Disruptive Jet2 passenger getting a big bill [Archive]

drichard

17th Jul 2019, 16:32

Mods: Please move as appropriate.

The *Idiot* that caused a Jet2 aircraft to be diverted to STN escorted by 2 RAF Typhoons (which caused a sonic boom over land whilst en route to intercept) is getting an £85K bill according to the press.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7256749/Air-rage-passenger-slapped-85-000-airline-bill-Jet2.html

No news from Plod regarding actually charging her for endangering the aircraft - probably a slap on the wrist there if the UK police follow form.

Perhaps Jet2's action will make some think before being rather silly on an aircraft.

sooty655

17th Jul 2019, 16:42

She was arrested and bailed. The delay/lack of a charge is probably DPP rather than Plod.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-49017838

golfbananajam

17th Jul 2019, 16:44

drichard you beat me to it by about 1 minute.

Mods feel free to delete the duplicate thread I started

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2019, 16:46

There's no guarantee that Jet2 will succeed in extracting payment if the lady disputes the invoice.

Speed of Sound

17th Jul 2019, 16:48

No news from Plod regarding actually charging her for endangering the aircraft - probably a slap on the wrist there if the UK police follow form.

This is not a Police decision. It will be up to the CPS to decide and it will have to reach the evidential threshold for prosecution.

If you charge someone with endangering an aircraft you need to prove to a court beyond reasonable doubt that that person’s actions endangered the aircraft. Being drunk and shouty while trying to hit cabin crew may be unpleasant and frightening for some passengers, but it does not even come close to endangering the aircraft.

Banana Joe

17th Jul 2019, 16:54

Sucks to be her but a precedent had to be set.

flying phil 2007

17th Jul 2019, 17:42

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7256749/Air-rage-passenger-slapped-85-000-airline-bill-Jet2.html

Nice pic of the two RAF Typhoons... Daily Mail living up to their reputation.

Maybe the MoD should bill her too..Scrambling Typhoons isn't cheap.

RomeoAlphaMike

17th Jul 2019, 17:52

She refuses to pay. They maybe persuade a judge to enforce a CCJ on her (costing them £4250 before they pay a penny to a lawyer). She goes bankrupt. CCJ written off.

All for show.

Gove N.T.

17th Jul 2019, 18:07

She refuses to pay. They maybe persuade a judge to enforce a CCJ on her (costing them £4250 before they pay a penny to a lawyer). She goes bankrupt. CCJ written off.

All for show.

Perhaps a stand has to be made.
However, if this person does declare bankruptcy she will find life pretty difficult getting any credit, now or in the future as an undischarged bankrupt I suspect. Actually - who gives a toss?

Old Dogs

17th Jul 2019, 18:22

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7256749/Air-rage-passenger-slapped-85-000-airline-bill-Jet2.html

Nice pic of the two RAF Typhoons...

One of those ain't a Typhoon.

DaveReidUK

17th Jul 2019, 18:35

One of those ain't a Typhoon.

Yes, I think that was the point the previous poster was making ...

Old Dogs

17th Jul 2019, 18:38

Yes, I think that was the point the previous poster was making ...

That's what I thought too but I suspect many didn't get it - especially since the other aircraft is actually a Russian Sukhoi, hence my post.

n5296s

17th Jul 2019, 18:39

I honestly don't know what a Typhoon looks like, but I find it hard to believe that BOTH of these aircraft are Typhoons...

Good on Jet2 anyway. Nice clear message. Hope the lifetime ban gets spread around the industry, before she pulls the same stunt at RYR/EZY too.

McBruce

17th Jul 2019, 19:02

Speed of Sound

17th Jul 2019, 20:30

Some fairly rich men have been arrested for disruptive behaviour aboard aircraft.

Maybe the airlines should target their response on a couple of high profile cases against people who can be chased for the dough.

Satoshi Nakamoto

17th Jul 2019, 20:58

One of those ain't a Typhoon.

Try to keep up:ugh:

Longtimer

17th Jul 2019, 21:35

Good to see the Russians helping out. :)

The AvgasDinosaur

17th Jul 2019, 22:23

Good to see the Russians helping out. :)
Can we blame the Sukhoi for all the subsequent Mach related damage and send the bill to Moscow ?

dixi188

18th Jul 2019, 04:24

I'm lost here.
I see a photo of a pair of Typhoons. Is there another pic i'm not seeing?

Old Dogs

18th Jul 2019, 04:56

I'm lost here.
I see a photo of a pair of Typhoons. Is there another pic i'm not seeing?

Check the notes at the masthead: UPDATED: 17:34 EDT, 17 July 2019

They changed the picture from one Typhoon and one Sukhoi 35 to two Typhoons.

marchino61

18th Jul 2019, 05:01

I'm lost here.
I see a photo of a pair of Typhoons. Is there another pic i'm not seeing?

Possibly you didn't see the pic they pulled after being ridiculed?

GrahamO

18th Jul 2019, 06:01

Actually - who gives a toss?

Anyone who has the misfortune to be on the same aircraft as her in the future maybe ?

She will have fun and games if unable to get a credit card, so booking a holiday in the future which while not an absolute block will remind her every time she tries to do everyday things.

Dannyboy39

18th Jul 2019, 06:32

Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?

RomeoAlphaMike

18th Jul 2019, 06:47

Lifetime of misery from debts collectors or bankruptcy, better than a 30 quid slap on the wrist and some community service. Given simple parking fines can explode in value when it’s unpaid the culprit here is pretty screwed and most likely bankruptcy is the only option. A great deterrent IMO.

I think it is all moot. Jet2 would be stupid to waste the court fees and legal fees pursuing it for no return and I imagine they have no intention of doing so. The aim, successful, was to get it in the newspapers to act as a deterrent to others. Hopefully it works

Planemike

18th Jul 2019, 07:53

I think it is all moot. Jet2 would be stupid to waste the court fees and legal fees pursuing it for no return and I imagine they have no intention of doing so. The aim, successful, was to get it in the newspapers to act as a deterrent to others. Hopefully it works

Seems reasonable........ Dispatching TWO Typhoons seems to be rather "over the top". What were they going to achieve, given the circumstances??

SMT Member

18th Jul 2019, 07:58

Seems reasonable........ Dispatching TWO Typhoons seems to be rather "over the top". What were they going to achieve, given the circumstances??

