Airlines get their own back on Air Rage

Old Apr 26th, 2000, 12:05 PM
  #1  
Kathleen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Airlines get their own back on Air Rage

Just thought that the following articels from might be of some interest to travellers weary of fellow abusive pasages.

Two jailed in Ennis over 'air rage' incident

Two US tourists visiting Ireland for the first time were jailed yesterday at a special sitting of Ennis District Court following
an "air rage" incident on an Aer Lingus transatlantic flight early yesterday morning. Stephen and Brian Jones received jail terms and fines after pleading guilty to engaging in threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour by word and gesture with intent to cause a breach of the peace contrary to Section 65 (3) of the Air Navigation(Amendment) Act 1998. Stephen Jones (39), of Yonkers, New York, was given the maxium jail term of four months and a maximum fine of 700 under the Act.
His brother, Brian (38), of Hopewell New York, was jailed for three months and fined 500.The court heard the two were of Irish extraction and about to start a one-week holiday in Ireland. They were arrested at Shannon Airport when they got off the aircraft from Newark just after 9 a.m. yesterday. The Aer Lingus cabin manager, Mr Michael Duncan, who was on flight EI 106 from Newark to Shannon and Dublin, said the brothers first came to his attention as he was greeting the passengers getting on board, when Brian Jones told him he
was wearing shorts in case the aircraft crashed into the sea.

Both men were walking down the aisle of the aircraft 30 seconds before take-off and had to be escorted back to their seats. It was then that a bag containing ice and beer they had smuggled on to the aircraft was discovered by a member of the cabin crew.

Mr Duncan said that shortly afterwards the cabin crew was contacted by passengers stating that the two were being verbally abusive to other passengers.
They were advised to moderate their language because there were women and children nearby.
Mr Duncan said one of the Joneses told a member of the cabin crew that he "knew the passengers making the complaint but they would get them at Shannon". Mr Duncan told the court the brothers' body language was threatening.

He then placed four members of the cabin crew to "keep an eye" on them.
Between an hour and 30 minutes before the aircraft was due to touch down, Mr Duncan said he was approached by a man
seated behind the two brothers who told him he feared for the safety of his mother and cousin.


Their solictor Mr Dillon said the brothers were sorry and had apologised to Mr Duncan prior to the court. Mr Dillon added that drink had been taken.He said the two were in the State for only a week and had never committed an offence such as this before. He asked Judge Joseph Mangan to allow them to continue their holiday. Asking if they had any previous convictions, Judge Mangan was told Stephen Jones was convicted of third degree burglary in 1983, was imprisoned in 1987 for 120 days after breaching parole and had several drunk driving offences, the last of which was in 1991. Brian had no previous convictions.

Judge Mangan imposed a fourmonth jail term on Stephen Jones, fining him 700 to be paid forthwith. His brother Brian was jailed for three months and fined 500 to be paid forthwith.

Asked by Mr Dillon to consider suspending the jail terms, Judge Mangan said he would not consider such a request. Asked to fix recognisance in the event of an appeal, in relation to Stephen Jones, Judge Mangan fixed recognisance of Mr Jones's own bond of 500, two independent sureties of 3,000 each and one cash surety of 1,000.

In relation to Brian Jones, recognisance was fixed at 500 of his own bond, two independent sureties of 1,500 each and a
cash surety of 1,000
 
Old Apr 26th, 2000, 12:32 PM
  #2  
Ed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'm sorry, but I find your title upsetting. Hooliganism is hooliganism, and no disappointment that the airlines can't serve you Cordon Bleu meals at 37,000 excuses this kind of behavior.

Your title reminds me of a comment a contemporary of the shooter at the Washington zoo said: "He just did what he had to do."

What kind of country have we become when assault becomes justifiable?

Ed
 
Old Apr 26th, 2000, 12:49 PM
  #3  
pam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ed, I think the point was that the airline and courts in this case have stood up to the hooligans in defense of the employees and fellow travelers who had to suffer their behavior for hours on end.

I've also seen that the Bangor, Maine, USA, airport is becoming the stopping point of choice for westbound Transatlantic flights to drop off troublemakers.

Good for Judge Mangan.
 
Old Apr 26th, 2000, 01:20 PM
  #4  
Ed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sorry I misunderstood your title, Pam.

I agree. The European courts have little patience for this.

Bangor is, indeed, the stopping off point for troublemakers. Unfortunately the courts there are very lenient. I've seen few instances where anyone was jailed in the US other than held over for the next court session.

We spent a chilly four hours in Bangor on our way from JFK to LON a couple of years back. Inconvenience for a full load (every seat) of passengers and tens of thousands of dollars cost to British Airways. The culprit was jailed overnight and released. He was out before we arrived in London!

Ed
 
Old Apr 26th, 2000, 02:12 PM
  #5  
elvira
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
All you lawyer types out there, for you I've got some questions:
1) Isn't interfering with the crew of a ship (air or sea) considered mutiny and therefore subject to those laws?
2) If someone threatens or attempts to open a door during a flight, isn't he attempting murder and can't s/he be prosecuted for that? Or if someone breaks into the cockpit and tries to steer the plane into a nose dive? Why isn't that the attempted murder of all the passengers and the crew? Some yahoo walks into a room of people and threatens to shoot them, and HE'S arrested, why not the dirtbag who tries to crash a plane?
3) If none of the laws of the land apply to the air, then why can't the rest of the passengers beat to death the offending passenger without recriminations?
 
