British Airways deboards Indian family over ‘crying’ of 3-year-old child

unrave · Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:51 am

mast2407 wrote:

You keep slating posters for suggesting there’s more to the story. It’s the same thing.

Usually when comments get posted on this site about human behavior, there is always more to the story than Is ever portrayed in the media. The media aren’t looking for the truth, they’re looking for a story.

There is always three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truths. Rarely will all three agree wth each other.

No, I am slating posters for defending BA with the premise that BA is so awesome that such a thing will never happen.

mast2407 · Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:54 am

unrave wrote:
mast2407 wrote:

You keep slating posters for suggesting there’s more to the story. It’s the same thing.

Usually when comments get posted on this site about human behavior, there is always more to the story than Is ever portrayed in the media. The media aren’t looking for the truth, they’re looking for a story.

There is always three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truths. Rarely will all three agree wth each other.

No, I am slating posters for defending BA with the premise that BA is so awesome that such a thing will never happen.

All due respect sir, I don’t think that’s what they were doing. I think they were defending BA because there is likely much more to the story, that none of us know about.

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:07 pm

mast2407 wrote:
I don’t think that’s what they were doing. I think they were defending BA because there is likely much more to the story, that none of us know about.

Must be the language barrier, the way I read the above posts, BA FA would never do or say such things. That has been disproven with snap chat video. In an ideal world, no FA should be talking about BBCs.

Another argument purely based on bias, this family must be doing this for money. Guess what, they will get the money, not because of their claims, because of his position in Indian government. They will get EU261 claim and in Indian courts.

I kind of like these incidents, because routine abuse to average Joe gets unnoticed until such a thing happens.

ricport · Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:43 pm

BrooklyBOMgal wrote:
Please read the entire article before jumping to conclusions.

But that's EXACTLY what you have done throughout this thread.

I don't care what ethnicity you are; just CONTROL YOUR KID! If they are incapable of behaving out in public, then don't take them out till they're ready. And it would be great if airlines would seat pax with small children in the rear of the aircraft, as that way, if they do act up, they'd inconvenience the least amount of other pax.

mast2407 · Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:46 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
mast2407 wrote:
I don’t think that’s what they were doing. I think they were defending BA because there is likely much more to the story, that none of us know about.

Must be the language barrier, the way I read the above posts, BA FA would never do or say such things. That has been disproven with snap chat video. In an ideal world, no FA should be talking about BBCs.

Another argument purely based on bias, this family must be doing this for money. Guess what, they will get the money, not because of their claims, because of his position in Indian government. They will get EU261 claim and in Indian courts.

I kind of like these incidents, because routine abuse to average Joe gets unnoticed until such a thing happens.

The way I read it was that the op was coming across as being quite defensive, as such, people were questioning the veracity of the article, which by the way, comes from a single press release or source, because anywhere I’ve read this, the article is the same. That means there is only one side being published. BA can’t and won’t comment on individual cases.

There is more to this story, regardless of who you believe.

sandbender · Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:50 pm

It's kind of a wonder airlines haven't installed video camera's on all their planes by now. Would quickly help establish which side was embellishing the truth. I imagine the certification, installation, etc. costs would be quite high but how lawsuits do you have to settle before it breaks even?

Redwood839 · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:10 pm

Do you think that MAYBE the FA did say but which a jokish tone? Like, trying to scold but with a smile/laughing at the same time? I can actually see someone fond of messing around with kids saying this to get them to pipe down.

I could see an F/A saying this, MINUS, the bloody part.

scbriml · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:16 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
BA will pay a hefty fine in India.

dtw2hyd wrote:
They will get EU261 claim and in Indian courts.

On what basis would any Indian court have any jurisdiction over an alleged incident that took place in London? :confused:

ojjunior · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:24 pm

Oh yes and just happened this to be the very first flight on Earth with no one ready to tape with mobile the FA saying this alleged words...
Of course somenone is trying to get some easy money. It happens all the time, everywhere.
Useless thread, should be blocked.

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:24 pm

scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
BA will pay a hefty fine in India.

dtw2hyd wrote:
They will get EU261 claim and in Indian courts.

On what basis would any Indian court have any jurisdiction over an alleged incident that took place in London?

