PDA

View Full Version : Easy Jet brawl diverts flight


Mr A Tis
6th Nov 2009, 22:52
Just heard that tonights MAN-MUC flight has diverted to Frankfurt after a drunken brawl with some of the punters on board. Lets hope the Germans sort them out:mad:

Mister Geezer
6th Nov 2009, 23:49
Well I can not comment on if it is true or not.

However such behaviour is sadly to be expected from time to time when cabin crew are under pressure to sell to passengers and having promotional deals on alcoholic drinks just exacerbates the problem. :ugh:

gusting_45
7th Nov 2009, 00:03
To blame cabin crew sales for this is outrageous. Much more likely they got on board well oiled up. Who was responsible for letting them on in that state is the question?

student88
7th Nov 2009, 00:22
This was a regular occurrence over the summer with the late STN - IBZ. Let's be honest, it comes down to the quality of passengers that are carried and the fact that 9/10 times they were let on board already plastered...

.. but they pay the wages so apparently it's okay.

I never want to work an IBZ turn again. Great for the commission but that's about it.

EDIT - just read the above comments and yes, it usually comes down to the fact that they've been drinking the whole wait in the terminal and that they've smuggled their own alcohol on board and have been very successful in drinking it out of the C/C sight. Unfortunately OTP pressurises crew against offloading the passengers as the time taken for a bag search is unattractive to the company.

Loose rivets
7th Nov 2009, 00:23
It's been illegal to carry an intoxicated person for as long as I can remember. It's strange how the industry has always plied their customers with liberal quantities of alcohol.

The thing about getting drunk is the feeling that 'It'll be okay to have another', once the first drink or two have been consumed. The only sure way to avoid situations like this is to have a maximum legal level of blood alcohol for passengers as well as aircrew. Somehow, I just don't see this happening.

ZFT
7th Nov 2009, 00:54
The only sure way to avoid situations like this is to have a maximum legal level of blood alcohol for passengers as well as aircrew. Somehow, I just don't see this happening.

Totally disagree. The only sure way is to:-

jail these idiots
ban them from ever boarding an aircraft again
take away their passportsProblem solved.

Loose rivets
7th Nov 2009, 01:05
So it's back to deterrent sentencing again is it? Better not get me going on that one.

Rush2112
7th Nov 2009, 01:06
Totally disagree. The only sure way is to:-

jail these idiots
ban them from ever boarding an aircraft again
take away their passportsProblem solved.

100% correct.

remoak
7th Nov 2009, 01:39
So it's back to deterrent sentencing again is it? Better not get me going on that one.

The alternative being what? A nice little tap on the wrist and asking them very nicely not to do it again? :yuk::yuk::yuk:

The only way to get through to these louts is to slap them down hard. The namby-pamby liberal take on dealing with them is both unlikely to succeed, and inappropriate in this context.

The situation will only improve when airlines actually stick to their own rules regarding alcohol.

Loose rivets
7th Nov 2009, 03:03
Well, that's a starting point.


The thing is, that one can instill fear into almost all reasonable people. After the first few drinks, people are no longer reasonable.

ZFT
7th Nov 2009, 03:18
Again I totally disagree. Live in S E Asia where punishment does fit the crime and the same drunken louts soon learn to behave themselves.

Despite cheap booze, street crime is quite unusual, drunken acts on aircraft, again very rare. These same louts do come here too. Difference is, they KNOW their behaviour will NOT be tolerated. Step out of line and the will be slapped down hard.

McClaren found that out the hard way!!

Rollingthunder
7th Nov 2009, 03:30
These stories always amaze me. I fly quite lot andover the years have never run into such a situation. Are Canadians more civilized? First bar service I order two scotches, then another two. Then I can sleep for three thousand miles and turn a 9 hour flight into a 3 hour flight.

jimworcs
7th Nov 2009, 07:49
There is a lot of hypocrisy within the airlines about this. The remedy is simple and doesn't require costly legal intervention. They should adopt the same approach as football grounds and pubs, etc. Work collectively and ban them from all outlets. It would be a genuine deterrent if offenders were banned from all airlines.

I seem to remember some long necked lout who calls herself a super-model, being banned from BA. She was promptly feted by Virgin and welcomed with open arms.

I have very little sympathy for an industry which, for profit, compounds the problem. You allow them to board drunk, ply them with drink and fail to act firmly. I was recently on a Paris to EMA flight, where a passenger was told three times to pipe down before we even left the gate. Everyone knew he would a nightmare the whole flight, and he was. Why wasn't he disembarked? Because it costs money and that is more important.

Binder
7th Nov 2009, 08:08
It's not just about drink though.I had passengers fighting shortly after landing in Amsterdam some time ago.

All the people involved were women;there was a racial element, fists flew and throats were grabbed.Yes Cabin Crew were assaulted and we did eventually persuade the AMS police to press charges.

All this was 'kicked off' by a twenty something home counties girl who was seemingly calm during the flight.

She was certainly on something....but it wasn't alcohol.

Binder

Totally_Bananas
7th Nov 2009, 08:35
"The joys of flying loco's !"

The only fight i've seen on a flight was when I was sat in BA's club world a few years ago!

Mister Geezer
7th Nov 2009, 08:51
To blame cabin crew sales for this is outrageous. Much more likely they got on board well oiled up. Who was responsible for letting them on in that state is the question?

Some crew rooms nowadays seem more like a statisticians office with individual sales targets and their associated performance on show for all to see. There is immense pressure placed upon cabin crew to generate on board revenue. The airline has crossed the line if they are arming their crew with cheaper promotional deals on alcohol. So whilst it is illegal for the airline's customers to be intoxicated on board the aircraft, they are willing to ply them with cheaper alcohol. :ugh:

Checkboard
7th Nov 2009, 09:18
There is immense pressure placed upon cabin crew to generate on board revenue. The airline has crossed the line if they are arming their crew with cheaper promotional deals on alcohol.
Crew sell more than alcohol, and alcohol doesn't attract the best commissions in any case, so pressure to make on-board sales doesn't equate to pouring alcohol down passenger's throats! :rolleyes: As the crew are the ones who have to deal with the "problem drinkers", believe me they are well aware of the problems of serving too much alcohol and are usually the first to stop service. :hmm:

So whilst it is illegal for the airline's customers to be intoxicated on board the aircraft, they are willing to ply them with cheaper alcohol.
Actually the law sanctions boarding an aircraft while intoxicated, which may sound pedantic, but it means that (as in pubs and the like) the responsibility for serving the alcohol lies with the person serving it. It is also the reason why consuming your own alcohol on board is forbidden.

cwatters
7th Nov 2009, 09:23
How about allowing sober pax to take the louts to court for compensation. Say £100 each plus hotel bill per passenger might be effective.

rotated
7th Nov 2009, 10:02
Let's say that an unruly drunken passenger has the same potential to cause major disruption on a flight as the pilot.

Let's say that in an intoxicated and uneducated (re. aircraft systems/flight safety) individual is more likely than the pilot to cause such disruption, given his inebriated state.

Why then should passengers not be held to the same standards of sobriety as the flight crew at boarding, or if that seems a stretch at least held to the standard of blood alcohol legal to drive?

Flag troublemakers at the gate and let them have a blow. Over the limit, no boarding.

Punishment is closing the barn door after the colt has bolted, what say keep the problem at the gate and let the ground staff/airport police handle it.

Capetonian
7th Nov 2009, 10:07
I believe that this problem doesn't exist at airlines such as Saudia Arabian, Royal Brunei, and Kuwait Airways, amongst others.

Maybe others could follow. I certainly wouldn't miss alcohol on board, I can't remember the last time I had alcohol on a flight even when it was free and plentiful.

tredwaezy
7th Nov 2009, 10:21
I was the only male cabin crew member on this flight and no one served these idiots any alcohol. They were just the usual friday night pax that were a little drunk and loud. They had numerous warnings in the flight and had there own alcohol. We as a crew dealt with these pax and the other pax really well. Its alright for you lot to be locked away and then pass judgment. Our flight deck was really good and we dealt with what we had to. We know when to cut some off from booze or not to serve anyone at all. Its not all about sales!!!

M.Mouse
7th Nov 2009, 10:24
It is also the reason why consuming your own alcohol on board is forbidden.

I have often seen that quoted but is it an individual airline edict or actually illegal? Genuine question because in my company I have not ever seen it written down anywhere.

beamender99
7th Nov 2009, 10:26
I believe that this problem doesn't exist at airlines such as Saudia Arabian, Royal Brunei, and Kuwait Airways, amongst others.



It is obviously less of a problem as booze is not served on board.
I have seen "regulars" topping up in Heathrow before boarding and then with a bottle of spirits in their pocket are ready to enjoy the trip. To CC " six Cokes and lots of ice please".
The sound of empties rolling around on the floor on arrival is one of my earliest memories of trips to the Gulf.

I have also seen the police at the gate trying to decide if a mate can look after his friend and allow them to board.

One of the feared events on arrival in JED was the religious police tapping ankles of arriving passengers. Socks are an obvious hiding place for miniatures.

AnthonyGA
7th Nov 2009, 10:32
It's illegal to allow drunken passengers on board in the first place (at least in the U.S.), but since there is no enforcement of this regulation, there is no obedience to it. Airlines follow the money, and if they know that regulations against drunken passengers are being ignored by enforcement authorities, and letting drunken passengers board increases revenue, they will board drunken passengers. They do exactly the same thing with safety regulations, unfortunately.

Airlines only obey laws when the penalty for disobedience is more expensive to the airline than the penalty for obedience. If the regulators actually start violating airlines for letting drunks on board, the number of drunks boarding airplanes will decrease very dramatically (in proportion to the fines assessed against the airlines by the regulators).

It's easy to prevent drunks from boarding: just issue a breathalyzer test to anyone who seems intoxicated and objects to being denied boarding. If it's above a certain level, deny boarding (zero tolerance would be better still, but that would never be accepted in a society where this type of drug abuse is so universally practiced).

Alcohol on board is also a problem, and the best way to deal with it would be to stop serving it, but again, as long as it's legal (or free of any penalty), airlines will do it. It's a lot easier to get drunk prior to a flight than during a flight, however, since the quantity of alcohol that can be consumed pre-flight is much greater.

I seem to recall that alcohol is a factor in at least half of all on-board incidents, but I can't find a reference right now, so I might be wrong on that. Another factor is that extremely low airfares have allowed increasingly immature and ill-behaved passengers to fly, although it's politically incorrect to make that observation.

BOAC
7th Nov 2009, 10:41
MM - if it is not in your FCOs it should be in the c/crew SOP manual. Most EU airlines should have it somewhere, a typical wording being:

"No persons may be permitted to drink alcoholic beverage on board the aircraft unless
that beverage is served by the Cabin Crew for consumption at that time."

If you don't have it (I'm sure I had to find it once on a trip) you need to get it in place!

Mr Optimistic
7th Nov 2009, 10:41
a) reduce the silly 'just in case' time margin you nowadays have to build in to air travel: ......2.5hrs plus of hanging around dreaming of nicotine
b)don't have bars at airports beyond security

Try waiting at Luton for hours with the only entertainment being that ghastly pub in the corner.

Checkboard
7th Nov 2009, 10:48
When I'm waiting for hours at Luton, I'm sitting at the Starbucks, at the other end from that ghastly pub :rolleyes:

... I guess you and I'll never meet, then. :}

Capetonian
7th Nov 2009, 10:50
I am fairly sure that in the back of most carriers' in flight magazines there is something along the lines of this, from easyJet's website :

At their discretion, easyJet will supply and serve, if appropriate, alcoholic beverages to passengers on board. However, passengers are prohibited from consuming alcoholic beverages on easyJet flights which they have supplied themselves or have been supplied by third parties.

Mr A Tis
7th Nov 2009, 13:15
If those involved are forced to pay the costs of a diversion, then maybe that would sober them up.

IJM
7th Nov 2009, 13:38
tredwaezy:

They were just the usual friday night pax that were a little drunk and loud.

We as a crew dealt with these pax and the other pax really well.
Our flight deck was really good and we dealt with what we had to.

I'm not having a go at you or your colleagues, but the comments above don't tie in with the flight having to be diverted - ie. it suggests that things may have settled down during the flight?

Things must have got quite bad for the flight to be diverted?

It's a pity that cabin crew and other passengers have to put up with the worst excesses of some passengers who feel they have to drink excessively and become a nuisance.

As I said earlier, not a pop at you or the crew (always been impressed with Easyjet crew), just curious as to what happened on board?

Jim Boehme
7th Nov 2009, 13:55
Who was responsible for letting them on in that state is the question? Ground staff are inevitably in a hurry to get the doors closed and are usually ready to look the other way and palm off an inebriated passenger as simply having had "one or two."

With the door open, the responsibility for organising the punters rests with the ground staff (at my outfit anyway).

Maybe if the gate staff had licences to risk, they'd be more responsible with regard to whom they allow onto the aircraft.

Two's in
7th Nov 2009, 14:08
Yes, Manchester to Munich, that well known route for drunken holidaymakers. Before you start berating a service provider for the antics of its Neanderthal, knuckle dragging clientel, you might wish to examine the binge drinking, vomiting, assaulting and threatening behaviour of the entire UK first. Demonstrate that the nation does not have a propensity to act like this at any given opportunity, then you can slag off the carrier, but I suspect you will struggle to show this is anything but loutish Brits being loutish Brits - it's what we are famous for.

Easyjet is one of the most professional airlines out there and beats many legacy carriers hands down in terms of service. They were just the unfortunate airline of choice for these social pariahs.

ZFT
7th Nov 2009, 14:12
I believe that this problem doesn't exist at airlines such as Saudia Arabian, Royal Brunei, and Kuwait Airways, amongst others.

Maybe others could follow. I certainly wouldn't miss alcohol on board, I can't remember the last time I had alcohol on a flight even when it was free and plentiful.

Great, so yet again those of us who don't don't abuse 'the system' get penalised because of the idiots.

You may not miss alcohol and that is your choice but to be frank, I would.

It's bad enough being subjected to the bs of mindless and totally pointless security checks conducted by single brain cell organisms, even worse sharing cabin space with the dregs of humanity adorned with body piercings and more brandings than most cows, paying ridiculous environmental taxes that we all know will be spent on anything but the environment and now you're suggesting we do all this with nothing but luke warm coffee or bloody orange juice?

Sorry, but those G & Ts are the only port in what has become a horrendous (traveling) storm.

DCS99
7th Nov 2009, 14:38
Quote:
They were just the usual friday night pax that were a little drunk and loud.

Well, that's allright then isn't it? :rolleyes:

The bus-service mentality rules. :ugh:

Capetonian
7th Nov 2009, 15:02
Great, so yet again those of us who don't don't abuse 'the system' get penalised because of the idiots.

I knew when I posted this that someone would come up with this response, and I sympathise. In an ideal world we would not need police, speed limits, security checks, anti-virus scanners, and everything else.

Sadly the society we live in has moved away from punishing offenders to the extent that, as you say, those of us who don't don't abuse 'the system' get penalised because of the idiots. Grossly unfair, but that's the way our so called 'civilised' society has evolved. I'm all for throwing these thugs out at 39,000 feet, but we all know that won't happen, so banning alcohol is a step towards maintaining a safer environment for the majority because of the actions of the minority.

Should we need to do it? No
Do we need to do it? Sadly I fear the answer is yes.

RAT 5
7th Nov 2009, 16:13
What is the normal punishment for a crew attempting to board an a/c and operate being over the ludicrously low threshold? What is the normal punishment for an pissed pax convicted for endangering a flight and/or actual GBH? If the latter is lower than the former then something needs to be done about it.

Ten West
7th Nov 2009, 16:50
...so banning alcohol is a step towards maintaining a safer environment for the majority because of the actions of the minority.Behind you 100% on that one. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I like the occasional drink as much as the next guy, but an aeroplane is no place to do it to excess, and given that people seem unable to take responsibility for their own actions then maybe we need to do it for them.
After all, we can't smoke anymore, and if I can do without a cigarette from the moment I enter one terminal until I emerge at the taxi rank in a different country then I'm damn sure that people can do without alcohol for a few hours.

... But it'll never happen because drinks equals sales and the powers that be have evidently accepted the odd divert or arrest as a price worth paying for the extra revenue. :*

woodcoc2000
7th Nov 2009, 16:52
managers need to get the message that having pissed up idiots on board affects the other passengers. i dont think many would complain waiting a bit for some **** to be removed. They will however definately remember a 2-4 hours flight with someone on board who shows no regard for others around him. just think of a nice peaceful pub or one where it kicked off last time you were there.. where are you gonna go next time??

fireflybob
7th Nov 2009, 16:52
Much talk here implying this is something new! Charter flying in the early 1980s we used to have exactly the same challenge on flights such as UK to GRO or IBZ, especially the ones that left circa 2200.

These people should be denied boarding in the flight place if possible. Trouble is someone has to make a judgement as to whether someone is "drunk" or not. Ok there's the legal aspect but it's not always cut and dried. Will said passenger obey instructions from flight crew? Would this person impede exit in the event of an evacuation?

Our culture is much more alcohol orientated than it was. Should alcoholic beverages be served in the terminal buildings at all?

ItsAjob
7th Nov 2009, 18:02
Easyjet is one of the most professional airlines out there and beats many legacy carriers hands down in terms of service.

Have you been drinking!!

El Grifo
7th Nov 2009, 18:07
Mass air travel has dropped below the standards of coach travel to a level somewhere akin to the transport of livestock.

