Passenger Plane Bound for UK Turns Around and Goes Back To US Over Passenger Refusing to Wear Mask - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15208209
So, on the way to the UK, an American passenger plane had to turn around and fly back to the United States because a passenger refused to wear her mask. The flight to London had to be canceled, ALLLL BECAUSE somebody didn't want to wear their mask.

Marnie Hunter and Pete Muntean of CNN wrote:
An American Airlines passenger plane bound for London turned around mid-flight due to a mask-related disruption on Wednesday.

"American Airlines flight 38 with service from Miami (MIA) to London (LHR) returned to MIA due to a disruptive customer refusing to comply with the federal mask requirement," American Airlines said in a statement.

Local law enforcement met the flight at Miami International Airport, the airline said.

The Miami-Dade Police Department told CNN it was called by the airline regarding a female passenger who refused to wear a mask.

"Once the plane made it to the gate, the passenger was escorted off the plane by MDPD officers without incident. The passenger was then dealt with administratively by American Airlines staff," said Detective A. Colome from the Miami-Dade Police Department.

According to flight tracking site FlightAware, the flight landed back in Miami one hour and 48 minutes after it departed.

The flight, operated on a Boeing 777 aircraft, was canceled after the incident. There were 129 passengers and 14 crew on board. There were no injuries to customers or crew members.

"We thank our crew for their professionalism and apologize to our customers for the inconvenience," American said in its statement.

There have already been 151 unruly passenger reports logged this year, according to Federal Aviation Administration data through January 18. Of those, 92 were mask-related incidents. The agency's tracking site shows that 32 investigations have been initiated so far this year and 4 enforcement action cases have been initiated.

In January of last year, the FAA announced a "zero tolerance" policy for unruly passenger behavior that skips warnings or counseling and goes directly to penalties, which can include heavy fines and jail time.

It is unclear whether the passenger involved in the incident on AA flight 38 on Wednesday will face enforcement action from the FAA.
The FAA has civil authority to propose fines up to $37,000 per violation for unruly passenger cases. The agency does not have the authority for criminal prosecution.

The agency referred at least 37 cases for which it had initiated enforcement action to the FBI for criminal prosecution review last year.
Last year was the worst on record for unruly airplane passenger behavior in the United States, according to FAA data.

A whopping 5,981 reports of unruly passengers were logged by the FAA in 2021. Of those, 4,290 -- nearly 72% -- were mask-related incidents.
The FAA notes on its website that the rate of unruly passenger incidents has dropped by about 50% since it reached record highs in early 2021. "But there remains more work to do," the site says.


https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/amer ... index.html
#15208214
Climate Change will never be fixed. Burn that 98 minutes of Jet fuel dammit...

That maskless person was so evil, how inconsiderate they were of the health of everyone else.

We had to make our point by ritually burning nearly two hours of Jet fuel then fining them for it. The fuel will never come back, and neither will the nearly 2 wasted hours of our other passengers lives, but we HAD TO MAKE THE DAMN POINT! Such an evil person for wanting to breathe freely while in an enclosed claustrophobic environment.
#15208220
colliric wrote:Climate Change will never be fixed. Burn that 98 minutes of Jet fuel dammit...

That maskless person was so evil, how inconsiderate they were of the health of everyone else.

We had to make our point by ritually burning nearly two hours of Jet fuel then fining them for it. The fuel will never come back, and neither will the nearly 2 wasted hours of our other passengers lives, but we HAD TO MAKE THE DAMN POINT! Such an evil person for wanting to breathe freely while in an enclosed claustrophobic environment.


If airlines don't provide a safe environment for their passengers, they can get sued.

Also, if you don't like masks, feel free to swim across the big pond.
#15208225
The lady seems like a bitch, but it does seem a little drastic. I don't like wearing masks, but I do it. I don't have a big problem with masks. I currently work a pretty physical job, inside a warehouse, and am not often close to people. But because it's 'indoors' masks are required.

I'm not anti-mask, but they can restrict the breathing a little, when you are doing heavy lifting. I sometimes put it around my chin.

The lady seems like she was definitely in the wrong. Turning the plane around can seem a drastic measure though.
#15208227
@Crantag

Everybody's flight to London on that plane was canceled too. ALLLLL BECAUSE, of that one person who didn't want to wear a mask. I can't imagine people were happy about that. But as @Saeko pointed out, the fact that airliners can be sued easily for millions and millions of dollars by lawyers is probably why they took that drastic measure. Not to mention, there is a federal mask mandate in place so the airlines have to follow it and might could face fines if they don't.
#15208230
If airlines don't provide a safe environment for their passengers, they can get sued.

