Mutiny on Flight 613

Cylinder said:
Passengers refuse to fly until Asians are removed

I suspect this was an irrational reaction to a very rational fear.
Click to expand...
Mr Spock would say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Airline industry is in a bind here, since they can't actually guarantee security, and their customers are increasingly looking at their product askance. The demands of the customer are to be taken seriously.

Smart move to remove the passengers, put them up (at airline expense) up at a hotel. They were most likely also provided vouchers for a further travel once this was sorted out, and profuse apologies offered by the airline.

I don't think we are getting the whole story here.

Have any of you ever been bumped by an airline, for any reason? You can't sue for that. Ever had a flight cancelled for maintenance? Can't sue for that? Bumped for security? I suggest that the airline can't be sued for that.

The two bumpees' first recourse is to get remedy from the airline, who will probably do a bit of backward bending over to ease the bruised feelings.

You people are oversensitive.

DR
 
I'm pretty certain I have seen the two chaps in question drunkenly heckling at a Manchester comedy night.

So I am pretty committed to the wind up merchant theory.
 
Darat said:
If this was the case why after confirming that was the sort of remark they had actually made weren't they allowed to continue on their journey?
Click to expand...


Actually this may be fair enough - if everyone was sitting on the plane ready to go when this kicked off, they would have removed the two suspects and then sent the plane on its way rejoicing to avoid missing the allocated slot. They did put them on a later flight, after all, so it was an inconvenience rather than an abandonment.

The only problem I can see with my handy explanation is "What did they do with the baggage"? I've been on an aircraft where passengers went missing and their baggage had to be removed and it was a hell of a job. In the end the pilots were running out of hours, so they just emptied all of the bags onto the tarmac and we took off without any of them. BA sorted out which bags belonged to who and couriered them to us all later.

Assuming that Monarch wouldn't fly with the baggage of non-flying passengers - and suspected terrorists to boot - aboard, and since I haven't read that all the baggage was abandoned, they could presumably have had time to pop the suspects back on the plane with "Not Terrorist" labels around their necks. Presumably they didn't want any more fuss from the other passengers though.

Edited to add: Oh.
The Monarch Airlines service that they were due to board was delayed for several hours after last week's incident.
Click to expand...


Must've just wanted to avoid the fuss then.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Not necessarily reasonable, but indeed understandable. Seems more like one-thing-leading-to-another panic than "racism".
Click to expand...

I'm loathe to use the term racism because one it is such an ill defined term and especially in regards to the UK since even our law is confused over the term. (For instance the law has for many years treated attacks and crimes against people who are "Jewish" and "black" as racial crimes but "Muslim" is not treated in the same way - it's rather confusing!)

However in this instance there appears to be no reason ( i.e. no evidence) at all to consider that this incident was based on anything other then the fact that the two British people weren't "white" and could speak another language other then English. So I'm finding it hard not to use the word "racism" to at least some degree.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Let's just thank God Larsen wasn't on that flight. He would have killed them, no questions asked...
Click to expand...

Oh you seem to have totally edited your response.

I would say that given the change since 9/11 (i.e. hijacked plane could kill not only you but thousands of others) I would rather have someone like Claus on the plane who is willing to fight a hijacker then someone like you who would just sit there and let them take the plane over.

Your pacifism was sensible in the past but not today.
 
Darat said:
I would rather have someone like Claus on the plane who is willing to fight a hijacker then someone like you who would just sit there and let them take the plane over.
Click to expand...
Please, for the love of FSM, don't go there again :(

(BTW, I doubt very much that Skeptic would sit there passively while highjackers tried to take over a plane.)
 
Let's see: a planeload of passengers including families with small children wearing beach clothing and flipflops board a plane in hot weather. Then two Arabic men get on wearing lots of dark clothes get on.

Q: Is it irrational to react like that?

Take your time. You have a few minutes before the doors close and the plane starts taxiing.
 
Diamond said:
Let's see: a planeload of passengers including families with small children wearing beach clothing and flipflops board a plane in hot weather. Then two Arabic men get on wearing lots of dark clothes get on.

Q: Is it irrational to react like that?

Take your time. You have a few minutes before the doors close and the plane starts taxiing.
Click to expand...

If those were the facts then you may have a point but they aren't the facts.

Plus as has been said in this thread a few times it is not so much that people were suspicious or that they were re-checked it is the fact that after those checks when there was no reason for the two British men not to fly they were removed from the plane and not allowed to fly. That is the real injustice in this instance.
 
BPSCG said:
Please, for the love of FSM, don't go there again :(

(BTW, I doubt very much that Skeptic would sit there passively while highjackers tried to take over a plane.)
Click to expand...

Then I don't understand his comment - Claus said he would attack someone he thought was a hijacker, Skeptic seems to consider this warrants some mention in this thread (have to say I don't see what relevance Claus comment in another thread has to do with this thread). Why would Skeptic bother saying what he did unless he thought attacking someone you believed was a hijacker was wrong?
 
BPSCG said:
(BTW, I doubt very much that Skeptic would sit there passively while highjackers tried to take over a plane.)
Click to expand...

I certainly won't; my hysterical screams and shaking would destabilize the plane so much it would foil any hijacking attempt...
 
Darat said:
Why would Skeptic bother saying what he did unless he thought attacking someone you believed was a hijacker was wrong?
Click to expand...

One of the reasons why the infamous air marshall thread kept going on for so long was that Claus was arguing against just the same strawman position as you are doing now. I don't think that anyone in the thread advocated non-resistance towards hijackers.

What people really argued was that immediate attack to kill the suspected hijacker is not the best policy. "Immediate" as in "I don't have time to either assess the situation or to inform the cabin crew about the matter before I commit myself in an all out attack" and "kill" as in "I won't stop bashing him until he is dead, dead, dead."

(Note: the sentences inside quote marks are paraphrased and not direct quotes from Claus. I don't care enough to dig exact quotes and, in any case, it would derail this thread for good.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom