Vegas-bound stag party who abused crew and exposed themselves on plane, jailed

[PerPurumTonantes]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vegas-stag-party-drunk-plane-manchester-jail-michael-ward-a8944431.html

Appropriate sentences?

A drunken stag party (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/stag-party) who exposed themselves to passengers, fought and threw bottles and water across the cabin of a flight bound for Las Vegas (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/vegas), have been jailed.

Construction boss Michael Ward, 33, and three of his friends caused havoc on the flight from Manchester (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Manchester) were warned numerous times by cabin crew, who refused to serve them, a court heard.

But they carried on drinking large amounts of their own duty-free alcohol and smoking e-cigarettes on 24 March last year.

The crew warned them that the flight would be diverted if their behaviour continued as they were causing “considerable distress” to those around them, Manchester Crown Court heard.

But Ward told them: “You can’t tell me what to do. You are lower down the food chain from me. I am a 40K a year a builder. You are just an air hostess.”

As the men continued their intimidating behaviour, swearing and shouting at both staff and passengers, the captain decided it was no longer safe to continue the flight and diverted it to Winnipeg, in Canada.

As a result, the aircraft had to dump 10,000 gallons of fuel to land safely.

Once they touched down in Canada, the four were arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Ward, Craig Hopwood, 35, and Scott Capper, all from Oldham, pleaded guilty to affray and being drunk on an aircraft an earlier hearing.

Daniel Howarth, 35, also of Oldham, pleaded guilty to section 4 public disorder and being drunk on an aircraft.

Ward, Hopwood and Capper were jailed for two years, while Howarth was locked up for one year and seven months.

Detective Constable Brad Howarth, of Greater Manchester Police (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/greater-manchester-police)’s airport team, said: “The actions of these four men were appalling.

“Their behaviour was intimidating and frightening, for both the passengers unfortunate enough to be sitting near them, as well as the crew who made every possible attempt to reason with them as the flight continued. The group’s aggressive actions had no bounds, showing absolutely no consideration for the many children and families on board that had to endure their grossly unacceptable and offensive language and behaviour.

He added: “The cabin crew and captain, whilst carrying out their duties on a full aircraft, had to deal with an intimidating and disgracefully behaved group of men. Today, the drunken and loutish behaviour of these four men has resulted in a jail sentence; and I hope that this sends a clear message- anyone who thinks about acting the same on an aircraft will be met with the firmest police response upon their return to Manchester.”

[ZFT]

Should have been required to pay compensation as well

[thcrozier]

Appropriate: It will take these guys at least 2 years to grow up. And compensation for damages should go without saying.

[Water pilot]

So that is what, $50,000 bucks worth of fuel dumped? Not to mention the fuel used in takeoff and landing, plus crew wages and perhaps a landing fee. They are going to have to make a lot of license plates...

[crewmeal]

It begs the question why did the ground staff allow these characters to board in the first place if they were so drunk?

[MENELAUS]

Yes it does beg the question. However Manchester ( and other airports in UK ) sell booze 24 hrs a day. And are therefore ( actions of these okey d@ckheads higher up the food chain apart) partly culpable.

[bunk exceeder]

Well, 2 years will mean 1 year which is better than the early days of air rage prosecutions when things like 4 months were the norm. Is there an argument for ceiling cams in each cabin? Although every phone on the plane will come out as soon as anything happens.... I have always thought that duty free on arrival makes much more sense. It would prevent these clowns from dipping into their own supply, save weight, so fuel, less “blow up” stuff on board, etc. And based on recent events, less stuff for them to try and take down a slide.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/4d4c1fdc_2c60_44e7_b5c8_2761325471d2_a20e1ff1baf259e88d97c1a 33d30ad0a7f3bb675.jpeg

I did an ORD once with a drunk guy, cops on arrival, cuffs, etc. He was 0.4!!! Not 0.04, but 0.4 which is about when you die. The Chicago cops were mystified that they could even walk him off the plane. He wasn’t violent, just went wee on someone thinking he was in the lav. Stupid maybe should get 4 months. Aggressive and/or violent should be at least a year. These maybe would do well with 2 years meaning 2 years.

[Gove N.T.]

I wonder if the bride to be has realised what she might have been marrying.
Denying boarding to people who are or appear to be drunk opens a legal minefield for staff and the airline.

