Disruptive Passengers - MERGED

[davidjpowell]

We flew Heathrow to Vegas on Thursday with BA. Although the plane was old, the flight became even older, thanks to a few people who drank far too much.

The Cabin Crew dealt with them exceptionally well (although when one of them lit a cigarette in the toilet I suspect we were close to diverting), and put up with what could only be described as a rabble.

We spoke to some as we left the airport and they said it was the worst they had seen. They worked hard for their pay, and I hope that some will see this and take on board the appreciation meant.

[Hotel Tango]

They should have diverted to Greenland and left them there! :E

[edi_local]

I hope they at least reported the smoker to the authorities on arrival in the USA. Putting an airliner in danger isn't something the LVPD would look on too favourably I imagine. :mad:

[ExXB]

Noted following in Transport Canada occurrence reports for May 19:

Due to an unruly passenger, a British Airways Boeing 747 400 (BAW274), from Las Vegas (KLAS), NV, to London (EGLL), UK, requested to change its destination to Montréal (CYUL), QC. BAW274 landed without incident at 0857Z and with no impact on the operation.

If you are looking for peace and quiet, LHR-LAS appears to be a flight to avoid

[PAXboy]

Reminds me of a trip at least 25 years ago to Montego Bay (out of LGW, I think) on a BA 744 (I think it must have been)

We had managed to get the exit row in Y (I was young and fit in those days!) and children ran up and down the aisle and played around noisily in front of us, dashing in and out of the loos and banging the doors. The CC sympathised and said, "If we say anything to the parents - we'll get sceamed at."

One of them said something I have not forgotten, "We are on a 7 hour sector and we presume the parents know that but AS they step on board - they ask for free nappies for the baby."

So I think we can say that pax have been making their demands for a long time ...

[TrakBall]

Today, making that nappy request might be considered extortion or a terroristic threat. After all, if the parents don't get them, then the passengers end up with hours and hours of baby poo smell. Oh the horror! :ugh:

[crewmeal]

Vegas is the new 'chav' destination. It will give some slight relief to the Costas :ok:

[mixture]

If you are looking for peace and quiet, LHR-LAS appears to be a flight to avoid

People who willingly go to LAS deserve what they get ....what a dump. :cool:

[InSeat19c]

Passengers that treat crew terribly are essentially allowed to because the airline probably won't back their staff up and support any decision made by the people they employ.


Like any organisation which deals with the public, airlines get the customers they deserve.

[Twiglet1]

Inseat
My experience of BA is they support their staff when it comes to this sort of crap. Yes they had some spates industrially but I'd be surprised if they didn't support their hard working cabin crew

[Hotel Tango]

Perhaps what we're missing here is that, unlike the paranoid overreactions we see with American crews these days, this crew managed to deal with the problem and ensure all got to LAS safely and on time. Perhaps we should at least give them and BA credit for that.

Standing by for incoming from my American cousins :)

[davidjpowell]

We spoke to someone while waiting for the rental shuttle who knew someone on the flight crew of the flight mentioned that did divert. Apparently got on board drunk and proceeded to be quite sick, eventually the crew had enough. (The drunk - not the crew!)

I suspect our flight was very close to being diverted. Certainly the stewards became very firm and direct in the end.

As for Vegas. It's my first time over here. We've got our 9 year old daughter which is very restricting. While I'm not overly bothered about getting drunk, a beer in a bar would be nice.

Still it's all about our wedding in a few hours.... Then we're off to Florida to relax :hmm:

[Cromerpaul]

Hats off to the Cabin Crew for what seems to be a horrid flight. I sincerely hope any airline backs it's crew up in situations like this.

As a passenger I would hate to witness anything like this and to inconvenience everyone by forcing a plane to divert should carry the most extreme penalties.

[Laarbruch72]

Passengers that treat crew terribly are essentially allowed to because the airline probably won't back their staff up and support any decision made by the people they employ.

