20 glasses on champagne on a flight

[anat0l]

I came back from MEL via CBR after the AFF Gathering in J award service the whole way.

I had a glass on each sector, although for the second one the FA wanted to top me up, but I kindly refused before she had a chance to pour. Otherwise, had I said nothing, the glass would have been full again.

Had the happened in any bar in Australia, even if the drinks were on the house, that would be unpleasant evidence against the alcoholic provider in the event of things turning sour for the drinker.

Then again, if FAs decided not to top up drinks, some people may regard that as ill-attentive and rude, when in fact they may be exercising legal responsibility. I suppose nothing can be lost by a simple preceding "Top-up Mr so-and-so?"

That's me pulling the plug on the alcohol before things got heated. Admittedly, I wasn't suffering from trauma, but yeesh.....



We live in a continuously increasing litigious society where the basis of legal precedents are individuals who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions no matter how morally irresponsible they may be. Classic example is this: no one forces you to have 20 glasses - if the glass is full and you don't want it, give it back! A man exits a bar drunk as a lemur then gets hit by a taxi - result: the bar is found to be part responsible and coughs up compo. What a crock!

In any case, the passenger is also pre-warned via an agreement upon purchasing a ticket and on the safety card that passengers may be refused boarding or indicted if they are drunk and disorderly on board an aircraft.

She pays $1000, no conviction and no blacklist possible. A slap on the wrist at best. She was drunk and disorderly. She assaulted a member of staff. She was caught repeatedly smoking on an aircraft. By all counts, at the very least she was a threat to the passengers on board!

I don't care if she was suffering from trauma - don't fly or stay put! I don't care if she had no ill intent - at least we won't punish you as bad, but the fact remains is you broke the rules! I don't care if that is not her normal character - that does not entitle you to break the rules, assault others or place other people's lives in danger!

And if that article sounds like a bash up of her, I find it hard to believe what would be the real story.

No pun intended, but frankly this whole incident and outcome makes me sick.

 

[NYCguy]

Hi there

I thought it was a trip report by QF 009...

Cheers
DJ737

!!!ROFLMFAO!!!

Seriously, though, she should be in jail. Or have a conviction recorded at the very, very least. I do hope that the Prosecutors are intending to appeal the appalling leniency of the sentence. Surely no-one in their right mind could think that the offense didn't warrant a conviction being recorded? Or are we going to fall for every sob-story that negates personal responsiblity?

Defendant: "Oh, sorry, Your Worship/Honor, I didn't mean to kill those people, but I'm still haunted by the day in 19** that my kindergarten teacher made us drink orange juice at room temperature because the fridge had broken."

Judge (wiping a tear from his/her eye): "Oh, I can so hear where you're coming from. My kindy teacher was a monster too. Here's your get-out-of-jail-free card, use it with the blessing of the court".

 

[tuapekastar]

!!!ROFLMFAO!!!

Seriously, though, she should be in jail. Or have a conviction recorded at the very, very least. I do hope that the Prosecutors are intending to appeal the appalling leniency of the sentence. Surely no-one in their right mind could think that the offense didn't warrant a conviction being recorded? Or are we going to fall for every sob-story that negates personal responsiblity?

Defendant: "Oh, sorry, Your Worship/Honor, I didn't mean to kill those people, but I'm still haunted by the day in 19** that my kindergarten teacher made us drink orange juice at room temperature because the fridge had broken."

Judge (wiping a tear from his/her eye): "Oh, I can so hear where you're coming from. My kindy teacher was a monster too. Here's your get-out-of-jail-free card, use it with the blessing of the court".

Way too much of this (sobstory leniency) going on...and ultimately (in the 'abused childhood' cases) the cycle often just continues from one generation to the next.

Back OT:

It's not as if it was a one-off - there seemed to be a number of separate incidents (abusing crew, grabbing co-pilot, smoking in her seat, smoking later in the toilet, and ultimately leaving her seat and remaining standing for the landing).

She had her chances!! I don't know the woman, and maybe it was out of character, but it's not much of an excuse (but I can't blame her for trying to get off/minimise things - I'd do the same). I think she's very lucky to have got off as lightly as she did.

Oh, and isn't it odd (despite the thread title) that the sober cabin crew put her drink tally at about 5 glasses over a 5 hour period, and the medicated and apparently very drunk passenger recalls exactly 20 (not 19, not 21) glasses of champagne plus the other drinks she had. If she could recall that (reckon I'd lose count after 6 or so), then she couldn't have been unduly influenced by the drugs and alcohol that much to do the things she did. Could she?

 

[Keith009]

Hi there

I thought it was a trip report by QF 009:mrgreen:

Cheers
DJ737

Fortunately I've yet to be so pissed on a plane that I do stupid things. Furthest I've been was puking in the airplane toilet and then passing out in my seat, woke up later with an inflight hangover - OUCH! Worse than any hangover on the ground...:shock: Wasn't the quantity drunk that put me in that state as such, more mixing the wrong drinks together...:/

 

[acampbel]

... It's not as if it was a one-off - there seemed to be a number of separate incidents (abusing crew, grabbing co-pilot, smoking in her seat, smoking later in the toilet, and ultimately leaving her seat and remaining standing for the landing)....

Yes - but this was all in the context of one episode. People don't get drunk (or sober) instantaneously.

... Oh, and isn't it odd (despite the thread title) that the sober cabin crew put her drink tally at about 5 glasses over a 5 hour period, and the medicated and apparently very drunk passenger recalls exactly 20 (not 19, not 21) glasses of champagne plus the other drinks she had. If she could recall that (reckon I'd lose count after 6 or so), then she couldn't have been unduly influenced by the drugs and alcohol that much to do the things she did. Could she?

