Air rage . . . . . again . . . . !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air rage . . . . . again . . . . !
You wouldn't want to be sat near anyone like this
Unruly air passenger taped to seat - World - AOL News
Once again, who will meet the extra costs of the diversion ?
Unruly air passenger taped to seat - World - AOL News
Once again, who will meet the extra costs of the diversion ?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...as I say in most of these cases...
Why did they divert?
There seems to be no supportable reason to do so!
Continue to destination, I say!
I know some people will be uncomfortable for the remainder of the flight TO the destination...but nowhere near as inconvenienced as having to cope with a diversion!!!
Why should the antics of one have to disrupt everybody, instead of just that person AT the destination!
Cheers...FD...
Why did they divert?
There seems to be no supportable reason to do so!
Continue to destination, I say!
I know some people will be uncomfortable for the remainder of the flight TO the destination...but nowhere near as inconvenienced as having to cope with a diversion!!!
Why should the antics of one have to disrupt everybody, instead of just that person AT the destination!
Cheers...FD...
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the Long Grey Cloud
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A passenger saw Castillo having drinks in an airport bar before boarding. She bought another drink on the plane before light attendants stopped serving her alcohol because of her behaviour.
Last edited by ZimmerFly; 7th Nov 2008 at 12:39.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As is usual with this sort of incident, it was the pilot's choice to divert.
It's his/her decision and he/she should be backed all the way.
Personally, I probably wouldn't mind the inconvenience of the diversion a) because I wouldn't want to hear ranting all the way to Chicago and b) to witness the final tirade as she realised the book was going to be thrown at her as she was dragged off the plane.
It's his/her decision and he/she should be backed all the way.
Personally, I probably wouldn't mind the inconvenience of the diversion a) because I wouldn't want to hear ranting all the way to Chicago and b) to witness the final tirade as she realised the book was going to be thrown at her as she was dragged off the plane.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This question has been asked and answered.
The airline will in the first instance meet the costs of a diversion. Do you think there is some sort of public contingency fund, or perhaps they have a "whip round" ? Under the terms of the contract of carriage, an individual who causes the diversion can be held liable for the costs incurred by a diversion, however any recovery would likely be as a result of compensation directed by a criminal court, or damages awarded by a civil court. Whatever the prospect (or otherwise) of successful recovery, the costs involved in a diversion are the primary responsibility of the airline, and it is the airline who meets them.
For anyone who thinks otherwise, the decision to divert or not, rests with the Captain of the aircraft. It doesn't matter one jot what anybody else thinks. If the Captain decides that he wishes to land in the interests of the safety or regularity of the flight, he has the absolute and statutory right to do so. A passenger who is unruly or violent, or displaying an unacceptable level of behaviour, is most certainly grounds for a diversion, if in the opinion of the aircraft commander that is the desired course of action. The fact that somebody is restrained (adequately or not) does not necessarily remove the elevated level of risk or threat.
For the avoidance of doubt, it doesn't matter whether the passengers "mind" or not, they are subject to the lawful authority of the aircraft commander and agree to be so by virtue of their contract of carriage. In these circumstances "inconvenience" is not an issue relevant to the decision.
The airline will in the first instance meet the costs of a diversion. Do you think there is some sort of public contingency fund, or perhaps they have a "whip round" ? Under the terms of the contract of carriage, an individual who causes the diversion can be held liable for the costs incurred by a diversion, however any recovery would likely be as a result of compensation directed by a criminal court, or damages awarded by a civil court. Whatever the prospect (or otherwise) of successful recovery, the costs involved in a diversion are the primary responsibility of the airline, and it is the airline who meets them.
For anyone who thinks otherwise, the decision to divert or not, rests with the Captain of the aircraft. It doesn't matter one jot what anybody else thinks. If the Captain decides that he wishes to land in the interests of the safety or regularity of the flight, he has the absolute and statutory right to do so. A passenger who is unruly or violent, or displaying an unacceptable level of behaviour, is most certainly grounds for a diversion, if in the opinion of the aircraft commander that is the desired course of action. The fact that somebody is restrained (adequately or not) does not necessarily remove the elevated level of risk or threat.
For the avoidance of doubt, it doesn't matter whether the passengers "mind" or not, they are subject to the lawful authority of the aircraft commander and agree to be so by virtue of their contract of carriage. In these circumstances "inconvenience" is not an issue relevant to the decision.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on people, think of the lawsuit she has available to her now! They tied her up with 'duct tape' for goodness sake! That is enough to sue for compensation...the agony as it was ripped off depilating her, the circulation it cut off, the unlicensed use of a restraining device that was not legal, her 'passing out' it was on so tight........it goes on. She is in for a mega payout! Best get the beeatch on the ground sooner rather than later. We live in an unlimited liability world now!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FarFarAway
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
el#, i will not feed the troll, hence why i won't make any comments with regards to your post. However, may i suggest you look in the dictionary and see the academic explanation of the word "sarcasm". Works wonders!
PS: should i make any comments, i would say that I'm always glad when a badly behaved pax gets what he/she deserves.
PS: should i make any comments, i would say that I'm always glad when a badly behaved pax gets what he/she deserves.
