Monarch Dump Drunken Passenger on Island ( Merged)

[Curious Pax]

Reported on the Manchester Evening News website: Jet Pilot Dumps Drunk on Isle (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/193/193443_jet_pilot_dumps_drunk_on_isle.html)

In case the article disappears, it is reported that Monarch flight ZB558 en route from Manchester to Tenerife on Wednesday had problems with a drunk/abusive passenger, so ended up diverting to the small island of Porto Santo in the Azores to kick him off.

The tone of the article suggests that the Captain personally frogmarched him down the steps, and left him on a virtually deserted island - I think both angles have a lot of journalistic license, but it's a wonderful image!

Well done to that crew (though it's a shame they had to put up with the idiot in the first place).
:ok:

[sammypilot]

The residents of Porto Santo will be surprised to hear that their island has drifted off to the Azores.

[Curious Pax]

Quite right Sammy - one of the Madeira islands apparently. I can go back to bed now I've learnt my new fact for the day! :\

[brakedwell]

There is a hotel!

[bermudatriangle]

Porto Santo is just a refuelling stop from Madeira,can picture the drunk stood next to his avgas bowser,toiling to earn enough euros for his charter flight back home !

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

Is he likely to get a bill for landing and handling fees for the diversion

G-I-B

[bermudatriangle]

Could be another couple of months pumping the Avgas i guess !

[Fernando_Covas]

If only there were more deserted islands enroute to the med and canaries.......

[flaps to 60]

Well done Monarch crew

I hope that he rots there and has a long time to think about his actionsand while he trying to make his way back they sell his house to pay for the diversion cost and compensation to the no doubt section of scared passengers.

[jmc757]

Article also seems to imply Monarch's headquarters have moved without notice :p

Well done to the crew!

[flaps to 60]

In addition to last

Curious pax siad
Well done to that crew (though it's a shame they had to put up with the idiot in the first place).

If i had a pound for very time i've been though a terminal (airside)at 05:00 to 08:00 in the morning and seen a bunch of lads and the odd (i use this word cautiously) lady drinking pints or G&T's no doubt before breakfast. then jump on a flight to the med or LoCo on some stag or hen do.

The airports are as much to blame as the airlines and its the cabin crew in at the front line taking the flak.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

jmc757
I thought the same at first and then read it again. It said based at Manchester, which it does have a base, but does not say headquarters.
All l can say is well done to the crew involved.

[MungoP]

Alcohol is not the fundemental problem.... many of us indulge....sometimes over-indulge...and just become more loveable...like me... ( blushes ) About time that Brits had to apply for a passport via a series of 'Filter' procedures....
An elocution test ....'Oral' would be a good word to start with...
Appearance....'Ladies' and men.... if you look wrong...you are wrong.....
Ejucayshun.....if you can't find the place you're travelling to in a 'Times' Atlas of the World within 30 seconds, you can't go there.... !

Any other suggestions ????

[BEagle]

If you have a tatoo, facial scrap iron, wear a shell suit or anything made by Burberry (unless you are laydee over 50 years old), then you can go by sea.

[Jerricho]

Haven't seen too may 50+ ladies with facial scrap iron Beags ;)

[PaperTiger]

The airports are as much to blame as the airlines and its the cabin crew in at the front line taking the flak.I don't believe airports are governed by any regulations regarding alcohol. Airlines and specifically the crew, are.
If pax are drunk then don't let them board* in the first place.

*I do realise this would put a number of UK carriers out of business ;)

[Sleeve Wing]

Paper Tiger.

In total agreement.

Quote :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>If pax are drunk then don't let them board* in the first place.<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trouble is that Ground Staff often aren't firm (or experienced ) enough and can't wait to offload the problem on to the CC . ( Discuss !!)

Mind you, a short pointed PA , to the seat numbers of the unwashed, discussing the merits of Casablanca/Porto Santo jails doesn't go amiss .

Rgds, Sleeve.

:}

[fmgc]

PaperTiger

I am afraid that the airports must take the blame to a certain extent seeing as they have an enormous (financial) vested interest in filling people up with alcohol in the airport.

[rotorcraig]

From BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4567856.stm)Pilot dumps drunk man on island

A drunken air passenger was cast away on an island more than 1,000 miles from home after abusing cabin staff.

The unidentified man swore at crew and passengers after being refused a bottle of wine on the four-hour flight from Manchester to Tenerife.

He became so abusive the fed-up pilot diverted the Monarch Airlines Airbus to Porto Santo island off West Africa.

After the plane touched down, the man was marched off by police and had his luggage dumped on the Tarmac.

The plane and its remaining passengers then took off again for Tenerife, where it landed almost four hours late after the unscheduled stop.

It is not known if police on the island, which is under Portuguese authority, charged or released him.

The Atlantic island, which is 10 miles long and three miles wide, is a two-hour ferry journey to Madeira.

Monarch Airlines said the passenger did not appear drunk to crew when he boarded flight ZB558 from Manchester at 1615 on Tuesday.

The crew tried to pacify the man but his behaviour got worse and the pilot decided to land and force him off.

