Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2224
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:20 pm

After an intoxicated passenger served on a US Airways flight killed a family in a drunk driving accident last November, US was banned from serving alcohol on flights in New Mexico when it was discovered they didn't have a liquor license for the state. They got a temporary license, but apparently that won't be renewed by the state due to another incident of an already intoxicated passenger being served alcohol.

http://kob.com/article/stories/S112728.shtml?cat=516

Does anyone know of any other states that have cracked down on airlines for not having liquor licenses, or for serving already intoxicated passengers?
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:30 pm

This seems pretty ridiculous to me, to ban an entire airline from serving booze because some people don't know when to quit. It's bizarre that NM requires airlines to have a valid license. Do all states do this? If so is this not a pain in the ass for foreign carriers? Think of LH for instance.

ATL, BOS, CLT, ORD,DFW, DEN, DTW, LAX, MIA, EWR, JFK, PHL, PDX, and IAD are all destination and each is in a different state!!

Is this common on a global scale? I'm not aware of any such laws at the provincial level here in Canada.

YOWza
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2224
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
This seems pretty ridiculous to me, to ban an entire airline from serving booze because some people don't know when to quit. It's bizarre that NM requires airlines to have a valid license. Do all states do this?

It was the law in New Mexico for a long time, it was just never enforced until the drunk driver killed five people last year. After that the state cracked down on it and I think 3 or 4 airlines had to stop serving alcohol on flights to ABQ because they didn't have a liquor license. Some did have a license. I'm guessing other states probably have laws which would require it but are not enforced since nobody thinks about aircraft when enforcing liquor laws. I don't know for sure, so I thought I'd ask.

edit for crap grammar

[Edited 2007-06-15 07:40:58]
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18115
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:47 pm

Last I heard, Frontier was disputing the need for a license. It is explained here:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...es-liquor-license-new-mexico_x.htm

That was in January, so things may have changed. Otherwise, I guess pax on ABQ-PVR won't be getting any margaritas.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2224
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:03 pm

Very interesting Mariner. I wonder why Frontier felt like fighting it since AA, CO, DL, UA, and WN had already determined the need for and taken the appropriate action to get a license. Seems like it would be easier to just go ahead and get the thing. Those PVR passengers might indeed be disappointed.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18115
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 4):
I wonder why Frontier felt like fighting it

I dunno, alias. Maybe they think it would open up a hornet's nest with the other states - they could all start demanding it?

Just guessing.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
graphic
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:41 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:31 pm

So if they're pulling US's liquor license, are they also pulling the license of that store in Bernalillo? Seems kinda hypocritical not to...
Demand Media fails at life
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2224
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:44 pm

Quoting Graphic (Reply 6):
So if they're pulling US's liquor license, are they also pulling the license of that store in Bernalillo? Seems kinda hypocritical not to...

Yes. The store lost it's license as well.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4632
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:46 pm

I'm surprised no one else has fought the license yet.

Quote:
But Lopez said New Mexico law specifically requires airlines and railroads that serve alcohol in New Mexico to have state licenses.

Since US, F9, AA, and others do not (to my knowledge) conduct intra-state flights in New Mexico, the matter becomes a federal issue, as the flight crosses state lines and becomes an interstate transport issue. Not only that, but while in flight the airplane is under federal jurisdiction, and are not bound to any local-level commerce laws. States do not regulate airspace.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
DL WIDGET HEAD
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 8:18 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:02 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 4):
I wonder why Frontier felt like fighting it

I dunno, alias. Maybe they think it would open up a hornet's nest with the other states - they could all start demanding it?

