Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EasyJet And The "Bomb" Word - Overreaction?  
User currently offlineGilesDavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3052 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9463 times:

Im not sure what to think of this, and curious on other peoples opinions...

A man flying to Portugal with easyJet from Luton, was not allowed to fly, was ejected from the airport and given a life time ban by easyJet for using the "bomb" word when at check-in...

From what I can make out of the story, he never actually threatened to blow up or say he was carrying a bomb aboard a flight, but when at the check-in desk, they asked the usual security questions and he commented something along the lines of saying he WASN'T carrying any bombs and did not want to blow himself up.

It seems the check-in staff have then called the police and then got barred from the airport and a life time ban from the airline.

I think it was stupid he even used the word, but think their is an element of overreaction as he did not say he was carrying a bomb or make any threat.

They were discussing this on BBC Three Counties Radio (which is in the area of Luton Airport) this morning on the JVS show about 1hr into the show. I have provided a link below and you can fast forwarded to it. As it is an interactive radio show, where the listeners can call in with their views, the majority of listeners agreed with the view of easyJet. Surely the police coming to over the passenger and stern telling off would have been sufficient?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0142zy3/The_JVS_Show_18_02_2013/

111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9188 times:

In fairness he deserved it just for being that stupid!


My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5316 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9174 times:

Quoting GilesDavies (Thread starter):
Surely the police coming to over the passenger and stern telling off would have been sufficient?

When it comes to Aviation - security is no joking matter. You'd have to be an idiot to even think about dropping the b word at check in.


User currently onlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9105 times:

Can't believe there are still people who give such stupid answers when serious questions are asked at check-in, very good that he has been banned for life.


'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9013 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 1):
In fairness he deserved it just for being that stupid!
Quoting anstar (Reply 2):
When it comes to Aviation - security is no joking matter. You'd have to be an idiot to even think about dropping the b word at check in.
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 3):
Can't believe there are still people who give such stupid answers when serious questions are asked at check-in, very good that he has been banned for life.

           

Using the B-word at an airport is like a white guy using the N-word out loud in the middle of Compton..really really really stupid.

This man should remove himself from the gene-pool for the greater good of our species!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

Uhm... so I'm the only one who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this, specifically to tell someone that you are of no threat?

Some of you guys really missed the whole communism experience up close and personal. Because we are heading there, fast.


User currently offlinesebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8923 times:

Well, a French guy spent 20 days in the prison of Rikers Island in 2004 to have used the word "explode" in an American Airlines plane ...

Just don't make this type of jokes.

[Edited 2013-02-18 08:39:31]

User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8897 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 5):
who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this,

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?!

This has nothing to do with free speech, this is about a very sensitive environment when it comes to security and the common sense of not using terminology that is connected to security threats in that environment.

Long time ago we went on a big family ski-ing holiday in Switzerland by car. One of my stupid nephews thought it would be fun to proclaim out loud that "we did not have any cocaine hidden in our cars" at the Swiss border. We were stuck on the border for a few hours while they strip searched his car. Idiot.

[Edited 2013-02-18 09:14:40]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2302 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8889 times:

He's stupid.

Big deal.

Check him and his bags thoroughly (do an anal examination if you have to), and let him fly, unless you really do find something.

Innocent until proven guilty, ever heard of that? The only thing he's proven guilty of is stupidity, which doesn't in itself ban anyone from flying or 90% of the human species would be banned from flying.

Cheers.


User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8813 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
This has nothing to do with free speech, this is about a very sensitive environment when it comes to security and the common sense of not using terminology that is connected to security threats in that environment.

I see. So when time comes and a young boy arrives to my house to take my daughter on a date, and to break the ice he says "don't worry, I won't make your daughter pregnant", I should beat the hell out of his ass and charge him with rape.

It IS the same.

[Edited 2013-02-18 08:42:29]

User currently offlinebuck3y3nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 881 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8695 times:

What if a person is working and used the word, "BOM" as in the "Bill of Materials"... sounds like 'bomb' doesn't? While I understand it's quite sensitive in nature, surely a simple background check of the person could result in a better judgement. Yes he was stupid, but to me seems like an over-reaction. But my 2 cents cause I'm used to getting 'secondary' screenings because just when i go through security, seems like all the scanners have a 'mal-function' and there is a need for 'pat-down' screening! Whatever...