Oh, now you are looking for fair treatment. That ship has sailed. Pay fine and move on.

BTW, Berlin is not in London.

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:39 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
BA will pay a hefty fine in India.

dtw2hyd wrote:
They will get EU261 claim and in Indian courts.

On what basis would any Indian court have any jurisdiction over an alleged incident that took place in London?

Oh, now you are looking for fair treatment. That ship has sailed. Pay fine and move on.

scbriml · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:39 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
BA will pay a hefty fine in India.

dtw2hyd wrote:
They will get EU261 claim and in Indian courts.

On what basis would any Indian court have any jurisdiction over an alleged incident that took place in London?

Oh, now you are looking for fair treatment. That ship has sailed. Pay fine and move on.

Get a grip - what fine? How can any Indian court levy a fine for an alleged incident that happened in LONDON? Please explain how that works.

dtw2hyd wrote:
BTW, Berlin is not in London.

I know it isn't. However, BA8495 flies from LCY to TXL and the family were deplaned in London.

Did you actually read the article before jumping on the bandwagon? :scratchchin:

A senior bureaucrat of the government has alleged “racial discrimination” and “rude behaviour” by the British Airways, which deplaned him and his family from a flight to Berlin from London last month minutes before take off because his three-year-old son was crying onboard.

avier · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:44 pm

The problem with the whole article on those links are they are completely narrated by one side i.e the pax. BA just spoke of investigating it.
So not a complete picture here. Obviously, the pax is going to say stuff to make the other party look bad.

Also, this whole incident doesn't seem like BA vs Indian issue (racism) , rather the ego of an IAS officer being hurt.
For most who don't know, an IAS officer is someone working as a civil servant under the govt. in India and its usually considered a prestigious post. Many youngsters in India slog to clear the Civil Services Exams for years, some up-to 10yrs on multiple attempts. So when they finally get into it, like natural for many people in the country at a prestigious post, they have an inflated ego. They feel how being a civil servant they were disrespected in any way.
Im sure had this happened to a normal Indian family, it wouldn't have made it to mainstream media.

sandbender wrote:
It's kind of a wonder airlines haven't installed video camera's on all their planes by now. Would quickly help establish which side was embellishing the truth. I imagine the certification, installation, etc. costs would be quite high but how lawsuits do you have to settle before it breaks even?

Well, its high time airlines did install cctv's on the plane considering it is the most sensitive place for disruptive acts to take place. They have cameras in all public places and facilities, including on public transport like trains, buses, etc.

bgm · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:46 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
BA will pay a hefty fine in India.

dtw2hyd wrote:
They will get EU261 claim and in Indian courts.

On what basis would any Indian court have any jurisdiction over an alleged incident that took place in London?

Oh, now you are looking for fair treatment. That ship has sailed. Pay fine and move on.

BTW, Berlin is not in London.

How exactly does India have jurisdiction over an incident that happened in the UK? Is this your fantasy of revenge colonialism? :rotfl:

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:49 pm

scbriml wrote:
Get a grip - what fine? How can any Indian court levy a fine for an alleged incident that happened in LONDON? Please explain how that works.

Because BA operates to India and they have to abide by Indian laws if they want to continue to operate to India. If the passenger moves court on the basis of discrimination they have jurisdiction.

Remember the incident of AF crew mistreating Brazilian Doctor and local cops picked up AF crew

The majority opinion of a.net has no supremacy over sovereign laws.

unrave · Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:14 pm

mast2407 wrote:
unrave wrote:
mast2407 wrote:

You keep slating posters for suggesting there’s more to the story. It’s the same thing.

Usually when comments get posted on this site about human behavior, there is always more to the story than Is ever portrayed in the media. The media aren’t looking for the truth, they’re looking for a story.

There is always three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truths. Rarely will all three agree wth each other.

No, I am slating posters for defending BA with the premise that BA is so awesome that such a thing will never happen.

All due respect sir, I don’t think that’s what they were doing. I think they were defending BA because there is likely much more to the story, that none of us know about.

With due equal respect, if you read my comment, you will see that I have specifically addressed the posters for whom BA can do no wrong.

Web500sjc · Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:22 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Get a grip - what fine? How can any Indian court levy a fine for an alleged incident that happened in LONDON? Please explain how that works.