[sixchannel]

Yes it does beg the question. However Manchester ( and other airports in UK ) sell booze 24 hrs a day. And are therefore ( actions of these okey d@ckheads higher up the food chain apart) partly culpable.
Not in a airports jnterests aka profit to restrict sales of Anything. They just move the problem along.

[wiggy]

Denying boarding to people who are or appear to be drunk opens a legal minefield for staff and the airline.



:confused:

In most/many jurisdictions it is an offence to be drunk on board an aircraft.

I’ve certainly never encountered this “legal minefield” and I’ve been involved in managing a few offloads/denial of boarding due to it being obvious somebody was somewhat the worse for wear.

[ironbutt57]

some ground staff will board ANYthing, I had the mob in OMAA decade or so back, try to board a wheelchair passenger who was suffering from rigor mortis....yah he was dead, and was already cold to the touch

[Reverserbucket]

Is there any evidence in the UK of contract ground handling staff denying boarding to anyone under suspicion of intoxication or antisocial behaviour? They seem very good at tagging laptop and handbags to be put under the seat while letting outsized looking bags reach the cabin so the crew can argue with the pax onboard when there's no room in the overhead bins etc. I know what the guidance was for unruly or disruptive behaviour at the gate when my airline employed our own check-in/gate staff but I imagine there may be more caution and restraint exercised by contract staff these days. I may be completely wrong but I do sense a lack of engagement from most at UK (and other) airports.

[AndoniP]

giving it the barry big bollocks with 40K a year. nice one.

[procede]

Hoe does mounted police get onboard an aircraft? ;)

[cappt]

Had a bunch of drunk Swedes on a stag party to LAS once, causing general rudeness, demanding more booze because they paid for upgrade, trying to vape etc. The lead told them last chance or they'll be meet by cops and you'll spend your weekend in Las Vegas locked up. They finally fell asleep and when awoken on arrival apologized and went on their way. Walking out of the airport the groom ran up to us and explained he couldn't find his passport! Karma? Sorry man, if you hurry back to the gate you might still find the gate agent who can search the plane for it, good luck jerk.

[Yaw String]

Knowingly accepting drunken passengers on your plane is potentially putting all the other pax lives at risk in case of evacuation.
You,as captain,have final responsibility on whether to accept them.I take a very dim view,on this subject!
Its fair to say,I do work for a booze free airline,which helps...

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

We at a Northern UK friendly airline deny carriage on a regular basis, this is well managed at our own handling bases prior to the passengers even getting to the aeroplane. Odd ones slip through the net, it’s inevitable as booze takes a while to get into your system. You might have just downed a load of spirits as you pass the gate agent and be perfectly fine, 1/2 an hour later by the time everybody else has boarded and you are getting under way that alcohol has go into your system and you are now drunk.

As for the question - I think 2 years is fine, but they should be pursued by the airline for the costs incurred, again this is something that the Friendly Northern Airline actively does.

[pants on fire...]

Just dropping them off in Winnipeg would be punishment enough for most people, even to the point of being considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The sentences are entirely appropriate. Compensation would also be entirely appropriate.

[marconiphone]

Sounds like the sort of drink-fuelled anti-social behaviour that bedevils public spaces throughout the UK. It seems to be a peculiarly British problem - comparatively few people from other European countries go out with the specific intention of getting p*ssed (to use the local vernacular). Transport operators (not just airlines but train operators too) should take a much tougher line, and be given due backing by police and the courts. 'Just having a good time' doesn't cut it, as excuses go.

[ProPax]

That should've been a subject to discuss at Monsieur de Juniac's recent IATA conference. Stories like that appear at least weekly. How long and how severe an accident will it take for all airlines to ban alcohol onboard? What are they afraid of? That drunk idiots won't fly their airline? That's a big loss?

They forbade smoking on planes. Has anyone ever seen a smoker start "exposing" himself or harrassing passengers after he had a full pack of Marlboro? Yet, the substance that is KNOWN to cause aggressive behavior is still openly and legally sold or even served free onboard an aircraft in all tastes and flavors.

[bunk exceeder]

Just dropping them off in Winnipeg would be punishment enough for most people, even to the point of being considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The sentences are entirely appropriate. Compensation would also be entirely appropriate.

And hopefully the Mounties gave them a good kicking.

[Surlybonds]

Hoe does mounted police get onboard an aircraft? ;)

Very carefully?

They're very well trained, those horses, they can climb air-stairs you know...