Pile of rubbish. My airline deals with about 400 similar incidents a year and we back the crew every time (so long as evidence supports that the crew acted in accordance with their procedures and training). Every other UK carrier is exactly the same. It doesn't stop the rate going up each year, society is changing and people are becoming more belligerent and less accepting of being instructed.

Can you share what your experiences are of carriers failing to support crew when passengers have broken the law, and the crew have acted in accordance with their training? And you can't use that Korean peanut one, that was quite the anomaly!

[crewmeal]

Agreed. Airlines work hard to train crew to be able to deal with different situations that may occur. There will be lots of role play based on situations that have happened. Training will take many forms with the emphasis on security and 'playing down' an incident. In reality if all fails then the Capt will be a position to divert as required.

To say airlines don't back their staff is utter crap!

[pax britanica]

is causing planes to divert to chuck off passengers displaying drunken rowdiness and general chav behaviour a peculiarly British thing? I know the US has a fair share of diverted flights but they seem more related to the 'nutter ' factor prevalent there.

I spent many years in Bermuda and still regularly check out the local paper there and they seem to have a quite frequent trade in diverting UK-Caribbean/Mexico fights to drop off drunk Brits.

before people say that's not a bad place to get chucked off it is horrendously expensive and moralistic so a big fine immense bill for even a few days in hotel and very expense BA single back to the UK sobers them up I am sure , but are other nations as bad?

[Hotel Tango]

but are other nations as bad?

Generally, I would say no. I travel mainly on German, Dutch and Belgian airlines. I've occasionally come across groups having fun and becoming loud, but without any aggression. If the crew ask them to turn it down they generally apologise and comply. The only aggressive groups I have ever personally witnessed have, with only one exception, been Brits. And that is just about anywhere. The Brits are by no means alone, but they are the biggest culprits by far.

[India Four Two]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/walk-off-the-earth-singer-sarah-blackwood-kicked-off-u-s-flight-over-crying-son-1.3091165

[easyflyer83]

To give them credit, my airline (and I think practically every airline) would back up myself and my crew if we requested the captain call ahead for the authorities or to consider diverting.

The Brits are big drinkers, it often forms part of their holiday and when 'most' people work so hard for their week or two away I'm certainly not going to judge them on it, most are great people. Indeed, most 'loud' groups are actually nice passengers you just have to keep them in check, get them to tow the line. Occasionally some passengers will complain and often try to pin the blame on the crew. The hardest thing is that tolerances amongst other passengers differs widely, the same goes for crew.

Generally, despite people's perceptions , the problem flights are these long haul sectors where people probably feel the effects more as the flight goes on. Anecdotally, some will tell you that it is also pretty prevalent in the premium cabins aswell.

However, you then get the odd passenger who is 'truly' disruptive and in my experience, this isn't always the Brits.

[ExXB]

Well, we wern't there. Two different stories as well. Who to believe?

On a bit of a drift I,ve always thought the infant/lap bady rule should be based on the child's weight, and not it's age. Yes, I know that would be difficult but it's the safety of the child that comes first.

[Capot]

Two different stories as well. Who to believe?Hmmm...tricky one, that. One story is the mother's, backed up by a number of nearby passengers, who presumably had no particular axe to grind and who might well have been on the airline's side if the airline's version were true, and the other version is a defensive statement put out by the airline's PR people, whose task is to avert legal action at all costs and who were relying on equally defensive information provided by the crew.

I do realise that on PPRuNe aircrew, especially cabin staff, are sacred, but in my book the balance of probability favours the mother in this incident.

[Avitor]

I would have felt quietly satisfied but, I am a selfish hombre`:cool:

[Hotel Tango]

Well, it was United after all. I stopped flying with them some years ago after they became (in my personal opinion) one of the worst airlines with some of the rudest cabin crews. This story doesn't surprise me at all. It is also a well known fact, which I'm sure CC are well aware of too, that crying infants generally fall asleep just prior to, or after, take off. They won't be heard again until the descent affect their ears.