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6932 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8623 times:

If I was him I would be suing. Not to get money but by principle. I'm sure the European court of human rights would have a field day with this.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8625 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 9):
I see. So when time comes and a young boy arrives to my house to take my daughter on a date, and to break the ice he says "don't worry, I won't make your daughter pregnant", I should beat the hell out of his ass and charge him with rape.

Apples vs. oranges. Your frontperch is not a prime candidate for terrorist attacks.

Also this guy was not beat up nor charged with anything.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1556 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8570 times:

This things get a little stupid. It matters what exactly you say. If you say, "no I have no bomb in my pocket", may be a very stupid joke, but it can be in no way construed as a threat.

Do you want to arrest Spanish speaking people when they talk about a bomba meaning pump in Spanish?

In the USA they managed to throw some people of an aeroplane for the crime of praying in Arabic.


User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2775 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I feel so happy that I live between two countries which have not embraced this sort of post-9.11 paranoia.

I actually think that saying you have a bomb is quite appropriate, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.


User currently offlineflyboy_se From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 833 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8248 times:

The airlines are clear with zero tolerance on jokes about safety, and this reaction is exactly it, zero tolerance no matter how silly the comment was.

Also we were not there and do not know exactly what and how it went. I am sure if he was banned from the airport too,
it couldent have been that harmless.

Also with free speach comes responsability, just because you can say what you want, doesent mean you should.



I prefer to be crazy and happy rather than normal and bitter
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2838 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8097 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting s5daw (Reply 5):
Uhm... so I'm the only one who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this, specifically to tell someone that you are of no threat?

Free speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say whatever you want. You can't cause a panic. Like you can't yell fire in a theatre. He may have tried to prove he was of no threat but you can say you don't have explosives on you without saying I don't have a bomb or I don't want to blow myself up. You just say I don't have anything that is illegal on me.

As for easyjet. I think the ban is a little extreme. Is there a better way this gentleman could have gone about answering those questions? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean he should get banned from the airline. If you really felt uncomfortable letting him fly that day that is completely understandable. His responses were a little strange. But there really is no need to ban him for a lifetime.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7928 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 5):
Uhm... so I'm the only one who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this, specifically to tell someone that you are of no threat?

No, you are not. I am sickened at the first 4 posts, supporting the decision to take punitive actions for one stinking little word used in a non-threatening manner.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
This has nothing to do with free speech,

Bull-excrement. This has everything to do with free speech. Satire (and it's associated sarcastic wit) is one of the oldest and most used forms of dissent in the modern era (and likely before).

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 12):

Also this guy was not beat up nor charged with anything.

So in other words, he had his rights taken away without any hint of due process, but he wasn't physically harmed so it's okay. Lovely. Orwell would be proud.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 16):
Free speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say whatever you want. You can't cause a panic.

I can cause a panic all day long, so long as I a) don't do it intentionally and maliciously and b) the panicking is unreasonable given the circumstances.

The best example is a person boarding an airplane, and recognizes the pilot as an old friend he hasn't seen in years. He walks up to the flight deck and says "Hi, Jack!". While it may cause a panic if someone who isn't Jack hears it, that doesn't mean the person is legally responsible for causing the panic, and should suffer no legal consequences.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 4):


Using the B-word at an airport is like a white guy using the N-word out loud in the middle of Compton..really really really stupid.

I work at an airport. I use the word bomb almost daily, in a far more provocative way than this guy.

Or is it the double standard in the way that if a black person says n*****, it's okay, but when a white guy says it, he gets what's coming to him?

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 15):
I am sure if he was banned from the airport too,
it couldent have been that harmless.

You should read the comments here. People actively cheering the punishment of someone who they think merely made an otherwise harmless quip, just because it happened at an airport.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7883 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 11):
If I was him I would be suing.

Actually, can a public transport company really deny you their services?
If the man did something wrong - criminally charge him. otherwise it's just nonsense.

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 15):
The airlines are clear with zero tolerance on jokes about safety

Zero tolerance really works great. It gets you on sex offenders list for peeing in public in the US, for example. Wonderful!

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 16):
Free speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say whatever you want.

