Disruptive Jet2 passenger getting a big bill
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: timbuktu
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dixi188
I'm lost here.
I see a photo of a pair of Typhoons. Is there another pic i'm not seeing?
I see a photo of a pair of Typhoons. Is there another pic i'm not seeing?
Last edited by marchino61; 18th Jul 2019 at 05:01. Reason: Spelling
Originally Posted by Gove N.T.
Actually - who gives a toss?
She will have fun and games if unable to get a credit card, so booking a holiday in the future which while not an absolute block will remind her every time she tries to do everyday things.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by McBruce
Lifetime of misery from debts collectors or bankruptcy, better than a 30 quid slap on the wrist and some community service. Given simple parking fines can explode in value when it’s unpaid the culprit here is pretty screwed and most likely bankruptcy is the only option. A great deterrent IMO.
I think it is all moot. Jet2 would be stupid to waste the court fees and legal fees pursuing it for no return and I imagine they have no intention of doing so. The aim, successful, was to get it in the newspapers to act as a deterrent to others. Hopefully it works
Originally Posted by RomeoAlphaMike
I think it is all moot. Jet2 would be stupid to waste the court fees and legal fees pursuing it for no return and I imagine they have no intention of doing so. The aim, successful, was to get it in the newspapers to act as a deterrent to others. Hopefully it works
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 44
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Planemike
Seems reasonable........ Dispatching TWO Typhoons seems to be rather "over the top". What were they going to achieve, given the circumstances??
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Planemike
Seems reasonable........ Dispatching TWO Typhoons seems to be rather "over the top".
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SMT Member
One to do the shooting down, the other to confirm the kill?
if one aircraft had a technical issue, your response would be zero - hence the minimum is 2
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 73
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Prosecute whoever sold her the alcohol
Like in the good old days. Sort out the ground staff who allowed her to board.
Retrain the CC who handled it so badly.
What a waste of time launching a couple of interceptors.
Make airports a friendlier place rather than an ordeal.
pathetic..
Retrain the CC who handled it so badly.
What a waste of time launching a couple of interceptors.
Make airports a friendlier place rather than an ordeal.
pathetic..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Weedon, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dannyboy39
Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?
Originally Posted by Dannyboy39
Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?
However the airline's choice to pursue her for some (probably not ALL, because that would include all knock-on, crew out of hours etc) cost seems highly reasonable. But ALL of the other passengers were inconvenienced, and they ALL presumably were late arriving, with consequential costs etc, which they have little if any hope of passing on to her. So no, asking her merely to pay the airline's cost most certainly does not fit the crime - it should be more.
The only person "landing someone [herself] with a huge bill" was herself! Do you not see that?
And the above only applies if she actually pays the airline's reasonable bill. Presumably she won't, so that is a further reason for the punishment being unlikely to fit the crime. Her most likely way to avoid paying the reasonable bill will probably be to declare herself bankrupt, which of course is entirely her choice. Should she choose to do so, then the consequences of taking such action would be her responsibility, and hers alone. It is about choices, responsibility, and consequences. It was in her hands; the other passengers didn't have any choice in the consequences for them.
Once the wider public see the reasonable consequences (being asked to pay for some of the costs), as well as the possible consequences of declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying up, it might then help them to recognise their responsibility to behave in a much more focused way.
And a lifetime ban? Certainly - why would anyone want to be put through that again, with all the cost which they'll have ho hope of recovering from her?
So, it certainly does not befit the crime, not completely, but it seems a good start.
SMT Member
Fighters always prefer to operate as a minimum of a pair when conducting actual missions. QRA is no different to any other operation in that respect.
When you see single jets flying around they are just on a training mission.
BV
When you see single jets flying around they are just on a training mission.
BV
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sooty655
She was apparently trying to open an emergency exit, so IMHO Yes.
She was reported as threatening to open an emergency exit while being restrained by CC. Neither did she ever attempt to enter the flight deck. This was a misunderstanding after the flight crew told ATC that the cabin was secure when updating the situation.
How about ...
1) The person is blacklisted for life from Jet2.
2) The person is blacklisted by other airlines.
3) Enough negative publicity is generated to bite the person concerned in the bum and discourage others from following her line of conduct.
1) The person is blacklisted for life from Jet2.
2) The person is blacklisted by other airlines.
3) Enough negative publicity is generated to bite the person concerned in the bum and discourage others from following her line of conduct.
Moderator
3) Enough negative publicity is generated to bite the person concerned in the bum and discourage others from following her line of conduct.
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound
She wasn’t.
She was reported as threatening to open an emergency exit while being restrained by CC.
Even if she'd 'only' threatened to have a bomb that would also be fine, as well, would it? - 'cos it is SO much better than actually having one... or something that appears to be one.... or which could be considered to possibly be one as they screamed they had one?.
Get real. The flight deck is told of a threat of violence, or terrorism, or opening a door, so of course they'll take appropriate action. Just for a minute imagine how it would appear in the crash investigation with all lives lost that the flight deck decided to carry on to destination after being clearly alerted to a direct threat to safety for all aboard, just because they hoped she was bluffing. What about with you or your loved ones on the plane?
At the risk of letting the facts get in the way of a good story, perhaps it would be a good idea to wait and see what the young lady is actually charged with, if indeed she is charged at all.
I'd hazard a guess that it's not going to be with "endangering an aircraft".
I'd hazard a guess that it's not going to be with "endangering an aircraft".
Originally Posted by Dannyboy39
Does making someone bankrupt, landing someone with a huge bill plus a lifetime ban befit the crime?
Besides, the costs were incurred due to her irresponsible actions. Who else should be made liable for her irresponsibility? How is giving her a bill for some (not even all) of the costs incurred by others due to her actions not befit the crime?
As for a lifetime ban, can you imagine the outcry if she flew again with the same outcome? Old saying - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
