# Smokes on plane (Sunwing) causes diversion to remove unruly passengers



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I wondered if there was any illiterate people still in Canada. Now this latest incident proves it. 
Now the airport screening will have to include cigarettes as well as lighters.

I thought lighters and matches were already confiscated at the passenger security checks..but somehow they let these idiots on board
with cigarettes and something to light them. All three members of the same family started to smoke and when the flight attendent
told them to extinquish the smokes they started to "talk back" to her. They had to make an emergency landing in Bermuda fuel heavy
to turf the family off. Now besides the fines they had to pay, Sunwing is going to take them to court to recover all the necessary expenses.
which could amount to $50,000 or even more. 

Can you say...DuH!!!!!!

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasc...to-sue-mabou-family-for-diverted-flight-costs


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Yes this is pretty hard to believe. What an embarrassment!


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

When I was returning from Jamaica in December, our flight was 4 hours late leaving because of a big storm in Toronto / Ottawa.

One guy got all hyper and was yelling and swearing at the stewardess because he wanted to sit in the empty row of seats that cost $20 a person more because of the extra leg room.

Long story short when we arrived in Canada he was escorted off by Customs officials, I'm sure they did not use lube. LOL


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

^ lol.

It is embarrassing that they are Canadians.


----------



## 44545 (Feb 14, 2012)

I've flown SunWing before, when I was looking for rock bottom vacation pricing. I won't do it again.

You pay a premium to not travel with pond scum.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Thumbs up for an awesome thread title!

+1


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

The woman behind me in the gatecheck last week had 9 lighters with her. Apparently the maximum you can have on a flight per person is 3. :apathy:


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

One is allowed to carry smokes & lighter on a flight as smokers really do want out for a smoke as soon as the plane is on the ground.

As a smoker I use the patch for long flights.

Yes I agree with most of what is said here.

Maybe pot would be fine :stupid:

They really should ban drinking it does cost billions to the health care system & policing.


----------



## 72camaross (Apr 26, 2010)

this is hilarious and frustrating at the same time. 

funny - how far in the woods were these ppl?

frustrating - could you imagine losing part of your trip you paid for to some idiots smoking...like someone said above, it's not a new rule.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^ they're from mabou in cape breton. 

Agree with all. Quite an embarrassment and disappointment for other passengers. It's going to be a costly charade for that family.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

I have used sunwing for my vacation always without any issues, thankfully there aren't enough complete morons for every plane.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is Cape Breton the Mississippi of Canada?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

What do we think about the Township of Scugog billing the ice fisherman who called for rescue after ice fishing in double-digit temperatures? http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...harged_for_fire_department_rescue_539278.html

(Note: the article makes no mention of the temperature on the day in question, but you can also infer it from the fog)


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

CJOttawa said:


> I've flown SunWing before, when I was looking for rock bottom vacation pricing. I won't do it again.
> 
> You pay a premium to not travel with pond scum.


We've used them 3 times.....(Costa Rica/Mexico)......but, (only partially due to our 'advanced years'), we select the smallest, out of the way hotels we can find, and it's great when we're the only people on the bus heading out from the destination airport to where we're staying.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

carverman said:


> All three members of the same family started to smoke and when the flight attendent
> told them to extinquish the smokes they started to "talk back" to her.


Not according to the article. They said the 22 year old son returned from the washroom smelling of cigarette smoke, but they could never find any evidence of the cigarette. No other family members were accused of smoking.

I think by that time they were already looking for a good reason to remove them from the plane though, after the father had cursed at the flight attendant.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MoneyGal said:


> What do we think about the Township of Scugog billing the ice fisherman who called for rescue after ice fishing in double-digit temperatures? http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...harged_for_fire_department_rescue_539278.html
> 
> (Note: the article makes no mention of the temperature on the day in question, but you can also infer it from the fog)


 ... he should pay at least half of the cost (if not full) since "Two days before Robbenscheuten’s mishap on the ice, the Kawartha Conservation warned residents to stay off frozen waterways, stating that “all local rivers, streams and lakes should be considered extremely dangerous.”. He's lucky that emergency crew came to his rescue. Call it an expensive lesson learned. 

Here in Toronto, if an ambulance is called for a health emergency, he/she would be billed for the ride and the gentleman above had 4 fire-trucks / 15 fire-fighters coming to his rescue.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Ambulances in Toronto are booked at a very nominal fee; like $75. It isn't cost-recovery, like his rescue appears to have been.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'd settle for public shaming.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Lol ... it would be cheaper but not so sure the Township of Scugog would settle for that. If Mr. Robbenscheuten doesn't pay, public Joe Scugog will and good luck in fighting with city-hall.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

News reports have that the airline in contemplating suing for costs incurred to land in Bermuda. Does anyone think they have the estimated 40-50K that is cost the airline?


