“If the passenger was truly a deportee or an INA (inadmissible because of visa) then the plane captain should have documents about him. If a deportee or INA caused trouble on a flight, the captain should have been informed immediately.”

It matters not one iota that this passenger was an unwilling passenger. In the post 9/11 world, it is not just your safety and personal comfort that matters but the security of all the passengers. If I were on that flight I would have as much reason as you have in expressing the fears you expressed – except that those fears will not be focused solely on my personal safety and comfort. The entire flight is at risk the moment a passenger not fully in control of his or her mental faculties expresses anger in such a public manner. He does not need to be a terrorist by any definition for the flight crew to react and have this passenger evicted – no matter what his nationality.

Malaysians are pathetic when it comes to enforcing rules and procedures and matters relating to law and order. You cannot blame only the flight crew. As Malaysians they grew up in a country in which the rule of law is given scant regard and law enforcement a joke by international standards. In a conflict situation like this one, the flight crew is at a loss of how to handle it. It is time the crew be given a course in post 9/11 conflict management.

If the same thing were to happen on an American flight, this passenger would be taken off the plane immediately by airport security.

It seems the benefit of the doubt in this case has been given to the passenger who puts the flight at risk. Flight safety comes second.

Rest assured this is not the first or the last. The next one may be for real.

Remember the MAS crash in Tanjung Kupang, in Johore in the 70s? Evidence suggests a drunken passenger sitting in first class took control of the cockpit and then shot the pilot.

“Is he a religious cult who tries to deviate from the acceptable peace-loving Islamic teaching in Malaysia? Why must Umno appoint a religious cult to assume the duty of a Home Minister? Is Umno really running short of talent now?” Onlooker Politics

Are you saying Hamid Albar belongs to a religious cult defined as : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents? Are you saying that Islam is a false religion?

Are you saying that Malaysia has a cult as its official religion?

Jeffrey QC,

You are advising your client to sue the airline – for what?? Is it not for damages suffered? What damages has she suffered? She did not miss her flight and had to book herself in a hotel. If she did she could sue for the cost of accommodation and meals and whatever else directly related to it.

Just because, as the aggrieved party, we have a cause of action against the other party does not necessarily mean we should or must commence legal action. In many cases it is like sending good money after bad money.

The passenger was understandably shaken by the experience. Is she going to claim that, as a result of that experience, she is now afraid to travel by air and has had to give up her present job and any job which involves air travel – and sue for the loss she suffers and will continue to suffer as a result?

Why not? It is not inconceivable that she might develop a phobia for air travel as a result of her bad experience.

Let’s say she was returning home for a holiday. Could she sue the airline for the loss of enjoyment as a result of what she was made to go through?

Recently at LA a family of Indian Muslims (all American citizens) when taking seats on the plane were heard by fellow passengers discussing where in the plane would be safest for them to sit. They were removed from the plane by the captain and interrogated by the FBI who then cleared them. However, the airline refused to allow them to fly.

Had they not been cleared by the FBI of possible involvement in terrorist activities (they were a family of four adults and two children), that would be a different story if the airline were to refuse to let them fly.

It is going to be tough for the airline to put together their defense in a claim for breach of contract. The issue in this case is only the quantum of damages. How much damages do you think the plaintiff could get? Any racial discrimination issues involved? If racial discrimination could be proved, damages could be in the millions.

pulau_sibu Says:

Today at 07: 13.03 (1 hour ago)
May be all the MAS flight attendants are small and sweet ladies. They don’t know how to chase the bad men out. This is the cultural problem, compared to a tall fat big size lady.”

It would be a good idea to employ a few fat ass ladies like our Minister Rafidah Aziz as flight attendants. All she has to do is to sit on the faces of those passengers causing trouble.

BN/UMNO Ministers may soon be looking for jobs. Don’t you think we should reward them for their devotion to King and country over the last two decades or so??

The complainant has no cause of action against the airline worth pursuing. Period. The airline may want to compensate her for her distress as a courtesy to passengers in her position. But that’s about all.

Next time find another ariline.

