Boarding drunk passengers

[Earthmover]

A genuine question from the flight deck to despatchers and Gate staff: Can I ask what are your criteria for letting a drunk passenger on board an aircraft - or asking the Capt. if it is OK to carry a particular individual?

My reason for this enquiry is that I am more and more frequently told that a person is "pretty drunk, but not at all offensive - is very quiet, has given no trouble - should be no problem" etc. And I'm then reminded of the notice you sometimes see in bars regarding credit:- "Refusal often offends!" It seems to me that the criteria you're be working to, and the criteria I'm working to may be different. For sure, the UK law is very clear - " no person shall be intoxicated ..... etc etc" - but I don't want to just sit there and quote the Air Navigation Order at you. My concern is that you may be thinking, understandably, that if someone is "no trouble" then I'm being unreasonable in refusing travel, whereas my worry is that in the event of an emergency evacuation, your inoffensive drunk may be so 'out to lunch' that he falls over, blocks an aisle or an emergency exit or moves in the wrong direction altogether - and in so doing turns out to be an indirect killer.

I mention it because my steadfast refusal to carry drunks seems to elicit surprised - and sometimes annoyed - reactions, and I just wanted to air the topic and explain matters - it ain't to do with being a 'jobsworth' - it's entirely a flight safety matter.

[Terror_is_firmer]

During my dispatch days, I never had a problem off loading anyone. Infact I used to enjoy it.

If I happened to be at the gate and saw what I thought to be a drunk passenger, I would have a casual conversation with them about their holiday. You can usually tell if they are drunk when chatting to them as they stink of booze and tend to be a tad on the unsteady side. From there I made a decision to either allow them through the gate or take them to one side and get a second oppinion. If I did allow them through the gate, I would follow them down to the aircraft and make them known to the crew. They could then say if they would be happy to allow them to board. If I stopped them at the gate then another senior member of staff or the number one would be called to give a second opinion. Thats what I used to do.

I did find that some of the temps did not like dealing with irate passengers so would pass the buck to someone else (ie. The crew). As I said above. I had no problem spoiling someones holiday just because they thought it started in the airport bar.

I do think that there should be system where a boarding card gets stamped every time you buy an alcoholic drink at the bar. After 2 stamps you are only allowed soft/hot drinks. But this wont happen because the airports make big bucks from selling booze.

[surely not]

It is the culture of binge drinking which is making a mockery of the ANO. I completely understand what you are saying Earthmover, and I agree with it. You don't say whether you are charter or scheduled, and if scheduled whether the major Stag and Hen party destinations are on your network.
Long haul flights are less likely to have the problem compared with Mediterranean charters and Amsterdam and Dublin flights. Cheap tickets has meant the 'lets get p!ssed and have a larf' groups now think nothing of flying off for a weekend to get totally bladdered, starting in the bar at the airport.
I know of one instance where a group missed their flight because they were too busy drinking in the airport bar. They didn't understand what the problem was and didn't consider themselves to be drunk. There wasn't a breathalyser at the gate so it was the boarding staffs word against theirs. The pax letters of complaint to the airline had them sounding like they had never touched a drop in their lives and how wicked the boarding staff had been.
The paperwork and solicitors letters involved in this case were unbelievable. Fortunately the airline backed up the boarding staff and stood firm, and that is quite rare believe it or not.
Until gate staff are issued with breathalysers they are on very dodgy ground refusing someone unless they are falling over drunk.

[witchdoctor]

Earthmover

Good post, and as a dispatcher I look forward to the replies. It would be good to see some kind of best practice evolve from the discussion. I think perhaps too many gate staff/dispatchers fail to consider the safety aspect you mention, and instead focus on the likely occurrence of airborne mischief.

Not had to offload any drunks yet myself, but warned the number one and captain on a couple of occasions of pax who are suspected of having drunk more than is sensible, after a heads up from the gate staff. All have seemed OK to me, and crew happy to accept, and so far no adverse feedback.

I also put sneaky smokers in the same category, if they have been seen or suspected of lighting up in prohibited areas. If the crew are happy to take the risk of accepting them, then after a lecture from me, they get on board. Interested to hear other's views.

[nosewheelfirst]

You know when somebody is drunk on a delayed flight because they always want to speak to the person who's fault it is. When you explain that it is a technical fault he/she insists on going to speak to the aircraft/engine... "Can I have your boarding cards please sir..."

