Air Rage Yob Jailed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mcrit/Borg32,
So when you're injured at work and your solicitor suggests your employer has a 'duty of care' and you should make a claim against said employer, you will both politely refuse? NOT.
[This message has been edited by squeakyunclean (edited 19 April 2001).]
So when you're injured at work and your solicitor suggests your employer has a 'duty of care' and you should make a claim against said employer, you will both politely refuse? NOT.
[This message has been edited by squeakyunclean (edited 19 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Sub Judice" - fair comment, we'll have to wait for it to come out during/after any court action.
Just hope the pratt serves the full term for a blatant and repeated assault - hit her with the bottle, breaking it, and then dug the broken glass into her face
Hope the pax who overpowered him gave him a bl00dy good kicking in the process!
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Just hope the pratt serves the full term for a blatant and repeated assault - hit her with the bottle, breaking it, and then dug the broken glass into her face
Hope the pax who overpowered him gave him a bl00dy good kicking in the process!------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, but I think there's a touch of double standards here.Very few people sue without legal advice, so that point almost always applies.
When we read some of pax on the 'Kenyan Student' flight were looking to sue the airline, many of us poured scorn on the 'let's sue' culture which the UK seems to be copying at speed from the US. Now that it's 'one of our own', some of us seem to be more sympathetic.
The incident was dreadful, and the attacker deserves every day of his sentence, but the lady's claim that she has suffered two and half years of trauma, "physically and mentally" as a result of the attack etc is OTT, and "Although I tried to return to work after the assault the emotional and physical scars caused by the attack are still healing" smacks of setting up for a legal claim.
It's almost inevitable that my comments will be misinterpreted but, let's be realistic - people often get assaulted/mugged etc, but they still have to go back to work.
She says "I call for all airlines and governments to cooperate and establish methods to ensure that no air crew or passengers' lives are put at risk like this ever again." That's a great ideal which we'd all support, but totally unrealistic - unless they can 'establish methods' to end all crime whilst they are at it.
[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 19 April 2001).]
When we read some of pax on the 'Kenyan Student' flight were looking to sue the airline, many of us poured scorn on the 'let's sue' culture which the UK seems to be copying at speed from the US. Now that it's 'one of our own', some of us seem to be more sympathetic.
The incident was dreadful, and the attacker deserves every day of his sentence, but the lady's claim that she has suffered two and half years of trauma, "physically and mentally" as a result of the attack etc is OTT, and "Although I tried to return to work after the assault the emotional and physical scars caused by the attack are still healing" smacks of setting up for a legal claim.
It's almost inevitable that my comments will be misinterpreted but, let's be realistic - people often get assaulted/mugged etc, but they still have to go back to work.
She says "I call for all airlines and governments to cooperate and establish methods to ensure that no air crew or passengers' lives are put at risk like this ever again." That's a great ideal which we'd all support, but totally unrealistic - unless they can 'establish methods' to end all crime whilst they are at it.
[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 19 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't be too quick to condem the course of action the cabin crew member concerned is taking against her employer. Until you are completely aware of the level of injury, the facts of the case etc. it is wrong to presum that she has no claim against the Company. Where I too hate the notion of a 'sue them' culture, Business have insurance to cover these events. £6000 may not be a very large some of money for the injuries involved and where else might she recover costs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Virgin: I think there is a significant difference between the air hostess and the people on the plane in Kenya - put simply, she was hurt, they weren't. They had a lucky escape, and in their position I would like to think that I was simply grateful to be alive, rather than looking around for someone to sue.
You say that many of us get mugged and then have to return to work - sure, but how many of us get mugged AT work? When I come into my office in the morning, I expect to be safe. Ditto, I imagine, when you perform your pre-flight checks - you don't walk around the aircraft in fear of some nutter jumping out at you.
If you're mugged in the street and returning to where it happened distresses you, you can do something about it; avoid it, take another route. This air hostess, in order to do her job, has to put herself back in the same situation where the attack happened - that must be stressful. It must take a great deal of self-control for her to do her job without looking at each passenger and thinking "will s/he be the next one to attack me?"
You say that many of us get mugged and then have to return to work - sure, but how many of us get mugged AT work? When I come into my office in the morning, I expect to be safe. Ditto, I imagine, when you perform your pre-flight checks - you don't walk around the aircraft in fear of some nutter jumping out at you.
