FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Band drink alcohol on aeroplanes

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Do you think they should band drink alcohol on aeroplanes due to the trouble it cause when people are d*unk it been on TV talking about it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Punish the masses for crimes of a small few?

Seems plausible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

I cannot understand how people manage to afford to get falling down d*unk on planes. However, if they are noisy and threatening due to drinking to excess before the flight they shouldn't be allowed on the plane. Nothing scarier than being trapped at 30,000 feet with someone who might turn nasty at any moment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes. I work for a holiday company and the amount of trouble that goes on especially with stag and hens on board flights means that alcohol sales should be restricted and much more closely monitored by airport staff especially.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A ban is not a bad idea.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

There is a problem in the UK with alcohol..

who knew..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do you think they should band drink alcohol on aeroplanes due to the trouble it cause when people are d*unk it been on TV talking about it? "

Of course they should to do it.!

I can see most of the people can't existing without alcohol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sGivesWoodWoman
over a year ago

ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL

Just seen that panorama documentary, shocking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I cannot understand how people manage to afford to get falling down d*unk on planes. However, if they are noisy and threatening due to drinking to excess before the flight they shouldn't be allowed on the plane. Nothing scarier than being trapped at 30,000 feet with someone who might turn nasty at any moment."
i would agree after seen panorama seeing how nasty people can get and what abuse the air hostess get from passengers

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury

I think they should ban it in Chester.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *essThePirateWoman
over a year ago

Bristol

[Removed by poster at 14/08/17 21:36:41]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

Not too sure, but I thought it was about banning alcohol sales on morning flights from the UK? I can't really understand what your take off time has to do with anything, people can be pissed and really annoying at anytime of the day surely?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *horltzMan
over a year ago

heysham

Personally , I don't think it should be banned . I always have a few pints before a flight , helps me sleep away the journey , I never get rowdy , although my snoring may irritate a few

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heaspieswingerMan
over a year ago

Peak District

[Removed by poster at 14/08/17 21:50:30]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience.. "

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding. "

Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant "

I know. But it seemed like you were pinning the blame on airlines, when it's airports and airport staff that are to blame for letting people firstly get d*unk to a point where they can disrupt a two hour flight, and secondly for letting those people board even when it's clear they're d*unk - and it's illegal to be d*unk whilst on board an aircraft, let's not forget.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant "

Exactly! I've been on trains where a pissed up twat has caused havoc up and down a few carriages before being ejected at the next stop. Not so easy in mid flight

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atebanksMan
over a year ago

North London

Not sure banning is the solution, but something does need to be done. I was on a flight to budapest and they drank the flight out of beer. Then when we were landing, one of the passengers refused to take his seat whilst his mates goaded him on. It was disgraceful to see and fair play to the air hostess's, they handled it all very well. There was around 5 stag parties on the flight so you can imagine the crowd.

I would have hated to see parents with young kids experience that behaviour, some people feel they can act inappropriately just cos they are going on holiday.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant

I know. But it seemed like you were pinning the blame on airlines, when it's airports and airport staff that are to blame for letting people firstly get d*unk to a point where they can disrupt a two hour flight, and secondly for letting those people board even when it's clear they're d*unk - and it's illegal to be d*unk whilst on board an aircraft, let's not forget. "

Perhaos you should read the main part of my rant instead if rushing to defend the airlines..

The cynic in me suggests you have a vested interest.

If drinker fkwits cannot control their own behaviour then the should not be allowed on aircraft...or topped up whist in transit.

For every such dickhead who does so no matter what the mode if transport... they should be made to reimburse every person thry inconvenience for the rest of that days schedule...including the cost to airlines and police..

Problem would soon be solved...

Walks back to man cave...rant over..

Breath smile embrace the calm

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding. "

How are they allowed to board if they are steaming and I agree I think it is this rather than on board drinking, surely the on board crew can tell if someone is d*unk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes ban the lot, ban football aswell !!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant

I know. But it seemed like you were pinning the blame on airlines, when it's airports and airport staff that are to blame for letting people firstly get d*unk to a point where they can disrupt a two hour flight, and secondly for letting those people board even when it's clear they're d*unk - and it's illegal to be d*unk whilst on board an aircraft, let's not forget.

Perhaos you should read the main part of my rant instead if rushing to defend the airlines..

The cynic in me suggests you have a vested interest.

If drinker fkwits cannot control their own behaviour then the should not be allowed on aircraft...or topped up whist in transit.