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't think it's uncommon for people to be charged for rescue services when they are doing something risky - ie skiing out of bounds at a ski resort/mountain climbing etc.

I do think the guy should be charged, but when I originally read the article I noticed that the resources used to 'rescue' him were a bit excessive.

The guy was on the shore (not on the ice), in distress so it was a valid emergency but did it really take 15 firefighters and three trucks (plus one on standby) to help him?

Just because every firefighter in the region showed up to help doesn't really make it right to charge him for all of them.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> Thumbs up for an awesome thread title!
> 
> +1


Thanks I try. I almost used "JERKs" because not only did they mess up the flight but inconvenienced a whole plane load of passengers too.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> The woman behind me in the gatecheck last week had 9 lighters with her. Apparently the maximum you can have on a flight per person is 3. :apathy:


I remember the terrorist that tried to light his running shoe bombs on fire and failed in the US a few years ago and everyone (at least entering the US from Canada) had to take their shoes off going through passenger security. 

There was an A/C DC9 that burned up in a US airport with loss of life (Stan Rogers, singer was one of them) where
a fire started in the washroom, so they should just confiscate cigarettes and lighters from each passenger.

You are not allowed to have flammable liquids or aerosol cans in your luggage legally..so why should anyone be allowed (3) lighters and cigarettes on board? Check the cigarettes in your luggage and buy a lighter when you arrive at your destination.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> I do think the guy should be charged, but when I originally read the article I noticed that the resources used to 'rescue' him were a bit excessive.
> 
> Just because every firefighter in the region showed up to help doesn't really make it right to charge him for all of them.


There was a snowboarder in BC that ran out of bounds and it took a lot of rescuers and a helicopter to look for him for 2-3 days. They found him
barely alive and flew him to a hospital to recover. The ski resort at Whistler was going to send him a $15K bill for all the personnel and equipment
they had to use to rescue him. It was his fault..the boundaries were clearly marked.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Is Cape Breton the Mississippi of Canada?


It's a nice place. I've driven all around the cape. It's mostly small communities , some farming and depend on tourists.




> The Rankin Family, a renowned group of singers-songwriters and proprietors of the local establishment The Red Shoe Pub, along with former Premier of Nova Scotia Rodney MacDonald, hail from Mabou, as does Kate Beaton of "Hark! A Vagrant" fame.
> Mabou is also the home of the An Drochaid Museum, which houses Mabou's history, cultural artifacts and records for public viewing.
> 
> *A family of four, who were accused of inflight smoking during a Sunwing flight on Feburary 3, 2013, were said to be from Mabou. They caused the flight to make an emergency landing at Bermuda L.F. Wade International Airport. Two eldest of the family were arrested by Bermuda Police Service and subsequently sentenced to $500 fine or 10 days in prison* [2][3].


So as you can see from the latest wiki entry on Mabou..that family of 4 from Mabou is now famous...although their trailer will have to be sold when the airline gets done suing them for $50K plus. How much can you get for a trailer anyway?

Fly on wall: Sunwing flight in progress to DR.

Paw: Maw? Ize dying fer a smoke. You gots aner those "illegal" smokes on you?
Maw: Ya Paw, I gots some in my purse..here..help yurself!
Paw: Maw: You brung any matches? 
Maw: Here's a extra lighter..I took a few with me from home to save on buying them down there.
Dad& Mom light up and start puffing.....smoke alarm goes off in plane...
Stewardess: Sir/Madam..you are not allowed to smoke on this flight..put those out immediately!
Paw: Aw shut up there..I'ze been needin' a smoke since we left the airport in Sydney.
Maw: Hey! why should we? We paid for a flight just like the rest of the people on this plane..so go jump in the lake!

Dad and Mom keep puffing away..co-pilot comes over to their seats to warn them they are making an emergency detour.

Paw: Bermuda?..we'ze going to the Domican for our winter vacation.
Paw: Now this unscheduled stopover ain't gonna to cost us any extra I hope?:biggrin:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Fly on wall: Sunwing flight in progress to DR.
> 
> Dad: Maw? You gots aner those "illegal" smokes on you?
> Maw: Hey! why should we? We paid for a flight just like the rest of the people on this plane..so go jump in the lake!
> ...


 ... .. the fly-on-the-wall never fails to capture the parody of it. ROF ... :highly_amused: :highly_amused:


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Clearly idiots, but I don't think they should have to pay. It's not their fault that airline/TSA rules are "landing trigger happy". I can't see how getting uppity, smoking, yelling at stewardesses, and having no class, could possibly have a tangible effect on the ability of the pilots to get to their destination.

Plus, isn't the _threat_ of landing enough? I'm sure when the pilot says "settle down or we're landing" it should shut most people up. And even if it doesn't, slowing and dropping the plane down like you're going to land certainly would! I'd imagine the angry mob of 200 passengers with vacations getting royally screwed would pose a danger to the plane 10x greater than a few smoking yokels could. 

Like Four Pillars said, did it really take 15 firemen to do the rescue?

Did they really have to do an emergency landing? Wouldn't charging/fining them with smoking and mischief at the destination be sufficient?


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

peterk said:


> Plus, isn't the threat of landing enough? I'm sure when the pilot says "settle down or we're landing" it should shut most people up.


Most people don't cause any trouble when they fly. The threat of landing has to be real. I'm sure the pilots gave them a warning before they landed. If idiots don't settle down, the airline *has* to follow through with the threat, to keep the threat of landing a strong deterrent.



peterk said:


> Wouldn't charging/fining them with smoking and mischief at the destination be sufficient?


No. The airlines have to use a heavy-handed approach to keep all flights safe.

I hope the airline wins the court case and takes possession of whatever little property these idiots have.


----------



## 44545 (Feb 14, 2012)

Daniel A. said:


> ...As a smoker I use the patch for long flights...


:encouragement:

I wonder if the electronic cigarettes would be OK for use on a flight. They're smokeless, aren't they?


----------



## w0nger (Mar 15, 2010)

peterk said:


> Clearly idiots, but I don't think they should have to pay. It's not their fault that airline/TSA rules are "landing trigger happy". I can't see how getting uppity, smoking, yelling at stewardesses, and having no class, could possibly have a tangible effect on the ability of the pilots to get to their destination.
> 
> Plus, isn't the _threat_ of landing enough? I'm sure when the pilot says "settle down or we're landing" it should shut most people up. And even if it doesn't, slowing and dropping the plane down like you're going to land certainly would! I'd imagine the angry mob of 200 passengers with vacations getting royally screwed would pose a danger to the plane 10x greater than a few smoking yokels could.
> 
> ...


You say that now... but with if the cigarette butt that they couldn't find was disposed on in the lav garbage and caught fire and subsequently lit the aircraft on fire. Why not be better safe than sorry?


----------



## Jim9guitars (May 5, 2012)

Daniel A. said:


> One is allowed to carry smokes & lighter on a flight as smokers really do want out for a smoke as soon as the plane is on the ground.


 Maybe within Canada but not in the US. I was behind a guy at the security check in just a couple of years ago and they took his lighter. I distinctly remember because he made a big noise about it being a family keepsake handed down etc......, they finally agreed to take his phone number and mailing address so he could arrange to have them mail it to him, but he didn't get to take it on the plane.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Jim9guitars said:


> Maybe within Canada but not in the US. I was behind a guy at the security check in just a couple of years ago and they took his lighter. I distinctly remember because he made a big noise about it being a family keepsake handed down etc......, they finally agreed to take his phone number and mailing address so he could arrange to have them mail it to him, but he didn't get to take it on the plane.


Supposedly the US has been allowing regular lighters in carry-on since 2007, so aside from the unlikely event that his "family keepsake" was a torch lighter, they may have goofed up. Canadian regulations seem similar, and the US ones indicate that they were the only country that banned lighters.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

peterk said:


> Plus, isn't the _threat_ of landing enough? I'm sure when the pilot says "settle down or we're landing" it should shut most people up. And even if it doesn't, slowing and dropping the plane down like you're going to land certainly would! I'd imagine the angry mob of 200 passengers with vacations getting royally screwed would pose a danger to the plane 10x greater than a few smoking yokels could.


If you kids don't settle down right now, I'm turning this car around!

Hindsight is 20/20, but it could have easily escalated into a physical encounter. What if another passenger intervened? Would that help? Would that cause more anger to be vented? Would a fight break out? Could that escalate further?

