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

10 responses to “Where does the Church of Scotland stand?”

Robin

21/05/2013

I understand your sentiments, but both on this issue and on the ordination of women in the Church of England the weary words of Mrs Boyle in Sean O’Casey’s ‘Juno and the Paycock’ in reply to her son, who scorns the Irish Free State and wants an Irish Republic or nothing, are inclined to come to mind:

“To be sure, to be sure — no bread’s a lot better than half a loaf.”

Reply
Nick Brindley

21/05/2013

I think you’re right to think this is a disastrously wrong-headed attempt to avoid having to think the issue through, although we may not agree on what would be involved in such thinking (almost nobody agrees with me!)

I think we need to revisit some pretty fundamental problems on the nature of the moral authority of the Bible, the meaning of “salvation” and what ministry is to make any real progress with this issue and there appears to be depressingly little appetite to do this in a spirit of mutual trust and of trust in the leading of the Spirit guiding our interpretation of scripture

http://loveswork.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/failing-to-be-biblical-reflections-on-church-of-scotland-sexuality-debates/

Reply
Frank keefe

21/05/2013

This is what happens when you water down Gods truth so the secular world will think what a progressive church you are.When a small secular wedge is pushed under a church door you can bet a larger one will be pushed under it in the not to distant future.I believe a liberal minded church like the Church of Scotland is more dangerous to the Christian faith than atheists like Richard Dawkins and his followers. Jesus found it hard to convince the Pharisees of their misguided beliefs if He walked our earth today He would find those modern day Pharisees in the Church of Scotland even harder to convince.

Reply
1. Rosemary Hannah
  
  21/05/2013
  
  Well, there you go – I think the exact opposite – that Jesus, who plucked corn, and healed, on the Sabbath, would be out partying tonight with all sorts of disreputable people. The Pharisees were the people who stuck rigidly to the law, breaking it even as they kept it. Jesus was the one who re-interpreted it.
  
  Reply
  1. Frank keefe
    
    21/05/2013
    
    I find it amazing how those who look for sin to be accepted would try and use Jesus to back them up.First Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.The Pharisees abused Gods law with their legalism.Its why He said about the rescue of a sheep on that day.He didnt re-interpret it He was showing them how it SHOULD BE KEPT as God ALWAYS intended it.Its the church who is doing the interpretation and Jesus certainly wouldnt be “out partying” such disrespect of our Lords holiness is often the way with liberal ” Christians” Instead of the church being a light to the world that worlds darkness is putting out that light.
    
    Reply
    1. kelvin
      
      21/05/2013
      
      Bless you for your faith, Frank. May it bring you happiness and joy.
      
      Reply
Graeme Cowie

21/05/2013

It’s a fudge, no doubt. And one which, far from preserving the “traditional” Kirk actually serves to undermine it in a number of ways, particularly concerning the status of “doctrine” and who gets to determine what it is, or at least what practical meaning it is for something to be “doctrine” rather than merely a personal religious sentiment. Explicitly to permit complete deviation from “doctrine” by congregations is not very Presbyterian, and the “traditionalists” either didn’t seem to realise that, or they care about preserving substantial doctrines at the expense of, well, what makes the Kirk the Kirk.

To an extent, though, you could see it coming. I think the traditionalist wing sensed they would lose if it was a straight choice (unfortunate phrase) between 2A and 2B, and so tried to push for something that retains a symbolic attachment to historical doctrine whilst letting liberals have the lion’s share of the cake they want, which is to be able to ordain those in committed same-sex relationships and to be done with it. I know for a fact that a fair whack of liberal commissioners were swayed by 2D (not including my parents, who are CofS ministers who voted with option 2A), many seeing it as a way of letting the traditionalists have some sort of phyric victory whilst in fact enabling ministers to be in civil partnerships without any lasting problems. It is much more likely that 2D will make it through Barrier Act procedure now that it’s got the traditionalists’ name on it, and notwithstanding the extra year it’s going to take to turn it into a proper overture, I think the consensus of the Kirk is that they really want to stop talking about this.

The new system ought to be fairly robust once the Legal Questions Committee have had their teeth dug into it. The clear intention was conceded by the movers that they did not intend for Presbyteries to be able to discipline or annul decisions made by Kirk Sessions seeking to be allowed to appoint ministers in civil partnerships, and for a lot of liberals (and actually, a lot of those on the conservative wing too) this will be seen as a critical part of the compromise if it is to be laid to rest. My only real concern is that if the traditionalists are for any reason unhappy with the implementation by LQC it could lead to the whole debate re-opening in GA 2014.

It’s clearly not enough for many liberal ministers, elders and members of the Church of Scotland, for whom this still presents a partial sense of “separate not equal” for congregation and minister alike, and it probably makes it more difficult for the theological position of the kirk formally to be moved away from same sex relationships being sinful, now that the “practical harms” are in a significant sense out of the way, but by Church of Scotland standards, it’s a major step forward for a very broad church, and one which has probably saved it from a major schism (though a handful of churches may still leave over and above The Tron and Gilc South). For those of us in the Kirk 5 years ago, this would have been virtually unthinkable, and momentum has picked up since the Rennie case 4 years ago. The good fight goes on, and hurdles remain, but if it gets through Barrier Act procedure I think the practical objectives, in a Kirk which already offers substantial liberty of personal opinion in matters of doctrine which do not enter into the substance of faith, have largely been met, albeit in a roundabout way.

For more of my thoughts on this matter, see:

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/church-of-scotland-religious-progress.html

and

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/presbyterianism-cracking-at-seems-cost.html

Reply
Margaret of the Sea of Galilee

22/05/2013

And it still does not properly address how LGBTQ people (single or in civil partnerships) will be dealt with (dealt to?) when they offer themselves to Presbyteries as feeling called to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Will they be asked about their orientation? Questioned? Interrogated? What responses will allow them to or prevent them from pursuing that call?

Who is this Albert Bogle anyway – is he about to become the first to be beatified by the Kirk and for what exactly? By-passing (even disregarding) Kirk “Order”, convincing his important friends to let him bulldoze ahead and his less important friends to print off 700 and something copies of a Deliverance which is incoherent and unimplementable.
Off to read Revelation for other signs of The End Times…
.

Reply
Peter W Nimmo

25/05/2013

Kelvin, you make lots of good points in your post. But just to clarify- what is the doctrine and practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church on this issue? Does your doctrine approve of persons in civil partnerships being clergy, and is that put into practice?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  25/05/2013
  
  Yes – there are quite a number of clergy in civil partnerships. In England, Anglican clergy in civil partnerships are supposed to declare that they are “celibate”. That isn’t the case in Scotland.
  
  The pension scheme in Scotland recognises Civil Partnerships by giving such partners the same benefits as wives or husbands in marriages. Civil Partners also are treated in the same way with regard to housing as a straight spouse if a relationship breaks down.
  
  Any candidate for ordination who is in a Civil Partnership is expected to be honest about that at selection.
  
  The bishops of the church announced a few years ago that they would not consecrate anyone as bishop who was in a Civil Partnership. They were clear at the time that this was a moratorium. However it is not clear to me whether that moratorium still stands. I do expect there to be questions about that at the coming Synod.
  
  Reply