[KingAir1978]

And hopefully the Mounties gave them a good kicking.
Or alternatively: let the horses do the kicking :D

[groundbum]

it wouldn't be that difficult for an airline to write into their contract with their ground handling agents that said agent will meet all costs caused by passengers being drunk/disruptive, and that the agent can have the joy of recovering this money from the passenger! Should concentrate minds somewhat...

G

[Evey_Hammond]

Frankly no, 2 years inside isn’t enough. Tack on a lifetime flying ban & then it’d get my seal of approval.

[India Four Two]

How did they end up in Manchester Crown Court when they were arrested in Winnipeg? I though these cases were normally prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the aircraft lands.

[Council Van]

Good old Manchester.

My daughter who was 17 at the time told me she was given a free shot of Vodka at Manchester at 6am earlier this year and they offered my lad who was only 15 one as well then realised that he was perhaps not 18 yet but asked him if he was old enough. They will do anything to get you in the bar.

I have seen plenty falling out of minibuses all ready drunk when they turn up outside the Terminal. Just part and parcel of a big section of UK society now days.

A chap I know is a paramedic, he hates Friday and Saturday nights as most of his calls are to very drunk people some of whom like to fight the medics who are trying to help them.

2 years in Prison. Happy days, let hope it gets plenty of coverage in the UK national press

[ph-sbe]

How did they end up in Manchester Crown Court when they were arrested in Winnipeg? I though these cases were normally prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the aircraft lands.
Depends on when the behavior occurred. If the criminal actions took place over international waters, the laws of jurisdiction where the aircraft is registered apply. Generally you can't be convicted for crimes that occur outside a jurisdiction's geographical limits. That was least the case when I took my Air Law exam.

So it would make sense to be detained by the authorities in the country where they landed, and subsequently extradited for prosecution.

[BluSdUp]

I hope she went on with the wedding and answered the ultimate question with : NO!
Not fit for breeding.

Manchester , what can I say, not my favorite destination.
I deleted my further comment.

[A and C]

Flying for a large european airline I would not be quite so fast to blame just the British for drunken behaviour on aircraft, I have had problems with drunken passengers from most nations.
Largley the other nationals are embarrassed by the behaviour and say little about is, the British recognise the problem and the British police take action in court and so the problem is not swept under the carpet.

[Lantern10]

Compensation should most certainly be on the cards. Why should this cost the airline anything?

[ironbutt57]

classic brit hooligans, not only for football matches anymore...

[Reverserbucket]

That should've been a subject to discuss at Monsieur de Juniac's recent IATA conference
I presume that is tongue in cheek ProPax? IATA are apparently opposed to the restriction of alcohol sales in airports and in the UK, the suggested application of more restrictive practices (reduced opening hours) for airside alcohol sales.

[Planemike]

IATA are apparently opposed to the restriction of alcohol sales in airports and in the UK, .

Errrrrr.......why ?????

[DaveReidUK]

Errrrrr.......why ?????

Money.

If the airport operator makes less from its pub and restaurant franchises, it will make up the revenue by increasing landing and passenger charges for airlines.

[sb_sfo]

Dave,
In a recent article in the SF Chronicle, it was stated that SFO makes more money on pickup and dropoff charges from ride-share companies than the combined revenue from food, beverage, and other sales. $39 million from 2014 on.

[DaveReidUK]

In a recent article in the SF Chronicle, it was stated that SFO makes more money on pickup and dropoff charges from ride-share companies than the combined revenue from food, beverage, and other sales. $39 million from 2014 on.

I'm sure that's correct.

Doubtless IATA would be concerned if there was a risk of airports losing revenue from any source, if it meant that its members would be squeezed to make up the deficit.

[His dudeness]

Appropriate sentences?

When I look at some crimes - such as bodily harm etc. and their sentencing, I find it way too harsh. A lot of people who are REAL threats to society and ave done ACTUAL harm wander around or are on probation.

[vancouv]

Surely someone who behaves like that on a plane will have shown signs of that sort of behaviour before - I imagine the bride admires him for his manly ways. And the airline should definitely go after him for the full cost of the diversion - his 40K a year might not look so good.

[capngrog]

I'm just a bit curious here, but does anyone know what type of aircraft was involved in this incident? The great circle distance from Manchester, U.K. to Las Vegas, U.S.A., is roughly 5100 statute miles, and the distance from Manchester, U.K. to Winnipeg, Canada is roughly 3800 miles, or around 3/4 of the way from Manchester to Las Vegas. I would think that a transport category aircraft, having completed 75% of its journey would have burned off more than enough fuel so as to be under its maximum landing weight, thus making it unnecessary to dump fuel for landing. Or could the reportage be incorrect? Or could my guesstimate figuring be incorrect (more likely)?