Calm down

A Monarch Airlines spokeswoman confirmed the man, who they would not name, was thrown off the flight for "absuive and disruptive" behaviour.

"Despite repeated attempts by Monarch Scheduled staff to calm the individual, the passenger's behaviour did not improve and the decision was taken to divert to Porto Santo.

"The action was taken in the interests of all the passengers. That sort of behaviour is not acceptable.

"He was the given the chance to calm down and he declined it. He was given a form, a caution for his behaviour, and he refused to sign it."RC

[MungoP]

Manchester.....welll,,,,there you go.......:yuk:

[LFFC]

SW
Trouble is that Ground Staff often aren't firm (or experienced ) enough and can't wait to offload the problem on to the CC . ( Discuss !!) I was waiting at a departure gate in the USA recently for my Virgin flight back to Heathrow, when I noticed a fairly obviously drunk passenger a few yards away. He wasn't being a nuisance or abusive but I hoped that he didn't have a seat anywhere near mine on the aircraft. I considered bringing it to the ground staff's attention, but to be honest, it wasn't too difficult to spot. Then I noticed a couple of 'robust' male "passengers" nonchalantly positioning themselves either side of him at a respectful distance - there was already a space between him and the other passengers. My curiosity aroused, I wondered how this was going to work. So I stayed some distance behind him in the queue when we were called forward.

When he handed his passport and boarding card to the female at the gate, she turned and passed it, without any hesitation, to a male member of the Ground Staff standing beside her. He then escorted the passenger through a door at the side of him - the 2 other "passengers" followed behind. I didn't see him again - it was all very slick and I was impressed.

[Nov71]

Whilst 99.9% of such incidents are due to alcohol, this guy was deemed 'fit to fly' on departure. Most bottles of wine on an aircraft are equiv to 2 glasses and he was refused a second bottle. Whether he had a personal stash of alcohol is unknown. Maybe he was just an anti-social Brit, maybe he couldn't handle his drink or had a fear of flying requiring an alcohol anaesthetic.
Could the cabin crew have confined him to his seat to minimise risk to aircraft & passengers, all aircraft should now carry suitable restraints.
All flights are non-smoking, maybe they should be alcohol free, with passengers breathalysed at the departure gate.

Uncontrolled swearing can be due to Tourettes Syndrome a medical condition.
Abusive / aggressive behaviour can be an indication of early hypoglycaemia prior to diabetic coma, cabin crew are not Drs so I prefer to think the Captain responded to a potential medical emergency.

Air Rage is serious & Monarch is a UK airline so the guy should be prosecuted in the UK so the facts can be established

It couldn't happen with Ryanair as their Policy is not to allow any passenger to disembark if the aircraft is diverted as it is 'against the Law (of cost)'

[Airbubba]

Airbus pilot maroons drunken passenger on desert island

By Nigel Bunyan

(Filed: 30/12/2005)

A drunken holidaymaker has been dumped on a desert island after launching a foul-mouthed tirade at the crew of a passenger jet.

The unwilling Robinson Crusoe will only be able to leave Porto Santo, a tiny patch of land off the North African coast, if he books a two-and-a-half hour ferry trip to Madeira. He will then have to book a flight to his intended destination, Tenerife, or return to Britain.


Monarch Airlines has yet to decide whether to sue him for the cost of the unscheduled diversion, estimated at "many thousands of pounds".

The unnamed passenger's difficulties began on Tuesday evening at 35,000 ft when he began abusing the cabin crew of flight ZB558 from Manchester. He refused to calm down and then turned his attention to the other 210 passengers.

Eventually the pilot decided that he posed a risk to safety and had to be removed.

Rather than continue for a further 45 minutes to Tenerife he diverted his Airbus A321 to Porto Santo. Within moments of the plane touching down the passenger was escorted to the terminal. Last night he remained a castaway on the Portuguese-controlled island. His New Year home is a mere 10 miles long by three miles wide with a population of 4,000. There is little entertainment apart from walking on the sand dunes.

Porto Santo's only cultural claim to fame is to have been the place where Christopher Columbus met his wife, the then governor's daughter.

Jo Robertson, of Monarch, refused to name the drunken passenger. She said that he was asked to sign a form admitting his disruptive behaviour, but had refused.

Despite enduring a four-hour delay, other passengers were "fully supportive" of the decision to dump the man.

Last night it was unclear either how or when he would return to Britain.

"He certainly won't be flying back with us," said Miss Robertson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/30/ncrusoe30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/30/ixportal.html

[homesick rae]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/30122005/80/rowdy-air-passenger-cast-remote-isle.html

[jet vortex]

While not wanting to to question the judgement of the Captain but diversion to tiny island 45 minutes from destination seems somewhat extreme for a case of foul-mouthed tirade. Perhaps PA announcement Sumo wrestlers may have produced the desired outcome though I guess the learned friends may advise against. :eek:

[Sheep Guts]

Well done to the Captain, nice to have an alternate option enroute for Village Idiots. Well done to the Cabin Crew aswell. Reminds fo the days I used to leave half Tanked locals at the Mataranka Pub that wanted to go back to YNGU.

