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

#101

Post by mseebach » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:38 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #76

officemonkey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> 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 destinat…

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.

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

#102

Post by mseebach » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:41 PM UTC

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #18

netrus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'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.

Domestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury. We have trains.

And cars and busses. And, most importantly in this case, multiple airlines in fierce competition.

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

#103

Post by moocowduckquack » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:44 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #100

lmm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Freedom of speech is about stopping the government from interfering with your speech No it's not. It's about stopping anyone, especially - but not limited to - large and powerful organizations.

Nobody has been stopped from speaking their minds. The subject of the criticism has just decided it no longer wants to facilitate this criticism and they should be free to the extent outlined in the contract.

they should be free to the extent outlined in the contract.

Only if the contract is valid. I don't think you can sign away your right to speak your mind about an airline in order to be allowed on a flight. That would be unlikely to stand up in court in the UK.

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

#104

Post by goatforce5 » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:48 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #2

I 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…

I 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).

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

#105

Post by CaptainZapp » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:57 PM UTC

webmonkeyuk wrote: post #83

eksith wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 contr…

  but EasyJet's T&Cs do say that they don't guarantee their schedule at all

Easy Jet's T & C do not override EU regulation. If they don't get you there,reasonably timely, they owe you compensation; period.

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

#106

Post by homosaur » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:58 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.

Being a twatcompany is rarely good business though.

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

#107

Post by ig1 » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 1:59 PM UTC

moocowduckquack wrote: post #93

ig1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second sentence of Article 10 of the HRA explicitly reads "without interference by public authority" (i.e it's a limitation on government).

The full quote does not support your position. The limitation on public authority is included in the right, but it is not the limit of the right. Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall…

Article 10 has never been used successfully against a private company or individual for preventing free speech. The general interpretation seems to be that it only covers public bodies (for example Wikipedia describes it as such and it's the stance taken by many anti-discrimination and non-profit groups).

Unless you know of evidence to the contrary ?

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

#108

Post by smtddr » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 2:06 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…

> 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.

With an attitude like that, how can anyone explain racism, sexism or _any kind_ of offensive behavior to you? I mean, you've basically declared the word "offensive" means nothing to you. So if someone said they were offended by something you did, you wouldn't even consider their point of view; nor would you have any empathy observing such a situation as 3rd party witness or as a reader of an article describing such a situation between 2 parties. Do you see anything wrong with this?

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

#109

Post by kamjam » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 2:13 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #70

icebraining wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

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.

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.

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

#110

Post by kamjam » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 2:16 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #101

TeMPOraL wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 destinat…

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.

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...