Air rage - what penalty?

[Taz]

Rave, there is already a disincentive for alcohol consumption on an aircraft: it's called personal responsibility. Passengers are in close proximity to one another in an airtight tube travelling at 500MPH. It really should be up to passengers to moderate their alcohol intake.

Why would someone drink to excess on a plane anyway? If people get drunk it ruins the flight for fellow passengers and cabin crew alike.

Anyway, I totally agree with you that airlines do not necessarily help by offering alcohol during their trolley service. However, the assumption is that passengers know how to drink in moderation. Cabin crew will decline alcohol to a passenger that appears to be drunk. This is where many air rage problems begin: a drunk passenger wanting more alcohol.

Most of my neighbours are BA cabin crew as I live close to Heathrow. I hear this from them on a weekly basis.

[TheAnimus]

If someone gets absolutely smashed at a pub/club, they can be kicked out. The police can be called. If its in a local trouble 'hot-spot' the police wouldn't even take 1 minuite to arrive.

Now even the latest airbus dosen't have that much redundant space, you've got cabin feaver. When someone is drinking, gets berligerent its worse than if they were just on the ground due to close proximity, and a whole raft of people who are fealing un easy.

Whilst you might say anyone who gets like that is clearly mentally un well, its clear that they need some form of consiquence for their actions, without getting into the jail vrs rehab argument, assuming we have only jail at our disposal (which a lot of countires these jets would land it do) then give them a castodial sentance is fine.

At the risk of sounding racist, has anyone noticed the trend that irish men, and thouse with an irish farther seam to get violent whilst drunk? A bio-technition friend of mine was explaining how chinease people aren't used to handling alchohol in the same way we are, this means they tend to get pissed faster, He was also saying theres a fair bit of reasearch been done to see if there are genetic traites which provoke violence or anger whilst drunk, rather than just mental conditioning. But in order to find patterns like this you need to look back a fair few generations hence it becomes nice politically incorect racial profilng. (and you don't want to anoy the irish, they'll smash ur face in when drunk).

If i drink too much on a plain, i'm most likely to just fall asleep and at worst mabye start hugging the poor person next to me, people should be aware of their behaviour when drunk, and as such not drink in certain situations.

[Naggallywoo]

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.

I not sure how you mean the door opens inward, but on every commercial airliner they open outside the main body of the aircraft, not into the cabin. However, they still could not open in normal flight as they open out and to the side, and the side they slide to is against the airflow over the aircraft, which, at normal speed would be to greater force to push against.

[TeePee]

Watch it open next time! The hinge is very complicated, but the door moves inward a few inches as it unlatches, then swings around outside. Look at the positioning of the black inflatable seal as a guide to what fits where when the door is closed in your picture.

[badass]

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Question Time forum should be renamed the Kneejerk Reactions From Ill-Informed Idiots forum.

thanks. Love you too. Of course the opinions of everyone that disagrees with you are kneejerk reactions and they are uninformed idiots.
I presume you used a trolling image in this post aswell based on responses. You really are a master of debate, resorting to personal insults when someone disagres with you.

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 the law deals with that. People get either reduced sentences or none at all due to diminished responsibility.

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?

Nice. Putting words into my mouth to further reinforce your point.
Most likely is not the same as saying definately in the same way that most is not all.

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

You bash tabloids lack of accuracy and then suggest we read articles from Maxim magazine for truth!
What planet do you live on? That is hypocracy of the highest order.

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!

Do you think everyone that gets violent when drunk goes to town looking for a fight? NO! most dont, only once they are drunk do they start acting like arseholes. I have known a few people of both types.

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

I cant be arsed to research in detail every post in the question time forum. Maybe you can but I have better things to do with my time.
From start to finish that post makes you look like nothing more than a complete hypocrite and someone that just cant handle opinions that differ from his own. Well done.

[Rave]

thanks. Love you too. Of course the opinions of everyone that disagrees with you are kneejerk reactions and they are uninformed idiots.

Nah, it was more the mass jumping upon the bandwagon of 'All air rage offenders are ****s who deserve a 20 yr sentence' which set me off.

I presume you used a trolling image in this post aswell based on responses. You really are a master of debate, resorting to personal insults when someone disagres with you.

A trolling image eh? More of an 'I can't believe the standard of debate in this thread' image. For future reference, here they all are:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard...r-rolleyes.png
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard...lleyesbarf.gif
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard...olleyestar.jpg

Nice. Putting words into my mouth to further reinforce your point.

Fine- so express yourself more clearly and make my interpretation look silly then.

Most likely is not the same as saying definately in the same way that most is not all.

Yeah- so have you got statistics?

You bash tabloids lack of accuracy and then suggest we read articles from Maxim magazine for truth!
What planet do you live on? That is hypocracy of the highest order.