For every such dickhead who does so no matter what the mode if transport... they should be made to reimburse every person thry inconvenience for the rest of that days schedule...including the cost to airlines and police..

Problem would soon be solved...

Walks back to man cave...rant over..

Breath smile embrace the calm "

I do have a vested interest - as I've already said I work for a holiday company, and the worst part of the job is having to deal with the aftermath of d*unken idiots on flights.

Let me put this another way for you - on-board, CAA regulations state that there must be at least one cabin crew member per 50 passengers. So a full 737 has just shy of 200 passengers, meaning four cabin crew. A large proportion of cabin crew are female, and cabin crew are NOT security staff. If you were in that situation where denying someone a drink could cause more trouble than giving them a drink and putting up with some rowdy behaviour, what would you do?

People don't get on the planes sober, then suddenly become half-cut through on-board purchases. Especially on most European flights where there's time for perhaps one drinks service. The problem is the three hours they spend at the airport before the flight, with no checks on their drinking. That's where being a captive audience is the problem, not on board. Of course it's on board where the problem is exacerbated because it's a confined space.

Your comment seemed mainly aimed at the airlines, and I am remnding you that the problem is not solely with the airlines but with the airports and their staff not working to ensure people are sober enough to fly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes I used to struggle to fly straight if I was pissed......That's why there are 2 pilots though..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant

I know. But it seemed like you were pinning the blame on airlines, when it's airports and airport staff that are to blame for letting people firstly get d*unk to a point where they can disrupt a two hour flight, and secondly for letting those people board even when it's clear they're d*unk - and it's illegal to be d*unk whilst on board an aircraft, let's not forget.

Perhaos you should read the main part of my rant instead if rushing to defend the airlines..

The cynic in me suggests you have a vested interest.

If drinker fkwits cannot control their own behaviour then the should not be allowed on aircraft...or topped up whist in transit.

For every such dickhead who does so no matter what the mode if transport... they should be made to reimburse every person thry inconvenience for the rest of that days schedule...including the cost to airlines and police..

Problem would soon be solved...

Walks back to man cave...rant over..

Breath smile embrace the calm

I do have a vested interest - as I've already said I work for a holiday company, and the worst part of the job is having to deal with the aftermath of d*unken idiots on flights.

Let me put this another way for you - on-board, CAA regulations state that there must be at least one cabin crew member per 50 passengers. So a full 737 has just shy of 200 passengers, meaning four cabin crew. A large proportion of cabin crew are female, and cabin crew are NOT security staff. If you were in that situation where denying someone a drink could cause more trouble than giving them a drink and putting up with some rowdy behaviour, what would you do?

People don't get on the planes sober, then suddenly become half-cut through on-board purchases. Especially on most European flights where there's time for perhaps one drinks service. The problem is the three hours they spend at the airport before the flight, with no checks on their drinking. That's where being a captive audience is the problem, not on board. Of course it's on board where the problem is exacerbated because it's a confined space.

Your comment seemed mainly aimed at the airlines, and I am remnding you that the problem is not solely with the airlines but with the airports and their staff not working to ensure people are sober enough to fly. "

Why are cabin crew allowing people to get on a plane if they are not sober?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes ban the lot, ban football aswell !!"

Got to love the people who can't resist a good false equivalence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 14/08/17 22:37:02]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant

I know. But it seemed like you were pinning the blame on airlines, when it's airports and airport staff that are to blame for letting people firstly get d*unk to a point where they can disrupt a two hour flight, and secondly for letting those people board even when it's clear they're d*unk - and it's illegal to be d*unk whilst on board an aircraft, let's not forget.

Perhaos you should read the main part of my rant instead if rushing to defend the airlines..

The cynic in me suggests you have a vested interest.

If drinker fkwits cannot control their own behaviour then the should not be allowed on aircraft...or topped up whist in transit.

For every such dickhead who does so no matter what the mode if transport... they should be made to reimburse every person thry inconvenience for the rest of that days schedule...including the cost to airlines and police..

Problem would soon be solved...

Walks back to man cave...rant over..

Breath smile embrace the calm

I do have a vested interest - as I've already said I work for a holiday company, and the worst part of the job is having to deal with the aftermath of d*unken idiots on flights.

Let me put this another way for you - on-board, CAA regulations state that there must be at least one cabin crew member per 50 passengers. So a full 737 has just shy of 200 passengers, meaning four cabin crew. A large proportion of cabin crew are female, and cabin crew are NOT security staff. If you were in that situation where denying someone a drink could cause more trouble than giving them a drink and putting up with some rowdy behaviour, what would you do?