[Laarbruch72]

The Brits are by no means alone

Nordic passengers can hit the bottle just as hard on their holiday flights and despite their reputation for being very lovely people they do share a disruptive rate comparable to the UK.

We do need to keep this in perspective mind you, the rates for Nordic and British passengers might be slightly higher than other countries but overall they're not massive. It's not like a serious incident occurs every day.

I fully agree with easyFlyer, long haul flights and premium / business cabins see just as many incidents as a rate, so I pay little heed to any snobbery from those that insist that cheaper tickets have somehow brought this on. Alcohol simply makes some people aggressive, be they well paid professionals or low paid casual workers.

[Capot]

It is also a well known fact,Never been in sole charge of two grumpy, wide-awake, excited 2 year-olds on a flight to the Gulf, then?

It is also a well-known fact that when people say it's a well-known fact it probably isn't.

It's also a well known fact that Calpol is your friend, which probably explains the well known fact that kids fall asleep while flying, much the same as some pilots occasionally do, also a well-known fact.

[mockingjay]

The child would not sit therefore there would not be a secure cabin in order to depart. It is the child's guardian to ensure they are under control no matter how difficult they are. Despite writing the book on being a crappy airline I have to side with United in this instance.

People are quick to jump on the outrage bus when someone is old sitting at an emergency exit or that they are served alcohol when sitting there yet they're quite happy (seemingly) to have a 30lb+ child unsecured in the cabin.

Well done United.

[skyhighfallguy]

if I were crying loudly and in the aisles and not secured in my seat, would I be kicked off the flight?

yes


Things that were taken as proper public conduct years ago have been forgotten.

When I start my airline, I will have a video in the lounge and it will explain what acceptable behavior is. Failure to comport thy self accordingly would garner a law suit against the passenger.

I would also demand that everyone paid for a seat and occupied the seat throughout the flight when seatbelt sign was illuminated. No lap riders, it really isn't safe.

[crewmeal]

I've seen it all now.......

Gumball 300 flight to Nevada sees nude man, vodka, smoking and a pillow fight | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3102145/Flight-fancy-Passenger-strips-naked-struts-cabin-straddles-man-debauched-14-hour-Gumball-300-flight-featuring-vodka-smoking-drunken-pillow-fight-37-000ft.html)

[WeeJeem]

Blackwood, who is seven months pregnant, was on the flight with her almost two-year-old son, Giorgio and his nanny. Her son is 23 months old, and is considered an infant by the airline's standards — so he was eligible to sit on her lap free of charge



If I had the chance to put a seatbelt over him I would.
Executive Summary


Yesterday, a person was unable to strap a 23month-old child onto their lap prior to an aircraft's takeoff.
This failure was probably due to i) the size of the child and ii) a large pregnant belly getting in the way.
After a while, the aircraft returned to the gate and the person, their child and their belly were disembarked due to safety regs.
The aircraft then continued on its way, arriving 1hr 9min after its STA.
The person decided to make a big public fuss despite the events being of their own making.
The fate (and indeed the general utility) of the nanny remains unknown.
Err, that's it.

[Hotel Tango]

Capot, my wife and I traveled extensively with our 2 boys starting when they were only 3 months old. Never had a problem. I have traveled regularly by air over 50 years and only once, yes ONCE, did a baby cry for longer than it's fair share. Most just fall asleep and it has nothing to do with calpol.

[ExXB]

I haven't, I don't read trash press.

[edi_local]

Surely that's a charter flight specifically for the Gumball participants?

As usual the Mail story has very little in the way of information.

[DaveReidUK]

While United clearly didn't handle the affair very well, the mother might want to reflect on what would have happened to an unrestrained 12kg child in the event of a RTO.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

I see that Jet 2 have been very public and forthright with their new policy, and have put it into action already, what are other airlines doing to attempt to protect the majority and clamp down on this scourge?