It's spelt 'Hypocrisy'. So the article was written up in Maxim:

Here's the NY Times link. CBA to pay personally, the headline seems to have all the pertinent info.

Or here's another:

http://www.ufobreakfast.com/archive/00000057.htm

Do you think everyone that gets violent when drunk goes to town looking for a fight? NO! most dont, only once they are drunk do they start acting like arseholes. I have known a few people of both types.

So what's your point?

I cant be arsed to research in detail every post in the question time forum.

....So I'll just carry on posting my poorly researched, ill informed ****ocks?

From start to finish that post makes you look like nothing more than a complete hypocrite and someone that just cant handle opinions that differ from his own. Well done.

Whatever- I always post linkage to back up my POV- can you claim the same?

[TheAnimus]

Rave dude, i've been on "the net" since before HTTP had taken off. I was only allowed to use it without supervision after i was 6 (i used to love getting starbasic (Acorn BBC BASIC) goodies and such!).

One of the first things i was taught was information on the internet is rarely acurate and un-biased. Posting a link to something dosen't make it true. having "statistics" to back something up, dosen't make it any more valid without knowing a lot about how the stats were gathered and arranged (something which after 4 Alevel stats modules, 2 degree I've learnt its a case of beliving what the mathematition decides he wants to show you).

The links suffer in quality, and get worse, you try to use the classic miss direction style, heres ny times, then posting to UFO breakfast...... Just because the good folks there have taken time out to post about it dosen't (and shouldn't) give them any more trust than badass has posting here. This is the idea of a forum.

The problem is the debate has now quickly gone off topic, which tends to happen ironically with threads that rave you start posting in, this is why i'm posting, because I think your been antagonistic, saying people have a kneejerking reaciton, it only seams to be you who so bitterly disagree with everyone else. I get that fealing a lot, i wish they could see the problem as clearly as I do, but then again i also know I have special educational needs. (more than just dislexia), get my drift? Laying in with images which are just getting old and repetative don't really help. I just can't see what badass did to merrit such a sarky reply, its not as if he's an apple user!

[Rave]

Rave dude, i've been on "the net" since before HTTP had taken off. I was only allowed to use it without supervision after i was 6 (i used to love getting starbasic (Acorn BBC BASIC) goodies and such!).

Whoop-di-do. I first got some dialup action in 1995. In 1997 I hooked up with an American woman who came over her purely to meet up with folks (including me and my best friend) who she'd chatted to on Compuserve. Plenty of us have been 'online' for a long time.

One of the first things i was taught was information on the internet is rarely acurate and un-biased. Posting a link to something dosen't make it true.

Right- so you have the entire Powah Of Teh Intarnet at your disposal: so prove me wrong?

having "statistics" to back something up, dosen't make it any more valid without knowing a lot about how the stats were gathered and arranged (something which after 4 Alevel stats modules, 2 degree I've learnt its a case of beliving what the mathematition decides he wants to show you).

Care to show how I've misrepresented any stats? To be perfectly honest I hate stats- but please show with proper proof exactly how I am wrong? If needs be I will dig out my old textbooks for slapdown purposes....

The links suffer in quality, and get worse, you try to use the classic miss direction style, heres ny times, then posting to UFO breakfast...... Just because the good folks there have taken time out to post about it dosen't (and shouldn't) give them any more trust than badass has posting here. This is the idea of a forum.

This is a discussion forum. The NY Times is supposedly a newspaper. I've linked to two radically different sources telling essentially the same story. If anyone else want to come up with a different source telling a different story it's up to me to criticise their account (or not).

The problem is the debate has now quickly gone off topic, which tends to happen ironically with threads that rave you start posting in, this is why i'm posting, because I think your been antagonistic, saying people have a kneejerking reaciton, it only seams to be you who so bitterly disagree with everyone else.

Right, so everyone else disagrees with me, hence I must be wrong? I had hoped that you'd be able to come up with a better argement than that TBH.

I get that fealing a lot, i wish they could see the problem as clearly as I do, but then again i also know I have special educational needs. (more than just dislexia), get my drift?

Right, you have poor spelling, or whatever it is. I may have been a git about pointing that out in the past, but now I know you're dyslexic (or whatever) I don't bother. My spelling is poorer than it should be, let's leave it at that and get back to the proper moral debate.

[TeePee]

The gist of this story seems to be that somone goes mental on a plane and the passengers kill him?

Such would be the kind of excalating problem refered to on page one, which should be avoided at all costs. OK, this was a medical case, but a harsh penalty for disorder on a plane is necessary to reduce the chance of this kind of thing happening.

[Rave]

The gist of this story seems to be that somone goes mental on a plane and the passengers kill him?