Exactly...so then why would F9 fight it if it could open up a hornet's nest elsewhere? Seems a little silly to me.
 
joelfreak
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:13 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:03 pm

There is, as far as I know, no federal drinking age. I believe that since you are DEPOSITING the drunk people in an airport run by their state/city/etc, they can refuse to allow you landing rights, or just demand you don't serve on the flight. I would think this gets into states rights...if you NEED to serve to fly, don't fly to ABQ...seems pretty easy to me.
 
siromega
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:57 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:16 pm

Doesnt NM have a big drunk driving problem anyways? I thought I remember some state official wanting interlocks installed in every car sold in the state or something like that.
 
travatl
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2001 4:57 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:19 pm

New Mexico is so screwed up - you'd think it was in the south. My sister was recently traveling in ABQ. She and a friend were out for dinner... they ordered a bottle of wine with dinner, but also wanted cocktails prior. The server informed them that they could only serve them two drinks each now. Apparently it's a policy that has been implemented at several establishments since this same accident (I guess ABQ is the first city in the world where a family has been killed due to a drunk driver).
 
davescj
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:46 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:28 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
States do not regulate airspace

I would tend to agree. I would think that only the FAA could create such regulations. However, the fact that Frontier and others are buying the NM license, it would seem that perhaps they can. I know that US was appealing the NM to the FAA, but never heard how the case was resolved. In any event, I can't see any airline paying for something they dont' need to pay for. As to serving intoxicated pax, this is already contrary to FAA regs.....further, if the airline thinks you've had too much, they won't let you onto the plane.
Can I have a mojito on this flight?
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:36 pm

I don't understand how having a liquor license is going to prevent a passenger from drinking too much and driving drunk at their destination. I know the "official" reason is so that the servers (F/As) will have proper training, but I don't see how F/As can really tell that well if a pax is about to become out of control with the next drink.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18115
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:25 pm

Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 9):
.so then why would F9 fight it if it could open up a hornet's nest elsewhere?

I think you miss the point. If they get that license it sets a precedent and all the states could start demanding it.

That's the hornet's nest. So it raises, as others have noted, points of law - who has jurisdiction.

mariner

[Edited 2007-06-15 12:26:38]
aeternum nauta
 
lincoln
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:22 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:05 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Since US, F9, AA, and others do not (to my knowledge) conduct intra-state flights in New Mexico, the matter becomes a federal issue, as the flight crosses state lines and becomes an interstate transport issue. Not only that, but while in flight the airplane is under federal jurisdiction, and are not bound to any local-level commerce laws. States do not regulate airspace.

That was my point last time this issue came up... To save myself from a massive amount of retyping...http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3229607/?searchid=3229607&s=lincoln#ID3229607

I'm not a lawyer, but I find this very hard to beleive would be enforceable:

From my original post:
49 USC § 40103(a)(1): The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

Section 101(a) The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 prohibits any "State or political subdivision thereof" from "enact[ing] or enforce[ing] any law [...] relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier having authority under subchapter IV of this chapter to provide air transportation."

Courts have consistantly and broadly enforced the plain language of this section:

DAN MORALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, PETITIONER v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., et al. (1992) -- The Supreme Court held that state "disceptive advertising" laws were preempted as related to the rates, routes, or services of an airline.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER v. MYRON WOLENS ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS (1995) -- Illinois consumer fraud statute inapplicable to changes American made to AAdvantage because it related to the "rates, routes, or services".

Also, a government agency is on record (44 Fed. Reg. 9948, 9949 (1979)) that "[The prohibition] extends to all of the economic factors that go into the provision of the quid pro quo for passenger's fare, including flight frequency and timing, liability limits, reservation and boarding practices, insurance, smoking rules, meal service, entertainment, bonding and corporate financing....”

Clearly, the service of alcohol in flight is related to the "...services..." of an airline -- if things as menial as meal service and boarding practices are specifically included, no regulation at the state level would stand up to court challenge -- and I don't think it would be long before it was challenged. (Service on the ground -- especially at the gate area could be a whole 'nother can of worms).


Then in response to the charge that Art 2 of the constitution enabled this legislation on the part of New Mexico, I responded

The case law [I could find] -- especially the Granholm case cited below -- says otherwise. The "elastic clause" (US Const. Art. I, Sec. VIII) "The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper..." has been held to give the federal government sweeping authority.