Because BA operates to India and they have to abide by Indian laws if they want to continue to operate to India. If the passenger moves court on the basis of discrimination they have jurisdiction.

Remember the incident of AF crew mistreating Brazilian Doctor and local cops picked up AF crew

The majority opinion of a.net has no supremacy over sovereign laws.

Yes the AF flight from CDG to GRU/GIG, where the crew were held up trying to exit GRU/GIG? This is a bit different, at no point did the flight remotely touch India,Other than this officials inflated ego. This would be akin to the police in Seattle investigating my car getting stolen in Vancouver- with the car never coming back to the US.

unrave · Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:22 pm

More details: It wasn't just one family, even the family that offered biscuits to the crying child was deboarded. Surely this is a new low, even for BA?
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.fir ... 1.html/amp

@BrooklyBOMgal: You should ask the mods to change the title to reflect this.

artofzen · Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:30 pm

I bet if AI or 9W was involved the comments would be very diffent from both sides, Indians defending and non-Indians critisizing.

unrave · Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:36 pm

artofzen wrote:
I bet if AI or 9W was involved the comments would be very diffent from both sides, Indians defending and non-Indians critisizing.

If. For all its faults (look at my signature line) AI is unlikely to deplane a family of any nationality for offering biscuits to a crying baby.

Meanwhile The Independent has reported that the Indian aviation ministry has written to BA demanding an explanation (the article is behind a paywall)

mast2407 · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:00 pm

unrave wrote:
mast2407 wrote:
unrave wrote:

No, I am slating posters for defending BA with the premise that BA is so awesome that such a thing will never happen.

All due respect sir, I don’t think that’s what they were doing. I think they were defending BA because there is likely much more to the story, that none of us know about.

With due equal respect, if you read my comment, you will see that I have specifically addressed the posters for whom BA can do no wrong.

You have specifically not done that. You have replied, quite insultingly, to people who suggested that there was more to the story than was suggested in any of the articles. You have suggested that what happened, happened as reported in the article. We don’t know that, either way. It is unlikely to be the case, given the kind of language that was used, and if it was the case that the language was used, you may be assured, BA will likely act quite fast as they have in other instances.

I have yet to be convinced that this is the sum total of this story, I remain of the view that there was more to it than the articles suggest, and I remain convinced that this thread is septic and should be locked. Peace out.

mast2407 · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:07 pm

Why is the aviation regulator of India trying to get something from the UK regulator? What’s the jurisdiction connection?

FlyHappy · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:07 pm

unrave wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Wasn't there another recent incident of BA FA's rant on snapchat about Nigerians?

Oh yeah. To the many posters who have defended BA here purely on the belief that such a thing will never be done by a BA crew member, there is clearly some precedence for deplorable behaviour by BA crew.

Link to the incident: https://qz.com/africa/1087679/british-a ... nigerians/
(Kudos to BA for taking prompt action though)

There's nothing similar about these events whatsoever.

One is a singular, offensive act by an individual employee, captured on social media. Said employee was swiftly terminated.
The other, it is alleged, would be the group effort, at a bare minimum, of an FA, Captain, and ultimately ground staff after removing multiple pax. The removal happened, undoubtedly so - but the pax allege it was solely due to a crying child, which is extremely difficult for most of us to believe (due to our personal history of travel).

Why the OP and a few others want to conflate our skepticism of the reason (crying) and the words ("throw you out the window") with a presumed "automatic defence of BA" or "if it were AI/9W" is what makes rational discussion difficult.
I don't care if it were Air Koryo, Arik Air or the 5th largest LCC in Guatemala; I would express the very same skepticism that a young childs cries are why pax get removed.

I'm sure we'll eventually hear a differing version of events from BA after they investigate. If it turns out they believe an FA spoke in a threatening manner to a child, I'm sure there will be dire consequences to the FA, but that's quite independent from the rationale for the removal.

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:18 pm

I honestly think this is going to cost a lot of Mars Minis to BA.

Two families were kicked out of the airport by security at 10 PM, their BPs were confiscated A third family was also threatened by airport security.

Ministry of Civil Aviation ordered Indian DGCA to investigate this incident. Ministry of External Affairs is monitoring the situation.

