# Another Plane Grounded by Minor Tomfoolery



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Another Sunwing plane diverted back to Toronto at great expense and inconvenience to all involved, including 2 Canadian fighter jets needed for escort.

The culprits? Two mid twenties girls who got drunk and tried to smoke in the bathroom...

What the hell is going on here? What are these airline policies, or who are these pilots that are making the decisions to divert their perfectly safe and functioning plane hours off course due to minor shenanigans contained in the cabin area? And fighter jet escorts? Who makes the decision that THAT is necessary?... Please someone with experience working with planes explain to me how it is determined that these decisions are at all reasonable...

More disturbing still, is the comments section of the article. Many many people are calling for these silly girls to personally be held responsible for the 10s of thousands in costs as a result of the pilot's/airlines's decision. Others apparently won't be satisfied until the girls get permanent bans from all airlines, revocation of their passports, or even jail time!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/27/cuba-bound-plane-escorted-back-to-toronto-by-two-fighter-jets-after-passenger-disturbance/

This, in my opinion, goes beyond any safety concern. We are firmly in the realm of organizations, government, and media trying to punitively and publicly reprimand citizens for stepping out of line and disobeying their authority. I think a great amount of motivation behind such decisions comes from a "this will get published and teach these people a lesson" mindset by those in charge. Done in the hopes is will cause other citizens that use similar services to think twice before stepping out of line and to encourage submission and obedience by all.

I find stories like this deeply disturbing, and a sign of continuing infringement on the general freedom of the citizenry to behave like human beings without being persecuted.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

I don't agree with the fighter jets, (terrorism paranoia at work there) but they had to turn around because any threat to the aircraft has to be taken 100% seriously. They made direct verbal threats toward the aircraft, which is never taken lightly. They had to turn around in this case because they were over American airspace, so the girls would not have been allowed to enter the country having done what they did. if the flight was domestic they simply would have landed at the nearest airport, been escorted off and arrested, and the plane would go on its way.

I have to respectfully disagree with the opinions of the OP; I feel that the right call was made, that the girls should face serious consequences including paying for the extra fuel, a huge fine, etc. The OP seems to think it is a trivial matter to get hammered in the bathroom on duty-free booze (which you are not allowed to open) and smoke on the plane (which I believe is now illegal for safety and public health reasons), and then to fight, yell, make threats, and disturb other people on an aircraft. Shouldn't there be consequences for their actions? And this is news, isn't it? And yes, maybe someone else will think twice before guzzling their duty-free in washroom and lighting a smoke.
These are actually adults we are speaking of, and yes, they should know better by that age. They are not 'silly girls'- they are drunken idiots. What i find disturbing is that people would need to act like this. They were NOT "behaving like human beings". They were behaving like the self-entitled, boorish, obnoxious, aggressive, violent, drunken assh0!#s they probably are- normal people do not do this type of thing. And on an aircraft, obedience is, well, rather important.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

why shouldn't silly girls be responsible for their own actions? unfortunately there are no detention rooms on the planes and I am not sure how those issues should be tackled, I would rather see them fly to cuba and put them to jail over there ;-). I think the reaction is an overkill by a stretch, but on the other hand how do you deal with silly girls like that.

How about silly boys, should they be treated differently? What about silly boys or girls with middle-eastern background.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Having been on a few Sunwing, (and Sunwing type), flights I presume they are confreres of those on such flights who applaud when the plane lands? :wink:

Although I can appreciate Peterk's point, I'm afraid that, given the position the world is in today, any kind of mid-air disruption might well be simply a subterfuge and distraction for more nefarious intentions.......we simply cannot take a chance.

Thus.....I support Indexxx's position.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

All I know, is that I would be extremely PO'd if my flight turned around.
I would want my money back for the flight and I would want those girls to be fined.

That's just ruining somebody's vacation. I would be livid.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> why shouldn't silly girls be responsible for their own actions? unfortunately there are no detention rooms on the planes and I am not sure how those issues should be tackled, I would rather see them fly to cuba and put them to jail over there ;-). I think the reaction is an overkill by a stretch, but on the other hand how do you deal with silly girls like that.
> 
> How about silly boys, should they be treated differently? What about silly boys or girls with middle-eastern background.



