Air Rage Yob Jailed
Guest
Posts: n/a
ExSimGuy, you have missed the point. None of my comment here is related to the fact that I know flaps personally, and that I would trust her judgement every time.
That aside, the point is that we are trying to avoid trouble occurring, to be proactive on safety. You may well be able to hold your drink without getting violent. Personally, when I get drunk, mostly I just fall asleep. However, there is a significant minority out there who do get violent.
So, how do we separate the differing types? Answer is - we can't. And we don't want to wait until someone does load themselves up to find out. Because then you get hosties having vodka bottles broken over their heads and being repeatedly stabbed with the broken end. So the simple answer is, the drunks don't fly.
The UK ANO states that it is an offence to be on an aircraft whilst drunk. End of story.
There are numerous problems with this. The first is with Duty-Free booze (or tax-free booze) being on sale at airport of departure. This system should be changed so it is picked up before clearing customs at the destination. Less chance of pax getting slammed in-flight, less weight to carry, less chance of a bin filled with flammable liquid showering the pax in an accident, less glass around.
Next is the airlines' habit of selling duty-free on board. This is, quite simply, a total abrogation of their responsibilities to flight safety. Yes, they make money out of it, yes, that reduces the ticket price. So what? Why should they be permitted to put profit ahead of safety?
Another is that airport authorities don't like having drunks wandering around their terminals creating trouble. Easiest is to get them out. So instead of sending them out landside in the company of the local constabulary, they send them where they want to go - out onto the aircraft. Security staff at airports are either airport employees, so they do what they're told by the airport, or work for a company contracted to the airport. Not a good state of affairs. Airports try to palm off their drunks on the airlines.
We will not find the solution to drunken air rage cases until everybody, including the police, airport authorities and airlines alike face up to their reponsibilities to their staff and passengers, stop following what appears expedient at the time or makes them most money, and adopt a zero-tolerance attitude.
[Edited for fat-fingered typing]
[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 23 April 2001).]
That aside, the point is that we are trying to avoid trouble occurring, to be proactive on safety. You may well be able to hold your drink without getting violent. Personally, when I get drunk, mostly I just fall asleep. However, there is a significant minority out there who do get violent.
So, how do we separate the differing types? Answer is - we can't. And we don't want to wait until someone does load themselves up to find out. Because then you get hosties having vodka bottles broken over their heads and being repeatedly stabbed with the broken end. So the simple answer is, the drunks don't fly.
The UK ANO states that it is an offence to be on an aircraft whilst drunk. End of story.
There are numerous problems with this. The first is with Duty-Free booze (or tax-free booze) being on sale at airport of departure. This system should be changed so it is picked up before clearing customs at the destination. Less chance of pax getting slammed in-flight, less weight to carry, less chance of a bin filled with flammable liquid showering the pax in an accident, less glass around.
Next is the airlines' habit of selling duty-free on board. This is, quite simply, a total abrogation of their responsibilities to flight safety. Yes, they make money out of it, yes, that reduces the ticket price. So what? Why should they be permitted to put profit ahead of safety?
Another is that airport authorities don't like having drunks wandering around their terminals creating trouble. Easiest is to get them out. So instead of sending them out landside in the company of the local constabulary, they send them where they want to go - out onto the aircraft. Security staff at airports are either airport employees, so they do what they're told by the airport, or work for a company contracted to the airport. Not a good state of affairs. Airports try to palm off their drunks on the airlines.
We will not find the solution to drunken air rage cases until everybody, including the police, airport authorities and airlines alike face up to their reponsibilities to their staff and passengers, stop following what appears expedient at the time or makes them most money, and adopt a zero-tolerance attitude.
[Edited for fat-fingered typing]
[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 23 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr HugMonster makes excellent point about 'Duty frees in o/head bins'.
I seem to remember that the AAIB report into the B737 fire @ Manchester 1985 said much the same.
Apparently, the booze FED THE FLAMES!!!
What a ghastly thought...........
Still think my idea of 'Dry A/C' is the best, though.
If SLFs don't like it, they can always walk!!!!!!!!!!!
Personally, I'd rather look at the view/cloudscapes...........
I seem to remember that the AAIB report into the B737 fire @ Manchester 1985 said much the same.
Apparently, the booze FED THE FLAMES!!!
What a ghastly thought...........
Still think my idea of 'Dry A/C' is the best, though.
If SLFs don't like it, they can always walk!!!!!!!!!!!
Personally, I'd rather look at the view/cloudscapes...........
Guest
Posts: n/a
ESG, I totally agree; you're a most pleasant bloke when under the influence of a certain amount of beer! And I do have fond memories of your generosity when it comes to sharing the last precious remaining cigarettes as well 
However as Hug says; no way in the world can I or my colleagues tell what an amicable fellow, drunk or sober, you are in the 15 seconds at our disposal while you board our aircraft!!
"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!"
I don't for a second doubt that you would come to our rescue, but allow me to phrase it from [my point of view.
Does the fact that you and many others are pleasant drinkers mean that cabin crew simply have to accept the risk of permanent disfugerement at the hands of a less balanced drinking passenger as part of their jobs?
And please do not tell me that the risk is insignificant. Fiona Weir and many others are proof of the opposite being the case!
Hug, if your suggestions were taken up by airlines and airport authorities the world over, we would achieve a significant reduction in the risk of passenger transport by air.
But money, inertia and a fierce love for western society's only legal party drug are stronger forces than common sense.........
------------------
However as Hug says; no way in the world can I or my colleagues tell what an amicable fellow, drunk or sober, you are in the 15 seconds at our disposal while you board our aircraft!!
"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!"
I don't for a second doubt that you would come to our rescue, but allow me to phrase it from [my point of view.
Does the fact that you and many others are pleasant drinkers mean that cabin crew simply have to accept the risk of permanent disfugerement at the hands of a less balanced drinking passenger as part of their jobs?
And please do not tell me that the risk is insignificant. Fiona Weir and many others are proof of the opposite being the case!
Hug, if your suggestions were taken up by airlines and airport authorities the world over, we would achieve a significant reduction in the risk of passenger transport by air.
But money, inertia and a fierce love for western society's only legal party drug are stronger forces than common sense.........
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Huggy,
I know you have a very personal interest in the subject - and believe me, I'm with you in looking to the safety of the crew (I once had a very dear friend who was BY c/c). As you can see from the post above, Flaps knows me too! (don't remember the bit about the fags - I can guess, but I was p1ssed at the time - and not aggressive
) )
Whilst not in any way condoning the (lager?) louts that make everyone else's lives a misery, why make air travel a less pleasant experience for the average punter because of these cretins? Your employer, and the airport authorities could reduce the stress on the travelling public, I suspect at quite a low "per ticket" cost, by speeding up check-in and security checks at airports. Maybe - just maybe - this would improve certain SLF's attitudes; certainly "going dry" would just encourage a few more drinks in the airport bar (ever seen the bar in BAH just prior to a Saudi departure
check it out 
?) or the nearest pub if the airport was dry. Probably more "smuggled on" bottles as well.
I'm right with you all in aiming at the target; I just don't think the right target is being aimed at! My very-much-loved oldest daughter is Cabin Crew, so I have the interest of the industry in mind!
I think that courts taking "in-flight assaults" very (JP Justice - your comments?) seriously will help. I also think that airlines and airport authorities can make the effort to reduce the stress level of air travel, so that those "inclined to" get nasty maybe will be less "wound up" when they board.
I know it's a serious problem and I'm very, very glad that it's getting an airing!
Yes, Flaps, I enjoy partaking in the "Western legal drug" (as you well know!) and have to suffer most of the time in a society where it is not permitted, but it doesn't make me attack people - if only science could work out what does that to people, and invent a "antidote drug" for that "illness" it would be a wonderful world!
I know you have a very personal interest in the subject - and believe me, I'm with you in looking to the safety of the crew (I once had a very dear friend who was BY c/c). As you can see from the post above, Flaps knows me too! (don't remember the bit about the fags - I can guess, but I was p1ssed at the time - and not aggressive
) )Whilst not in any way condoning the (lager?) louts that make everyone else's lives a misery, why make air travel a less pleasant experience for the average punter because of these cretins? Your employer, and the airport authorities could reduce the stress on the travelling public, I suspect at quite a low "per ticket" cost, by speeding up check-in and security checks at airports. Maybe - just maybe - this would improve certain SLF's attitudes; certainly "going dry" would just encourage a few more drinks in the airport bar (ever seen the bar in BAH just prior to a Saudi departure
check it out ?) or the nearest pub if the airport was dry. Probably more "smuggled on" bottles as well.I'm right with you all in aiming at the target; I just don't think the right target is being aimed at! My very-much-loved oldest daughter is Cabin Crew, so I have the interest of the industry in mind!