One to do the shooting down, the other to confirm the kill?

Speed of Sound

18th Jul 2019, 08:00

Seems reasonable........ Dispatching TWO Typhoons seems to be rather "over the top".

Remember that this is as much about PR as it is security, so two is always better than one.

Scuffers

18th Jul 2019, 08:04

One to do the shooting down, the other to confirm the kill?
AFAIK, no response profile is ever a single aircraft.

if one aircraft had a technical issue, your response would be zero - hence the minimum is 2

blind pew

18th Jul 2019, 11:28

Like in the good old days. Sort out the ground staff who allowed her to board.
Retrain the CC who handled it so badly.
What a waste of time launching a couple of interceptors.
Make airports a friendlier place rather than an ordeal.
pathetic..

sooty655

18th Jul 2019, 11:48

Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?
If the event is as reported then we are not talking "drunk and disorderly". She was apparently trying to open an emergency exit, so IMHO Yes.

pilotmike

18th Jul 2019, 11:51

Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?

You're right, of course it doesn't! Nobody can or should 'make her bankrupt'.

However the airline's choice to pursue her for some (probably not ALL, because that would include all knock-on, crew out of hours etc) cost seems highly reasonable. But ALL of the other passengers were inconvenienced, and they ALL presumably were late arriving, with consequential costs etc, which they have little if any hope of passing on to her. So no, asking her merely to pay the airline's cost most certainly does not fit the crime - it should be more.

The only person "landing someone [herself] with a huge bill" was herself! Do you not see that?

And the above only applies if she actually pays the airline's reasonable bill. Presumably she won't, so that is a further reason for the punishment being unlikely to fit the crime. Her most likely way to avoid paying the reasonable bill will probably be to declare herself bankrupt, which of course is entirely her choice. Should she choose to do so, then the consequences of taking such action would be her responsibility, and hers alone. It is about choices, responsibility, and consequences. It was in her hands; the other passengers didn't have any choice in the consequences for them.

Once the wider public see the reasonable consequences (being asked to pay for some of the costs), as well as the possible consequences of declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying up, it might then help them to recognise their responsibility to behave in a much more focused way.

And a lifetime ban? Certainly - why would anyone want to be put through that again, with all the cost which they'll have ho hope of recovering from her?

So, it certainly does not befit the crime, not completely, but it seems a good start.

Bob Viking

18th Jul 2019, 11:54

Fighters always prefer to operate as a minimum of a pair when conducting actual missions. QRA is no different to any other operation in that respect.

When you see single jets flying around they are just on a training mission.

BV

Speed of Sound

18th Jul 2019, 12:21

She was apparently trying to open an emergency exit, so IMHO Yes.

She wasn’t.

She was reported as threatening to open an emergency exit while being restrained by CC. Neither did she ever attempt to enter the flight deck. This was a misunderstanding after the flight crew told ATC that the cabin was secure when updating the situation.

Alsacienne

18th Jul 2019, 12:33

How about ...

1) The person is blacklisted for life from Jet2.

2) The person is blacklisted by other airlines.

3) Enough negative publicity is generated to bite the person concerned in the bum and discourage others from following her line of conduct.

Pilot DAR

18th Jul 2019, 15:56

3) Enough negative publicity is generated to bite the person concerned in the bum and discourage others from following her line of conduct.

In our world of social media, and easy dissemination of news, it would be concerning to not make it known that poor conduct as a passenger resulted in punishment and a demand for compensation. A standard of expected behavior must be established and enforced.

pilotmike

18th Jul 2019, 15:58

She wasn’t.

She was reported as threatening to open an emergency exit while being restrained by CC.

Ah! That's fine then! Anybody could be forgiven for making such a silly mistake. :ugh:

Even if she'd 'only' threatened to have a bomb that would also be fine, as well, would it? - 'cos it is SO much better than actually having one... or something that appears to be one.... or which could be considered to possibly be one as they screamed they had one?.

Get real. The flight deck is told of a threat of violence, or terrorism, or opening a door, so of course they'll take appropriate action. Just for a minute imagine how it would appear in the crash investigation with all lives lost that the flight deck decided to carry on to destination after being clearly alerted to a direct threat to safety for all aboard, just because they hoped she was bluffing. What about with you or your loved ones on the plane?

DaveReidUK

18th Jul 2019, 17:08

At the risk of letting the facts get in the way of a good story, perhaps it would be a good idea to wait and see what the young lady is actually charged with, if indeed she is charged at all.

I'd hazard a guess that it's not going to be with "endangering an aircraft".

MPN11

18th Jul 2019, 17:57

“Disobeying lawful commands...” should suffice?

OMG, we’re flying Jet2 next week to LBA. ;)

tdracer

18th Jul 2019, 18:36

Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?

Actions have consequences. Most adults know that. Those who don't need a painful lesson so they don't forget it.
Besides, the costs were incurred due to her irresponsible actions. Who else should be made liable for her irresponsibility? How is giving her a bill for some (not even all) of the costs incurred by others due to her actions not befit the crime?
As for a lifetime ban, can you imagine the outcry if she flew again with the same outcome? Old saying - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Cuillin Hills

18th Jul 2019, 18:49

Branson will probably give her an all expenses paid trip to Vegas with Virgin!

DaveReidUK

18th Jul 2019, 19:24

Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?

We're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.

It hasn't been established that she is being accused of any crime. All that has happened in the last few days is that she is reportedly in receipt of a speculative invoice from Jet2 in respect of costs that they have incurred and which they may or (more likely) may not decide to pursue through the courts.

The tabloids are further muddying the waters by reporting that the £85K is a "fine" (it isn't) and that Jet2 "will not hesitate to prosecute" (it's not their decision, unless they opt for a private prosecution).

NRU74

18th Jul 2019, 19:36

When I did Civil Law (albeit 30 years ago) the first question asked of the potential Plaintiff (now, I think, Claimant) was ‘Have you got any money’? The second question was ‘Has the Respondent (or whatever the other side is now called) got any money? If he/she is what lawyers call a ‘man of straw’ ie no assets - then forget it.
I can understand the airline banning her for however long.... but suing her would be a waste of money, although a CCJ against her does screw up her ability to obtain credit in the future.

Speed of Sound

18th Jul 2019, 23:11

Ah! That's fine then! Anybody could be forgiven for making such a silly mistake. :ugh:

No, it’s not alright but neither is it endangering an aircraft.

