EasyJet Tries To Stop Guy From Boarding Because He Tweeted Something Critical
from the customer-service! dept
Ah, yet another customer service debacle. Mark Leiser, a law lecturer and columnist, tweeted a slightly negative tweet about low-cost European airline EasyJet after his flight was delayed, and EasyJet customer service was somewhat rude in response (basically telling him and others that if they missed connections, that was their own problem, not EasyJet's).Flight delayed 90min. Soldier going to miss last connection & @easyjet refusing to help pay for him to get to Portsmouth. Get right into em!
— Mark Leiser (@mleiser) September 24, 2013
“I put out a tweet about it and then when I got in the queue, and a member of staff approached me and asked if she could have a quick word," Leiser explained. "She said she understood I’d said something on social media about easyJet and then told me they were not allowing me to board the flight.Leiser eventually brought up the concept of free speech (which doesn't technically apply here, as it wouldn't have been the government stopping him from speaking, and EasyJet, as a private company, can choose not to allow anyone on their planes, no matter how stupid the reason). That seemed to spook the apparently clueless EasyJet employees, who asked if he was a lawyer. Once he told them he taught law, they thought about it and eventually let him on the plane.
“I said you’re kidding me; I asked where that had come from and she told me I should know I’m not allowed to do that. I was stunned. I told her I didn’t really understand what she was telling me and she said: ‘You’re not allowed to talk about easyJet like that and then expect to get on a flight’.”
“She then asked me to step out of the queue and repeated that she was not letting me on the flight. I told her she’d better get somebody down to discuss this and she told me the manager was on his way to speak to me. Then she told said she couldn’t believe I thought what I’d done was appropriate. I was just sitting there in disbelief.
“So the the manager arrived and told me that based on my tweet they couldn’t let me board the flight because I wasn’t allowed to do that and I should know better....
Now, once again, EasyJet certainly can choose not to do business with anyone they choose. However, if they decide to do it for monumentally stupid reasons like they don't like the tweet that someone sent out, then they have to deal with the consequences of that, such as being called out for it, and widely mocked for being ridiculous.
The company, for its part, appears to be in something of denial about what happened, issuing the following statement:
EasyJet has never denied boarding due to comments on social media. On the rare occasion that we consider denying boarding it is on the basis of disruptive behaviour.While technically this might be true (they eventually let him board), it certainly appears they were about to not let him board because of social media. The airline would have been better off admitting that some staff members got a little power hungry after their colleagues were criticized for being uncaring, and that it would review its training and policies on these things.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: flights, free speech, mark leiser, tweeting
Companies: easyjet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When in doubt, treat the person like a child. If you're lucky, it'll distract from the infantile temper tantrum you're throwing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.
First noticed in link below where Mike sets tone in the title: staffer "claims", and even after his take is rebutted by the actual fired person, Mike just lets his and other insults lay:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101001/15475611255/starbucks-staffer-claims -he-was-fired-for-turning-off-wifi-to-block-porn-watchers.shtml#c681
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.
Indeed! Things like calling people who hold low-prestige jobs "menials" can speak volumes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.
What part of that strikes you as elitist? At worst, he was a little passive aggressive, but I wouldn't even say that.
I'm sure anyone with a college education seems elitist to you, so your definition of elitist isn't very relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You should know
That is the most insulting thing said in that exchange. And it was even said by two different people, one a manager.
I'm really, really curious about how EasyJet thinks people "should know" they're not allowed to speak freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know
Rule two reacting to rule one with anything less than an apology will get one hundred fold the traction.
Rule three you need to train good customer service individuals at all levels who are aware of Rules 1 and 2 and empowered to run off any problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You should know
However in this case the manager was involved, which shows you where the real problem in with easyJip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You should know
I've been the low-paid grunt with a crappy job who hated his employer a few times in my life. I would never have treated a customer that way, even on my worst days. There's just no excuse for that, period. It's not the customer's fault that the employer is a dickwad.
If it's so intolerable that rage is making you lash out at innocent bystanders, then you really need to stop working there. Poverty is preferable to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once they have a contract they're bound, though.
Or do you think there might be an escape clause that gives them unlimited discretion to refuse a customer? Often "unlimited" discretion gets limited in practice by courts to customary behavior with a reasonable goal. Actions that damage both sides are frowned on by courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm quite sure there is. As the EasyJet statement said, "On the rare occasion that we consider denying boarding it is on the basis of disruptive behaviour." It will almost certainly be in the fineprint when buying a ticket that 'disruptive behaviour' will keep you off the plane. That accusation was completely unjustified in this case, but that'll be the escape clause you ask about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't stop employees from trying to EasyJecting some though :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This didn't happen in the US. Do not assume US laws apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"19.2.7 You have used threatening, abusive or insulting words to, or have behaved in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner towards, a member of easyJet staff, crew or Airport Staff or a fellow passenger; "
That tweet does not seem to me to be threatening, abusive, or insulting.
