Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

thedrum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 149 posts

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

#121

Post by scott_s »

surfacedetail wrote: post #117

I 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…

From 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.

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

#122

Post by otoburb »

JackFr wrote: post #112

Can 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…

The 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".

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

#123

Post by sonsofhn »

zeinology wrote: post #119
JackFr wrote: post #112

Can 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…

Suppose 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?

not far fetched at all

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

#124

Post by mncolinlee »

downandout wrote: post #21
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.

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 c…

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.

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

#125

Post by mseebach »

kamjam wrote: post #110
mseebach wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

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

#126

Post by c2prods »

JackFr wrote: post #112

Can 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…

For his defense, EasyJet staff is the worse, by far. I can't figure out why they are so unbearable.

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

#127

Post by surfacedetail »

scott_s wrote: post #121
surfacedetail wrote: post #117

I 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…

From 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 R…

Sorry 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.

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

#128

Post by RockyMcNuts »

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.

so, if the government listens to your phone calls and emails and prevents you from saying certain things, that's bad, but if the phone company/ISP does the same thing, that's good.

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

#129

Post by flumbaps »

javert wrote: post #113
tommorris wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, no, that's a very narrow First Amendment negative style of freedom of speech. Contrary to every American Internet debater, Britain is not actually governed by the US Constitution. The applicable law you are looking for is the European Convention on Human Rights, and the 1998 Human Rights Act, specifically Article 10, which starts with the rather bold statement "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression". T…

YOu know what? What is right and wrong is right and wrong, regardless of what a bunch of EU bureaucrats say. To the extent easyJey is a government bureau, they have no right to do anything. To the extent they are actually a company, they have every right to withhold service as much as they please.

Of course, yes, everyone is always in complete agreement about what is right and wrong, because humans are always absolutely objective when it comes to moral decisions.

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

#130

Post by polymatter »

smtddr wrote: post #108
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 "o…

Being 'offended' runs a whole spectrum from legitimate outrage of a betrayal of vital social norms through to mildly inconvenienced that not everyone agrees with my personal world view. The problem is many people use 'offense' in the latter sense to ram through their personal beliefs onto others.

I have been known to be in the company of men to whom I am not related. Some consider this offensive. They can explain to me that its immodest. I can explain that I find the suggestion insulting beyond belief. Who is objectively 'right'. Am I not empathetic or are they?

Post reply on HN