What is in Kelvin's Head?

In praise of Easyjet staff on a very bad flight home

26/06/2014

I know it isn’t often that you read something in praise of an airline after a particularly difficult journey. However, yesterday I thought that Easyjet did pretty well with a horribly fraught journey from Alicante to Glasgow.

I was travelling back from a retreat at a Jesuit retreat house in Spain which I try to go on every second year. It should have been a straightforward trip – an hour by car to the airport, hanging about for the usual check-in stuff and then a three hour flight to Glasgow.

What happened was this…

Firstly it became apparent that because of a dispute by the French Air Traffic Control people (who are deeply wicked and naughty) things were not going to go terribly smoothly. The flight was initially shown as being delayed for an hour but it was a full hour and a half after the normal boarding time that we were able to get on the plane. We were then told that we would be held on the tarmac until there was permission from France to fly. This was something of a surprise as we had believed we were on our way. Expected delay was 2 hours. However after 2 hours nothing had happened in a hot, sticky and very cramped way and the captain appeared in the cabin to announce that unless we got going smartish he wasn’t going to be able to fly us to Glasgow anyway as he didn’t have enough working flying hours in the day to take us there.

During this time, most of the passengers were grumpy but content that all was being done for them that could be done. All except one, who had an outburst at the flight crew saying that he was being messed about and blaming them for what was going on. Clearly, the staff wanted to get home as much as the rest of us.

Anyway, the prospect was opening up before us of having to get off the plane and spend a night in some hotel in Alicante (or Benidorm?) before coming back the next day early to fly. This was not an entertaining idea. Fortunately though another plan was devised. We would take off and whilst in the air, Easyjet would arrange for us to land somewhere or other (Luton? Gatwick?) where a new pilot and crew would join us and fly us on up to Glasgow.

This was met with a round of applause by the passengers who clearly didn’t want another night in Spain.

So, off we went and all was well (though significantly delayed) until we landed at Luton for a change of drivers. The crew distributed what food was on board. (I think the failure to take more food on board a flight that was clearly headed for long delays is the only real error I can see in the whole proceedings). I ended up eating a pot meal of cous-cous and lentils which tasted as bad as it sounds.

Anyway, we got to Luton and were told that the new crew were walking towards the aircraft ready to take us on to Glasgow. The retiring captain got a cheer for his efforts so far and disappeared.

Then Mr Angry Passenger decided to grab his hand luggage and make a run for it, fighting his way through the people stretching their legs and heading for the open door and steps which had been put next to the plane.

Now, getting off a plane without permission and wandering around an airport is a bad idea. So, one of the cabin crew tried to head him off, telling him he would be arrested if he stepped onto the tarmac before making a call for police and security to attend the plane.

The result of this was Mr Angry halfway down the steps shouting, Mrs Angry and one of their unfortunate children at the top of the steps and two further children at the top of the steps at the other end of the plane. Meanwhile, we had crew at the top of the steps trying to remonstrate with Mr A and get him back on board along with pilots and security people at the bottom of the steps trying to sort it out.

It was clear that the plane wasn’t going anywhere soon – although the rest of the passengers were in no danger, we had effectively been hijacked.

Now, this being a Glasgow flight, of course, we all believed we were all involved and that his business was our business. Several burly passengers were offering to go down the steps and get Mr A back onto the plane forcibly whilst several others were of the view that their muscle might be helpful in making sure that he never got on the plane again.

This phase of the journey was concluded when Mr Angry was joined by Mrs Angry and the poor Junior Angrys and led away. (Personally, I hope he was arrested and that Easyjet try to recover the costs of all this from him).

In all of all that was happening, the Easyjet staff behaved brilliantly, chatting with passengers and doing all possible to calm down what had become rather tricky and with the potential to get worse.

Sadly, the departure of the five recalcitrant passengers did not end our troubles. Security proceedures meant that their hold baggage had to be removed from the plane. Furthermore, we then discovered that it also meant all the luggage had to be removed from the plane and remanifested. So, ground crew had to be procured to remove all our luggage for checking. Not only that, but the cabin crew had to go through all the cabin lockers removing everything in them and asking passengers to identify what was theirs.

Eventually, we had accounted for everything and got under way with the new crew (who had believed they were going to Palma last night) expertly getting us to Glasgow where we landed at 2230. The flight should have arrived at 1610 – so it was 5 hours and 20 mins late. I’d spent 8 and a half hours in the cabin and I’ve never been more pleased to see the lights of Glasgow airport. Total journey time door to door was 13 hours.

And despite that, I couldn’t praise the crew more highly. They dealt with everything brilliantly, professionally and calmly. Full marks to Easyjet.

In other news, I had a fantastic retreat.

Alicante, Easyjet, flight, Glasgow

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

David Evans

29/06/2015

I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  29/06/2015
  
  I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.
  
  I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    30/06/2015
    
    I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”
    
    You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.
    
    It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.
    
    Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.
    
    I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.
    
    Reply
    1. Graham Evans
      
      05/07/2015
      
      David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.
      
      Reply
      1. David Evans
        
        18/07/2015
        
        Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.
        
        However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.
Iain Brodie Browne

02/07/2015

Firstly thank you for your posting.
I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

Reply
Andy

18/07/2015

Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/07/2015
  
  Thanks for commenting, Andy.
  
  I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.
  
  When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.
  
  It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    18/07/2015
    
    Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.
    
    Reply
David Evans

13/11/2015

Kelvin,

It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

Reply
1. Graham Evans
  
  13/11/2015
  
  David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.
  
  Reply