Puravive Reviews:-Does It Really Work Or...
Business & Finance1 min ago
Jet2
Flight Captain takes phone off drunk passenger, should this Izz head be banned from every airline for life? If yes, Why, If No, Why not in your opinion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TWR. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The charge would be 'endangering the safety of an aircraft' as he interfered with the plane's communication system and the pilot had to leave the cockpit during landing to deal with a troublemaker. That offence includes a lifetime ban on air travel so the ban was correct. Wonder how he got home as he would not be allowed back on a plane?
andy, if that's all then, as others have said, there are already rules for dealing with it; they just need to be enforced. This particular guy clearly went beyond tipsy and acted dangerously so he could expect a more severe sentence than most. I'm not convinced that lifetime bans make any sense, though.
jno - //andy, if that's all then, as others have said, there are already rules for dealing with it; they just need to be enforced. This particular guy clearly went beyond tipsy and acted dangerously so he could expect a more severe sentence than most. I'm not convinced that lifetime bans make any sense, though. //
My view is that instead of cabin and flight deck personnel having to intervene when people are unable to behave like adults in public, you can eliminate the problem at source by stopping alcohol sales in airports and on planes, and denying boarding to drunken passengers.
It's not difficult - except that money will be lost, which is why it won't happen.
My view is that instead of cabin and flight deck personnel having to intervene when people are unable to behave like adults in public, you can eliminate the problem at source by stopping alcohol sales in airports and on planes, and denying boarding to drunken passengers.
It's not difficult - except that money will be lost, which is why it won't happen.
Naomi - // andy-hughes, I repeat, I see no justification in punishing the majority for the stupidity of a few. //
Then we must agree to differ.
I have said previously, there is no reason other than cultural history, why preparing to, and the flying on a plane, takes place with the addition of alcohol first.
The situation arose when airport operators realised that bored passengers will drink to kill time, and there is money to be made.
It is cynical profiteering, it leads to safety issues, and unpleasant scenes which have to be dealt with by cabin crew, not airport staff - and there is simply no need for it.
It can and should be stopped, but I accept that it sill never happen.
Then we must agree to differ.
I have said previously, there is no reason other than cultural history, why preparing to, and the flying on a plane, takes place with the addition of alcohol first.
The situation arose when airport operators realised that bored passengers will drink to kill time, and there is money to be made.
It is cynical profiteering, it leads to safety issues, and unpleasant scenes which have to be dealt with by cabin crew, not airport staff - and there is simply no need for it.
It can and should be stopped, but I accept that it sill never happen.
jno - //yes, I agree with that. You could also apply it to whole groups when group bookings are made: one drunk, the whole lot don't fly. That would prompt a bit of self-policing and save the staff trouble. //
Absolutely.
As I have said in my response to Naomi, there is no rational reason why people need to drink in order to fly on a plane - long-distance coach terminals don't have bars in them. It is done for profit, and that trumps safety and simple well-being for the majority of people who simply wish to get to their destination without feeling like they have joined the rugby club day out.
Absolutely.
As I have said in my response to Naomi, there is no rational reason why people need to drink in order to fly on a plane - long-distance coach terminals don't have bars in them. It is done for profit, and that trumps safety and simple well-being for the majority of people who simply wish to get to their destination without feeling like they have joined the rugby club day out.
A conplete over reaction.
Jet2 possibly should not have allowed him on the plane if he was too drunk. The flight time is short so he did not get that drunk on the plane.
While he should not have used the cabin phone, he made no threat, he just joked about wanting a drink. He was a complete d*chhed, but calling the police and prosecuting is way OTT for the offence.
Jet2 possibly should not have allowed him on the plane if he was too drunk. The flight time is short so he did not get that drunk on the plane.
While he should not have used the cabin phone, he made no threat, he just joked about wanting a drink. He was a complete d*chhed, but calling the police and prosecuting is way OTT for the offence.
Gromit - //A conplete over reaction.
Jet2 possibly should not have allowed him on the plane if he was too drunk. The flight time is short so he did not get that drunk on the plane.