You can't tolerate Mohammed's caricatures and ban certain - satirical - wording of plain facts at the same time.

It is interesting though that in general people who think you shouldn't say "no, I did not pack any bombs" have no problem deeply offending Muslims in the name of free speech.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10655 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7825 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 9):
I see. So when time comes and a young boy arrives to my house to take my daughter on a date, and to break the ice he says "don't worry, I won't make your daughter pregnant", I should beat the hell out of his ass and charge him with rape.

Hardly the same situation, is it? And besides, that is up to you to decide how you want to react, just as it was the airline's decision on what they wanted to do.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 14):
I feel so happy that I live between two countries which have not embraced this sort of post-9.11 paranoia.

This was going on BEFORE 9/11.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 14):
I actually think that saying you have a bomb is quite appropriate, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

Much like this one ^

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
Bull-excrement. This has everything to do with free speech. Satire (and it's associated sarcastic wit) is one of the oldest and most used forms of dissent in the modern era (and likely before).

How is this "satire"? Satire would, actually, be worse, but saying "bomb" is just plain stupid and has been, for years.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
So in other words, he had his rights taken away without any hint of due process, but he wasn't physically harmed so it's okay. Lovely. Orwell would be proud.

He had no rights taken away. Flying is not a right and the company (although they may have overreacted) can, if they wish, remove his "privileges" to fly. No one is stopping him from travelling to his destination, he should just find another air carrier OR another mode.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7793 times:

Blah typical 9/11 paranoia, total madness as usual.

I would be 1000x more concerned about my flight being flown by tired overworked pilots than someone bringing a bomb into the aircraft which is extremely unlikely.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7751 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 19):
He had no rights taken away. Flying is not a right and the company (although they may have overreacted) can, if they wish, remove his "privileges" to fly. No one is stopping him from travelling to his destination, he should just find another air carrier OR another mode.

Yes and no. Being "banned" by the airline is a civil matter not a constitutional rights matter. However, flying is most certainly a "right". In fact, you have a general right under the US Constitution to liberty, which in essence and has been supported by the courts, a right to do anything that hasn't been restricted except by due process of law. The list of rights in the constitution is not an enumerated list of ALL the rights a person has. It is but a subset of rights that have been specifically enumerated as specially protected rights. Understanding this point is the key to a truly free and democratic society that sustains itself by avoiding falls into authoritarian and arbitrary denial of fundamental liberty in the false pursuit of security.


User currently onlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7696 times:

Quoting JU068 (Reply 14):
I actually think that saying you have a bomb is quite appropriate, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

Security questions are stupid questions?

Quoting s5daw (Reply 18):
Actually, can a public transport company really deny you their services?

A public transport company? Probably no. But easyJet isn't a public transport company, it's a private company, so yes, they can deny everyone they want.



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7688 times:

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 22):
A public transport company? Probably no. But easyJet isn't a public transport company, it's a private company, so yes, they can deny everyone they want.

Let me rephrase: any privately owned company that provides public transport.

He could buy the ticket and claim denied boarding under EU rights!


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7673 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 18):
Actually, can a public transport company really deny you their services?

