Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Long AC Diversion To YVR Due Unruly Passengers  
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25980 posts, RR: 22
Posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10963 times:

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/...ployees-force-plane-to-turn-around

AC31, 77W on Monday en route from YYZ to PEK, about 350 nm from the North Pole, when it diverted to YVR due two drunk and unruly passengers, both employees of Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry. Passengers had to be restrained and handcuffed to their seats. Doesn't say whether they were in J or Y class.

The crew orginally requested to divert to ANC but changed their mind and went to YVR, landing almost 11 hours and 5,000 miles after leaving YYZ. The other 312 passengers had to be put up in hotels overnight before continuing their trip to PEK, arriving 18 hours late. The two passengers responsible spent the night in jail and were given one-year suspended sentences and probation and have been ordered to pay over $70,000 restitution to AC. I suppose they may also be looking for new jobs.

Following from Transport Canada daily incident summary:

The Air Canada Boeing 777-333ER, operating as ACA031 IFR Toronto (CYYZ) to Beijing (ZBAA), was at 34,000 feet at 84 00 N 136 00 W, and requested clearance to Anchorage, AK, USA (PANC) due to an unruly passenger. Clearance was provided as requested.
UPDATE from FAA Operations: Anchorage, AK security event . ACA31 experienced an unruly passenger. The passenger was restrained and the aircraft was planning to divert to Anchorage. The aircraft diverted instead to Vancouver with ETA of 0600z (2200PST). ACA31 landed in Vancouver Runway 08R without further incident at 0611z (2211PST).


[Edited 2011-12-01 17:49:39]

[Edited 2011-12-01 17:53:04]

[Edited 2011-12-01 17:54:38]

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10936 times:

I just posted this, 2 minutes after Viscount724 so my thread should be deleted.

I would just like to add that it apparently took the entire flight crew to subdue the two men and Research in Motion has suspended the employees but not fired them yet pending additional information. I'm happy that the men have been fined in this case, there is often a lot of talk on here about charging or fining people that cause such diversions and in his case I think they completely deserved it.

Link and video news report on the story from CTV News:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...runk-flight-diversion-fine-111201/



The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
User currently onlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1932 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10505 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Thread starter):
Doesn't say whether they were in J or Y class.

I've heard from other sources that it was in J, and both of these men held Elite Top Tier status with AC.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10467 times:

There are a bunch of weird things about this story.

1) Why is their employer important? When that story about the guy who punched the B6 fa the other day came out, was he referred to as a "drunk and unruly Denny's employee"? And I don't remember people saying "he should be fired!" in addition to being arrested. Yet in every story I've seen about this online, the fact that these guys are RIM employees is headline material. I just can't figure out why. Are RIM employees supposed to be somehow immune from acting like idiots?

2) What on Earth really happened here? Nobody seems to be saying. I find it hard to understand how two guys who supposedly had Elite Top Tier status would suddenly go and screw things up so royally for themselves and everyone else for no good reason. Something had to set them off. I'm not saying there's much of anything that could excuse this behavior, but I am just curious what they could have possibly been thinking. People who have high levels of status generally want to keep it. There's an important part of this story that's not being told, and that's weird too.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12334 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10406 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

One question needs to be asked and I know I'm most likly going to get burnt for this, but how involved where the FAs in this incident, did the passengers get fully drunk on the flight or were they already drunk while boarding in YYZ? I'm not excusing the offending passengers or giving an excuse but if the pax got drunk on the flight then maybe the FAs should face some action from AC because isn't it the crews job to ensure the safety of all pax? Ensuring the safety of all pax should surly also involve preventing them from getting drunk on the flight as FAs have a right to refuse

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5732 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10347 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):

1) Why is their employer important? When that story about the guy who punched the B6 fa the other day came out, was he referred to as a "drunk and unruly Denny's employee"? And I don't remember people saying "he should be fired!" in addition to being arrested. Yet in every story I've seen about this online, the fact that these guys are RIM employees is headline material. I just can't figure out why. Are RIM employees supposed to be somehow immune from acting like idiots?