This has happened before on SunWing vacation flights. The last one I remember was a Newfoundland family that decided to go for a smoke in the washroom, mother and son and when the stewardesses told them NO SMOKING (against airline policies) they started a argument with the flight crew. The pilot declared an emergency and
landed the plane at the nearest airport on route and the family was immediately arrested..convicted and
had to pay a huge restitution to Sunwing because of the extra expenses involved to land a "heavy"
with lots of fuel onboard.

The stewardesses at the beginning of the flight SPECIFICALLY mention no smoking on the flight or in the wash rooms..and people think that they can just go ahead and smoke
.... and possibly cause a fire with a burning butt tossed in the paper towel dispenser.
What will happen to the plane and the passengers and crew if the plane actually catches fire inside, because of some drunk passengers stupidity because they just can't wait 3 or 4 hours to have a smoke? 

At cruising altitude..say 25 to 35 thousand feet..the air is oxygen deprived..bottled oxygen in the plane is dispersed and mixed with the cabin air and "scrubbed of carbon dioxide"..otherwise the crew and passengers wouldn't survive the flight at 30,000 feet for 3 or 4 hrs or longer.

If the cabin gets de-pressurized, the oxygen masks drop down to allow passengers to breath air mixed with oxygen.

Now imagine what can happen in a wash room with a burning cigarette butt in a waste basket fed by pressurized oxygenated air????


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

On the other hand, people smoked like chimneys on airplanes up until what 2000? And people understands what happens when people are drunk right? There has to be a simpler solution. F-16s - really? Terrorists win, Homeland security - job security for life! Somewhere there must be a balance.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

uptoolate said:


> On the other hand, people smoked like chimneys on airplanes up until what 2000? And people understands what happens when people are drunk right? There has to be a simpler solution. F-16s - really? Terrorists win, Homeland security - job security for life! Somewhere there must be a balance.


The airlines banned smoking quite a few years ago. 
One Air Canada DC9 plane caught fire in the washroom landing in a US airport a few years ago.
The plane and several passengers burned to death..one was Canadian folk singer Stan Rogers, who lost his life in that plane.

A declared emergency landing is not taken lightly these days with what has happened after 9/11..the airlines err on the side of safety.
While preflight screening now is more effective at catching anybody that might do harm to the plane, passengers and crew..we
all know that now security check is 100%. If a passenger becomes disruptive or breaks the rules, scrambling the escort jets may be a over-the-top precaution, but that is the way it is done now.

If you don't behave because you drink and can't hold your alcohol, then decide to cause a mid air disruption, the same rule applies to you as for a would be terrorist. We all remember the shoe bomber that got on a flight and tried to light a bomb in his running shoe soles, fortunately the fuse didn't light, and when the other passengers saw what he was up to..they overpowered him, the pilot did an emergency landing. Not sure if the fighter jets were scrambled on that incident..probably, he was convicted of terrorist activity, and now probably spending a great deal of his life in
a federal prison.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

uptoolate said:


> Somewhere there must be a balance.


But, when you have individuals like this around http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...s-smart-funny-and-loved-punk-rock-classmates/ how can you really be certain of anyone's intentions?

"Back in the day" the flight crew would likely have just told them to "Sit down and STFU"......those days are gone forever.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Indeed I don't believe they should go unpunished. I think the punishment should be the standard fine for illegally smoking on a plane and opening their duty free booze, and I suppose disorderly conduct.

Any further actions taken by airline staff are their own decisions.

Subterfuge, nemo? If this thought is popping into the heads of even a small minority of the population, then the terrorists have truly already won...



> any threat to the aircraft has to be taken 100% seriously. They made direct verbal threats toward the aircraft, which is never taken lightly.


Why?
It was determined by the pilots that whatever mouthing off drunken "threats" they made weren't credible threats. (thank goodness they weren't boys or middle eastern boys, or I'm sure the exact same words uttered would have been a lot more "credible")

I would also like to know (the article doesn't explain) what the behavior of the delinquents was AFTER the plane turned around...