Sheep

[MudCrab]

Yer,good on the captain.It sounds like that bloke is a knucklehead.Leave him there to stew in is own juices....:}

[Bus429]

This is my sort of post! Well done, Monarch; the passenger was contravening the ANO in being drunk and refusing to obey a reasonable command.

[Techman]

And continuing would have made what difference? Except to demonstrate that "I have the power"?

[Engineer]

Both reports only give the Monarch view of what happened. Would be interesting to hear accounts from other passengers on the flight.

How they felt about the four hour delay caused by the diversion especially due to the small distance involved to original destination?

Maybe it would have been more prudence to continue to destination and deal with the problem there!

[zed3]

OK only 45 mins. from destination , if he had continued this idiot would have reached his deatination and maybe had an interview with the police .....and then had his holiday (in a bar ?) . However he is now greatly inconvenienced , will have to spend his holiday trying to get home at much expense AND all those other idiots who do this type of thing will maybe also learn something from the Mirror/Sun and not attempt a repeat performance . At last someone has taken effective action , in my view .

[Tosh McCaber]

He's lucky they landed the plane bfore they threw him off.

[flapsforty]

Due to the pressures brought to bear by the LoCos, many European airlines have cut staffing to the bone to be able to match the LoCo ticketfares and still stay in business.
This translates to for example minimally trained and very young (young=cheap slalary wise) Gate Agents, often only 2 of them to board a flight of several 100 passengers. The GAs are more often than not under severe pressure to get the fligth away on time. Struggling with a number of complex issues and working their butts off to get the numbers to match, it is not easy for them to spot the few inebriated pax. Who BTW KNOW that they have to pretend to be sober so they put on an act

Once on the aircraft, there is the Minimum Required Cabin Crew. It's safe acc to JAR OPS, but the CC are spread very thinly on the ground.
Their window to spot the drunk is small. From the moment he appears at the door until he has been told where his seat is. A few seconds.
Again, the pax know this, and try their damnedest to appear sober. The No1/Purser at the door is not only wlecoming the pax (s)he is also keeping an eye out for oversized/too much handluggage, in touch with catering about missing meals, in touch with the cockpit about the progress of the boarding, dealing with double seatings in the cabin, making announcements to see if that missing pap is onboard etc etc etc.
The chances of a drunk getting onboard are better than they should be. The flip side of cost saving.

I catch a few every month despite the above because, having been beaten up by a drunk in the past, I am a tad obsessive about weeding them out.

So now we have the scenario where you are confronted with a drunk pap. The rules/ANO says you can't fly them. Reality says that 50% of drunk pax falls asleep b4 the wheels are up and are no problem. It's the other 50% you have to worry about. So in which 50% does your manny belong? :confused:
Make a decision quick, because your flight needs to leave, preferably on time. There's whose connections can get disrupted if you decide to unload the lush. The Captain wants to know what you decide ASAP in case he has to get the holds reopened to find the drunk's luggage and in case he has to get a new flight plan. The drunk's friends and family have figured out he is at risk if not travelling and start bombarding you with assurances how they will look after him and make sure he will be no trouble.
You've heard it all before and you know it can go either way. Bad or good. Decide for an on-time departure and hope for the best, or decide to offload him and piss off all the pax with a late departure, aggravate the ground staff with the dreaded 'look for that suitcase' message and go tell the drunk and his mates the happy news. Risking that you get a fist in your face right there.

Anybody able to tell this is a subject close to my heart? ;)

Well done to the Monarch crew, looks like they followed the book to the last letter and comma. Attempt calm down by talking and refusing more alcohol, present Notice of Violation, protect crew and pax from likely violence by offloading the culprit at the nearest suitable airfield.

Kudos to the Captain for his decision, thankfully more and more young captains act like him and save ALL the people entrusted to their care from lasting bodily and mental harm.

:ok:

[st.elmo]

Well done. I'm delighted to see that he was dumped. So often these kind of muppets are getting away with making life unpleasant for the rest of us. The crew had the same attitude most of us seem to have, "why the hell should we have to listen to them". I'm sure the remaining pax had no problem arriving late into TFS this time considering they got a laugh watching him getting left in the back arse of nowhere.

Just wish we had a way of watching his progress off the island. Then if we could see his face when he gets home after receiving the quote from Monarch for the stop. Now there is an idea for a reality programme. "I'm a drunken abusive wa@#$r, get me out of here"!

Perhaps a runner for how not to see a great night waisted:
Cost of getting drunk : A few quid
Cost of getting home: a few thousand
Face seeing the bill: Priceless

[Captain Rat]

It is about time all the airlines got together and had a blacklist of passengers like this guy. They would then find it almost impossible to get a flight in the future. The airlines should also sue them for th cost of the diversion.
No doubt some PC brigade t...s..r will jump on the band wagon...

[BEagle]

Or some sleazy lawyer.....

Congratulations to the Monarch team for handling this so well. It's about time the binge-drinking yob culture was put firmly in its place.

Let's see - the next flight I could find from PXO to MAN is 0820 next Thursday (5 January 2006) via Madeira and Lisbon. Cost £301.50 if he's lucky - or if he isn't, that'll be £869.50 please, Sir.