It is simply ****.

What the hell do they expect if the cram shedloads of scroti onto sardine can like tubes and flog them premium lager till it coming out of their earholes.

I have seen some drops in standards in my time but none so radical as the standards in mass air travel :ugh:

Juud
7th Nov 2009, 18:12
Airlines follow the money, and if they know that regulations against drunken passengers are being ignored by enforcement authorities, and letting drunken passengers board increases revenue, they will board drunken passengers.
Painting with a broad brush there Mr GA, but sadly true for some airlines. Some airline management is like that and some groundstaff/cabin crew will let drunk people board because of it. Despicable, dangerous, uncomfortable for the other pax and frazzling for the crew. As you say, money talks for outfits like that, and yes, the regulatory bodies should do more.
Then again, regulatory bodies are notoriously understaffed, overworked and often have close ties to the operators. They also trust the operators to stick to the rules, and are often toothless when it comes to correction operators who flaunt the rules.
Drunk pax are pretty low on the list of things regulatory bodies should be stricter about.

Then there“s the airlines where management says and writes in their manuals that drunk pax are a no-no and should not be boarded. Airlines where management will back up a captain who takes a possible delay to off-load an intoxicated pap after the CC have brought the matter to his/her attention. Airlines where the captain rather than the time-table decides what happens.
I work for one of those, and I know for a fact that here in Europe, there are many others like it.

So lets look at what actually happens?
In the drive to lower costs (thank you MOL) check-in and gate staff have to be the cheapest possible. Temps with minimal training, handling agents who offer even less training so they can do it more cheaply, the youngest staff they can get their hands on because it is cheap.
The manual says no drunk pax.
Yet how reasonable is it to expect young, poorly trained people with little or no loyalty to the carrier, to confront drunk, often aggressive pax? Why would a 20 year old girl start a discussion with a massive, tattooed drunkard and his mates? She doesn“t have the skills and she doesn“t have the life experience to do that. What she does have is the reasonable fear of getting a barrage of verbal abuse or a fist in her face.
So she“ll check his passport and his boarding card and pretend that she doesn“t notice his condition.

So the drunk staggers up to the boarding door. There waits an FA or maybe 2. With a legacy carrier, more often than not there will be a CSD/Purser at the door. Who has been with the company for many years, views the job as a career rather than a chance to see the world cheaply, is paid a decent wage and has been selected and trained by the company to a standard that enables him/her to not only spot a drunk pax at 50 paces, but also to unobtrusively have a wee chat and ascertain exactly how drunk he is.
Who has enough experience to judge with a reasonable amount of certainty if this particular drunk will fall peacefully asleep or is capable of making and adhering to a “no-booze deal“ or will cause hell at flight level 320.
A battle ax who will sort the situation quickly and with a minimum of fuss. Ensuring an on time departure and a flight without drunken brawls.

To attract, select, train and motivate people like that costs money.
When cost saving becomes the only motivator for pax and therefore airline management, drunken brawls will become an even more frequent event.


There might be LoCos who stick to the no-drunks rule, but each of the 4 LoCos I have paxed on carried them without batting an eyelid. And there are for sure young untrained people with the guts and the skills to confront drunks, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

juniour jetset
7th Nov 2009, 19:37
It all come down to "those who can't regulate themselves need regulating" just like in the banking world, which every body had first hand knowledge of in recent... the problem is, building a framework of regulation that gains general acceptance and then enforcing that regulation each time, every time... the world is not a perfect place and never will be.. there will always be a few monkeys that fall out of trees!

If these laricans were not doing it with easily available booze, it would be some other kind of drug. I guess we just have to make it slightly harder for them each step of the evolution, but still be prepared for a few mishaps.

STAN_37
7th Nov 2009, 20:11
I'm disappointed that airlines aren't more robust about excessive drinking. Surely flying with intoxicated people on board compromises passenger safety and possibly that of the aircraft. Not hard to imagine that an emergency evacuation could get much more difficult with drunken pax. It would be sad if it takes a mention in an AIB report to change things.

Having no air side sales of bottled alcohol might help. The 'duty free' stuff never was a bargain.

No easy answers.

STAN37

Matoki
7th Nov 2009, 20:28
If airlines let one another know of problem passengers and gave a blanket ban so that no airline would carry them, those who want to cause trouble would find that getting home from distant places eg., Ibiza, Cyprus, Barcelona etc.,by coach ,train and ferry is both time consuming and expensive, plus make sure they would'nt be flying abroad again for say the next ten years. With the computer age it must be possible to have a list of people not wanted on aircraft (Including charter flights), just like the list of people not wanted at foreign football matches. There would still be a few stupid people , but long term even the idiot might think twice.