People don't get on the planes sober, then suddenly become half-cut through on-board purchases. Especially on most European flights where there's time for perhaps one drinks service. The problem is the three hours they spend at the airport before the flight, with no checks on their drinking. That's where being a captive audience is the problem, not on board. Of course it's on board where the problem is exacerbated because it's a confined space.

Your comment seemed mainly aimed at the airlines, and I am remnding you that the problem is not solely with the airlines but with the airports and their staff not working to ensure people are sober enough to fly.

Why are cabin crew allowing people to get on a plane if they are not sober?"

Cabin crew don't generally get to see the passengers until they're boarding/boarded. They have a split second to judge whether people are d*unk or not. Ground staff and airport desk staff hold a bigger responsibility for boarding d*unken passengers as they're the ones who accept them for boarding at the gates. It's not the job of cabin crew to reject passengers, they're not trained to do that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I said in line one of my rant I am against banning things!!!

But if certain individuals behave like total tossers then there needs to be some form of behavioural control and sanction.

That's why we have democracy and laws...many of which do actually ban things.

Walking away before I end up on the naughty step

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

There should be no bars in airport departure lounges maybe.It makes me ashamed to be British

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

Not sure the airlines profit margins is the most relevant part of my minor rant

I know. But it seemed like you were pinning the blame on airlines, when it's airports and airport staff that are to blame for letting people firstly get d*unk to a point where they can disrupt a two hour flight, and secondly for letting those people board even when it's clear they're d*unk - and it's illegal to be d*unk whilst on board an aircraft, let's not forget.

Perhaos you should read the main part of my rant instead if rushing to defend the airlines..

The cynic in me suggests you have a vested interest.

If drinker fkwits cannot control their own behaviour then the should not be allowed on aircraft...or topped up whist in transit.

For every such dickhead who does so no matter what the mode if transport... they should be made to reimburse every person thry inconvenience for the rest of that days schedule...including the cost to airlines and police..

Problem would soon be solved...

Walks back to man cave...rant over..

Breath smile embrace the calm

I do have a vested interest - as I've already said I work for a holiday company, and the worst part of the job is having to deal with the aftermath of d*unken idiots on flights.

Let me put this another way for you - on-board, CAA regulations state that there must be at least one cabin crew member per 50 passengers. So a full 737 has just shy of 200 passengers, meaning four cabin crew. A large proportion of cabin crew are female, and cabin crew are NOT security staff. If you were in that situation where denying someone a drink could cause more trouble than giving them a drink and putting up with some rowdy behaviour, what would you do?

People don't get on the planes sober, then suddenly become half-cut through on-board purchases. Especially on most European flights where there's time for perhaps one drinks service. The problem is the three hours they spend at the airport before the flight, with no checks on their drinking. That's where being a captive audience is the problem, not on board. Of course it's on board where the problem is exacerbated because it's a confined space.

Your comment seemed mainly aimed at the airlines, and I am remnding you that the problem is not solely with the airlines but with the airports and their staff not working to ensure people are sober enough to fly.

Why are cabin crew allowing people to get on a plane if they are not sober?

Cabin crew don't generally get to see the passengers until they're boarding/boarded. They have a split second to judge whether people are d*unk or not. Ground staff and airport desk staff hold a bigger responsibility for boarding d*unken passengers as they're the ones who accept them for boarding at the gates. It's not the job of cabin crew to reject passengers, they're not trained to do that. "

Point taken, then I think they should be trained, with all due respect. I've managed to work out when I've followed d*unk people on to a plane and when it's putting 200 people's lives at risk, maybe it's something they ought to be looking at. I agree that the staff at the gate should be taking that responsibility but maybe they're not trained in spotting d*unks either. No I don't think it should be banned, why spoil it for moderate drinkers when they should be dealing with the d*unks at some point between the departure lounge and the boarding of the plane.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Maybe not a full ban but definitely limitations.

It's usually a group of middle aged twats who's wives have let them play out for the weekend and they suddenly revert to the mind set of an 18 year old.

Our flight back from Amsterdam was bullshit, topped by the fact someone threw up on the plane coming back before we took off heading over there

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uperchargedMan
over a year ago

Manchester

No.

Sobriety tests before you fly yes if necessary.

The nature of flight in pressurised cabins plus altitude can make you feel up to 30% more pissed than on the ground

So if you're steaming, don't get on no damn plane fool

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ignore the false documentary, the number of incidents is tiny compared to the number of travellers. About 1 in 150,000.

