12 ms·
EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
- stigi 13y agoInitially I read "to let communist on board"...
- pessimizer 13y ago10 years too early or 60 years too late.
- PeterisP 13y agoI can imagine a company not dealing with particular individuals - say, due to an ongoing litigation or some personal conflict, like a restaurant owner telling a rude/disruptive customer "we won't serve you ever again". And that probably would be both legal and morally okay. However, for airlines that should (must?) be limited to not selling tickets - if they have sold a ticket, then they must fulfill their end of the bargain.
- netrus 13y agoI'd go one step further, as air lines are providers of critical infrastructure, they should have damn good reasons to ban me from buying tickets at their airline.
- Doctor_Fegg 13y agoDomestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury. We have trains.
- netrus 13y agoGranted. I'd be fine with a "you-are-just-allowed-to-fly-overseas" policy, if that solved a pain point for the airline :)
- nmeofthestate 13y agoTrains tend to be more expensive than equivalent domestic flights, so perhaps it's the trains that are the luxury.
- Doctor_Fegg 13y agoNot really. Advance fares on most UK train lines are cheaper than advance fares on most planes IMX. The mistake most people make is comparing walk-up-and-go train fares with advance plane tickets.
- nmeofthestate 13y agoReturn, Glasgow to London, 1/10/13-8/10/13 Cheapest tickets. Train: £126.70 Easyjet: £72.98 You may be right though - I didn't spend much time researching this at all; I just did a couple of web searches: easyjet and trainline.
- dingaling 13y ago> Domestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury. We have trains. Northern Ireland is part of the UK.
- officemonkey 13y agoThere are ferries.
- Doctor_Fegg 13y agoGood point!
- mseebach 13y agoAnd cars and busses. And, most importantly in this case, multiple airlines in fierce competition.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- goatforce5 13y agoI run an online community and have had to ban abusive or just plain annoying users in the past. A few times those people will get in touch saying "OMGZ! You don't believe in free speech!" Am I obliged to provide access to the platform i've built and paid for so that they can be disruptive and annoying? No. Do I support their right to go somewhere else and talk their crap? Sure! Absolutely! Go crazy! Just don't expect me to pay for it in money (hosting costs, etc.) and time (cleaning up the mess afterwards).
- true_religion 13y agoSo you would ban users if they complained about your services on some other forum?
- the_mitsuhiko 13y agoSomehow I doubt the story. Boarding personal has better things to do than to check twitter against the list of people baording.
- lewispollard 13y agoSeeing as he mentioned @easyjet in the tweet, I'm guessing someone manning the social media saw it and a power-mad manager decided to call thru to the boarding staff.
- gaius 13y agoProbably he got a call from HQ where some "big data" geek is inordinately proud of his 10-line script for mashing up Twitter with the passenger manifest.
- yardie 13y agoGround crew are 1 out of about 20 people that can make a go no go decision. The computer can say no, security can say no, flight crew and cabin crew can also say no, and in a pinch say yes.
- gaius 13y agoI think this will hurt easyJet. If it had been Ryanair people would just shrug and say, what did you expect? But easyJet's schtick has always been cheap and cheerful, better value for money than stuffy old BA but good service where it matters. And anecdotally having flown often with all three, neither Ryanair nor BA's typical passengers really care about social media, the former because they just want cheap (or there is no other airline doing that route), and the latter because they get their brand messages via other channels. But easyJet's do.
- nodata 13y agoExcept easyjet really isn't that cheap any more.
- switch007 13y agoCompared to when? What about comparing their current prices to before low cost flights were popular. I'm flying to Western Europe, with baggage and an extra legroom seat for £120 return. I think that's superb value for money.
- camus 13y ago
- raverbashing 13y ago"It wasn’t until I asked him if he’d heard of free speech that the tone changed. He asked me if I was a lawyer and I told him I taught law at Strathclyde. "He quickly had a word with his staff and then told me I’d better get on the flight because they were waiting for me." What? So if you are a lawyer things change? I would have sued the company and the manager personally (not sure this is allowed, still). Edit: apparently the Social Media team was active during the incident and agreeing with the passenger, not with the manager.
- leokun 13y agoFree speech applies to government restrictions on speech. It hasn't much to do with rules and terms of private service. For example, you can't use claims of "free speech" to get HN to reverse a ban on you should that happen. I don't agree with what a couple of easyJet employees seem to have done without easyJet's approval, but right of a private company or person to refuse service would seem to trump this? It's not like they are refusing service because of a protected category (like discrimination based on race, etc). Although this isn't even happening in America, so I don't even understand what laws apply. Freedom of speech as Americans understand it do not really even apply in some European countries to the extent it does in the US because of ridiculous slander laws and the ability to be thrown in jail for telling lies (about the Holocaust for example, which is a pretty awful thing to lie about).