Cheers,
Grog

[visibility3miles]

It's my impression that booze hits you a lot harder at higher elevations (lower air pressure,) possibly due to dehydration.

If true, it implies that passengers drinking "within (large) limits" could be truly plastered when the plane reaches cruising altitude.

Doesn't excuse outrageous behavior...

[tdracer]

You Brit's just need to learn that you go crazy after you get to Las Vegas - after all, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas :E

On a more serious note, if your behavior results in an aircraft diversion, it should be a mandatory six figure fine, plus actual damages, and a lifetime ban from flying.

BTW, bragging about making 40k a year? Seriously?

[A330ETOPS]

I'm just a bit curious here, but does anyone know what type of aircraft was involved in this incident? The great circle distance from Manchester, U.K. to Las Vegas, U.S.A., is roughly 5100 statute miles, and the distance from Manchester, U.K. to Winnipeg, Canada is roughly 3800 miles, or around 3/4 of the way from Manchester to Las Vegas. I would think that a transport category aircraft, having completed 75% of its journey would have burned off more than enough fuel so as to be under its maximum landing weight, thus making it unnecessary to dump fuel for landing. Or could the reportage be incorrect? Or could my guesstimate figuring be incorrect (more likely)?

Cheers,
Grog

A330 is used on this route

[WingSlinger]

A night, or two, in Winterpeg's drunk tank is no picnic. They are lucky the didn’t reach LAS, or they might be spending a few years, guests of Uncle Sam, another "no picnic" venue.

[On Track]

Are these international stag trips a peculiarly British thing?

[Blackfriar]

So? for the less technically knowledgable, please explain why any aircraft that diverts 3/4 of the way to its destination needs to dump 50 tonnes(!) of fuel. Surely it's not tankering MAN/LAS/MAN?

[KT1988]

In this case it was obvious why to divert because the drunkards were not under control. But what always make me wonder is those cases where they say that the unruly passenger have been restrained and fastened to his seat. I understand it like he then is no longer any risk to safety of the aircraft. Then why do divert to another airport and make the rest of the passengers suffer. Or is it some theory I have missed somewhere that say we still need to divert even if there is no longer any risk to safety?

Normally I believe its up to the PIC (Captain) to decide, but I wonder with all those cases where drunk passenger have been restrained and secured why divert and make all the other passengers suffer if there is nothing that would make continuing unsafe.

[WingSlinger]

A restrained (handcuffed), and drunk, passenger becomes in danger, himself, in case of another emergency where evacuation is needed. That’s why a diversion to the nearest, suitable, airport is needed.

[old,not bold]

I wouldn't have thought that there is much to stop the carrier suing the lot of them for costs recovery in a civil court, regardless of the criminal conviction and sentence. No doubt the £40K/year builder will have some of that stashed away for the bailiffs to find, and I bet he has a nice house...that should do it. But then I'm not a lawyer.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

I wouldn't have thought that there is much to stop the carrier suing the lot of them for costs recovery in a civil court, regardless of the criminal conviction and sentence. No doubt the £40K/year builder will have some of that stashed away for the bailiffs to find, and I bet he has a nice house...that should do it. But then I'm not a lawyer.
A mate of mine has just flown AGP-MAN In the small print of his ticket and booking conditions it states similar to ‘ any disruptive or criminal behaviour will render you liable for all costs, not limited to but including compensation due to other passengers costs to aircraft operator and all airport and related costs’
I would hope most if not all airlines have a similar clause.
That should curtail the honeymoon arrangements somewhat

[beamer]

How many times did I make my way airside to the aircraft at 5, 6 or 7 in the morning to be confronted with passengers in bars getting tanked up before their flights ?

How many times did handling agents try and get drunken pax onto the aircraft thus moving their problem on ?

How many times were my crew verbally and occasionally physically intimidated by inebriated customers both male and female ?

How many times did I call for the Police to remove such idiots from the aeroplane either before departure or after arrival ?

The answer to all the above is many, many times.

It is a problem throughout an industry which encourages the sale of alcohol before and during flight.

[WingNut60]

A restrained (handcuffed), and drunk, passenger becomes in danger, himself, in case of another emergency where evacuation is needed. That’s why a diversion to the nearest, suitable, airport is needed.

