Is he Nuts or just plain Crackers?

Pat Dunne

Its up to the Jury to decide, mah Lord.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/court-told-air-passenger-got-angry-when-refused-extra-nuts-1.2606437

Shannon757

Found not guilty after half an hour. Going to sue United now apparently.

Locker10a

Shannon757 wrote: »

Found not guilty after half an hour. Going to sue United now apparently.

If they had brought the other passengers as witnesses, things may have been different

54and56

Locker10a wrote: »

If they had brought the other passengers as witnesses, things may have been different

Would've should've could've. If my aunt had ball$ she'd be my uncle.

Don't press charges unless you have enough evidence to get a conviction. Sounds like this was never going to get over the line.

Waste of tax payers money.

L1011

NI hasn't got enough experience in doing this. If it'd been Shannon he'd have been charged and tried in days not months

LiamoSail

The real issue here imo is the crew. Because they couldn't deal with an irate passenger, thousand of litres of fuel were dumped, at significant cost both to the environment and their employer, and hundreds of people significantly inconvenienced.

The passenger acted the dick no doubt, but the reaction of the crew was ridiculous. There's no suggestion he threatened violence, it was absolute overkill.

Regarding the jettisoning of fuel, I'd like to know where it was dumped, and what the environmental impact of this was. There should be serious, even criminal repercussions if the decision to jettison can't be entirely justified.

JCX BXC

LiamoSail wrote: »

The real issue here imo is the crew. Because they couldn't deal with an irate passenger, thousand of litres of fuel were dumped, at significant cost both to the environment and their employer, and hundreds of people significantly inconvenienced.

The passenger acted the dick no doubt, but the reaction of the crew was ridiculous. There's no suggestion he threatened violence, it was absolute overkill.

Regarding the jettisoning of fuel, I'd like to know where it was dumped, and what the environmental impact of this was. There should be serious, even criminal repercussions if the decision to jettison can't be entirely justified.

I disagree. From what I read the passenger was loud and aggressive and his condition was detoriating rather rapidly. The crew did the right thing. Your suggestion of criminal charges for jettisoning fuel is absurd!

man98

I believe that the passengers had to sleep on the floor of Aldergrove and the diversion costed €800,000. All that cost just for that verdict?

LiamoSail

Carnacalla wrote: »

I disagree. From what I read the passenger was loud and aggressive and his condition was detoriating rather rapidly. The crew did the right thing. Your suggestion of criminal charges for jettisoning fuel is absurd!

I'm not saying jettisoning in itself should lead to criminal charges, I'm saying jettisoning when unnecessary should. If a Ships Capt did pollute through needlessly jettisoning, he/she would be liable to face criminal charges. I don't see why the Pilit of a plane shouldn't either.

As I said, obviously the passenger was being a dick, but the reaction of the crew seems entirely disproportional to that of the situation. The man was complaining and angry about crackers; that's it. He wasn't violent, he didn't have a weapon, and he didn't threaten violence. To me, that dosent justify inconvienening hundreds of people, polluting, and the substantial cost.

JCX BXC

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'm not saying jettisoning in itself should lead to criminal charges, I'm saying jettisoning when unnecessary should. If a Ships Capt did pollute through needlessly jettisoning, he/she would be liable to face criminal charges. I don't see why the Pilit of a plane shouldn't either.

As I said, obviously the passenger was being a dick, but the reaction of the crew seems entirely disproportional to that of the situation. The man was complaining and angry about crackers; that's it. He wasn't violent, he didn't have a weapon, and he didn't threaten violence. To me, that dosent justify inconvienening hundreds of people, polluting, and the substantial cost.

The pilot didn't jettison for the craic, are you seriously suggesting that they did?

And I disagree, we can only go by what what were told and we are told this :

"The flight attendant with almost 30 years of experience told the court she expressed concern to the head flight attendant that “somebody was going to get hurt”.
Asked who, she added: “Anybody confronting this passenger – any passenger on the aeroplane or any flight attendant.”

byronbay2

Carnacalla wrote: »

I disagree. From what I read the passenger was loud and aggressive and his condition was detoriating rather rapidly. The crew did the right thing. Your suggestion of criminal charges for jettisoning fuel is absurd!

What on earth does that mean? He was pissed-off, not ill.

Gigantic over-reaction by the airline staff involved, which seems to be their default position these days.

JCX BXC

byronbay2 wrote: »

What on earth does that mean? He was pissed-off, not ill.

Gigantic over-reaction by the airline staff involved, which seems to be their default position these days.

He was pissed off to the point of endangering passengers? Its likely he may have worsened, and injured a cabin crew or passenger. Look at Dolores O Riordan, she broke that cabin crews foot. This could have occurred had this flight not diverted.

