Disruptive Passenger Kicked Off At Porto Santo. (Merged)

Monarch intend to reclaim their costs (£3000) it has been announced, the case and evidence has been referred to Greater Manchester Police.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4584062.stm

If he did something which jeopardised the flight, I don’t think any airport would want the fact they turned away a diverted flight over their heads

Oh, you could have asked the Captain to make a point of diverting to Singapore. This way, with luck you might hang him, and if not, he might be whipped instead of getting away with fines or jail…

That’s funny…

And thus land yourself with assault charges :rolleyes:

Oh, you could have asked the Captain to make a point of diverting to Singapore. This way, with luck you might hang him, and if not, he might be whipped instead of getting away with fines or jail…

I read in the Telegraph the man got a boat to Maderia then flew to Tenerife which I am sure all cost him a packet given purchasing on day of travel.

They also said that he will have to return to Porto Santo in the future for a Court Hearing and he will be informed of the date etc by post once the case has been investigated fully.

I do agree that he should be liable for all costs occured by Monarch but unsure of my position on the Portugeese being reembursed

Well, do you think that the “no-fly list” is reasonable?

I mean: if the people in the “no-fly list” really are dangerous criminals then the US should have no objection to their flying to US. They should be happy to be tipped off, so they can wait for them in the airport, arrest them, give them a fair trial in an open US court for their crimes and throw them to US prisons – it would be safer if they are imprisoned in US than if they are at large abroad.

And if the people in the “no-fly list” are innocent and should not be imprisoned then they should also not be hindered from flying where they want.

As for the costs of dangerous passengers: yes, it is generally most safe to bring the aircraft to ground as soon as possible, because it is easier and safer to restrain dangerous people on ground.

However, why should Portugal pay the bill for the safety of an UK plane carrying UK passengers to Spain just because the plane happened to pass near (not even through) Portuguese airspace? Portugal should indeed allow the plane to land and hold the passenger until it is safe to carry the criminal somewhere else to be dealt with further. But it seems that Portugal ought to be paid for it, promptly. After all, Portugal has saved the plane and passengers of Monarch from the dangers of continuing the flight to Tenerife – why should Monarch notpay upfront for all the costs and then go after the culprit?

And if a passenger has been a danger to air traffic by misbehaving on a plane – why should Monarch refuse to carry the passenger back, yet expect someone else to deal with him for free? If he is too dangerous to let aboard a plane then every other carrier has just as much right to refuse carriage as Monarch. And I do not think Portugal ought to carry the cost of imprisoning the passenger AND caring for him the rest of his life after his release, because commercial airlines justly do not want to fly him to his home country. It could be appropriate to ground the man – but in UK, whose citizen he is. Not in Portugal because he was diverted there nor in Spain where he was flying. Someone has to take him to UK, whether before imprisonment or after release. Maybe it means that for safety of passengers and crews, guards have to fly along and get paid for it, maybe it means that the safest option is to charter a plane and fly it with just prisoner and guards, without endangering and inconveniencing paying passengers, maybe it would be best to carry him on a military plane, or on ground by a ship. But in any case, it would be reasonable for Monarch to pay for the transport and try to recover the cost from the culprit.

After all, had he managed to crash the plane into the ocean, Monarch would be without their plane and would hardly be able to get him to pay for a new plane… right? It is sensible that an airline carries certain risks involved with misbehaving passengers, and can try to recoup the costs afterwards.

No one is saying Portugal should pay for this!
The person that should pay is the pratt that got himself kicked off the plane.

The No fly is perfectly reasonable. This man has shown himself to be a manace. Why should Monarch endanger another plane full of passengers and crew?

The action taken was necessary but its quite inconvenient for other passengers, I mean, if it was me, I’d give him a good slap!

And thus land yourself with assault charges :rolleyes:

Though I do know precisely where you are coming from.

Dangerous passengers

Well, do you think that the “no-fly list” is reasonable?

I mean: if the people in the “no-fly list” really are dangerous criminals then the US should have no objection to their flying to US. They should be happy to be tipped off, so they can wait for them in the airport, arrest them, give them a fair trial in an open US court for their crimes and throw them to US prisons – it would be safer if they are imprisoned in US than if they are at large abroad.

And if the people in the “no-fly list” are innocent and should not be imprisoned then they should also not be hindered from flying where they want.

As for the costs of dangerous passengers: yes, it is generally most safe to bring the aircraft to ground as soon as possible, because it is easier and safer to restrain dangerous people on ground.

However, why should Portugal pay the bill for the safety of an UK plane carrying UK passengers to Spain just because the plane happened to pass near (not even through) Portuguese airspace? Portugal should indeed allow the plane to land and hold the passenger until it is safe to carry the criminal somewhere else to be dealt with further. But it seems that Portugal ought to be paid for it, promptly. After all, Portugal has saved the plane and passengers of Monarch from the dangers of continuing the flight to Tenerife – why should Monarch notpay upfront for all the costs and then go after the culprit?