It sounds like they may have been on a business trip, and/or may have been relatively high up on the totem pole.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):


2) What on Earth really happened here? Nobody seems to be saying. I find it hard to understand how two guys who supposedly had Elite Top Tier status would suddenly go and screw things up so royally for themselves and everyone else for no good reason. Something had to set them off. I'm not saying there's much of anything that could excuse this behavior, but I am just curious what they could have possibly been thinking. People who have high levels of status generally want to keep it. There's an important part of this story that's not being told, and that's weird too.

The story posted quoted a passenger who said they were drunk. Given that they pleaded guilty to mischief, I'd say the report is accurate. Alcohol (like any other drug) affects people's actions... to the point where two well-off, well-rounded people can turn into an absolute nightmare.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinequiet1 From Thailand, joined Apr 2010, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10112 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 4):
One question needs to be asked and I know I'm most likly going to get burnt for this, but how involved where the FAs in this incident, did the passengers get fully drunk on the flight or were they already drunk while boarding in YYZ? I'm not excusing the offending passengers or giving an excuse but if the pax got drunk on the flight then maybe the FAs should face some action from AC because isn't it the crews job to ensure the safety of all pax? Ensuring the safety of all pax should surly also involve preventing them from getting drunk on the flight as FAs have a right to refuse

I'm curious: What device/criteria/procedure do you think F/A's possess to determine when a passengers consuming alcohol on board are going to cross the threshold into being drunken jackasses?


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3070 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9870 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 4):
Ensuring the safety of all pax should surly also involve preventing them from getting drunk on the flight as FAs have a right to refuse

1. In J, pax may be served by any of the F/As at different times - you'd need to keep a chart in the galley for each pax and estimate their respective tolerance to alcohol; and
2. There's a self-serve bar on AC's 777s.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 5):
It sounds like they ... may have been relatively high up on the totem pole.

Is that just pure speculation or do you have a source?



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineairontario From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 563 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9734 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 7):
2. There's a self-serve bar on AC's 777s.

...and no doubt these guys were helping themselves to the self-serve bar at the Maple Leaf lounge before departure.

I think it's time Air Canada looks at the idea of self-service alcohol.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9684 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 4):
One question needs to be asked and I know I'm most likly going to get burnt for this, but how involved where the FAs in this incident, did the passengers get fully drunk on the flight or were they already drunk while boarding in YYZ? I'm not excusing the offending passengers or giving an excuse but if the pax got drunk on the flight then maybe the FAs should face some action from AC because isn't it the crews job to ensure the safety of all pax? Ensuring the safety of all pax should surly also involve preventing them from getting drunk on the flight as FAs have a right to refuse

I'd say correct, although noting as per another comment that it might be that several FAs were serving, so total consumption was not tracked. But it's the same in a bar, staff need to be mindful of not over-serving. In fact in several jurisdictions in Canada and the USA there are mandatory courses for bar staff regarding thi stopic.

I have seen pax cut off in flight. Some go quietly, some are outraged. One in particular I remember was a former Tory canibet minister in the 1980s who was cutoff last leg of a YOW-YWG-YYC Christmas flight. When he was cut off he was sitting on the armrest of his aisle seat with his cowboy boots resting on the seat across the aisle. Took umbrage at being told to sit down.

Quoting airontario (Reply 8):

I think it's time Air Canada looks at the idea of self-service alcohol.

Self-serve bars are a growing trend in F/J/Y+ all over the world. Less of a need for an additional FA or two on a long-haul.

Long diversion, though.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9477 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):
1) Why is their employer important?

When you are travelling on business, you are a representative of your company at all times. So it is relevant.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):
2) What on Earth really happened here?

