We're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.

It hasn't been established that she is being accused of any crime. All that has happened in the last few days is that she is reportedly in receipt of a speculative invoice from Jet2 in respect of costs that they have incurred and which they may or (more likely) may not decide to pursue through the courts.

The tabloids are further muddying the waters by reporting that the £85K is a "fine" (it isn't) and that Jet2 "will not hesitate to prosecute" (it's not their decision, unless they opt for a private prosecution).

Couple who helped restrain the woman are now demanding compensation from Jet2.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...woman-18342705

jet2 have the following in their terms and conditions

If, in our reasonable opinion, you have failed to behave appropriately either in the airport or on board the aircraft or we consider you unfit to fly:

1. you may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft;
2. we may decide (in our reasonable discretion) to cancel your flight prior to take-off and/or, after take-off;
3. divert the aircraft to offload you, in which case you must pay to us all costs and expenses which we incur of any nature whatsoever as a result of or arising out of that diversion;
4. we may decide to cancel any return flight or other future flights you have with us, without refund;
5. we may take any other measures we deem necessary to prevent continuation of your inappropriate conduct, including your restraint or removal from the aircraft or airport.

In all of the above circumstances, you shall not be refunded the price of your booking, and we shall not be liable for any costs you incur as a result of us refusing carriage.

You will indemnify us for all costs and expenses (including the legal costs we incur in bringing any action against you) arising from your improper conduct on board the aircraft including (but not limited to) any damage caused to the aircraft.

I would think that it is this that they will be using to issue the bill as she has agreed to the terms and conditions when purchasing the flight.

(how many pepole read the terms and conditions when making a purchase?)

More than likely.

There is, of course, a ton of wiggle room in the above that will make any lawyer's eyes light up (should things get to that stage).

Prediction: This isn't going to get anywhere near a courtroom.

totally agree.
They got involved voluntarily and shouldn't expect compensation.
I am sure if they were injured in the process then the airline would be the first to offer help towards their recovery

As the boss of a company, my priorities, after my legal responsibility to protect the shareholders' interests, are

1 Protect and support my employees
2 ensure my customers are safe
3 protect the reputation of my company and my industry to ensure its ongoing health

I would do exactly the same as this CEO - send a bill, and threaten court action if not paid. This sends out a strong an clear message to others not to get drunk or violent. Any less is sanctioning customers beating up my employees. The publicity is as useful as the outcome. I would accept a smaller sum and a very public and sincere apology from the woman in the end as it would achieve the same, but I wouldnt drop it

As to the other passengers, if they did volunteer to put themselves in harms way having witnessed an employee being assaulted, I would personally thank them, send flowers and reimburse the money they have paid. It costs 'nothing', is good publicity, and prevents threats like this. We always apologise and consider flower when a customer complains even if the complaint is stupid. It diffuses the situation, preserves my company's reputation and saves the cost of ongoing investigation and complaint management

I am surprised we need to discuss this.....

While most would agree with the sentiments here, it is interesting that the legal requirement to protect the shareholders is placed first.
I think you'll be fine legally if your company procedures prioritise staff and passengers over shareholders.

and this is the mistake a lot of companies make these days.

Yes, the shareholders are important, however, they are NOTHING compared to your customers, without which, you have no business.

Who gave the order to scramble the Typhoons and why? The aircraft was never under the control of a terrorist or under any external threat.

I'm guessing you're not a company director. Nor a lawyer.

I guess any sense of "civic duty", went out of the window many moons ago......????

They are of course making a large assumption: that is Jet2's invoice for £ 85000 is going to be paid. Big "if" there, methinks.....!!!

Yes, but it looks good and is all very "macho"......

As a company director, your responsibility is to the shareholders first.
This responsibility would include looking after staff and customers to ensure the shareholders interests are secured.
Of course there are some directors, like Asset Strippers, who give little thought to staff and customers.

Apologies, SoS, my bad, I didn't make my point clear.

I wasn't criticising you for correcting the known facts or for any silly mistake. Rather, it was my clumsy attempt at sarcasm, pointed mostly towards Dannyboy39 for questioning whether the 'punishment befitted the crime', presumably based on the pretext that she was 'only' guilty of a silly mistake, 'joking' about interfering with the aircraft doors.

Perhaps we shouldn't automatically believe what we read in the papers? Have they said the same on TV or similar?

Having been on the receiving end of a journalist looking for a story myself, I'm reminded of an episode of the BBC series "Yes Minister" in which Sir Humphrey demonstrates how to get any answer you want from a survey by asking the right sort of questions.