If people got treated better at all stages of the journey then there would not be the anger that drink exacerbates in the first place...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"If people got treated better at all stages of the journey then there would not be the anger that drink exacerbates in the first place...

"

Some people just make a twat of themselves no matter how they've been treated, irrespective of the circumstances or how much alcohol they have in their system.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That whole program made me angry, some of we British really are the scum of the world. But why are we always looking for someone to blame?

E.g. 'The airports have too many bars'

'The airline want to make money selling alcohol.'

'Duty free shops don't tell you clearly not to drink on planes.'

Nobody is forcing people to get d*unk, it's their choice. Our society is too quick to blame organisations for the failings of pathetic human specimens. There should just be proper consequences for their actions, you disrupt a flight and inconvenience hundreds of others through your choice to get plastered, welcome to a two year jail term and a fine so huge you spend the rest of your life in debt.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

i fly a lot, and yes I fly at stupid o'clock in the morning, and yes I go straight to the bar and have a few drinks.

Do I go crazy, nope, do I start doing shots at the bar, nope, do I have a few 3 or 4 double vodkas if flying with football yes.

Do I normally get some food as well, yes. I saw that Ryanair said no more than two drinks. What defines two drinks- 2 pints or 2 vodka singles

Have I ever thrown up on a plane (only once and I was fine getting on plane and I hadn't drank that day)

I know my own limits, and I know what I can drink before I am pished. Flying and drinking does effect the body differently than being on the ground.

Why should we blame the airports, airlines or bars, maybe we should blame the people that take it to excess. Also why does football cause it. I often drink the same amount if going traveling on holiday

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"and inconvenience hundreds of others through your choice to get plastered, welcome to a two year jail term and a fine so huge you spend the rest of your life in debt. "

Ouch.... would hate to see the penalty for Jay walking under your administrstion

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"and inconvenience hundreds of others through your choice to get plastered, welcome to a two year jail term and a fine so huge you spend the rest of your life in debt.

Ouch.... would hate to see the penalty for Jay walking under your administrstion "

Public flogging. Don't get me started on people who don't put the top back up n the toothpaste.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It never fails to amaze me, whether on a train or plane, or an ordinary night out, that groups of British people can't enjoy themselves without getting smashed out of their brains. Something to do with culture/upbringing surely? The Panorama documentary just reinforced my determination never to fly on a budget airline, and to upgrade wherever possible

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It never fails to amaze me, whether on a train or plane, or an ordinary night out, that groups of British people can't enjoy themselves without getting smashed out of their brains. Something to do with culture/upbringing surely? The Panorama documentary just reinforced my determination never to fly on a budget airline, and to upgrade wherever possible"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ignore the false documentary, the number of incidents is tiny compared to the number of travellers. About 1 in 150,000.

If people got treated better at all stages of the journey then there would not be the anger that drink exacerbates in the first place...

"

The number of incidences that result in police action is relatively tiny, yes, but the number of incidences that are dealt with by certain airlines flying to holiday destinations is relatively high. Your 1 in 150k figure would take into account long-haul and business flying where there is of course less likelihood of people being excessively d*unk, but if you narrow it down to popular party locations, that number becomes more like 1 in 150.

OF course, in a lot of these cases, the people are just warned and alcohol service stopped (with their names and PNRs recorded for future reference and action), and this is enough to calm things down, however group mentality usually exists and refusing service on board can quickly lead to a more aggressive situation than putting up with boisterous behaviour for an hour or two. And in these cases there is no anger about the flying experience, just exuberance from groups off on their big holiday for the year.

Perhaps normal drinks service is okay at airports, but they sure as hell should never serve shots or anything that encourages people to get d*unk quickly.

The other issue is duty free - it's too easy for people to buy a bottle of vodka and then drink it on board. Perhaps we need to shift the way duty free alcohol is available to people, by having them order it to be collected either at their arrival airport or on their return to the UK. Just sealing it in a bag does nothing to help.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

There does appear to be snobbery against those of us that fly budget airlines

Why should I pay for a short haul flight twice the amount than ba for nearly the same amount of legroom

Also some major carriers don't go to places that budget go to....

Also for these people that are moaning about d*unks how many of you will go home and have a glass or two of wine in the evening

Now I don't drink at home so does that make me bad because I only drink in a bar.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *opsy RogersWoman
over a year ago

London

A whole thread about how most people rely on alcohol but deny they are dependent on it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How about a travel ban for offenders? If you are evicted from a flight through inebriation, a 12 month flight ban would make them think again.

