Possibly you didn't see the pic they pulled after being ridiculed?

Anyone who has the misfortune to be on the same aircraft as her in the future maybe ?

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.

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

Seems reasonable........ Dispatching TWO Typhoons seems to be rather "over the top". What were they going to achieve, given the circumstances??

One to do the shooting down, the other to confirm the kill?

AFAIK, no response profile is ever a single aircraft.

if one aircraft had a technical issue, your response would be zero - hence the minimum is 2

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..

If the event is as reported then we are not talking "drunk and disorderly". She was apparently trying to open an emergency exit, so IMHO Yes.

You're right, of course it doesn't! Nobody can or should 'make her bankrupt'.

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
 

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.

In our world of social media, and easy dissemination of news, it would be concerning to not make it known that poor conduct as a passenger resulted in punishment and a demand for compensation. A standard of expected behavior must be established and enforced.

Ah! That's fine then! Anybody could be forgiven for making such a silly mistake. :ugh:

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".

Actions have consequences. Most adults know that. Those who don't need a painful lesson so they don't forget it.
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.