- mjn 13y agoAs you note, the concept of free speech in Europe is somewhat different than in the U.S., but this includes your first sentence not applying in Europe to the same extent. In at least some European countries, the conception of free speech is more of a positive right to speak, subject as you note to limitations (such as an exclusion of racial incitement from the ambit of protected speech). But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some circumstances. The most common is that employers are sometimes limited in whether they can fire people for protected speech. Another case is public accommodations, e.g. using political affiliation to refuse service in a hotel or restaurant. I don't know much about transportation law, but it's not inconceivable that there would be some common-carrier rules there. (The above written with "some" and "may" qualifiers because European laws differ considerably between countries, and sometimes within countries.)
- ig1 13y agoFreedom of speech is about stopping the government from interfering with your speech. AFAIK there's no law which prohibits a company doing business with you because you made a negative comment about them. In this case it's slightly more grey because the passenger had already bought a ticket and it's not clear if the terms of the sale would allow easyjet to revoke the sale on that basis.
- davedx 13y agoI really don't think it is grey. As you say, he has bought a ticket. It's like if I sold you something on Ebay, you paid for it but made a comment on Twitter about how you didn't like my haircut, and I refused to send you the item. Think that would hold up legally?
- arethuza 13y agoLooking at their Terms and Conditions it is not obvious to me that any of them would apply: http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions#a19 http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions#a19 I don't think what he tweeted would count as "threatening, abusive or insulting words". Edit: Having said that, "Get right into em!" is probably not the best phrase to use - although in context it is clearly harmless.
- cyphax 13y agoThat argument sounds like it would work well if he were looking to purchase a ticket, and they would deny it because they feel like denying it. But I'm sure the ticket was already paid for, which changes the situation. EasyJet almost refused to provide the service for which has been paid. I don't know if they have a clause in their terms of service that says something like "if you say something we don't like, we reserve the right to refuse to let you board" but if it did, I wouldn't be too sure that clause is actually legal anyway.
- dreen 13y agoHoly cow, this is why I quit all the mainstream social media and never even got on Twitter in the first place... because people treat it WAY too seriously
- johnward 13y agoIt can be pretty serious. Especially as a tool for consumers to voice their concerns or disapproval of corporations. That can do some damage.
- dreen 13y agoIts still just people talking about stuff. Things coming from an official corporate account are different matter, but people should be able to say something sucks without having to fear repercussions.
- highace 13y agoWhat's the problem? His original tweet encourages his followers to "Get right into em!". Oh sorry, you want to whip up an online frenzy about a company AND use their services?
- neya 13y agoIt's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an action that negatively affects the sales of a company and if you expect to benefit from it, in return for which the company doesn't allow you, I think it's fair. You can't say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be hypocrisy). Well, whether Mc Donald's should let you buy a burger from them AFTER you just said that is solely their choice. I'm sure it must be buried in some TOC bs of theirs somewhere. But you can't be a hypocrite and expect sympathy for it, either. In all fairness, if his money wasn't refunded, then it's probably fair that he fights with them. Otherwise, if he had been refunded already, it's just hypocrisy at best. And being a hypocrite and being offended doesn't give you any special rights either. Just saying. Stop thinking of the airlines as someone else and imagine if it was YOUR company. Imagine if you ran a cloud services company and this guy wrote a blogpost about why your company sucks (which negatively affects your sales) and then bought a dozen cloud servers from you (secretly, because you're his only option). I would have no problem in refunding his money and revoking his service with a polite smile and a "Sorry", if it was my company.
- theorique 13y agoYou can't say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be hypocrisy). You can't? Who's going to stop you. A complaint tweet is one thing - if that was the end of it, no one would have heard of this incident. Barring a person for a complaint tweet has made it a much bigger media issue.
- johnward 13y agoI think McDonalds is gross but when I'm in a hurry I stop for breakfast once in awhile.
- gaius 13y agoIf you are going to hinge your argument on hypocrisy, then Stephen Fry might not have been the best example http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/25/stephen_fry_not_upset_you_twat/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/25/stephen_fry_not_upse...
- SchizoDuckie 13y agoBarbara Streisand effect is already kicking in.
- ethanazir 13y agoIf a consumer has parity with a service provider it may be hypocritical to both publicly criticize and use the service. However, when a service provider has leverage over the market; e.g. Microsoft 10 years ago; there is no hypocrisy.
- colechristensen 13y agoThis is infantile, I don't want to see this type of content here. A low level company manager making a stupid decision, an entitled journalist trying to drum up controversy using his position and the squawks of Twitter responding have no place in 'hacker news' or 'news' in general.
- ianstallings 13y agoWho cares about the legality of them trying to deny the passenger a flight. Whether they were within their rights or not, this was just plain idiocy on the part of the airline's staff. I hope more stuff like this happens. It's called accountability and we all are subject to it.
- javert 13y agoI think it's great, and the company shouldn't have backed down. It's juvenile to expect an airline to pay for something they didn't cause. We don't know if they caused the delay or not, but it seems likely that they didn't. If I were running a service and someone spitefully insulted that service on blatantly irrational grounds, I'd refuse them service, too. And if that's illegal in the EU---well, that's why I'd never run a business in the EU.
