EasyJet in Nice: Fight Over Refusal to Pay Baggage Fee (page 4 of 4)

Me too, and that's exactly why I think that statistically it's not impossible, but still very unlikely.

In French society, which is currently in a very bad state, there's a strong tendency to point fingers at sick people, unconventional behaviors, and to exclude under the pretext of smoothed-out, conventional universalism. Above all, there's a rush to get likes—and thus revenue—from videos we know nothing about deep down. To me, the media hype around this kind of story is a much more serious symptom than the scuffle itself, which was pretty childish and out of place.

Michel

As usual, you're defending the indefensible.

What the purpose is, is an interesting question.

(I doubt it's out of naive humanitarianism.)

As usual, you're defending the indefensible. What’s the point is an interesting question. (I doubt it’s out of naive humanism.)

You’re a bit of a conspiracy theorist, aren’t you? I’m just talking about what I know—my experience, my background, my education, my work. And too bad if it triggers this reaction; I know what I’m talking about.

Michel

No.

Me too, and that's exactly why I think that statistically it's not impossible, but still very unlikely.

In today's struggling French society, there's a strong tendency to point fingers at sick people, unconventional behavior, and to exclude under the guise of polished, agreed-upon universalism. Above all, there's a rush to like—and profit from—videos whose true context we know nothing about. To me, the media hype around stories like this is a much more serious symptom than the scuffle itself, which was pretty childish and out of place.

Michel

The couple both hit the agent, calling him a son of a b... and making homophobic remarks. The guy in the couple is an athlete with arms and thighs like a boxer—he’s twice the size of the agent, who looks like a minnow next to him—and you’re defending him on the off chance he might be fragile or sick? Seriously? Have you even watched the video? 40,000 posts for this conclusion—really? 🤪

Like in the police, in retail, in education...

Comparing these social roles on this issue is, how to put it... absurd, to say the least.

The teacher who shows up with grand principles and self-righteousness ends up in their underwear and depressed after three months, and it's not the public's fault—it's theirs and their employer's.

That said, with a high budget, you still produce underachievers. (Sources: OECD & PISA)

To me, the media echo around this kind of story is a much more serious symptom than the scuffle itself, which was pretty childish and out of place.

An echo that you’re greatly amplifying locally (probably a third of the messages in this discussion). Have a good start to the school year!

Comparing these social functions on this matter is, how to put it... preposterous, to say the least

Not at all. It's public-facing, a professional relationship with the public. These are very similar professions.

Which means that with a high budget, you're producing underachievers. (Sources: OECD & PISA)

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but if you think you can do better, the door’s wide open.

Echo that you’re greatly amplifying locally (probably a third of the messages in this discussion).

It’s still better than having nothing to contribute but snide remarks and personal attacks.

Michel

Very complicated situations in airports and on board—enough to fill several pages of a thread. It's better to detect before boarding those who might disrupt a flight and deny them boarding. Safety first, and troublemakers out.

No. Passengers aren’t cargo or livestock, and when you transport humans, you deal with diverse personalities—fragile, sensitive, under the influence, or otherwise—and the job is to manage it smoothly. In my opinion, your reaction is quite shocking and unrealistic: you can’t purge planes of passengers who *might* react poorly. Otherwise, you’d end up banning hundreds of thousands of people who are on medication, going through withdrawal, sick, depressed, etc. So we do our best with the human condition. In this situation, there’s a professional and a non-professional—it’s the professional’s responsibility to be trained, competent, calm, and skilled. Like in policing, retail, or teaching… The teacher who storms in with grand principles and a rigid attitude ends up in their underwear and depressed within three months. And it’s not the public’s fault—it’s theirs and their employer’s.

Michel

Safety is the absolute priority. Anyone who risks compromising it will face denied boarding. In the end, it’s the captain who makes that call. Next time at check-in, try throwing a fit, screaming, and insulting the staff 😉. I’m not even talking about violence. You won’t end up in the lounge, I guarantee it 😉.

I know many of the cases you mentioned. They take their medication, sometimes even have to declare it, provide a certified translation, and may need to complete procedures at the arrival airport. But there’s never violence.

I condemn all forms of aggression, whether verbal or physical. From what I gather, you’re justifying it, and it’s the airport staff who get the blame. Pinch me, I must be hallucinating!

So, according to your reasoning, I can make a scene to get business class the next time I fly.