CEJM

19th Jul 2019, 06:50

Couple who helped restrain the woman are now demanding compensation from Jet2.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-demand-payout-restraining-woman-18342705

scr1

19th Jul 2019, 07:31

jet2 have the following in their terms and conditions

If, in our reasonable opinion, you have failed to behave appropriately either in the airport or on board the aircraft or we consider you unfit to fly:

you may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft;
we may decide (in our reasonable discretion) to cancel your flight prior to take-off and/or, after take-off;
divert the aircraft to offload you, in which case you must pay to us all costs and expenses which we incur of any nature whatsoever as a result of or arising out of that diversion;
we may decide to cancel any return flight or other future flights you have with us, without refund;
we may take any other measures we deem necessary to prevent continuation of your inappropriate conduct, including your restraint or removal from the aircraft or airport.

In all of the above circumstances, you shall not be refunded the price of your booking, and we shall not be liable for any costs you incur as a result of us refusing carriage.

You will indemnify us for all costs and expenses (including the legal costs we incur in bringing any action against you) arising from your improper conduct on board the aircraft including (but not limited to) any damage caused to the aircraft.

I would think that it is this that they will be using to issue the bill as she has agreed to the terms and conditions when purchasing the flight.

(how many pepole read the terms and conditions when making a purchase?)

Gove N.T.

19th Jul 2019, 07:57

DaveReidUK

19th Jul 2019, 08:03

I would think that it is this that they will be using to issue the bill as she has agreed to the terms and conditions when purchasing the flight.

More than likely.

There is, of course, a ton of wiggle room in the above that will make any lawyer's eyes light up (should things get to that stage).

if, in our reasonable opinion, you have failed to behave appropriately

all costs and expenses ... arising from your improper conduct

Prediction: This isn't going to get anywhere near a courtroom.

flybar

19th Jul 2019, 08:17

seems like today’s “I’m entitled” culture is firmly entrenched with this couple. What a pair of graspers
totally agree.
They got involved voluntarily and shouldn't expect compensation.
I am sure if they were injured in the process then the airline would be the first to offer help towards their recovery

homonculus

19th Jul 2019, 10:33

As the boss of a company, my priorities, after my legal responsibility to protect the shareholders' interests, are

1 Protect and support my employees
2 ensure my customers are safe
3 protect the reputation of my company and my industry to ensure its ongoing health

I would do exactly the same as this CEO - send a bill, and threaten court action if not paid. This sends out a strong an clear message to others not to get drunk or violent. Any less is sanctioning customers beating up my employees. The publicity is as useful as the outcome. I would accept a smaller sum and a very public and sincere apology from the woman in the end as it would achieve the same, but I wouldnt drop it

As to the other passengers, if they did volunteer to put themselves in harms way having witnessed an employee being assaulted, I would personally thank them, send flowers and reimburse the money they have paid. It costs 'nothing', is good publicity, and prevents threats like this. We always apologise and consider flower when a customer complains even if the complaint is stupid. It diffuses the situation, preserves my company's reputation and saves the cost of ongoing investigation and complaint management

I am surprised we need to discuss this.....

16024

19th Jul 2019, 11:08

Speed of Sound

19th Jul 2019, 11:29

“She bolted to the front of the plane and threw one stewardess from one side of the aisle to the other.”

Superb example of tabloid hyperbole here! ��

Maybe the couple who asked for compensation should be given £100 then banned from Jet2.��

Scuffers

19th Jul 2019, 12:38

While most would agree with the sentiments here, it is interesting that the legal requirement to protect the shareholders is placed first.
I think you'll be fine legally if your company procedures prioritise staff and passengers over shareholders.
and this is the mistake a lot of companies make these days.

Yes, the shareholders are important, however, they are NOTHING compared to your customers, without which, you have no business.

standbykid

19th Jul 2019, 13:48

Who gave the order to scramble the Typhoons and why? The aircraft was never under the control of a terrorist or under any external threat.

DaveReidUK

19th Jul 2019, 13:58

I think you'll be fine legally if your company procedures prioritise staff and passengers over shareholders.

I'm guessing you're not a company director. Nor a lawyer.

Speed of Sound

19th Jul 2019, 14:47

Who gave the order to scramble the Typhoons and why? The aircraft was never under the control of a terrorist or under any external threat.

If remember correctly, during the dialogue between the flight deck and ATC, the standard phrase ‘cockpit secured’ was used which was misinterpreted as ‘attempt made to forcibly enter the cockpit repelled and cockpit now secured’, leading ATC to hit the big, red button.

Planemike

19th Jul 2019, 15:08

seems like today’s “I’m entitled” culture is firmly entrenched with this couple. What a pair of graspers

I guess any sense of "civic duty", went out of the window many moons ago......????

They are of course making a large assumption: that is Jet2's invoice for £ 85000 is going to be paid. Big "if" there, methinks.....!!!

Who gave the order to scramble the Typhoons and why? The aircraft was never under the control of a terrorist or under any external threat.

Yes, but it looks good and is all very "macho"......

Speed of Sound

19th Jul 2019, 15:37

They are of course making a large assumption: that is Jet2's invoice for £ 85000 is going to be paid. Big "if" there, methinks.....!!!

Even if by some miracle the £85,000 bill is payed, it will be used to cover the airline’s quantifiable losses caused by the incident, not to pay off a couple of chancers.

dixi188

19th Jul 2019, 15:39

As a company director, your responsibility is to the shareholders first.
This responsibility would include looking after staff and customers to ensure the shareholders interests are secured.
Of course there are some directors, like Asset Strippers, who give little thought to staff and customers.

pilotmike

19th Jul 2019, 15:52

No, it’s not alright but neither is it endangering an aircraft.

Apologies, SoS, my bad, I didn't make my point clear.

I wasn't criticising you for correcting the known facts or for any silly mistake. Rather, it was my clumsy attempt at sarcasm, pointed mostly towards Dannyboy39 for questioning whether the 'punishment befitted the crime', presumably based on the pretext that she was 'only' guilty of a silly mistake, 'joking' about interfering with the aircraft doors.

cwatters

19th Jul 2019, 18:11

Couple who helped restrain the woman are now demanding compensation from Jet2.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-demand-payout-restraining-woman-18342705

Perhaps we shouldn't automatically believe what we read in the papers? Have they said the same on TV or similar?