I love these airlines (vs) DYKWIA incidents. Need more popcorn.

scbriml · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:18 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Because BA operates to India and they have to abide by Indian laws if they want to continue to operate to India.

In India, of course. But Indian laws do not apply in London, however much you might wish they did.

Is Delta subject to Indian law in Detroit? Is Air India subject to UK law in Mumbai? That would be a quite ridiculous situation, wouldn't it?

dtw2hyd wrote:
Remember the incident of AF crew mistreating Brazilian Doctor and local cops picked up AF crew

Completely different and absolutely irrelevant in this case.

dtw2hyd wrote:
The majority opinion of a.net has no supremacy over sovereign laws.

And Indian law has no supremacy in the UK.

NZ321 · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:20 pm

Agree fully. A helpful response.

unrave · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:20 pm

mast2407 wrote:
unrave wrote:
mast2407 wrote:

All due respect sir, I don’t think that’s what they were doing. I think they were defending BA because there is likely much more to the story, that none of us know about.

With due equal respect, if you read my comment, you will see that I have specifically addressed the posters for whom BA can do no wrong.

You have specifically not done that. You have replied, quite insultingly, to people who suggested that there was more to the story than was suggested in any of the articles. You have suggested that what happened, happened as reported in the article. We don’t know that, either way. It is unlikely to be the case, given the kind of language that was used, and if it was the case that the language was used, you may be assured, BA will likely act quite fast as they have in other instances.

I have yet to be convinced that this is the sum total of this story, I remain of the view that there was more to it than the articles suggest, and I remain convinced that this thread is septic and should be locked. Peace out.

I have indeed specifically done that. I have pointed out an instance of unacceptable behaviour by a BA crew member to the posters who have claimed that BA crew members are incapable of such behaviour.

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:27 pm

scbriml wrote:
...
And Indian law has no supremacy in the UK.

If BA wants to hide behind UK laws for their misdeeds, it should operate within the UK. Post BREXIT that may very well be the case, when EU renders all British AOCs and crew licences invalid.

scbriml · Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:07 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
...
And Indian law has no supremacy in the UK.

If BA wants to hide behind UK laws for their misdeeds, it should operate within the UK. Post BREXIT that may very well be the case, when EU renders all British AOCs and crew licences invalid.

BA is "hiding" behind nothing and it was operating in the UK at the time of this alleged incident. You just don't seem to understand or be able to accept that Indian law does not apply in the UK. Game over for your "Indian court fining BA" fantasy.

You have no answer to legitimate questions, so you just try to deflect. You've slipped up and your clear bias is now revealed. You were so quick to jump on the bandwagon of BA bashing that you didn't even know where the alleged incident took place.

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:19 pm

scbriml wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
...
And Indian law has no supremacy in the UK.

If BA wants to hide behind UK laws for their misdeeds, it should operate within the UK. Post BREXIT that may very well be the case, when EU renders all British AOCs and crew licences invalid.

BA is "hiding" behind nothing and it was operating in the UK at the time of this alleged incident. You just don't seem to understand or be able to accept that Indian law does not apply in the UK. Game over for your "Indian court fining BA" fantasy.

You have no answer to legitimate questions, so you just try to deflect. You've slipped up and your clear bias is now revealed. You were so quick to jump on the bandwagon of BA bashing that you didn't even know where the alleged incident took place.

Let it be my fantasy, but it will cost a pretty penny to BA. It will be fined in India. India is an archaic bureaucracy you guys set up, they will find 200-year-old law BA broke and collect Millions of Mars Minis.

Father is a well-connected drama queen. Crying on every TV show. BA stands no chance.

FlyHappy · Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:33 pm

unrave wrote:
artofzen wrote:
I bet if AI or 9W was involved the comments would be very diffent from both sides, Indians defending and non-Indians critisizing.

If. For all its faults (look at my signature line) AI is unlikely to deplane a family of any nationality for offering biscuits to a crying baby.

and given that you recognize the absurdity of throwing a family off a plane for "offering biscuits" , you choose to believe it's due to inherent racism at BA, rather than the possibility that this isn't probably the actual reason.
You invoke the BA FA/Nigerian incident to hazily support intimation that BA may have a culture of racism (thus they would toss a family for "offering biscuits"); ignoring the very clear and obvious differences between the situations (reminder, BA FA was swiftly terminated for the Nigerian incident, and rightly so).

