Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mile High Fight Club Pair  
User currently offlineScallar From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 142 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

"A COUPLE caught bonking in the loo of a holiday jet forced the captain to make an emergency landing after they flew into a drunken rage."

The Sun Article

Words fail me...  Wow!
/Scallar

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEI747SYDNEY From Ireland, joined Oct 2005, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

one word IDIOTS!!!

Rob  wave 



''Live life on the edge, Live each and every day like it's your last, Hell you only live once''
User currently offlineScallar From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

Yup, that word suits well. Big grin
Seriously though, how stupid can you get? Well, I suppose a £20k fine will make them think twice before pulling this kind of stunt again.

/Scallar


User currently offlineAirconti From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

thats what the operational flight Info says:

* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * BA2263 -3 MO 05DEC
CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL)

LGW ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 1200
LEFT THE GATE 1200
TOOK OFF 1225
ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 1657 KIN
BDA DIV KIN BDA
COMMERCIAL PUBLICITY / PASSENGER CONVENIENCE
PASSENGERS ON BOARD (267)
ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 1650
AIRCRAFT LANDED 1551
ARRIVED 1555
LEFT THE GATE 1650
TOOK OFF 1700
ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 1846 KIN
KIN AIRCRAFT LANDED 1840
ARRIVED 1844

I love the reason "Passenger Convenience"  Smile


User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3439 times:

Well you can't say "Passenger Safety Issue", people might get worried it was a terrorist attack or something  Smile Then CNN, and the CBC would go crazy reporting a hijacking.

User currently offlineLGWspeedbird From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 459 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3179 times:

Just as we managed to get an on time departure of the KIN two pax go and ruin it!!!!

They were flown back BDA-LGW in the presence of 4 security guards. They will never fly BA again.

Apparently they spat at the cabin crew first then the captain came down and they spat at him too!!

Its disgraceful what these pax did, I feel sorry for the crew and pax around them.



upcoming flights LHR-LAX-HNL-SFO-LHR
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

While it was inappropriate for the crew to interupt them in the loo, it was absolutely inexcusable for the passengers to spit on people (without consent). That said, I see no reason at all for a diversion. The spitting couple had been restrained. Duct tape over their mounths would have prevented them from spitting.

Due to the poor judgement of both cabin crew and flight crew, this story disinclines me from flying BA.


User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3085 times:

Quoting Airconti (Reply 3):
COMMERCIAL PUBLICITY / PASSENGER CONVENIENCE

There's nothing either significant or insignificant about the above phrase. It's a standard IATA phrase used to describe a delay or diversion, where the cause of the delay or diversion has had "something" do with a passenger, whether that be at the passenger's own request or fault, or that of the airline.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlineAirconti From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3025 times:

BDKLEZ, thks for your reply. Talking about standard IATA phrases, do you know any source, where to look them up?

Cheers, A.


User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3012 times:

I'm always curious -- how do you

1) get two people in the loo without anybody noticing
2) do it with so little room
3) does it carry any consequences vis-a-vis fines, trouble flying with the airline in the future, etc?

I guess it's easier to do on an empty flight, but still...


User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2950 times:

Quoting Airconti (Reply 8):
Talking about standard IATA phrases, do you know any source, where to look them up?

Yip. Here's a   

If you check Eurocontrol's latest delay analysis report (pdf) for September this year which is contained in the link below, then scroll down to pages 27 & 28, you'll find all the standard IATA delay codes there. You'll also find that Delay code 16 (RS) refers to "COMMERCIAL PUBLICITY/PASSENGER CONVENIENCE".

Some airlines use the numbers to allocate a delay code, while others will use the numerics. ie delay code 16 means exactly the same as delay code PS.

Additionally, some carriers may use up to 5 of their own or internal delay codes, but these can only be code numbers 00 - 05.

Have fun.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/eCoda/codarep/2005/0509_atfm.pdf

     

PS. Any questions? Just ask!

[Edited 2005-12-08 23:57:49]


Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlineAirconti From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

thanks BDKLEZ - appreciate. Have a good weekend, cheers A.

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
Due to the poor judgement of both cabin crew and flight crew

If you were not present and do not have the full facts, how can you state "poor judgement" of both cabin crew and flight crew. In all honesty, do you think that the Captain diverted simply because he and the cabin crew were spat upon? I am not saying that they did not over react, maybe they did. But equally bearing in mind a diversion would cost BA +£20,000, not to mention a delay for the flight and passengers and disruptions to their schedules, I think that there must have been a good reason for the diversion particularly as the Captain would have to justify his decision to BA Operations.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
this story disinclines me from flying BA

Fly AF then. I think that on one of their flights last summer, two female passengers got involved in a bit of hanky panky with two male passengers - in the cabin and in full view of other passengers. Realistic IFE with a difference - 18R certificate though!



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

Quoting BCAL (Reply 12):
If you were not present and do not have the full facts, how can you state "poor judgement" of both cabin crew and flight crew. In all honesty, do you think that the Captain diverted simply because he and the cabin crew were spat upon? I am not saying that they did not over react, maybe they did. But equally bearing in mind a diversion would cost BA +£20,000, not to mention a delay for the flight and passengers and disruptions to their schedules, I think that there must have been a good reason for the diversion particularly as the Captain would have to justify his decision to BA Operations.