Once the plane turned around, did the girls not settle down? Did the other passengers not _make_ them settle down? What was going on aboard that plane on the way home that was so uncontrollable that the pilots thought it unreasonable to resume course once things had calmed?

Of course, I suppose by that point, and perhaps before, that things were out of the pilots hands if they wanted to keep their jobs.

In my OP I attributed a lot of the outcome to bad decision making and malice of the front line people involved (pilots, air traffic controllers) but upon reflection I'm sure that large chunk of the issue was that these people are forced to obey the policy/regulation/bureaucracy if they want to keep their jobs, and aren't allowed to make their own reasonable decisions.



> "Back in the day" the flight crew would likely have just told them to "Sit down and STFU"......those days are gone forever.


Yes, sadly. But why? They could be brought back if we wanted... I don't even have a memory of the old days (I'm 27) but I long for them.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Agree with both Nemo2 and Carverman but we may have gone a wee bit too far. No smoking is great. Final bans on US flights was in 2000. I think European airlines may have been later but not going to check. Bottom line is that it was probably safer to let people smoke than to force them to hide in washrooms. That is quite dangerous. So why no alcohol on flights. Alcohol is clearly a substance that impairs judgement and disinhibits people. Yes, yes I know that we are all responsible individuals... Clearly! Judgement and discretion among the aircrews seems out the window. For sure, in their state, these two were a danger to the plane (that they could have started a fire) but once discovered I agree with a 'sit down and STFU' approach would have been good. OTH dropping drunks off in Cuba may have opened the airline up for huge liability so maybe letting them see the inside of a Havana jail would have been good... Oh wait, that would have opened them up for even more liability. Damn! There must be a balance somewhere. Not that I have anything against Homeland Security. Not me, no siree, best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> But, when you have individuals like this around http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...s-smart-funny-and-loved-punk-rock-classmates/ how can you really be certain of anyone's intentions?
> 
> "Back in the day" the flight crew would likely have just told them to "Sit down and STFU"......those days are gone forever.


After 9/11, the airlines don't take any chances for any kind of abnormal behaviour in flight.

These days especially, if you fly, you obey all the rules, pay attention to what the flight crew is telling you, and don't get into any kind of arguments with the flight crew.

Doing so puts you in jeopardy of being declared an unruly passenger(s), and the captain makes the decision whether to continue with the flight, or declare an emergency and land at the nearest airport....
after dumping some of the jet fuel..which is expensive to begin with. 

A 737 can have over 4700 US gallons of fuel on board at take off weight..(sorry its litres now).... (some of us may remember the "Gimli Glider" fuel calculation mistake]:biggrin:

A fully loaded 737 can hold between 4700 to 6900 US gallons (17,860 litres => 262,000 litres depending on size, passenger and baggage load and other flight requirements)..now imagine the cost to the airline, IF some ,or maybe 
almost all of that fuel has to be dumped over the ocean, or somewhere safe, where it isn't going to cause problems with fires on the ground..because of stupid unruly passenger?

it goes beyond just telling them to "sit down and STFU!" 

At .50c a litre for JET A..that's a lot of fuel down the drain..somebody will have to pay for that, if the pilot decides he cannot land the 737 "Heavy' safely with all that fuel on board..take offs and landings are two different things...


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

carverman said:


> If you don't behave because you drink and can't hold your alcohol, then decide to cause a mid air disruption, the same rule applies to you as for a would be terrorist. We all remember the shoe bomber that got on a flight and tried to light a bomb in his running shoe soles, fortunately the fuse didn't light, and when the other passengers saw what he was up to..they overpowered him, the pilot did an emergency landing. Not sure if the fighter jets were scrambled on that incident..probably, he was convicted of terrorist activity, and now probably spending a great deal of his life in
> a federal prison.


