Drunk passenger faces $71,500 bill

[Flashback]

'Drunk' passengers faces $71,500 bill | Travel News | News.com.au

A PASSENGER whose allegedly drunken behaviour forced a pilot to turn the plane around may be hit with a hefty bill.
James McLaughlan, 28, caused such panic onboard a flight from Glasgow to Turkey that the crew felt he endangered the aircraft and all onboard, a court has heard.
He is now facing a possible £40,000 ($71,500) bill from the travel operator over the incident, the Scotsman reports.
Mr McLaughlan allegedly told a woman sitting next to him on the flight that the plane "was going to crash" and "everyone was going to die".

 

[harvyk]

and so he should.

I don't mind people partaking in a drink or three (I've been known to have the odd one or two myself ) but if you start acting like a tool, in a very tight confined space I have no problem in them landing, offloading you and sending you the bill for their costs in doing so.

 

[simongr]

I wonder how much they will bill the people who served him enough alcohol to get in this state in the first place?

 

[harvyk]

I wonder how much they will bill the people who served him enough alcohol to get in this state in the first place?

Nothing...

 

[Flashback]

I wonder how much they will bill the people who served him enough alcohol to get in this state in the first place?

The good old double edged sword

 

[Flashback]

Nothing...

They're legally liable, but normally have to be 'caught in the act' so to speak.

 

[Dave Noble]

They're legally liable, but normally have to be 'caught in the act' so to speak.

The airline is liable to ensure that an intoxicated passenger does not board and also to ensure that they do not serve an intoxicated passenger

either way it should be easy to show that the airline failed in one or other aspect

Dave

 

[harvyk]

Yes, but most T&C's do include a clause which states they may charge you if your actions cause the plane to be diverted.

So even if the airline failed in it's duty of care to the pax by allowing them to board, they can still charge the pax for the diversion

 

[oz_mark]

The airline is liable to ensure that an intoxicated passenger does not board and also to ensure that they do not serve an intoxicated passenger

either way it should be easy to show that the airline failed in one or other aspect

Dave

Do you have evidence to suggest he appeared intoxicated while boarding the aircraft?

 

[Dave Noble]

Do you have evidence to suggest he appeared intoxicated while boarding the aircraft?

The legality in Uk iirc relates to being intoxicated, not appearing to be intoxicated

Dave

 

[oz_mark]

The legality in Uk iirc relates to being intoxicated, not appearing to be intoxicated

Dave

So the solution then is to blood test everyone boarding a plane to ensure that they are not intoxicated?

 

[tuapekastar]

So the solution then is to blood test everyone boarding a plane to ensure that they are not intoxicated?

A fair few AFFers may suffer status level drops if they did that!

Obviously it's an inexact science to just 'judge' whether someone is intoxicated. I know your comment re testing blood alcohol level is not serious but even if someone were to set a limit (.05, .1 ?) and, say, breathalyse every pax it would add an infeasibly big overhead in terms of time and cost (though it may have saved someone ~$71K in this instance)

 

[straitman]

The legality in Uk iirc relates to being intoxicated, not appearing to be intoxicated

Dave

Do you have a fail safe solution on how to differentiate between the two :?:

 

[samh004]

So the solution then is to blood test everyone boarding a plane to ensure that they are not intoxicated?

Breath testing might be easier!