Follow that up with the supremacy clause (US Const. Art. VI, Para. 2) "...the Laws of the United States which shall be made ... shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby any ... Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding"

The Airline Deregulation Act, as a law of the United States is the supreme law of the land and explicitly preempts state laws and prohibits states from enacting or enforcing any law (or anything having the force of law, e.g. administrative regulation) relating to an airline's rates routes or services. Therefore, any New Mexico law that would have the effect of resticting an alirline's service of alcohol (as a constituent part of the "service" of an airline) is invalid.

I refer, once again to American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, et al. (1995), holding that a state law can not be applied to an airline frequent filer program. From the Supreme Court opinion: "The full text of the ADA's preemption clause, and the congressional purpose to leave largely to the airlines themselves, and not at all to States, the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services ..."


Lincoln

[Edited 2007-06-15 14:07:48]
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:20 pm

F9 does not serve booze on flights to ABQ. At least they didn't 2 weeks ago.
 
CV580Freak
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:39 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:24 pm

Quoting Travatl (Reply 12):
they ordered a bottle of wine with dinner, but also wanted cocktails prior. The server informed them that they could only serve them two drinks each now.

Blimey, they'll be getting steam trains and black and white TV soon too .........
One day you are the pigeon, the next the statue ...
 
exFATboy
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:15 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:09 pm

While generally speaking you'd think that airlines wouldn't be subject to state regulation on interstate flights, Section 2 of the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, gives the states the power to regulate (or outright ban) importation of alcohol from other states, overriding the Interstate Commerce Clause. Up until the recent court cases involving whether or not states could ban citizens from ordering wine from other states, tradition in the US has been to deny the Federal government any role in regulating the terms of sale of alcohol on non-Federal lands, to the point where when the Feds wanted to impose a uniform national drinking age of 21, they had to blackmail the states into doing it by threatening to withhold highway funds.

So while the Federal government has exclusive airspace soverignity, when a plane lands with alcohol aboard, the airline has "transported" alcohol into the state, and this - not the serving of alcohol while flying over the state - could be interpreted as giving the state the power to require an airline to have a state liquor license...they're bringing alcohol into the state and storing it on airline premises before sale to a final consumer, thus they do function much like a liquor store.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:25 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 3):
Last I heard, Frontier was disputing the need for a license. It is explained here:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...es-liquor-license-new-mexico_x.htm

That was in January, so things may have changed. Otherwise, I guess pax on ABQ-PVR won't be getting any margaritas.



Quoting Lincoln (Reply 16):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Since US, F9, AA, and others do not (to my knowledge) conduct intra-state flights in New Mexico, the matter becomes a federal issue, as the flight crosses state lines and becomes an interstate transport issue. Not only that, but while in flight the airplane is under federal jurisdiction, and are not bound to any local-level commerce laws. States do not regulate airspace.

The controlling constitutional law here is the 21nd amendment. Which states in part,

    1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.


Please note that all the laws noted by Lincoln have nothing to do with alcohol, and any that may be construed to do so such are superseded by the 21st amendment with that regard.

There is little question that if an airplane flies over a state, that the state has little control because there is transportation through the state without stopping.

Now what happens if the airplane lands and a passenger gets off? Obviously, the state see that as as "delivery or use". More than likely the supreme court will agree. There are very few cases that test the 21st amendment, the most recent I know is Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), which was a 5 to 4 decision. Four of the justices held that the 21st amendment was new law and so was compelling, while 5 held that the 21st amendment was merely a repeal of the 19 amendment and so old precedents apply. Using that theory, they decided that states can NOT discriminate between in-state wineries and out-of-state wineries under the doctrine of the Dormant Commerce Clause (or "DCC") has been inferred from the Commerce Clause. The DCC is a doctrine, evolved over many decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, that the states do not have the power to enact anticompetitive laws that discriminate against sellers in other states.