ZFT
8th Nov 2009, 00:46
Capetonian

I knew when I posted this that someone would come up with this response, and I sympathise. In an ideal world we would not need police, speed limits, security checks, anti-virus scanners, and everything else.

Sadly the society we live in has moved away from punishing offenders to the extent that, as you say, those of us who don't don't abuse 'the system' get penalised because of the idiots. Grossly unfair, but that's the way our so called 'civilised' society has evolved. I'm all for throwing these thugs out at 39,000 feet, but we all know that won't happen, so banning alcohol is a step towards maintaining a safer environment for the majority because of the actions of the minority.

Should we need to do it? No
Do we need to do it? Sadly I fear the answer is yes.

So the next step is to ban cars because some people speed, ban home computers because some people send viruses? Why not ban football matches whilst you're at it. No more football hooligans. This world just cannot carry on globally banning 'things' because of the actions of a minority.

I've stated it before and I'll restate it again, hooliganism, vandalism and the like don't exist within societies where there is (sensible) punishment.

If we stopped pampering to the civil rights of the louts this problem will go away.

Of course I'm realistic enough to know this will never happen. Air travel will get worse, most likely the wonderful EU or the USA at some stage will ban alcohol from their airspace ą la tobacco and game over. Another 'victory' for the loonies.

Fortunately for me only 25 months, 3 weeks and 2 days until I'm put out to pasture. Then it's trains and boats, G & Ts and (hopefully) civilised fellow passengers.

Xeque
8th Nov 2009, 03:58
Have to agree with you both and anyone else in this thread who has spoken along similar lines.
On the night of November 5 in Bodmin, Cornwall there occurred a dreadful incident involving louts with fireworks and the bullying of a lad with learning difficulties that resulted in the death of his mother and severe damage to their home.
Once upon a time the constable on the beat delivered a swift clout round the ear to kids who misbehaved in public. No more! The 'namby-pamby, do-gooder politically correct' brigade have put an end to all that.
The result is incidents like the Easy Jet perpetrated by (supposed) 'adults' who, as children have grown up in an environment that allows them to get away with anything. :ugh:

Seat62K
8th Nov 2009, 07:48
I recently saw a Ryanair cabin crew member remove an open can of lager from a passenger before take off (on a Spanish domestic flight); I wonder whether Ryanair's approach to drunk passengers is such that it would treat any situation differently to easyJet? For example, it's only on Ryanair that I have seen the safety briefing paused to allow cabin crew to tell a passenger to pay attention!

(By the way, the passenger I refer to wasn't drunk or aggressive in his response. I mention it only because I was impressed by the attendant's enforcement of the rule that only alcohol bought onboard can be consumed.)

A and C
8th Nov 2009, 09:45
First I have to say that no airline that I have worked for has failed to back me 100% when dealing with unruley pax and before the anti-RYR lot get going I was subbing for RYR and they backed me 100% too.

The reason for 50% of the trouble is that a lot more pax are frightend of flying than will admit it, add to this endless lines for check in & (so called) security and up will go the stress level. The final part of the jigsaw is a delay, they now can't smoke in the terminal so they turn to drink.

Stress, delay, drink & no smoking = trouble from people who would normaly be quite calm.

I am very anti smoking but I think that 50% of the trouble could be avoided by providing a smoking area in the gate area of the terminal, just a cage on the roof will do. After all these people are adicted to a leagal drug that the goverment makes a vast profit on, the least we can do is to let them have a puff before getting on what most of them think of as an death trap.

Unfortunatly the other 50% of trouble we will just have to deal with!

lowcostdolly
8th Nov 2009, 11:27
Checkboard....I'm afraid you are incorrect. UK law does not sanction boarding an aircraft whilst drunk.

Disruptive pax are prosecuted under one of the 6 offences created by the Air navigation Order 2005:

Article 75 - Drunkeness in aircraft.... A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk or be drunk in any aircraft.

Couldn't be clearer really and is the direct quote. I'm afraid and I know this is going to be controversial amoungst my colleagues but the responsibility of allowing these morons to board this flight (Gusting 45's question) lies squarely in 2 camps.....the ground staff and the CC. There are no excuses for preventing this....it's our job!!

SLF are generally not even aware of the ANO's but everyone involved with the dispatch of the pax is..... or should be.

Trewaezy has identified these SLF as the usual friday night pax...."drunk and loud". If they were identified as drunk by the CC on boarding to the extent they rightly sold them no alchohol for the flight duration then why were they allowed to travel? The Man-MUN route has a particular pax profile and just like in any airline you can predict what may kick off on a particular flight. The night IBZ's or RHO also spring to mind :ugh:It is also well known that these pax frequently consume their own alchohol as identified here. We have the power to confiscate this but it wasn't done?

This also begs the question then as to what the ground staff did to liase with the CC on boarding re the state of these pax? If there was no info forthcoming from the dispatcher initially then why? did they just want to get rid of them?

Touch wood, I have never had a drunken incident on board because if the ground staff flag up problem pax at ground level that is exactly where they stay......why would we want to have to control these idiots at 35,000 feet? The flight crew have never disagreed and the few minutes it takes to find the bag is considered well spent. Pro active ground staff have usually located the bag anyway. I would probably be the "battle axe" reffered to by another poster but they would not board and disrupt a flight for the majority of civillised and law abiding pax on board.

I've absolutely no doubt the onboard incident was dealt with to the best of everyone's ability. I'm not sitting in judgement as I wasn't there but I wonder how things could have got to that point which is why I've asked some pertinent questions.

You don't have to ban alchohol on flights and when I travel as SLF I rather like my G&T's in moderation!! You just have to proactively manage the situations which may occur. IMHO as the "battle axe" at the door ;)

Mr A Tis
8th Nov 2009, 16:12
According to one of the sober pax on this flight, this group were well sozzled before boarding, they were also drinking on board too-whether from the on board bar or from their own supplies is unclear.
Clearly some lessons to be learned here by all those involved.
I had planned to use this service later in the year, but I think I will stick with Lufthansa, costs more- but its worth it IMHO.

IJM
8th Nov 2009, 16:29
A couple of posters have mentioned MAN - MUC as having a particular pax profile - I'm curious - is MUC a popular stag do location? Oktoberfest is finished now as far as I know.

Have travelled 3 or 4 times LON - MUC and they have been fairly sedate flights!

Final 3 Greens
8th Nov 2009, 19:00
It's quite simple.

Being drunk on an aircraft is an offence, prosecute the offenders.

Then investigate how they were on the aircraft, drunk.

If the gate staff let them through, drunk, pull their airside passes.

If the CC let them on drunk or they became drunk in the air, pull the #1's (for not controlling the cabin) and the captain's airside passes, as s/he has ultimate accountability for the conduct of the flight.

Of course, if the pax drank their own duty free and refused to hand it over, then no punishment for the CC and extra punishment for the drunken pax.

If drastic action was take, word would soon get around and this behaviour would be stamped out.

ZFT
8th Nov 2009, 19:42
Final 3 Greens

Please don't suggest that. Someone might take it up.

Just go after the unruly passengers. Why penalize the crew?

SpannerInTheWerks
8th Nov 2009, 20:11
The trouble is these passengers are passed down the line like a game of 'pass the parcel'.

Check-in clerk - are you drunk? 'No, I'm fine'

so on to Dispatcher

'No, I'm fine'

Further enquiry, Dispatcher askes Cabin Crew 'what do you think?'

Time goes on, bags loaded.

Cabin crew may ask Flight Deck.

Has s/he got bags - 'Yes'

Captain, well if we have to unload him/her now we'll miss the slot.

Passenger boards.

On one flight a few years ago one such passenger was boarded at Luton. Full aircraft with 148 pax bound for England match in Amsterdam.

Said passenger became abusive and did not remain seated after cabin secure.

We decided to turn back after lining up when cabin crew told us passenger was in a fight with another pax.

Slot missed, match missed, one pax off-loaded (nutter - it took 4 policemen), 147 other angry to deal with now!

Where do you draw the line and hindsight is a great thing.

No one wants to take responsibility and 'deal' with the problem. The buzz word is 'ownership' of the problem.

Can't blame the staff/employees all the time - they are human. Maybe management should interface with passengers more often and see the 'tolerant' approach for themselves - take ownership.

tredwaezy
8th Nov 2009, 23:01
We ended up diverting becuase the group of 10 decided to pick on a group on 3 but one of them thought it would be a good idea to go over a punch 1 of the 3 then the 3 tried to sticking up for themselves. Came from nothing and quite suprising really. But been the only lad of 4 crew and the girls been all up to a size 10 i was glad i was there. I think the whole debarcle came from 1 of the 3 wearing a pink jumper and talking to me in the forward galley. Therefore he was gay and i was already presumed gay for the job i was doing. All i want to know is why they think it is acceptable to drink there own booze, be loud and swear?!? It would be a public order offence on the ground.

Final 3 Greens
9th Nov 2009, 04:26
Why penalize the crew?

My suggestion is aligned with the potential penalty for retailers who sell alcohol unlawfully, under English law.

From a logical point of view, it seems appropriate that those who allow drunks on to aircraft or allow them to become drunk on aircraft, should face a similar penalty.

Not forgetting that the drunks should be punished to the full force of the law.

IJM
9th Nov 2009, 04:45
tredwaezy - thanks for coming back with more info on this one, I don't envy cabin crew and passengers who have to put up with idiots like the ones on your flight.

So does MAN - MUC have more than its fair share of "nuisance passengers"?
Was it a stag party involved on your flight?

I ask through curiousity, as I thought stag dos / groups of beered-up lads tended to go for the Eastern European capitals, Amsterdam etc. Or was there a football match involved?

polkadotwellies
9th Nov 2009, 07:13
Grifo said: Mass air travel has dropped below the standards of coach travel to a level somewhere akin to the transport of livestock.

In the Uk it is illegal to consume alcohol on a Public Service Vehicle (Bus/Coach/Minibus) and there is a maximum fine of £1000 if convicted.

Mr A Tis
9th Nov 2009, 09:19
Lufthansa have flown MAN-MUC 3 x a day for years.( without trouble)
This is EZYs first week of operation on the route.

Nicholas49
10th Nov 2009, 13:49
tredwaezy: "But been the only lad of 4 crew and the girls been all up to a size 10 i was glad i was there."

And there's the problem. No one can possibly expect the cabin crew to act as "bouncers" in this type of situation, and I hope it is not considered sexist to suggest that an all-female cabin crew may have had greater difficulty breaking up such an incident.

So what is the solution?

1) Ground staff should not be boarding drunk passengers. Whoever they answer to (the airline or the airport) needs to address this. Make them accountable.

2) When flight crew are suspected of drinking on duty, security personnel have no qualms about calling the police and then we all read about it on the FD forum of this website. So why are airport officials not enforcing the same rules for passengers? Because said customers provide valuable revenue by buying overpriced drinks in the departure terminal.

3) If they do slip through onto the flight, I think that the crew via the authority of the commander should have absolute discretion to kick them off before departure. This policy should be supported by the airline. And to those who say: "but wait! the company needs their custom!" I suggest that rather more passengers (i.e. an entire aircraft) were inconvenicned by this easyJet diversion than the delay incurred before departure had the offenders been offloaded. Does the company really prefer the former?

I recognise that this is all much more difficult when the problems only materialise in the air.

Nick

lowcostdolly
11th Nov 2009, 10:52
Nick - My point exactly. The ground staff should not have boarded these muppets. They were identified by other pax as being plastered at the gate.

With regard to point 3 below we do have the absolute discretion to kick them off prior to departure and we don't know why that was not done in this case as Tredwaezy has not commented on this. BTW Tred well done for keeping your cool with what you did have to deal with eventually and I bet the Girls did appreciate you!!

EZY would not prefer to have a diverted aircraft as it costs them a lot of money.....much more than the time spent on the ground looking for bags.
On top of that it will now be fielding a lot of corrospondence from the plane load of pax inconvienienced by a trip into Frankfurt. Furthermore if the Cpt declared a PAN into Frankfurt that has other implications for the flight crew, ATC, other planes on approach etc etc.....believe me it is easier to offload these clowns at departure.

Drunks should not be allowed to board a departing flight.... end of. I have to say I do agree with F3G with his approach to this. The other pax rely on both the ground staff and the CC to ensure their safety/inflight experience is not affected by drunken brawls....it's our responsibility.

I have a zero tolerance approach to rowdy drunks as a #1. If they are a problem on the ground they stay on the ground. If they are not identified to me by the ground staff and become a problem on boarding they get off.....no more problem :ok: Always supported by the flight crew and company as well.

Why would we want to take them to 35,000 feet where we have no back up and the only way we can get rid of them is divert and land?

Final 3 Greens
11th Nov 2009, 12:30
If they are a problem on the ground they stay on the ground.

Very wise.

The cabin altitude can increase the effects of alcohol on human physiology.