[kaikohe76]

I have flown with Monarch on many occasions, both at the sharp end & as a passenger in the cabin. If both the Captain & Cabin Crew consider, a dirversion to Porto Santo rather than carrying on a further 45mins to Tenerife is the sensible course of action in this case. End of story in my book & it's certainly good enough for me!

I do hope this particular idiot is presented with a large bill by Monarch. I also hope that, he is NOT paid a vast sum by some grubby little newspaper in order to hear his side of the so called story.

[chrisN]

When turning away a drunk "pap" (who dreamt that one up?) in order to meet the ANO, does the airline really "have" to empty the hold to get his/her luggage?

And if so, can't the resulting delay be a cause for both airline and delayed sober passengers to sue the aformentioned pap, so adding to his/her financial cost of such behaviour?

Time for a test case, perhaps?

Chris N.

[manintheback]

Unfortunately it aint gonna make any difference to it happening again tho - neanderthal man will be neanderthal man.

(Pity Monarch didnt give out his details to all the other passengers
and a name of a lawyer to sue on their behalf for causing them the delay).

[Lyneham Lad]

Airbus pilot maroons drunken passenger on desert island

Hmmm, I wonder if they could persuade the pilot flying a certain party back from Sharm el Sheik (sp?) to take similar action (but preferably somewhere much more remote) ?

[NiteKos]

About 20 years ago I was flying GLA to IBZ and had a similar situation where a drunken passenger took his clothes off and tried to pee on the passengers adjacent to him. I threw him off in TOU at midnight and left him in clink. The next day the Sun reported the incident under the headline "High jinx at 35000 feet".

To the press in those days this was all just good fun but how times have changed. We slag the journos off regularly on this forum but for once they are doing a fine job by accurately reporting this type unacceptable behaviour.

Well done the Monarch crew I just hope your Company persues the matter through the courts.

[lexxity]

Like Flaps said, it's not always easy to spot a drunken pax at the gate. You are under that much pressure to get them all on and the flight away on time, especially on 25mins turnarounds.
Although, by the sounds of this report the pax got drunk whilst in the air not on the ground. Well done to the Captain, maybe it's the answer for all drunken/abusive pax, dump them somewhere remote and let them get back on their own, then sue the bu66er on his return.

[flyer4life]

Just saw the Daily Express today, someone else's copy I hasten to add!

Had a picture of a B757 superimposed about 50ft over a beach with the caption "...Monarch Airlines Airbus landed at Porto Santo..."

:rolleyes:

[Danny R]

Was discussing this on another board and someone asked why airlines continue to serve alcohol if it causes so many disruptions. I'm pretty sure they do so because its well worth the money, and any significant disruptions can always be blamed on the passenger at fault and recompensated from him. Likewise I'd never heard of a drunk passenger causing any major wrecks. But I wanted to confirm that.

So does anyone know about how much money the average airline might make from alcohol sales? I'm guessing its a significant amount, possibly comparable to total payroll for employees.

Second, has there ever been a drunk passenger (not pilot or crew) who caused a major accident (not just a diversion)?

[breagh01]

I think its weird that whilst waiting an escort to the office as my pass had yet to be sorted (i was on temp pass :( ) that the amount of fowk passing through int departures at GLA who were simply "reekin" of the hard stuff. Now these passengers were all destined for locations such as Malaga and Tenerife, etc AND THIS WAS 7 OCLOCK IN THE MORNING. now is it me at the tender age og 33 but i can't even face a drink (if I had to have one) until after the mast at noon. Lets face it the seems to be a huge problem with binge drinking that exists even away from the sullied streets after 3 at kick out time at the clubs.
Granted that the majority of these happy people are quite content and sleep away the flight but one or two as we know seem to go a little further. so to quit mumping as i usually do and throw a question into the air. "Should airports be banned from having bars???" over to you :*

[Mr Lexx]

He did get off Porto Santo eventually. I was looking for the Express article, but found this instead. A German Charter firm took him to enjoy the rest of his holiday before he has to swim back to Blighty!:p

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1963006,00.html

[broadreach]

It's not a problem that's going to go away as long as drinking alcohol is legal. Making airports dry isn't the solution either; all you'll get is more late check-ins (although, come to think of it, that might make for better screening!).

The best answer is exactly what the Monarch crew did, with the ensuing publicity.

It does bring to mind the solution found by one of the most mild-mannered, polished guys I have ever had the privilege to know. When CC said it was getting out of hand, B M unbuckled, plucked the fireaxe off the wall and sauntered down the aisle with it behind his back. Didn't take much more than a glimpse of the blade and a pleasant "Everything alright here?" for things to quieten down. God, I wonder how that would go over today, what a legalfest!

[gravity victim]

I'm surprised that the airlines don't get together and operate a common blacklist - which would benefit all of them and constitute a very real deterrent. At present it's a bit like a driver caught drunk in a Ford Focus being banned from driving a Focus, but OK to drive any other make of car. Is there a reason why airlines have not got their act together on this?