While he should not have used the cabin phone, he made no threat, he just joked about wanting a drink. He was a complete d*chhed, but calling the police and prosecuting is way OTT for the offence. //
A passenger interfering with in-flight communication and acting in a drunken fashion compromises flight safety which is a serious issue.
That compromise was increased when the pilot thought it serious enough to leave the flight deck to deal with it.
A serious message needs to be sent that flight safety is paramount, and its compromise cannot be minimised by putting it down to drunken hi-jinks.
Jet2 possibly should not have allowed him on the plane if he was too drunk. The flight time is short so he did not get that drunk on the plane.
While he should not have used the cabin phone, he made no threat, he just joked about wanting a drink. He was a complete d*chhed, but calling the police and prosecuting is way OTT for the offence. //
A passenger interfering with in-flight communication and acting in a drunken fashion compromises flight safety which is a serious issue.
That compromise was increased when the pilot thought it serious enough to leave the flight deck to deal with it.
A serious message needs to be sent that flight safety is paramount, and its compromise cannot be minimised by putting it down to drunken hi-jinks.
It's not an overreaction. A drunk passenger is a danger as they can not be expected to be able to act correctly in the event of an emergency.
There is already a rule that any passenger who is drunk is banned from the flight and has to surrender their ticket so they lose the fare. That should have happened here but it didn't.
This idiot was allowed on to the flight but got worse and now is correctly banned from airlines for life.
You can't punish / ban the other passengers on the same flight because one of them is drunk! that is a ridiculous idea and also totally illegal!
There is already a rule that any passenger who is drunk is banned from the flight and has to surrender their ticket so they lose the fare. That should have happened here but it didn't.
This idiot was allowed on to the flight but got worse and now is correctly banned from airlines for life.
You can't punish / ban the other passengers on the same flight because one of them is drunk! that is a ridiculous idea and also totally illegal!
“Not sure about the banned for life business though...difficult thing to impose. “
Not that difficult, Mikey. His record at the passport office is annotated accordingly and any passport issued to him is endorsed “Not permitted to fly”.
“I have said previously, there is no reason other than cultural history, why preparing to, and the flying on a plane, takes place with the addition of alcohol first. “
Er… except that some people enjoy it, Andy. I fly at least five or six times a year and Mrs NJ and I are partial to the odd snifter (depending on the time of the flight). We don’t swally pints of lager down at 5am but if we have a lunchtime flight to a destination we may not reach before dinner time we might have lunch with a bottle of wine at the airport. Under your regime that would be denied to us. The reason for that is that some people cannot behave themselves after a drink, ergo nobody can have a drink. Bit like saying some people cannot resist speeding in their car so nobody can drive a car.
I think sanctions to prevent a miscreant flying for a period should certainly be imposed on idiots like this. I'm not sure I would countenance a lifetime ban for a first time offence but certainly a year or two might concentrate their minds (if they have one, that is). And as I said above, no more difficult to impose than a driving ban (a lot easier in fact because you don't have to show a driving licence to get behind the wheel of a car whereas you have to show a passport before being allowed to fly).
Not that difficult, Mikey. His record at the passport office is annotated accordingly and any passport issued to him is endorsed “Not permitted to fly”.
“I have said previously, there is no reason other than cultural history, why preparing to, and the flying on a plane, takes place with the addition of alcohol first. “
Er… except that some people enjoy it, Andy. I fly at least five or six times a year and Mrs NJ and I are partial to the odd snifter (depending on the time of the flight). We don’t swally pints of lager down at 5am but if we have a lunchtime flight to a destination we may not reach before dinner time we might have lunch with a bottle of wine at the airport. Under your regime that would be denied to us. The reason for that is that some people cannot behave themselves after a drink, ergo nobody can have a drink. Bit like saying some people cannot resist speeding in their car so nobody can drive a car.
I think sanctions to prevent a miscreant flying for a period should certainly be imposed on idiots like this. I'm not sure I would countenance a lifetime ban for a first time offence but certainly a year or two might concentrate their minds (if they have one, that is). And as I said above, no more difficult to impose than a driving ban (a lot easier in fact because you don't have to show a driving licence to get behind the wheel of a car whereas you have to show a passport before being allowed to fly).
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|