- ianstallings 13y agoSounds like a sure-fire plan, for failure. Turning away money from a customer because you don't like something they said on twitter is not only juvenile in itself, but also a terrible way to run a business. A better way is to address the customer's complaint in a respectable fashion. So it's either be right, win an argument, and don't get the money or take it on the chin and get the money. Seems pretty straight forward. Otherwise, why are you even in business?
- tonylemesmer 13y agoHe did actually get on the flight so the title is misleading.
- whow 13y agoI think this is a case of the employees acting out and not a corporate policy or corporate retaliating. Nevertheless, EasyJet will be taking most of the brunt of the bad PR
- JackFr 13y agoCan anyone corroborate this story? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that gate staff of a delayed flight are monitoring Twitter and comparing it to their passenger manifests in realtime. A more likely scenario in my mind is that the dude was hostile and abusive towards the staff, they perhaps told him that he couldn't say something like that and be expected to board, and he chose to interpret that as with respect to his tweet. I don't know, I wasn't there. However, before sentencing EasyJet, it would be nice to have a corroboration of the facts.
- surfacedetail 13y agoAgreed, something just doesn't seem right about the story.
- zeinology 13y agoSuppose you are an expert in creating a buzz. One day you want to create a buzz around you. You tweet a bit, discuss it with some people until they say that they're not happy with your tweet. You actually get on the plane fine. But still you fabricate most of the story to get the buzz you were looking for. Far fetched?
- otoburb 13y agoThe string of tweets in the link imply that he was pulled out of line as a direct consequence of the initial tweet about the active duty soldier being inconvenienced. Also, because the columnist holds a law degree and is working on his PhD in law, the implication is that he would (should!) be more careful about what he says in writing and may understand the consequences (or lack thereof) of his actions at a better 'instinctual' level than others. Based on these two weak lines of reasoning, I'm more inclined to lean towards events playing out as he outlined. I agree that it would be better for EasyJet to corroborate the sequence of events. >Frankly, I find it hard to believe that gate staff of a delayed flight are monitoring Twitter and comparing it to their passenger manifests in realtime. If we believe the columnist's story, this is the weird thing. How did EasyJet respond so quickly to the tweet? That's quite a feat of coordination, since usually social media PR agencies are contracted to monitor consumer sentiment and feed summarized reports back to the brand marketing or in-house PR teams. In this instance, there would have had to have been the following sequence of events for this to have happened: * Something (person or process) monitoring the EasyJet brand on all social media channels (Twitter, Facebook, media property comment sections, etc.) * Sending/alerting the appropriate backoffice and frontline teams * Cross-referencing the identity of the tweeter with EasyJet logistics (i.e. which plane was delayed, tweeter profile picture) That chain is impressive. Presumably, a frontline employee (i.e. gate personnel) took over at this point. If we believe the rest of this story and tweets, the frontline employee looked at the twitter profile, presumed that he was a lawyer, told their manager, and tried to deny the columnist the ability to board citing that because he was a lawyer he should "know better".
- zeinology 13y agoSuppose you are an expert in creating a buzz. One day you want to create a buzz around you. You tweet a bit, discuss it with some people until they say that they're not happy with your tweet. You actually get on the plane fine. But still you fabricate most of the story to get the buzz you were looking for. Far fetched?
- surfacedetail 13y agoI have some serious doubts about this story. Strathclyde Law School does not have Mark Leiser listed as a law lecturer. Searching for "Mark Leiser Strathclyde" produced a page that seems to indicate that he's a PhD student. If he's not being truthful about this, then I for one would think that he might not be telling the entire truth. Easyjet have replied to this indicating that he might have been disruptive. Reading this guy's twitter feed also is eye-opening, he comes across as a self-important prick.
- scott_s 13y agoFrom his academic page, "I am a PhD Student in Cyber-Law at the University of Strathclyde. I am researching the effects, limits and the legitimacy of regulation and law in cyberspace. I am currently researching what “activates” the active dot in the active/pathetic dot matrix within the context of cyber-legitimacy. My interests are governance -Internet and Corporate, copyright, trademarks, social media and Internet Regulation. I lecture part of Internet Law and am a tutor for Internet Law, Commercial Law, Business Law, Legal methods, and Voluntary Obligations." Emphasis mine. He is a graduate student who also teaches.
- surfacedetail 13y agoSorry to be pedantic about this (I'm an academic), but the fact that he tutors and lectures doesn't make him a lecturer. A law lecturer is someone who has been hired and holds that title. I taught a lot while doing my PhD, and I wouldn't have dared to call myself anything other than a PhD student. If anything, my level of suspicion has gone up.
- scott_s 13y agoI would not have called myself a lecturer, either - I also have a PhD, and taught while I was doing it. But I also don't know what the customs are in the UK regarding titles, both official and unofficial. I also think it's worth noting that I think he does have a law degree. He says "was enrolled," but I can't tell if he also means it was awarded. (I also had to look up LLB and LLM, and I admit I'm still confused on if those are equivalent to the JD that is granted in law schools in the US.)
- Lunatic666 13y agoNot letting lawyers on board sounds perfectly ok for me...
- solnyshok 13y agohow about throwing passengers out from the flying plane for doing the same via onboard wifi? or, at least, denying them right to use toilets.