[SADDLER]

Have to agree with engineer,was it wise to divert when so close to destination?

[TightSlot]

Have to agree with engineer,was it wise to divert when so close to destination?IMHO this strikes me as one of those situations where we would have to defer to the decisions taken by those who were there at the time, as only they would be aware of the full circumstances.
It is difficult to imagine that an experienced Captain would take any such decision lightly or hastily, or without making the best use of all the information available to him/her from all sources, including the crew.
For the record... Way To Go, Monarch! :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

I agree. By taking this action, the Monarch captain was exposing him/herself to very close scrutiny, to say nothing of a lot of hassle.

You have to respect a command decision like this and also recognize leadership in action.

On a lighter note, our family spent Xmas 2000 in Porto Santo and far from being an uninhabited rock, its a very nice place, if you like peace and quiet.

We stayed at a very smart 4 star hotel and enjoyed long walks on the beautiful beaches.

There was a restaurant on the shore at one end of the island that had an amazing view of a strait with a local small island, two currents from opposite directions met and whipped up a maelstrom of sea activity.

On New Years eve, we went out and found very friendly (and slightly worse for wear) locals who were happy to see us.

All in all, a lovely holiday.

The ferry may take 2 hours, but the inter island hopper (a shed) took 12 minutes from Madeira, so it was convenient too.

[Engineer]

It is difficult to imagine that an experienced Captain would take any such decision lightly
There have been instances where decision taking have resulted in errors. If the cost of the diversion can be reclaimed back through the courts then the decision can be financially justified. If not then may be the financial cost and disruption to the journey time could have been prevented by continuing to destination.

As stated in a previous post the ANO Sect1 Pt5 is explicit about drunkeness in aircraft. It opening statement is "A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft." So was this person allowed on the aircraft drunk or when on board served alcohol which may have fuelled the situation.

It is interesting to note from the Times article posted that the person concerned was not charged by the local authority and continued the journey to destination.

[Whiskey Zulu]

Engineer, the 'individual' would not be charged by the local authority because the offense was commited in the air on a British registered a/c. The juristiction for prosecution therefore lies with the UK criminal justice system.

[Evening Star]

If not then may be the financial cost and disruption to the journey time could have been prevented by continuing to destination.

Slightly short sighted to think in terms of direct bottom line figure? Suspect there is considerable intangible profit from this incident in terms of positive publicity for Monarch (all publicity is good publicity plus, as most SLF do not want any part of their holiday disrupted by drunken idiots, this probably counts a point in favour of any airline seen to be taking a firm line) and the future message to any punter who is tempted to get out of hand. To drunken chavs the threat of being dumped on a remote island probably concentrates the (limited!) mind more than any threat of jail!:ok:

[CargoOne]

Still we haven't heard the story from the other side.
I don't think picture is that clear and simple as most of you tend to think.

[Pilot Pete]

Regarding a comment made earlier by Nov71 Could the cabin crew have confined him to his seat to minimise risk to aircraft & passengers, all aircraft should now carry suitable restraints. I have been faced with just the same sort of incident, strangely enough on the same route. Our 'guest' was getting abusive as we coasted out over Faro. The CC reported this to us and gave us a full description of his behaviour. We asked them to follow procedure, which is to issue a verbal warning to the passenger concerned. His behaviour continued to be offensive. The situation was then correctly escalated with further verbal and then written warnings issued and a PA from the flight deck reminding passengers of their legal position with regards to the lawful commands of the aircraft commander.

The behaviour continued and the No.1 then asked us if they could have authority to use the restraint kit on this pax. Note that I said his behaviour had 'continued' and not 'escalated'. He was being verbally abusive to all around him, including crew and would not shut up. Understandably this was not pleasant for those around him, BUT he had not used ANY physical abuse and I think this was the deciding factor for us. No, the restraint kit could not be used at this time. We were by now abeam the Madeira Islands and had been looking at diversion options since Faro. The CC were told that they would just have to get on with it, but if it escalated into physical abuse we would authorise use of the Restraint Kit. By now we were closing on TOD, so a diversion would probably then take longer than continuing to destination due to re-planning. We called ahead and got the Tenerife Police to meet the aircraft. This character tried to make a bolt for the door as we pulled up on stand, to no avail. He then made his worst decision which was to be verbally abusive right in the face of one of the policemen. He was restrained with an arm up his back and his head made a nasty sound on the side of the fuselage by 2L door........... A cheer and round of applause from the other passengers was the last he heard as he was carted off for a night in a TFS prison cell.

Remember, your decisions as Captain have to be 'legal' and 'reasonable' and if you keep that in mind you will not go far wrong in the eyes of the law. Using a restraint kit and cable-tying someones thumbs together, strapping him into his seat and diverting to the nearest suitable may not be reasonable for use of the 'F' word, no matter how many times. Also remember that the situation is almost bound to escalate if you try to restrain a drunk, so best make sure they really do need restraining before handing out the duct tape!

PP

[SADDLER]

I agree Cargo One, we need to hear the other side of the story.Was he a threat? Leadership can also mean continuing to destination.