What do you mean by this example? What is the relation between drunkenness and terrorism? There is none. Precisely 0. To even suggest that there is a 0.001% correlation between belligerence and terrorism is doing a gross injustice to the belligerent.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

peterk said:


> (thank goodness they weren't boys or middle eastern boys, or I'm sure the exact same words uttered would have been a lot more "credible")



peterk i thought you were getting over all this sexist stuff that used to plague you when you were an undergrad?

any kind of disruptive passenger is a potential terrorist these days imho. What about a scenario in which young women are trained to smoke, drink & act out as attention-grabbing foils for the real terrorists already on board, who then have a better opportunity to overpower the cockpit?

i for one am very glad to see that most folks seem to understand how any acting-out passenger on board an aircraft is a severely grave situation.

pilots & crew have to make decisions within seconds, before they know exactly who or what they are up against.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

peterk said:


> Subterfuge, nemo? If this thought is popping into the heads of even a small minority of the population, then the terrorists have truly already won...


I remember Leila Khaled in 1969, and the _MS Achille Lauro_ in 1985....I don't go around thinking or worrying that _everything_ is a terrorist action...but I'm not an ostrich either. :wink:


peterk said:


> Yes, sadly. But why? They could be brought back if we wanted... I don't even have a memory of the old days (I'm 27) but I long for them.


I'm afraid we, (the West collectively, with our misplaced tolerance of the intolerable), have allowed those days to slip past...never to return.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> What do you mean by this example? What is the relation between drunkenness and terrorism? There is none. Precisely 0. To even suggest that there is a 0.001% correlation between belligerence and terrorism is doing a gross injustice to the belligerent.


Both are considered unruly passengers and the flight crew HAS INSTRUCTIONS not to take any chances.


----------



## Ihatetaxes (May 5, 2010)

If a threat was made against the plane then they should be charged for committing a terrorist act. I bet they both get a slap on the wrist and make fun of it all on social media with their friends.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Peterk,

Your thought process deeply concerns me -- not the decision making of the crew. 

Here you have an aircraft full of people, with the potential to make a smoking hole in the ground killing much more then those on board. You have 2 unruly passengers that are lighting stuff on fire inside the aircraft. Yes, intoxicated individuals burning things. How you think these are "minor" shenanigans is beyond me .... give your head a shake.

Who are these pilots? These are professional crew members that are adhering to Safe Operating Procedures set in place by the company, in conjunction with Transport Canada. Rules laid out from Operators and Transport Canada are typically derived from the National Transportation Safety Board Investigations and Findings --- I.E. They were written with BLOOD from previous accidents. When federal laws are broken, along side creating an unsafe flight -- emergency procedures must be actioned and followed to a T. This goes for ANY emergency and/or ANY standard operating procedures. Crew members must be on the same page, and there is not much room for deviation from SOP's. Pilots when in command of an aircraft are deemed Peace Officers and may do what ever is necessary to conduct a safe flight. We are not going to hop up out of the hot seat and go tell some kids to settle down and shut up. If the staff had exhasuted their options, the cabin crew initiates the emergency procedures.

I for one have had 3 mechanical failures which resulted in engine failures and forced landings. Two of which were on highways. I have also had two separate in flight fires ... Aircraft can not just "pull over" mid-flight. Until you have had to operate an aircraft that is about to kill you, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Two girls burning things inside an aircraft is an aircraft that is about to kill you.

Kudo's to the crew for operating in such a professional manner. 

Sincerely, 

Your friendly neighborhood professional pilot.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Ihatetaxes said:


> If a threat was made against the plane then they should be charged for committing a terrorist act. I bet they both get a slap on the wrist and make fun of it all on social media with their friends.


Possibly..but the "Newfies"that tried the same thing ended up owing a lot more to Sunwing..heard they were forced to sell their home after
Sunwing successfully sued them for (financial) damages. 




> *Coarse language
> *
> Johnston-Barnes said police told him MacNeil Sr. was the one who became verbally abusive.
> 
> ...


"My understanding is that these passengers were smoking in their seats, which is unusual to say the least," said McWilliams. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ssengers-sentenced-in-bermuda-court-1.1399222

So no, Nemo..the flight crew cannot tell the unruly passenger to sit down and STFU.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> So no, Nemo..the flight crew cannot tell the unruly passenger to sit down and STFU.


