4 ms·

The contract you agree to when you buy an airline ticket normally contains a clause allowing the airline to deny boarding for any reason or no reason at all, wi

The contract you agree to when you buy an airline ticket normally contains a clause allowing the airline to deny boarding for any reason or no reason at all, with the only compensation to you being a refund of the ticket price. They usually don't exercise these clauses, but they are certainly free to do so at will. Had they denied him boarding, perhaps it would have been a bad business/PR decision, but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline.

icebraining 13y ago
Not necessarily, because clauses can be ruled invalid if they go against the law. From the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which implements the EC Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (the Unfair Contract Terms Directive): Excessive rights for the supplier. Cancellation of a contract by the supplier can leave the consumer facing inconvenience at least, if not costs or other problems. Where that is so, a unilateral right for the supplier to cancel without any liability to do more than return prepayments is likely to be considered unfair (see Group 6(b), on terms which exclude even that liability).
- simonh 13y ago
  That's one layer of regulation, but the problem with airlines is that there's yet another higher layer of regulations agreed at an international level to specifically govern and regulate air travel. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there's an international treaty governing the terms and conditions airlines can impose that trumps even EC Directives.
  - kamjam 13y ago
    Unlikely. EasyJet is a UK/Europe based airline, and they mainly travel within Europe. I think they have tried to ignore a few EU directives before and got stung by the European courts, esp around compensation. I've travelled EasyJet a couple of time, it's a cheap low cost airline. Just don't expect any customer service whatsoever if something goes wrong, it's like talking to a bunch of incompetent monkeys.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chris_wot 13y ago
Those terms are unfair. If they tried that in Australia, the clause would be struck down.
officemonkey 13y ago
>Had they denied him boarding, perhaps it would have been a bad business/PR decision, That's exactly what they did and that's exactly what happened. >but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline. Legal liability is the least of their worries today. It's a PR nightmare. People all over the world think they're thin-skinned bullies.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > Legal liability is the least of their worries today. It's a PR nightmare. People all over the world think they're thin-skinned bullies. I wish it actually amounted to something. They probably won't get any drop in ticket sales, because in cheap airline market you pretty much don't have many (if any) alternatives. People are still going to fly with them because they're the cheapest / only ones flying to the destination they want.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    Stop wishing. If you have a problem with easyJet, don't buy their product. If that means you can't afford to fly, stay home. The problem is that beneath the feigned outrage, everyone can see that this is just a stupid bully of middle manager making a stupid decision. Nobody really cares enough about it to actually change real-world plans.
    - kamjam 13y ago
      I agree with your first point totally. I usually prefer to pay a little more and go with BA. The second point though. This must have come from higher up. I mean, I doubt that manager was actively watching Twitter so this must have been identified by some automated system and trickled to the manager as a notification...
      - mseebach 13y ago
        Said middle manager would be higher up. There is no "middle" to manage at the gate. It's probably a bored jobsworth in the operations center that was keeping an eye on the @easyJet feed. Maybe he discussed it with a colleague or two and they stirred up a frenzy. Maybe someone had just been at sensitivity sensibility training and used his newfound knowledge to identify the tweet as threatening. Many scenarios are possible, and we can't expect easyJet to air their dirty laundry, so we probably won't know exactly what. What is completely inconceivable is that there is a company-wide policy that came into effect (and was subsequently immediately withdrawn this morning) to hunt down and deny boarding to passengers that criticizes easyJet on Twitter.
rmc 13y ago
This incident occurred within the EU, which has strict laws about airlines denying boarding, and the level of compensation they have to give if you are refused. "we don't have to give a reason and only have to give you your money back", would not be legal in the EU.
mncolinlee 13y ago
A lot of people don't know this because they're used to blindly agreeing to terms and accepting them as "the truth," but clauses which are not legal cannot be enforced. If they deny boarding for just any random reason they choose, the airline accepts that they may be subject to legal penalties. Denying boarding is more than merely refusing a private service. It's effectively revoking freedom to travel. It can also be more than simply an inconvenience to miss a flight. Even when merely overbooking passengers through no malice at all, European airlines are required to pay significant fees to customers who must miss flights. This is true in the U.S. as well due to the precedent set after Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, 426 U.S. 290 (1976). Airlines attempt to offer vouchers, but you are entitled to cash payouts. I once made an actual profit from a trip to Europe because Lufthansa overbooked us and paid more per ticket in fees than the cost of my flights and hotels.

