Alcohol in the air to be Banned!
 

Oh Oh this could be trouble <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

<a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9003-2002043008,00.html" target="_blank">Time to stop the drink</a>

How the hell do they expect me to fly if I cannot have a drink? <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

This is a proposal from a government that couldn't run a p!ss up in a brewer !!!

May be 'free drinks' should be banned? At least you'd get served quicker.

This is one of the more stupid ideas of President Blair's nanny state - there is ample existing legislation to prevent drunken yobs boarding ac, but which airlines would actually have the spine to do so frequently?

Perhaps it's only because they're stupified by drink that the lager louts put up with the ridiculous seating pitch in the wretched charter airliners which ferry them to their fortnight in Oybeetha?

I think you'll find that's Oybeefa. With an 'f' <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

I really hate the way people in this great socialist wunder-state of Blair-UK plc are at every turn being prevented from thinking, acting (and reacting), behaving as themselves! Where is the sense of responsibility - of taking charge of one's own life. If I didn't know the Brit people better I would suspect that all this sweet and fluffy lolling one into "the world is perfect" was some kind of Bond-villian fiendish plot to prevent Brits fulfilling their full potential! That a man defending his own property against criminals is jailed for hurting/killing and yet a rapist, child-molester or other perve is allowed "care in the community" just appals me.. .As far as drinking on aircraft is concerned? Why not just issue tickets with drink vouchers attached - two per ticket - and once that quota is filled then nothing more. Problem is that the charter flights, where most serious drinking/rage etc incidents seem to occur already charge!! Not sure of solution then...

Other point - the little bottles of spirits served on board are actually TWO measures..if I have a g&t pre-meal I always ask for two tonics so I get the right kind of drink ... maybe airlines need to think about reducing the size of the bottles?

The idea, which I have read, that "folks can drink before they fly" is a nonsense - if someone is drunk at checkin they are (or should be) refused boarding...for many people, those travelling on holiday, anniversary, to get married the flight is the first step away from home on the beginning of the celebration. To not be able to have a celebratory cup of champagne would be so mean!

So..I don't really have answers but one this is certain, to ban alcohol would be inappropriate! At least the wine with meal does something to stop one tasting the food (oooooops did I really say that??!!)... :)

So!!

We had Neil Kinnock stopping our "Duty-Free"s within Europe, but he made sure he kept his allowance 'cos he's a diplomat.

We have Tony Bair proposing we ban alcohol completely. Not a bad thing?

BUT I'll bet he'll still be able to get a skinfull when he uses the Royal Flight 146!!.

Equality for all or is that a bit 1984ish.

At laest I didn't vote for the t*rds!!!

MP <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

brokenspectre - the government don't dish out sentences, that is the work of the judiciary.

The average judge is about 70, ex-public school and out of touch with reality, so what do you expect.

Have you ever thought that the so-called 'nanny state' might be a good thing with the average Brit being so politically unaware and worldly wise that they cannot problem solve for themselves! (PS only the Americans are more dense - my friend was asked how long it took to drive from England to California!)

quote:

"The average judge is about 70, ex-public school and out of touch with reality, so what do you expect."

Tricky one that. Judges retire at 70, so if that is also the average, there can't be many young ones.

The problem is not alcohol per se, booze has been served on aircraft from day one. . .The actual problems are;. .1. The total smoking ban on a lot of airlines. 8+ hours on a longhaul is a very long time for the average smoker to go without "lighting up". This has the potential to result in a much reduced stress/anger threshold due to the withdrawal.. .2. The seats are so cheap that basically the riff raff element can fly anywhere these days, and quite frankly they just do not know how to behave themselves under the circumstances!!

No Alcohol -- How Islamic!. .Now we need only veil the women and point the a/c at Mecca at prayer times and bin Liner will have to direct his attentions elsewhere. :)

Do you think it could be more to do with Blair's son about to embark on some serious travel on his own and his parents don't trust him to stay sober? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

No smoking on long flights is a result of customer demand, not airline nepotism. That is why some airlines still allow it (mainly Asian).

Personally, I wouldn't fly with a smoking airline- you can never get away from the stink.

Alcohol is similar- anyone who can't do without alcohol for 8 hours has a serious medical or psychological problem.

If you want to get tough on air rage, you have to eliminate alcohol from the equation. As long as it is served, the problems will persist.

MOR, well can u explain the fact that air rage incidents started occuring around the time many airlines banned smoking? . .I'm not pro smoking, but there is obviously a cause and effect here.

Well, given the number of alternatives- such as the nicotine patches some airlines give out- I fail to see the connection.

I think the rise in air rage is more closely linked to the generally increasing tolerance of aggressive behaviour.

My view is that if a passenger is unable to contain their aggression because they haven't had a fag for a few hours, they shouldn't be allowed within a mile of an aircraft. We should have zero tolerance of air rage, irrespective of the cause; unfortunately, airlines continue to throw petrol on the fire by supplying alcohol.

Perhaps we should have a ban on carrying smokers on long-haul flights, now there's a good idea... :) :)

[quote] I think the rise in air rage is more closely linked to the generally increasing tolerance of aggressive behaviour. <hr></blockquote>

Discus the theory that the increasing tolerance of aggressive behaviour started with the failure of the tennis authorities to curb the behaviour of John McEnroe <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Airlines should give away big stinky CIGARS and lots of booze...maybe all the pax will...pass out, then no problems at ALL.

I thought the airlines banned smoking in order to be able to increase the use of Recycled cabin air and thus reduce the fuel burn. Shame the passengers can't 'smell' the increased level of germs circulating around the cabin. I very often develop a cold or flu like symptoms two or three days after flying.

<img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Are we running the airlines for the 99.9% of the pax who enjoy a drink and give no troble or are we running the industry for the 0.01% of drunken idiots

Having travelled both long haul and short haul,before and after the smoking ban.I find it far worse being seated next to someone who is p--sed as a parrot,than someone having a ciggi.As an industry we should be far better at stopping passengers getting on a/c who are either drunk or high on whatever.This starts with having good quality check in staff and also with them being backed by effective management and in the final event the crew stopping the pax boading at the gate if neccessary.I know we then go through the baggage I.D. and the susequent delay,but better that than an en route diversion.

Drunk pax trying to board. Security risks. pax still in the bar at slot time. etc. etc.. .Does anyone think that all checked in baggage should go to the boarding gate. Only when it is ID'd by a sober non terrorist does it get loaded into the containers/Aircraft. I know it will take some Airport redesign but it would save an awfull lot of problems & delays.. .Simple but I guess costly to impliment.