the aircraft and passengers, no matter what the consequences to myself.

Let's hope I never have to do that and that we all take a measure of responsibility to assist our crew members when and if they ask for it.

to everyone, please stay safe and vigilant.
baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5581 times:

Ryanair and easyJet have implemented similar lifetime bans to customers.

Even though it didn't go to court, a Ryanair cabin crew member caught a member of the public smoking in the lav's and similarly had a like time ban imposed.

I think this is great news! These kind of passengers who think they can do what they like should think again and no one has a god given right to get on an aircraft. As long as the airlines reasoning is valid then I don;t have a problem with it.

The passenger mentioned in the thread lives in Jersey and considering FlyBE operate about 80% of the flights that operate from the island, his future choice of flights is going to be severely restricted!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

what i dont understand about pax is that when something wrong with thier flight and things don't go the way they want them to go they start yelling at the only people that can help them, the airline staff. if you want your bags back in one piece then don't piss off the baggage handler eh?


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

"In Germany banks and retail stores have long ago founded an organisation called Schufa, where people with bad records concerning paying back loans are registered. All member companies can and will check your record if you apply for a loan or you want to buy something on installment base."

It's about time something is done about these obnoxious people. I would imagine that the gentlemen was drunk or something (couldn't open the link). Concerning the checks: Here in Mississippi, if you bounce a check and don't clear it afterwards with the merchant (or private party), they can take it to the State Attorney General. The penalties are stiff; also many banks will deny your the privileges of a checking account if you bounce too many regardless if you clear them later or not.

Perhaps there is a recourse through the court system if this guy flies again with the airline. I guess it's like a no trespassing thing... The property owner tells you to leave, but you will be charged the next time your on the property.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

JGPH1A,
what happens is when you check in somebody lets say name Bill Smith, you enter the name and a prompt appears on the screen to see a GSC or Supervisor/Lead. You walk over to the screen and pick up the phone to call a number that will clear no flys. You give ALL the info you have collected from the individual and pass it along to an agent who has the profile up. If the date of birth and/or social security number doesn't match they are cleared. The SUP/GSC/LEAD will take out the prompt and you can continue checking in the person.

baw716,
You were close, the res is already built and ticket paid for before the no fly goes into effect. So, I may sell 50 tickets in one day, and it will NEVER prompt that the person is a no fly. Once the name is run through the database it is flagged at that point.

UAL 777 CONTRAIL


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Thanks for the info UAL. I'm pretty sure one of the requirements for our new RES/DCS systems is to be able to identify and deny space to blacklisted passengers, but at the time of booking. Not quite sure how it will work though - its going to be interesting !

User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13033 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3516 times:

Some question on Passanger bans as to an airline:
Will the information be used by other airlines, like if the ban is by UA, can that person be banned by AA as well?
Does it only apply to the country where the initial ban placed, or can a person travel on the same or other airlines in other countries?
Can non-airline related criminal charges or convictions (not only terror related charges) be use to ban a passanger?
Can a passanger appeal a company's ban or do they have to go to a court?



25 Baw716 : UAL777Contrail, Thanks for clarifying the point for me. I always knew about the screening at the counter; I didn't know that the banned list was incor
26 Post contains images JGPH1A : Re putting pax blacklists on GDS's. Yes its technically feasible, although the overhead would be enormous, having to check each pax name in each PNR a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ryanair Bans Smokers For Life... posted Wed Mar 10 2004 16:50:17 by Pkone
Ryanair Bans Pax For Stealing Life Jackets posted Tue Jan 17 2006 23:21:43 by Pe@rson
Changes To Airline Ticketing Policies For UK Bust posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:45:33 by QXatFAT
Airline Offices Raided For Price-fixing Allegation posted Wed Feb 15 2006 23:52:01 by YLWbased
British Airways' Pilots Prepare For Long Strike posted Thu Feb 9 2006 18:27:01 by Concorde001
Pilot's And FA's Saying What Airline They Work For posted Tue Dec 20 2005 00:13:18 by Darrenthe747
FL Becomes Fastest Airline In History For 100 A/c posted Thu Oct 20 2005 19:10:13 by XJRamper
Luxury Airline Being Eyed For India posted Fri Sep 16 2005 21:58:54 by Utapao
New British Airline - 'Global Spirit Airlines' posted Wed Jun 29 2005 23:16:53 by Concorde001
World Most Interesting Airline To Work For? posted Sat Jun 11 2005 17:26:13 by RJpieces
Ryanair Bans Smokers For Life... posted Wed Mar 10 2004 16:50:17 by Pkone
BA The Future For The Once Great British Airline posted Sun Oct 26 2008 08:03:26 by Rutankrd
Ryanair Bans Pax For Stealing Life Jackets posted Tue Jan 17 2006 23:21:43 by Pe@rson
British Airways/IAG Aim For World Leadership posted Tue Jan 10 2012 04:56:25 by blueshamu330s
First Helicopter-airline Sched Passenger Flights posted Sun Nov 13 2011 14:08:32 by timz
Is Jazz Preparing For Life After Air Canada? posted Sun Dec 26 2010 18:58:12 by multimark
Ryanair Charged Ill Passenger For Tea And Biscuits posted Sat Oct 30 2010 18:01:59 by adxmatt
Child And Mother Get Free AirAsia Flights For Life posted Fri Oct 23 2009 08:41:56 by PWMRamper
British Airways To Bid For BMI? posted Sat Sep 5 2009 16:06:37 by EI320
New Long-Haul Airline Secures 747 For JFK-LED posted Fri Aug 21 2009 01:59:26 by OP3000