The figures are from January this year and effect Frankfurt Cologne and Bonn airports and Lufthansa and Eurowings amoung others.

"The decision not to carry a passenger, was ultimately down to the pilot on a "case-by-case decision", Lufthansa spokesman Michael Lamberty told the Westdeutsche Allegeimeine Zeitung newspaper."

Does seem like a lot of no flys.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 92276.html

readytotaxi wrote:

The figures are from January this year and effect Frankfurt Cologne and Bonn airports and Lufthansa and Eurowings amoung others.

"The decision not to carry a passenger, was ultimately down to the pilot on a "case-by-case decision", Lufthansa spokesman Michael Lamberty told the Westdeutsche Allegeimeine Zeitung newspaper."

I would think that a pilot should not refuse to fly a safe, legal passenger.

I would also wonder what would happen to an American pilot who decided to do this.

Why does the airline allow this?

kitplane01 wrote:

I would also wonder what would happen to an American pilot who decided to do this.

I think very few deportations are handled by commercial airlines in the U.S. The U.S. Marshal's office operates a fleet of five 737's and four MD80's that are used exclusively for prisoner transport including deportation of illegals.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/jpats/

This was well documented in the movie "Con Air".

kitplane01 wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

The figures are from January this year and effect Frankfurt Cologne and Bonn airports and Lufthansa and Eurowings amoung others.

"The decision not to carry a passenger, was ultimately down to the pilot on a "case-by-case decision", Lufthansa spokesman Michael Lamberty told the Westdeutsche Allegeimeine Zeitung newspaper."

I would think that a pilot should not refuse to fly a safe, legal passenger.

I would also wonder what would happen to an American pilot who decided to do this.

Why does the airline allow this?

The pilots had a moral objection to where the passengers were being sent. I say bravo to these brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in.

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. The Courts are where that is handled and just because you have a pair of plastic wings on your shirt, does not mean you get to supersede legal action.

IPFreely wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I would also wonder what would happen to an American pilot who decided to do this.

I think very few deportations are handled by commercial airlines in the U.S. The U.S. Marshal's office operates a fleet of five 737's and four MD80's that are used exclusively for prisoner transport including deportation of illegals.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/jpats/

This was well documented in the movie "Con Air".

Pretty sure they are only flying domestic transfer prisoners. Most deportations around the world would happen on commercial flights, the exception would be maybe the use a biz jet for the purpose.

These refusals though, seem to be the captain assuming that the deportee could be a safety risk on board the aircraft, or at least that's the reason they are offering up. Chance are that the deportee will end up on the next available flight and I would've assumed that if they had been considered that great a security risk, that would be escorted by a couple of burly guards to keep them in check.

I have seen sometimes videos of this in Spain (where this is somehow common in flights to LATAM or Africa). Those deportees will start yelling that they have a bomb, won't stop moving and kicking the seats... I recall the other day one bit a policewoman (but he could have as well bit a FA) and was in the news.

I can well imagine they refuse to carry those deportees in those conditions since they are an annoyance and danger to the crew and other passengers.

727200 wrote:

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. The Courts are where that is handled and just because you have a pair of plastic wings on your shirt, does not mean you get to supersede legal action.

Well, thank god there are still individuals out there whose intelligence and conscience are still working and are not blindly following politics and matters of mere jurisdiction. The world in general would be a far better place if people would start thinking with their own mind -even at the cost of affecting their job security, yes- when it comes to doing things that are just not morally right or downright inhuman. God knows what awaits all of those illegal asylum seekers once their back in the countries they fled.
But then again, there are people who are happy to work for companies that produce land mines which essentially kill and mutilate children, so I guess deporting illegal immigrants might seem like a no-brainer to them!

oldannyboy wrote:

727200 wrote:

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. The Courts are where that is handled and just because you have a pair of plastic wings on your shirt, does not mean you get to supersede legal action.

Well, thank god there are still individuals out there whose intelligence and conscience are still working and are not blindly following politics and matters of mere jurisdiction. The world in general would be a far better place if people would start thinking with their own mind .....

