Would be interesting to have a passenger try that BS on one of my flights, especially when FAMs are onboard. They are just itching for action, and justification for their presence. I always thank them for being onboard and looking after us.

BUT (and it's a serious question) do the guys up front know when the FAMS are aboard ?

Yes, I was wrong. Not for the first time and doubtless not for the last. :O

I'm still surprised that her lawyer advised her to plead guilty on the ANO charge - we'll never know now whether a jury would have agreed that the aircraft was endangered.

I know Jet2 has sent speculative bills to a number of miscreants in the past, but I'm not aware of any where the putative debt has been successfully tested in court.

Can you enlighten us as to what instance(s) you're thinking of, where Jet2 (or any other airline, come to that) has successfully sued a disruptive passenger for costs incurred ?

Pointless, she will not have the cash and will declare herself bankrupt. Only the lawyers will gain.

It now transpires that the Typhoons were scrambled in error due to a misunderstanding between the Jet2 pilots and ATC - now, who should the RAF send the bill to?

(runs and ducks for cover!)

I believe that the aircraft actually belonged to Titan

You might well be right beardy. But for every operation, there is an element of training and for every training exercise there is an element of operations. The point is that Defence (and lets just say the RAF in this case) have a number roles that they have to both train and remain proficient in and that they may be required to exercise in a precautionary or executory manner. I understand the RAF conduct exercise airliner intercepts as part of their 'everyday' training which recognizes the reality of today's aviation security awareness. For this they will have a training budget which allow for 'x' number of exercise intercepts per pilot/annum to remain proficient in this role. But there will be no funds allocated to operational intercepts since it is hoped this would never actually be required. Bigger picture......Defence budget is to train for war but we hope they never actually have to operationally do that!

So a real intercept has extremely good training value that can reduce the number of 'exercise' intercepts required to remain proficient and so the intercept in question is effectively already budgeted for as training. Of course there may also be an inter-agency budget from which this could be taken, but I doubt the fighter role would be involved in much inter -government operations. These are more for fixed wing and rotary wing transport and maritime EEZ patrol functions. I guess the point I am trying to make is that our Police and Defence forces should be well trained, prepared and budgeted for for the roles they may need to undertake and relying on cost recovery from individual citizens is not a factor. As I said previously deliberate wasting of Police or Defence resources might attract a somewhat different response.

Did you just make that up?
Who pays for them when they happen, and they do happen?

The defence budget?

You're missing one important point; this was just part of a series of offences. Just a couple of weeks before the Jet2 incident, she was involved in a drink-driving incident during which she committed, and was convicted for, assaults on members of the emergency services, as well as the drink driving offence. This history of other recent violent offences would most assuredly have been taken into account when she was sentenced for the violent incident on the Jet2 flight, and not in her favour.

The sentence was entirely justified, IMHO.

Yep, was unaware of that. I was agonising about my indignant ramblings anyway, so will delete.

Fair point, but all this really says is that her actions as a result of her drug and alcohol addiction and mental state are predictable, while her sentencing is dependent on where her predictable behaviour occurred. She needs help, court ordered if necessary but throwing a mentally unstable person in prison at 25 years old has only one outcome. Without help, she will be released on parole and exactly the same behaviour will be exhibited again and she 'll be back inside.... only next time for longer as her rap sheet gets more pages added. Up until her sentencing, I thought there was a chance this one could be turned around. But after she leaves prison? I doubt it. It takes a bit to recognize where compassion vs punishment might be needed and we are all too easily persuaded by the pack that "if you do the crime, then do the time". I say there are alternatives and up until he deleted his post, so did Loose Rivets, an example of how easily underlying convictions can be changed by group think. I don't see Aviation being made one bit safer by throwing this hapless women in prison. Not serving alcohol on flights on the other hand would have an immediate effect.Maybe Jet2 instead of dragging this women down could ban alcohol on their flights and in so doing have a much more tangible outcome to the safety of passengers and crew than this law or the judges sentence has.

With all due respect,if that's the sum total of your contribution to the discussion then I might just as well have.

Lord Farrington,

She was steaming drunk before she got on the plane. I doubt she chugged 10 pints of lager as soon as she got on.

She has been put away because her pathern of behavior shows she is a danger to the public. Drink driving, scaring people to death on a flight just proves that at this moment in time, she needs full supervision and to be taken out of the community. She will sober up in prison if she likes it or not. I would say AA will be available too.

Too often I hear of these "poor people" who need help running down people while drunk or setting their house on fire by falling asleep with a cigarette burning.

Locking her up for two years, or even half a year, and tossing her back on the streets will certainly ruin her future prospects for life.

The addictions may have underlying causes. Severe diffuse feelings of anxiety are quite disturbing and overpowering, the victim will go to great lengths to relieve them. Alcohol is a commonly (ab)used anxiolytic, the drugs aren't specified but they too are likely to be anxiolytics.

Anxiety may have several causes, among them clinical depression. This can be confirmed by a psychiatrist, and if that's the case she can be put on a course of anti-depressives. Once free of the depression she'll have a much better chance of taking control of her life and become a useful member of society.

Of course, it's quite possible that the addictions are primary and self-inflicted.