FBI: Flight Diverted After NYC Woman Lights Up

In article , John Kulp says...

On 25 Jun 2008 11:23:46 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , John Kulp says...

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:40:32 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Duh_OZ writes:

Long story short, she files a lawsuit claiming JetBlue should have
never served her the third drink??

It's not JetBlue's fault, but airlines shouldn't be serving any alcohol at
all.

Sure. Lose even more revenue. Brilliant solution.

What - alcoholic drinks are the only kind of drink they can sell? Where did you
get that idea?? They can sell soft drinks and juice drinks. At ball-park price
levels if they want.

At a lower price for drink sure. Which is why they would lose revenue
if they eliminated it, like I said.


I drink alcohol myself, but I never understood why and how it got so strongly
associated with airplane flights. Other than the
business-lounge-flying-in-the-sky idea. I can certainly travel without
imbibing. Anyone who can't has a bigger problem (and is the most likely to
*become* this kind of problem.) It's just not necessary.

Who said it was? I said they would lose more revenue if they stop and
they would.

How's that?

Just because an occasional moron--very occasional in my
experience--causes a problem is no reason to deprive normal adults
from having them. If that rule was applied, you wouldn't be able to
drive would you?

Huh?

The alcohol just plain isn't necessary.

Banty

In article , John Kulp says...

On 25 Jun 2008 11:25:24 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , John Kulp says...

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:11:59 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:40:32 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Duh_OZ writes:

Long story short, she files a lawsuit claiming JetBlue should have
never served her the third drink??

It's not JetBlue's fault, but airlines shouldn't be serving any alcohol at
all.

Sure. Lose even more revenue. Brilliant solution.

Is it really more revenue?

Yes. Why do you think they serve them?

Maybe a dozen people on any one flight spring for a drink or two. Minus the
fact that FC is all freebies. They seem like they may cancel each other.
Then a situation like a diverted flight comes up. (This wasn't the first
alchol related diversion.) Big bucks were lost on the diversion.

Ridiculous. There is no free lunch. FC passengers pay for their
drinks in their tickets. You have no idea how many drinks they serve
on a flight. You just made that up as if you knew. And a diversion
is extremely rare.

But I have several times been affected by tipsy pax, where it didnt get to the
point of diversion.

It's just not necessary to have intoxicating drink.

Just how were you affected? As I said, I have seen it just once in
over 40 years of flying.

General lack-of-inhibition stuff. Loud boisterous behavior. Legubrious
non-stop talking at me from the pax next to me.

Banty

In article , John Kulp says...

On 25 Jun 2008 11:30:52 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , John Kulp says...

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:22:59 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:05:55 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Because they're not allowed to genius.

Then perhaps they should be prohibited from serving alcohol as well. I
know of some flight crew members who would welcome such a change.

So why don't you take a vote of all airline passengers and see if they
want that? You probably will find at least 5 out of millions that
will agree with your absurd views.

I'd go for it. And make the sale of alcohol anywhere within the airport
illegal as well.

So join his club of social outcasts then.


And I'd bet that I'm not just one of five.

You're right. There are more nuts than just you two out there.


And I do consume some alcohol occasionally...

Who cares?


The POINT being, he's not against alcoholic drinks, it's a matter if them not
being a great idea for certain places and certain situations. Including airline
flights.

The POINT is that's it not a major problem no matter how many times
you and others carp about it. You can't find enough incidents to
document a handful.

Most incidents don't make the news. People just grin and bear it.



Wow you're sure defensive about this alcohol thing.

No, I'm just against stupid people with hangups trying to impose their
hangups on others. Like this when there's no health issue involved
like with smoking.

"Impose their hangups on others"? How's that? Just because you like to do
something doesn't mean you get to do it everywhere. There's a lot of people
packed in close in an airplane, many of them bored, some with real problems as
to knowing when to stop; it's just not a great venue to add alcohol. It's
simply not necessary.

Banty

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

Yet they get on, despite the laws.

Because airlines violate the law.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:21:05 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

No, I'm just against stupid people with hangups trying to impose their
hangups on others. Like this when there's no health issue involved
like with smoking.

What other drugs should airlines serve to passengers aboard aircraft, if
serving alcohol is okay?

The legal ones moron. Just like alcohol. You see, lawmakers decide
that issue not idiots.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:22:26 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Which is not what it says. It says "appears to be drunk" not
"drunk". As has been pointed out to you several times lots of drunks
get on board because they are alcoholics that can disguise the fact
that they are drunk. And no one can prosecute an airline for that.

A lot of people who are drunk on board are not alcoholic, just drunk. This is
especially true of those who create problems for the flight. It's easy to
recognize a group of drunken soccer fans.

Gee, isn't that funny? As I've said several times, in about 40 years
of flying now, I've seen that about 10 times. What a problem. I've
seen a whole lot more idiots are board than that. Probably you
included. You know, the boring ones that sit next to you and think
you're interested in hearing about their boring lives and idiot views

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:30:33 +0100, (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Which is not what it says. It says "appears to be drunk" not
"drunk". As has been pointed out to you several times lots of drunks
get on board because they are alcoholics that can disguise the fact
that they are drunk. And no one can prosecute an airline for that.

A lot of people who are drunk on board are not alcoholic, just drunk. This is
especially true of those who create problems for the flight. It's easy to
recognize a group of drunken soccer fans.

Yet they get on, despite the laws. Groups of drunken soccer fans aren't
a big problem, even if annoying. Most cases where flights have been
disturbed involve individuals, and they were usually tanked up before
boarding. The cases of people getting drunk and causing problems only on
alcohol consumed on board are rare. Then again, the problems of alcohol
on board are also rare. It's simply not a significant problem.

It is to the ones that don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Like Mixi.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:53:30 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

Yet they get on, despite the laws.

Because airlines violate the law.

You've already demonstrated that you don't even know the law you
blithering idiot, so why are you still prattling on in your ignorant
stupor?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:23:14 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

At a lower price for drink sure. Which is why they would lose revenue
if they eliminated it, like I said.

They could charge the same price.

Another brilliant idea from the resident moron. Why don't you just
suggest that they give it away?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:23:53 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Just how were you affected? As I said, I have seen it just once in
over 40 years of flying.

Why allow one psychoactive drug if not others?

See legality. You might actually learn something though I doubt it.