Kerry Thompson wrote:
Dave Howe said:
John Kozubik wrote:
[snip]
There are no obvious grounds for discressionary removal based on wearing a badge (or being married to a habitual badge-wearer) but the "banning notice" thing looks to be a blanket refusal option written up to look like something else - I don't read this as saying you have to have met the section (a) criteria for them to issue a banning notice, in which case they can refuse you for no reason at all provided they put it in writing.
True, but Gilmore clearly refused an order from the Captain despite his view that the order to remove the badge was in breach of some rights that he thought he had. At this point of refusal the presence of a badge becomes secondary, and Gilmore has probably breached a few rules, such as :
7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security.
.
The safety or security issue being what?
and maybe :
9) If you have behaved in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly way towards a member of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft.
if you could class Gilmore's actions as disorderly.
Could you? I think not.
. and :
10) If you have deliberately interfered with a member of the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties.
where the duties could have been those of the flight assistant to have the badge removed.
Give me a break.
I felt sorry for the other 300 people on the plane who had their flight delayed for some guy with a small badge on his chest, and a big chip on his shoulder.
Yeah, never stand up for your rights if it might delay you. I'm with you, brother. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff