The most interesting parts of this saga are, to me, the points that the vocal passengers and posters seem to think are significant.
Specifically, we've seen pax making much of the mech issues at pushback. We've seen dramatic accounts of "nose diving" 737s. We've seen weird arguments about legality of detaining people.
Now, all of those issues are totally irrelevant. What UNDENIABLY happened was a number of offences against ANOs, specifically the smoking and drinking (unless someone smuggled empty containers on board...) The rest of the "explanations" by passengers seem to amount to an attempt to justify or rationalize various instances and types of misconduct.
I'm particularly perplexed by the emphasis the accounts placed on the "nose diving" and the cabin crew rushing around, as if that amounts to even a small pile of beans. By the that time, the damage was done, the commander had decided to get on the ground ASAP, had declared an emergency, and was presumably busy connecting the dots between an airliner at FL350 and a runway...
Further, I'm not sure of the significance of the mechanical issues at push-back. If they occurred as described, then one might conclude that the pax may have been nervous at the idea of faults and/or irritated at the delay. In either case, the pax would have been (psychologically) primed to a "fight or flight" instinct, which would escalate any negative stimulus more rapidly than would have been the case without the priming. And if that were the situation on board the a/c, the risk of losing control of civilived behavior in the cabin was certainly elevated, and an experienced and wise crew may well have *correctly* called the situation as being critical to the safety-of-flight. Which is not, I believe, what the pax were trying to suggest...
[ I'm dismissing out of hand the conspiracy theory of mechanical problems in the air. Had it a grain of truth, the paper trail would have been problematic: *someone* would have had to sign-off on the alleged emergency repairs made at CWL, and the actual repairs in Glasgow and Spain. Plus, of course, even if he were attempting to conceal a severe problem from the pax, the captain is unlikely to have tried to conceal it from the people on the ground upon whom he might depend for his life (had there been a problem) ]
Moreover, it may seem obvious to most people, but suboptimal conduct on the part of the airline (if it existed) is no excuse for suboptimal conduct by anyone else. Perhaps the best way to make this point is to suggest an extrapolation: if a female ground staffer announces a departure delay, would be OK to rape her?
Of course not... yet there's much being made about the alleged illegal detention in Glasgow.
BUT... kids, and this is kinda important, that detention hadn't occurred, and no-one knows whether it ever would have done. Certainly, the alleged lawyer and the woman who supposedly asked about the delays *hadn't* been detained, and no-one has even suggested that the detainer would have been the cabin crew.
So why do so many posters seem to think this at all relevant? If the pax had arrived at Glasgow and had been detained, then they MIGHT have had a case against whoever detained them (which would, I believe, have been the Police making inquiries...) But they didn't get to Glasgow, and no-one detained them.
Certainly, no-one seems to dispute the fact that some of the pax discussed the potential detention with the cabin crew, and embarked on discussions of the legalities thereof. But why? No matter what the "aggrieved" passengers say, I have to wonder at the state of mind of people who start lecturing a woman about the problems with doing something that hasn't happened, might not happen, and even if it did happen, wouldn't involve her!
And once you accept the obvious irrationality of those passengers, one has to start wondering what else they had got up to...
I'm also curious as to what interactions, if any, the police in Spain had with this choice group of people. Someone (possibly MOL) made much of the fact that the police were not, as alleged, called... because THEY WERE ALREADY THERE. OK, but what did they say or do? Even the most pro-pax accounts acknowlege pre-departure drinking...
[ Oh, and as to that irrelevant red herring about "police evidence": the police evidence in this case will include evidence as to the empty alcohol containers and the injuries sustained by the crew member. That is police evidence. Enjoy! ]
Malc.