If you're mugged in the street and returning to where it happened distresses you, you can do something about it; avoid it, take another route. This air hostess, in order to do her job, has to put herself back in the same situation where the attack happened - that must be stressful. It must take a great deal of self-control for her to do her job without looking at each passenger and thinking "will s/he be the next one to attack me?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK Guys a Couple of points.
I think we can all agree that the Spanish court was spot on. The prat was a thug, was found guilty and was sentenced to more than 4 years. All good! However the court also ‘ dismissed her claim that she had suffered psychological damage’. (Referring to Miss Weir) We may not have the full facts but I assume the court in Spain did !!
Squeakyunclean In answer to your question. While on duty as aircrew I had the misfortune to break my arm through no fault of my own. Did I sue my airline ? NO! Despite their ‘duty of care’ what would it have achieved ? Made the pain go away ? Made the arm mend faster ? Sure it would have put some money in my pocket ( and a lot more in the pockets of the legal men.) But I fail to understand, unless you are unable to afford medical treatment, what relevance money has to psychological or physical injury.
I think we can all agree that the Spanish court was spot on. The prat was a thug, was found guilty and was sentenced to more than 4 years. All good! However the court also ‘ dismissed her claim that she had suffered psychological damage’. (Referring to Miss Weir) We may not have the full facts but I assume the court in Spain did !!
Squeakyunclean In answer to your question. While on duty as aircrew I had the misfortune to break my arm through no fault of my own. Did I sue my airline ? NO! Despite their ‘duty of care’ what would it have achieved ? Made the pain go away ? Made the arm mend faster ? Sure it would have put some money in my pocket ( and a lot more in the pockets of the legal men.) But I fail to understand, unless you are unable to afford medical treatment, what relevance money has to psychological or physical injury.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the news coverage of this incident is to be believed
"the passenger was drunk and abusive prior to boarding the flight"
A question must be asked of the ground staff as to why he was allowed travel.
It may be easier to board the passenger rather than risk confrontation at the gate but, as has been demonstrated the results of putting a drunk abusive yob in a confined space for a protracted period of time, risked the life of a member of the crew. Had he in his rage reached the flight deck who knows what the result would have been.
Its time to take action at the boarding gate and not allow the possibility of anyone who is drunk to board. If it is suspected that by taking this action a fracas may result, the authorites are only a phone call away.
Lets keep the trouble on the ground where its easier to deal with.
"the passenger was drunk and abusive prior to boarding the flight"
A question must be asked of the ground staff as to why he was allowed travel.
It may be easier to board the passenger rather than risk confrontation at the gate but, as has been demonstrated the results of putting a drunk abusive yob in a confined space for a protracted period of time, risked the life of a member of the crew. Had he in his rage reached the flight deck who knows what the result would have been.
Its time to take action at the boarding gate and not allow the possibility of anyone who is drunk to board. If it is suspected that by taking this action a fracas may result, the authorites are only a phone call away.
Lets keep the trouble on the ground where its easier to deal with.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Virgin,
It is most certainly not "OTT!" to claim 2 and half years of trauma after such a serious attack. Many victims suffer a lifetime of trauma. For a woman especially facial scarring can cause depression that may actually get worse with time. Sometimes the full effect of an attack can take years to even manifest itself. The physcological needs of the victim may be casually addressed after the event, but will certainly fall on the victims shoulders(financially) in later years when they might actually be required. Private operations for scar reversion treatment dont come cheap either.
Money is needed to pay for treatment and unfortunetaly money is the only form of compensation that is ever on the table. Nothing can adequately undo the damage or turn the clock back.
You are right people are attacked and return to work. Not everybody can though. Again imagine being a woman and having to face the public in a high profile manner with serious scarring. Can you even imagine how that must feel ? Insurance companies get rich selling policies to protect employers from claims from their employees so I wouldn't shed too many tears for them.
Mcrit,
You say the Spanish court "dismissed" her claim for psychological damage". I don't see how that matters. This was a criminal case not a civil damages action. I would not have thought it was the correct forum to bring a claim for civil damages, and even if it was the claimant and the defendant (the employer) are properly in the jurisdiction of the English courts not the Spanish ones.