Absolutely.
Does that also go for the pilot or FA who is a dedicated member of the NRA and decides that it is morally right to carry firearms on board their plane?

The world would certainly be a very interesting place if we all decided to follow our own rules. I believe it's called "anarchy".
Be careful what you wish for.

Most are put on chartered flights anyway, because it is cheaper to put together 50-60 and the personal needed on one flight than having multiple flights with just one deportation.
The example with Afghanistan is stupid, as there are no commercial flights between the two countries. Tunisia would be a good example because they refuse to take people back on chartered planes and only accept 1-2 persons per commercial flight.

DUSZRH wrote:

Most are put on chartered flights anyway, because it is cheaper to put together 50-60 and the personal needed on one flight than having multiple flights with just one deportation.
Tunisia would be a good example because they refuse to take people back on chartered planes and only accept 1-2 persons per commercial flight.

IIRC Tunisia had a strange rule that prevents it's own nationals from flying anything except Tunisian airlines. That doesn't necessarily apply to other countries sending people "home" to Tunisia, but it is curious, and not exactly in the spirit of free trade.

speedbird52 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

The figures are from January this year and effect Frankfurt Cologne and Bonn airports and Lufthansa and Eurowings amoung others.

"The decision not to carry a passenger, was ultimately down to the pilot on a "case-by-case decision", Lufthansa spokesman Michael Lamberty told the Westdeutsche Allegeimeine Zeitung newspaper."

I would think that a pilot should not refuse to fly a safe, legal passenger.

I would also wonder what would happen to an American pilot who decided to do this.

Why does the airline allow this?

The pilots had a moral objection to where the passengers were being sent. I say bravo to these brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in.

I say they should be fired because their job is to fly the plane and if they want to impose their opinions on moral issues or foreign policy they should run for election.

727200 wrote:

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. The Courts are where that is handled and just because you have a pair of plastic wings on your shirt, does not mean you get to supersede legal action.

kitplane01 wrote:

I would think that a pilot should not refuse to fly a safe, legal passenger.

I would also wonder what would happen to an American pilot who decided to do this.

Why does the airline allow this?

A pilots job is to fly safely from point A to B. If the deportee is causing trouble onboard (screaming about having a bomb or such), then he must get off. Every captain has the right to do this in the name of safety, even in the US.

Unfortunately, this method of causing trouble is well known among deportees and immigrants, and it happens quite often.
They don't get let off the hook though. Most European countries hire dedicated aircraft for the troublesome deportees, then manhandle a bunch of them onboard with handcuffs and guards. I've operated a number of those myself for a few Scandinavian countries, you typically fly with 20 deportees and 40 policemen on the ATR 72.

speedbird52 wrote:

The pilots had a moral objection to where the passengers were being sent. I say bravo to these brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in.

Are you consistent in that view? Does that include train drivers, taxi drivers, etc. who don't want refugees on their vehicle?

727200 wrote:

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. The Courts are where that is handled and just because you have a pair of plastic wings on your shirt, does not mean you get to supersede legal action.

One post WWII realization here (Germany) was that there are laws and rules that are incompatible with being Human.
you not only have the right to oppose those you should go for a "must oppose".

727200 wrote:

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. .

a) Pilots make the ultimate decision who does and doesn´t fly on their plane, period. People being deported are frequently unruly passengers and we don´t ship deportees of in shackles.
b) Pilots are never ever at risk of being fired if they make a decision regarding the safety of their flight. That is one of the reasons flying is save.
c) I know in some countries employees are company property, but you can not legally force an employee to go to a war torn country, there is still a travel warning for Afghanistan and the airline can not force anyone to fly there.

Isn´t there the bit that being an Air Force pilot is strictly voluntary and you can not be ordered to be a pilot and turning your wings in isn´t insubordination? If you can´t fire an Air Force pilot for not flying, why would you be able to do so to a civilian pilot? As long as i recall correctly.....

best regards
Thomas

aerogt3 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

The pilots had a moral objection to where the passengers were being sent. I say bravo to these brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in.