All well and good getting hammered on a stag flight, being

"boisterous" which can upset families etc.

However when it comes to them booking a business trip through work, or the annual pilgrimage to Benidorm, oh sorry, I was that hammered on Bob's stag weekend I didn't get on the flight.

Airlines, bars and alcohol retailers are not the problem. Idiots who cannot drink in moderation.

Anyway, why not ban booze. Airlines have banned smoking on flights?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The reason duty free is a problem, is that there is no such thing as duty free on European flights. International flights used to put your duty free in the hold until you were close to landing.

If airlines really worried about it they could easily sort that out.

As for the problem being with certain party routes that is also easy, extra staff on those planes. But of course that hits profit margins...

I have been on planes with d*unk before, including in business class, find them almost as annoying as kids babies crying kids kicking the back of your seat...

And neither are as bad as the smug non apology as they cheerfully inform you your luggage will be here the day after you leave!

Air travel is not pleasant, has become considerably worse since they cut down the fresh air flow on planes to save on fuel bills and worse again since 9/11

I am speaking as someone who has been in transit for 48 hours since last Thursday so slightly biased...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/08/17 09:03:16]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And don't get me started on the clack clack of knitting needles winding up those who just lost their nail file to security "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illy_the_tvTV/TS
over a year ago

hoorn, Netherlands

Just treat it no different to a bar, it's illegal to serve people who you seem as being too d*unk so once someone goes past tipsy the stewards should stop giving them alcohol. Banning it would be awful for people like my dad who's terrified of flying but does it fairly regularly so has a couple of drinks to calm his nerves

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wistedTooCouple
over a year ago

Frimley

Loads of opinions about a very insignificant issue. If they banned alcohol on flights, I’m sure we would all survive those horrific 8 hours of not getting fucked up on expensive mini bar drinks

It’s so, so unimportant....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wistedTooCouple
over a year ago

Frimley


"Banning it would be awful for people like my dad who's terrified of flying but does it fairly regularly so has a couple of drinks to calm his nerves"

There’s plenty of other ways to calm. Alcohol banning would be completely fine. No one would be crushed over it. It’s a non-issue. If he needs a couple of drinks, he can have a couple before he goes. What if it never existed? What would people do then to calm nerves? Plenty of other non-alcohol things

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But the problem is how much they drink before they board the plane rather than how much they drink on the plane.

How I see it is why ban it because of the few moron out there who've abused it.

Ain't you justvsoiuling for us respectful people who don't abuse it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Should only be allowed so much at bar .Never seen anyone refused alcohol at Newcastle airport .I don't don't drink before flying .might have odd one put depends what time flight is .Don't no how people can get pissed at 6am or funny times .I'm ill watching them as I drink a coffee

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's turned into quite a different debate on this thread than the topic title implies. I thought this was meant to be a thread about Status Quo liking a tipple when they travel by air.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"But the problem is how much they drink before they board the plane rather than how much they drink on the plane.

How I see it is why ban it because of the few moron out there who've abused it.

Ain't you justvsoiuling for us respectful people who don't abuse it. "

Agree with this, I still can't understand how they get past the departure gates when they are d*unk, that is the place they can be safely stopped, but the upshot of that is, that they will have to unload any hold baggage and that would cause considerable delays to the plane, which I don't suppose the airlines want, as it costs them money, so they just let the idiots on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But the problem is how much they drink before they board the plane rather than how much they drink on the plane.

How I see it is why ban it because of the few moron out there who've abused it.

Ain't you justvsoiuling for us respectful people who don't abuse it.

Agree with this, I still can't understand how they get past the departure gates when they are d*unk, that is the place they can be safely stopped, but the upshot of that is, that they will have to unload any hold baggage and that would cause considerable delays to the plane, which I don't suppose the airlines want, as it costs them money, so they just let the idiots on."

I think one of the biggest problems the program highlighted was the amount of people who bought bottles of spirits from the duty free shop and then consumed during the flight

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"Do you think they should band drink alcohol on aeroplanes due to the trouble it cause when people are d*unk it been on TV talking about it? "

No... just do like they do in town, if they misbehave, chuck them out.