That means that four of the justices believe that the 21st amendment gives the states absolute power to regulate alcohol sales and five believe that it is limited by DCC. However, there nothing in that case which limits the control of the state on the sale and distribution of alcohol, as long as it applies the same rules to everyone. If an airliner lands in a state that regulates alcohol consumption and the airline serves alcohol, particularly if they charge for that alcohol, then they are under the rules of that state, and if the state requires a liquor license, then the airline needs to obtain one, for if the state failed to enforce the law, they would be libel for suit by those bars and such who have obtained a license
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
lincoln
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:22 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:31 pm

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 19):
So while the Federal government has exclusive airspace soverignity, when a plane lands with alcohol aboard, the airline has "transported" alcohol into the state, and this - not the serving of alcohol while flying over the state - could be interpreted as giving the state the power to require an airline to have a state liquor license...they're bringing alcohol into the state and storing it on airline premises before sale to a final consumer, thus they do function much like a liquor store.

I understand your position and it makes sense to me, but Section 2 of the 21st ammendment states "Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

I don't think that it can be argued that the airline is delivering* it as delivery implies a transfter of possession, and if the airline refuses to serve it on the ground I fail to see how a state can require a liquor permit for services in flight (again, I do beleive that a state would be within their rights to require a permit for service in clubs and possibly aboard aircraft that are on the ground)

Lincoln
*- Deliver: "relinquish possession or control over", "bring to a destination, make a delivery", "to surrender someone or something to another", Princeton University WordNet. (If anyone has the Black's definition, I would be most interested)
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 11):
Doesnt NM have a big drunk driving problem anyways?

Yes. But calling it a problem isn't enough, it is in fact an epidemic.

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 11):
I thought I remember some state official wanting interlocks installed in every car sold in the state or something like that.

Representative W. Ken Martinez. The proposal didn't get very far, but it did get him some publicity.

--------------

It surprises me that only Frontier is fighting this.
I lift things up and put them down.
 
AirEMS
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:34 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:11 am

Does the state of NM need money or something???


Here in Colorado I know that if a liquor store can be held if selling to a under age person and they kill someone in a accident but I don't think that we here in CO have anything as far as airlines go

-Carl
If Your Dying Were Flying
 
User avatar
jetpixx
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 3:22 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:37 am

If I were US, or AA, F9, WN, etc. I'd pull all of my flights from NM and see how they like that. I guarantee those backwards laws would change in a hurry. It sounds like some kind of liberal crap...what's next? A guy was skiing and he ran into a tree, so they pull the liquor license of the mountain, sue the tree and ban the ski company from selling skis in NM? It is such a backwards place...look at all the artists and flakes living up near Santa Fe and Taos. Any cities which have specific building codes that all structures must be in a adobe...what's that? Cuckoo cuckoo...
 
travatl
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2001 4:57 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 24):
It is such a backwards place...look at all the artists and flakes living up near Santa Fe and Taos.

Whoa, back off Santa Fe and Taos. Having grown up in the pit that is Farmington, NM, I can assure you those two cities/towns are a couple of the states only redeeming qualities.
 
rwsea
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:23 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 24):
It sounds like some kind of liberal crap...what's next? A guy was skiing and he ran into a tree, so they pull the liquor license of the mountain, sue the tree and ban the ski company from selling skis in NM? It is such a backwards place...look at all the artists and flakes living up near Santa Fe and Taos. Any cities which have specific building codes that all structures must be in a adobe...what's that? Cuckoo cuckoo...

Admittedly off topic here, but it's not usually liberals who try to ban things like alcohol, marijuana, etc. ... ... ...
 
Corsair1107
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:29 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:31 am

figures, I have a flight to PHX from DCA on Sunday and it'll be in New Mexico airspace for a time.  Yeah sure
Flown on: DHC-6/8, F100, B1900C, 717, 727, 737, 757, 767, 777, 319, 320, C152/172, E135/145, DC-9, MD-83/88 CL600
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:34 am

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 26):
Admittedly off topic here, but it's not usually liberals who try to ban things like alcohol, marijuana, etc. ... ... ...