Having been on the receiving end of a journalist looking for a story myself, I'm reminded of an episode of the BBC series "Yes Minister" in which Sir Humphrey demonstrates how to get any answer you want from a survey by asking the right sort of questions.

cwatters

19th Jul 2019, 18:18

Google finds this isn't the first time Jet2 have sent a bill but it does seem to be the biggest....

2015 - £5,000
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-traveller-hit-near-5k-9615769

2016 - £12,000
https://www.jet2.com/News/Lifetime_Ban_and_12000_Bill_for_Divert_Passenger/

2017 - £25,000
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5137439/the-view-kyle-falconer-court-jet2-flight-air-rage-homophobic-rant/

16024

19th Jul 2019, 21:11

I'm guessing you're not a company director. Nor a lawyer.
I'm a customer and and an employee at some stage, as are we all. If you want to shirk your moral responsibility these are the idiots you end up dealing with.
Order of priority:
Employees
Customers
Shareholders.
Sort out the first two and the third group will be happy.
Show me where that isn't true.

DaveReidUK

20th Jul 2019, 07:23

I'm a customer and and an employee at some stage, as are we all. If you want to shirk your moral responsibility these are the idiots you end up dealing with.
Order of priority:
Employees
Customers
Shareholders.
Sort out the first two and the third group will be happy.
Show me where that isn't true.

No argument with any of that, only with the suggestion that legally it's fine for a company to put customers' and/or employees' interests ahead of its shareholders' (should those interests differ, though often they will coincide).

It simply isn't.

And now, back to discussing disruptive passengers ...

16024

20th Jul 2019, 21:35

No argument with any of that, only with the suggestion that legally it's fine for a company to put customers' and/or employees' interests ahead of its shareholders' (should those interests differ, though often they will coincide).

It simply isn't.

And now, back to discussing disruptive passengers ...

Friedman speak, 40 years out of date.
Long gone are the days you could say “The shareholders made me do it”.
Anyway, entirely a propos the discussion, although the J2 zero tolerance approach has the interests of the company, the staff and the public perfectly aligned.

RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike

20th Jul 2019, 21:55

Duties of Directors Companies Act 2006 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172?view=plain)

Meester proach

21st Jul 2019, 09:17

Apparently she works in Costa coffee. Gonna take a lot of lattes to be able to pay £85k

milhouse999

21st Jul 2019, 10:59

From the original news article 'It was previously revealed she had been banned from the roads for 28 months for drink-driving just two weeks before the incident.' - what a pillar of society.

This brings to the surface the age old argument of whether you should have any alcohol or drugs in your system as a passenger on an aircraft. The state of some people on board these holiday flights, in an emergency they are going to be a massive hinderance to those of us who are sober and want to get off. Maybe it's time the same rules that apply to driving are applied to being a passenger on board. How is someone who is drunk co-ordinate themselves to a safe evacuation?

I like the Jet2 no nonsense approach. I once boarded an early morning flight on Easyjet, two chaps who boarded last sat in row 1 in front of us were inebriated as they got on, shouting, swearing 'lets get on it' and the like. Tracksuit clad oiks. Crew and other passengers looked uncomfortable. I had a quiet word with the cabin manager explaining my concern that these two are not suitable to be flying. He said he would 'refuse to serve them any more' once we were in the air and that they were 'just a bit boistrous'. Unacceptable. Once the drinks service commenced and we were airbourne, the crew had to spend the flight trying to appease them and stop it all 'kicking off' becuase they weren't allowed another five vodkas. Offload them on the ground.

Euclideanplane

21st Jul 2019, 11:45

I like the Jet2 no nonsense approach. (...) Offload them on the ground.

United Express Flight 3411 style? But where does the Jet2 manifesto say to offload before takeoff thou?

DaveReidUK

21st Jul 2019, 12:45

United Express Flight 3411 style? But where does the Jet2 manifesto say to offload before takeoff thou?

It's in their terms and conditions: "we may take any other measures we deem necessary ... including ... your removal from the aircraft".

https://www.jet2.com/new/terms

Though we'll have to take it on trust that they mean removing you before takeoff, not after. :O

milhouse999

21st Jul 2019, 12:51

It's in their terms and conditions: "we may take any other measures we deem necessary ... including ... your removal from the aircraft".

https://www.jet2.com/new/terms

Though we'll have to take it on trust that they mean removing you before takeoff, not after. :O

Haha the alternative would be an option for some people!

Euclideanplane

21st Jul 2019, 13:23

It's in their terms and conditions: "we may take any other measures we deem necessary ... including ... your removal from the aircraft".
Though we'll have to take it on trust that they mean removing you before takeoff, not after. :O

Indeed. Though if the alleged offenses occur at any point after takeoff, as in the present case apparently, the removal before takeoff is likely among those measures deemed unnecessary to take. Hence the United Airlines reference.

M.Mouse

21st Jul 2019, 17:46

This brings to the surface the age old argument of whether you should have any alcohol or drugs in your system as a passenger on an aircraft. The state of some people on board these holiday flights, in an emergency they are going to be a massive hinderance to those of us who are sober and want to get off.

It isn't going to happen because loss of alcohol sales equals loss of profit.

To expand that meaningless cliché 'Safety is our primary concern......unless it costs money'.

Planemike

22nd Jul 2019, 15:44

It isn't going to happen because loss of alcohol sales equals loss of profit.
To expand that meaningless cliché 'Safety is our primary concern......unless it costs money'.

Ain't that the truth..............!!!

*

drichard

30th Sep 2019, 14:36

Sorry to drag this up again, but here is an update ... https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/17936617.stansted-airport-woman-charged-jet2-flight-escorted-raf-jets/

The person has been "charged with one count of assault and one count of recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons inside"

The AvgasDinosaur

1st Oct 2019, 11:25

b1lanc

1st Oct 2019, 15:59

DaveReidUK

1st Oct 2019, 17:10

Did they ever collect on any of them?

If the Sun is to be believed, the third listed event above resulted in the offender paying Jet2's £14,000 invoice, plus the £1,000 fine imposed by the court.

There's no evidence of the other two bills having been paid, nor of the intended prosection by Jet2 in respect of the first event having taken place.