Old Apr 27th, 2000, 03:38 AM
  #6  
frankregan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Booze is usually at the bottom of these incidents.
Although the bag of beer was discovered, the airline probably continued to sell them alcohol.
In one recent air rage incident the culprit was reportedly seen buying handfuls of miniatures before starting the trouble - he ended up with four people sitting on him for the rest of the flight.
Alcohol should be rationed on flights.If you can't do the journey on one or two drinks you shouldn't be on the plane.
Nervous flyers can get Valium from their doctor before boarding, though this might cause problems if alcohol is poured down afterwards.
They don't mind banning smoking, (nobody ever got violent because they HAD a cigarette) but don't ask the airlines to close the bar, theyll have a blue fit.
It only takes seconds to do an alcohol breath check when boarding.

Travellers from cultures where alcohol is banned must think it weird the way alcohol is pushed at people flying - even to the extent to getting your first one free!
Alternatively, large planes could have a "drinking section" where passengers could get as plastered as they want.This area could be fitted with tear gas ducts
for use if things got out of hand.
Either that or we're going to have to issue mace & clubs to the flight attendants - these incidents are becoming more common.Might be something to do with the type of people flying nowadays.
Elvira's point 3) is good - how do I stand legally if I unilaterally remove someone's larynx at 30,000 feet?
Trouble is, this could lead to squads of vigilanties roaming the passageways looking for action - if they can't find any real troublemakers they might start on people who are slow with the seatbelts or who complain about the coffee,or serial farters, when the ones they really should be looking for are the nerds who delay the whole boarding by blocking the passage while they rearrange their creepy little bags in the overheads...

In sailing ships of old the captain could have you clapped in irons,flogged or keelhauled.
I'm not sure of the practicality of keelhauling someone on a 747, but surely the other remedies are both humane & entertaining.
On boarding you might want to request a seat "near the flogging,please".
Walking the plank might be impractical due to streamlining needs, but I'm sure
a simple catapult could be devised to serve the same purpose.
A less severe penalty would be to allow the complainant to hold the miscreant out of the baggage doors by their feet until they were sufficiently chastised.
This activity could be relayed to the rest of the passengers by CCTV!
 
Old Apr 27th, 2000, 05:13 AM
  #7  
Sally
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I hope the U.S. courts take a lesson from the Irish and start to fine/jail these people. I'm no fan of the airlines but behavior like that can't be tolerated.
 
Old Apr 27th, 2000, 06:00 AM
  #8  
Al
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Recent changes in Federal law take a much more severe stance against these forms of assault. Two recent episodes involved the use of plastic handcuffs on the perpetrators and turning them over to U. S. marshals upon landing. Let's hope that the courts send a clear, consistent, and strong message to all who would put the lives of their fellow passengers and the air crews in jeopardy. Hooray for Judge Mangan!
 
Old Apr 27th, 2000, 07:11 AM
  #9  
elvira
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hmmm....Frank, me lad, you got me to thinkin'....that enclosed room for the drinkers (we call them 'bars' here in the U.S.) is excellent. Now follow me on this: an enclosed, sound-proofed room for all children, comfortably appointed and in no way resembling any sort of detention center, but it would solve the problem of a crying child keeping awake the rest of the passengers. Now comes the fun part - naughty passengers would be confined to a small room BETWEEN the bar and the children's room...able to see the fun going on in the bar....and fully able to HEAR everything from the children's room. The naughty passenger (from now on known as NP) would be given a choice of meals: a lovely veal piccata or chili meatloaf, and would of course be told his first choice is not available. The only beverage available would be warm apple juice. NP now will need to use the facilities, where he would be trapped by a faulty lock after ridding himself of the cycled meal. No toilet paper, of course, or soap or paper towels...and the floor would be awash with, well, you know. Finally released, he would be strapped to his seat and fitted with a pair of headphones tuned to Channel 8, which continuously plays the Greatest Hits of Michael Bolton. The volume would suddenly go up, then down, then back up again. With his head confined so no movement, a video screen would play an avant-garde German film (remember, now, he's only hearing Channel 8 and the children).
No need for federal marshals to meet the plane, just an ambulance with two guys in white coats to take him to the happy place.
Problem solved.
 
Old Apr 27th, 2000, 07:34 AM
  #10  
Beth Anderson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Elvira! you are a trip! I love it.
 
Old Apr 27th, 2000, 07:47 AM
  #11  
Cindy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Elvira,

I think you're being way too easy on NP. The bathroom should also be equipped with a lighted call button that buzzes no one. Also, NP should have a seat that does not recline, but he/she should be positioned directly behind a passenger who keeps the seat reclined throughout the flight. Finally, NP's seat should also be located in front of someone who simply must bear-hug the back of NP's seat to stand up, flinging NP violently forward when the seat is released.

Now that is punishment.
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

FODOR'S VIDEO