Good question.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently onlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1932 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9441 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):
1) Why is their employer important? When that story about the guy who punched the B6 fa the other day came out, was he referred to as a "drunk and unruly Denny's employee"? And I don't remember people saying "he should be fired!" in addition to being arrested. Yet in every story I've seen about this online, the fact that these guys are RIM employees is headline material. I just can't figure out why. Are RIM employees supposed to be somehow immune from acting like idiots?

These men were not low-level employees within the RIM organization, and I understand that they were on a business-related trip.

RIM is a company that holds itself in very high esteem. Securing a job there is no easy task since they only hire the best-of-the-best. The fact that two management types from one of Canada's most recognizable corporations got charged due to being sloshed on a trans-pacific flight is highly damaging to the company's image, especially in an industry where reputation plays a critical role.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10):
When you are travelling on business, you are a representative of your company at all times. So it is relevant.

        



Flying refined.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9377 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10):

When you are travelling on business, you are a representative of your company at all times. So it is relevant.

Quite. Several times I've had the privilege of attending conferences overseas, and I also served on a committee at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Not only was I representing my employer, I was representing my country. And I believe I acted in an appropriate manner.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9227 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 4):
then maybe the FAs should face some action from AC because isn't it the crews job to ensure the safety of all pax?
Quoting airontario (Reply 8):
I think it's time Air Canada looks at the idea of self-service alcohol.

I am not saying I disagree with these comments, but I see this alarming trend in the way we view society.

No longer are we at fault for our own actions. It's always someone else's fault. That thousands of F and J passengers travel every day, and those aircraft make it safely to their destinations is a good indicator that most people are capable of acting like adults, and not High School kids seeing "free" liquor with zest!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8820 times:

Seems there's more to this story!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/bu...?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26

The article mentions that Air Canada made this decision to divert because they were worried about the Chinese impounding the plane. Why would that have happened?


User currently offlinediverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8819 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 11):
RIM is a company that holds itself in very high esteem. Securing a job there is no easy task since they only hire the best-of-the-best. The fact that two management types from one of Canada's most recognizable corporations got charged due to being sloshed on a trans-pacific flight is highly damaging to the company's image, especially in an industry where reputation plays a critical role.

Good points.

In the USA, alcoholism is a protected disability under ADA.

David


User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 998 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8740 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):

I'd say correct, although noting as per another comment that it might be that several FAs were serving, so total consumption was not tracked. But it's the same in a bar, staff need to be mindful of not over-serving. In fact in several jurisdictions in Canada and the USA there are mandatory courses for bar staff regarding thi stopic.

Including Ontario. Having worked as a barttender (a long time ago, however) I was required to take the training, and told that patrons who appear intoxicated should not be served... in fact I think that the Liquor Control Act says that it is illegal as well. While it was impossible to keep track of drinks served, we were actually expected to enforce that rule, and we did.

That was a one-day course to a student bartender... I am sure FA's are trained to be at least that vigilant, given all that is at stake and all that they are expected to do.

Trouble is, people hold their liquor differently, and some can drink a huge amonut before they show it...


User currently offlinehaggisman From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8616 times:

Haha - like the last paragraph in the New York Times article:

"Incidentally, it appears that none of the 312 other people aboard the Air Canada flight, which was ultimately delayed by 18 hours, pulled out a BlackBerry, or any other smartphone for that matter, to post a message about the episode. "

Scotty



e pluribus Scotsman
User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8340 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 5):
The story posted quoted a passenger who said they were drunk. Given that they pleaded guilty to mischief, I'd say the report is accurate.

People plead guilty for various reasons and often it's not because the facts, as construed by authorities, are accurate or that the person actually what he or she is alleged to have done.

Quoting ryu2 (Reply 14):
The article mentions that Air Canada made this decision to divert because they were worried about the Chinese impounding the plane. Why would that have happened?

Broad authority to seize, for trial, property on which an offense occurred? No idea really.

The NY Times article says the men were eventually separated so does sound like they were fighting between themselves.



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7847 times:

Quoting airontario (Reply 8):
...and no doubt these guys were helping themselves to the self-serve bar at the Maple Leaf lounge before departure.