Try going to Utah sometime. Utah has perhaps the strictest liquor and alcoholic beverage control laws outside of the Southeastern states. Very religiously conservative it is.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
It's bizarre that NM requires airlines to have a valid license. Do all states do this? If so is this not a pain in the ass for foreign carriers?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Utah doesn't do this as well.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
ghillier
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:05 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:44 am

I was told by an AA Flight Attendant when departing TUL last week that serving alcohol while parked at the Gate was illegal. I find this hard to believe, especially since I have had many pre-departure drinks in just about every State. Does anyone have an input on this ?
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:58 am

Quoting Travatl (Reply 25):
Whoa, back off Santa Fe and Taos. Having grown up in the pit that is Farmington, NM, I can assure you those two cities/towns are a couple of the states only redeeming qualities.

Agreed. Having been to about 30 states in the US and also having been to Mexico, I can assure that Farmington rather looks like Mexico, I looked for the "New" there and did not find it... NM is the third poorest state IIRC so I would not be surprised to learn it has MAJOR drinking problems. Doubt it is a very liberal state either! So a strict liquor laws enforcement would not surprise me.
Before bashing the richest native American heritage of N Am, it would be better to check facts first....

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 19):
when a plane lands with alcohol aboard, the airline has "transported" alcohol into the state, and this - not the serving of alcohol while flying over the state - could be interpreted as giving the state the power to require an airline to have a state liquor license...they're bringing alcohol into the state and storing it on airline premises before sale to a final consumer, thus they do function much like a liquor store.

totally logical way to think about it....
When I doubt... go running!
 
davescj
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:46 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:05 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 20):
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The key word would seem to be "into" the state...not above. While not an attorney, I can't see NM being able to do anything about it the plane DOES NOT land in NM.

Quoting Corsair1107 (Reply 27):
New Mexico airspace

But for the rest of the time.....IMBIBE!!

Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 24):
If I were US, or AA, F9, WN, etc. I'd pull all of my flights from NM and see how they like that

Depending on the route, they may not be able to pull out. Some routes are under contract/subsidy to provide air service. Remember the drama when NW tried to pull out of some small cities in North Dakota, leaving huge areas (not populations) w/o air service? Though, i must say, I agree in principle.

My answer -- switch everythign to RJ into NM......and then have NO service till out on NM.
Can I have a mojito on this flight?
 
travatl
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2001 4:57 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:12 am

Quoting Corsair1107 (Reply 27):
figures, I have a flight to PHX from DCA on Sunday and it'll be in New Mexico airspace for a time.

They can serve liquor on the flight (I work transcons all the time back and forth to the west coast, and have never heard of not serving it over NM). It's flights operating in or out of NM that are effected.
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2224
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:17 am

Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 24):
If I were US, or AA, F9, WN, etc. I'd pull all of my flights from NM and see how they like that. I guarantee those backwards laws would change in a hurry.

AA, UA, WN, CO, and DL were all in compliance and had the appropriate liquor license before this issue came up. Also, I don't see it as backwards when a state wants to enforce it's liquor laws on an airline, if that airline will be dropping off the drunks in that state.

Quoting Travatl (Reply 12):
She and a friend were out for dinner... they ordered a bottle of wine with dinner, but also wanted cocktails prior. The server informed them that they could only serve them two drinks each now. Apparently it's a policy that has been implemented at several establishments since this same accident

Sounds like a policy by this particular establishment to ensure they do not serve any already intoxicated patrons. If that is how they want to run their restaurant, it is their business. I'm sure there are many other establishments that would continue to serve them as long as they appeared to not be drunk.

Quoting Travatl (Reply 12):
I guess ABQ is the first city in the world where a family has been killed due to a drunk driver).