I agree that once they take the person's money, they have an obligation to fly that person if possible. You cannot have a contract without one side receiving something. And that "something" has to be a bit more solid than "we'll transport you, maybe, if we feel like it, but not if you dare to criticize us on Twitter."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Critique of a companys way of handling customer service is a very frowned upon area. Between outright censorship of such comments and annulling contracts it is not something to take lightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From a page about the Human Rights Act 1998: 1. Right to life
2. Protection from torture and mistreatment
3. Right to liberty and security
4. Protection from slavery and forced labour
5. Right to a fair trial
6. No punishment without law
7. Respect for your private and family life
8. Freedom of thought, belief and religion
9. Freedom of expression
10. Freedom of assembly and association
11. Right to marry
12. Protection from discrimination
13. Protection of property
14. Right to education
15. Right to free elections
Number nine in the list above covers what the guy did by taking to Twitter, and because easyJet is a UK company, they're totally bound by it.
On a side note, the Tories are still wanting to scrap the Human Rights Act, and I suspect number four in the above list is the reason. All that stuff about it stopping them getting Abu Hamza out of the country was a false flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In that point of view ShittyJet I mean Easyjet is a company ran by a bunch of racist.
Well that's my opinion of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly what does EasyJet expect Mark Leiser to say now that he has went through this experience with them? The Streisand effect at it's finest would be what I expect. Not exactly what the so called employees of the company sought to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
THEY MONITOR THEIR SERVERS..
they either TRACKEd the sent post from his device
Or
READ the post as it was sent thru their server..
Yes this is Private property, and Private servers, and YEs they can monitor them..and its an interesting idea..(better then the Gov. can do) but DONT THINK you have any PRIVACY.
I can see what would happen if he was watching Airplane CRASH VIDEOS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
Some level of surveillance they do get going there.
Now if you where to call them with a complain you probably never hear a human voice ever or get a response, but if you tweet something bad they come talk to you in person to make threats?
This should be a Futurama episode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
Well you hypo' has absolutely no context, so it's hard to see any creepy, but in this case the whole point was to get easyJet's attention and complain about a problem. What if instead of this PR disaster, easyJet had approached him to personally apologise and explain how they were going to put things right. Would you still be creeped out?
"Some level of surveillance they do get going there."
Clunky English aside, it takes a wildly paranoid mind to see 'surveillance' in a company looking out for public tweets about them. You seemed to have missed the whole point of the use of social media in customer relations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
https://twitter.com/mleiser/status/382919214933106688
"@timanderson @easyJet Relatively simple. I told girl I was speaking 2 I was going 2 tweet 2 see if we could help get the guy to Portsmouth."
This makes it clear that he borught the tweet to their attention, easyjet are not monitoring any feeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
Actually the fact that he addressed the tweet specifically to them with the @easyjet brought it to their attention. The fact that he mentioned it to the person he was speaking to brought it to the attention of that specific person. So, some customer services rep on the Twitter account probably read it, but that had nothing to do with his interaction with the ground crew.
So, no conspiracy, and I'd suggest ECA learns how Twitter actually works before donning his tinfoil hat next time.
"easyjet are not monitoring any feeds"
They are. Specifically, they're monitoring anything specifically flagged for their attention be people using the @easyjet, just as every twitter user has their mentions highlighted. That's the entire point of them having a Twitter account in the first place - so that customers can contact them via an alternative means. Not a conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
Agreed, I've had them contact me a couple of times when I mentioned that my flight was delayed, their social media team was courteous and helpful.
The key in this case, at least for me, is the sequence of events. What upset some people seems to be the implication that Mark sent a tweet, and this was somehow picked up by some social media person, who then contacted the Glasgow easyJet staff.
What appears to have happened is that he complained about the delay, then sent the soldier tweet, then went to the staff and complained again, this time showing them the tweet. At this point the manager intervenes, and the actual events become blurred.
Mleiser has gone awfully quiet on Twitter though, is there a CCTV of the event I wonder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
Even this was a stretch, though the conspiracy and paranoid theories stated here have just been ridiculous. At worst, all that happened is that somebody used a platform to *specifically* get their attention and someone responded in person. In other words, he got what he literally asked for, although he wasn't happy with the response when he was heard.
The actual story was the apparent reaction to the tweet (nobody would have complained if the reaction was "sorry sir, what can we do to get your friend to his final destination?"). But, the above suggests that the tweet had nothing to do with either the contact or the actions taken by ground staff.