As I said "Back in the day"........and ..."those days are gone forever".


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Nemo2 said:


> As I said "Back in the day"........and ..."those days are gone forever".


And good riddance! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Ag Driver said:


> And good riddance! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!


What, you don't think that an era where a firm reprimand would suffice is worth reinstating?


----------



## Itchy54 (Feb 12, 2012)

Well, if I had been a passenger in this instance I would have been peeved at those young ladies! How dare they threaten my safety! Many, many things could have gone wrong and that silver flying tube can only stand so much.
There are precautions due to 911, maybe too much but it is what it is. A fine is in order.

Or...the airlines could considers serving a nice hash brownie to chill everyone out.....


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Nemo2 said:


> What, you don't think that an era where a firm reprimand would suffice is worth reinstating?


You are taking things way out of context.... 

In this case, firm reprimand is not sufficient.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Simple solution.............air marshalls or crews that are trained for security.

Two sets of handcuffs.............would have solved this problem and saved lots of money and inconvenience.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/08/28/police_identify_two_women_charged_on_sunwing_flight.html ... boy, is this gonna to be an expensive 5 minutes of fame. What were they thinking, and smoking up there? :stupid:


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

The flight attendants on all flights should be 6ft4 300lb ex bouncers or something. Just having them present would be a deterrent to anyone to do anything stupid.

And during the take off safety announcements, equal time should be given to explaining the security protocols and expectations and consequences to passengers. Any tomfoolery gets you a seat at the front of the plane in handcuffs and duct tape. A little shaming goes a long way.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Just a few words for the women, give them jail time. I suspect they won't do this again.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Simple solution.............air marshalls or crews that are trained for security.
> 
> Two sets of handcuffs.............would have solved this problem and saved lots of money and inconvenience.


Didn't they stop using Air Marshalls a couple years after 9/11 (2003 or before?) 
Too expensive to fly them around occupying at least 2 seats., that could be used for paying passengers and then having to serve them airline food on top of that...

....but yes, they had the power to arrest, put in handcuffs and shoot them if need be, but I often wondered how they could do that in a pressurized air cabin, not to mention the bullet going through the suspect and hitting another passenger..

..but then ..stun guns (electronic zappers...sure why not? ....teach them young disobedients a lesson...let them twitch on the isle floor after being subdued..
but then...
there was the Vancouver airport incident with that Polish feller that just wouldn't follow RCMP orders to STFU..so they hit him again..

and again..and then asked questions later...buit apparently he went unconscious from all that bzzzzztttt .zzztttt! and died of a heart attack.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Ag Driver said:


> You are taking things way out of context....
> 
> In this case, firm reprimand is not sufficient.


Yabbut, my original point was not referring to _this_ case......it was harking back to a time when a reprimand would probably have been more than sufficient.......which is why I said "Those days are gone forever".


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Nemo2 said:


> Yabbut, my original point was not referring to _this_ case......it was harking back to a time when a reprimand would probably have been more than sufficient.......which is why I said "Those days are gone forever".


Do you really believe that "back in the day" there were no turn backs? Just a firm reprimand and flights always pressed forward? _Really_?

Keep in mind that the media platforms were not so "in your face" with immediate coverage back in the day -- thus these events were not nearly as publicly announced. But I assure you, there were, and will continue to be many turn backs due to unruly passengers.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Ag Driver said:


> Do you really believe that "back in the day" there were no turn backs? Just a firm reprimand and flights always pressed forward? _Really_?
> 
> Keep in mind that the media platforms were not so "in your face" with immediate coverage back in the day -- thus these events were not nearly as publicly announced. But I assure you, there were, and will continue to be many turn backs due to unruly passengers.


Well, I _did_ say 'probably'...........your experience obviously far outweighs mine.......but thinking back to the early 1960's (and perhaps my memory is failing) ISTM (from my limited exposure) that passengers generally displayed a little more decorum.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Nemo2 said:


> but thinking back to the early 1960's (and perhaps my memory is failing) ISTM (from my limited exposure) that passengers generally displayed a little more decorum.