Racism isn't rational, nor are false cries of racism.

dtw2hyd · Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:50 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
unrave wrote:
artofzen wrote:
I bet if AI or 9W was involved the comments would be very diffent from both sides, Indians defending and non-Indians critisizing.

If. For all its faults (look at my signature line) AI is unlikely to deplane a family of any nationality for offering biscuits to a crying baby.

and given that you recognize the absurdity of throwing a family off a plane for "offering biscuits" , you choose to believe it's due to inherent racism at BA, rather than the possibility that this isn't probably the actual reason.
You invoke the BA FA/Nigerian incident to hazily support intimation that BA may have a culture of racism (thus they would toss a family for "offering biscuits"); ignoring the very clear and obvious differences between the situations (reminder, BA FA was swiftly terminated for the Nigerian incident, and rightly so).

Racism isn't rational, nor are false cries of racism.

It appears, there are three families involved

#1 - Indian toddler and parents - Removed for toddler crying
#2 - Indian family not related to toddler - Removed for giving a biscuit
#3 - British family of Indian origin - BA/Airport security threatened to remove them.

There is no reason to remove family #2, There is no reason to threaten family #3.
BA didn't rebook both families on a different flight, confiscated BPs and they were escorted out of the terminal at 10 PM. Totally unnecessary if true.

I will wait for BA's version.

BirdBrain · Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:35 pm

How does BA throw pax out the window? Do they proceed to the cockpit or did BA go for the window roll down option? :stirthepot:

Seriously though, as smaller airplanes become more popular and egos/emotions become bigger, travel in future is only going to get more interesting. Trip disruption insurance will rule.

FlightMode · Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:22 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
BA didn't rebook both families on a different flight, confiscated BPs and they were escorted out of the terminal at 10 PM. Totally unnecessary if true.

Airlines generally don't refuse boarding on a whim because it will cost them. Is it totally impossible that passengers were refused boarding or offloaded due to being disruptive or demonstrating that they were unwilling to follow lawful orders?

I don't know the truth behind the allegations but surely you are aware that LCY is open Monday – Friday 04:30-22:00, Saturday 04:30-13:00 and Sunday 10:00-22:00. What would be the purpose of allowing would-be passengers to remain in the terminal during a period in which it is normally closed?

unrave · Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:07 am

FlyHappy wrote:

and given that you recognize the absurdity of throwing a family off a plane for "offering biscuits" , you choose to believe it's due to inherent racism at BA, rather than the possibility that this isn't probably the actual reason.

How did you conclude that I chose to believe it's due to racism? I have explicitly mentioned in one of the previous comments that I am not suggesting it was due to racism.

You invoke the BA FA/Nigerian incident to hazily support intimation that BA may have a culture of racism (thus they would toss a family for "offering biscuits");

I invoked the Nigerian incident as a counter to posters claiming BA staff are incapable of such behaviour.

ignoring the very clear and obvious differences between the situations

Let me point out the similarities between the two:

Nigerian incident
Step 1: BA crew member is accused of racist misconduct
Step 2: There is an international hue and cry
Step 3: BA launches an investigation
Step 4: Said crew member is found guilty and terminated.

Indian incident:
Step 1: BA crew member is accused of racist misconduct (the allegation is not mine)
Step 2: There is an ongoing international hue and cry
Step 3: BA has launched an investigation
Step 4: Will depend on the outcome of the investigation

Racism isn't rational, nor are false cries of racism.

Nor are imaginary accusations of racism.

FlyHappy · Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:13 pm

unrave wrote:
How did you conclude that I chose to believe it's due to racism? I have explicitly mentioned in one of the previous comments that I am not suggesting it was due to racism.

because, like any good politician, you actually did do it, without explicitly typing the words, and even in a post stated that you "weren't accusing BA of racism", while you actually were.

I mean, here's a gem:

"Rephrasing since my previous comment was deleted: You can employ people of certain ethnicity and still be racist towards them.
And I am not accusing BA or Heathrow or any user of racism here."

man, I love that, high quality stuff. hazy, indirect accusation, whilst specifically denying you're saying it at all. Very Trump like ("people are saying... not me... but people are saying").