No more so than many other legitimate "differently abled" passengers, I'd have thought.
Not to mention those with support animals.

[WingNut60]

I wouldn't have thought that there is much to stop the carrier suing the lot of them for costs recovery in a civil court, regardless of the criminal conviction and sentence. No doubt the £40K/year builder will have some of that stashed away for the bailiffs to find, and I bet he has a nice house...that should do it. But then I'm not a lawyer.

The airline might then need to show that there is no contingency built in to their ticket pricing just for such diversions.

As I understand it, they would need to demonstrate not just a cost, but an actual loss.
They might also need to show consistency. That is, that they always seek recovery of said costs.

[ve3id]

Just dropping them off in Winnipeg would be punishment enough for most people, even to the point of being considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The sentences are entirely appropriate. Compensation would also be entirely appropriate.
Why wouldn't they drop them off at YWG? They would have been drunk on an aircraft on Canadian soil, therefore indictable, and it would obviously be a risk to take them back to the UK.

[bill fly]

We smell the breath of each crew member (US too) and come down hard (quite rightly...) but we will load you up with drunken disorderly pax innit?

[DirtyProp]

Am I the only one to sense a business opportunity here? :E

https://vintagetech.blognook.com/2017/09/28/the-space-age-bachelor-pad-decor-of-hugh-hefners-private-jet/

[pr00ne]

marconiphone,

​​​​​​"Sounds like the sort of drink-fuelled anti-social behaviour that bedevils public spaces throughout the UK."

What a load of clap trap! That is NOT the UK I recognise. I split my time between London and New York and you are just as likely to see this sort of thing in New York as you are in the UK, which is pretty rarely in either place.

Lay off the cliches eh?

[davidevans54]

Its not claptrap at all...have you been round any northern (or southern) UK city on a Saturday night at 0200?...the drunken disorder defies belief...nowhere in the US or Europe to beat it (except perhaps the Brits in Spain or on hen/stag nights in Europe)...and I ve travelled, man. The Brits have lost all sense of boundary or propriety.

[Andy_S]

I've just returned from an inclusive resort in the Caribbean, and I can assure you that drunken Americans are every bit as big a problem as drunken Brits.......

[BEagle]

One UK airline was getting so fed up with early morning drunks on its flights from a UK regional airport that they hit on an innovative solution. They asked the airport how much profit the bar made at that time of day, then paid them slightly more to close the bar!

Denying boarding to drunks who have checked luggage in the hold will mean delay and disruption for everyone else, including those on later flights for which the aircraft has been scheduled. Not to mention the risk of injury to the gate staff. So it's not surprising that some airlines accept passengers who have had too much to drink before boarding.

If passengers refuse to obey the lawful instructions of cabin staff in flight, then the flight should divert and the passengers should be off-loaded into the hands of the local police - and the whole cost later recovered from the miscreants.

[nuisance79]

Assuming the Airline has lots of spare cash to offer the Airport this solution on a regular basis.

[Thaihawk]

Should have been required to pay compensation as well

And had their passports seized and banned from travel for 10 years and served with a life ban from any airline.

[CaptainMongo]

What ever happened to the happy drunk?

You know, the dude who gets fed two/three cocktails, smiles, talks loudly, is quieted by the flight attendant, and then falls asleep?

I miss the happy drunks...

[WingNut60]

And had their passports seized and banned from travel for 10 years and served with a life ban from any airline.

I don't know about an airline ban but the length of their sentences would exclude them from e-Visa entry to Australia - for life.
And you don't get told that until you arrive at port of entry.
If you had overlooked that detail then you will probably get turned back onto the next flight out.
They could try their luck with a full visa application but there's no guarantee that they would get one that way either.

I think the USA and Canada have similar restrictions.

[Bend alot]

I don't know about an airline ban but the length of their sentences would exclude them from e-Visa entry to Australia - for life.
And you don't get told that until you arrive at port of entry.
If you had overlooked that detail then you will probably get turned back onto the next flight out.
They could try their luck with a full visa application but there's no guarantee that they would get one that way either.

I think the USA and Canada have similar restrictions.
The length of their sentences in your case would not be the reason to exclude the e-Visa entry into Australia.

The full visa application would probably have the same result as the e-Visa for the same reason.