Maybe Sunwing didn't respond well to it. Then again, maybe they did, and it was the family that didn't respond well. We don't know. All I know is I'm not too likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the selfish family who put their own vice ahead of hundreds of other people's lives. It's a terribly selfish action and I'm not about to throw a pity party for them.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

After the incident these people would be flagged and put on a no fly list I think, so they won't be allowed to fly anywhere.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

nathan79 said:


> Not according to the article. They said the 22 year old son returned from the washroom smelling of cigarette smoke, but they could never find any evidence of the cigarette. No other family members were accused of smoking.


Smoke lingers on the clothes for a long time.
Maybe he flushed the butt down the toilet..or even ate the butt?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

dogcom said:


> After the incident these people would be flagged and put on a no fly list I think, so they won't be allowed to fly anywhere.


Certainly not with Sunwing..unless they use aliases next time to fly to...well wherever they can still afford after Sunwing starts a civil procedure against them.
Even a good defence lawyer is not going to get them off without paying. 
It was an expensive smoke for them. I'm sure that Sunwing would not allowed them to get back on the plane even without lighters or matches, after being DISRESPECTFUL to the air crew,so what we don't know is, if they ever reached their vacation spot destination in the DR by Sunwing.

If they were banned from flying Sunwing..they would be out extra airline tickets to fly from Bermuda to the DR and then book another flight to get back home...but it all depends whether Sunwing would accept them as responsible passengers after that incident. I'm sure that the entire family would be extra scrutinized by security, behind closed doors after that.

Expensive habit to begin with..but this one turned out to be VERY expensive for that family.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... .. the fly-on-the-wall never fails to capture the parody of it. ROF ... :highly_amused: :highly_amused:


The "fly on the wall" is a roving reporter when the worst sides of human behaviour is involved.
'Course, what is unknown is how the fly got on the plane in the first place..probably hitched a ride in the purse of the mom, I would think.
He, like the rest of us sunseekers in the bleak and cold midwinter want to get away to somewhere warm...

Happy to report however, that the fly made it safely to the DR after the Sunwing flight resumed..without the Mabou family.

When I was still in the recording business in Toronto in the early 70s, John Allan Cameron from Cape Breton
(deceased) recorded "Trip to Mabou Ridge"
in the studio where I worked....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6PyUU88iw

Little did I know back then, that that little place in Cape Breton would gain notoriety flying Sunwing.

The Rankin family is still one of their best "exports"


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

The Mabou family's "ordeal" on Sunwing has made it to CBC news...obviously there is nothing more important right now for them to report on.
The family has been inundated with calls by the media to their home phone and they have no comment right now. 
A newspaper in NS had come up with a editorial cartoon drawing of a jailhouse in Bermuda with the caption.."yes we know this is an all-inclusive, but:..

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/642368-disruptive-air-passengers-talk-of-the-town

Sunwing had to send another aircraft to Bermuda to pickup the rest of the stranded passengers..so the costs are
rising well beyond $50K...
Don't know how much their home and travel trailer is worth there..but something tells me..they should be thinking
of a large family tent once the courts get done with them..especially with the legal bills if nothing else.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

more on this story..apparently they have been banned from flying Sunwing..but not other airlines, so they can at least get home.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/unruly-sunwing-passengers-way-back-canada-224007272.html


> MacNeil Sr. pleaded guilty to *behaving in a disorderly manner and using abusive and insulting words*. Darlene MacNeil pleaded guilty to disobeying lawful commands. *David MacNeil Jr. was charged with smoking on the plane,* but he denied the charge in court Monday.
> 
> Prosecutors decided not to proceed further with the charges, *so in the end, no one was found guilty of smoking on the plane.*
> The two eldest MacNeils were sentenced to either a $500 fine or 10 days in prison. MacNeil Jr. was free to go.


Ok, so if NO ONE was found guilty of smoking on the plane and they got fined..it must have been for being unruly, which would force the plane into an unscheduled landing anyway..so the family will still see charges pressed by Sunwing.

10 days in a Bermuda prison vs 14 days in an all inclusive in the DR....you be the judge.:stupid:


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

peterk said:


> Clearly idiots, but I don't think they should have to pay. It's not their fault that airline/TSA rules are "landing trigger happy". I can't see how getting uppity, smoking, yelling at stewardesses, and having no class, could possibly have a tangible effect on the ability of the pilots to get to their destination.
> 
> Plus, isn't the _threat_ of landing enough? I'm sure when the pilot says "settle down or we're landing" it should shut most people up. And even if it doesn't, slowing and dropping the plane down like you're going to land certainly would! I'd imagine the angry mob of 200 passengers with vacations getting royally screwed would pose a danger to the plane 10x greater than a few smoking yokels could.
> 
> ...