I once traveled on JAL between Tokyo and Seoul and a passenger, apparently experiencing a sudden surge in testosterones level, pinched the bottom of a flight attendant who was reaching to secure overhead luggage. She just smiled at him. The flight went smoothly. No bumps. No grinds.

We have a lot to learn from her.

She did not sue this passenger for battery and assault. She knew when she took on the job, bottom pinching is an occupational hazard on certain routes. So she decides to take the rough with the smooth.

Top marks goes to this airline which gives a new meaning to ‘passenger comfort’.

OrangRojak,

At the rate jobs are being lost on a daily basis in the U.S. soon there’ll be a wave of unemployed, angry and disillusioned Americans heading your way. MAS will need to put its cabin crew through a crash course in how to handle faith-insulting passengers – and perhaps reserve seats for those ‘insulting passengers’ at the back of the aircraft and leave the rest of the aircraft insult free.

Let’s try and connect the dots.

Watch a Malaysian walks into a bank. At the slightest hint of a slow service at the counter how many would thump his or her fists and call for an officer or manager to demand more prompt service?? Try doing that at the counter of Barclays or Chase Bank in London or in New York and you’ll have a fleet of police cars ‘welcoming’ you to their country!

I am curious to know how you would react to racial slurs leveled at you while walking the streets of cities in Alabama or Georgia in the U.S.

Having said that, what the captain should have done was to take matters into his own hands and if the problem was one of seats, have you seated in First Class where there would always be seats judging from the poor handling by the flight crew of situations involving infractions of this nature. The flight crew did not ignore the problem and in fact handled the situation the best way they know how. I hope you’re not calling for their resignations as well.

The anger that we see expressed on this blog and on this thread is due in no small measure to MAS being the symbol of racial discrimination in Malaysia – perhaps its cheer leader.

This is no time to dwell on such issues as the state of mind of a passenger or passengers on an MAS flight!!

Microsoft is for the time in its history laying off some 5,000 employees!!!! Deal with that and what is coming – a global recession.

What’s one unhappy passenger on some airline??

Techincally the guy was not a deportee. He was declared inadmissible by immigration – which means he was not allowed entry. If they allowed him entry then he has the right to a lawyer and notice served on him to appear in court. Bail would have to be given.

If he was a deportee they are likely to have him seated at the back by himself; and if accompanied by an air marshal he would probably be handcuffed if they think he poses any danger to other passengers.

I had the facts of this case examined by my paralegal class to find if there is any cause of action against the airline. With a little editing by me this was what they came up with.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Radhika: One male passenger boarded, showed his boarding pass to a stewardess and she pointed to seat beside me (36K). The man looked at me and said, ‘She’s a Hindu, I cannot sit beside her.’

Apparently, he was telling the flight attendant from some distance but apparently within the complainant’s hearing, declaring his faith to the flight attendant and his request to be assigned another seat – an unusual request considering the reason given. This was evident from the response from the flight attendant.

Flight attendant: ‘So what? What’s wrong with Hindu?’

Radhika: The man then began to yell and shout that he would not sit next to a Hindu.

Clearly he didn’t like the idea of being deported. Who does?

Radhika: Then this passenger sat down but began to verbally abuse my faith and the crew members.

Hearing derogatory remarks about one’s faith is not that uncommon except for the unusual circumstances of this case. Note the sympathy she was showing to the crew.

Radhika: I sat in my seat but was physically cringing away from him.

This goes to the complainant’s state of mind. Her state of mind is relevant in view of her claim that she was in fear for her personal safety.

Radhika: The flight supervisor was summoned and until then the man was still seated next to me. Imagine my shock, horror and fear in being next to a hostile, abusive person.

Again her state of mind. Was the passenger being hostile and abusive at this point?

It is not clear if the passenger was in fact being belligerent at this point assuming he was earlier. By her own admission the appearance of the flight supervisor on the scene did give her some assurance that nothing untoward would happen.

Radhika One steward did stand next to me but did not offer any help and I did not feel safe or reassured. I reached out and told that steward that I did not feel safe anymore.

At this point the complainant thought the crew could have done more and was disappointed.

Radhika I said this to him (male steward standing guard over her) softly in English ….

