Air rage - what penalty?

[Taz]

After yet another story of air rage in which a Polish passenger became violent and abusive on a flight from Cancun to Manchester, what is a fitting penalty for air rage scum (apart from being nominees for the Darwin Awards 2006)?

Full story here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4615370.stm

This guy could face 20 years in prison in America. I hope he gets the full term. I fly virtually every week and have witnessed only a couple of minor air rage incidents - mostly fuelled by alcohol. I would crap myself if someone actually started a fight on a plane.

I think that an offender should face a prison sentence in the country that the plane is forced to land in. Then he/she should be returned to their home country and face an equivalent prison sentence. The airline and each passenger on the original flight should be allowed to sue the offender. Air rage seems to be a rising problem and needs to be nipped in the bud.

[johnny02004976]

After reading this i really hope he gets sent down for a long time - what sort of cock goes to pull the emergency exit becasue he cant get into the toilets? Like Taz said the airline should be allowed to sue this prick - after all they had to pay out not only to transfer some passengers from Birmingham to Manchester, they also had to pay for landing fee's etc in Florida - which im sure does not come cheap!

[iranu]

I wish they had ejector seats for unruly passengers like that. If I was a passenger I'd sue him for the lost day etc.

[TeePee]

In case anyone is worried, it is physically impossible for an exit door on a commercial airliner to be opened in flight. The aircraft is pressurised and the doors open inwards.

There is something to be said for dumping him: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...html?from=top5

But in this case I think the pilot made the right call to divert to Miami, interfering with flight crew is a federal offence and he should do some good prison time. Lots of people don't like to fly and there are a lot of nervous flyers, so this guy would have scared a lot of people.

[badass]

I think its great that air rage passangers get so heavily punished. They are most likely abusive a***holes when they go out and get drunk, ruining many other peoples nights every time they go out, then finally they do what tehy always have except on a plane and the public is safe from them for a couple of years. Brilliant!

[BEANFro Elite]

On top of his jail sentence, he should also get a temporary ban from air transport between two and 5 years long.

[Rave]

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Question Time forum should be renamed the Kneejerk Reactions From Ill-Informed Idiots forum. Yeah, the only reason why people commit air rage attacks is because they're arseholes isn't it, it's never because (for example) they might have had a bad reaction to prescription drugs, or a diabetic hypo, or encephalitis, or a panic attack, or might have schizophrenia, or any one of the many other conditions that might make someone behave unpredictably or out-of -character.

And, so, given that it's always entirely their own fault, of course they should inevitably get heavy prison sentences, because heavy prison sentences are the cure for pretty much any problem, aren't they?



Anyway, if anyone's actually interested in maybe forming an opinion beyond that neatly provided by the tabloid headlines, here's some good reading:

http://www.maximonline.com/articles/...aspx?a_id=3884

I think its great that air rage passangers get so heavily punished. They are most likely abusive a***holes when they go out and get drunk, ruining many other peoples nights every time they go out, then finally they do what tehy always have except on a plane and the public is safe from them for a couple of years. Brilliant!

Yeah, that's just so obviously it isn't it! People get on aeroplanes looking for a fight! They love causing trouble, and it's just so much more fun to do it on an aeroplane!



Has anybody even bothered to try and find out why the guy in this particular incident behaved as he did?

[TeePee]

People often drink because they are afraid of flying. If theres a medical reason for causing the disturbance, fine, but fighting because they are drunk, whatever the reason, should mean prison time.

People these days are so afraid of something happening that this kind of stuff can lead to escalating problems, and it's not worth the risk. People need to know that if they cause problems on a flight, it will be treated more severely than in a bar.

Edit: Could you remove those images please? Just because you disagree with somone, doesn't mean you should fill the thread with that again.

[Dr. X]

Maybe we need a mandatory number of police from either country on every international/long haul/significant flight.

[Rave]

People often drink because they are afraid of flying. If theres a medical reason for causing the disturbance, fine, but fighting because they are drunk, whatever the reason, should mean prison time.

Debatably, yes. So should fighting outside a pub, by that measure. As you yourself say, it's impossible to open the door of a plane while it's flying (they have safety locks apart from anything else), and since 9/11 the cabin door of pretty much any plane is almost impossible to open. So, essentially, the only harm they can do nowadays is physically hurting someone on the plane. To suggest 20 year sentences for someone who drinks too much and flips out is patently absurd.