It is worth not overlooking the fact that legal claims are not automatically guaranteed success. They are usually very long winded and very expensive actions that probably depress the claimant to the point they wondered why they ever started the action. You are right the injury has no relevance to the money but unfortunetaly in our society that is the only measure of compensation.
It is most certainly not "OTT!" to claim 2 and half years of trauma after such a serious attack. Many victims suffer a lifetime of trauma. For a woman especially facial scarring can cause depression that may actually get worse with time. Sometimes the full effect of an attack can take years to even manifest itself. The physcological needs of the victim may be casually addressed after the event, but will certainly fall on the victims shoulders(financially) in later years when they might actually be required. Private operations for scar reversion treatment dont come cheap either.
Money is needed to pay for treatment and unfortunetaly money is the only form of compensation that is ever on the table. Nothing can adequately undo the damage or turn the clock back.
You are right people are attacked and return to work. Not everybody can though. Again imagine being a woman and having to face the public in a high profile manner with serious scarring. Can you even imagine how that must feel ? Insurance companies get rich selling policies to protect employers from claims from their employees so I wouldn't shed too many tears for them.
Mcrit,
You say the Spanish court "dismissed" her claim for psychological damage". I don't see how that matters. This was a criminal case not a civil damages action. I would not have thought it was the correct forum to bring a claim for civil damages, and even if it was the claimant and the defendant (the employer) are properly in the jurisdiction of the English courts not the Spanish ones.
It is worth not overlooking the fact that legal claims are not automatically guaranteed success. They are usually very long winded and very expensive actions that probably depress the claimant to the point they wondered why they ever started the action. You are right the injury has no relevance to the money but unfortunetaly in our society that is the only measure of compensation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good to see the yobbo in jail!!
We'll have to get Lord Longford to make an impassioned speech about his newly-found Christian beliefs!!!!!
"I'M A RWEFORMED CHARWACTEEEER!!!!!!!!!!"
Re the FA, I personally am not going to comment on her action if there is a court case pending. IMHO, so should everyone else!!
As a solution, would it not be poss to make all a/c fully DRY places?
No alcohol on board, end of. (or PERIOD, for our U.S. friends!! )
All crew/pax breathalysed before boarding - any amount of alcohol: they don't fly!!!
Possible?? Or, too draconian??
Discuss.............
[This message has been edited by swashplate (edited 19 April 2001).]
We'll have to get Lord Longford to make an impassioned speech about his newly-found Christian beliefs!!!!!
"I'M A RWEFORMED CHARWACTEEEER!!!!!!!!!!"
Re the FA, I personally am not going to comment on her action if there is a court case pending. IMHO, so should everyone else!!
As a solution, would it not be poss to make all a/c fully DRY places?
No alcohol on board, end of. (or PERIOD, for our U.S. friends!!
)All crew/pax breathalysed before boarding - any amount of alcohol: they don't fly!!!
Possible?? Or, too draconian??
Discuss.............
[This message has been edited by swashplate (edited 19 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I suspect that the decision by Fiona's Lawyers to pursue an action against Airtours may be based on there being as much chance of Handy having six grand to pay her as he is to seek ordination into the priesthood when he gets out!
If such an action is filed, it will be interesting how many other Operators support Airtours' defence - otherwise the long term implications could be very interesting for the industry.
If such an action is filed, it will be interesting how many other Operators support Airtours' defence - otherwise the long term implications could be very interesting for the industry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Swashplate: A superb idea, especially in light of the repeated warnings about drinking alcohol on long-haul flights leading to dehydration. I can just imagine the outcry from some quarters! Would it have any effect on travel prices?
ExSimGuy: Ex which sims? Military or civil? E-mail me if interested!
ExSimGuy: Ex which sims? Military or civil? E-mail me if interested!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here, Here...I agree with all the other comments posted on this subject.
Iam absolutely delighted that the cretin who assualted the AIH F/A has finally been put behind bars...hopefully this will act as a deterent to the small minority of idiots out there who make travelling dangerous for the majority of normal people.
