Stroppy cabin crew and groundstaff
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
Like other people, I participate in threads which interest me when I think I've got something to contribute. In addition, and in the hope that it will be helpful, I respond when there's a legal aspect. Sometimes to explain the legal process (eg Why the decision not to prosecute might have been made), and sometimes to correct something that's been posted about the law which is incorrect and might mislead if uncorrected.
Juud is, of course, entitled to her view; others have been kind enough to say they find my legal posts helpful. I've learnt an enormous amount about the aviation from PPRuNe, and try to put something back into the pot when I can. However, it takes all sorts, and it would be impossible to please everyone all the time.
The Mods moved the thread here from R&N. I didn't notice Finals19's error the first time I posted, saw it when I looked at the thread again, and thought I should correct it
What a curious allegation. 
Those of a less paranoid disposition might like to read this (post # 38) and decide for themselves whether that allegation is justified: Link here.
Some things in life are fixed and unchanging.
So it appears.
Finals19
I assumed it would be obvious my 'cargo aircraft' comment was a light-hearted quip, so didn't think a smiley was necessary.
I'm sorry you think the difference between what you said and I've said about the ANO is pedantry. It isn't. What you said was just plain wrong.
srs what?
A court can be satisfied by non-medical evidence that someone was drunk. A non-expert expression of opinion alone wouldn't be enough, but a description of someone's behaviour might be.
eg
"In my opinion, X was drunk" = Not enough.
"X's eyes were glazed, his speech was slurred, he was staggering around and his breath smelt of drink" = Enough (in the absence of an explanation).
"could end up with the accuser seeing private legal action themselves."
In theory, yes. But, in the absence of evidence that the accuser was being untruthful (as opposed to honestly mistaken) and knowingly making a false accusation, unlikely.
FL
Juud is, of course, entitled to her view; others have been kind enough to say they find my legal posts helpful. I've learnt an enormous amount about the aviation from PPRuNe, and try to put something back into the pot when I can. However, it takes all sorts, and it would be impossible to please everyone all the time.
The Mods moved the thread here from R&N. I didn't notice Finals19's error the first time I posted, saw it when I looked at the thread again, and thought I should correct it
Those of a less paranoid disposition might like to read this (post # 38) and decide for themselves whether that allegation is justified: Link here.
Some things in life are fixed and unchanging.
So it appears.
Finals19
I assumed it would be obvious my 'cargo aircraft' comment was a light-hearted quip, so didn't think a smiley was necessary.
I'm sorry you think the difference between what you said and I've said about the ANO is pedantry. It isn't. What you said was just plain wrong.
srs what?
A court can be satisfied by non-medical evidence that someone was drunk. A non-expert expression of opinion alone wouldn't be enough, but a description of someone's behaviour might be.
eg
"In my opinion, X was drunk" = Not enough.
"X's eyes were glazed, his speech was slurred, he was staggering around and his breath smelt of drink" = Enough (in the absence of an explanation).
"could end up with the accuser seeing private legal action themselves."
In theory, yes. But, in the absence of evidence that the accuser was being untruthful (as opposed to honestly mistaken) and knowingly making a false accusation, unlikely.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 7th February 2007 at 22:36.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
From: North East
Finals19... Completely agree!
The fact is that CC and groundstaff have to follow the rules set down by the company and authorities. There are many times I would love to let people travel even if they're not technically allowed to (turning up late to check in due to heavy traffic etc), but the rules say no... and often no amount of begging with the guys in charge will do any good. The vast amount of times when we appear to be 'little Hitlers' is entirely not our fault and we know that if we don't go by the book, ultimately, our job is on the line.
Going back to the thread starter, I have never encountered a bad or unhelpful member of staff either on the ground or in the air. Maybe I'm just lucky but I believe the vast majority of front line staff do care about the passengers and will do what they can to help them; I certainly do.
However we are humans and have limits. Conditions can be pretty bad and sometimes we just snap. After all the security nonsense last summer I still had pax screaming at me because of lost luggage at gone 2300... I started at 0530 that morning. It was hell, but if those passengers even had a tiny amount of understanding of what had gone on that day (I can accept that being delayed 4+ hours is no ones idea of fun, least of all mine) and treated me as anything vaguely human, maybe that service industry smile would have been present on my tired, sweaty face... but it wasn't.
So, we do what we have to. On the vast majority of occasions we are limited by the rule book... and yes we do snap sometimes, but treat us with respect and on the whole you will see it returned.
Thats what I think anyway!