I think it is a case of passing the buck, they are drunk when they arrive at check-in but they let them go (most of the time without putting their bags on standby). Arriving at the gate even more pissed and the staff let them go through and then tell me about them!

Will things ever change?

[surely not]

Hardly any pax arrive at check-in drunk! Unless they are connecting pax who have been plied with liquor on the inbound flight. I have met flights where the pax had been served so much alcohol they couldn't walk straight.

If a passenger arrives at c-in the worse for wear, if there is time they will be advised to go to a coffee outlet and drink plenty of coffee. The gate staff will be advised and whenever possible a Supervisor sent to the gate in case refusal of travel is considered necessary.

If they haven't given any cause for concern at c-in then the gate staff are in line to identify and deal with the pax. The referral to the CC and the Captain is not a cop out. Why refuse someone travel if the crew don't see the pax as being a problem? As I stated in my earlier post, unless there is a legally recognised way of measuring the alcohol level the issue will become one of personal perception, and that is a minefield when the customer complaint and claim for compensation comes in. Unless the passenger is roaring drunk, and the police are called, it gets very personal with the passenger using every angle to dispute the claim and get compensation.

I am not suggesting that drunks be allowed onto the aircraft, merely suggesting that refusal is not straight forward. I have known occassions when the gate staff have been surprised that the CC have allowed a pax on board when they have drawn their attention to the pax. The referral had simply been to get a second opinion to make the case stronger when the customer complaint came in.

Delayed flights are a problem all of their own. Most refreshment vouchers are for use in the food outlets only, but some airlines will make them available for all outlets. Fortunately the cost of drinks airside is so high they can't get too drunk on these vouchers

[redfield]

A second opinion is all well and good, but maybe drunk passengers should be offloaded by the ground staff without involving the pilot in the decision? He's got enough to do. If there's a group in the bar who are clearly not compis-mentis enough to fly, have their baggage put on standby, call airport security and senior staff as back-up and tell them when they get to the gate that they won't be travelling. Then the flight can depert safely and on time....

[surely not]

All of which is done Redfield, in obvious cases before check-in. However as the recent problems at BA have highlighted there aren't sufficient airline or handling agent groundstaff checking-in, let alone wandering around monitoring the bars for drunks!

If the passengers are okay at check-in the bags will be checked in and labelled normally. Should they then go and get drunk in the airside bars they will not be seen until they reach the gate, and they will probably be amongst the last to do so. Their baggage hasn't been re tagged so it is just one of the many and bang goes the on time departure.

As you can see from this and other earlier responses, what action is taken depends where the passengers display signs of being drunk.

[ohitsmonday]

Earthmover,
As an ex dispatcher (handling agent, not airline) there are many reasons IMHO....I'll repeat a couple already mentioned and hopefully add a few more

There seems to be a common misconception that drunk pax are not permitted because they may be disruptive, not because they pose a safety risk (so, if docile are not a problem).

My definition of intoxicated may be different to yours

Airline employees (station/duty managers etc), who later complain to my management about the grief/delay caused by offloading pax

Captains/Pursers, who when told "sorry, there's going to be a small delay while we find bags belonging to pax I've offloaded for being intoxicated", respond with words to the effect of "who are you to offload my pax, that is my decision"

I wish all crews had your attitude Earthmover; however employees of handling agents have to cover their arse!! Many handling agents look after dozens of airlines, which means dealing with hundreds of different crews/personalities. My line, (after getting fingers burnt) was "Capt we have a/several drunk pax at the gate, I am happy to deny boarding, but would you or a member of your crew prefer to make the decision" (or something to that effect).

Do the guys in here working for airlines have a more consistent approach (read: back up of your decisions from management)?

[Earthmover]

Thank you very much for the responses - sorry not to return before, but my computer crashed - almost terminally! (perhaps it had had one too many?)

It's a fascinating subject isn't it? What does seem clear is that we are actually on the same side after all - and that we do care about matters like this. Being a Training Capt for most of my career, I have never understood why there isn't much job-experience swapping - you on my jumpseat and me coming along with you for a day now and again - the eye-opening factor would go up a treat methinks! My daughter is 'temping' at the moment at the gate, and the stories of how you guys are spoken to by our mutual clients has been highly revealing.

Surelynot, I'm scheduled - and the worst experience of drunks I've had was a bunch of Junior Doctors on a boys trip to AMS who junked the aeroplane. They went home by ferry though!