Banned - Jet2 Majorca flight passenger hit with lifetime ban after 'exposing himself to cabin crew' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3071666/Jet2-passenger-hit-lifetime-ban-exposing-cabin-crew-flight-Majorca.html)

And today dropped off en route - Jet2 Promise Zero Tolerance After Incident On Leeds Bradford Flight | Local | News - Pulse 1 (http://www.pulse1.co.uk/news/local/jet2-promise-zero-tolerance-after-incident-on-leeds-bradford-flight/)

[Planet Basher]

Having sat 2 seats away from a crying child for 4 hours solid I must congratulate the flight crew, it would be far worst to hear about a child and pregnant woman being beaten to death in mid air.

[India Four Two]

While United clearly didn't handle the affair very well, the mother might want to reflect on what would have happened to an unrestrained 12kg child in the event of a RTO. Dave, you have a point, but the standard procedure for under-twos is sitting on a lap and being held.

I first heard about this incident on CBC's As It Happens and the mother came across as very rational. What staggered me is that she said that a United supervisor told her after the fact, that she should have put the seat belt around her AND her child!

I don't know about the FAA rules, but in Canada, TC rules explicitly forbid doing that. Common sense tells me the same thing.

Ironically, my daughter flew from Los Angeles to Vancouver this week, with my granddaughter on her lap. They were going to Vancouver to celebrate her second birthday, so on the way home, they've had to buy a seat for her!:)

[Laarbruch72]

What are other airlines doing? Pretty much the same thing as Jet2, they're banning return travel, diverting where necessary, and giving shorter term bans and life bans where appropriate and where possible. They're also working together with BATA, AOA and government to explore root causes and possible solutions. Most don't publicise it much, but you shouldn't assume from that that they're somehow ambivalent about it.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting thread from 5 years ago about the inconsistent way the world's airlines and regulators approach the issue of restraining (or not) lap-sitting toddlers:

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/405637-infant-seat-belts.html

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

No assumptions made at all.

[west lakes]

I was once told that crew can be reluctant to involve the police in some EU countries as there are no facilities to take statements at airports.

It means the crew being transported to and from local Police stations with the resulting delay in flights and implications for flight hours

[Laarbruch72]

There's no real evidence for that view in my experience, some countries' police forces are better than others granted, but I've never known a single crew in over 1200 incidents now that have had to leave an airport.
Where overseas police fail to charge a passenger then we retain the right to report the incident to the UK police to investigate under the Air Navigation Order, and that usually works out well.

[ExXB]

What are the airline's doing?

Well there is this: http://www.iata.org/policy/Documents/agm-resolution-unruly-passengers.pdf

and this: http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/Safety%20Briefings%20_%20Presentations/Cabin%20Safety%20-%20Disruptive%20Passenger%20Guide.pdf

Do you have any further suggestions Mr. f@rt pants?

[mockingjay]

EasyJet are also issuing crew with 'yellow cards' to give passengers, increasingly cancelling return travel and there's a pre recorded announcement for boarding warning people about their policy toward disruptive pax.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Please don't get the wrong end of the stick here folks, I was not "dissing" other airlines and trying to promote the one I work for. I was purely asking the question. I know that all airlines suffer from this issue, and that no airline takes it anything other than seriously. Jet2 have publicly announced they will not tolerate it any more, and whereas in the past we would have generally continued to destination before passing the disruptee(s) to the authorities, there is now a greater chance that we will be diverting and throwing them off en route, regardless of the delay. Do we have similar public policies from other airlines??

Should airlines have such a public message? Does it tarnish the reputation of an airline that admits it has passengers that create issues? Would it be better if ALL airlines had a very public policy, would that make the offenders think more before they create issues?

[west lakes]

I'm sure a look through the T&Cs of carriage of all airlines will find equivalent conditions.

The difference is that Jet2 have made them more publicly visible.
Others should follow IMO

[Capot]

The best thing the airlines can do is start charging a fair and economic price for ALL seats, and drop the loco business model that is the root cause of all these problems.

Filtering out the disruptive and/or drunk by pricing them out of the cabin would be a win-win for other passengers and the airline. When people have paid good money for a seat they are less likely to crap on it.

Let's return to the days when we made good profits with 65% load factors.

It won't happen, of course, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's the only effective cure for the problem.

As an interim step, banning anyone displaying a tattoo, meaning with any visible tattoo, from boarding would eradicate a lot of aggro. That would have to apply to cabin staff as well, of course.

[west lakes]

The best thing the airlines can do is start charging a fair and economic price for ALL seats, and drop the loco business model that is the root cause of all these problems.

Interesting thought, though I am told by a good friend who works in aviation the number of passengers receiving long term or lifetime bans from flight who were legitimately sat in upper class seating is significant.
My friend having reported 2 successfully in the last 12 months. How does that fit in with the Loco model I wonder?

[fa2fi]

Drunk passengers are not a LCC phenomena. Trouble can strike on flights where you least expect it - trust me I've been on the receiving end a couple of times and the two worst incidents I've been involved in were to pretty high end places and not the ALC/IBZ. And when we consider the high profile drunken escapades that have taken place in biz class cabins, I see no correlation between fares paid and good or bad behaviour.

It's a free market, airlines are not public services and they're free to do what they like regarding prices. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of £300+ domestic day returns, Saturday night stay rules etc etc. The airlines are making record profits, more people are flying than ever before and long may it continue.

[ExXB]

In my view publically announcing a firm policy to divert is the last thing you want to do. It would put me off flying with you, firstly I want no part of a diversion, and secondly the suggestion is that the airline needs to have such a policy. And sooner or later some idiot is going to test you to see if you really mean it.

Having a brethalyser at the gate could be effective. If you blow more than 1.0, your not flying today; more than 0.5 welcome on board, but we wont be serving you any booze, and we will carefully store any booze you intended to take on board, as well as the stuff your mates brought.

Additional training for FAs to help them deal with ugly situations would be a bonus. And you need big, butch, FAs that can intimidate any misbehaving cretins, something you rarely see these days.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It's not a firm policy to divert. The decision, as it always has, rests with the captain.

In my opinion nothing has changed, it's just become a bit more public.

[west lakes]

And don't forget this one from a while back

Ryanair bans alcohol on flights from Glasgow Prestwick airport to Ibiza over 'drunk' passengers causing disruptions - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ryanair-bans-alcohol-on-flights-from-glasgow-prestwick-airport-to-ibiza-over-drunk-passengers-causing-disruptions-10160333.html)

[Hotel Tango]

Having a brethalyser at the gate could be effective.

Hmm, the problem is that since it's not always easy to identify which individuals might and might not require breathalysing, and in the interest of impartiality, all passengers would have to submit to the test. Just how many minutes would that add to the boarding procedure? By my reckoning, a minimum of 15 seconds would be needed per passenger. That would equate to 25 extra minutes per 100 passengers. This of course is assuming that each test went without a hitch, which is highly unlikely. I think it's back to the drawing board with that one ExXB ;)

[S.o.S.]

By coincidence, we have had several threads around this topic and they often bring similar reactions - both knee jerk and thoughtful! So I have merged them here and invite all to contribute but without so much of the flippant/dumb comments about beating other Pax to death.

There is a very real problem of Pax behaviour in ALL cabins and I invite you to discuss with eye-witness reports and your experience, particularly if you are Cabin Crew.

[ExXB]

HT, I did have my tongue in cheek a little when I posted that. Perhaps if used for specific flights, and passengers were warned to show up an hour early as they will be breatalised , could have a positive effect.

[crewmeal]

There was a time when the heavy hand of the UK law came down heavily on disruptive pax, but not anymore it seems....

Boozed up teen who terrorised other passengers on Emirates flight spared jail - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boozed-up-teen-who-terrorised-5799379)

This creep should have been thrown in jail, which would have happened if the flight was going in the other direction.