I think it's time Air Canada looks at the idea of self-service alcohol.

"no doubt"? Do you have any sort of basis for your assertion? Quite frankly you have no idea if these men drank before boarding nor where they obtained their alcohol if they did.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10):
When you are travelling on business, you are a representative of your company at all times. So it is relevant.

I agree with your premise that we represent our employers, but cases like this, assigning 'guilt by association' is a step too far. No worthy editor who published the name of the employer failed to consider the obvious negative light in which the company will be regarded as a result of this story. The company is having a hard enough time at present, and this firm kick while on their knees is the last thing they needed. Sadly, too often people tend to judge many by the actions of a few.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 13):
No longer are we at fault for our own actions.

Great point. Although the very short time between incident & justice (added to the fact they were levied a not inconsequential fine) indicates that finally, some personal accountability was imposed. These guys are out $70K, are banned from travel on the airline, will likely lose their jobs and having their full names plastered in the media, will probably have great difficulty finding new ones.

Quoting Grid (Reply 18):
The NY Times article says the men were eventually separated so does sound like they were fighting between themselves.

No it does not. That's an indefensible leap in logic.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7692 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 19):
No it does not. That's an indefensible leap in logic.

The article does not say that? Yes, it does. And I said it sounds, emphasis on sounds, like they were ... as in to convey or make the impression that. It's a fairly subjective observation and I'll stand by my opinion; you can continue to pontificate with your silly "indefensible leap in logic" remarks.



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7555 times:

Quoting Grid (Reply 20):

Please read the article again. Then please show us where it says the men were (or could have been, or looked like they were about to be) fighting between themselves?

In fact it seems to state the opposite: Cpl. Sherrdean Turley, a spokeswoman for the police, said in an e-mail that although the two men were not brawling “they were intoxicated and weren’t listening to anything they were told to do/asked to do by the airline crew.”?



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 412 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7082 times:

OK...if I haven't missed anything in the posts...IF they were indeed intoxicated BEFORE boarding, why were they allowed to board in the first place. Are there not procedures for "Denied Boarding" under these circumstances??? So, therefore, wouldn't that put Customer Service (CS) at YYZ in-line for questioning as well, beyond that of the FA's?? I don't care what status these individual's may allegedly have on AC, but that SHOULD NOT put them in a position to circumvent Denied Boarding procedures at the gate, correct?


Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6723 times:

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 6):
I'm curious: What device/criteria/procedure do you think F/A's possess to determine when a passengers consuming alcohol on board are going to cross the threshold into being drunken jackasses?

You do what a bartender does and cut them off. If you are at a big pub or club it is unlikely that you will get served every time by the same person, however there is communication between the bar staff of whom has had too many. Also you are trained to look for the signs of intoxication. Surely FA's go through this training, if not they should because they are serving alcohol.

Unfortunately you can't give someone the boot in a plane like in a pub, so this is the best that AC could do to say "You're outta here"

Quoting airontario (Reply 8):
I think it's time Air Canada looks at the idea of self-service alcohol.

Why?

I don't know about everyone else but as I get older I'm getting pretty tired of irresponsible idiots ruining the fun for the rest of us who would know their tolerance or limits. This isn't just from booze but many other things.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineAirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6424 times:

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 16):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):

I'd say correct, although noting as per another comment that it might be that several FAs were serving, so total consumption was not tracked. But it's the same in a bar, staff need to be mindful of not over-serving. In fact in several jurisdictions in Canada and the USA there are mandatory courses for bar staff regarding thi stopic.

Including Ontario. Having worked as a barttender (a long time ago, however) I was required to take the training, and told that patrons who appear intoxicated should not be served... in fact I think that the Liquor Control Act says that it is illegal as well. While it was impossible to keep track of drinks served, we were actually expected to enforce that rule, and we did.

That was a one-day course to a student bartender... I am sure FA's are trained to be at least that vigilant, given all that is at stake and all that they are expected to do.

