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