Are you consistent in that view? Does that include train drivers, taxi drivers, etc. who don't want refugees on their vehicle?

This is not about refugees per se.
Pilots have completely different leverage ( and knowlege ) about passengers than forex a train driver.
Few if any trains from Germany go to dangerous deportation destinations.

WIederling wrote:

This is not about refugees per se.
Pilots have completely different leverage ( and knowlege ) about passengers than forex a train driver.
Few if any trains from Germany go to dangerous deportation destinations.

I am not disputing a pilot's right to abort due to safety concerns, I am responding to his claim that the pilots are right for taking a political stand. Refusing to fly because you are against the deportation of refugees vs. refusing to fly to an unsafe airport are very different, and I was addressing the latter.

aerogt3 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

This is not about refugees per se.
Pilots have completely different leverage ( and knowlege ) about passengers than forex a train driver.
Few if any trains from Germany go to dangerous deportation destinations.

I am not disputing a pilot's right to abort due to safety concerns, I am responding to his claim that the pilots are right for taking a political stand. Refusing to fly because you are against the deportation of refugees vs. refusing to fly to an unsafe airport are very different, and I was addressing the latter.

There is a good case to be made that this practice is illegal under our constitution.

( Back when the US had this dumb idea of smashing up Iraq German military personnel objected to work ( even indirectly ) in support of that illegal war.
see http://www.ag-friedensforschung.de/them ... faff3.html use ggl translate! This was supported by our constitutional court.)

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

727200 wrote:

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. The Courts are where that is handled and just because you have a pair of plastic wings on your shirt, does not mean you get to supersede legal action.

Well, thank god there are still individuals out there whose intelligence and conscience are still working and are not blindly following politics and matters of mere jurisdiction. The world in general would be a far better place if people would start thinking with their own mind .....

Absolutely.
Does that also go for the pilot or FA who is a dedicated member of the NRA and decides that it is morally right to carry firearms on board their plane?

The world would certainly be a very interesting place if we all decided to follow our own rules. I believe it's called "anarchy".
Be careful what you wish for.

Couldn't agree more in general terms with what you say, but I was specifically referring to what is called "civil disobedience", without which we would still have a colonial India, a Berlin wall, and quite probably a lot less Jewish people, not to mention all those personal liberties and human rights that have been earned through the hard way of someone, somewhere, deciding to finally stop adhering to what was once a code, a rule, a guidance......... lack of civil disobedience -or lack of a civic conscience- is instead precisely what tyrants bank on in order to make their dictatorships work and thrive...

Deportees are often troublesome passengers, because often they do not want to travel. I remember a deportee who had been released from prison in the UK, to be deported to Russia. He was booked to travel on my airline. He was an abusive and violent person, and on each occasion (they tried 4 days in a row) he caused a disturbance before boarding despite having 3 escorts with him. So on each occasion the captian denied travel, because it was unreasonable to take such a disruptive passenger. The deportee did not travel with the airline in the end, i suppose they will have found a different option for transporting him in the end.

That's just one example, but I know of several other occasions that deportees have been disruptive. As with all disruptive passengers, they cannot travel.

aerogt3 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

This is not about refugees per se.
Pilots have completely different leverage ( and knowlege ) about passengers than forex a train driver.
Few if any trains from Germany go to dangerous deportation destinations.

I am not disputing a pilot's right to abort due to safety concerns, I am responding to his claim that the pilots are right for taking a political stand. Refusing to fly because you are against the deportation of refugees vs. refusing to fly to an unsafe airport are very different, and I was addressing the latter.

either way is fine, "following orders" stopped being good enough about 70 years ago, people are expected to take a stand. If you think something is against the law, and that hasn´t ultimately decided yet, you can not execute the order in good faith. The moment a pilot, or anyone, realizes that those deportation may very well be illegal, still taking their seat in the cockpit would make the complicit in a crime against humanity.

The German penal code specifically defines illegal deportation as crime, carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years in prison. If one of those deportees dies before being reinstated to Germany, that can go up to a life sentence, as that is considered equivalent to murder.