How is that a "Gigantic over reaction"?

byronbay2

Carnacalla wrote: »

He was pissed off to the point of endangering passengers? Its likely he may have worsened, and injured a cabin crew or passenger. Look at Dolores O Riordan, she broke that cabin crews foot. This could have occurred had this flight not diverted.

How is that a "Gigantic over reaction"?

THAT was the gigantic over-reaction of the cabin crew staff (absolutely no reason to think so, or at least no proof offered in court) and the pilot's gigantic over-reaction was to decide that this perceived "fear" warranted diverting a flight with 264 passengers, dumping thousands of litres of fuel in the process. Absolutely crazy carry-on, based on one non-violent passenger being pissed-off!

billie1b

Carnacalla wrote: »

He was pissed off to the point of endangering passengers? Its likely he may have worsened, and injured a cabin crew or passenger. Look at Dolores O Riordan, she broke that cabin crews foot. This could have occurred had this flight not diverted.

How is that a "Gigantic over reaction"?

The evidence states otherwise, remember the airline would have had the crew as witnesses here and it would have been him and his solicitor only. The judge would have read all the reports, got witness testimonies and looked at the evidence, there was obviously absolute zilch if he was found not guilty.
You cant say boo on an American carriers flight without the crew over reacting, yes he may have been loud but by my own experiences of dealing with Americans on a daily basis, they are generally loud, you have to expect some kind of irateness when a pax is upset and let it go, only when they get to a certain point action should be taken, judging by this guy he was just being obnoxious and the crew overreacted by it.
There is absolute no basis on the claims that he was irate, agressive and getting worse and the judgement proves that

LiamoSail

Carnacalla wrote: »

The pilot didn't jettison for the craic, are you seriously suggesting that they did?

And I disagree, we can only go by what what were told and we are told this :

"The flight attendant with almost 30 years of experience told the court she expressed concern to the head flight attendant that “somebody was going to get hurt”.
Asked who, she added: “Anybody confronting this passenger – any passenger on the aeroplane or any flight attendant.”

I never suggested the Pilot jettisoned for the craic. My suggestion was that he/she overreacted to a situation and unnecessarily jettisoned. To my mind, a passenger getting angry about crackers does not justify the Pilot causing environmental damage. There was no violence, there was no threat of violence. An Air Hostess, without any tangible evidence and only her opinion, which is obviously subjective, doesn't justify the action taken.

As I said above, if a ship's Capt made a similar call for the safety of his ship, and was later found to have acted incorrectly, there'd be consequences. The same should apply to a Pilot, if found to have acted negligently.

Locker10a

LiamoSail wrote: »

I never suggested the Pilot jettisoned for the craic. My suggestion was that he/she overreacted to a situation and unnecessarily jettisoned. To my mind, a passenger getting angry about crackers does not justify the Pilot causing environmental damage. There was no violence, there was no threat of violence. An Air Hostess, without any tangible evidence and only her opinion, which is obviously subjective, doesn't justify the action taken.

As I said above, if a ship's Capt made a similar call for the safety of his ship, and was later found to have acted incorrectly, there'd be consequences. The same should apply to a Pilot, if found to have acted negligently.

The judgement was made by the crew present in the cabin ( this included the relief captain) to consult the operating flight crew of a disturbance in the cabin with a passenger, from my reading of the article I feel there was a pressure put on the crew to " do something" from the surrounding passengers in the area of the disturbance. It says in one of the articles the passengers questioned the crew in their actions and demanded actions, these passengers did not give evidence during the trial.
In a situation where passengers and crew begin to feel threatened and concerned about the behaviour it's time to act. Simple as.
You'd don't have to and shouldn't have to wait for an act of violence.
Crew may have overreacted, we weren't there so we can't know what the situation felt like, but any crew would rather act now than regret it later, some people can get very nasty in the air.
Just yesterday a Gatwick to Tenerife flight was turned around and returned to Gatwick due to aggressive and threatening behaviour, 6 people were arrested.
Yes it's bad for the environment but there are *****y people out there who cause these occurrences, and to stop this there need to be a hard reaction to ANY type of this behaviour on aircraft

Would have been cheaper and easier and probably bloody better customer service to actually have given him something to eat rather than being stubborn and saying no. Is it that hard or difficult to find someone something to eat. im speaking as a parent of very young kids. Sometimes it's easier giving in than causing a fight and a bad atmosphere.

I'm deliberately not commenting on his behaviour because it's been spoken about already. I'm just postulating that it's something that airline staff should consider, give him what he wanted if it's easy and then if his behaviour Downey improve you are in a much better position.

Locker10a

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would have been cheaper and easier and probably bloody better customer service to actually have given him something to eat rather than being stubborn and saying no. Is it that hard or difficult to find someone something to eat. im speaking as a parent of very young kids. Sometimes it's easier giving in than causing a fight and a bad atmosphere.