And if a passenger has been a danger to air traffic by misbehaving on a plane – why should Monarch refuse to carry the passenger back, yet expect someone else to deal with him for free? If he is too dangerous to let aboard a plane then every other carrier has just as much right to refuse carriage as Monarch. And I do not think Portugal ought to carry the cost of imprisoning the passenger AND caring for him the rest of his life after his release, because commercial airlines justly do not want to fly him to his home country. It could be appropriate to ground the man – but in UK, whose citizen he is. Not in Portugal because he was diverted there nor in Spain where he was flying. Someone has to take him to UK, whether before imprisonment or after release. Maybe it means that for safety of passengers and crews, guards have to fly along and get paid for it, maybe it means that the safest option is to charter a plane and fly it with just prisoner and guards, without endangering and inconveniencing paying passengers, maybe it would be best to carry him on a military plane, or on ground by a ship. But in any case, it would be reasonable for Monarch to pay for the transport and try to recover the cost from the culprit.

After all, had he managed to crash the plane into the ocean, Monarch would be without their plane and would hardly be able to get him to pay for a new plane… right? It is sensible that an airline carries certain risks involved with misbehaving passengers, and can try to recoup the costs afterwards.

The police are designed to collect and detain criminals – airports are designed to handle transportation of passengers

Precisely what I said.

Airport facilitated the Diversion, Police the extraction of unwanted passenger. Both sides doing their respective job.

Now, my house, is not there to do either. so the only reasonable answer to your analogy is yes. Which makes your analogy incorrect and biased. For want of a better description.

No its not.

UK airlines ( I think most airlines world wide actually) have a zero tolerance for abusive passengers. The only way they can show they are serious is to do exactly what this fine Monarch crew did. Divert, kick the troublemaker off and continue on their way.

The action taken was necessary but its quite inconvenient for other passengers, I mean, if it was me, I’d give him a good slap!

The police are designed to collect and detain criminals – airports are designed to handle transportation of passengers

My analogy is simply there to generate a feeling – one that you’d want money back – and what if the police station is miles and miles away – passengers could get injured before the bus arrives therefore it might well stop – not neccesarily at your house but it wouldn’t continue.

But your analogy in essence has nothing to do with the case at hand. You have spun the analogy so that the only reasonable answer is yes. Which is not a fair analogy.

Again, I refer to mine which fits better?

You report a burglary, the police turn up, catch the culprit and jail him. How would you feel about receiving a bill for services rendered? It’s not as if you asked the criminal to break in, or invited him in for tea is it? Shouldn’t it be the burglar that pays?

Same situation as the Monarch flight. They needed help and went to the nearest facility able to offer them it. The person responsible for paying any due monies is the person who is responsible for the divertion, in this case, Mr drunken Idiot.

Yes the Portuguese do have a right to claim the expenses back. The one to pay is the instigator of the issue. IE the idiot who got himself kicked off the plane.

Your analogy isn’t very logical. Why would a bus driver drop someone off at my house and not the local police station?

In this case, Monarch diverted to an Airport, designed to take on aircraft and handed the passenger over to the Police, who are paid to maintain law and order.

The difference between the your analogy and what happened is, the Airport and Police are there for this reason.

My house is not.

My analogy is simply there to generate a feeling – one that you’d want money back – and what if the police station is miles and miles away – passengers could get injured before the bus arrives therefore it might well stop – not neccesarily at your house but it wouldn’t continue.

I agree here – but the thing is one way or another the Portugese have the right to get all expenses covered weather it be by the airline or the idiotic passenger – I would go straight to the airline as they can get the money from the said passenger.

Let me put things this way:

There is a drunken idiot on a bus, the bus pulls over outside your house and sticks him in your house and he is not allowed to leave. You have then got to pay to clean up his sick, give him a bed, food and all that – are you seriously telling me that you are not going to try and claim these expenses back one way or another?

Yes the Portuguese do have a right to claim the expenses back. The one to pay is the instigator of the issue. IE the idiot who got himself kicked off the plane.

Your analogy isn’t very logical. Why would a bus driver drop someone off at my house and not the local police station?

In this case, Monarch diverted to an Airport, designed to take on aircraft and handed the passenger over to the Police, who are paid to maintain law and order.

The difference between the your analogy and what happened is, the Airport and Police are there for this reason.

My house is not.

But why monarch?
Why not the pratt currently taking up their resources?
Its not as if Monarch asked him to be distruptive.

So, in your opinion all airlines that divert for some reason or another should pay the penalties of doing so? What if one airline decided not to allow divertions in this case and consequently there was bodily harm inflicted on passengers due to a drunken idiot who the crew could not restrain for the remaining 4 hours of a flight?