But it is the Sun, after all ...

b1lanc

1st Oct 2019, 23:07

If the Sun is to be believed, the third listed event above resulted in the offender paying Jet2's £14,000 invoice, plus the £1,000 fine imposed by the court.

There's no evidence of the other two bills having been paid, nor of the intended prosection by Jet2 in respect of the first event having taken place.

But it is the Sun, after all ...

Hard to get someone to pay when they have no means to do so or assets to levy.

drichard

20th Nov 2019, 12:30

Further update: looks like they want to throw the book at her

For those not fully understanding the UK legal system, a Magistrates court deals with lesser offences, whereas the Crown court has the ability lo lever unlimited punishment

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7705425/Drunk-holidaymaker-tried-open-jets-emergency-exit-mid-air.html

DaveReidUK

20th Nov 2019, 13:29

For those not fully understanding the UK legal system, a Magistrates court deals with lesser offences, whereas the Crown court has the ability lo lever unlimited punishment

I've met the odd Crown Court judge who would love that to be true, but it isn't. :O

The DM appears to be implying that she is charged with "assault by beating" (s.39 CJA 1988) and "recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft" (s.240 ANO 2016).

My money would be on her pleading/being found guilty on the former charge and either found not guilty or no evidence offered on the latter.

Ex Cargo Clown

20th Nov 2019, 13:57

I've met the odd Crown Court judge who would love that to be true, but it isn't. :O

The DM appears to be implying that she is charged with "assault by beating" (s.39 CJA 1988) and "recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft" (s.240 ANO 2016).

My money would be on her pleading/being found guilty on the former charge and either found not guilty or no evidence offered on the latter.

Assault by beating = Fine + Community order.

The other will be dropped.

Piper.Classique

20th Nov 2019, 16:55

Oh well, that's all right then. No need to bother with an actual trial.

NRU74

20th Nov 2019, 18:16

Assault by beating = Fine + Community order.

The other will be dropped.

Not so.
The DJ decided that his sentencing powers for the either way offence were insufficient in any event so he ‘sent’ it to the Crown Ct.
In the Mags Ct the Defence lawyer will have already canvassed whether the Crown would take a G Plea to the lesser offence - to no avail.
Thus, she’ll have to plead to the more serious offence in the Crown Ct altho’ if she’s no ‘form’ she may yet get a ‘bender’ ie a suspended sentence, especially if she’s shown willing and already started paying the airline some compo.

RoyHudd

20th Nov 2019, 18:20

Jet 2 are no better than other carriers. No worse. Just ineffective on all outbound flights with disruptive pax.

TCAS FAN

20th Nov 2019, 18:29

Apparently she works in Costa coffee. Gonna take a lot of lattes to be able to pay £85k

Academic, she'll have destroyed her credit rating so no credit card to buy another foreign holiday by air!

sherburn2LA

20th Nov 2019, 19:55

oh please, enough with the holier than thou.

Apart from the genuinely mentally disturbed airlines could have stamped this out long ago if they wanted to. They are intentionally assuming the risk of an occasional diversion because in the long run they get more revenue. Perhaps it is about time other passengers started suing the airline for their inconvenience. Not to mention the employees who have to put up with this on a daily basis.

Ex Cargo Clown

20th Nov 2019, 21:03

Not so.
The DJ decided that his sentencing powers for the either way offence were insufficient in any event so he ‘sent’ it to the Crown Ct.
In the Mags Ct the Defence lawyer will have already canvassed whether the Crown would take a G Plea to the lesser offence - to no avail.
Thus, she’ll have to plead to the more serious offence in the Crown Ct altho’ if she’s no ‘form’ she may yet get a ‘bender’ ie a suspended sentence, especially if she’s shown willing and already started paying the airline some compo.

I know of someone with "form" who went from Magis to Crown, on more serious charges, ended up with a CO + fine, which a Magi could have dished out anyway.

Plead guilty to a s47, the ANO one is difficult to prove.

NRU74

20th Nov 2019, 21:16

Plead guilty to a s47, the ANO one is difficult to prove.

She’s not charged (apparently)with a S47,
I would consider that a few pax and cabin staff giving evidence if it’s denied (which I doubt) may well result in said lady getting convicted of the more serious offence.
She’ll plead !

horizon flyer

21st Nov 2019, 21:33

I thought being drunk or carrying a drunk person on an aircraft is an air law offence in its self from my PPL training and I believe the captain is liable to prosecution for it as well as the drunk person. Does anyone know?

DaveReidUK

21st Nov 2019, 22:01

She’ll plead !

Yes, she's due to appear at Chelmsford Crown Court on December 18, where she will plead - guilty or not guilty, as the case may be - to the charges on the indictment.

At least that's what the DM article says ...

dontdoit

22nd Nov 2019, 01:31

Horizon flyer - You might want to re-read your Air Navigation Order, specificallyDrunkenness in aircraft242.—(1) A person must not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft.

(2) A person must not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of acting as a member of the crew, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair their capacity so to act.

Hope that reassures you that the Captain has not committed any offence by having a drunk passenger on the aircraft. Back to your Cessna 150.

crewmeal

22nd Nov 2019, 05:16

She'll no doubt get a soft sentence in line with others who have caused disruption on aircraft. Jet2 have done thr right thing by banning her for life.

rog747

22nd Nov 2019, 08:28

She did not enter plea's - She's been bailed with a no-fly caveat - She is charged with assault by beating (Common assault, Battery - not ABH it seems) and recklessly endangering an air plane and persons - If she pleads guilty which no doubt her Lawyer will advise, then she may get 2-4 years plus the costs that Jet 2 want.

DaveReidUK

22nd Nov 2019, 13:13

and recklessly endangering an air plane and persons

The ANO offence is endangering either/both, but just endangering one or more passengers is sufficient.

Airbubba

23rd Dec 2019, 14:34

An update on the court case from The Independent.

Chloe Haines: Woman who ‘tried to open plane door mid-flight’ pleads guilty to endangering aircraft and assault

There is ‘no question that she was drunk’, lawyer tells court

Jon Sharman (https://www.independent.co.uk/author/jon-sharman)

A woman has pleaded guilty to assault and endangering the safety of an aircraft after a passenger plane to Turkey was forced to divert back to Stansted Airport (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/stansted-airport).

Chloe Haines, 26, appeared at Chelmsford Crown Court (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/ChelmsfordCrownCourt) on Monday.