icebraining 13y ago

Not necessarily, because clauses can be ruled invalid if they go against the law. From the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which implements the EC Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (the Unfair Contract Terms Directive): Excessive rights for the supplier. Cancellation of a contract by the supplier can leave the consumer facing inconvenience at least, if not costs or other problems. Where that is so, a unilateral right for the supplier to cancel without any liability to do more than return prepayments is likely to be considered unfair (see Group 6(b), on terms which exclude even that liability).

simonh 13y ago
That's one layer of regulation, but the problem with airlines is that there's yet another higher layer of regulations agreed at an international level to specifically govern and regulate air travel. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there's an international treaty governing the terms and conditions airlines can impose that trumps even EC Directives.
- kamjam 13y ago
  Unlikely. EasyJet is a UK/Europe based airline, and they mainly travel within Europe. I think they have tried to ignore a few EU directives before and got stung by the European courts, esp around compensation. I've travelled EasyJet a couple of time, it's a cheap low cost airline. Just don't expect any customer service whatsoever if something goes wrong, it's like talking to a bunch of incompetent monkeys.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

chris_wot 13y ago

Those terms are unfair. If they tried that in Australia, the clause would be struck down.

officemonkey 13y ago

>Had they denied him boarding, perhaps it would have been a bad business/PR decision, That's exactly what they did and that's exactly what happened. >but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline. Legal liability is the least of their worries today. It's a PR nightmare. People all over the world think they're thin-skinned bullies.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
> Legal liability is the least of their worries today. It's a PR nightmare. People all over the world think they're thin-skinned bullies. I wish it actually amounted to something. They probably won't get any drop in ticket sales, because in cheap airline market you pretty much don't have many (if any) alternatives. People are still going to fly with them because they're the cheapest / only ones flying to the destination they want.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Stop wishing. If you have a problem with easyJet, don't buy their product. If that means you can't afford to fly, stay home. The problem is that beneath the feigned outrage, everyone can see that this is just a stupid bully of middle manager making a stupid decision. Nobody really cares enough about it to actually change real-world plans.
  - kamjam 13y ago
    I agree with your first point totally. I usually prefer to pay a little more and go with BA. The second point though. This must have come from higher up. I mean, I doubt that manager was actively watching Twitter so this must have been identified by some automated system and trickled to the manager as a notification...
    - mseebach 13y ago
      Said middle manager would be higher up. There is no "middle" to manage at the gate. It's probably a bored jobsworth in the operations center that was keeping an eye on the @easyJet feed. Maybe he discussed it with a colleague or two and they stirred up a frenzy. Maybe someone had just been at sensitivity sensibility training and used his newfound knowledge to identify the tweet as threatening. Many scenarios are possible, and we can't expect easyJet to air their dirty laundry, so we probably won't know exactly what. What is completely inconceivable is that there is a company-wide policy that came into effect (and was subsequently immediately withdrawn this morning) to hunt down and deny boarding to passengers that criticizes easyJet on Twitter.

rmc 13y ago

This incident occurred within the EU, which has strict laws about airlines denying boarding, and the level of compensation they have to give if you are refused. "we don't have to give a reason and only have to give you your money back", would not be legal in the EU.

mncolinlee 13y ago

A lot of people don't know this because they're used to blindly agreeing to terms and accepting them as "the truth," but clauses which are not legal cannot be enforced. If they deny boarding for just any random reason they choose, the airline accepts that they may be subject to legal penalties. Denying boarding is more than merely refusing a private service. It's effectively revoking freedom to travel. It can also be more than simply an inconvenience to miss a flight. Even when merely overbooking passengers through no malice at all, European airlines are required to pay significant fees to customers who must miss flights. This is true in the U.S. as well due to the precedent set after Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, 426 U.S. 290 (1976). Airlines attempt to offer vouchers, but you are entitled to cash payouts. I once made an actual profit from a trip to Europe because Lufthansa overbooked us and paid more per ticket in fees than the cost of my flights and hotels.