I enjoy having a drink at airports at weird hours while in-transit or waiting for a flight and also a drink while in-flight, many others also do this responsibly. Similar that many pilots do not turn up to fly with any alcohol in their system - but some do and actually get to pilot again after being caught.

I am sure I would be happy to fly with a pilot that I knew had been once caught over the limit on duty before - everyone makes a big mistake or two, most of us quickly learn from them BUT not all.

[WingNut60]

The length of their sentences in your case would not be the reason to exclude the e-Visa entry into Australia.


Unless you know something that I do not, then yes it would be the reason.

To be eligible for an Australian e-Visa or VOA, you must pass the character test.
That includes mandatory declaration of any criminal background and exclusion for anyone having a substantial criminal record.

A substantial criminal record encompasses being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more, whether served in full or not.

[Bend alot]

Unless you know something that I do not, then yes it would be the reason.

To be eligible for an Australian e-Visa or VOA, you must pass the character test.
That includes mandatory declaration of any criminal background and exclusion for anyone having a substantial criminal record.

A substantial criminal record encompasses being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more, whether served in full or not.
On application you get asked about criminal history, so to get granted an e-Visa you would need to have answered "NO" to that question.

So on arrival if the conviction is noted by immigration due shared information (and very likely), the entry will be denied for "supplying false or misleading information" this is not taken well under current policy - not the "sentenced period" of character assessment.

Similar is the case with a 600 Visitor Visa application, but a bigger chance the lie would be picked up during the visa process stage and visa denied.

Over the past years I have been following visas Australia has a high tolerance for drinking related issues, so if declared on the applications this offence maybe deemed acceptable for entry into Australia. Violence or drugs is currently a big NO.

[WHBM]

They forbade smoking on planes. Has anyone ever seen a smoker start "exposing" himself or harrassing passengers after he had a full pack of Marlboro? Yet, the substance that is KNOWN to cause aggressive behavior is still openly and legally sold or even served free onboard an aircraft in all tastes and flavors.
I think the two are actually connected. My suspicion (any evidence ?) is that such out-of-control pax on board are typically significant smokers, who unlike anywhere else have been denied their cigarettes for significant hours, from the moment they enter the airport. Yes, they likely take to drink in attempted mitigation, airport bars, in-flight service, or downing their duty-free, but it is the absence of nicotine in their bodies which drives the behaviour.

[Longtimer]

I think the two are actually connected. My suspicion (any evidence ?) is that such out-of-control pax on board are typically significant smokers, who unlike anywhere else have been denied their cigarettes for significant hours, from the moment they enter the airport. Yes, they likely take to drink in attempted mitigation, airport bars, in-flight service, or downing their duty-free, but it is the absence of nicotine in their bodies which drives the behaviour.
I suspect the behaviour is entirely the result of how society as a whole has changed coupled with the influx of (dare I say) cheap travellers in our new "steerage class" :rolleyes:

[toratoratora]

I don't think booze is the sole problem.
I have offloaded pax at least twice in recent years whose pupils were so dilated, you could barely see any colour. They take a 'cheeky line' or whatever before they hit security- when you add booze, it becomes interesting. Whatever state they are in at ground level, it is at least twice as bad at 8000' cabin alt.
On another subject, why can't UK airports seal bottles in duty-free? Then make tampering with it in-flight an offence punishable by flogging...

[The AvgasDinosaur]

I don't think booze is the sole problem.
I have offloaded pax at least twice in recent years whose pupils were so dilated, you could barely see any colour. They take a 'cheeky line' or whatever before they hit security- when you add booze, it becomes interesting. Whatever state they are in at ground level, it is at least twice as bad at 8000' cabin alt.
On another subject, why can't UK airports seal bottles in duty-free? Then make tampering with it in-flight an offence punishable by flogging...
who are you going to flog it to ? The next load of self control challenged dipsticks that turn up at check in ??
Be lucky
David

[toratoratora]

Not what I meant by 'flogging'...

[Thaihawk]

I don't know about an airline ban but the length of their sentences would exclude them from e-Visa entry to Australia - for life.
And you don't get told that until you arrive at port of entry.
If you had overlooked that detail then you will probably get turned back onto the next flight out.
They could try their luck with a full visa application but there's no guarantee that they would get one that way either.

I think the USA and Canada have similar restrictions.

After their performance on this flight, good luck with any further transatlantic trips. They won't be welcome in either Canada or the USA.

They are also barred from New Zealand without a visa.

They should have engaged their little brains before getting drunk.