To avoid risking a fuss at boarding, I’d be entitled to an upgrade.

I dunno... I’ve got a feeling that won’t work...

I’ll never make it to my destination.

Wednesday I’m taking two KLM flights—I’ll give it a try 😉 If I get imprisoned at Schiphol, don’t be surprised 😉

We know nothing about the passenger’s psychological, mental, or moral state. He might be undergoing treatment, chronically ill, severely depressed, an alcoholic, or going through withdrawal; he might just be an idiot, but that doesn’t justify labeling any excessive emotional outburst in an airport as "misconduct."

Violence is never excusable. Anyone dealing with their own issues needs to keep it together.

Traveling is stressful—there can be alcohol involved, the airport atmosphere, especially in France, feels oppressive and threatening, and that affects people’s behavior.

France isn’t one of those countries where the atmosphere is oppressive. If anything, it’s the opposite—there’s a lot of leniency. That’s exactly why some people take advantage of it.

Staff, who are trained, must do everything possible to avoid a fight, and in my opinion, letting themselves get dragged into one is a professional failure.

Airport staff aren’t therapists, and they’ve got a flight to check in and board on time. You can’t spend an hour politely explaining to someone that their suitcase is over the weight limit or their carry-on is too big and heavy. There could be 50 people waiting behind them. Otherwise, everyone buys the cheapest ticket and checks in with two 30 kg suitcases and two oversized carry-ons 😉 Yeah, why pay more when I’m flying with Bisounours Airlines? 😉 And airport staff won’t say anything because the customer is always right 😉

I’m only exaggerating a little with that sarcasm 😉

France is not among the countries where the atmosphere is oppressive.

Yes, it is. Constant announcements, armed patrols—it’s one of the most oppressive countries for me. After that, the United States—I don’t know, maybe it’s worse—and I don’t go to England... No doubt your pro-American bias gives you that impression.

Safety is the absolute priority. Anyone who risks compromising it will face denied boarding.

I know that’s the official line, the standard rhetoric, which you seem to take literally. The truth is that safety, no matter how much it’s emphasized, is always a compromise. First, safety isn’t about passengers—it’s about technical and operational matters; it concerns the aircraft. Passengers are about *security*. And security is human-based: the only perfectly secure flight would be... empty . People are the risk; you can reduce it, limit it, but you have to accept it. I don’t even know how you can seriously claim otherwise.

Next time at check-in, you can try the experiment of getting agitated, shouting, and insulting the staff 😉. I’m not even talking about violence. You won’t end up in the lounge, I guarantee it 😉

I’ve witnessed enough airport scenes to be certain that what you’re saying is exaggerated, false, and mostly just conventional posturing. It might be your ideal, what you’d like to see, but it’s not reality.

I know many of the cases you mention. They take their medication, sometimes even have to declare it, provide a certified translation, and there may even be procedures at the arrival airport. But there’s never violence.

These aren’t "cases"—they’re *people*. Your wording bothers and worries me. You act like medication is a guarantee—it’s naive. You assume there’s no initial crisis—it’s false. Please, if you could, list the situations where a patient under treatment must, for aviation security reasons—not customs—account for their treatment to board. The idea that some patients, due to their condition and treatment, are restricted in their movements and have their freedom limited in society raises a serious ethical—and, more importantly, constitutional—problem.

This topic interests me greatly because I recently spotted a notice like that on an airport’s website—a notice I had removed. The site seemed to ask psychiatric patients to present their medication separately at the security checkpoint. The airport in question acknowledged it was a mistake and apologized.

Michel

These aren't "cases," they're people.

In that case, why limit your empathy to the passenger (who, initially, didn’t follow the rules)?

Who’s to say the employee you described as having a "non-professional" attitude (and on whom you seem to place full blame for what happened) wasn’t also dealing with personal struggles that affected their behavior that day? (For example: someone close to them just passed away, their partner just left them, one of their kids is going through major issues—or any other reason...).

In that case, why limit your empathy to the passenger (who, initially, didn’t follow the rules)?

Who’s to say the employee whose attitude you called "unprofessional" (and on whom you seem to place full blame for what happened) wasn’t also dealing with personal struggles that affected their behavior that day? (For example: someone close to them just passed away, their partner just left them, one of their kids is having serious problems, or any other reason...).

I wasn’t at all approaching this from a place of empathy—I was trying to stick to the facts, or at least what we think we know.

Michel