Trouble is, people hold their liquor differently, and some can drink a huge amonut before they show it...

I've undergone training as a bartender, a multi-week program held in my case at a university and with materials from the Canadian Tourism Human Resource Council and there is indeed training about when to cut people off. As well as how to do it, I'm not sure what type of training flight attendants go through hopefully someone else will comment on that. I agree that when you have multiple people serving in this case passengers then you need to communicate with each other if someone appears to be reaching their limit or drinking too quickly.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 19):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10):
When you are travelling on business, you are a representative of your company at all times. So it is relevant.

I agree with your premise that we represent our employers, but cases like this, assigning 'guilt by association' is a step too far

I don't really think that he was trying to assign any guilt to the employer but it seems that as soon as this story broke the news that they were RIM employees has been part of the story.

Quoting United727 (Reply 22):
OK...if I haven't missed anything in the posts...IF they were indeed intoxicated BEFORE boarding, why were they allowed to board in the first place. Are there not procedures for "Denied Boarding" under these circumstances??? So, therefore, wouldn't that put Customer Service (CS) at YYZ in-line for questioning as well, beyond that of the FA's?? I don't care what status these individual's may allegedly have on AC, but that SHOULD NOT put them in a position to circumvent Denied Boarding procedures at the gate, correct?

But do we know that they were intoxicated before boarding? I may have missed something but any news of the story that I have heard hasn't said that they were. Of course if they were clearly intoxicated before boarding then I hope that the customer service agents would have taken proper steps to deny boarding. By the time the decision was made to divert the plan was already quite far from YYZ so I would suspect that they drank a lot on board and that is why there was a problem.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 23):
Quoting airontario (Reply 8):
I think it's time Air Canada looks at the idea of self-service alcohol.

Why?

I don't know about everyone else but as I get older I'm getting pretty tired of irresponsible idiots ruining the fun for the rest of us who would know their tolerance or limits. This isn't just from booze but many other things.

        



