I wonder why he didnt have to pay the full 21K - or will that be a civil claim. I also wonder now if the other pax can sue him fr damages due to their delays...
Under what legal grounds? Distress? Punitive damages? Loss of utility of product (i.e. a holiday paid for)? Hardly!
This isn't LOTFAP and even then this holds little water anyway.
If the pax wanted any justice, the best they can hope for is to find and egg him. But that's assault....... (which may be criminal depending on what kind and how many eggs are used)
Banning all stupid people from flights would be good, but assuming this is not going to happen, I don't see any validitity for such an overreaction
That you cannot do - fine - but not all "stupid" people pull a prank like this.
Based on the compensation payable ( 1500 out of a claimed cost of 2100 ), I wonder whether the judge might be questioning whether the action taken of the flight was appropriate. Did the crew make a reasonable evaluation of the situation and react accordingly or did they overreact
At a principles level that seems an OK argument, but at a more practical level I would like to think what
would be a reasonable evaluation?
Do you think the FAs should have fronted up to him, told him to stop else risk removal, then diplomatically assure all the other pax who reported him that it was merely a prank? Do you really think that the other pax would be so easily allayed? Especially given that it was the anniversary of a serious related disaster?
Or perhaps the pax making the threat should be kept under watch as a full scale search of the hold is made, then a same one of the cabin. If the threat is found, evacuate the craft and arrest the perpetrator, else warn the prankster and let him fly.
I find both of these approaches unsatisfactory.
In saying all of this, the airline might have been confounded to act the way it did. It is probably in the airline's best interests (at least for its public face) to take a hardline approach after pax had notified FAs of the "threat". The airline might be accused of being soft or being ill-placed to deal with a real threat if it did happen. Also, the airline was acting in accordance with the law and in accordance with relevant airline/airport operating protocols which are also detailed to pax, so what's the big deal.
The hardline approach has severe flaws as well, viz. the US PATRIOT act and its misuse. However, in this case, the accused had a right to due process, unlike accusations under the PATRIOT act.