That I will agree with. Back in the day, when _Fight Attendants_ were _Stewardess'_, and piano bars were not uncommon. There was much better decorum and respect for air travel. One would find their best business attire, press their pants and polish their shoes prior to flight. You would remove your head dress as you donned the aircraft.

Now-a-days your torn sweatpants and 1980's band T-shirt...that you bought in the 80's and still smells like the 80's is considered to be sufficient. It was a different mind set for air travel back in the day. It was a privilege, not what people of today seem to think is now a right.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> Well, I _did_ say 'probably'...........your experience obviously far outweighs mine.......but thinking back to the early 1960's (and perhaps my memory is failing) ISTM (from my limited exposure) that passengers generally displayed a little more decorum.


You mean the Big Hair and tie dyed t-shirts and bell bottom tight jeans sans bras ? Flower child days?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Ag Driver said:


> It was a different mind set for air travel back in the day. It was a privilege, not what people of today seem to think is now a right.


Which was my, obviously incoherently expressed, 'message'.........it would appear we're somewhat in sync after all....the mores are different today, never to be revisited.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> You mean the Big Hair and tie dyed t-shirts and bell bottom tight jeans sans bras ? Flower child days?


Naah...before then.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Ag Driver said:


> Do you really believe that "back in the day" there were no turn backs? Just a firm reprimand and flights always pressed forward? _Really_?
> 
> Keep in mind that the media platforms were not so "in your face" with immediate coverage back in the day -- thus these events were not nearly as publicly announced. But I assure you, there were, and will continue to be many turn backs due to unruly passengers.


That is interesting to know.

Can you, as a pilot, explain what the purpose of a turn back is? Is there a component of "teaching people a lesson" when deciding to turn back? If someone is smoking and you think they have caused a fire you will land immediately at the nearest airport, won't you? If someone has made threats and you think they are credible you will land immediately. Why turn back from over south Carolina and return to Toronto? 

In this case, the plane was going to Cuba. There was some mention above that perhaps they went back to Canada because Cuba nor the USA would have the appropriate arresting/customs authority to deal with unruly passengers and that is the reason for turning back. Is that correct in your opinion?

I can understand that it did happen if that was the reason. I don't think it's a very good reason, and think that it's horribly unfair to the other passengers of the plane. I also don't feel the culprits should be held financially responsible (beyond the appropriate fines) for the losses sustained by the airline because it was the airline/pilot's decision to turn around.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> peterk i thought you were getting over all this sexist stuff that used to plague you when you were an undergrad?


And I see you have recently been "plagued" with a case of tormenting another forum member as you repeatedly called him a liar and disputed the facts of his life. For seemingly no reason other than to incite rage in him. Which you did quite effectively. Guess you didn't get over than in your undergrad? :biggrin:

It is an undisputable fact that women receive lesser punishments than men for the same crime. There was an article in NP just a month or two ago about it. Along with many others out there. Look it up. I was simply stating, as a tangent, that these women should be happy that they are women, in this case. But thank you for calling me sexist, yet again, for merely pointing out a simple fact in a non-offensive manner... :rolleyes2: 


> any kind of disruptive passenger is a potential terrorist these days imho.


As opposed to the old days, when people were... people? People who just had problems, moments of drunkenness and bad judgment. But everyone today is a terrorist, of course.



> What about a scenario in which young women are trained to smoke, drink & act out as attention-grabbing foils for the real terrorists already on board, who then have a better opportunity to overpower the cockpit?


This is pure delusion.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I pretty much agree with everything Indexx said in his comprehensive rebuttal to OP.

These drunken women were engaged in disruptive behaviour on a commercial aircraft - the smoking was only part of it. As for why the plane turned around, the airline would have received more criticism if they had tried to dump these miscreants in a US or Cuban jail. Or those authorities might easily have said "we don't what 'em - put 'em in handcuffs and take 'em right back where they came from, along with your planeload of witnesses to the alleged criminal misconduct, and let the Mounties sort it out. "

In fact, in order to be charged, I'm pretty sure they would have to be transported/deported back to Canada in any case.