[beamer]

It gets on my nerves when such people are allowed to board in the first place - a decent handling agent will spot the potential disruptive passenger, isolate his or her bags and then either make an early decision not to allow passage or then report the problem to the aircraft commander for his final decision. Time after time these people are allowed through the gate to get rid of the problem and pass the buck to the cabin crew and pilots. Whilst cabin crew are trained to deal with anger management associated with disruptive passengers, it is my belief that more often than not such situations could be prevented far earlier whilst the aircraft is still on the ground. It seems to me that the Monarch crew did a good job and I hope that the gentleman in question finds it difficult to acquire a direct ticket back to the UK.

NB - Having once diverted to Porto Santo and nightstopped I found it a rather pleasant place - hardly a 'desert island' as some of the UK press hacks have dubbed it !

[MagnusP]

If you have a tatoo, facial scrap iron, wear a shell suit or anything made by Burberry (unless you are laydee over 50 years old), then you can go by sea. Well, I have a small turtle tattoo and wear a thin gold sleeper in one ear. However, 100k miles PA is a bit much to sail. Can I have an exemption, please? :D

[brockenspectre]

There really are many different kinds of people travelling by air these days ... they range from those, from any country/culture, for whom the flight is an element of a larger journey, who will behave well, drink/eat reasonably, to those, mostly it seems from the UK, who only accept that they had a good time the night before because they wake in a strange place in a pool of sick and have no recollection as to why their clothes are torn and they look like hell ... airline cabin crews have to deal with everyone that is permitted to board and I salute their amazing competence at identifying those who are OK to continue and in this case those who they need advise the "front of house" are getting outta line! As someone else said, I hope the drunk pax who was offloaded by Britannia does NOT benefit fiscally from what happened - if he is paid anything for the story, the payment should be routed to some aviation charity!!!!

[Engineer]

On a lighter note may be CC should try this approach (http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/bizarre/1672004.htm) :}

[Full Emergency]

Engineer, the 'individual' would not be charged by the local authority because the offense was commited in the air on a British registered a/c. The juristiction for prosecution therefore lies with the UK criminal justice system.

Not always. It depends on what local offences that he committed whilst the doors were open.

An a/c is only deemed that countries soverinty for things like child-birth and other legislation issues. Once the plane is 'wheels down' then is falls under the juristriction of the country that it is in.

Whilst your wondering what I am saying think about this. If the British police were after an American citizen at an airport, from what you are saying all they would have to do is get on a US registered plane and then we can't touch him? Thats a big negative. I might need the 'commander' of the aircrafts permission to go on and get him in non-pursiut/emergency situations, but I still have a power to board if an offence under the ANO has/is being committed.

Further to that if a FAM shot a male on a US registered plane and it landed at LHR, it would be investigated by the UK police at that airport in conjunction with the US Federal Government. Hopefully the IPCC wouldn't get involved....

FE

[Full Emergency]

By the way the British courts do not take drunkeness lightly.

FE

[smudgethecat]

When turning away a drunk "pap" (who dreamt that one up?) in order to meet the ANO, does the airline really "have" to empty the hold to get his/her luggage?
And if so, can't the resulting delay be a cause for both airline and delayed sober passengers to sue the aformentioned pap, so adding to his/her financial cost of such behaviour?
Time for a test case, perhaps?
Chris N. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4584062.stm

[smudgethecat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4584062.stm hope they succeed

[karnak]

Abut time too!! For too long crew have had to take threeatening and abusive behaviour from passengers - wish other airline management would take heed!

[jumpseater]

If they're only 'doing' him for £3k, he's probably getting a bargain!

[Training Risky]

Hold on a sec...

How did the pax get drunk? (At the airport probably)

Why was he allowed on the aircraft?

Was he served any more booze by the hosties?

Why did the captain not just continue the extra 30 minutes to the destination and then have him arrested?

Why are the costs incurred by a questionable command decision made by the captain being dumped on the pax?

This smells a bit fishy to me.

[Vampy]

Good. Maybe this prat is being made an example of, but frankly who cares? It's time that pondlife like this 'person' realised that there are other people on boards these flights, not just them, and if they decide to make peoples lives uncomfortable, or just plain unpleasant, then they must pay!

[jumpseater]

Training, whilst accepting there are two sides to every story, this may have had something to do with it

'It is alleged the passenger became aggressive towards cabin crew and fellow passengers onboard Monarch flight ZB558 from Manchester on 27 December.

"Despite repeated attempts by the crew to calm him, his disruptive behaviour continued and the decision to divert the flight was taken," the spokeswoman added.'

If I was on board an aircraft and a pax was being aggressive towards myself or others on the aircraft, if the Captain diverted to offload him/her, the captain would have my full support.

[Memetic]

Time for another merge with this thread :

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=204003

?

Memetic

[Andy_S]

Why did the captain not just continue the extra 30 minutes to the destination and then have him arrested?
That's easy to say when you're sat on the ground in the comfort of your own home or office. I would imagine that if you're at 35,000 feet in the immediate vicinity of an aggressive and abusive passenger, especially if you have increasingly frightened young children with you, then an extra 30 minutes in his company is 30 minutes too many.