Such would be the kind of excalating problem refered to on page one, which should be avoided at all costs. OK, this was a medical case, but a harsh penalty for disorder on a plane is necessary to reduce the chance of this kind of thing happening.

The bloke was clearly a nutter, explain to me exactly how the threat of a harsh penalty would have deterred him please?

[badass]

Nah, it was more the mass jumping upon the bandwagon of 'All air rage offenders are ****s who deserve a 20 yr sentence' which set me off.

I did not say "all", yet your reply was clearly directed at me, making the above point null.

A trolling image eh? More of an 'I can't believe the standard of debate in this thread' image. For future reference, here they all are:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard...r-rolleyes.png
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard...lleyesbarf.gif
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard...olleyestar.jpg

And those are supposed to improve the quality of debate, further reinforcing your point I suppose.
Well at least you realised that was wrong and removed them.

Fine- so express yourself more clearly and make my interpretation look silly then.

Did in the first place, already have further clarified. I still think the majority are caused by people that are often thugs when drunk. I have no stats to back that up apart from a vague recollection of most cases like this I've heard of involving someone like that.

Yeah- so have you got statistics?

Like I said. I have better things to do than spend hours trawling the internet for statistics for every story I read.
I dont see you posting any either. One story is not exactly a large enough sample is it?

So the article was written up in Maxim:

Here's the NY Times link. CBA to pay personally, the headline seems to have all the pertinent info.

The Headline: U.S. Declines to Prosecute in Case of Man Beaten to Death on Jet
What pertinent info is that exactly? How does that reinforce your point?
Also, taking headlines alone for information isn't the best way of collecting data.

Or here's another:

http://www.ufobreakfast.com/archive/00000057.htm

Thats quite clearly just someones take on that matter. The links to the news items are broken. This does nothing to reinforce the point.

So what's your point?

Some people are thugs when drunk, even though they do not go out looking for trouble initially, they do once drunk and especially when they are drunk and dont get what they want. These are the kind of people I think are responsible for the majority of so called Air rage incidents, and I think these people fully deserve to be locked up for a decent amount of time to think about what kind of an arsehole they are when drunk (or sober aswell in some cases)

....So I'll just carry on posting my poorly researched, ill informed ****ocks?

Hypocritical again. How can you call linking to a few peoples thoughts on one incident, then using it to be representative of several hundred incidents per year well informed?
The difference between you and me is I see a bunch of people that cause distress for many others and commit criminal offences and it p***es me off that they do that and I'm glad they look at a decent custodial sentance for that.
You look at them and the first thing you think seems to be "what a poor misunderstood person that we should have sympathy for, as they must obviously be an angel that was pushed over the edge through no fault of their own"
That kind of thinking is what allows peadophiles back into the public, even when their psychological evaluation says that they are very likely to re offend, and repeat hit and run joyriding offenders that have killed in stolen cars before out of prison early, only for them to go out, steal a car and kill again.

Whatever- I always post linkage to back up my POV- can you claim the same?

You may have posted linkage, but it does nothing to back up your POV (which is presumably that I'm talking b***ocks)

[Taz]

The majority of air-rage cases (including the dozens that don't get reported in the media) are caused by passengers that get violent after drinking to excess - something that is preventable and inexcusable. My cabin crew neighbours have to deal with this behaviour on a weekly basis and this is what they tell me.

I asked them about the points raised in this thread and they suggested that if someone is susceptible to panic attacks or is on medication for a mental condition then they should make the check-in staff and cabin crew aware of this. It's also important to let the cabin crew know exactly where your medication is how it is administered.

[iranu]

The majority of air-rage cases (including the dozens that don't get reported in the media) are caused by passengers that get violent after drinking to excess - something that is preventable and inexcusable. My cabin crew neighbours have to deal with this behaviour on a weekly basis and this is what they tell me.

I asked them about the points raised in this thread and they suggested that if someone is susceptible to panic attacks or is on medication for a mental condition then they should make the check-in staff and cabin crew aware of this. It's also important to let the cabin crew know exactly where your medication is how it is administered.

The most sensible post here. Having spoken to crews (been in the aviation industy for almost 10 years now, some with Airbus) I know that their worst nightmare (after crashing) is a violent passenger. Air crew are treated as glorified waitresses and "trolley dollies" but infact have to "police" the aircraft. They are the ones who have to deal with it. People have a responsibility when they fly to ensure that the aircraft and passengers are not endangered by their actions. "Oh I was really drunk" or "the medication made me go temporarily insane" is not an excuse.

I would say that carriers should try to improve air quality but this costs fuel which would bump up airfares.

People are much more eagle eyed after 9/11 so odd behaviour is spotted and acted upon.

[badass]

I notice a lack of response by Rave here.
Presumably because he is incapable of admitting to being wrong and apologising