Regardless of what the outcome is in court, it is likely these two will be on the airlines' blacklist for a long time.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Further to my post #35......in the early 1980s, while I was on single status in Riyadh and my wife was still working in Toronto, if she couldn't get vacation/time off (in which case we'd meet elsewhere) I'd periodically hop the Pan Am 'Slingshot' a 13 hour direct flight from Dhahran to JFK.........these were packed-to-the-gills Jumbo Jets with the only females on board being the flight attendants.

Most of the passengers were oilfield workers from Texas and Oklahoma, 'roughnecks' and the like, who'd been stuck on their 'socially deprived' compounds for months.......a LOT of beer/alcohol was consumed but I cannot recall one incident where anyone got out of hand.

And that was only 30 years ago...but times have changed.....it appears.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> Further to my post #35......in the early 1980s, while I was on single status in Riyadh and my wife was still working in Toronto, if she couldn't get vacation/time off (in which case we'd meet elsewhere) I'd periodically hop the Pan Am 'Slingshot' a 13 hour direct flight from Dhahran to JFK.........these were packed-to-the-gills Jumbo Jets with the only females on board being the flight attendants.
> 
> Most of the passengers were oilfield workers from Texas and Oklahoma, *'roughnecks' and the like, who'd been stuck on their 'socially deprived' compounds for months*.......a LOT of beer/alcohol was consumed but I cannot recall one incident where anyone got out of hand.
> 
> And that was only 30 years ago...*but times have changed*.....it appears.



Wellllll, you should come try a Fort Mac to Toronto flight where half the plane is connecting through to St. John's... before you conclude that things have changed too much! haha


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

peterk said:


> Wellllll, you should come try a Fort Mac to Toronto flight where half the plane is connecting through to St. John's... before you conclude that things have changed too much! haha


Are they still as well behaved, (no kidding), as the Aramco guys were in the 80s?


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

peterk said:


> That is interesting to know.
> 
> Can you, as a pilot, explain what the purpose of a turn back is? Is there a component of "teaching people a lesson" when deciding to turn back? If someone is smoking and you think they have caused a fire you will land immediately at the nearest airport, won't you? If someone has made threats and you think they are credible you will land immediately. Why turn back from over south Carolina and return to Toronto?
> 
> ...


A turn back is just that. Turning the bus around. There comes a point where we make decisions about severity of the emergency, and start to include operational efficiency. In this case, teaching them a lesson would have been landing in Cuba and dumping them off in Cuban Authorities hands. This of course as someone suggested would be a PR nightmare I'm sure. You also have to take in other countries Air Laws into consideration. This is a 3D world after all, and rules in the Air are very much different then on the ground. The flight was planned to overfly the United States, there was no preparations to land there. The US does not appreciate a drop in, let alone to dump off a foreigner for them to deal with in custody. That and, I am under the impression that flights from the US to Cuba are only authorized by special permit only (don't quote me on that one!). The best course of action in this case, and the one with the least amount of operational impact, delay, and in the best interest of the culprits, was in fact the elected turn around.

I can not speak for Sunwing and their SOP's in dealing with a threat on board (if there even was a bomb threat). I do think that the Jet scramble was overkill and is out of the norm if there was no such threat made. I presume there WAS a verbal threat made in order for 18's to come bring the plane home.

As for fairness .... that's the way the cookie crumbles. Yes, I feel bad for the other law abiding passengers on board -- however, it is a love hate relationship. The safest course of action was to get the aircraft on the ground due to an emergency. The most efficient manner to deal with said emergency was back on Canadian soil. I think the two culprits should be held responsible and accountable for their actions and penalized as per our Federal Law's. If other pax want to sue for losses, then buckle up for small claims and let the judge decide. I also believe that it is not in the companies best interest to sue for losses, as that would be shooting themselves in the head. Eat the losses, and save the PR disaster. 