No, but drunk driving is a particularly sensitive issue in New Mexico, and this accident brought up a lot of really bad memories. Christmas Eve of 1992 a man named Gordon House got severely trashed and then drove the wrong direction down I-40. He hit a car and killed a woman and her three little girls. It was a landmark accident, dominating the news in New Mexico for several days as everyone saw the grief of a father who had lost his wife and children, and a grandmother who had lost her daughter and three granddaughters the night before Christmas. That grandmother led a crusade which led to many changes of state law regarding drunk driving. Things have seemed to be improving since then, so to have someone else wipe out a family by driving drunk felt like a kick to the nuts for a lot of people who didn't know the victims but remember a family being wiped out on Chrismas Eve 15 years ago.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
RIXrat
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:26 am

I distinctly remember that back in the 70s I was on a flight where the F/As had to lock the alcohol trolleys in the galley while overflying some particular state. It might have been Utah, but I'm not sure.

As far as far as the happy Mexican vacationers coming home, why not just make an announcement that the flight is approaching the state of New Mexico for a landing at Albuquerque and no more serving will be allowed and again lock the trolleys in the galley.

Also back in those days when I lived in Virginia, restaurants did not have an liquor license, but to show you how stupid the commonwealth's laws were, one was allowed to bring in a brown-bagged wine bottle, or booze, and the restaurant could legally charge you for a "set up" -- that meant soft drinks, water, or an uncorking charge which sometimes equalled the cost of the booze.
 
travatl
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2001 4:57 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:33 am

I'm well aware of the Christmas '92 tragedy - I lived there at the time. In fact I was living in Farmington when the Today Show did the big report on US Highway 666 between Cortez, CO and Gallup, NM - referring to it as the deadliest, drunkest highway in the nation.

As for my sister's experience - this was something that occurred over and over during the week they were there. Not so much that they were drinking everywhere, but out of curiosity, she began asking servers if they had a "drink maximum". Most places she went, they did indeed.

I'm not saying drunk driving isn't a serious problem in New Mexico - but having spent the first 20 years of my life there, I am saying this is typical of the state. Instead of working the true problems of poverty, ridiculously inadequate public health and education services, and of course, making people take responsibility for their own actions, they want to restrict the amount people drink. This doesn't fix anything.

Fatal vehicle accidents involving alcohol happen everywhere, everyday (in fact, in just the last hour, at least two people somewhere in the US lost their lives due to a drunk driver). It doesn't just happen there.
 
SANFan
Posts: 3671
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:44 am

Sorry if I missed it (I admit I didn't read all the most recent posts on this thread) but exactly what is supposedly banned here: serving booze on interstate flights LANDING in NM, DEPARTING from NM, or even OVERFLYING NM? (I guess any intra-NM flights by any cx would require a liquor license.)

bb
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:59 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 3):
Last I heard, Frontier was disputing the need for a license. It is explained here:



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 17):
F9 does not serve booze on flights to ABQ. At least they didn't 2 weeks ago.

In F9's Inflight Entertainment Guide which is provided in every seat pocket, on the portion concerning food/drink services, there is a little fine print with an asterisk stating something like "No alcohol served on flights to/from New Mexico"
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
 
Alias1024
Topic Author
Posts: 2224
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:06 am

Travatl, I was simply trying to explain to everyone why this is such an emotional issue in New Mexico, giving context to the reaction by the state.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 36):
Sorry if I missed it (I admit I didn't read all the most recent posts on this thread) but exactly what is supposedly banned here: serving booze on interstate flights LANDING in NM, DEPARTING from NM, or even OVERFLYING NM? (I guess any intra-NM flights by any cx would require a liquor license.)

Only flights departing from or landing in NM. However, if the airline applies for and is granted a liquor license, they can serve alcohol on these flights.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:10 am

Quoting Davescj (Reply 31):
Quoting Poitin (Reply 20):
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The key word would seem to be "into" the state...not above. While not an attorney, I can't see NM being able to do anything about it the plane DOES NOT land in NM.