I'm deliberately not commenting on his behaviour because it's been spoken about already. I'm just postulating that it's something that airline staff should consider, give him what he wanted if it's easy and then if his behaviour Downey improve you are in a much better position.

This issue with this is..... He's a grown man! You say you are the parent of young kids, and giving in is easier than the fight! Indeed! However you hit the nail on the head when you used the example of your " young kids" !
Grown adults should not behave this way. Period. And we should not tolerate grown adults behaving as 3 year olds and becoming angry and aggressive when you don't get your way.....
If you want food from first/ business class then book a first/ business class ticket....
If you book an economy seat then you eat/drink with everyone else in your cabin section......that's what you paid for.
As and adult you should be able to understand and accept this.
If you find yourself desperately hungry/thirsty/ feeling unwell, a calm and mature explanation to the crew spoken in a kind and grateful manner will soon sort you!
You trap more flies with honey than vinegar !!!
A tantrum gets you no where! Adults need to behave like adults, it's as simple as that

arubex

Shannon757 wrote: »

Going to sue United now apparently.

And I hope he wins, massively. Bear in mind that he has been held in Northern Ireland for 10 months of his life, he will never get that time back.

Unfortunately the other 263 passengers aren't able to take similar action. United's treatment of them was appalling, dumping them in the airport and giving them a voucher each. The airport shops ran out of snacks and water around 01:00 the next morning after which it was a case of sleeping on the floor in what you wore ( their hold bags were not retrieved )


The crew who actually made the decision to divert were comfortably asleep in the hotel by then.

Little wonder that crew so often over-react when there are so few consequences to them

roundymac

He should have got jail but that's just MO. Anyone who threatens or frightens people should be jailed. His carryon was not normal. If he was on the ground he would have been charged with a breach of the peace. If he tried that in a bar he would have been refused service and most likely barred. Some jury's are anti law, that unforunatly is the luck of the draw.

smurfjed

An aluminium tube flying at 600 mph 30000 feet above the ground isn't the place to have an argumentative individual. As soon as the cabin crew stated that they felt threatened, then the Captain had a duty of care to land asap. A 777 can land above its maximum landing weight, however, it is more prudent to dump excess fuel and land with the prescribed weight limits.

Little wonder that crew so often over-react when there are so few consequences to them

So you would have them continue across the atlantic in the hope that the matter didn't escalate?

Legally the airline must give the crew adequate rest, if they weren't given a hotel room then they wouldn't have had the rest required to operate the following day.

LiamoSail

smurfjed wrote: »

An aluminium tube flying at 600 mph 30000 feet above the ground isn't the place to have an argumentative individual. As soon as the cabin crew stated that they felt threatened, then the Captain had a duty of care to land asap. A 777 can land above its maximum landing weight, however, it is more prudent to dump excess fuel and land with the prescribed weight limits.
.

What qualifies a member of the cabin crew to determine that the level of threat is sufficient to warrent such serious environmental damage?

There was no violence or threat of violence made. It was simply the subjective opinion of a person who I'll assum has no formal human behavioural qualifications working off their gut feeling. That's not sufficient imo

Locker10a

LiamoSail wrote: »

smurfjed wrote: »

An aluminium tube flying at 600 mph 30000 feet above the ground isn't the place to have an argumentative individual. As soon as the cabin crew stated that they felt threatened, then the Captain had a duty of care to land asap. A 777 can land above its maximum landing weight, however, it is more prudent to dump excess fuel and land with the prescribed weight limits.
.

What qualifies a member of the cabin crew to determine that the level of threat is sufficient to warrent such serious environmental damage?

There was no violence or threat of violence made. It was simply the subjective opinion of a person who I'll assum has no formal human behavioural qualifications working off their gut feeling. That's not sufficient imo

It is sufficient for the industry world wide! Its exactly why there are crew onboard! Are you suggesting that airlines employ behavioural psychologists onboard all flight?
This man was acting aggressive and intimidating towards crew members, the cabin crew AND relief Captain consulted with the operating flight crew and the decision was taken to land and get the man off!
100% the correct decision.
I'm sorry but to say cabin crew aren't qualified to identify aggressive behaviour is idiotic! Anyone on gods earth could identify human behaviour, its not scientific its human nature. And in this care the passengers and crew realised this mans behaviour was not normal or acceptable onboard an aircraft.

smurfjed

such serious environmental damage?

I'm actually curious as to how much environmental damage is done by dumping that amount of fuel, do you have any reference? Especially when compared to actually burning that fuel with its emissions prior to landing in Belfast?.

There is absolutely no way that ANY of the crew assessed the environmental impact of dumping fuel, NOR are they obligated to. The safety of the people onboard will always be considered the prime reason for landing. The Cabin Crew felt threatened, that all the Captain as the senior representative of the company needs to know before deciding to land.

