EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet • Hacker News Board

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#81

Post by rmc » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:07 PM UTC

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #65

brey wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He already bought the ticket. he was in the boarding queue. Your analogy should be changed to: 'whether McDonalds should let you eat a burger AFTER you buy it from them'. This is simply Easyjet breaking a contract - as long as he's not broken the terms himself. which would be surprising in this case.

Agree that there are two parts - whether they'd have to sell him a ticket in the future and what happens with the current flight but there may be something in the small print that would allow them to prevent him boarding (though almost certainly subject to suitable compensation).

This took place in the EU, so there are legal limitations on how and when an airline can deny you boarding.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#82

Post by neya » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:08 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #71

neya wrote: post #36

It'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 a…

> It'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 Well, as a quote it's quite uninsightful. Would you say the same thing to a woman…

>If that's your idea of running a company, throwing out customers who complain publicly instead of fixing the issues, then I wouldn't want to be your customer.

You misinterpreted my reasoning and took it somewhere else :)

>No, they should serve someone who criticizes the same as any other customer. You might not be able to shout it inside their restaurants (that's their business), but they should have no right at all to refuse you based on what you say to your twitter or blog or whatever.

If you do something that negatively affects my company, without giving my company a fair chance/benefit of doubt, but ironically try to benefit from it, then I would have no problem revoking you of my services. Even If I'm the only available option to you. Of course I am welcome to constructive criticism and bashing me on your blog is totally fine. I will try to fix my mistakes. But it is different if you mis-inform your readers that I'm a bad company and if you use my company's services behind the scenes because it's one of the best options for you, then that is hypocrisy and the day when I find out it's basically game over for you. Because what you essentially did was:

1) Abuse of power. (You had hundreds of followers on your blog and negatively marketed my company to them on purpose)

2) Absolutely zero journalistic integrity. (for the same reason as 1)

>Third, their food might suck, but you find the prices great, compared to the alternatives (or vice versa).

3) Backstabbing and hypocrisy. (You betrayed your readers, my company and tried to benefit in the process).

At the end of the day, every company needs to profit. If you seem to be in it's way, I don't think it's wrong to get you out of it's way. And companies don't need such customers either. It would be shooting in their foot, literally.

>Saying they sucks and then eating it, it's perfectly normal.

Seriously? If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what else is.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#83

Post by webmonkeyuk » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:09 PM UTC

eksith wrote: post #43

neya wrote: post #36

It'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 a…

> 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. EasyJet is not a charity; it is a business I.E. Company. When services were not rendered as expected when the soldier mentioned in the article couldn't be on time, this gent…

> hen services were not rendered as expected when the soldier mentioned in the article couldn't be on time...

Granted they weren't on time but EasyJet's T&Cs do say that they don't guarantee their schedule at all:

15.1.1 Without prejudice to any applicable passenger rights pursuant to any international or domestic laws, times shown in timetables, schedules or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of the contract of carriage.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#84

Post by masklinn » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:10 PM UTC

mjn wrote: post #26

masklinn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some circumstances. Especially for public accommodations, which an airline servicing a public airport might well be. AFAIK, even the US put restrictions on what businesses can and can not do when they qualify as public accommodations (CRA, ADA, state-level anti-discrimination laws an…

Some Google-Books perusal suggests that airlines in the U.S., if they sell tickets to the public (rather than operating as private carriers) have an even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers who are required to provide service to the general public at the stated rates without discrimination, like phone companies, railroad companies, telegraph companies, ferry boats, etc. Whereas public a…

> even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers

Ah yes, I knew there was something beyond public accommodation but could not remember the concept of common/public carrier. Thank you.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#85

Post by rmc » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:10 PM UTC

neya wrote: post #36

It'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 a…

In order to stop replies like this, I've stopped using the word "offensive" or "offended". Instead, I use phrases like "you belittled me", "you're trying to marginalise me" etc. "offended" puts the 'blame' on the person who being offended, must better to say that the problem is with the person doing the margalisation.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#86

Post by rmc » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:11 PM UTC

carlob wrote: post #59

neya wrote: post #36

It'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 a…

If you are cleared for check in and then the airline denies boarding, you have a set of rights and the airline is required to inform you of those rights. [0] There is very heavy regulation regarding flight, and thankfully so. Recently my girlfriend was in a similar situation (minus the tweets) with easyjet, and she's currently pursuing compensation through the EU [1]. If anything like this happens to you: know your r…

Airports within the EU have loads of posters saying this. They are very clear on it.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#87

Post by chrismcb » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:12 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #63

neya wrote: post #36

It'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 a…

It requires context... Is this a real complaint or a "Look at me and treat me better because I'm a high Klout score quasi-journalist" situation? That should determine the level of outrage more than the legalistics.

Apparently EasyJet DID treat him better because he was a journalist (well actually because he taught law) Apparently if he was just a lay person they wouldn't have let him on the flight. So you decide if it was a real complaint or not.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#88

Post by rmc » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:13 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #22

davedx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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?

Assuming you refunded the money I imagine it might hold up.

No, it was within the EU which has strict law about airlines denying people boarding. They can't just refund your money and that be the end of it.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#89

Post by TelmoMenezes » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:14 PM UTC

neya wrote: post #82

coldtea wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'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 Well, as a quote it's quite uninsightful. Would you say the same thing to a woman…

>If that's your idea of running a company, throwing out customers who complain publicly instead of fixing the issues, then I wouldn't want to be your customer. You misinterpreted my reasoning and took it somewhere else :) >No, they should serve someone who criticizes the same as any other customer. You might not be able to shout it inside their restaurants (that's their business), but they should have no right at all…

> then that is hypocrisy and the day when I find out it's basically game over for you

Hypocrisy is not illegal (nor should it be). Not honoring contracts, on the other hand, is (and it should be).

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#90

Post by chrismcb » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:16 PM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #10

Freedom 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.

This really isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is a customer service issue. Would you rather do business with a company that stops doing business with customers that complain, or with a business that listens to customers complaints and fixes the issue?