Then your next post, excerpting the India Times text of: “…the crew member made racist remarks and used words like ‘bloody’ about Indians…. "

which you bolded so we could all clearly see it. Yup, I get it... you weren't calling BA racist, you were just wanting us to let us know what the media was reporting. Yep.

unrave wrote:
You invoke the BA FA/Nigerian incident to hazily support intimation that BA may have a culture of racism (thus they would toss a family for "offering biscuits");

I invoked the Nigerian incident as a counter to posters claiming BA staff are incapable of such behaviour.

No, no one said BA staff were incapable. What many of us said is that we are dubious that ANY flight crew (meaning not just BA) would actually threaten a 3 year old child.
No, you cited Nigerian because it was a way you could paint the BA as racist without actually saying so. You could have cited BA crew as having poor judgement because they trashed a hotel pool somewhere, or BA pilots as drunks because one was arrested at an aiport - but no.... you specifically chose the racially charged incident because it framed your unstated position that BA has mistreated these passengers because of their color/ethnicity. The fact is this whole story, thread title and pax allegations are specifically tied to their ethnicity.

This BA crew member / crew / pilot may well have behaved poorly, the family may have been wronged, there may in fact, be racist words and actions that have taken place. There just isn't any support for any of that yet, because a one sided statement by a pax simply isn't enough; and the pax statements damage his own credibility because of the assertions about treatment of the child, and other families being evicted for "offering biscuits". These are things that aren't easy to picture.

unrave · Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:14 pm

FlyHappy wrote:

because, like any good politician, you actually did do it, without explicitly typing the words, and even in a post stated that you "weren't accusing BA of racism", while you actually were.

Did I or did I not? Surely it can't be both?
Or is it a case of Schrodinger's accusation?

man, I love that, high quality stuff. hazy, indirect accusation, whilst specifically denying you're saying it at all. Very Trump like ("people are saying... not me... but people are saying").

Not people, one person is saying that: the bureaucrat. Congratulations on finally figuring out what the topic of discussion is. Sidenote, not everyone follows the sordid details of American politics.

which you bolded so we could all clearly see it. Yup, I get it... you weren't calling BA racist, you were just wanting us to let us know what the media was reporting. Yep.

That was precisely the point.

No, no one said BA staff were incapable.

Read the very first reply.

No, you cited Nigerian because it was a way you could paint the BA as racist without actually saying so.

False.

You could have cited BA crew as having poor judgement because they trashed a hotel pool somewhere, or BA pilots as drunks because one was arrested at an aiport - but no.... you specifically chose the racially charged incident because it framed your unstated position that BA has mistreated these passengers because of their color/ethnicity. The fact is this whole story, thread title and pax allegations are specifically tied to their ethnicity.

Yeah, it is tied to their nationality. Hence the interest shown by the Indian government over an incident that took place in the UK. Oh 'unstated position' in an exclusively verbal medium would be an oxymoron.

This BA crew member / crew / pilot may well have behaved poorly, the family may have been wronged, there may in fact, be racist words and actions that have taken place. There just isn't any support for any of that yet, because a one sided statement by a pax simply isn't enough

On the same vein the allegations should not be simply brushed aside, simply because BA or 'any crew would do no such thing'.

DTWLAX · Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:57 pm

This is an actual incident.
Moderators - Why is this thread in "Polls and Preferences" rather than being in "Civil Aviation"?

SQ22 · Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:10 pm

DTWLAX wrote:
This is an actual incident.
Moderators - Why is this thread in "Polls and Preferences" rather than being in "Civil Aviation"?

For questions like this please either use the reporting function or write a mail to modertors«airlines.net. Last option is to raise that question in site related forum.

Actually someone did, please see: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1401183

scbriml · Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:56 pm

DTWLAX wrote:
This is an actual incident.
Moderators - Why is this thread in "Polls and Preferences" rather than being in "Civil Aviation"?

The forum is "Travel, Polls & Preferences"

Passengers being deplaned from one specific flight could easily be considered a "Travel" topic rather than a "Civil Aviation" one. Your opinion may vary.