Well Easyjet is a private company. As with any company they reserve the right to refuse custom. So in my eyes, if you act the maggot, much like a jerk in a nightclub/bar/restaurant etc you deserve to be refused admission. This guy clearly acted the maggot. They didn't refuse him travel because he was, disabled or of an ethnic minority, they didn't refuse him travel because they could not accommodate his needs, they refused him travel because he clearly antagonised company procedure on security which no airline should compromise on! I imagine that as long as they refund him his ticket then there is little he can do about it other than to think about his future behaviour!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
25 tonystan : Absolutely not. Denied boarding only covers people refused travel due to overbooking,mech problems etc, it doesn't cover individuals who have been de
26 Post contains links s5daw : And what law would that be? Also, please show me where in EasyJet's conditions it says they can cancel the contract just because you are - at worst -
27 BasilFawlty : 19.1 General Requirements 19.1.1 Passengers are reminded that in accordance with applicable local and foreign laws, the captain is in command of the
28 tonystan : S5daw.......did you even get as far as THE WHOLE of section 19???????? Then there is the real world! He was ejected from the airport,,,,airlines can't
29 Maverick623 : Allowing someone to express sarcasm is hardly compromising on security principles. People who get offended or worried by such behavior need to grow u
30 USAIRWAYS321 : So much talk about this man's stupidity, and him causing a panic - but not a peep about the stupidity of those who heard "I don't have a bomb" and cho
31 Rara : Can't believe what I'm reading here. Some people have internalized the industry paranoia to a ridiculous degree. Yeah right. Never mind actual terrori
32 virginblue4 : A complete and utter overreaction! He joked that he DIDN'T have a bomb and has been banned for life? Absolutely pathetic. Things are getting out of co
33 mjoelnir : We have to realize that airport security and also in many countries immigration have become a joke free area, that also does not accept any sarcasm. S
34 RussianJet : It was an idiotic thing to say, no more, no less. Being put through the ringer by the Police, having his time wasted for a while and getting a stern b
35 planesailing : The security questions are outdated and lead to stupid remarks when asking them, which is why they have been/are being removed from use. Airlines wish
36 Post contains links Maverick623 : And while we quibble over the merits of asinine "security" policies, a number of people waltz into BRU and steal millions of Euros worth of diamonds.
37 bristolflyer : I remember 25 years ago getting on my first flight as a kid - my parents told me many times not to joke/so anything stupid at check-in. And things hav
38 Post contains images mayor : As I mentioned before, while this WAS an overreaction on the airline's part, it's not like mentioning words such as bomb, hijack, etc. and getting in
39 Post contains links Viscount724 : And be careful what you discuss in e-mail. There was a news item in Switzerland a couple of weeks ago about someone who had booked a vacation trip fr
40 Maverick623 : Because I haven't committed one of the 25 or so crimes in the last 10 years that would prohibit me from getting a SIDA badge. Quite simple, really.
41 mjoelnir : Please show me a law banning using certain words in an airport, or the list of words in the what ever rules. Perhaps there should be a big sign in fr
42 art : My view is similar to yours, s5daw, I think. People who state they are not guilty of an offence should never be penalised. Why are there security cha
43 mayor : There may not be a law, per se, but all this has been going on for long enough so that almost everyone knows what can and cannot be said. Not even...
44 zckls04 : US ≠ the World.
45 rcair1 : I saw nothing on these items that said, If I ask you "if you are doing something" and you answer "no I am not doing that" - that I am violating anyth
46 RyanairGuru : I was thinking the same. I find US Constitutional Law fascinating, but I couldn't fathom what it had to do with this thread!
47 Quokkas : I wasn't at the airport, so I don't know what was said or in what tone of voice. Was the man abusive, surly or unco-operative? Did he simply make a fl
48 tonystan : Right I'm rounding up my view of all of this! Basically we have a claim that this man said this idiotic comment and got turfed out of an airport and b
49 AR385 : I don´t think the question ist hat stupid, in the sense that there is a reason for it and I believe it has to do wth profiling. My friends have told
50 gabrielchew : The guy was an idiot for saying "bomb".....he must have known the possible consequences, it's happened enough in the past. However, I do sympathise wi
51 Post contains links Quokkas : Yes indeed. Another version of events appears on the BBC News site. Here the story is related that he could not check in his suitcase early "for secu
52 Unflug : Exactly. With such people in charge I actually don't feel very safe... So true.
53 Quokkas : I don't think that any airline actually asks "are you carrying a bomb?" or "are you a terrorist, Sir?" It's usually along the lines of: 1) Did you pac
54 RyanairGuru : Oh yes, US Visa applications are an interesting one. "Have you ever engaged in the commissioning of acts of war crimes or genocide", "Do you intend t
55 JU068 : In Dublin the check-in agent asked all those questions and then she also asked 'are you carrying a bomb or any other explosive devices?'. I guess the
56 Post contains images Quokkas : Incredible! I would think that would be likely to cause more alarm in passengers than a passenger making a joke. Did she then ask whether the bomb wa
57 s5daw : I guess they need to expand that questionnaire... "Do you know about the diamonds cargo on flight xxyyzz? Do you plan to rob it? Are you going to boar
58 Post contains images al2637 : Passing through LAS 2 weeks ago, the TSA agent who was arranging the security line walked up to the guy in front of me and said (jokingly), 'who dropp
59 EIDL : And that Easyjet haven't ordered any CSeries, or else their F/A doing the safety announcement would be in serious trouble.
60 skywaymanaz : I had a feeling there had to be more to this story then was initially reported at the beginning of the thread. It may be incredibly foolish to say, "I
61 mjoelnir : If it is not the LAW than all of you stop talking about breaking the law or rules. It is stupid, childish, annoying, unnecessary, bad behavior whatev
62 thrufru : I'm sorry, but I think we've gone a bit too far in this era of "zero tolerance". Whether it be schools or airports for example, I think we need to inj
63 Post contains images skywaymanaz : This sounds like a silly TSA rule that made its way across the pond. I'd have to look it up but I think the rule is 4 hours prior in the US. I don't
64 Post contains images BasilFawlty : Ok, here we go: By not answering the security questions with a simple yes or no but instead telling stupid things about not having a bomb with him he
65 Post contains links Toni_ : Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21496635 According this article he can still fly with them. You can judge the man all y
66 web500sjc : he was answering the question in a complete sentence as his 2nd grade teacher taught him: check-in agent: do you have a bomb sir? Sir: No mam, I do n
67 PanHAM : Did you pack this suitcase yourself? "Answer: No, my valet did, any problems with that?" Has it been out of your sight at any time? "Answer: well, I k
68 mayor : According to reply #65, here's how he replied.....a direct quote "Mr McColghan told BBC Three Counties Radio he was travelling to Portugal from Londo
69 RussianJet : You were lucky then. Even if it was obviously a joke, if someone is silly enough to say such a thing then who knows what else you might be daft enoug
70 Post contains links and images BasilFawlty : They don't ask it like that, that would be stupid, and you know that. If you would ask it like that you would get a lot more stupid reactions, like t
71 s5daw : I always reply with NO, which of course is BS. But if I said something along the lines... "Well i dunno... there could be a person hidden in the cab
72 flyboy_se : These questions are not only to find the bad guys, but also to protect the passengers. There are many naive people out there, and someone could take a
73 rampbro : I don't know who's more stupid, your nephew or the Swiss border guards. A border guard would have to be piss-pants moronic to read a reasonable suspi
74 Post contains images mayor : Ok, all you geniuses.........lets eliminate ALL the current security regulations, in place and start from scratch. Since you all know so much, you tel
75 Quokkas : These questions may or may not serve any useful purpose but the man wasn't actually asked them. He wasn't allowed to check in early so at no stage was
76 Maverick623 : You're looking at it the wrong way. It's impossible to make everything "secure". Further, being "secure" from the fear of an attack, or an actual att
77 mjoelnir : I do not understand this talk about "rules". There is no law or rule banning to say: "no I do not have a bomb on me" there is also no rule banning: "
78 PanHAM : as a matter of fact, the guy should sue Easyjet. He said nothing wrong or which could be taken as a thread to other passengers, the airline or it's em
79 something : I find it amusing that most people seem to agree that dictators are bad, freedom is great. Yet, in any given situation that does not affect them perso
80 L410Turbolet : I think the morale of this story is: Never underestimate the potential of power-tripping airline employees to make your life miserable. It always help
81 mayor : Apparently, it's in short supply with passengers, too. It's not the phrase, but the word "bomb" within the phrase. And that's what I've been saying,
82 mjoelnir : That is not what you were saying all along. Just a few posts above you were talking about rules. And if you ask me, yes, we should do away with non e
83 mayor : I never said there was a rule about it........I said that airport security has been going on long enough that I doubt if there are many passengers th