[whattimedoweland]

Good stuff well done to Monarch and well done to the Captain in making this decision.He is in charge,listened to the cabin crew and took everyone's safety into consideration. :ok:.I had an incident on a BA flight and also had great support from both the Captain and my company.

Let's get the message across to these idiots.

WTDWL.

[TightSlot]

Why are the costs incurred by a questionable command decision made by the captain being dumped on the pax?
Is it questionable, any more so than any other command decision can be questioned at a later date? Might it be unwise to question that command decision without either having all of the facts or having been there at the time?

For example - A decision to divert due weather would incovenience customers and probably involve them in extra costs, but might be considered "questionable" at a later time, for a variety of reasons; Another Commander might conceivably reach a different decision given the same criteria at the same time. In the absence of an incident requiring an investigation, it is not possible accurately to determine who would be "right" and who "wrong".

I'm not looking for a punch-up on this: I'm just uncomfortable with the situation being second-guessed from a location remote in time and distance. I'm also posting a personal view, as Cabin Crew, and not as a moderator.

[squeaker]

Quite right, Tightslot, easy to make the decision from the comfort of your armchair days later, not so at the time.
Well done to the Captain concerned, I still feel he made the right decision and I hope I'd do the same in the circumstances. He may have just done us all a favour as an industry, with a clear message that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and will be dealt with severely.
It is worth adding that he apparently clouted the CC with a meal tray, cutting her arm in the process. Still want this man on your flight for another 5 mins, let alone an hour?

[Whiskey Zulu]

Not always. It depends on what local offences that he committed whilst the doors were open.

An a/c is only deemed that countries soverinty for things like child-birth and other legislation issues. Once the plane is 'wheels down' then is falls under the juristriction of the country that it is in.

Whilst your wondering what I am saying think about this. If the British police were after an American citizen at an airport, from what you are saying all they would have to do is get on a US registered plane and then we can't touch him? Thats a big negative. I might need the 'commander' of the aircrafts permission to go on and get him in non-pursiut/emergency situations, but I still have a power to board if an offence under the ANO has/is being committed.

Further to that if a FAM shot a male on a US registered plane and it landed at LHR, it would be investigated by the UK police at that airport in conjunction with the US Federal Government. Hopefully the IPCC wouldn't get involved....

FE

The offence we are discussing took place in-flight on a UK registered a/c. Therefore, as I said, the juristiction for prosecution lies with the UK. Has anyone stated or read that the individual also committed any offence on the ground in Porto Santo?

I didn't say that a US citizen is untouchable on a US registered a/c?? Nor did I say that a UK citizen is untouchable on a UK registerd a/c? The individual's nationality is irrelevant when discussing juristiction. On the aircraft, not moving or taxying, juristiction lies with state of local territory. Juristiction transfers to state of a/c registration once take off power has been applied. This is for prosecution purposes, nothing to do with police being able to board any a/c and remove an individual, OK? :hmm:

[Full Emergency]

The offence we are discussing took place in-flight on a UK registered a/c. Therefore, as I said, the juristiction for prosecution lies with the UK. Has anyone stated or read that the individual also committed any offence on the ground in Porto Santo?

I didn't say that a US citizen is untouchable on a US registered a/c?? Nor did I say that a UK citizen is untouchable on a UK registerd a/c? The individual's nationality is irrelevant when discussing juristiction. On the aircraft, not moving or taxying, juristiction lies with state of local territory. Juristiction transfers to state of a/c registration once take off power has been applied. This is for prosecution purposes, nothing to do with police being able to board any a/c and remove an individual, OK? :hmm:

If that is the case, then from what you are saying, police could not arrest and proescute a male that had assaulted a member of the cabin crew and been abusive WHILST IN FLIGHT ON A US REGISTERED PLANE??

Answer: False!! It was done two days ago, so I think you need to check your legislation.

[Whiskey Zulu]

If that is the case, then from what you are saying, police could not arrest and proescute a male that had assaulted a member of the cabin crew and been abusive WHILST IN FLIGHT ON A US REGISTERED PLANE??

Answer: False!! It was done two days ago, so I think you need to check your legislation.

The UK police could bang em up, for a period, but the jurisdiction for prosecution in the case you quote lies with the US authorities if the offense took place in-flight on a US registered plane. Read the Tokyo convention FE, FFS!!! 170 countries have signed upto it. Unless you know of legislation that supercedes the Tokyo convention?? or have you made up your own legislation? :suspect:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19971768.htm

[Whiskey Zulu]

Silence is Golden Full Emergency?? ;)

[slim_slag]

Unless you know of legislation that supercedes the Tokyo convention??

The Tokyo convention wouldn't appear to deal with what we are talking about. What might do so is the 'Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation' ?????

What happens if John Doe commits an offence against somebody on a XXX registered plane which lands in YYY, but XXX cannot be bothered to extradite that person. Does that mean John Doe gets away with it as YYY has no jurisdiction? Sounds a bit unlikely.

[Dusty_B]

When turning away a drunk "pap" (who dreamt that one up?) in order to meet the ANO, does the airline really "have" to empty the hold to get his/her luggage?