Anyone who has read more than two stories about air rage (or has read the link I provided) will realise that air rage is almost always a very abnormal form of drunken violence. It is basically never premeditated- in fact it is almost never done consciously as far as I can tell; stress and low air pressure tip people over the alcoholic edge far earlier than they could have predicted. As far as I'm concerned that's actually a less serious offence than going to the pub with the aim of binge drinking and then causing trouble.

People these days are so afraid of something happening that this kind of stuff can lead to escalating problems, and it's not worth the risk.

Risk of what?

People need to know that if they cause problems on a flight, it will be treated more severely than in a bar.

Right- and guess what? Everyone already does know that. As I say, almost nobody gets on a plane with the intention of causing trouble. Someone in the midst of an alcoholic blackout or a paranoid episode is simply not going to pay any heed to the potential consequences of their actions- if they had an ounce of rational thought left they'd conclude that in fact by attempting to enter the cabin or open one of the doors they might in fact be the architect of their own demise.

No?

Edit: Could you remove those images please? Just because you disagree with somone, doesn't mean you should fill the thread with that again.

No chance. Some of the opinions in this thread are so poorly thought out and reactionary that they frankly beggar belief. I stand by the images.

[TeePee]

Nice, edit it to add more images. If you have anything intelligent to add to this discussion, please do so. Otherwise get out.

[Rave]

I just made another whole post with more of an intelligent contribution. If you don't like the pictures, don't look at them, there are none in my second post anyway.

[TeePee]

Wasn't there when I posted, 9-59 and 10-00. Thank you for resorting to intelligent conversation. I do largely agree with your point of view, I just don't like the troll images you use every time someone disagrees with you.

[Rave]

I've posted them about four times in two years. Whatever though- they're gone, let's be having your considered reply.

[TeePee]

OK, you asked for it.

A plane is basically a hundred people on the edge of panic. They can't escape, they can't avoid the fight because they are locked in. 20 years is a bit excessive, but the consequences have to be considered. People are at greater risk of heart attacks when flying anyway, without additional panic from a drunk, esepecially if they believe he's about to explosively decompress the airplane!

More importantly, he might delay my pretzels.

[Rave]

I enjoy flying a lot and look forward to it. I'm always a long way from panic. I even quite enjoy a good bit of turbulence as long as I haven't got a cup of coffee on my tray ready to fall in my lap.

I don't believe that anything can be done to guard against the real random occurences of mental illness which seem to account for a notable propertion of air rage incidents (including the one I linked to). To try and legislate against this is totally futile.

The majority of the rest it seems are fairly directly attributable to excessive alcohol consumption. The problem is that there's no real disincentive for people to drink on planes. Driving a car while drunk is well known to be dangerous- and if for whatever reason you are found to have been driving while over the limit the book will be thrown at you, even if your driving was to all extents and purposes totally safe. The reason for this is that (for example) were someone to step out in front of you, or another car to pull out or swerve etc., your slowed reactions would mean you would be less likely to be able to avoid an accident.

Now, it's already illegal (AFAIK) to be intoxicated on a plane. However, there's no actual specific definition of intoxicated to the best of my knowledge. This leads to a stupid situation where it comes down the the judgement of the cabin crew whether they serve more alcohol to someone they think may be becoming dangerously drunk- and of course, if they refuse, that's likely to provoke said drunkard, possibly to the extent that they become abusive and/or violent. Far better would be to put in place a legal definition of drunk- a breath alcohol threshold for ease. This could be enforced at both ends- anyone above a certain threshold would not be allowed on the plane, and anyone above a certain (possibly higher) threshold at the other end would not be allowed through immigration control until they had sobered up.

I am not proposing that every passenger should be breathalised at each end of their journey- just that an international treaty could be passed giving immigration officials the right to breathalise people to determine their suitability for travel on an aeroplane, or at the other end, for admission to their country. I reckon the vast majority of people, faced with a potential delay of several hours at customs or at check in while they sober up, would choose to forego a couple of drinks on the plane or at the airport. As a result, since most incidents of air rage seem to be perpetrated by otherwise normal and law-abiding people, the number of incidents is likely to reduce markedly IMO.

So, there's my proposal. Prevent air rage attacks by discouraging people from getting drunk on aeroplanes, rather than serving them as many drinks as they like and then chucking them in prison for years if they drink more than they can cope with. FWIW I'm a regular heavy drinker but I never get drunk when I fly.