[mockingjay]

I'm no longer crew but I still have nightmares about some passengers! Some people do get on sober as judge then down airport shop bought spirits. Asking for glasses of ice or stag/hen parties asking for soft drinks are always suspicious and you know who to watch out for and you'll often find a bottle being passed around which I would always confiscate. Sometimes frowned upon but I'm not risking getting a glassing later on in the flight once they've had too many.

On the evening beach flights it was quite common to find empty spirit bottles in seat pockets and under seats on landing despite advising people they cannot consume their own alcohol, being vigilant and keeping an eye out. There's only so much you can do.

I'd also make sure as best as I could to ensure people were buying one drink per person at a time. Asking 'how many glasses would you like' also helped and those who said 'one' when buying several beers/double spirits/wines would also set alarm bells off for me. Often using the excuse of "sorry I can only give you one as we need to make sure that all other pax get their first choice, maybe once the service is over you can get another when we are on the way back to the galley" was always much better received than those who say you can only have one as you might get drunk etc etc.

Furthermore being able to smell alcohol in parts of the cabin long after the service had finished was also a giveaway. It's rare that a group of people all orders the same thing from the trolley so a strong smell of whiskey/Bacardi/vodka are again a dead giveaway and you could usually pin point the source and have a polite word.

I'm sure most people are very nice people but it was a shame to see a few ruin the start of their holiday by acting themselves, arguing with each other etc etc and I'm sure many people don't set out to be vile but there were things we could do as crew to try and make sure things didn't escalate. It didn't always work however.

[ExXB]

Mockingjay,
From your comments I understand that you detected many instances where passengers consumed their own booze, but some (many?) of those were not abusive. Don't let me put words into your mouth, if I've got it wrong I'm sorry.

It makes me wonder what the motivation is for pax to drink the one they brought with them? I'm guessing that part of the rational are the (somewhat?) high prices the airlines charge for drinks on board. I recall that a 33cl beer on a BRS-GVA flight was more than a pint at the bar at the airport.

Perhaps the airlines should have a think about if they are somehow encouraging this drink your own culture on board.

[edi_local]

The best thing the airlines can do is start charging a fair and economic price for ALL seats, and drop the loco business model that is the root cause of all these problems.

Filtering out the disruptive and/or drunk by pricing them out of the cabin would be a win-win for other passengers and the airline. When people have paid good money for a seat they are less likely to crap on it.

Let's return to the days when we made good profits with 65% load factors.

It won't happen, of course, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's the only effective cure for the problem.

As an interim step, banning anyone displaying a tattoo, meaning with any visible tattoo, from boarding would eradicate a lot of aggro. That would have to apply to cabin staff as well, of course.

I am not sure if you're on the windup, but I can safely say that some of the worst passengers I have dealt with, albeit on the ground, have not been low cost passengers.

I've seen very top tier FF card holders punch a hole in a ticket desk wall because they missed a flight. I've seen similar passengers refused boarding or even offloaded once they are onboard (both before and after pushback) for being abusive to ground staff and/or cabin crew over the smallest of things. On more than one occasion I've seen police meet an arriving aircraft and the reason they are there wasn't down to someone who was on their once a year trip to the Costa Del Sol. :E While I have dealt with LCCs in my time, none of these incidents were on them. :ok:

I'm not saying the LCC carriers are exempt from such passengers but they are by no means the root cause or the only ones to have this problem, some people who fly often think they are owed the World and really kick up a fuss when they don't get it. :=

[Aus380]

Wait until you see a bunch of Aussies on a flight to Bali. Back in the day that I did them, we called them the vomit comet!

[FGE319]

I'm not saying the LCC carriers are exempt from such passengers but they are by no means the root cause or the only ones to have this problem, some people who fly often think they are owed the World and really kick up a fuss when they don't get it.

I've only had to offload someone from a flight once, being a group of 4.

One of the pax was agressive to the CC, so I went and told him myself I didn't want him on the flight.