Cal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

Well i may have turned up hanging at an airport in Rome once because I had one hours sleep before flight and I had been drinking most of night

TBH they let me on, I wasn't boisterous actually I was in a state where I didn't want to talk to anyone. I was happy to get on the train, to my seat and sleep for 2 hours

I have had one stag do abroad in Barcelona and yes we arrived at airport and had more than 1 or 2 at airport, before getting on flight. Yes we were chatting but no louder than parents with kids

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The biggest risk with d*unks on a plane is if there is an emergency evacuation. But saying that I was on a flight last week and they placed at the small wing exits people who would have never got through them had they needed to, this placing more people at risk

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"Well i may have turned up hanging at an airport in Rome once because I had one hours sleep before flight and I had been drinking most of night

TBH they let me on, I wasn't boisterous actually I was in a state where I didn't want to talk to anyone. I was happy to get on the train, to my seat and sleep for 2 hours

I have had one stag do abroad in Barcelona and yes we arrived at airport and had more than 1 or 2 at airport, before getting on flight. Yes we were chatting but no louder than parents with kids "

And that of course isn't a problem, it's those who become aggressive, or very loud and intimidating. I don't mind anyone having a laugh and a joke, but it's when it affects the comfort of fellow travellers, it's a problem. The danger is when they take no notice of cabin crew, trying to keep others safe. What would happen in an emergency situation? Very selfish people, who choose to get d*unk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"The biggest risk with d*unks on a plane is if there is an emergency evacuation. But saying that I was on a flight last week and they placed at the small wing exits people who would have never got through them had they needed to, this placing more people at risk "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *octor TCMan
over a year ago

manchester


"The reason duty free is a problem, is that there is no such thing as duty free on European flights. International flights used to put your duty free in the hold until you were close to landing.

If airlines really worried about it they could easily sort that out.

As for the problem being with certain party routes that is also easy, extra staff on those planes. But of course that hits profit margins...

I have been on planes with d*unk before, including in business class, find them almost as annoying as kids babies crying kids kicking the back of your seat...

And neither are as bad as the smug non apology as they cheerfully inform you your luggage will be here the day after you leave!

Air travel is not pleasant, has become considerably worse since they cut down the fresh air flow on planes to save on fuel bills and worse again since 9/11

I am speaking as someone who has been in transit for 48 hours since last Thursday so slightly biased... "

Few small points...

How does anyone get into the aircraft hold whilst the aircraft is in flight and pressurised... erm they can't, surely as an experienced traveller you mean the overhead lockers/ hat bins.

Staffing levels on planes are dictated by the minimum required by the CAA (U.K. Airline operators certificate aircraft) and the air navigation order.

Fresh air flow cut down to save on the fuel bill... please... more savings would be produced by washing the aircraft skin to reduce parasitic drag, the so called fresh air you mention is recirculating air. It is always recirculated or you wouldn't have pressurisation in the cabin to 10000ft which is the minimum for you to avoid hypoxia. the recirculating air which goes through HEPA filters was increased (decrease in fresh air as you put it) due to the ban on smoking on aircraft.

You could transit the whole world in 48 hours... nearly twice!

More has changed with passport regs due to Paris attacks than changed after 9/11. The main changes were that America had to abide by the regulations (most of them) they make other countries do (separation of inbound and outbound passengers) but really it's only the uk that bows down and does these regulations.

It's the cabin crew that should stop boarding of any passenger at the aircraft door that's d*unk or seen to the drinking excessively and with adverse/obscene behaviour.

The first recommendation to ban duty free alcohol on board was due to the Manchester air disaster and others where 70% of the people that died on board or in hospital suffered smoke inhalation. Now this was due to poor fire retardant insulation and linings but the amount of flammable liquid in the hat bins accelerated the fire and was a major contributor to the fires escalation and people's death..

It was rejected by airlines and airports due to the profit margin reduction..

The oldest rule in the book is profit/risk.. profit always wins

I await a forum ban for pointing out the obvious again

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just shut down the duty free shops and pubs...Bloody robbery

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It would help if passengers are smashed staff not selling them anymore alcohol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

Watching a programme about things that can go wrong on planes last week ()it turns out that airplane cabins are slightly depressurised, so anyone slightly tipsy becomes a lot d*unker without having d*unk anything more. Maybe something to consider before you board your flight to Marbs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"It would help if passengers are smashed staff not selling them anymore alcohol "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *homasP80Man
over a year ago

Linwood


"Do you think they should band drink alcohol on aeroplanes due to the trouble it cause when people are d*unk it been on TV talking about it? "

I don't be-grudge anyone a drink.

I'm sure the pub would shut in the airport pretty quickly and I'm sure even the airport wouldn't want £ to stop coming in.