So please, do tell us why those pilots should fly those missions?

best regards
Thomas

either way is fine, "following orders" stopped being good enough about 70 years ago, people are expected to take a stand. If you think something is against the law, and that hasn´t ultimately decided yet, you can not execute the order in good faith. The moment a pilot, or anyone, realizes that those deportation may very well be illegal, still taking their seat in the cockpit would make the complicit in a crime against humanity.

The German penal code specifically defines illegal deportation as crime, carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years in prison. If one of those deportees dies before being reinstated to Germany, that can go up to a life sentence, as that is considered equivalent to murder.

So please, do tell us why those pilots should fly those missions?

No wonder Western Europe is screwed. People like yourself believe that you cant even deport illegal aliens because apparently that is a crime against humanity and could be equivalent to murder.

Without rules of society, we will have anarchy. Civilized nations follow rules for the good of the country. You are advocating something different and the results because you do not like a particular law, will be dramatic on the populace as a whole.

tommy1808 wrote:

So please, do tell us why those pilots should fly those missions?

best regards
Thomas

Ummm, why don't you tell me why the deportations are illegal?

LOT767301ER wrote:

No wonder Western Europe is screwed. People like yourself believe that you cant even deport illegal aliens because apparently that is a crime against humanity and could be equivalent to murder.

I don't "believe" thats, i actually did check the relevant law about this issue. And that clearly states thats illegally deporting Aliens, regardless their status, is a crime against humanity. The constitution and the convention on the status of refugees give further details. Even the Paragraph's title in the penal code is "Crimes against humanity".
You are obviously also mistaken with your claim that they are illegally in Germany, which is the the still open question. You may want to live in a country where the government decides what the law means, I rather live in a place where courts do that.

It probably never came to your mind that being denied to stay in a country and being an illegal alien are actually not the same. You can be earmarked to leave, yet still be legal in country. Those people about to be deported to Afghanistan can be "legally" deported, because the government decided Afghanistan is safe, which is obvious nonsense, and it is not the same as a court agreeing with that.

Best regards
Thomas

LOT767301ER wrote:

No wonder Western Europe is screwed. People like yourself believe that you cant even deport illegal aliens because apparently that is a crime against humanity and could be equivalent to murder.

We're screwed? Last I checked we were doing pretty fine. Meanwhile authoritarianism is on the rise in Poland and Hungary, the former government trying to stack the courts, the latter one sending out antisemitic pamphlets to its citizens. I think these are highly problematic developments but I'm far from saying that these countries are screwed.

Some of these asylum seekers have well founded fears based on their religion, ethnicity, home region, and political activity of abuse, torture, imprisonment and even executed if they return. I believe it is well stated in international agreements and treaties that a person cannot be repatriated to their home country under such conditions. Problem is many such asylum seekers have weak or phony claims and trying to get in to European countries or the USA or Canada for economic reasons and will do anything to not be sent back to their homelands. Likely some of the pilots who are refusing to carry such passengers are doing it for political reasons, some out of humanitarian reasons but in many cases as don't want a disruptive person on board. It is their call.

jupiter2 wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I would also wonder what would happen to an American pilot who decided to do this.

I think very few deportations are handled by commercial airlines in the U.S. The U.S. Marshal's office operates a fleet of five 737's and four MD80's that are used exclusively for prisoner transport including deportation of illegals.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/jpats/

This was well documented in the movie "Con Air".

Pretty sure they are only flying domestic transfer prisoners. Most deportations around the world would happen on commercial flights, the exception would be maybe the use a biz jet for the purpose.

These refusals though, seem to be the captain assuming that the deportee could be a safety risk on board the aircraft, or at least that's the reason they are offering up. Chance are that the deportee will end up on the next available flight and I would've assumed that if they had been considered that great a security risk, that would be escorted by a couple of burly guards to keep them in check.

I know for a fact they do deportations enmase. I have a friend who is an RN and he makes very good money working flights from Phoenix and Tucson down to Central America.

Most definitely government run flights

BobbyPSP wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

I think very few deportations are handled by commercial airlines in the U.S. The U.S. Marshal's office operates a fleet of five 737's and four MD80's that are used exclusively for prisoner transport including deportation of illegals.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/jpats/

This was well documented in the movie "Con Air".

Pretty sure they are only flying domestic transfer prisoners. Most deportations around the world would happen on commercial flights, the exception would be maybe the use a biz jet for the purpose.

These refusals though, seem to be the captain assuming that the deportee could be a safety risk on board the aircraft, or at least that's the reason they are offering up. Chance are that the deportee will end up on the next available flight and I would've assumed that if they had been considered that great a security risk, that would be escorted by a couple of burly guards to keep them in check.

I know for a fact they do deportations enmase. I have a friend who is an RN and he makes very good money working flights from Phoenix and Tucson down to Central America.

Most definitely government run flights

"Con Air", or government charters ?

Australia will charter aircraft when required for these sorts of missions, but we also have a 319 which is used too Antarctica in summer and then does "other" government missions in it's off season.

Face the reality: the majority of Germans are brain dead. Those morons will happily applaude the actions of those pilots who acted as dumb puppets of the Wall Street and the City. One has to be blind in order not to see that the FRG regime is aggressively following one malicious aim: tearing down all of Europe to the levels of South Africa, Pakistan, Brazil and the likes. Now that the majority of the Germans love that perspective, what can you do?

tommy1808 wrote:

c) I know in some countries employees are company property, but you can not legally force an employee to go to a war torn country, there is still a travel warning for Afghanistan and the airline can not force anyone to fly there.

The incidents happened predominantly on Eurowings and Lufthansa flights, neither of those fly to war torn countries or Afghanistan. Plenty of deportees are sent to other European countries, such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. Even more deportees are being returned to the first EU country of registration under the Dublin rules. A significant amount of deportees are criminals (as in the breaking into your home and stealing your stuff type of criminals, not just illegal immigrants).

It's not as simple as you put it.

Nobody should ever be forced to travel from Germany to another country for which Germany's foreign minister has issued a...

...wait for it...

travel warning.

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/afgh ... eit/204692




David

Happens regularly in France too. Sometimes because the person being deported is unruly, but sometimes also because the rest of the passengers start making a scene when they see a deportation going on.

Aesma wrote:

Happens regularly in France too. Sometimes because the person being deported is unruly, but sometimes also because the rest of the passengers start making a scene when they see a deportation going on.

Same sort of thing happens in a lot places. A lot of people would change their mind if they knew the back ground of a lot of theses deportees. Some (not all) are just not nice people and are being deported for their criminal back grounds. The problem with refugees and asylum seekers, it takes a long time to establish who they are, what their TRUE back ground is and then to determine if they are really refugees/asylum seekers. With the masses of people that have been flooding southern Europe in recent years, it must be a daunting task working out who is who and trying to weed out the non genuine among them.

jupiter2 wrote:

Pretty sure they are only flying domestic transfer prisoners. Most deportations around the world would happen on commercial flights, the exception would be maybe the use a biz jet for the purpose..

Here is the ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforement) route map. These are most certainly not commercial flights. It looks like they stockpile deportees in border towns until they have enough to fill a plane to their country of origin.

IPFreely wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Pretty sure they are only flying domestic transfer prisoners. Most deportations around the world would happen on commercial flights, the exception would be maybe the use a biz jet for the purpose..

Here is the ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforement) route map. These are most certainly not commercial flights. It looks like they stockpile deportees in border towns until they have enough to fill a plane to their country of origin.

No, they are not commercial flights and they also aren't international flights either. You're showing the domestic movement of prisoners/illegals inside the U.S.A. what do they then travel on to whichever respective country they are headed to ? Mass movements on their own aircraft, or charters ?

There are also a lot of deportations that happen the same day for people not accepted into the country, these are quite often shipped back the same day if possible. If possible the same airline.

aerogt3 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

The pilots had a moral objection to where the passengers were being sent. I say bravo to these brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in.

Are you consistent in that view? Does that include train drivers, taxi drivers, etc. who don't want refugees on their vehicle?