Iam absolutely delighted that the cretin who assualted the AIH F/A has finally been put behind bars...hopefully this will act as a deterent to the small minority of idiots out there who make travelling dangerous for the majority of normal people.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As far as I'm concerned, the decision made by Fiona to sue Airtours is absolutely correct.
While it is great to see that the sub-human who attacked her is now behind bars, the fact remains that too many flight attendants, (and indeed other passengers / aircraft), are put at risk by ar*****s who are ALLOWED to get on an aircraft pi***d out of their brains.
Airlines must start to take some responsibility for the working environment of their staff: One way to do this would be to make absolutely sure that drunks, (or anybody who APPEARS to be drunk), board aircraft. Working in this industry myself, (I am cabin crew), I see at least one inebriated person allowed to board on a weekly basis.
It is no good individual companies stating that they will support flight staff when they refuse to serve pax alcohol because they appear drunk, and are becoming abusive - the initiative must be taken earlier on. Prevention is better than cure.
Good luck to Fiona Weir - she will need it, both to see through a potentially difficult litigation, and to come to terms with what has happened to her.
WCF
While it is great to see that the sub-human who attacked her is now behind bars, the fact remains that too many flight attendants, (and indeed other passengers / aircraft), are put at risk by ar*****s who are ALLOWED to get on an aircraft pi***d out of their brains.
Airlines must start to take some responsibility for the working environment of their staff: One way to do this would be to make absolutely sure that drunks, (or anybody who APPEARS to be drunk), board aircraft. Working in this industry myself, (I am cabin crew), I see at least one inebriated person allowed to board on a weekly basis.
It is no good individual companies stating that they will support flight staff when they refuse to serve pax alcohol because they appear drunk, and are becoming abusive - the initiative must be taken earlier on. Prevention is better than cure.
Good luck to Fiona Weir - she will need it, both to see through a potentially difficult litigation, and to come to terms with what has happened to her.
WCF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good point about prevention WCF, agree with you totally. Easier said than done though, alas.
Made a flight last week to a destination well known for the alcohol intake of it's pax and the trouble they tend to cause.
2 hours before boarding was supposed to start, I contacted the company's security department. Explained which flight I was going to do, explained that ground staff is generally understaffed and too busy with getting the numbers to agree to screen out the drunks. That I, standing in the door of the A/C, only see each pax for about 15 seconds, and that that does not give me enough time to evaluete their state of inebriation, especially since the catering tends to reload during boarding, hand-luggage has to be taken in and lowered via the catering door etc etc.
Could Security Services please spare me a bloke for 30 mins?
Well, the guy I spoke to did not quite laugh in my face. But that he thought the request was ridiculiou was pretty obvious, and of course nobody showed up at boarding time.
During the Flight Safety demonstration the FA's noticed many pax drinking from their own bottles. So instead of reporting "cabin ready" asap to the cockpit, I asked the pilots if I could have another 5 mins?
Luckily the captain trusted my judgement and asked atc for some more time. I then forcefully and in a hurry collected 27 opened bottles of booze from the laps my esteemed pax. They were pretty mad and I was scared as hell they would start beating up on me, but apparently I looked fierce enough to stop that idea in it's tracks.
After take off I went and talked to all the pax whose bottle's I had taked and explained why I'd done it. Doled out our own free booze at 30 min intervals after that, and the pax behaved like lambs. But I shudder at the thought of what that flight would have been like if they had jointly emptied those bottles in-flight.
My company operates that route every day of the week, and all the cabin crew, pilots and management know what the problems are.
I guess an FA will have to be severely injured before notice is being taken. And my biggest fear is that it's gonna happen on my watch.
Made a flight last week to a destination well known for the alcohol intake of it's pax and the trouble they tend to cause.
2 hours before boarding was supposed to start, I contacted the company's security department. Explained which flight I was going to do, explained that ground staff is generally understaffed and too busy with getting the numbers to agree to screen out the drunks. That I, standing in the door of the A/C, only see each pax for about 15 seconds, and that that does not give me enough time to evaluete their state of inebriation, especially since the catering tends to reload during boarding, hand-luggage has to be taken in and lowered via the catering door etc etc.
Could Security Services please spare me a bloke for 30 mins?
Well, the guy I spoke to did not quite laugh in my face. But that he thought the request was ridiculiou was pretty obvious, and of course nobody showed up at boarding time.