This goes to her state of mind. She thought she was a Pakistani but it turned out that she was wrong. Could that have been the cause of her fear? After all it fits the racial profiling of Pakistanis i.e. that of being Islamic radicals and potential terrorists.

Radhika: I then told the stewardess in Malay that this man should not be seated beside me after what he had said about me.

Note the complaint confirmed that the passenger did not do anything to her more than just being rude and obnoxious. Any belligerence shown earlier had dissipated by this time.

Radhika: Finally, the flight supervisor, ‘SB’, approached the passenger and after an angry exchange, the passenger said, ‘Move her then!’ and SB replied, ‘Yes, we will move her’.

We are not told the details of the “angry exchange”. But apparently he refused to be moved to another seat after having been forcibly seated there.

Radhiska: More angry words were exchanged and it was revealed that the passenger was actually a Malaysian. When this news was revealed, the passenger actually stood up with his fists up …..

We are not told what those angry words were which would have given a clue to what was actually happening. But obviously he was feeling aggravated by what the flight supervisor was saying to him.

Radhiska: I was then hauled out of my seat and taken to the back of the plane. I was kept in the kitchen.

Apparently the complainant didn’t like having to give up her seat either.

Radhiska: By this time I had gone into shock and was crying uncontrollably. I was shaking with rage because I was in a position where there was nothing I could do to defend myself. No one else seemed to be doing anything too.

The complainant was apparently dismayed, appalled even and disappointed and angry no longer at the passenger next to her (who was not doing anything to her or saying anything to her at that point) but at the crew and their handling of her request that this passenger be seated somewhere else. She was also disappointed that no passenger came to her help.

Radhiska: After the plane took off, the flight supervisor, SB, came and sat beside me. He explained to me that they could not put him off the plane ….

OPINION:

The complainant has a cause of action against the passenger though it is not clear what that may be – but not against the airline and its crew who had taken reasonable steps to make her comfortable considering the circumstances of the case.

Sotong,

The complainant was very annoyed and hurt. This is completely understandable. She was also disappointed that the MAS crew had not done more.

That is obvious if you follow her narration.

If you plan to sue someone you would sue the party that has the deep pockets. That would be MAS. But her chances of winning is zilch, nada, nought! I’m sorry.

Worse incidents happened on MAS flights and got the publicity they deserved. This one is nothing. But if MAS wants to play ball, go ahead. A free return ticket for two to Haadyai would do the job.

I wouldn’t do more.

Don’t we all love to bash MAS?? At least to make up for all the wrong done by the government?

In this case hasn’t MAS taken all reasonable steps to ensure nothing untoward could happen to a passenger who was understandably embarrassed or even humiliated and angry, hurt by the comments of a passenger who had shown a belligerent attitude at the crew?

You need to sift through and separate the emotions from the facts. Only the facts matter when we search to find if there is basis for a law suit. An honest lawyer would advise this complainant to accept whatever offers of sympathy etc to make up for the inconvenience suffered by her. There is no sense in sending good money after bad money. I’m assuming of course that the lawyer expects to be paid his fees. The complainant should find out to see if her lawyer is confident of winning the case by proposing that he would get his fees and a fraction of the compensation (by way of agreement) from the defendant only if he wins his case.

To MAS, it is a self-inflicted ‘injury’ and the crew who said, “So what if she’s a Hindu” should know better especially when the passenger was a deportee. This flight attendant appears arrogant and insensitive – not insensitive to the passenger who refused to take his seat, but to the passenger he would be sitting next to. To that extent MAS has to accept blame.

The airline’s policy of how it treats deportees on its flights needs to be scrutinized and re-examined for flaws. Airlines have little control over such non-fee or fare paying passengers in the sense it cannot refuse them and when you have ‘criminal aliens’ being booted out of a foreign country, it requires special handling. I’m not surprised if MAS staff is not trained to handle deportees – especially very angry ones. In the post 9/11 world the crew needs to be trained to handle such passengers.

Deportable or inadmissible does not matter. What matters is here is an unhappy and angry passenger.

He could have been angry for a multitude of reasons at both crew and passenger. What do you do??