Of course, ignore the ANO - think security.

Else Jonny Terrorist gets plastered in the departure lounge, rocks up 30 seconds before doors close, and get's turned away - alive - without his bomb being unloaded.

Of course, being an alive terrorist just isn't fashionable any more - so perhaps you have a point!

[Whiskey Zulu]

The Tokyo convention wouldn't appear to deal with what we are talking about. What might do so is the 'Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation' ?????
What happens if John Doe commits an offence against somebody on a XXX registered plane which lands in YYY, but XXX cannot be bothered to extradite that person. Does that mean John Doe gets away with it as YYY has no jurisdiction? Sounds a bit unlikely.

XXX would be obliged to prosecute and request extradition (if John Doe happened not to return to the land of XXX) if XXX airlines submits the details of the incident to XXX police and XXX CPS consider there to be sufficient evidence to support a conviction.

Think we're overcomplicating this somewhat? Unless you're just being very affectionate? xxx ;)

[slim_slag]

We might be overcomplicating it, but you asked for legislation that supercedes the Tokyo convention, so I am answering you. The Tokyo convention deals with extradition matters. The Montreal convention I cited deals with jurisdiction as far as it applied to criminal events on the aircraft, and it says the country where the plane lands has jurisdiction over what happened on board when in flight even it it is not registered in the country it landed.
So when you say "Juristiction transfers to state of a/c registration once take off power has been applied.", it also transfers to state of destination when it lands.
Article 5
Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences in the following cases:
when the offence is committed in the territory of that State;
when the offence is committed against or on board an aircraft registered in that State;
when the aircraft on board which the offence is committed lands in its territory with the alleged offender still on board; and Article 7
The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State.


So when you say "The UK police could bang em up, for a period, but the jurisdiction for prosecution in the case you quote lies with the US authorities if the offense took place in-flight on a US registered plane." The UK could also prosecute.

So tell us. What happened to those people who hijacked that Afghani aircraft and said 'Take me to Stansted' ? I think they went to jail, in the UK.

[Whiskey Zulu]

AFAIK none of them went to jail in the UK. They claimed political asylum and now work in McDonalds in Oldham.

I've lost interest too now, btw. :rolleyes:

[slim_slag]

Afghan hijackers jailed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1768232.stm

[Whiskey Zulu]

Afghan hijackers freed on appeal. :p

The Court of Appeal quashed their convictions because of a technicality in June 2003.

Although refused asylum status, the men have been allowed to stay in the UK with their wives and children under human rights regulations.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3659252.stm

Claiming political asylum would, I assume, be the only way to make juristiction contentious as per the Tokyo convention. Not exactly run of the mill disruptive pax behaviour as in this case though is it!!

All other offenses would be as I stated as far as I know.

[TSR2]

Summary of article from a local newspaper.

I WANT AN APOLOGY, SAYS MAN THROWN OFF AIRCRAFT

The 53 year old retired businessman dumped on a remote island after allegegly getting drunk on a plane claimed the airline owed him an apology.

The (named) man, dubbed Robinson Boozoe after the incident, has been threatened with a £3,000 bill for the cost of diverting the jet said "I wasn't abusive to other passengers. I didn't threaten anyone. I was pressing my bell for service and shouting because I was promised a second wine which the cabin crew refused to serve". He went on to say "Grounding the plane and having the police come on board and take me off was a total overreaction".

The 5 foot tall father of two who says he is an alcoholic said " I need a drink at the best of times, but especially when I'm about to get on a plane. I'm terrified of Flying."

[Bangkokeasy]

Am I missing something, or is the above a piece of journo codswallop.

5ft tall?
53 yrs old ?
Alcoholic ?

I have met some particularly aggressive, yet "vertically challenged" men in the past, but few have been both alcoholic, or of seemingly advancing years - the combination of which tends to debilitate the best of us.

Are we suggesting that it would not be possible to restrain such a person for the remainder of a flight?

[spiney]

I'm with you Bangkokeasy - I find to hard to comprehend that a stroppy drunk could not be subdued sufficiently to continue the flight to final destination... I'd have given him the drink with an appropriate 'addition' ... What was Cabin Crews weapon of choice again? - Large squirt of Optrex Eye Solution?... 'Enjoy your drink Sir... Would you care for a cork?"

[AUTOGLIDE]

Drunks on aircraft are a nightmare. They're a pain and probably dangerous, and anyway it's illegal to be drunk on an aircraft. Last year I flew MAN-BCN-MAN with Monarch (not that that really matters - it could have been any airline). Early morning flight out of MAN full of loud drunken gangs of blokes/women shouting, singing. Flight back delayed, hence even worse, drunken idiots climbing over their friends to get to the toliets, hitting everyone in front over the head as they did so, walking/standing about with the seat belt signs on, yelling to friends 10 rows away etc.
This has to stop, how would these morons react to an emergency evacuation, probably get in everyone else's way. problem is banning alcohol is again blaming the majority for the actions of the empty headed. Suggest aggressive drunks always be arrested on arrival back to the UK.