Disruptive Jet2 passenger getting a big bill
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google finds this isn't the first time Jet2 have sent a bill but it does seem to be the biggest....
2015 - £5,000
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...ear-5k-9615769
2016 - £12,000
https://www.jet2.com/News/Lifetime_B...ert_Passenger/
2017 - £25,000
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/513743...mophobic-rant/
2015 - £5,000
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...ear-5k-9615769
2016 - £12,000
https://www.jet2.com/News/Lifetime_B...ert_Passenger/
2017 - £25,000
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/513743...mophobic-rant/
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a customer and and an employee at some stage, as are we all. If you want to shirk your moral responsibility these are the idiots you end up dealing with.
Order of priority:
Employees
Customers
Shareholders.
Sort out the first two and the third group will be happy.
Show me where that isn't true.
Order of priority:
Employees
Customers
Shareholders.
Sort out the first two and the third group will be happy.
Show me where that isn't true.
I'm a customer and and an employee at some stage, as are we all. If you want to shirk your moral responsibility these are the idiots you end up dealing with.
Order of priority:
Employees
Customers
Shareholders.
Sort out the first two and the third group will be happy.
Show me where that isn't true.
Order of priority:
Employees
Customers
Shareholders.
Sort out the first two and the third group will be happy.
Show me where that isn't true.
It simply isn't.
And now, back to discussing disruptive passengers ...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No argument with any of that, only with the suggestion that legally it's fine for a company to put customers' and/or employees' interests ahead of its shareholders' (should those interests differ, though often they will coincide).
It simply isn't.
And now, back to discussing disruptive passengers ...
It simply isn't.
And now, back to discussing disruptive passengers ...
Long gone are the days you could say “The shareholders made me do it”.
Anyway, entirely a propos the discussion, although the J2 zero tolerance approach has the interests of the company, the staff and the public perfectly aligned.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duties of Directors Companies Act 2006
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the original news article 'It was previously revealed she had been banned from the roads for 28 months for drink-driving just two weeks before the incident.' - what a pillar of society.
This brings to the surface the age old argument of whether you should have any alcohol or drugs in your system as a passenger on an aircraft. The state of some people on board these holiday flights, in an emergency they are going to be a massive hinderance to those of us who are sober and want to get off. Maybe it's time the same rules that apply to driving are applied to being a passenger on board. How is someone who is drunk co-ordinate themselves to a safe evacuation?
I like the Jet2 no nonsense approach. I once boarded an early morning flight on Easyjet, two chaps who boarded last sat in row 1 in front of us were inebriated as they got on, shouting, swearing 'lets get on it' and the like. Tracksuit clad oiks. Crew and other passengers looked uncomfortable. I had a quiet word with the cabin manager explaining my concern that these two are not suitable to be flying. He said he would 'refuse to serve them any more' once we were in the air and that they were 'just a bit boistrous'. Unacceptable. Once the drinks service commenced and we were airbourne, the crew had to spend the flight trying to appease them and stop it all 'kicking off' becuase they weren't allowed another five vodkas. Offload them on the ground.
This brings to the surface the age old argument of whether you should have any alcohol or drugs in your system as a passenger on an aircraft. The state of some people on board these holiday flights, in an emergency they are going to be a massive hinderance to those of us who are sober and want to get off. Maybe it's time the same rules that apply to driving are applied to being a passenger on board. How is someone who is drunk co-ordinate themselves to a safe evacuation?
I like the Jet2 no nonsense approach. I once boarded an early morning flight on Easyjet, two chaps who boarded last sat in row 1 in front of us were inebriated as they got on, shouting, swearing 'lets get on it' and the like. Tracksuit clad oiks. Crew and other passengers looked uncomfortable. I had a quiet word with the cabin manager explaining my concern that these two are not suitable to be flying. He said he would 'refuse to serve them any more' once we were in the air and that they were 'just a bit boistrous'. Unacceptable. Once the drinks service commenced and we were airbourne, the crew had to spend the flight trying to appease them and stop it all 'kicking off' becuase they weren't allowed another five vodkas. Offload them on the ground.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.jet2.com/new/terms
Though we'll have to take it on trust that they mean removing you before takeoff, not after.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's in their terms and conditions: "we may take any other measures we deem necessary ... including ... your removal from the aircraft".
https://www.jet2.com/new/terms
Though we'll have to take it on trust that they mean removing you before takeoff, not after.
https://www.jet2.com/new/terms
Though we'll have to take it on trust that they mean removing you before takeoff, not after.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. Though if the alleged offenses occur at any point after takeoff, as in the present case apparently, the removal before takeoff is likely among those measures deemed unnecessary to take. Hence the United Airlines reference.
Controversial, moi?
This brings to the surface the age old argument of whether you should have any alcohol or drugs in your system as a passenger on an aircraft. The state of some people on board these holiday flights, in an emergency they are going to be a massive hinderance to those of us who are sober and want to get off.
To expand that meaningless cliché 'Safety is our primary concern......unless it costs money'.
Thread Starter
Sorry to drag this up again, but here is an update ... https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/...rted-raf-jets/
The person has been "charged with one count of assault and one count of recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons inside"
The person has been "charged with one count of assault and one count of recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons inside"
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sorry to drag this up again, but here is an update ... https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/...rted-raf-jets/
The person has been "charged with one count of assault and one count of recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons inside"
The person has been "charged with one count of assault and one count of recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons inside"
David
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google finds this isn't the first time Jet2 have sent a bill but it does seem to be the biggest....
2015 - £5,000
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...ear-5k-9615769
2016 - £12,000
https://www.jet2.com/News/Lifetime_B...ert_Passenger/
2017 - £25,000
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/513743...mophobic-rant/
2015 - £5,000
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...ear-5k-9615769
2016 - £12,000
https://www.jet2.com/News/Lifetime_B...ert_Passenger/
2017 - £25,000
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/513743...mophobic-rant/
If the Sun is to be believed, the third listed event above resulted in the offender paying Jet2's £14,000 invoice, plus the £1,000 fine imposed by the court.
There's no evidence of the other two bills having been paid, nor of the intended prosection by Jet2 in respect of the first event having taken place.
But it is the Sun, after all ...
There's no evidence of the other two bills having been paid, nor of the intended prosection by Jet2 in respect of the first event having taken place.
But it is the Sun, after all ...
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Sun is to be believed, the third listed event above resulted in the offender paying Jet2's £14,000 invoice, plus the £1,000 fine imposed by the court.
There's no evidence of the other two bills having been paid, nor of the intended prosection by Jet2 in respect of the first event having taken place.
But it is the Sun, after all ...
There's no evidence of the other two bills having been paid, nor of the intended prosection by Jet2 in respect of the first event having taken place.
But it is the Sun, after all ...
Thread Starter
Further update: looks like they want to throw the book at her
For those not fully understanding the UK legal system, a Magistrates court deals with lesser offences, whereas the Crown court has the ability lo lever unlimited punishment
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-mid-air.html
For those not fully understanding the UK legal system, a Magistrates court deals with lesser offences, whereas the Crown court has the ability lo lever unlimited punishment
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-mid-air.html
The DM appears to be implying that she is charged with "assault by beating" (s.39 CJA 1988) and "recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft" (s.240 ANO 2016).
My money would be on her pleading/being found guilty on the former charge and either found not guilty or no evidence offered on the latter.