Do not pin this on the pilot as if it was their fault. The pilot was doing his/her job and had to turn around due to the fault of unruly passengers.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

> What about a scenario in which young women are trained to smoke, drink & act out as attention-grabbing foils for the real terrorists already on board, who then have a better opportunity to overpower the cockpit?





peterk said:


> This is pure delusion.


Not at all. Just because it never happened before? 9/11 was wargamed by the military but politically it was expensive to address something that never happened before. This could be a credible threat, and air marshals would be the best prevention. Of course air marshals are also too expensive because people don't have the capacity to perceive a threat that hasn't occurred before?..

The fighter jets have to fly for training anyways so they will be scrambled for such deviations if possible. Anyone could be talking or even prerecorded on an unsecured radio freq, so it's worth physically inspecting.. Having an escort also backs up the pilots for safety in case they are distracted with issues on board, need something inspected outside, need additional radios or a number of other things..

Most air tragedies came from the accumulation of many little mistakes, distractions, complacencies etc. It's the "swiss cheese model". People will always cry it was an overreaction, until it's not..


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

Completely disagree with Peterk's take.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

m3s said:


> The fighter jets have to fly for training anyways....*snip*


This was actually my thoughts exactly. My bets are that they were in the area and/or were due for a currency mission anyways. Our pilots do not fly all that often and there is a minimum that must be flown to remain current on type.




m3s said:


> Most air tragedies came from the accumulation of many little mistakes, distractions, complacencies etc. It's the "swiss cheese model". People will always cry it was an overreaction, until it's not..


Spot on.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

m3s said:


> *The fighter jets have to fly for training anyways so they will be scrambled for such deviations if possible*. Anyone could be talking or even prerecorded on an unsecured radio freq, so it's worth physically inspecting.. Having an escort also backs up the pilots for safety in case they are distracted with issues on board, need something inspected outside, need additional radios or a number of other things..


Hmmm..it was mentioned on the news yesterday that each fighter jet costs taxpayers $50,000 and hour to fly around. Two fighter jets scrambked = $100.000, a steep price to pay for two drunken "bobble heads' desperate for a smoke.

Apparently, the cost of turning the plane around and flying it back to Toronto is estimated by Sunwing to cost 
WELL over $50,000+. 

Sunwing had to provide vouchers for another flight..not sure if it was Sunwing or another airline...so lets see (discounting the cost of scrambling the two fighter jets which some are saying are flying around on training missions anyway), the actual cost of the minor misdemeanor of the two drunken " bobble heads" will be well over $50.000
(not counting the inconvenience to the other passengers, or disruption of the flight schedule for Sunwing and
any additional costs because of that)... for that smoke they just couldn't wait for and it's hard to imagine what kind of exchange these two would have with the aircrew when confronted.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Well imagine if you were the REST of the passengers bound for a Cuban vacation paradise, and those two "boobleheads" disrupted your flight and plans, but you arrived eventually on another flight..about a day later..
think you can sue the airline for compensation?..think again!



> In the case of this week's Sunwing flight, the pilot of the 737 aircraft described the two female passengers as disruptive "in a serious manner," and *reported to NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command) while the plane was in U.S. airspace that the aircraft was "under threat*."
> 
> NORAD scrambled two CF-18 fighter jets based out of Bagotville, Que., to escort Flight 656 back to Toronto.* The women are facing a series of charges, including endangering the safety of an aircraft, smoking on an aircraft and uttering threats*.


Five years, less a day in the "brig" for these idiots, I say and let them watch the movie of United Flight 93
(the one that the passengers rushed the hijackers and the plane crashed in Pennsylvania)..over and over again
in their incarceration..to reprogramme them for flying when they are finally released. 



> Airline passengers who have their travel plans interrupted when unruly passengers force a plane to turn around or be diverted are likely to have a difficult time collecting damages for the disruption.
> 
> Those aboard Wednesday's Cuba-bound Sunwing flight that was forced to turn back to Toronto because of the alleged misbehaviour of two female passengers, *reportedly received a $75 voucher from Sunwing for future trips and a $15 meal voucher at Pearson.*
> 
> ...


----------