They were very drunk already and the easiest way to deal with it would have been to deny boarding in the first place, but that's just me. They were booked on the one that evening once they'd sobered up.

[crewmeal]

Nice to see Monarch joining Jet2 in banning thugs from flying.

Monarch Airlines bans six passengers FOR LIFE for 'drinking and smoking in toilets' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3112110/Monarch-Airlines-bans-six-passengers-LIFE-drinking-booze-smoking-toilets-grabbing-flight-attendants-flight-Manchester-forced-divert.html)

Now all that is needed is a system that prevents these people from using any other carrier (for life of course).

[kaikohe76]

Absolutely the right action taken by Monarch & other Airlines when confronted with this situation. Now send these load of idiots the bill for the extra cost of the diversion incurred by the company.

[Hotel Tango]

It wasn't actually an Monarch aircraft nor a Monarch crew. It was the Danish airline JetTime operating on behalf of Monarch.

[crewmeal]

It doesn't make any difference whether the aircraft was subcharted or who operated it, it is still a ZB flight. The call sign and everything else will be Monarch. Titan are operating on behalf of BA Gatwick next month and it will still be a BA flight (See elsewhere on this forum).

[Hotel Tango]

Calm down crewmeal, no need to jump down my neck! Having worked in the industry for 44 years I know all about sub charters etc. I wasn't in any way suggesting that Monarch were wrong to take the action which they did. I was merely mentioning, in passing, that the aircraft and crew were not actually Monarch. That was all. Nothing else.

[Mark in CA]

Forget the Greek economy, Russian intervention in Ukraine or ISIS. Here's the big story today. The big question, of course, is not why Kate Moss was escorted off a flight for being disruptive. We all know she's a drug addict. Rather, why was this obviously wealthy person flying on EasyJet? :confused:

Kate Moss escorted from easyJet flight after 'disruptive' behaviour | Fashion | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/jun/07/kate-moss-escorted-from-flight-after-disruptive-behaviour)

[Evanelpus]

In reality though Mark, does anyone give a :mad:?

[vctenderness]

Wow what a story! Drunk druggie clothes horse with zero talent causes a scene on low cost airline flight.

This could be a major Hollywood movie :ok:

[PAXboy]

Did they know who she was or did she have to ask ...? :rolleyes:

[Curious Pax]

Given that she seems to have been escorted off at the end of the flight, with no subsequent consequences would seem to suggest that they did indeed know who she was. I'm dubious that a non-celeb met by the police at the end of a flight would have been so fortunate (leaving aside reports from other pax on the flight accusing the crew of over-reacting).

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Not zero tolerance then. Well done EasyJet for not backing up your crew.

[El Grifo]

Rules for "them" and rules for "us" as usual !!

[seafire6b]

Well done EasyJet for not backing up your crew.

Do we know that? If the police met the flight and then escorted Ms Moss away, it would seem EZY did the right thing by making a report prior to the aircraft coming on-stand.

For obvious reasons, now speaking generally regarding 'disruptive' passengers, any further action would be up to the police. In the event of them not proceeding, I suppose the airline might consider a private prosecution, although that wouldn't really be advisable.

However, as El Grifo said, perhaps too many cases of different rules for different people!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It's up to the airline to press for prosecution. The police will just slap a few wrists and send them on their way. If you want to be seen to have zero tolerance, which is suddenly being espoused by a few as if it's a new idea, then the airline needs to see it through.

[seafire6b]

It's up to the airline to press for prosecution.Not disputed, but the airline can only press for a police prosecution. If however, the police/DPP decide against proceeding, then the only litigative option for the airline is pursuance of a private prosecution. As will be appreciated, that wouldn't generally be recommended for a variety of reasons.

Having said that, perhaps the airlines could be a little more generous about adding disruptive pax names to "No Fly" lists, and circulating such amongst themselves. Although would that in itself, without any previous supporting guilty verdict in a court, then lead to claims of "discrimination" against the airline concerned?