Would anyone in their right mind do all the things she is accused of????

Of course the cabin crew would claim that they only served the passenger a drink an hour - their jobs are on the line. Similarly the passenger is likely to exaggerate the amount, or extrapolate a figure based on previous experience. Even taking into consideration the possible effects of medication and altitude, I am inclined to think her estimate was closer to the mark than the cabin crews'.

But I think my original points are still valid - the Judge accepted that there were some mitigating circumstances and that the incident was totally out of character. If she had a record of anti-social behaviour I'm sure the outcome would have been very different, but I don't think she warrants crucifixion on the face of the evidence before us.


Cheers,


Andrew

.

 

[garyjohn951]

I wonder how many she had "BEFORE" getting on the plane, maybe some of that 20 was in the Qantas PUB [self serve], or some airline departure bar.

 

[tuapekastar]

Yes - but this was all in the context of one episode. People don't get drunk (or sober) instantaneously.
.

Point taken, but there must be a time when even the drunkest sod realises they're making a complete jerk of themselves and settles down...

Would anyone in their right mind do all the things she is accused of????
.

No

Of course the cabin crew would claim that they only served the passenger a drink an hour - their jobs are on the line. Similarly the passenger is likely to exaggerate the amount, or extrapolate a figure based on previous experience. Even taking into consideration the possible effects of medication and altitude, I am inclined to think her estimate was closer to the mark than the cabin crews'.
.

I don't. If you allow 120ml as a standard size serving on airlines (I don't know what size the serve actually is) then that is 2.4 litres of champagne - a bit over 3 bottles!! Not to mention the red wine and spirits. I think it would take a person considerably at odds with the average human being to drink that much in a relatively short time and not be comatose, or at the very least soundly in the land of nod. I know I couldn't manage it! The crew may have understated the figure a bit...but not, I'd reckon, by much.

But I think my original points are still valid - the Judge accepted that there were some mitigating circumstances and that the incident was totally out of character. If she had a record of anti-social behaviour I'm sure the outcome would have been very different, but I don't think she warrants crucifixion on the face of the evidence before us.
.

Nor do I. But I think she still got off lightly. I don't think a custodial sentence was warranted, just something a bit stiffer than $1000 and a bond w/out conviction. It is considered serious to do anything disruptive like that in a plane, and that is pretty well known. While the chances of actually endangering other pax in this situation is extremely remote, they don't necessarily know that. Consider a pax with a fear-of-flying's reaction. I suppose there is a degree of embarrassment attached, but that won't last long.

I'm certainly not baying for blood, I just think on the punishment scale she was a tad to the left of where she should have been. And I'm pretty confident she'll never have any idea I thought so!

 

[anat0l]

But I think my original points are still valid - the Judge accepted that there were some mitigating circumstances and that the incident was totally out of character. If she had a record of anti-social behaviour I'm sure the outcome would have been very different, but I don't think she warrants crucifixion on the face of the evidence before us.

I'm sorry acampbel, but I think your attempt to adopt a more diplomatic view is a bit too 'soft-lined' for my liking.

If her actions had resulted in the injury, or heaven help us, death, or substantial damage of the aircraft in question (never mind any delays etc.), do you think she would have been subject to the same allowance for mitigating circumstances and the resulting sentence?

Now I'll admit that the article may not be as open as we'd like it to be. In particular, the article posted here probably false implicates the judge as 'soft' and ill-considering of the fundamental legal circumstances, i.e. she committed a crime which had so-and-so implications (like safety and security). All it says is that he 'understood' that the accused was acting out of character and was 'bitterly disappointed'.

It also seems to paint the defence's tactics by drawing attention away from the fact that she did so-and-so which no normal person would be able to get away with, to the fact that she is "blonde, beautiful and gets umpteen times more drinks than me that are alcoholic!"

(Either that or the media has, once again, proven its inferiority to produce a just and accurate report.)

She might as well have said she was possessed by a demon and she was not acting in her own rational volition. That's even more far-fetched, but it would probably result in the same outcome!

Another example of law gone stupid. Just like that female politician that was caught drink-driving several times over the legal limit....and was let off the hook without a trace of conviction! Absolutely <insert_expletive_here> sickening.

Although I don't wish her time in jail (and that view is mirrored across most people here), she definitely should have a conviction or more substantial fine attached to her name.

 

[NYCguy]

It also seems to paint the defence's tactics by drawing attention away from the fact that she did so-and-so which no normal person would be able to get away with, to the fact that she is "blonde, beautiful and gets umpteen times more drinks than me that are alcoholic!"

Methinks a young male may have been dealt with more severely, especially if he met a certain racial profile.

 

[Flashback]

Methinks a young male may have been dealt with more severely, especially if he met a certain racial profile.

Caucasian?

 

[NYCguy]

Caucasian?

Yes, obviously!

 

[Alanslegal]

Methinks a young male may have been dealt with more severely, especially if he met a certain racial profile.

Agreed.

And lets extrapolate this even further, imagine, a young man of ATSI appearance, smallish bottle of petrol, sniffing the darn thing on a flight? minutes later he gets extremely high, light-headed, aggresive, disruptive, manic etc.........

I'm sure every single penalty available under the sun would have been thrown against him.

Mitigating evidence tendered into Court? The security checkpoints passed me through, gave my bottle the all clear.

 

[straitman]

Fortunately I've yet to be so pissed on a plane that I do stupid things.

Not that you remember anyway :!: :shock: