Disruptive Passengers - MERGED

[crewmeal]

Nice to see Monarch joining Jet2 in banning thugs from flying.

Monarch Airlines bans six passengers FOR LIFE for 'drinking and smoking in toilets' | Daily Mail Online

Now all that is needed is a system that prevents these people from using any other carrier (for life of course).

[kaikohe76]

Absolutely the right action taken by Monarch & other Airlines when confronted with this situation. Now send these load of idiots the bill for the extra cost of the diversion incurred by the company.

[Hotel Tango]

It wasn't actually an Monarch aircraft nor a Monarch crew. It was the Danish airline JetTime operating on behalf of Monarch.

[crewmeal]

It doesn't make any difference whether the aircraft was subcharted or who operated it, it is still a ZB flight. The call sign and everything else will be Monarch. Titan are operating on behalf of BA Gatwick next month and it will still be a BA flight (See elsewhere on this forum).

[Hotel Tango]

Calm down crewmeal, no need to jump down my neck! Having worked in the industry for 44 years I know all about sub charters etc. I wasn't in any way suggesting that Monarch were wrong to take the action which they did. I was merely mentioning, in passing, that the aircraft and crew were not actually Monarch. That was all. Nothing else.

[Mark in CA]

Kate Moss escorted from EasyJet flight after 'disruptive' behaviour

Forget the Greek economy, Russian intervention in Ukraine or ISIS. Here's the big story today. The big question, of course, is not why Kate Moss was escorted off a flight for being disruptive. We all know she's a drug addict. Rather, why was this obviously wealthy person flying on EasyJet?

Kate Moss escorted from easyJet flight after 'disruptive' behaviour | Fashion | The Guardian

[Evanelpus]

In reality though Mark, does anyone give a ?

[vctenderness]

Wow what a story! Drunk druggie clothes horse with zero talent causes a scene on low cost airline flight.

This could be a major Hollywood movie

[PAXboy]

Did they know who she was or did she have to ask ...?

[Curious Pax]

Given that she seems to have been escorted off at the end of the flight, with no subsequent consequences would seem to suggest that they did indeed know who she was. I'm dubious that a non-celeb met by the police at the end of a flight would have been so fortunate (leaving aside reports from other pax on the flight accusing the crew of over-reacting).

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Not zero tolerance then. Well done EasyJet for not backing up your crew.

[El Grifo]

Rules for "them" and rules for "us" as usual !!

[seafire6b]

Well done EasyJet for not backing up your crew.

Do we know that? If the police met the flight and then escorted Ms Moss away, it would seem EZY did the right thing by making a report prior to the aircraft coming on-stand.

For obvious reasons, now speaking generally regarding 'disruptive' passengers, any further action would be up to the police. In the event of them not proceeding, I suppose the airline might consider a private prosecution, although that wouldn't really be advisable.

However, as El Grifo said, perhaps too many cases of different rules for different people!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It's up to the airline to press for prosecution. The police will just slap a few wrists and send them on their way. If you want to be seen to have zero tolerance, which is suddenly being espoused by a few as if it's a new idea, then the airline needs to see it through.

[seafire6b]

It's up to the airline to press for prosecution.

Not disputed, but the airline can only press for a police prosecution. If however, the police/DPP decide against proceeding, then the only litigative option for the airline is pursuance of a private prosecution. As will be appreciated, that wouldn't generally be recommended for a variety of reasons.

Having said that, perhaps the airlines could be a little more generous about adding disruptive pax names to "No Fly" lists, and circulating such amongst themselves. Although would that in itself, without any previous supporting guilty verdict in a court, then lead to claims of "discrimination" against the airline concerned?