Costly bill sent to ex-passenger following disruptive behaviour

Comhrá

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/costly-bill-sent-to-ex-passenger-following-disruptive-behaviour-during-flight-714731.html[/URL]

whomitconcerns

And your point is? It's a good thing ? Or a bad thing?

whomitconcerns

whomitconcerns wrote: »

And your point is? It's a good thing ? Or a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Can you not tell ?

whomitconcerns

I could, I think proper order. but not sure what the op meant? He just posted a link and no comment

MarkR

Will they ever pay out though? There often seems to be diverts, but I don't recall any instance where someone actually footed the bill.

Cessna_Pilot

Excellent news. She won't do that again

Hopefully they pursue her for the $$$

Bigcheeze

Surprised it was only £6,800. They'd burn that in fuel with the extra take off.
Presumably there were also landing charges, fuel and ground costs incurred at Shannon. It's an extra take off and landing on the life of the aircraft.

Locker10a

MarkR wrote: »

Will they ever pay out though? There often seems to be diverts, but I don't recall any instance where someone actually footed the bill.

Its a recent push by airlines to reduce the amount of Air Rage and unacceptable behaviour on flights.
It has become a real problem, and whether she pays or not is not the main point, the idea is to get these events in the public eye and make people realise, if they can't behave on their flight they will be billed for the costs/disruption caused.
Fair play to Jet2, i really feel for their crew, the routes they do seem to have a high rate of these incidents unfortunately and I think this airline in particular have really had enough! But more needs to be done!

arubex

Jet2 have a history of these threats. They tried this before with a passenger from an Alicante flight and threatened 'legal action' though they couldn't specify on what charges. As far as I know he laughed and threw the bill in the bin.

They 'billed' another family for a medical diversion and then issued a crawling apology when BBC Watchdog called them out on it.

Airlines have to be very, very careful about pushing ahead with action on arbitrary terms that they include in the T&Cs. They know that those are contracts of adhesion, since they refuse to negotiate them with passengers, and courts take a very dim view of such 'contracts'. American Airlines frequently issues 'bills' to hidden-city users but doesn't actually bring claims; the primary penalty is a travel-ban.

Gaoth Laidir

"...an ex-passenger. .?

She was just a passenger. We're all just passengers. Ok she's been banned, but there was no guarantee she'd fly with them again anyway so she was not on some list of "current passengers". We swear no allegiance to an airline once we fly with them.

[/pedantic]

billie1b

Bigcheeze wrote: »

Surprised it was only £6,800. They'd burn that in fuel with the extra take off.
Presumably there were also landing charges, fuel and ground costs incurred at Shannon. It's an extra take off and landing on the life of the aircraft.

The whole flight worth of fuel would cost around £5500

Bigcheeze

billie1b wrote: »

The whole flight worth of fuel would cost around £5500

Ok imagine oil was back at over $100 a barrel

Charles Babbage

arubex wrote: »

Airlines have to be very, very careful about pushing ahead with action on arbitrary terms that they include in the T&Cs. They know that those are contracts of adhesion, since they refuse to negotiate them with passengers, and courts take a very dim view of such 'contracts'. American Airlines frequently issues 'bills' to hidden-city users but doesn't actually bring claims; the primary penalty is a travel-ban.

I don't see hidden city ticketing as being analogous to causing trouble on a plane. There is a general legal expectation of non destructive behaviour, and it doesn't always have to be specified in T&C.

What is required is for all airlines to have a common "no fly list" for people acting the maggot on a plane. There could be some arbitration process to regulate this, but it is needed all the same.

highlydebased

Indeed a few days after this happened a jet2 flight from fuerteventura to Leeds (afaik) turned back and a rowdy pax was offloaded

homerjay2005

Bigcheeze wrote: »

Surprised it was only £6,800. They'd burn that in fuel with the extra take off.
Presumably there were also landing charges, fuel and ground costs incurred at Shannon. It's an extra take off and landing on the life of the aircraft.

the money is about right, it was only about 40 mins from landing anyway, so the amount of extra fuel is minimal.