The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
25 Post contains images yyz717 : I disagree. RIM sent them to China. They were on the flight ONLY because they were RIM employees flying on RIM business. Period. They were, therefore
26 spacecadet : This is not really relevant to the question at hand. Many, many people drink who do not force airplanes to divert. I drink nearly every night, as a l
27 GALLEYSTEW : Equation.....alcohol +ambien= disaster. Just a thought.
28 Kaiarahi : Let's try some facts! They weren't. They were ordered to make restitution by a court. The court banned them for a year. Their names have been publishe
29 ltbewr : I would suspect that the 2 pax were not obeying the orders as to in-flight safety and security as well as annoying other pax, including the use of fo
30 threepoint : Not at all, unless you advocate a sobering surrendering of individual rights and responsibility. Most employers do their due diligence, but how do yo
31 WestJet747 : It may be what they were asked not to do. Again, they may have been asked to stop doing something, which they did not. They may not have been"brawlin
32 yyz717 : I can't really be bothered as I don't care who they are. No doubt many have looked into their names as you have out of curiosity. The suspension (and
33 Revelation : Huh? Above you say you are quite familiar with alcohol, but you seem to think they needed something to set them off? If someone is drunk enough, they
34 threepoint : With respect, that's a pretty naive assumption: thinking that many readers won't make a negative assumption between misbehaving employees and their e
35 type-rated : So that they can be shamed into submission. Just like the stockades of olde.
36 Post contains links AirCanada787 : Just to add some closure to this issue, RIM has decided to fire the two men due to their 'unprofessional behavior'. Reported by CTV News: http://www.c
37 Post contains images Revelation : Time for "The Hangover, Part 3"?
38 PanHAM : Don't you have any data protection laws in USA/Canada? Don't indivudals have privacy rights? The stockade ( I assume you mean pillory) is a medieval
39 Revelation : Arrest records are public in most US and CA jurisdictions. That's why we know, for instance, that the head of the FAA was arrested for drunk driving
40 PanHAM : I fully agree on this and I am glad to live in a country where citizen's rights are respected. IMHO,if that had happened on a German carrier they mig
41 Kaiarahi : Provided you can become a citizen. Ask the millions of Turks in Germany who can't become citizens about their rights.
42 PanHAM : Excuse me, but except for being able to vote all "aliens" liviing or staying in Germany enjoy the full protection of the Constitution and the laws, w
43 Kaiarahi : I'd say that's a pretty fundamental right. The U.S. fought a war of independence over taxation without representation. And how about the requirement
44 threepoint : But is being brought back under the current government under new omnibus crime legislation.
45 Kaiarahi : Not quite. But I've seen criminological studies with strong evidence that public shame and embaressment are far more effective than many other sancti
46 gigneil : My guess: shut the hell up, you're screaming in a business class cabin and disturbing everyone around you. I don't see why that'd be hard to figure o
47 Post contains links and images YOWza : They were on a company sanctioned and funded mission. Simple really. They are Senior officers of the company not a burger flippers. Their actions set
48 Kaiarahi : Somebody suggesting that individual rights are better protected/respected in Germany than in North America.
49 threepoint : Again, with respect, I disagree. Fundamentally. Are all RIM employees to be viewed with the same disdain that the two fired employees deserve? When S
50 gigneil : These folks were on a business trip. NS
51 Post contains images YOWza : Thanks for the lesson in corporate titles I do realize that at some companies VP means nothing. I think in this situation they are victims of the pre
52 threepoint : No, they aren't victims in my eyes. I believe it was entirely appropriate to publish their names for their misconduct. But including their employer,
53 Post contains links Viscount724 : Do you have the same comments re the recently-resigned administrator of the FAA, arrested a few days ago for drunk driving, whose employer and positi
54 BoeingGuy : Yes, I am quite sure that if I were unruly on a business trip flight, I'd be fired. In fact, I would be worried about being fired even if I weren't t
55 gigneil : Absolutely. Public officials are in the public. NS
56 ltbewr : RIM had proper reason to fire these irresponsible employees, even under liberal Canadian employment laws. If you got drunk and stupid at a company Hol
57 zippyjet : Thats why they call it a Crackberry.
58 threepoint : You've caused me to consider this carefully. At the risk of adopting a double standard, my answer in this case is 'yes'. Babbitt is the head of the o
59 Kaiarahi : There's a big difference between this: and this: In what specific respects do you consider Canadian (federal? which province?) employment laws to be "
60 StarAC17 : Well you are talking about politicians and that title pretty much remains true with all of them no matter what side of the aisle they sit on. However
61 Post contains links CB97 : New details have emerged... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/12/09/rim-execs-flight.html
62 MarcoPoloWorld : I'm right with you there. Having spent many of my previous years in Europe, I'm oftentimes shocked as to how "justice" is done on the west side of th
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...
WN Diversion To MCO Due To APU Fire? posted Tue Jul 14 2009 09:10:31 by Whappeh
Cathay 885 Diversion To YVR posted Wed Aug 6 2008 19:22:44 by Dlowwa
OZ 271 Diversion To ANC: Unruly Soldier posted Tue Aug 10 2010 10:53:47 by AirlineEcon
Why Was AC 3 Diverted Back To YVR? posted Thu Jun 4 2009 17:31:27 by 36000feet
WN PHX Diversion To IWA, 9 Passengers? posted Tue Sep 9 2008 13:14:23 by 4holer
AC Reverts Back To YVR-HNL-SYD With 767? posted Fri Dec 7 2007 15:55:35 by DYK
AC Jazz To Add YVR-Yellowknife Dec-Apr posted Thu Jun 7 2007 20:20:45 by Tuffer
Losses Due To False Claims By Passengers posted Sat Apr 21 2007 00:25:16 by Qwame
AC A321 YOW-YVR Diverts To YYB posted Fri Oct 13 2006 08:52:09 by Skydrol
From Paper To Sky, How Long? : AC Development posted Sun Dec 7 2003 05:45:27 by MILESAR