During the Flight Safety demonstration the FA's noticed many pax drinking from their own bottles. So instead of reporting "cabin ready" asap to the cockpit, I asked the pilots if I could have another 5 mins?
Luckily the captain trusted my judgement and asked atc for some more time. I then forcefully and in a hurry collected 27 opened bottles of booze from the laps my esteemed pax. They were pretty mad and I was scared as hell they would start beating up on me, but apparently I looked fierce enough to stop that idea in it's tracks.
After take off I went and talked to all the pax whose bottle's I had taked and explained why I'd done it. Doled out our own free booze at 30 min intervals after that, and the pax behaved like lambs. But I shudder at the thought of what that flight would have been like if they had jointly emptied those bottles in-flight.
My company operates that route every day of the week, and all the cabin crew, pilots and management know what the problems are.
I guess an FA will have to be severely injured before notice is being taken. And my biggest fear is that it's gonna happen on my watch.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flaps Forty: Your actions required some nerve. Well done!
If that barbarian had been jailed in Mexico, the prison would give him no food-nada. Relatives must do this and it must be a grim place. My parents live in a very nice colonial Mexican city.
It's bad enough what the flt. attendant must deal with and I hated to read about it-that animal could have caused her brain damage.
If that barbarian had been jailed in Mexico, the prison would give him no food-nada. Relatives must do this and it must be a grim place. My parents live in a very nice colonial Mexican city.
It's bad enough what the flt. attendant must deal with and I hated to read about it-that animal could have caused her brain damage.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Okay Flaps,
After a realy hectic last several weeks at work (as an expat) I'm heading home for a vacation later this week. I have a short sector and then a long sector to fly, possible with quite a few hours transfer time in between.
Now you wouldn't want me sitting in a boring airport, getting all irritable about long transfer times, I'm sure, so I'll probably spend the time with a paperback in the airport bar. Let's say the transfer time is five hours - I'll probably have half a dozen or so cans of beer or the equivalent in spirits in this time. If you were to breathalise me getting onto your flight, you'd get a reading of "well over the driving limit", so would you let me on?
When I get on the second sector, about a 6-hour one, I will, as usual, check exits and doors (especially if it's equipment I haven't been on recently) and then settle down to relax with my book or the movie for the flight - and I'll probably appreciate a few drinks (!) which I don't really mind too much if they're free or if I have to pay for.
Point is, I'll have had maybe a dozen or so beers in the 12 hours of transfer and flight times - but I won't be steaming drunk and I most definitely won't have the urge to get pugilistic with the cabin crew.
How can I guarantee this? Because I've been doing it quite a few times a year for the last 14 years, and never even said a rude word to an FA, let alone get nasty!
So while I really care for your safety, and I'll be the first to come forward if any drunken yob tries to take a swing at you, please don't spoil my flights because some fool can't hold his drink without getting violent!
Fly Safe
ESG
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
After a realy hectic last several weeks at work (as an expat) I'm heading home for a vacation later this week. I have a short sector and then a long sector to fly, possible with quite a few hours transfer time in between.
Now you wouldn't want me sitting in a boring airport, getting all irritable about long transfer times, I'm sure, so I'll probably spend the time with a paperback in the airport bar. Let's say the transfer time is five hours - I'll probably have half a dozen or so cans of beer or the equivalent in spirits in this time. If you were to breathalise me getting onto your flight, you'd get a reading of "well over the driving limit", so would you let me on?
When I get on the second sector, about a 6-hour one, I will, as usual, check exits and doors (especially if it's equipment I haven't been on recently) and then settle down to relax with my book or the movie for the flight - and I'll probably appreciate a few drinks (!) which I don't really mind too much if they're free or if I have to pay for.
Point is, I'll have had maybe a dozen or so beers in the 12 hours of transfer and flight times - but I won't be steaming drunk and I most definitely won't have the urge to get pugilistic with the cabin crew.
How can I guarantee this? Because I've been doing it quite a few times a year for the last 14 years, and never even said a rude word to an FA, let alone get nasty!
So while I really care for your safety, and I'll be the first to come forward if any drunken yob tries to take a swing at you, please don't spoil my flights because some fool can't hold his drink without getting violent!
Fly Safe
ESG
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!