If the airplane lands and the drink gets off in the belly of the passenger, then it is "into". Clearly if the airplane flies over the state and does not land that is transportation through the state. If NM is trying to enforce a license on a bar at 30,000 feet that does not land on their sovereign territory, then I suspect they will loose. The key word is "into" as you point out. There is an issue of where the state's sovereignty stops above the surface of the land. That would be argued to be covered by the various laws Lincoln sites. My guess is if it doesn't touch land, it isn't a state right. Now, please note that I can drive a truck full of liquor through that state, and it if is not delivered or consumed in that state, then the state has no say. The state can only act if the liquor is delivered or consumed. Thus they would have to argue that liquor was consumed since it obviously was not delivered.

A second issue is enforcement. The only way a state can possible claim that their law was broken at 30,000 feet is to have a policeman on board the aircraft who observes that the FA sold a drink while flying over the state (this assumes that the state has sovereignty at 30,000 feet, which I doubt) the question of WHERE the infraction occurred comes into play. Was the airplane actually over the state and if so exactly where? That would be a real interesting issue to argue in court. So unless the pilot is good enough to supply the policeman with his present location, or the policeman has a GPS what works inside airplane (not), he is only guessing where he is. It is interesting that there are many cases where the pilot in command is the one who says where what happened. This is particularly true of births on board.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting Ghillier (Reply 29):
I was told by an AA Flight Attendant when departing TUL last week that serving alcohol while parked at the Gate was illegal. I find this hard to believe, especially since I have had many pre-departure drinks in just about every State. Does anyone have an input on this ?

In a word, yes. The plane on the ground is subject to the state's liquor laws. Period. Now the question is what does "serve" mean. You are allowed to give away drinks for no charge in many states such as New York, because that is not "serving," which implies that you are charging for it. Other states make it illegal for anyone but the state to serve alcohol. Utah is an example. You go into the bar, order the set up, go across the hall to the State liquor store and by the booze, carry it back into the bar and mix it yourself. Do not expect to be served alcohol in a plane on the ground at SLC, unless there is a built in state liquor store aboard.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
SANFan
Posts: 3671
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:35 am

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 38):
Only flights departing from or landing in NM.

Thanks for the response Alias'.
I'm kind of surprised that NM can (or would) express any say on serving booze on a flight that departed from their state; that would seem to me to just be a revenue source for them (the liquor license) and nothing else. (The "serving" of the beverage wouldn't occur until the plane was well off the NM ground and a drunk passenger deplaning and killing someone would be in another state, right?)

bb
 
detroitflyer
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:01 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting Travatl (Reply 12):
New Mexico is so screwed up - you'd think it was in the south.

what is that supposed to mean/???

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 19):
they had to blackmail the states into doing it by threatening to withhold highway funds.

well heres another way of looking at it. The way i learned it was through incetives. The federal government also withholds funds for a variety of other reasons (speed limits) and such.
Boiler Up!!!
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting SANFan (Reply 41):
I'm kind of surprised that NM can (or would) express any say on serving booze on a flight that departed from their state; that would seem to me to just be a revenue source for them (the liquor license) and nothing else. (The "serving" of the beverage wouldn't occur until the plane was well off the NM ground and a drunk passenger deplaning and killing someone would be in another state, right?)

I tend to agree with you about departures, because once in the air, the airplane is out of their sovereignty and the booze is going to get off somewhere else. As for landing in NM, they have a strong case. The alcohol was delivered (in the belly of the pax) into the state. I would like to understand the legal theory about departures, however.

As for the plane landing with booze on board and taking off with it, NM has no say in that case since is was not delivered or consumed. However, it can not be offloaded.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
travatl
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2001 4:57 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting Detroitflyer (Reply 42):
Quoting Travatl (Reply 12):
New Mexico is so screwed up - you'd think it was in the south.

what is that supposed to mean/???

Exactly what I said. It's as backward and screwed up as the southern states. Having spent 20 years in New Mexico, and 10 years in Georgia, I feel well qualified to make that observation.
 
User avatar
etops1
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:26 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:51 am

you know what? take responsibilty for your own f'n actions. everyone wants to blame everyone else for their mistakes. if you can't hold your swerv than don't drink dammit!!!.
 