She allegedly tried to open the aircraft door during a tirade aboard a Jet2 (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/jet2) flight in June, forcing the RAF (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/raf) to scramble two Eurofighter Typhoon jets to intercept it.

On board the flight, a cabin crew member allegedly suffered scratches as she tried to prevent Haines from opening the plane door on 22 June.

The Airbus plane was on its way to Dalaman in Turkey when it was forced to return to the UK.https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/12/23/10/chloe-haines.jpg?w660
Haines, outside Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court in November (PA)
Haines denied a charge of drunkenness on an aircraft.

Defence barrister Oliver Saxby said there was “no question that she was drunk” but that the charge of endangering the safety of an aircraft was the “more serious alternative”.
Haines, of High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, was bailed to return to the court on 24 January for sentencing.

Nil by mouth

23rd Dec 2019, 19:11

She'll no doubt get a soft sentence in line with others who have caused disruption on aircraft. Jet2 have done thr right thing by banning her for life.

The original sensational headline read "Air rage passenger, 25, who 'stormed cockpit'.
She got nowhere near being able to storm the cockpit! How would a petite drunk 25 year old alcoholic be able to gain access to the cockpit?
Also even if unchallenged, would that same drunk, alcoholic female be capable of opening an emergency exit at FL300?

Blown out of all proportion from start to finish including scrambling fighter jets as an escort.
This young woman has a history of alcohol abuse and crimes associated with its effects.
A heavy custodial and or financial sentence will do nothing to castigate her for something she probably does not remember too much about.
A short custodial sentence suspended if she attends very regular AA meetings, miss one or two then put her inside.

More needs to be done to monitor in flight drinking!

TheFiddler

23rd Dec 2019, 19:18

More needs to be done to monitor in flight drinking!

It happened 30 mins after departure...

OldnGrounded

23rd Dec 2019, 22:12

Quote:Originally Posted by Nil by mouth https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/623634-disruptive-jet2-passenger-getting-big-bill-5.html#post10646417)More needs to be done to monitor in flight drinking!
It happened 30 mins after departure...

Well, then, we need to monitor pre-pushback drinking. :ooh:

HarryMann

23rd Dec 2019, 22:29

Quote:Originally Posted by Nil by mouth https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/623634-disruptive-jet2-passenger-getting-big-bill-5.html#post10646417)More needs to be done to monitor in flight drinking!

Well, then, we need to monitor pre-pushback drinking. :ooh:
Where did i hear that 20 years ago or more...

listria

23rd Dec 2019, 23:17

As a passenger and even more as cabin crew there's nothing scarier than being trapped in a restricted space with a potentially violent person. Happened some years ago in a HS 748 over the Pacific and with no way out of the aluminium tube it was very stressful.
Throw the book at her.

Nil by mouth

24th Dec 2019, 06:56

As a passenger and even more as flight crew there's nothing scarier than being trapped in a restricted space with a potentially violent person. Happened some years ago in a HS 748 over the Pacific and with no way out of the aluminium tube it was very stressful.
Throw the book at her.

I'm in no way condoning her actions, simply pointing out the over reaction and sensationalism of the reporting of the incident.

Far short of breathalyzing people as the come aboard there is no short answer. Cabin crew who refuse to serve alcohol to someone they suspect has already had too many can in itself trigger "air rage".
Smoking was banned some years ago so maybe it's time to effectively address alcohol consumption.

DaveReidUK

24th Dec 2019, 07:26

Airbanda

24th Dec 2019, 07:44

The lady will get credit for her guilty plea, and her lawyer will likely argue, correctly, that at no point was the aircraft actually endangered (the ANO doesn't require that it has to be for the offence in question to be committed).

I doubt she's going to jail.

Suspended sentence contingent on treatment for alcohol seems most constructive approach. I doubt a 'short sharp shock' will deter either her or the next troubled person who's had far too many...

homonculus

24th Dec 2019, 10:55

Without the various reports I assume the court will be obtaining about the defendant's medical, psychological and social state who can say what effect a particular sentence will have upon her

However, as with the misuse of lasers, it is important a message goes out from the Court that this behaviour will result in serious consequences and not merely a trip to AA. Otherwise there is no deterrent and CC and passengers will continue to be disrupted, frightened, assaulted and abused by others.

WingNut60

24th Dec 2019, 11:29

The original sensational headline read "Air rage passenger, 25, who 'stormed cockpit'.
............

Not sure how you determined that she is petite.
But she surely has not weathered well for a 25 Y.O.

Nil by mouth

24th Dec 2019, 12:09

Not sure how you determined that she is petite.
But she surely has not weathered well for a 25 Y.O.

From the original report
'She was only petite'
The photo of her being led away shows security head and shoulders above her.
Alcoholics do not usually weather well at any age.

CAEBr

12th Feb 2020, 12:43

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-drunk-woman-who-tried-21480826

Jailed for two years

Airbubba

12th Feb 2020, 14:58

Another account of the sentencing from Sky News.

Chloe Haines jailed after attempting to open plane door midway through Stansted flight

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/skynews_chloe_haines_plane_door_guilty_4918135_28041aa151d19 a0d5b3da342df7df7c40e900bc8.jpgThe 26-year-old sobs through a court hearing following an incident in which she yelled "I'm going to kill you all".Wednesday 12 February 2020 15:36, UK

A woman who yelled "I'm going to kill you all" and tried to open the door of a plane midway through a flight has been jailed for two years.

Chloe Haines, 26, was handed the prison sentence at Chelmsford Crown Court on Wednesday following an incident on board a flight from Stansted Airport on 22 June last year.

Two RAF fighter jets were scrambled to meet the Jet2 flight - which was heading to Dalaman, Turkey - and escort it back to the Essex airport.

Haines, who passengers and cabin crew had fought to restrain, was arrested by police when the plane landed.

A court later heard how she "blacked out and didn't really remember what happened" on the flight after mixing alcohol with medication.

Haines, of High Wycombe, had previously admitted at a hearing in December (https://news.sky.com/story/woman-admits-trying-to-open-a-plane-door-mid-flight-and-assaulting-crew-member-11894113) to endangering the safety of an aircraft and assaulting cabin crew member Charley Coombe.

Ms Coombe suffered scratches as she tried to prevent Haines from opening the plane door.Haines' barrister told a court last year his client was a "troubled young person with a number of serious issues".