How far would you be willing to allow the situation escalate to?

billie1b

Locker10a wrote: »

This man was acting aggressive and intimidating towards crew members, the cabin crew AND relief Captain consulted with the operating flight crew and the decision was taken to land and get the man off!
100% the correct decision.

Again this is a false statement, the man was proven innocent of any agressive or intimidating behaviour towards anyone on that aircraft in court with all the available evidence given by crews and pax, to keep saying he was agressive etc is ridiculous! Lets just call it what it is, a total over reaction by the crew.

LiamoSail

Locker10a wrote: »

It is sufficient for the industry world wide! Its exactly why there are crew onboard! Are you suggesting that airlines employ behavioural psychologists onboard all flight?
This man was acting aggressive and intimidating towards crew members, the cabin crew AND relief Captain consulted with the operating flight crew and the decision was taken to land and get the man off!
100% the correct decision.
I'm sorry but to say cabin crew aren't qualified to identify aggressive behaviour is idiotic! Anyone on gods earth could identify human behaviour, its not scientific its human nature. And in this care the passengers and crew realised this mans behaviour was not normal or acceptable onboard an aircraft.

I just think it's mad to take such extreme action over what was essentially a heated argument. Anyone can at any point say they feel threatened, but there needs to be some sort of burden of proof, rather than a feeling the cabin crew had.

I certainly believe a Pilot has every right to jettison fuel if it's for the safety of the plane, but the action needs to be justifiable and in this case Im not sure it was. Personnally I'd have opted to sacrifice a few packets of crackers to keep your man quiet rather than a full tank of fuel

LiamoSail

smurfjed wrote: »

I'm actually curious as to how much environmental damage is done by dumping that amount of fuel, do you have any reference? Especially when compared to actually burning that fuel with its emissions prior to landing in Belfast?.

No idea whatsoever

There is absolutely no way that ANY of the crew assessed the environmental impact of dumping fuel, NOR are they obligated to. The safety of the people onboard will always be considered the prime reason for landing. The Cabin Crew felt threatened, that all the Captain as the senior representative of the company needs to know before deciding to land.

How far would you be willing to allow the situation escalate to?

I wouldn't expect them to risk assess the environmental impact and certainly believe the Capt has every right to jettison when required. What I'm questioning is the justification for the action in this particular situation. Surely the passenger could have been restrained or fed rather than the course of action they chose?

As I said, I'm in total agreement with the Capt's right to jettison fuel, but such extreme action needs to be justified, and I'm not sure it was in this case

smurfjed

So what exactly would you expect the Captain to do? His colleague and a relief cockpit crewmember both told him that they didn't like what was happening in the cabin, and that they personally felt uncomfortable with this passenger. The Captain wasn't in a position to go into the cabin to talk to the passenger and with an American airline there is no way that the passenger will be taken to the cockpit, so what options are left?

Tenger

billie1b wrote: »

Again this is a false statement, the man was proven innocent of any agressive or intimidating behaviour towards anyone on that aircraft in court with all the available evidence given by crews and pax, to keep saying he was aggressive etc is ridiculous! Lets just call it what it is, a total over reaction by the crew.

I can see your point of view. The man had been proven not guilty in a court of law. However the decision was taken in a aircraft (perhaps in a time critical situation) with many hours remaining of the journey with a possibility of the situation escalating. The Captain made their decision based on the evidence they had in front of them. In hindsight we can see that the crew could have perhaps de-escalated the situation, calmed the individual and contained the situation. They could have made a compromise or even given the passenger a "sit down now and not get arrested" option.

However, perhaps the language the individual used crossed a particular line with a crew member, perhaps he made a gesture which one crew member found threatening. Perhaps the nuts issues was just the straw on the camels back. Once the aircraft commander is informed the his crew are "feeling threatened" then he really has no choice, he has to go all the way.
I worked in a bar/niteclub for a good few years, my threshold for "feeling threatened" is a lot higher than some people I have worked with.

LiamoSail

smurfjed wrote: »

So what exactly would you expect the Captain to do? His colleague and a relief cockpit crewmember both told him that they didn't like what was happening in the cabin, and that they personally felt uncomfortable with this passenger. The Captain wasn't in a position to go into the cabin to talk to the passenger and with an American airline there is no way that the passenger will be taken to the cockpit, so what options are left?

Give the fella a packet of crackers perhaps?

JCX BXC

LiamoSail wrote: »

Give the fella a packet of crackers perhaps?

Reading this article, I can imagine that after the measly little packet of crackers, he would have thrown another tantrum to get something else, and that's an even worse situation to be in an hour out in the Atlantic.

DublinDilbert

Reminds me of a Ryan Air flight attendant a long time ago:-

Passenger:- "Sorry, Have you any nuts?"
Flight attendant:- "Only in management Ma'am"

smurfjed

Ireland is getting some more kerosene rain....

tippman1 wrote: »