The problem wasn't the fact that refugees were being deported, the problem was where they were being deported to. If you were a taxi driver, and you saw a women being taken into human trafficking, would you do anything? I feel that is a better example.

727200 wrote:

Without rules of society, we will have anarchy. Civilized nations follow rules for the good of the country. You are advocating something different and the results because you do not like a particular law, will be dramatic on the populace as a whole.

Unfortunately, society, governments, and various authorities operating under their direction don't actually operate in such a black-and-white world.

Rules can just as easily result in totalitarianism and fascism as can lack of rules result in anarchy and chaos.

I personally believe we have an obligation to disobey the official rules in specific circumstances AND, yes, sometimes accept the potentially negative personal consequences.

On what grounds can you establish that lawful deportation orders be disobeyed? Are you a judge or trained immigration lawyer? Or just whistlin Dixie?

GF

tommy1808 wrote:

727200 wrote:

All of those pilots should be fired immediately. They have to remember, they are paid to fly from point A to B. Politics and matters of Governmental action is NOT their experience and they have no right to intercede in extradition or expulsion matters. .

a) Pilots make the ultimate decision who does and doesn´t fly on their plane, period. People being deported are frequently unruly passengers and we don´t ship deportees of in shackles.
b) Pilots are never ever at risk of being fired if they make a decision regarding the safety of their flight. That is one of the reasons flying is save.

I don't think that's right. A pilot who did not want to fly gay couples for moral reasons would be fired. I would hope a pilot would need a valid reason to refuse a passenger.

Passenger disruption would be a reasonable reason, if the passenger is actually a disruption.

I believe a pilot has to have a reasonable safety reason to refuse a passenger. One could not refuse every Arab passenger on the "all Arabs are Terrorists" theory. And guarded, searched prisoners are very unlikely to have a weapon or bomb.

Having written all that, it is sometimes moral to refuse a legal order. I haven't been told the reason yet (but am willing to be informed).

Aesma wrote:

Happens regularly in France too. Sometimes because the person being deported is unruly, but sometimes also because the rest of the passengers start making a scene when they see a deportation going on.

One might think the solution would be to refuse service to the disrupters.

kitplane01 wrote:

Having written all that, it is sometimes moral to refuse a legal order. I haven't been told the reason yet (but am willing to be informed).

Legally you can only deport people to countries where you have no reason to suspect it is likely they come to harm or getting killed. You don´t ship people back to dictatorships where they may be prosecuted, here it is illegal to deport to countries where they may face trial that may result in death penalty or other unusual/cruel punishment, you can not legally send people back to active war zones. The German government has declared Afghanistan to be safe, if you follow the news that is obvious quite the exaggeration, so courts will have to rule on that one. Since illegal deportation carries quite the punishment, 2 year to life, a Pilot or any other crew member is well advised to refuse to fly if they have doubts about the legality of that deportation. Acting in good faith and following orders only gets you so far.....

Speedbird made a pretty good analogy.

speedbird52 wrote:

The problem wasn't the fact that refugees were being deported, the problem was where they were being deported to. If you were a taxi driver, and you saw a women being taken into human trafficking, would you do anything? I feel that is a better example.

Even if you accommodate a female friend to have a waxing, the moment they are alone in the booth they will ask her if she is there on her own free will, simply because they know that pimps may want to make them get a waxing.

best regards
Thomas

That pilot is a hero, just like Merkel. Dear Germans, that's your Mutti, your invitation, your guests, your future, your consequences. And take those that ee currently have to tolerate in our country as well, we did not invite them! Greetings from Austria!

By the way, those flights are usually 1 deportee and two or more officers escorting them. So typically a 767 for Lagos will be only filled with aboit 25 to 80 illegal migrants, others are police officers. In some cases there are acft like 738s that fly the really creepy ones, with a plane full of officers escorting some 15. And in lne week these are all bsck again, different name, different nationality, maybe gay, maybe catholic. And people here, natives, welcome them again and clap their hands and are all happy - maybe like this pilot.