He said "to her credit" that Haines had "engaged more fully with Alcoholics Anonymous".

Judge Charles Gratwicke said: "Those that are trapped in the confined space of the aircraft will inevitably be distressed, frightened and petrified by the actions of those who in a drunken state endanger their lives.

"For some it will be their worst nightmare come true."

Jet2 calculated that the incident cost them £86,000, the court heard.

rog747

13th Feb 2020, 04:20

DaveReidUK

13th Feb 2020, 06:25

Good - she got 2 years....Has she got to pay Jet2's diversion bill and the fuel for the Typhoon shout?

Jet2 have huffed and puffed about sending her a massive bill (I've seen £85K quoted), but they would have to take her to court to get that enforced.

Given that the lady isn't going to be earning anything for the next 2 years, I don't see that happening.

As for the interception costs, I'm sure they will be allocated to training.

Atlantic Explorer

13th Feb 2020, 07:35

Judge Charles Gratwicke said: "Those that are trapped in the confined space of the aircraft will inevitably be distressed, frightened and petrified by the actions of those who in a drunken state endanger their lives.

I think they’ve mis-spelled the Judges surname.

beardy

13th Feb 2020, 08:50

As for the interception costs, I'm sure they will be allocated to training.
Why should they be?

Lord Farringdon

13th Feb 2020, 09:22

As for the interception costs, I'm sure they will be allocated to training.

Why should they be?

Well beardy, because if you applied the same logic to Police enforcement no one usually gets billed by the Police for being arrested and found guilty of a crime.The Police are given a budget to carry out certain defined duties related to the apprehension and prosecution of suspected criminals amongst other things. Similalrly, Defence are given a budget some of which will be related to assisting other agencies when called upon and for this they will be allocated an annual budget. The difference is where someone wastes Police time. This is where they have not committed an offence as such, but their actions have resulted in the unnecessary expense of Police or maybe Defence resources. I don't think our 'lady of the flight' intentionally wasted Defence resources but rather it was Defence that was assisting the Police in the apprehension of someone who is now a criminal.

Flying Wild

13th Feb 2020, 09:38

Jet2 have huffed and puffed about sending her a massive bill (I've seen £85K quoted), but they would have to take her to court to get that enforced.

Given that the lady isn't going to be earning anything for the next 2 years, I don't see that happening.

As for the interception costs, I'm sure they will be allocated to training.

Jet2 won't shy away from making a point and I'm sure they will happily pursue her for the costs incurred. It has been done before.

spitfirek5054

13th Feb 2020, 09:59

Already in Jet Blast

happybiker

13th Feb 2020, 10:02

Jet2 won't shy away from making a point and I'm sure they will happily pursue her for the costs incurred. It has been done before.

Good look to Jet2 with that. The young lady probably has a bank account that is seriously overdrawn.

Lord Farringdon

13th Feb 2020, 10:57

Good look to Jet2 with that. The young lady probably has a bank account that is seriously overdrawn.

Yes, it's great to make an example of someone for aviation safety although i doubt it will stop the next clown from doing exactly the same thing. It's in their DNA. In the meantime it's a bit sad for this young women, who unless she gets a lot of help soon will probably become a non- functioning member of society, more so than she already is. As for Jet2 pursuing her for costs? If they are, they really have lost touch with reality. After her stint in prison, this women is destined to become a ward of the state, a beneficiary, a net consumer of taxpayer funds, most likely for the rest of her life and all the while Jet2 holding so much power over her she could never rise above anything again. I know she presented a huge risk to a lot of people but at the same time I dont believe she remembered much of what she did or that she intended to do that. Contrast that with people who cause death and injury and know exactly what they are doing. I would have thought her age and mental condition might have warranted a more compassionate and remedial sentence rather than a lengthy..ish custodial sentence. Maybe a hefty fine which she has to work to pay off. I see it in my country so often. Addiction and mental disorders lead to criminal behaviour, police, court, prison, release and recidivist offending to start the cycle again and again in a continuing downward spiral. . But there is never any help for these people, just more punishment, and more prison. Society ultimately reaps what it sows by not attempting to help those that have potential to be helped rather than locking them up and throwing away the key.Dont get me wrong, I'm not soft on criminals. Leave me alone with a 911 type terroist fro 5 minutes! But this young person is not really in that league.... is she?

beardy

13th Feb 2020, 11:32

Well beardy, because if you applied the same logic to Police enforcement no one usually gets billed by the Police for being arrested and found guilty of a crime.The Police are given a budget to carry out certain defined duties related to the apprehension and prosecution of suspected criminals amongst other things. Similalrly, Defence are given a budget some of which will be related to assisting other agencies when called upon and for this they will be allocated an annual budget. The difference is where someone wastes Police time. This is where they have not committed an offence as such, but their actions have resulted in the unnecessary expense of Police or maybe Defence resources. I don't think our 'lady of the flight' intentionally wasted Defence resources but rather it was Defence that was assisting the Police in the apprehension of someone who is now a criminal.
In that case it is operational costs, not training.

Nige321

13th Feb 2020, 11:38

Dave Gittins

13th Feb 2020, 11:59

But for how long .. 2 years ! not going to happen. With an automatic 50% tariff and time off for good behaviour, she'll be home before next Christmas.

Oilhead

13th Feb 2020, 12:10

Would be interesting to have a passenger try that BS on one of my flights, especially when FAMs are onboard. They are just itching for action, and justification for their presence. I always thank them for being onboard and looking after us.

Dave Gittins

13th Feb 2020, 12:27

BUT (and it's a serious question) do the guys up front know when the FAMS are aboard ?

DaveReidUK

13th Feb 2020, 12:31

Well speculated...! :D

Yes, I was wrong. Not for the first time and doubtless not for the last. :O

I'm still surprised that her lawyer advised her to plead guilty on the ANO charge - we'll never know now whether a jury would have agreed that the aircraft was endangered.

DaveReidUK

13th Feb 2020, 13:09

Jet2 won't shy away from making a point and I'm sure they will happily pursue her for the costs incurred. It has been done before.

I know Jet2 has sent speculative bills to a number of miscreants in the past, but I'm not aware of any where the putative debt has been successfully tested in court.