Once we accept that the tweet was probably immaterial to what happened, all we really have here is the story of an airline passenger who became annoyed at a delay to the the point where he was faced with not being allowed on board, then allowed on once he calmed down. Happens every day, and whether you like it or not airlines don't have to do anything as long as they get you to the agreed destination within X hours or the original time. It sucks if you miss connections but any regular traveller should know to have contingencies. Don't like it? He can use the other 2 airlines who run regular services between Glasgow and London as well as train and other modes of transportation.
Actual footage or quotes would be nice, but I think it's safe to say that what happened is probably different to what was originally claimed and a lot of people are making comments based on faulty or irrelevant facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How capable a system must be to find a random tweet in Twitter and match it with a real person?
If he was using his real name it could be easy, but if it was a screen name how the hell did they get that information, where it came from?
This is could be creepy, not the surveillance but that the system was configured to see if you were a client or would be a client of any company to further take negative actions against someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 25th, 2013 @ 6:26pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creepy invasion
Yup..this is definitely one airline that tracks the social media of its' passengers.
I wonder if they have a FB account? Spam them about this on there....bet they won't like 'free speech' at all after that.
Creepy and invasive as all hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creepy invasion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you use a public resource, you should be only able to refuse service for public safety reasons or because of lack of payment/etc.
If EasyJet doesn't like it, their planes should be shot-down by whatever government owns the air space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OPINION
YES..thats good, as it means you have some cognitive ability.
Do you FOLLOW and AGREE what others do, ALL THE TIME..
Suggest you return your brain and learn to THINK for yourself..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OPINION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OPINION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OPINION
Anyone who thinks that Easyjet was spying here, or that there's some kind of conspiracy, literally doesn't know how Twitter works. If Easyjet was responding to the tweet, they were responding to a public message flagged specifically for their attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
response time
is there some Anti-terrorist feed to the airlines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: response time
Um... more likely they're getting a direct feed from, I don't know, Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's possible, I suppose, but it sounds fishy to me. More likely, they were being disruptive or rude, had already been threatening toward the staff (maybe being so without fully realising it in trying to get their soldier mate to his connection) and the guy wants to pretend it was because of his tweet rather than whatever behaviour they had in trying to get Easyjet to ship them off to Portsmouth. I can't say for sure since there's not enough info here, but it doesn't ring totally true.
On the other hand, Easyjet aren't the greatest company for customer service. I remember flying back with them on a flight that was delayed for nearly 4 hours, causing me to miss buses to my connection and incurring �50 extra charges (this on a flight that cost �80 and takes 3.5 hours). My complaint was dismissed since they got me to my destination on the specified day and thus weren't legally required to give any further compensation.
I can imagine people getting very frustrated with them, especially if you're depending on important connecting flights. But, with only one side of the story, the best bet for Leiser is to do what I do - take your business elsewhere, and make it know exactly why. Either this will make them see sense, or you get a better experience with another airline.
Oh well, they're still better than Ryanair, who I avoid like the plague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easyjet T&Cs allow them to ban him for tweeting
http://www.easyjet.com/en/terms-and-conditions
Still a PR Disaster tho'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easyjet T&Cs allow them to ban him for tweeting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easyjet T&Cs allow them to ban him for tweeting
The 1st Amendment doesn't cover anything done by a private entity at all. Only governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easyjet T&Cs allow them to ban him for tweeting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easyjet T&Cs allow them to ban him for tweeting
Americans can just stop trying to shoehorn American law in here, though. Easyjet operate in Europe and North Africa, not the US, so the US constitution doesn't apply in any way. The linked article states he was trying to get from Glasgow to London and then a 3rd party connection to Portsmouth, so whatever law applies it's UK law.
I'm going to guess that everything's on Easyjet's side even if his claim that it was the tweet and only the tweet that caused the incident is true (which I still have doubts about). If he's not happy about that, well there's other airlines and methods of transport he can use in future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easyjet T&Cs allow them to ban him for tweeting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they shouldn't have the right to kick people off over this
EasyJet, as a private company, should absolutely not have the right to choose not to allow anyone on their planes, no matter how stupid the reason, nor should any service provider. If this were the case then we'd still have segregation in the U.S.
Does EasyJet somewhere publicly and clearly advertise that a critical tweet can void someone's right to board their planes after buying a ticket? Does it state a time frame that such offending tweets could void a ticket (one hour before a flgiht, 24 hours, etc.)? Then they're in breach of contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, they shouldn't have the right to kick people off over this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, they shouldn't have the right to kick people off over this
Protected categories such as race and religion are exceptions. (speaking of the US) You cannot deny someone service because they're a member of any of those categories, but otherwise in general absent any contractual obligation you can deny anyone service for any or no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they're so oppressive, call them easyBobaFet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Jet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy Jet
Maybe so, but this is EasyJet we're talking about. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Mark Leiser. AMA
On a side note, some of you might find it humorous that prior to moving to the gate, I was working on a lecture this week on Cyber speech in the age of social media. But I digress.