The fact is that CC and groundstaff have to follow the rules set down by the company and authorities. There are many times I would love to let people travel even if they're not technically allowed to (turning up late to check in due to heavy traffic etc), but the rules say no... and often no amount of begging with the guys in charge will do any good. The vast amount of times when we appear to be 'little Hitlers' is entirely not our fault and we know that if we don't go by the book, ultimately, our job is on the line.
Going back to the thread starter, I have never encountered a bad or unhelpful member of staff either on the ground or in the air. Maybe I'm just lucky but I believe the vast majority of front line staff do care about the passengers and will do what they can to help them; I certainly do.
However we are humans and have limits. Conditions can be pretty bad and sometimes we just snap. After all the security nonsense last summer I still had pax screaming at me because of lost luggage at gone 2300... I started at 0530 that morning. It was hell, but if those passengers even had a tiny amount of understanding of what had gone on that day (I can accept that being delayed 4+ hours is no ones idea of fun, least of all mine) and treated me as anything vaguely human, maybe that service industry smile would have been present on my tired, sweaty face... but it wasn't.
So, we do what we have to. On the vast majority of occasions we are limited by the rule book... and yes we do snap sometimes, but treat us with respect and on the whole you will see it returned.
Thats what I think anyway!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: Dunno ... what day is it?
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
...if he did anything that could reasonably be regarded as an offence under the ANO, it's at least a little surprising that no-one witnessed it
I comment on the term "air rage" because its use tends to set us as commentors in mind of a certain type of behaviour that is very conspicuous, not because of the terms the police might have used. It is clear that if any offense was committed then it was not especially conspicuous, so using the term distorts the debate when it is introduced, even though it might be useful shorthand elsewhere.
Surely cabin and flight crew are not qualified to judge if someone is drunk or not. I was under the impression that case law suggested that only police officers were considered able to judge. Therefore crew would have to assume that any alcoholic influence might be drunkeness under the ANO, and so response must be the same.
OK so I am exagerating to make my point, but where does affluence of incohol become drunkenesh? Since the responisibility under the ANO lies on the Captain and therefore his crew as well as the passenger, it is a serious question.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
From: Looking for a green tree
I put a lot of the aggro down to the 'No Smoking' laws, not only can they not smoke on planes but in most cases (unless I think you are in Asia or the MIddle East) you can't smoke in the terminals as well - that's a lot of hours for a committed smoker. Perhaps nicotine gum could be on hand to feed to passengers that are getting stressed 
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
Life's a Beech
I believe experienced CC are able to distinguish between drunk and under the influence, and that the overwhelming majority deal with each situation appropriately.
'Drunk' is relevant to whether someone is guilty of an offence under the ANO. Captain/crew discretion is not limited to that.
No special rules for police, BTW.
FL
(Edit)
To avoid any further 'misunderstandings', I meant experienced based on dealing with passengers.
Surely cabin and flight crew are not qualified to judge if someone is drunk or not etc.
'Drunk' is relevant to whether someone is guilty of an offence under the ANO. Captain/crew discretion is not limited to that.
No special rules for police, BTW.
FL
(Edit)
To avoid any further 'misunderstandings', I meant experienced based on dealing with passengers.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 14th February 2007 at 21:02.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
Having to communicate with sometimes hundreds of people daily for generally 20 days of the month helps in distinguishing whether someone may be under the influence of alcohol. A sense of smell can also assist in that. Remember airline policies state that their crew (depends on the company) must not consume alcohol a minimum of 10(my company) or 12 (some others) hours before sign on. So I can smell booze on someone when im at work, having not dabbled for at least that ammount of time.
Say these symptoms arent present upon boarding, then if someone has had 4 beers in the past 90 minutes, the crew know that there is a high chance that intoxication is possible regardless of the size of the person. I find making a deal with this person, say they have a glass of water and wait 30 minutes goes down better than telling them they are drunk and that we wont be serving them anymore alcohol.
I dont claim to be an experienced flight attendant, I have only been flying for 2 years, but prior to that I worked in bars and hotels and restaurants and have seen plenty to know when someone has overconsumed. I know the tech crew and the onboard managers at my company will always support the crew but in return I give them the same respect by not falsely accusing anyone and taking such an accustion very seriously.
Say these symptoms arent present upon boarding, then if someone has had 4 beers in the past 90 minutes, the crew know that there is a high chance that intoxication is possible regardless of the size of the person. I find making a deal with this person, say they have a glass of water and wait 30 minutes goes down better than telling them they are drunk and that we wont be serving them anymore alcohol.
I dont claim to be an experienced flight attendant, I have only been flying for 2 years, but prior to that I worked in bars and hotels and restaurants and have seen plenty to know when someone has overconsumed. I know the tech crew and the onboard managers at my company will always support the crew but in return I give them the same respect by not falsely accusing anyone and taking such an accustion very seriously.