Iam happy to see they made an emergency landing. The passangers had to be removed from the secound hand smoke on the plane even if the smokers were not a further threat. Not only should they be sued by the airline but the passangers should sue the smokers in a class action law suit for the damage the smoke did to thier health. In such a situation it is good to know how the oxygen masks work.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> The Mabou family's "ordeal" on Sunwing has made it to CBC news...obviously there is nothing more important right now for them to report on.
> The family has been inundated with calls by the media to their home phone and they have no comment right now.
> A newspaper in NS had come up with a editorial cartoon drawing of a jailhouse in Bermuda with the caption.."yes we know this is an all-inclusive, but:..
> 
> ...


 ... according to Herald News in your link, "The senior MacNeil owns a mining company near Sudbury, Ont" so maybe the legal bill won't be a problem afterall. That was one *expen$$$$ive* trip!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> Iam happy to see they made an emergency landing. The passangers had to be removed from the second hand smoke on the plane even if the smokers were not a further threat. Not only should they be sued by the airline but the passangers should sue the smokers in a class action law suit for the damage the smoke did to thier health. In such a situation it is good to know how the oxygen masks work.


The oxygen masks would not be deployed automatically unless there was a rapid depressurization of the aircraft. This didn't happen. What we don't know is if the 3 idiotic passengers lit up or not. If they just put cigarettes in their mouth but did not light them, then there wouldn't be any reason to charge them with smoking in the aircraft. 

From the latest developments on this story, there had to be "other behavioural" actions on the part of the two parents that made the pilots
decide to land. For instance if they were showing signs of being intoxicated due to alcoholic drinks served by the airline, and unruly, they could be deemed to be "dangerous" to the safety and security of other passengers, and the aircrew have to make a decision to land and get them off the plane asap.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Cape Breton is a sparsely populated area with above average unemployment. It's generally known more for it's beauty and is a well known tourist destination- Cabot Trail in particular. 

I'm not sure how this compares to Mississipi.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

CJOttawa said:


> I wonder if the electronic cigarettes would be OK for use on a flight. They're smokeless, aren't they?


They aren't allowed, but from our tests they don't set off the smoke detectors on a plane...



RBull said:


> I'm not sure how this compares to Mississipi.


Me neither


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

RBull said:


> .
> 
> I'm not sure how this compares to Mississipi.


Not the location. I believe the poster's inference was to: "Trailer Park Boys"...the setting is a trailer park in NS but not close to Mabou. 

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Trailer_Park_Boys:biggrin:

So if they were flying on that plane.."What would Bubbles do?"


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> They aren't allowed, but from our tests they don't set off the smoke detectors on a plane...


What about nicotine patches? ..probably not available in Mabou NS.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

RBull said:


> Cape Breton is a sparsely populated area with above average unemployment. It's generally known more for it's beauty and is a well known tourist destination- Cabot Trail in particular.
> 
> I'm not sure how this compares to Mississipi.


Mississippi is a scenic state, quite attractive in many areas.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> Iam happy to see they made an emergency landing. The passangers had to be removed from the secound hand smoke on the plane even if the smokers were not a further threat. Not only should they be sued by the airline but the passangers should sue the smokers in a class action law suit for the damage the smoke did to thier health. In such a situation it is good to know how the oxygen masks work.


I can only assume this is somewhat sarcastic? You think second hand smoke in an airplane with all those air fans going is an issue? sheesh.

I'm not even a smoker, but I feel bad for this family. Now they're being outed and slagged by their local community and wikipedia?

If they had been drinking, being drunk buffoons, and the pilot decided he "just couldn't handle it" and landed would that family be getting this crass abuse in the news and throughout the internet? I think not. 

This is all getting blown (heh) way out of proportion.


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

peterk said:


> . . . If they had been drinking . . .


ummm . . . they're from Cape Breton :biggrin:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I remember when jet airplanes had smoking and non smoking seats a few years ago. It wasn't such a big deal then. If you were a smoker you were assigned seats at the back of the aircraft because the airflow is front to back.

Now, whether they lit up or not, I don't believe that is the main issue here..they were beligerent to the aircrew/stewardesses and that probably violates some of the rules for Sunwing. If the passengers were just unruly verbally insulting the stewardess, then somebody
may have "over reacted", but we don't know the full story of what went on in the plane. 