The passengers in question were hand-cuffed and restrained in their seats. Regardless of how nasty they may have been up to that point, they could have and should been handled by the police upon reaching their final destination. They were obviously not a threat to continued flight.

If it had cost the captain GBP20,000, then I don't believe there would have been a diversion. It's very easy to waste other people's time and money. The captain probably even got paid overtime.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 12):
Fly AF then. I think that on one of their flights last summer, two female passengers got involved in a bit of hanky panky with two male passengers - in the cabin and in full view of other passengers.

Wouldn't have bothered me at all unless I were trying to sleep and they were being unusually loud about it. Anyway, it's certainly better to listen to than a screaming baby (which I've had on hundreds of flights) because one knows that the screams of passion will soon come to an end. I've heard a few babies scream for 10 hours without stopping.


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
The passengers in question were hand-cuffed and restrained in their seats. Regardless of how nasty they may have been up to that point, they could have and should been handled by the police upon reaching their final destination. They were obviously not a threat to continued flight.

As I said earlier, we do not know the full facts and the passengers might have jeopardised the safety of the aircraft and/or passengers. Granted it did not happen on this occasion, but a violent/disruptive passenger might head-butt the Captain knocking him unconscious. Better to get rid of the threat before it happens.

If I was on a flight, and some passengers became disruptive/violent making it necessary to put on restraints, I would certainly prefer a diversion to off-load them at the start of the flight where you could reach a nearby airport, rather than attempt an Atlantic crossing putting up with their reactions for another 5-7 hours with no nearby diversion.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
Wouldn't have bothered me at all unless I were trying to sleep and they were being unusually loud about it. Anyway, it's certainly better to listen to than a screaming baby (which I've had on hundreds of flights) because one knows that the screams of passion will soon come to an end. I've heard a few babies scream for 10 hours without stopping.

Very true  wink 



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting BCAL (Reply 14):

As I said earlier, we do not know the full facts and the passengers might have jeopardised the safety of the aircraft and/or passengers. Granted it did not happen on this occasion, but a violent/disruptive passenger might head-butt the Captain knocking him unconscious. Better to get rid of the threat before it happens.

I believe the normal procedure on most airlines is to restrain violent passengers in window seats at the rear of the plane. Sometimes large, strong male passengers who appear to be reliable are asked to voluntarily sit in the aisle seat. How a restrained passenger in a window seat could give a prudent captain a Glasgow kiss is beyond my imagination.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 14):

If I was on a flight, and some passengers became disruptive/violent making it necessary to put on restraints, I would certainly prefer a diversion to off-load them at the start of the flight where you could reach a nearby airport, rather than attempt an Atlantic crossing putting up with their reactions for another 5-7 hours with no nearby diversion.

I would prefer to proceed directly to my destination. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.


User currently offlineBongo From Colombia, joined Oct 2003, 1863 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

£20,000 for an orgasm in the air...not bad  Silly


MDE: First airport in the Americas visited by the A380!
User currently offlineBAtriple7 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

Why did the F/As not let them finish??? I presume they didn't, or else those two would have been on cloud 9 and very non-violent!  hyper 

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

Quoting BAtriple7 (Reply 17):
Why did the F/As not let them finish???

Poor judgement.


User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
While it was inappropriate for the crew to interupt them in the loo, it was absolutely inexcusable for the passengers to spit on people (without consent). That said, I see no reason at all for a diversion. The spitting couple had been restrained. Duct tape over their mounths would have prevented them from spitting.

Due to the poor judgement of both cabin crew and flight crew, this story disinclines me from flying BA.

Ahhh, Zvezda....
You are such a weenie....Had I been the captain of that plane I would have decended to below pressure altitude and sent offending couple to swim the rest of the way....
Their behaviour was grossly inappropriate and the flight crew had every right to interrupt their "bonking"!!!!!!!!!!! Sick Sick Sick....

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineScallar From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

Quoting Bongo (Reply 16):
£20,000 for an orgasm in the air...not bad

 bigthumbsup 
Yeah, well atleast they picked a large aircraft with lots of space to do it on. Imagine getting away with something like this in the back seat of a C152.  Smile

/Scallar


User currently offlineWdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 961 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

The captain was a dumbass for coming out of the cockpit for an incident like that.

Perhaps the female had some substance in her mouth needing to be spat out?  Wink


I think it is more professional and appropriate to just slip a note under the door saying, "You've been caught" and then once they come out, go wow, that was a real quicky, kinda fast their fella dont ya think? and embarrass the two.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Joining The Mile High Club - Part 2 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 16:16:22 by Slovacek747
Do Airlines "sanction" The Mile High Club? posted Wed Jan 19 2005 20:23:00 by UA744KSFO
A380 Mile High Club posted Wed Jan 19 2005 05:03:45 by Swisskloten
The Mile High Club posted Wed Nov 5 2003 10:50:46 by Aviatortj
Concord's 11 Mile High Club... posted Fri Oct 24 2003 18:30:13 by Bhill
Mile High Club - Are You A Member? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 15:42:05 by B747FAN
The (11) Mile High Club! posted Tue May 27 2003 11:29:54 by GDB
Canada's Mile High Club Airline - Love Air posted Tue Aug 20 2002 01:16:26 by Bigo747
Simulated Instrument Or Mile High Club... posted Sat Jun 22 2002 18:51:46 by JvW
Who Has Joined The Mile High Club posted Fri May 31 2002 21:32:52 by BR715-A1-30