I think that courts taking "in-flight assaults" very (JP Justice - your comments?) seriously will help. I also think that airlines and airport authorities can make the effort to reduce the stress level of air travel, so that those "inclined to" get nasty maybe will be less "wound up" when they board.
I know it's a serious problem and I'm very, very glad that it's getting an airing!
Yes, Flaps, I enjoy partaking in the "Western legal drug" (as you well know!) and have to suffer most of the time in a society where it is not permitted, but it doesn't make me attack people - if only science could work out what does that to people, and invent a "antidote drug" for that "illness" it would be a wonderful world!
Guest
Posts: n/a
ExSimChappie:
I have nothing to say about any current or past case, but I can say that misbehaviour on aircraft inbound to the UK , be it drunkenness, abusiveness, or physical violence, is likely to be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The judges often conclude that custody is inevitable.
There are guidelines from the higher courts that lay down clear principles about sentencing, and those guidelines are not lenient.
I have nothing to say about any current or past case, but I can say that misbehaviour on aircraft inbound to the UK , be it drunkenness, abusiveness, or physical violence, is likely to be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The judges often conclude that custody is inevitable.
There are guidelines from the higher courts that lay down clear principles about sentencing, and those guidelines are not lenient.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Police at MAN have set up an excellent protocol, which includes guidance to bar staff, shopkeepers, etc, in an effort to curtail the booze problem before pax get onboard. I can't do their efforts justice here, but suffice it to say, that they have worked exceptionally hard to reduce the problems ex-MAN. Inbound, now that's another problem!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pros & Cons :
1/ Ban terminal and in-flight booze sales.
Pros : In theory no-one is drunk.
Cons : They get pi**ed before they check in.
They smuggle their own booze on - back to square one.
2/ Set an alchohol limit prior to boarding, say double the driving limit.
Pros : They are reasonably sober on boarding.
It could be enforcable.
Cons : They smuggle on their own booze -
back to square one.
3/ Arm all c/c with cattle prods.
Pros : Problem solved.
Cons : It's illegal
Let's face it, as has already been said, airports and ground staff see the easiest solution to a potential 'problem pax' as passing the buck to the crew to deal with.
If a person gets out of control in a nightclub, or restaurant or any other public place, then there are bouncers or security or the police to deal with the situation. If it happens at 35000' then there are half a dozen or so young ladies ( young gents excluded to make the point, no offence ) to deal with the problem. If they are lucky, a few plucky 'blokes' might, and I say MIGHT lend a hand. If not........
So it is about time the Airlines and the government stareted getting REALLY serious about this issue.
Talking Telly - if you are reading this then this is a story you should follow up.
Of all the TV 'Airline' type programmes, not one has stated that IT IS ILLEGAL TO BE DRUNK ON AN AIRCRAFT.
Good luck Fiona.
1/ Ban terminal and in-flight booze sales.
Pros : In theory no-one is drunk.
Cons : They get pi**ed before they check in.
They smuggle their own booze on - back to square one.
2/ Set an alchohol limit prior to boarding, say double the driving limit.
Pros : They are reasonably sober on boarding.
It could be enforcable.
Cons : They smuggle on their own booze -
back to square one.
3/ Arm all c/c with cattle prods.
Pros : Problem solved.
Cons : It's illegal
Let's face it, as has already been said, airports and ground staff see the easiest solution to a potential 'problem pax' as passing the buck to the crew to deal with.
If a person gets out of control in a nightclub, or restaurant or any other public place, then there are bouncers or security or the police to deal with the situation. If it happens at 35000' then there are half a dozen or so young ladies ( young gents excluded to make the point, no offence ) to deal with the problem. If they are lucky, a few plucky 'blokes' might, and I say MIGHT lend a hand. If not........
