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/

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.

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 ...

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.

United Express Flight 3411 style? But where does the Jet2 manifesto say to offload before takeoff thou?

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. :O

Haha the alternative would be an option for some people!

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.

It isn't going to happen because loss of alcohol sales equals loss of profit.

To expand that meaningless cliché 'Safety is our primary concern......unless it costs money'.

Ain't that the truth..............!!!

*

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"

Did they ever collect on any of them?

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 ...

Hard to get someone to pay when they have no means to do so or assets to levy.

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

I've met the odd Crown Court judge who would love that to be true, but it isn't. :O

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.