The general facts of this incident have been reported elsewhere, so I won't rehash them here. I just wanted to comment on some of the commentary made on this chain.
I approached the counter to inquire about train times. There was not any anger or complaint about the delay. All i wanted to know was whether or not I would make the last train. The first girl I spoke to was very helpful and advised me that she thought the trains ended at midnight. She called another girl over and she too was initially very helpful. I have used discount airlines many times before, and am well aware of the rules. This was not a conversation laced with grievance, but was an inquiry. I asked what time the plane was due to land so I could make an informed decision. At some point the second girl said I wasn't the only one that had queries about times and there was a guy in the military who has missed his connection. There was no argument, no heated discussion, no debate. My last comment was, "I don't know if I am comfortable with that. I think I am going to see if I can get social media to help this guy out". Up until this point, I characterised the conversation as helpful, pleasant, and jovial. I walked away from the counter thinking nothing about the nature of the conversation with either of the girls at the counter.
I milled about the waiting area and sent the first tweet. I got in the queue. While I was in the queue I took a photo of the large TV screen with the EasyJet logo. I sent it to several mates with the caption, "Woohoo. Off to London". There is nothing in the gate area to suggest that photographs are prohibited at the Gate 11 area.
Shortly after this, the second girl informed me that the manager didn't want to let me on the flight because of "the comments I put on social media." While there is some debate about @easyjet monitoring social media for complaints, I have come to the conclusion that the girl informed her manager of my previously stated intention, although there is plausibility that the social media team monitored the tweet, or were informed of it. I can't come to that conclusion on its own.
The rest has been well reported. I was pulled out of the queue. One thing that hasn't been reported, is that the second girl asked to see the tweet and told me not to delete it. I complied in letting her see the tweet and informed her I didn't plan on deleting it.
I am also conscious of the fact that this has been framed in the concept of free speech. It is easier to conceptualize for most people than Regulation (EC) 261/2004. My last comment to the manager was "what about Free speech?", not EasyJet's articles. I didn't have them to hand, and I imagine most other travellers wouldn't either.
There has been much speculation that I was disruptive in some way. I would be hard-pressed to imagine anyone thinking I was disruptive. I have asked EasyJet to locate and view the CCTV as part of their investigation.
During my subsequent meeting the next morning, the tweets went viral. I had no less than 20 requests for interviews from media organizations. However, when I got back to Glasgow later on that day, I was informed EasyJet had been briefing reporters "off the record" that I had been disruptive. I was also informed that EasyJet had briefed that I had taken pictures of staff members and threatened to upload them online. I phoned the Head of Customers Service that had phoned me on behalf of EasyJet earlier Wednesday.
I informed her of the claims by journalists and she said she knew nothing about this, and she would speak to the PR department. My belief is that EasyJet went silent in response to the fact that I had informed the customer service manager that PR department may have been making borderline defamatory comments to journalists up and down the country "off the record". I subsequently went "quiet" to let EasyJet get on with their investigation.
Ultimately, I think the whole incident should raise a few alarm bells for businesses about how easy it is for criticism for go viral. If marketing departments are looking for the answer to what makes advertisements viral, maybe they will be an equal amount spent on "viral vulnerability"?
I consider myself a passive member of the TechDirt Community and take umbrage at the suggestions that I was an "An elitist academic who feels entitled to hassle the serfs.". There was never any hassling. Of any kind.
This is the last time I plan on commenting on the incident, although there is a pending story I am working for the Drum on what it's like being inside a viral story.
Thank you to the TechDirt community for letting me clear a few issues raised on this chain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Mark Leiser. AMA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Mark Leiser. AMA
I don't think it's any surprise to anyone who frequents this site that such criticism can go viral. But, I'm still of the mind that Easyjet's response had nothing to do with monitoring of the tweet (though I fail to see why reaction to a public message directly addressing them would be a major problem). Without a proper response from them, we're just left with assumptions, and I'm happy to defer to your account of the experience. Easyjet are far from the worst airline to fly with, but I know they can sometimes be lacking.
Oh, and don't worry about the "elitist academic" comment - that came from a known troll and regular idiot who infests every story on this site with ignorant and deliberately inflammatory comments. Note the way it's worded - he was trying to indirectly attack readers and the owner of this site, not you directly.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write your response and good luck with any future endeavours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks mark..
And how many posted under Anon..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Let's Not Forget ...
Sure, EasyJet handled it badly.
They should have politley but firmly refused him a flight and marked him up to be banned forever. As was their perfect right.
Everyone's whining about his rights - what about my right not to have a plabne with him. Ever?
Fire away; I've made my point, and had worse in Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But Let's Not Forget ...
They should have? Why? Bad customer service plus banning anyone critical sounds like a way to go out of business. Which I think is not what you were getting at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easyjet censors customer reviews
[ link to this | view in chronology ]