Even if drink was limited etc, but of course you got "duty free" also

But no-one likes it when people come on pissed as a fart.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps another way to deal with this behaviour, would be for airlines to actually bill the individuals for the actual disruption caused. ie if plane diverted, then airport charges and anything associated with it, dealing with other passenger inconvenience, is their liability.

If; flights delayed - again, airport slot charges, passed on to pissed up people who caused delay.

Airlines ban for life, every passenger who causes the aggro.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

No. Flying long haul, I've needed a good couple of drinks to get to sleep.

It should be monitored to stop d*unkeness, especially the pilots.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That whole program made me angry, some of we British really are the scum of the world. But why are we always looking for someone to blame?

E.g. 'The airports have too many bars'

'The airline want to make money selling alcohol.'

'Duty free shops don't tell you clearly not to drink on planes.'

Nobody is forcing people to get d*unk, it's their choice. Our society is too quick to blame organisations for the failings of pathetic human specimens. There should just be proper consequences for their actions, you disrupt a flight and inconvenience hundreds of others through your choice to get plastered, welcome to a two year jail term and a fine so huge you spend the rest of your life in debt. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes ban it on planes. Smoking is banned. If people can't go a few hours without a drink they should seek help.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *radleywigginsMan
over a year ago

northwest

It's not the drinking that's the problem it's the poor behaviour.

Rather than ban drinking ban anyone (I suggest 5 years) for anyone causing a flight to be disrupted or using threatening or intimidating behaviour.

I think that's enough of a deterrent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icoleAndLisaTransTV/TS
over a year ago

Ellesmere Port

Have people present their boarding card at the bar. You can buy no more than (say) 3 pints of beer or the equivalent in wines and spirits. Perhaps increase this allowance for flights that are delayed.

No, this isn't foolproof. Someone could double up by using a non-drinker's boarding card. But it would have an impact.

Have passengers leave a credit card swipe or security deposit. Fines for various kinds of disruptive behaviour. It's common for hotels to charge £100+ if they detect smoking in a non-smoking room. Some charge considerably more if you manage to trigger the smoke detectors and set off the alarm. Why can't an airline charge £100 extra per passenger for problematic behaviour?

But no outright ban on alcohol. Those of us who drink responsibly while flying shouldn't be penalised.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *radleywigginsMan
over a year ago

northwest

£100!

Why not make it £10,000?

It's not like it's something that happens accidentally. If you get shit faced and start acting up and terrifying the rest of the passengers you take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

How are they allowed to board if they are steaming and I agree I think it is this rather than on board drinking, surely the on board crew can tell if someone is d*unk."

Any hint of being under the influence by passport control and they get turned back, long before getting near a plane, plus they don't get reimbursed or given another flight

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

How are they allowed to board if they are steaming and I agree I think it is this rather than on board drinking, surely the on board crew can tell if someone is d*unk.

Any hint of being under the influence by passport control and they get turned back, long before getting near a plane, plus they don't get reimbursed or given another flight "

Well obviously this is not happening or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icoleAndLisaTransTV/TS
over a year ago

Ellesmere Port


"£100!

Why not make it £10,000?

It's not like it's something that happens accidentally. If you get shit faced and start acting up and terrifying the rest of the passengers you take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

"

Try charging £10,000 to the average credit card. See how far you get.

£100 is a sensible starting point, for behaviour that's antisocial but doesn't have a major impact on other passengers. Perhaps going up to £1,000 if actual threats or violence occur or a passenger's actions delay or divert a flight.

There would need to be an independent tribunal of some sort, and the fines would need to go to charity. Otherwise, the sort of airline that wants to charge you for using the toilet might see this as a sly opportunity for profit, trumping up charges against innocent people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I appreciate for lots of people flying is an infrequent activity and usually involves travelling too and from a holiday or vacation ... ..

But I do think anyone who cant do without an alcoholic drink for the duration of even the longest long-haul flight really doesn't need a drink at all ,,,,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

2 alcoholic drinks in airport

2 alcoholic drinks per pax on board

Duty free taken to your gate and handed to you when you get off the other end

4 drinks is enough for anyone

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All though it's not necessary it's so much easier to fall asleep on the small economy seats with a night cap or two. Especially when your on the plan for 8 hours or more

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I just think it's totally convoluted to protect the prerogative of people who might engage in anti social behaviour because of there drinking over passengers who are prepared to abstain from alcohol for the duration of a flight ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irginieWoman
over a year ago

Near Marlborough

That'd be the end of flying for me. I'm a nervous passenger and it's a couple of g&ts that makes it just tolerable

V x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That'd be the end of flying for me. I'm a nervous passenger and it's a couple of g&ts that makes it just tolerable

V x "

Aww,,,, Ok you're allowed a couple

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just show this thread for first time....looked as curious to know which band!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not a fan of banning things..