Can you enlighten us as to what instance(s) you're thinking of, where Jet2 (or any other airline, come to that) has successfully sued a disruptive passenger for costs incurred ?

cats_five

13th Feb 2020, 15:29

Jet2 won't shy away from making a point and I'm sure they will happily pursue her for the costs incurred. It has been done before.

Pointless, she will not have the cash and will declare herself bankrupt. Only the lawyers will gain.

snchater

13th Feb 2020, 16:08

It now transpires that the Typhoons were scrambled in error due to a misunderstanding between the Jet2 pilots and ATC - now, who should the RAF send the bill to?

(runs and ducks for cover!)

flybar

13th Feb 2020, 17:13

It now transpires that the Typhoons were scrambled in error due to a misunderstanding between the Jet2 pilots and ATC - now, who should the RAF send the bill to?

(runs and ducks for cover!)

I believe that the aircraft actually belonged to Titan

Lord Farringdon

13th Feb 2020, 20:19

In that case it is operational costs, not training.

You might well be right beardy. But for every operation, there is an element of training and for every training exercise there is an element of operations. The point is that Defence (and lets just say the RAF in this case) have a number roles that they have to both train and remain proficient in and that they may be required to exercise in a precautionary or executory manner. I understand the RAF conduct exercise airliner intercepts as part of their 'everyday' training which recognizes the reality of today's aviation security awareness. For this they will have a training budget which allow for 'x' number of exercise intercepts per pilot/annum to remain proficient in this role. But there will be no funds allocated to operational intercepts since it is hoped this would never actually be required. Bigger picture......Defence budget is to train for war but we hope they never actually have to operationally do that!

So a real intercept has extremely good training value that can reduce the number of 'exercise' intercepts required to remain proficient and so the intercept in question is effectively already budgeted for as training. Of course there may also be an inter-agency budget from which this could be taken, but I doubt the fighter role would be involved in much inter -government operations. These are more for fixed wing and rotary wing transport and maritime EEZ patrol functions. I guess the point I am trying to make is that our Police and Defence forces should be well trained, prepared and budgeted for for the roles they may need to undertake and relying on cost recovery from individual citizens is not a factor. As I said previously deliberate wasting of Police or Defence resources might attract a somewhat different response.

beardy

13th Feb 2020, 20:51

for every training exercise there is an element of operations

Did you just make that up?
there will be no funds allocated to operational intercepts

Who pays for them when they happen, and they do happen?

Euclideanplane

13th Feb 2020, 21:20

Who pays for them when they happen, and they do happen? The defence budget?

Ranger One

13th Feb 2020, 23:01

I get the feeling that minute girl's demise, which will possibly be a lifelong burden, is because her deranged outbursts, the tone of imagined superiority, offended the listener more than posing any real threat. She should perhaps be committed to a specialist unit for skilled care, but two years in jail? What is the comparative harm done when you assess the real harm she caused? Lunging and scratching. Two years jail. Now think long and hard about the injustices you've read about in the last ten years. Grievous harm done, and scarcely a slap on the wrist.

You're missing one important point; this was just part of a series of offences. Just a couple of weeks before the Jet2 incident, she was involved in a drink-driving incident during which she committed, and was convicted for, assaults on members of the emergency services, as well as the drink driving offence. This history of other recent violent offences would most assuredly have been taken into account when she was sentenced for the violent incident on the Jet2 flight, and not in her favour.

The sentence was entirely justified, IMHO.

Loose rivets

13th Feb 2020, 23:34

Yep, was unaware of that. I was agonising about my indignant ramblings anyway, so will delete.

Lord Farringdon

14th Feb 2020, 00:05

You're missing one important point; this was just part of a series of offences. Just a couple of weeks before the Jet2 incident, she was involved in a drink-driving incident during which she committed, and was convicted for, assaults on members of the emergency services, as well as the drink driving offence. This history of other recent violent offences would most assuredly have been taken into account when she was sentenced for the violent incident on the Jet2 flight, and not in her favour.

The sentence was entirely justified, IMHO.

Fair point, but all this really says is that her actions as a result of her drug and alcohol addiction and mental state are predictable, while her sentencing is dependent on where her predictable behaviour occurred. She needs help, court ordered if necessary but throwing a mentally unstable person in prison at 25 years old has only one outcome. Without help, she will be released on parole and exactly the same behaviour will be exhibited again and she 'll be back inside.... only next time for longer as her rap sheet gets more pages added. Up until her sentencing, I thought there was a chance this one could be turned around. But after she leaves prison? I doubt it. It takes a bit to recognize where compassion vs punishment might be needed and we are all too easily persuaded by the pack that "if you do the crime, then do the time". I say there are alternatives and up until he deleted his post, so did Loose Rivets, an example of how easily underlying convictions can be changed by group think. I don't see Aviation being made one bit safer by throwing this hapless women in prison. Not serving alcohol on flights on the other hand would have an immediate effect.Maybe Jet2 instead of dragging this women down could ban alcohol on their flights and in so doing have a much more tangible outcome to the safety of passengers and crew than this law or the judges sentence has.

Lord Farringdon

14th Feb 2020, 00:10

Did you just make that up?

With all due respect,if that's the sum total of your contribution to the discussion then I might just as well have.

Climb150

14th Feb 2020, 01:17

Lord Farrington,

She was steaming drunk before she got on the plane. I doubt she chugged 10 pints of lager as soon as she got on.

She has been put away because her pathern of behavior shows she is a danger to the public. Drink driving, scaring people to death on a flight just proves that at this moment in time, she needs full supervision and to be taken out of the community. She will sober up in prison if she likes it or not. I would say AA will be available too.

Too often I hear of these "poor people" who need help running down people while drunk or setting their house on fire by falling asleep with a cigarette burning.

belfrybat

14th Feb 2020, 03:19

Locking her up for two years, or even half a year, and tossing her back on the streets will certainly ruin her future prospects for life.

The addictions may have underlying causes. Severe diffuse feelings of anxiety are quite disturbing and overpowering, the victim will go to great lengths to relieve them. Alcohol is a commonly (ab)used anxiolytic, the drugs aren't specified but they too are likely to be anxiolytics.

Anxiety may have several causes, among them clinical depression. This can be confirmed by a psychiatrist, and if that's the case she can be put on a course of anti-depressives. Once free of the depression she'll have a much better chance of taking control of her life and become a useful member of society.

Of course, it's quite possible that the addictions are primary and self-inflicted.