Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Disruptive Jet2 passenger getting a big bill

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Disruptive Jet2 passenger getting a big bill

Old 13th Feb 2020, 12:10
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Would be interesting to have a passenger try that BS on one of my flights, especially when FAMs are onboard. They are just itching for action, and justification for their presence. I always thank them for being onboard and looking after us.
Oilhead is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 12:27
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK ;
Age: 71
Posts: 1,164
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
BUT (and it's a serious question) do the guys up front know when the FAMS are aboard ?
Dave Gittins is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 12:31
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,979
Received 301 Likes on 156 Posts
Originally Posted by Nige321
Well speculated...!
Yes, I was wrong. Not for the first time and doubtless not for the last.

I'm still surprised that her lawyer advised her to plead guilty on the ANO charge - we'll never know now whether a jury would have agreed that the aircraft was endangered.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 13:09
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,979
Received 301 Likes on 156 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Wild
Jet2 won't shy away from making a point and I'm sure they will happily pursue her for the costs incurred. It has been done before.
I know Jet2 has sent speculative bills to a number of miscreants in the past, but I'm not aware of any where the putative debt has been successfully tested in court.

Can you enlighten us as to what instance(s) you're thinking of, where Jet2 (or any other airline, come to that) has successfully sued a disruptive passenger for costs incurred ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 15:29
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,465
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Flying Wild
Jet2 won't shy away from making a point and I'm sure they will happily pursue her for the costs incurred. It has been done before.
Pointless, she will not have the cash and will declare herself bankrupt. Only the lawyers will gain.
cats_five is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 16:08
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 144
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It now transpires that the Typhoons were scrambled in error due to a misunderstanding between the Jet2 pilots and ATC - now, who should the RAF send the bill to?

(runs and ducks for cover!)


snchater is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 17:13
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: north yorkshire
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by snchater
It now transpires that the Typhoons were scrambled in error due to a misunderstanding between the Jet2 pilots and ATC - now, who should the RAF send the bill to?

(runs and ducks for cover!)
I believe that the aircraft actually belonged to Titan
flybar is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 20:19
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by beardy
In that case it is operational costs, not training.

You might well be right beardy. But for every operation, there is an element of training and for every training exercise there is an element of operations. The point is that Defence (and lets just say the RAF in this case) have a number roles that they have to both train and remain proficient in and that they may be required to exercise in a precautionary or executory manner. I understand the RAF conduct exercise airliner intercepts as part of their 'everyday' training which recognizes the reality of today's aviation security awareness. For this they will have a training budget which allow for 'x' number of exercise intercepts per pilot/annum to remain proficient in this role. But there will be no funds allocated to operational intercepts since it is hoped this would never actually be required. Bigger picture......Defence budget is to train for war but we hope they never actually have to operationally do that!

So a real intercept has extremely good training value that can reduce the number of 'exercise' intercepts required to remain proficient and so the intercept in question is effectively already budgeted for as training. Of course there may also be an inter-agency budget from which this could be taken, but I doubt the fighter role would be involved in much inter -government operations. These are more for fixed wing and rotary wing transport and maritime EEZ patrol functions. I guess the point I am trying to make is that our Police and Defence forces should be well trained, prepared and budgeted for for the roles they may need to undertake and relying on cost recovery from individual citizens is not a factor. As I said previously deliberate wasting of Police or Defence resources might attract a somewhat different response.
Lord Farringdon is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 20:51
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,418
Received 45 Likes on 25 Posts
for every training exercise there is an element of operations
Did you just make that up?
there will be no funds allocated to operational intercepts
Who pays for them when they happen, and they do happen?
beardy is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 21:20
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who pays for them when they happen, and they do happen?
The defence budget?
Euclideanplane is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 23:01
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Loose rivets
I get the feeling that minute girl's demise, which will possibly be a lifelong burden, is because her deranged outbursts, the tone of imagined superiority, offended the listener more than posing any real threat. She should perhaps be committed to a specialist unit for skilled care, but two years in jail? What is the comparative harm done when you assess the real harm she caused? Lunging and scratching. Two years jail. Now think long and hard about the injustices you've read about in the last ten years. Grievous harm done, and scarcely a slap on the wrist.
You're missing one important point; this was just part of a series of offences. Just a couple of weeks before the Jet2 incident, she was involved in a drink-driving incident during which she committed, and was convicted for, assaults on members of the emergency services, as well as the drink driving offence. This history of other recent violent offences would most assuredly have been taken into account when she was sentenced for the violent incident on the Jet2 flight, and not in her favour.

The sentence was entirely justified, IMHO.
Ranger One is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 23:34
  #132 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 84
Posts: 3,289
Received 63 Likes on 30 Posts
Yep, was unaware of that. I was agonising about my indignant ramblings anyway, so will delete.
Loose rivets is online now  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 00:05
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ranger One
You're missing one important point; this was just part of a series of offences. Just a couple of weeks before the Jet2 incident, she was involved in a drink-driving incident during which she committed, and was convicted for, assaults on members of the emergency services, as well as the drink driving offence. This history of other recent violent offences would most assuredly have been taken into account when she was sentenced for the violent incident on the Jet2 flight, and not in her favour.

The sentence was entirely justified, IMHO.

Fair point, but all this really says is that her actions as a result of her drug and alcohol addiction and mental state are predictable, while her sentencing is dependent on where her predictable behaviour occurred. She needs help, court ordered if necessary but throwing a mentally unstable person in prison at 25 years old has only one outcome. Without help, she will be released on parole and exactly the same behaviour will be exhibited again and she 'll be back inside.... only next time for longer as her rap sheet gets more pages added. Up until her sentencing, I thought there was a chance this one could be turned around. But after she leaves prison? I doubt it. It takes a bit to recognize where compassion vs punishment might be needed and we are all too easily persuaded by the pack that "if you do the crime, then do the time". I say there are alternatives and up until he deleted his post, so did Loose Rivets, an example of how easily underlying convictions can be changed by group think. I don't see Aviation being made one bit safer by throwing this hapless women in prison. Not serving alcohol on flights on the other hand would have an immediate effect.Maybe Jet2 instead of dragging this women down could ban alcohol on their flights and in so doing have a much more tangible outcome to the safety of passengers and crew than this law or the judges sentence has.


Lord Farringdon is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 00:10
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by beardy
Did you just make that up?

With all due respect,if that's the sum total of your contribution to the discussion then I might just as well have.
Lord Farringdon is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 01:17
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 29 Posts
Lord Farrington,

She was steaming drunk before she got on the plane. I doubt she chugged 10 pints of lager as soon as she got on.

She has been put away because her pathern of behavior shows she is a danger to the public. Drink driving, scaring people to death on a flight just proves that at this moment in time, she needs full supervision and to be taken out of the community. She will sober up in prison if she likes it or not. I would say AA will be available too.

Too often I hear of these "poor people" who need help running down people while drunk or setting their house on fire by falling asleep with a cigarette burning.
Climb150 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 03:19
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Locking her up for two years, or even half a year, and tossing her back on the streets will certainly ruin her future prospects for life.

The addictions may have underlying causes. Severe diffuse feelings of anxiety are quite disturbing and overpowering, the victim will go to great lengths to relieve them. Alcohol is a commonly (ab)used anxiolytic, the drugs aren't specified but they too are likely to be anxiolytics.

Anxiety may have several causes, among them clinical depression. This can be confirmed by a psychiatrist, and if that's the case she can be put on a course of anti-depressives. Once free of the depression she'll have a much better chance of taking control of her life and become a useful member of society.

Of course, it's quite possible that the addictions are primary and self-inflicted.
belfrybat is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.