So it is about time the Airlines and the government stareted getting REALLY serious about this issue.
Talking Telly - if you are reading this then this is a story you should follow up.
Of all the TV 'Airline' type programmes, not one has stated that IT IS ILLEGAL TO BE DRUNK ON AN AIRCRAFT.
Good luck Fiona.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would get very worried about passengers being willing to "lend a hand". All you are likely to end up with is a free-for-all, and the end result of that is the incident where a passenger was killed, allegedly by another passenger jumping on him from the adjacent seat.
My company has been assessing a fairly impressive passenger restraint device, which flaps' company has also been looking at. Using it, effectively solo, in trials, a 5' girl managed to restrain, and put on the deck, a 6' square ex-marine.
When we looked at it, I played the part of a disruptive passenger, and I was fighting HARD. To no avail. It safely restrains people really quite nicely. I would much prefer to use that than have to ask assistance from another passenger who, let's face it, may either be gagging to punch the guy's lights out, quite possibly putting the airline in court, or he may be his mate, and playing along until he can punch out the hostie.
Even if this helpful soul is a genuinely helpful passenger, the chances that they are at all trained in what they are about to do are slim, whereas the cabin crew are (hopefully) well-trained in calming techniques and restraint as needed.
Re pax smuggling their own booze on board, I would make it an international offence to do so, penalty to be decided, but sufficiently draconian to deter offenders. It is, after all, a flammable liquid, and we don't allow them to have even small cans of lighter fluid, so why a whole litre of overproof vodka?
Another device that is sorely needed is an IATA-run blacklist of disruptive passengers, with details available to airport check-in staff, travel agents and airline booking agents. Alternatively, or in addition, on conviction their passport should be surrendered for a period set by the court. And before I hear comments about domestic flights, I would make it a requirement to show passports for those as well.
My company has been assessing a fairly impressive passenger restraint device, which flaps' company has also been looking at. Using it, effectively solo, in trials, a 5' girl managed to restrain, and put on the deck, a 6' square ex-marine.
When we looked at it, I played the part of a disruptive passenger, and I was fighting HARD. To no avail. It safely restrains people really quite nicely. I would much prefer to use that than have to ask assistance from another passenger who, let's face it, may either be gagging to punch the guy's lights out, quite possibly putting the airline in court, or he may be his mate, and playing along until he can punch out the hostie.
Even if this helpful soul is a genuinely helpful passenger, the chances that they are at all trained in what they are about to do are slim, whereas the cabin crew are (hopefully) well-trained in calming techniques and restraint as needed.
Re pax smuggling their own booze on board, I would make it an international offence to do so, penalty to be decided, but sufficiently draconian to deter offenders. It is, after all, a flammable liquid, and we don't allow them to have even small cans of lighter fluid, so why a whole litre of overproof vodka?
Another device that is sorely needed is an IATA-run blacklist of disruptive passengers, with details available to airport check-in staff, travel agents and airline booking agents. Alternatively, or in addition, on conviction their passport should be surrendered for a period set by the court. And before I hear comments about domestic flights, I would make it a requirement to show passports for those as well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
How much profit does a major airline, i.e. United, AA or DAL make from one year of onboard liquor/beer $ale$? How about KLM, BA, Air France, Lufthansa...? Are these revenue/profit figures more classified than the previously 'confidential info' in a Tom Clancy novel ("Hunt for the Red October"...) or gadgets on the US Navy EP-3?
This is the main problem and the US FAA is merely a collaborator-they don't want to figure out how to partially or reliably enforce the FAR which refers to intoxicated passengers being verboten, not that there is a simple solution without gate agents finding time for breathalyzers with a large airport policeman watching each result in case of an arguement.
This is the main problem and the US FAA is merely a collaborator-they don't want to figure out how to partially or reliably enforce the FAR which refers to intoxicated passengers being verboten, not that there is a simple solution without gate agents finding time for breathalyzers with a large airport policeman watching each result in case of an arguement.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Iggy, my mob does not charge for alcoholic beverages in any of the classes, and I believe the same holds true for the other European majors. (Anyboby deny or confirm?) So there is no source of revenue there.
But as far as I know they do have a substantial amount of shares in the Tax Free shops of our home airport.