But both my ladt two flights were cancelled because some drink had to be removed from a plane by the police..

Each was delayed 4 hours ...

And every other flight and passenger for the rest of the day was inconvenienced or had to cancel plans work or personal stuff because if two complete fkwits.

But then the airlines make lots of money from selling drinks to a captive audience..

You'd be surprised at how little the airlines actually make from onboard sales. Most people are already steaming before they board the flights if they cause trouble on board, it's not the in-air sales that is the main issue but the lack of cohesive strategy by airports to stop people getting half-cut before boarding.

How are they allowed to board if they are steaming and I agree I think it is this rather than on board drinking, surely the on board crew can tell if someone is d*unk.

Any hint of being under the influence by passport control and they get turned back, long before getting near a plane, plus they don't get reimbursed or given another flight

Well obviously this is not happening or we wouldn't be having this conversation."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"All though it's not necessary it's so much easier to fall asleep on the small economy seats with a night cap or two. Especially when your on the plan for 8 hours or more "

Drug them. Nice quiet flight if everyone is unconcious.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irginieWoman
over a year ago

Near Marlborough


"All though it's not necessary it's so much easier to fall asleep on the small economy seats with a night cap or two. Especially when your on the plan for 8 hours or more

Drug them. Nice quiet flight if everyone is unconcious. "

I'd love this

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *octor TCMan
over a year ago

manchester


"2 alcoholic drinks in airport

2 alcoholic drinks per pax on board

Duty free taken to your gate and handed to you when you get off the other end

4 drinks is enough for anyone "

Ryan air now (are allowed and are supposed to) search your carry on luggage and if alcohol is found they are permitted to put your carry on luggage in the aircraft hold and it then comes through on the carrousel in baggage reclaim....

Emirates have people (at Manchester anyway) that circulate around the waiting and boarding passengers and look out for intoxication and anti social behaviour, one of a few airlines that actually ban passengers for previous similar acts and intoxication in their and other flights... it's the captains ship as we say at the end of the day and they can always have people removed and never have to answer to any complaints.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"2 alcoholic drinks in airport

2 alcoholic drinks per pax on board

Duty free taken to your gate and handed to you when you get off the other end

4 drinks is enough for anyone

Ryan air now (are allowed and are supposed to) search your carry on luggage and if alcohol is found they are permitted to put your carry on luggage in the aircraft hold and it then comes through on the carrousel in baggage reclaim....

Emirates have people (at Manchester anyway) that circulate around the waiting and boarding passengers and look out for intoxication and anti social behaviour, one of a few airlines that actually ban passengers for previous similar acts and intoxication in their and other flights... it's the captains ship as we say at the end of the day and they can always have people removed and never have to answer to any complaints."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *htcMan
over a year ago

MK

Nah. Just limit it to maximum of 2 drinks per person per 3hours. Any more and price increases to triple. And then if any do get d*unk. And plane has to land or be delayed. Charge them the price of what the airline has now had to pay.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *octor TCMan
over a year ago

manchester


"Nah. Just limit it to maximum of 2 drinks per person per 3hours. Any more and price increases to triple. And then if any do get d*unk. And plane has to land or be delayed. Charge them the price of what the airline has now had to pay."

Believe this can be applied in America, I.e flights that are forced to land in America due to passengers endangering the safety on the aircraft. The same charge is never normally applied in U.K. Rarely it is in Spain. It's normally downgraded to being d*unk onboard an aircraft and has a remedial punishment unlike America where if they see fit you will go in county jail for three months before your initial hearing.. and face fines amounting to the cost of everything your actions have caused... diverts, compensation and fuel.. ending pretty expensively or a lengthy bit of jail with the homies!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uke olovingmanMan
over a year ago

Gravesend


"Do you think they should band drink alcohol on aeroplanes due to the trouble it cause when people are d*unk it been on TV talking about it? "
at least for the pilots

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *octor TCMan
over a year ago

manchester


"Do you think they should band drink alcohol on aeroplanes due to the trouble it cause when people are d*unk it been on TV talking about it? at least for the pilots "

Been on quite a few jump seats where the 4 stripes had a few too many the night/morning before

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top