If the parents were just being difficult, it could have waited until they landed in the DR. Then the passengers could have been reported to the authorities, but at that point things probably would have calmed down and the airline wouldn't really have a case against the two passengers once the plane disembarked.

So it would seem to me that whatever transpired in the air, was enough of a commotion for the pilots to land the plane with lots of fuel onboard (which could be dangerous on landing), and procede to call the airport security to arrest them on the spot.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Too bad that Smokers Express airlines never got off the ground. They would have welcomed the family from Mabou NS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokers_Express

apparently there was more to the issue than just smoking in the washroom. Both the son and father disregarded the fasten seatbelt
sign and went to the washroom. 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busine...ed+Bermuda+alleged+smoking/7920780/story.html

All airlines provide vomit bags..but not sure what the rules are if all of a sudden you have a case of Dia..re.ah! 
Do you just hope for the best and not take your seat belt off or run for the washroom?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

There was actually a Smokers Express airline started? Unbelievable - yeah too bad it never got off the ground to handle smoking passenger(s) who can't survive flying without smoking (wah, wah, wah) .. and save the rest of the non-smoking passengers a life or two. Or maybe Smokers' Express was an "exclusive" airlines, non-smokers not allowed to join? In the latter case, moot point here.

Re "all of sudden you have to go ... ", make sure you have good bladder control because they ain't going to let you go to the john on take-off or landing unless earlier arrangements were made with the airline (eg. people with a disability or special needs) I believe. Perhaps the "pilot" members on this forum can chime in the exact rules.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Their house doesn't look like trailer park boys or red necks to me. I wonder if the pilot would have chosen to divert if they had an armed sky marshal (undercover RCMP in Canada) and if they had to dump fuel to land. I really doubt they would risk the structural integrity of an airliner because of belligerent Maritimers. The father apparently flies all the time and the son doesn't even smoke. Obviously more to the story as always

I've seen people up during the seat belt sign all the time as well... Sometimes the cabin crew reminds them they have to buckle up or they don't even notice. If it's really an emergency you can always tell the attendant you really really have to go. Worst case the pilot can tell the controller they have a situation or "physiological emergency" to delay or get another altitude etc.... very situation dependent and it happens more than you think. Common sense applies here... We're not supposed to go during mid air refueling but sometimes it's the only chance! What's worse is how most people take off their belt as soon as soon as the light's off as if the pilots have a crystal ball...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

There are washrooms in the waiting room of the terminal, so I don't know what the problem was with the son who had to go to the "head" all of a sudden before the seat belt light was out. I doubt it would have been at takeoff, so maybe the aircraft encountered turbulence and the captain switched on the seat belt sign.

I have seen this a few times. Maybe it was during the 4 hr flight, after they were served beer or other liquids, and he actually had to go. 
The mom apparently also removed her seat belt and then there was some kind of confrontation initially with the stewardess when the son was ordered to return to his seat..but..... was she knocking on the door of the washroom and ordering him to return to his seat? 

If he was in the middle of doing his business (or having a smoke) he might have aggravated the stewardess,
and then the mother joined in..and finally the dad got up and exchanged a "few words" with the stewardess.

Not sure if this would appear as the beginning of a revolt or not, but after the dad called a the stewardess(es) a few names, they probably informed the captain and he made the decision to land and put them off the airplane. 

I'm sure there will be more to this story later in the press..especially if it does go to court.

If the son had a medical emergency (lets say loose bowels/full bladder) then the aircrew should have been more understanding. 

If he just went there for a smoke..(as has happened in the past on other airlines, flushed the butt down the toilet), and denied he was smoking when he came out...the airline really isn't going to have a strong case to go after them for the $50k. 

After all, they did not threaten the stewardess with plastic knives or forks, so there may not be an assault case here.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> T
> 
> Re "all of sudden you have to go ... ", make sure you have good bladder control because t*hey ain't going to let you go to the john on take-off or landing unless earlier arrangements were made with the airline* (eg. people with a disability or special needs) I believe. Perhaps the "pilot" members on this forum can chime in the exact rules.



No, would be understood by all travellers, because you would have difficulty walking up or down the isle to get to the john and if there was an emergency on takeoff or landing, the person inside could be trapped. 

However, there are tarmac delay rules that apply. If the plane experiences excessive delays amd sits on the tarmac waiting to take off or some kind of mechanical problem before takeoff, they have to let people off or let them use the washroom. But from what we know, this doesn't appear to be the case..however, if the son had a medical condition like colitis or something, the airline would have to bend the rules..as long as he
just didn't go there for the purpose of having a smoke.


----------