Hug, management in it's boundless wisdom has decided not to buy the device you're referring to. Or so I was informed by the head of the same department that couldn't spare me a bloke to check on the level of drunkenness of my pax last week.
Still waiting for an answer from our union on how much they were involved in the testing of it, and what their thoughts on the matter were.
But as far as I know they do have a substantial amount of shares in the Tax Free shops of our home airport.
Hug, management in it's boundless wisdom has decided not to buy the device you're referring to. Or so I was informed by the head of the same department that couldn't spare me a bloke to check on the level of drunkenness of my pax last week.
Still waiting for an answer from our union on how much they were involved in the testing of it, and what their thoughts on the matter were.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was so glad to see this creature jailed and for the event to be made relatively hi-profile media wise ,hopefully as some form of deterrent,though i doubt his type are no big fan of current events.
I hope that some recommendations will soon follow to airlines/airport authorities .
Glass duty free bottles should NOT be allowed on-board the aircraft , they certainly have the potential to maim if not kill someone.
Though I hope (in vain),that there is no repeat of this kind of air-rage , I hope that the relevant authorities will come down as hard ,if not certainly harder on the individuals involved.
A strong and consistent message has to be sent to those who choose to display this kind of behaviour, to quote- 'zero tolerance'.
As I'm sure has been said before you will not get any emergency services,or much back-up at 39,000 feet,and to protect yourselves from the strength and anger some of these people exhibit is more than a mean feat.
Perhaps they'll teach this REM guy a lesson and demonstrate to a wider audience the implications of air rage attack.
I hope that some recommendations will soon follow to airlines/airport authorities .
Glass duty free bottles should NOT be allowed on-board the aircraft , they certainly have the potential to maim if not kill someone.
Though I hope (in vain),that there is no repeat of this kind of air-rage , I hope that the relevant authorities will come down as hard ,if not certainly harder on the individuals involved.
A strong and consistent message has to be sent to those who choose to display this kind of behaviour, to quote- 'zero tolerance'.
As I'm sure has been said before you will not get any emergency services,or much back-up at 39,000 feet,and to protect yourselves from the strength and anger some of these people exhibit is more than a mean feat.
Perhaps they'll teach this REM guy a lesson and demonstrate to a wider audience the implications of air rage attack.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regulation of airlines is split in U.S. FAA regulates operational/technical stuff and the Department of Transportation regulates consumer type stuff (This is a rough and gross approximation, so don't get you keyboard in an uproar). Where the interests of safety or orderly operations (i.e. no drunks down back) runs up against the economic interests of the carriers or the consumer regulation by DoT there is friction. These contests in the past have been won by the airlines and DoT in general, and the FAA doesn't fight them unless there is a safety or operations component, there is no percentage in it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hoverman, I don't understand your post - on the one hand you say that even one cannot be tolerated - on the other you say we're overstating the problem... 
You're right that not even one can be tolerated. However, this is a serious problem when you examine the statistics that the various safety bodies come up with. It is also one that is growing.
How do you overstate the severity of a hostie having a vodka bottle broken over her head, then repeatedly stabbed and slashed with the broken end, being left on the tarmac, bleeding profusely, but surviving to be so traumatised that even flying is a nervous trial for her? Or how do you overstate the severity of a nutcase breaking into the flightdeck, trying to seize the controls, sending a full passenger jet partly inverted and giving the F/O significant problems in recovery?
You're right that not even one can be tolerated. However, this is a serious problem when you examine the statistics that the various safety bodies come up with. It is also one that is growing.
How do you overstate the severity of a hostie having a vodka bottle broken over her head, then repeatedly stabbed and slashed with the broken end, being left on the tarmac, bleeding profusely, but surviving to be so traumatised that even flying is a nervous trial for her? Or how do you overstate the severity of a nutcase breaking into the flightdeck, trying to seize the controls, sending a full passenger jet partly inverted and giving the F/O significant problems in recovery?
Guest
Posts: n/a
So you believe that this problem is merely so small that the measures being taken are an over-reaction, and that we don't need to carry passenger restraints, don't need to have police protocols at airports...?
Tell us - how do you see the problem, and what would you do to tackle it?
Tell us - how do you see the problem, and what would you do to tackle it?