[Tudor]

I may be deviating slightly from the subject but I recently saw a letter sent to my friend who is cabin crew with a large UK charter airline. It was from his employer and the subject of the letter was methods to improve in-flight sales. I don't remember the exact wording but it told them to push alcohol sales on board - if someone orders one vodka ask them if they'd like two etc.

Now I'm sure this is nothing new nor is it restricted to this one airline but if this is the mentality/attitude coming from above what hope do we have? An airport policeman recently told me that many courts are losing sympathy with airlines coping with drunk passengers due to the above reason ie the airlines (and airports) are bringing the problems on themselves.

[breakscrew]

Are you qualified to decide when someone is drunk, and like T-I-F, enjoy off-loading them? One of my relatives has Parkinsons disease, and many of the symptoms can look like someone who is a bit squiffy (look at the Pope if you need convincing). Disabled people do not need rude and aggressive ground staff to jump to snap judgements, and then give them a hard time for something that they can do nothing about.

[Terror_is_firmer]

You can tell the difference between a drunken passenger and a dissabled person. For a start when you book a flight and request assistance, the airline/handling agent are made aware of this. 90% of dissabled passengers or passengers with special needs request a seat towards the front of the aircraft (charter aircraft). These passengers also have a comment put next to thier name to inform the crew about thier needs/requests and to allow the gate staff to locate them early for pre-boarding.

Now if someone came towards me singing, falling over about the place, being abusive etc, etc I would be 100% sure that they were pissed and sould be off loaded.

If you read the posts made by various ppruners (instead of jumping to conclusions) you would read how we identifiy drunken passengers. If we did question a dissabled passenger, I'm sure the person traveling with them would inform us of their dissability.

From the tone of your post, its sounds like you have been offloaded because you were intoxicated.

[Standard Jet Dep]

Very interesting subject this. Somebody above asked for an airline point of view. I work for a very large charter airline and within our system we are always around the check in area before departure so we can usually identify those who are drunk, however as stated its what happens from there on that usually ends up with people getting out of it in the landside/airside bar. We have always been told its our descretion to offload if we consider somebody drunk. However I always check with the agents for a second point of view and then with the Purser onboard. So then you have 3 points of view. I think its basically the same all over the board. I personally do not enjoy offloading anybody, I also forgot to mention that our ops dept are also advised so yes it is very useful to cover your back at all times. I have worked with airline agents who really want to offload anybody just because they are in a loud group etc. Anyway I think by and large most agents are tolarent and can better judge somebody thats drunk ie smell of alcohol detected on a passenger. So I think your comments breakscrew are a little off the mark, im afraid.

[witchdoctor]

The decision can be helped immensely by the pax in question being comatose in the departure gate, the sweet smell of fresh booze wafting through the air.

[breakscrew]

T-I-F
No, never been off-loaded for any reason, and am tee-total. However, I have met several people across the counter who would be far happier not working with the public, and the public would be far better off without them to deal with. If the cap fits....
BS

[jonathang]

As an ex Dispatcher, I despise drunk passengers and do fully agree that all passengers under the influence of alcohol should be removed from the Aircraft.

The hard reality is the Airlines are at fault with the pressure put on Ground Handling Agents.

In reality in most situations the ground staff will not be able to ascertain that a passenger is drunk until -25 mins before departure at the earliest. Obviously referring to pax drunk post check-in.

A typical scenario:


2 Groups of 10 males traveling together to Ibiza on a Saturday Night.

They are very happy, clearly had too much to drink and fall into the category of removal from the flight.

These groups are discovered at -25 before departure. It will take up to 10 minutes to find the location of the bags.

Followed by anything from 15-40 minutes to strip the holds for these bags and reload. Chances are the bags will be spread through all the holds.

This will be put down as a Ground Handling Delay. Which the airline will investigate.

These are strictly monitored by the Airlines and clearly huge pressure is placed on the Ground Handling Agent to make on time departures.

The odd off-load for drunkenness is acceptable.

However if we realistically enforced all pax offloaded when they were under the influence every flight would be delayed.

Anyone see a solution to this ?

Well there is:

If the airlines allowed boarding at -40 minutes from departure or boarding to holding lounges without alcohol facilities.

These passengers could be highlighted earlier.

However this would all come down to money. Clearly Safety is more important! Isn't it?