BlueShamu330s · Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:38 am

A summary from the horse’s mouth, so to speak (Pam Ann fans will appreciate the reference):

Bit of a chaotic boarding with two families and a child having a major tantrum.
Boarding complete and cabin secured.
Child starts to misbehave again.
Parents release child from seat.
Cabin not secure for flight.
Parents asked to place child in own seat.
Refuse
Asked again.
One passenger tells crew member to “bloody go sit down.”
Crew advises parents that unless child is sat in seat with seat belt on, flight will not depart.
No response.
Asked if they would rather not fly.
Other passengers from group standing up, wade in claiming it is only a child.
Situation getting out of hand.
Decision made to offload.

TheFlyingDisk · Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:39 am

BlueShamu330s wrote:
A summary from the horse’s mouth, so to speak (Pam Ann fans will appreciate the reference):

Bit of a chaotic boarding with two families and a child having a major tantrum.
Boarding complete and cabin secured.
Child starts to misbehave again.
Parents release child from seat.
Cabin not secure for flight.
Parents asked to place child in own seat.
Refuse
Asked again.
One passenger tells crew member to “bloody go sit down.”
Crew advises parents that unless child is sat in seat with seat belt on, flight will not depart.
No response.
Asked if they would rather not fly.
Other passengers from group standing up, wade in claiming it is only a child.
Situation getting out of hand.
Decision made to offload.

If it actually happens this way, I really hope BA has the balls to call the passenger out for lying. To keep it quiet would ensure a repeat of the same issue in the future.

scbriml · Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:08 am

BlueShamu330s wrote:
A summary from the horse’s mouth, so to speak (Pam Ann fans will appreciate the reference):

Bit of a chaotic boarding with two families and a child having a major tantrum.
Boarding complete and cabin secured.
Child starts to misbehave again.
Parents release child from seat.
Cabin not secure for flight.
Parents asked to place child in own seat.
Refuse
Asked again.
One passenger tells crew member to “bloody go sit down.”
Crew advises parents that unless child is sat in seat with seat belt on, flight will not depart.
No response.
Asked if they would rather not fly.
Other passengers from group standing up, wade in claiming it is only a child.
Situation getting out of hand.
Decision made to offload.

Things have gone very quiet now, haven't they?

BawliBooch · Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:26 am

BlueShamu330s wrote:
A summary from the horse’s mouth, so to speak (Pam Ann fans will appreciate the reference):

Bit of a chaotic boarding with two families and a child having a major tantrum.
Boarding complete and cabin secured.
Child starts to misbehave again.
Parents release child from seat.
Cabin not secure for flight.
Parents asked to place child in own seat.
Refuse
Asked again.
One passenger tells crew member to “bloody go sit down.”
Crew advises parents that unless child is sat in seat with seat belt on, flight will not depart.
No response.
Asked if they would rather not fly.
Other passengers from group standing up, wade in claiming it is only a child.
Situation getting out of hand.
Decision made to offload.

Glad to see the issue clarified.

Indian passengers tend to have a funny sense of entitlement when they fly. The BA crew acted professionally while the parents of the kid endangered flight safety with their actions. Absolutely right in being offloaded!

scbriml · Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:55 pm

BawliBooch wrote:
Glad to see the issue clarified.

Indian passengers tend to have a funny sense of entitlement when they fly. The BA crew acted professionally while the parents of the kid endangered flight safety with their actions. Absolutely right in being offloaded!

The only real surprise here is that the seemingly inevitable phone video of the incident hasn't emerged.

ChrisKen · Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:34 am

scbriml wrote:

The only real surprise here is that the seemingly inevitable phone video of the incident hasn't emerged.

Only really gonna get a useful recording from a couple of rows either side at most. Given the flight is an E190 with it's 2-2 seating,I'd suggest that any useful recording would have been from the 3/4 families involved.
One would suspect those recordings, if made, would contradict their 'wholly truthful accounts' of what actually happened.

ojjunior · Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:40 pm

johnjayson wrote:
I don't know but today everyone has phones to take videos, why this case didnt have any clips or sound recording at all ? Seems suspicious

That's my thought too...
Any?

scbriml · Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:16 pm

ojjunior wrote:
johnjayson wrote:
I don't know but today everyone has phones to take videos, why this case didnt have any clips or sound recording at all ? Seems suspicious

That's my thought too...
Any?

Apparently not.

BA haven't been subjected to massive fines in India either. :lol:

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net