What of it then?

I think its pretty unfair to expect an airline to have to foot all the fees in such a case as we are discussing here.

Besides one man is not going to take up as mush resources as the average portuguese fottball match does!

I agree here – but the thing is one way or another the Portugese have the right to get all expenses covered weather it be by the airline or the idiotic passenger – I would go straight to the airline as they can get the money from the said passenger.

Let me put things this way:

There is a drunken idiot on a bus, the bus pulls over outside your house and sticks him in your house and he is not allowed to leave. You have then got to pay to clean up his sick, give him a bed, food and all that – are you seriously telling me that you are not going to try and claim these expenses back one way or another?

Do engage your brain about that last sentance – however i have to agree that Monarch should pay for any expenses that occur on the Portugese taxpayers part – Monarch could claim these fees from insurance, the passenger or the passengers government but in my opinion the portugese have a right to ask for the expenses of detention and any trial on portugese soil

But why monarch?
Why not the pratt currently taking up their resources?
Its not as if Monarch asked him to be distruptive.

So, in your opinion all airlines that divert for some reason or another should pay the penalties of doing so? What if one airline decided not to allow divertions in this case and consequently there was bodily harm inflicted on passengers due to a drunken idiot who the crew could not restrain for the remaining 4 hours of a flight?

What of it then?

I think its pretty unfair to expect an airline to have to foot all the fees in such a case as we are discussing here.
Besides one man is not going to take up as mush resources as the average portuguese football match does!

How would you like it if the Police gave you the bill after you reported a break in?

Do engage your brain about that last sentance – however i have to agree that Monarch should pay for any expenses that occur on the Portugese taxpayers part – Monarch could claim these fees from insurance, the passenger or the passengers government but in my opinion the portugese have a right to ask for the expenses of detention and any trial on portugese soil

Well, don´t you think the Portuguese should have thought about this before letting the Monarch plane into their airspace? Surely they do not want potentially disruptive passengers flown to their airspace AND dumped on Portuguese soil to be jailed at the expense of the Portuguese taxpayer?

Wouldn´t it be appropriate for Portugal to require that Monarch fly him back to UK jail at their cost and paying for all the guards they feel necessary, to sort out the cost after he has served his time – or else have all Monarch flights near Portuguese airspace with disruptive passengers shot down as if they were hijacked?

In a word… no.

You would rather have a plane continue on course with a disruptive passenger who could potentialy turn violent and hurt crew and fellow passengers than have it divert?

A disprutive passenger is far less of a risk on the ground than in the cabin of an airborne plane where he/she can wreak untold havoc and chaos. On the ground you have much better facilites for detaining a troublesome passenger.

Besides, when a Captain makes a plee to divert and land due to such an incident, no airport in their right mind will refuse landing. I mean, the situation is potentialy dangerous as far as ATC know, Especialy in a european country when the plane is European. There are, I believe, laws in place that oblige them to accept the diverting traffic.

As for you last sentence about all monarch flights with disruptive passengers to be shot down, please, do yourself and us a favour… engage your brain.

Well this is something this idiot should have thought about before going on a bender pre and mid flight.

Monarch are completely within their rights to ban this person from using their services. Other airlines will take note of this. Some will shrug it off and carry him, others will want assurance from him and will have a zero tolerance against him. For example, I’d not be surprised that if they see he so much as looks at a beer before flying with them, they’ll refuse boarding.

This person is going to find flying a little harder now, and quite frankly he and anyone else who does the same, deserves it.

Well, don´t you think the Portuguese should have thought about this before letting the Monarch plane into their airspace? Surely they do not want potentially disruptive passengers flown to their airspace AND dumped on Portuguese soil to be jailed at the expense of the Portuguese taxpayer?

Wouldn´t it be appropriate for Portugal to require that Monarch fly him back to UK jail at their cost and paying for all the guards they feel necessary, to sort out the cost after he has served his time – or else have all Monarch flights near Portuguese airspace with disruptive passengers shot down as if they were hijacked?

How can Monarch get away with it?

I mean, if they think he is too much risk to fly home with them, why should any other airline be so stupid as to take him back?

What would happen if the Spanish Air Force has to operate a special VIP flight to get him away from Tenerife when in two years the time comes to release him from prison and no commercial airline wants to remove him from Tenerife?

Well this is something this idiot should have thought about before going on a bender pre and mid flight.

Monarch are completely within their rights to ban this person from using their services. Other airlines will take note of this. Some will shrug it off and carry him, others will want assurance from him and will have a zero tolerance against him. For example, I’d not be surprised that if they see he so much as looks at a beer before flying with them, they’ll refuse boarding.

This person is going to find flying a little harder now, and quite frankly he and anyone else who does the same, deserves it.