84 dc9northwest : You mean Reykjavik, in this case? Or London? What does D.C. have to do with anything? It's easier to lie by saying "no" than lying by saying "no, I d
85 Post contains images mayor : Because, that's who I would write to, if I was so inclined. I would think that anyone else that read what I wrote would know what I meant, unless of
86 mjoelnir : It gets a bit sticky when we have to abide by rules somebody invented just now. What you do not understand is when there are no rules you can not exp
87 dc9northwest : It reads like an American not knowing other countries exist... Do you really wanna perpetuate that stereotype?
88 mjoelnir : I hope that you bang your head long enough to get it into your head. You accept there is no rule that forbids somebody answering, "no there is no bom
89 mayor : Ok.....lets see if this makes you any happier (I doubt it).......I would write to congressman in Washington, D.C. because the U.S. is where I live an
90 mayor : Of course, that's not what this man said, is it? What he said was this......a direct quote: Besides, it's NOT the phrase, it's certain words in that
91 zckls04 : Perfectly true. The airline employees are under no obligation to allow this guy to travel. You might think they were heavy handed; they would probabl
92 mjoelnir : You are really keeping at it. WHAT RULE? This happened in the UK not in the USA There are two rules they can use in this case. 1. the guy produced a
93 PHX787 : Should've just kept his trap shut, IMO Well yeah that's also part of it. Can't be saying that kind of stuff. Wait...where was he threatening? The OP
94 mayor : Ok....here's a question.......WHY would you not use the word "bomb" and several others, if they are not harmful?
95 mjoelnir : I am 100 % sure that he did not say anything harmful. But if you read my posts I posted earlier, I learned my lesson travelling to the USA when I was
96 PanHAM : well, the airline has a contract with the passenger and the written rules are still that contracts are to be fulfilled.. And, again, the passenger ha
97 mayor : Unless the age in your profile is wrong, I don't see how you could have met the TSA when you were 19. They didn't exist until after 2001. You're doin
98 PanHAM : so, what happens if you ask the check-in agent if that plane you are going to fly in is made by Bombardier? Doie they arrest you and put you away for
99 p201055r : Faults on both sides I’d say - the stupidity of the passenger and over-reaction by the airline. Airlines must be security conscious, that’s a give
100 art : I think this is ridiculous. As far as I can make out, passenger wanted to check his bag in early. Saying he could not because that was the way the sy
101 Unflug : Many of the opinions in this thread frighten me more than a terrorist attack. I fly enough to be *A Gold since 15 years, but I am not aware of any wor
102 mjoelnir : You should start reading what you are quoting, I said at that time it was immigration and customs later I met your police and the TSA. At that time m
103 zckls04 : Airlines can refuse carriage for all sorts of reasons. If he was drunk and violent would you cry "contract breach"? Section 19.1.2 part "b" (and to a
104 Post contains images L410Turbolet : Answering in a full sentence is a "security threat"??? I am not saying that being ironic or sarcastic in front of often anal retentive airline staff
105 BasilFawlty : Ofcourse there isn't a law, and there will never be one because most people use their common sense and know that you don't use certain words at certa
106 zckls04 : That's just the narrative you feel like believing- since you weren't there you have no idea how this guy acted. You have his version only, and he sti
107 art : In airports passengers are screened inter alia for bombs. In hospitals people are screened inter alia for cancer. Should mention of the word "cancer"
108 Unflug : You are not asking for common sense. You are asking for a police state with unwritten rules. That is as hard as it ever can be.
109 something : How many terrorist attacks have actually been been thwarted due to the vigilance of the the vocabulary-police? Also, what if an actual terrorist didn'
110 art : Good, sensible question. If the answer were 20 or 10 or 1 it could be argued that outlawing certain vocabulary ehanced security. I think the answer i
111 rutankrd : Very much agreed - Tabooism is NOT bliss ! And agents are acting beyond their powers. The individual just needs taking aside - stern talking too on t
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...
Easyjet And The 742? posted Tue Apr 19 2005 01:58:19 by IslipWN
Any Word On WN And The 738? posted Thu Nov 4 2010 20:33:21 by rj777
What Is The Issue Between Canada And The UAE? posted Mon Feb 18 2013 00:51:22 by mozart
The New American And The New DCA posted Thu Feb 14 2013 17:17:33 by capitalflyer
SA And The 748i posted Tue Feb 5 2013 13:43:11 by TWA772LR
Air NZ And The DC10 posted Sat Jan 26 2013 22:10:13 by Max Q
Republic, UEX And The Q400 posted Fri Jan 25 2013 06:06:58 by infiniti329
Ethiopian And The 787 posted Tue Jan 15 2013 17:07:17 by dkny
Mexicana And The Boeing 727 posted Mon Jan 7 2013 11:49:38 by Mortyman
DL And The A321? posted Tue Jan 1 2013 06:53:30 by bobnwa