SANFan
Posts: 3671
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:14 am

Quoting Etops1 (Reply 45):
you know what? take responsibilty for your own f'n actions. everyone wants to blame everyone else for their mistakes. if you can't hold your swerv than don't drink dammit!!!.

What an un-American attitude that is! Come on man, you want American people to be responsible and not find someone else -- anyone else -- to blame?  Wink

bb
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:23 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 14):
I know the "official" reason is so that the servers (F/As) will have proper training, but I don't see how F/As can really tell that well if a pax is about to become out of control with the next drink.

I've seen F/As sell 4 little bottles of vodka at once to passengers. I've also seen them serve 2 glasses of wine at a time, then serve the same customer 2 more and 2 more in the duration of a 3 hour flight.

I've sat next to drunk pax who were continually served. I've never, in my flying life, seen a passenger denied a drink, though I know it happens. It's just, well... rare?

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 22):
Yes. But calling it a problem isn't enough, it is in fact an epidemic.

No, it's a growing problem as it's not "sudden" nor is it communicable.

epidemic - noun - a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time : a flu epidemic. • a disease occurring in such a way. • a sudden, widespread occurrence of a particular undesirable phenomenon : an epidemic of violent crime.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 28):
Try going to Utah sometime. Utah has perhaps the strictest liquor and alcoholic beverage control laws outside of the Southeastern states. Very religiously conservative it is.

Their laws are so strange. Their beer is watered down, and so much so, that I got sick from it without even having a buzz let alone being drunk. Quite confusing to your brain, as you are asking yourself: "why exactly am I throwing up?" It's because beer makes you vomit I guess...

Moral of the story: there are better places to have a bachelor party weekend than Park City.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
It's bizarre that NM requires airlines to have a valid license.

Not at all. Every state that I know of has some regulation requiring corporations that wish to serve alcoholic or intoxicating beverages possess a valid liquor/alcohol license. Doesn't matter if they're a retail store, restaurant, private club or transportation company-if you want to serve regulated beverages, you must have the required license.

Quoting AirEMS (Reply 23):
Does the state of NM need money or something???

No. They are just enforcing their regulatory authority.

Quoting Ghillier (Reply 29):
I was told by an AA Flight Attendant when departing TUL last week that serving alcohol while parked at the Gate was illegal. I find this hard to believe, especially since I have had many pre-departure drinks in just about every State. Does anyone have an input on this ?

If the plane is on the ground, it is subject to local laws where there is no supervening federal statute. Therefore, it is possible that if Tulsa has an applicable law pertaining to the dispensing of alcohol in your situation, the attendant acted properly. Similarly, in the old days the club car attendant on a passenger train was required to lock the alcoholic beverage coolers when the train passed through a jurisdiction that was either dry or prohibited dispensation of alcoholic beverages during certain hours.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
lincoln
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:22 pm

RE: US Again Banned From Serving Booze In NM

Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:27 am

Quoting Davescj (Reply 31):
The key word would seem to be "into" the state...not above



Quoting Poitin (Reply 39):
The key word is "into" as you point out.

If the ammendment was "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited" I would agree with you, but the key phrase is "for delivery or use therein":

Quote:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

My interpetration of section 2 is "You can not bring or import liqour into a state for the purpose of delivering it or using it in that state when it would violate the state's laws"

My position is that the airline is neither delivering it into the state nor are they using it in the state* so therefore the 22nd ammendment doesn't come into play here.

*Two caveats/assumptions here - #1 that they don't serve on the ground because then they would be using it in the state; and #2 is that the liquor remains on the airline's premesis (either aircraft or warehouse or whatever)

Lincoln
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airmalta1, alggag, as739x, GMPEC, Google Adsense [Bot], hoons90, IndianicWorld, klkla, MAH4546, msycajun, psimpson, rohanb2, SheddingVortex, Sooner787, thomasphoto60, United1, ZKLOU and 200 guests