What I know about Germany and its bureaucracy leads me to believe that a decision to deport someone isn't taken lightly. I'm guessing these decisions can take months or years to play out completely through multiple levels of appeals upon appeals. I fail to see how a commercial airline pilot could be a more reasonable judge of all the circumstances in these cases than the officials who evaluate asylum claims for a living.

I doubt any more than a handful of these 222 cases, maybe none of them at all, have anything to do with moral objections to the deportation by pilots.

The pilots had a moral objection to where the passengers were being sent. I say bravo to these brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in.

Yeah, and "tough luck," to the paying passengers whose flights were presumably cancelled, and whose plans were interfered with.

What I know about Germany and its bureaucracy leads me to believe that a decision to deport someone isn't taken lightly. I'm guessing these decisions can take months or years to play out completely through multiple levels of appeals upon appeals. I fail to see how a commercial airline pilot could be a more reasonable judge of all the circumstances in these cases than the officials who evaluate asylum claims for a living.

This.

European bureaucracy is... Legendary. I too seriously doubt that any of these deportees' rights were run roughshod over. Instead, I tend to believe that every legal precaution was taken by the German legal authorities before issuing deportation orders.

Another issue needs to be examined. At the height of the very recent mass migration/asylum movement, while some people were clearly fleeing harm, a large number were unemployed young males coming to Europe for economic reasons, for jobs and social welfare programs. They weren't strictly speaking fleeing harm, but were instead using the moment to try to gain an economic advantage over their prior condition. Are they to be classed as legally protected refugees? And, if not who are the pilots to say they shouldn't be deported? After all, if their entry into Germany was not for traditional refugee reasons, then who are the pilots to say they shouldn't be deported?

This is a very contentious and in-depth problem. I just don't think that two guys in a cockpit should be able to dictate a country's national policies, not interfere with a sitting court's legal orders.

The pilots had a moral objection to where the passengers were being sent. I say bravo to these brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in.

Yeah, and "tough luck," to the paying passengers whose flights were presumably cancelled, and whose plans were interfered with.

What I know about Germany and its bureaucracy leads me to believe that a decision to deport someone isn't taken lightly. I'm guessing these decisions can take months or years to play out completely through multiple levels of appeals upon appeals. I fail to see how a commercial airline pilot could be a more reasonable judge of all the circumstances in these cases than the officials who evaluate asylum claims for a living.

This.

European bureaucracy is... Legendary. I too seriously doubt that any of these deportees' rights were run roughshod over. Instead, I tend to believe that every legal precaution was taken by the German legal authorities before issuing deportation orders.

Another issue needs to be examined. At the height of the very recent mass migration/asylum movement, while some people were clearly fleeing harm, a large number were unemployed young males coming to Europe for economic reasons, for jobs and social welfare programs. They weren't strictly speaking fleeing harm, but were instead using the moment to try to gain an economic advantage over their prior condition. Are they to be classed as legally protected refugees? And, if not who are the pilots to say they shouldn't be deported? After all, if their entry into Germany was not for traditional refugee reasons, then who are the pilots to say they shouldn't be deported? That's an "if" best decided by the sitting legal authorities.

This is a very contentious and in-depth problem. I just don't think that two guys in a cockpit should be able to dictate a country's national policies, nor interfere with a sitting court's legal orders.

I don't understand why people are so emotional about this. If the government believes the pilots have acted outside of the rules, regulations and laws by refusing to fly those people, they can bring a case against the pilots. It's as simple as that.

I am not disputing a pilot's right to abort due to safety concerns, yes. But the decision is made elsewhere, for different reasons. (criminals etc.)
Pilot should be fired immediately, and maybee made responsible for further actions of his "sheeps"..

The PIC has a role to ensure the safety, and operation of the flight. They have no moral responsibility to enforce unless they are self employed. If the operator implicitly states on the record a PIC can choose to not fly deported individuals anytime they are from a nation the PIC "has a personal issue with" you have this situation. If the deportees are not a safety issue and the PIC won't fly simply for "personal reasons" they should loose a bar and work in dispatch for 6m.