Also, if you don't like masks, feel free to swim across the big pond.


Lol.

"Burn those damn fossils fuels. We'll get sued if we don't".

Human beings are so damn moronically stupid. Thinking about nothing but the Benjamins as usual.

ALLLLL BECAUSE, of that one person who didn't want to wear a mask.


Actually it was because of how stupid Americans have actually become as a result of the media fear porn. The person would have submitted negative tests and also vaccine passport information when they got on the plane. Under current law they have to be vaccinated and test negative prior to getting on the plane, probably the reason they were so pissed off when asked to the put the mask on since they know they don't have the virus. But the monkeys are in charge of the asylum now.

Goodbye 2 hours of burnt up never coming back Jet fuel. Other passengers will then mostly get on other replacement flights as a result.
Last edited by colliric on 21 Jan 2022 01:49, edited 1 time in total.
#15208233
@colliric

colliric wrote:Actually it was because of how stupid Americans have actually become as a result of the media fear porn. The person would have submitted negative tests and also vaccine passport information when they got on the plane. But the monkeys are in charge of the asylum now.

Goodbye 2 hours of burnt up never coming back Jet fuel.


You are going to preach to me about media fear porn when the media that's spewing the fear porn is FOX NEWS AND is owned by an Australian. Come colliric, just wear the damn mask and stop complaining.
#15208234
tomskunk wrote:@colliric



You are going to preach to me about media fear porn when the media that's spewing the fear porn is FOX NEWS AND is owned by an Australian. Come colliric, just wear the damn mask and stop complaining.


This is not about the mask, it's about the moronic waste of 2 hours of precious Jet fuel that's never coming back.
#15208236
tomskunk wrote:@Crantag

Everybody's flight to London on that plane was canceled too. ALLLLL BECAUSE, of that one person who didn't want to wear a mask. I can't imagine people were happy about that. But as @Saeko pointed out, the fact that airliners can be sued easily for millions and millions of dollars by lawyers is probably why they took that drastic measure. Not to mention, there is a federal mask mandate in place so the airlines have to follow it and might could face fines if they don't.

Just giving my reaction to it.

I'm sure they were pissed.

And bureaucracy is shit.

Not faulting the airline staff, maybe they did what they needed to do, but from a very practical sense, it seems a bit drastic.

For example, it would seem more practical to put her in a straight jacket and then put the mask on, instead of turning the plane around.
#15208237
colliric wrote:This is not about the mask, it's about the moronic waste of 2 hours of precious Jet fuel that's never coming back.

That jet fuel is kinda a drop in the bucket, but I sorta agree with the rest of your spiel. I don't think wearing a mask is that hard in most circumstances, and people should do it, but it just seems a little drastic to turn a flight around, especially with that she'd probably been vaccinated and tested. She was in the wrong, she was the main one that caused the situation, and wearing a mask isn't that hard, doctors and Asians have done it all the time.

Seems like a stupid situation though.
#15208242
Saeko wrote:I'm pretty sure passenger safety is more important than fucking jet fuel.


How about just introduce an emergency passenger restraint seat or emergency seatbelt lock restraint so that planes don't have to stupidly turn around for one unruly passenger?

You know cruise ships STILL have their own brigs right? You know they have that available so they don't have to return to port until the end of the voyage right?

How about just introduce an emergency "Brig seat"?
#15208247
colliric wrote:How about just introduce an emergency passenger restraint seat or emergency seatbelt lock restraint so that planes don't have to stupidly turn around for one unruly passenger?

You know cruise ships STILL have their own brigs right? You know they have that available so they don't have to return to port until the end of the voyage right?

How about just introduce an emergency "Brig seat"?


No. I would rather force airplanes to fly back to their departure point than give airlines the right to assault and detain people against their will.
#15208249
I think some of you are missing the point. I don't think this is about the mask at all (although it is certainly the particular trigger), this is about being at 30k feet inside a flying pressurized tube with a belligerent person. For the passangers, this is an incovenience. For the crew this is jeopardizing the safety of the safety of the plane. This is how you end up with people duct-taped to the chairs.
If these morons prefer to end up in a do-not fly list, or banned from major airlines, or have criminal records on multiple countries, or being arrested, or being charged (and having to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to be defended while risking that the publicity stunt gets you fired).... Keep behaving like this. Keep behaving like animals and eventually people will treat you as such.
Wake the fuck up people.

colliric wrote:How about just introduce an emergency passenger restraint seat or emergency seatbelt lock restraint so that planes don't have to stupidly turn around for one unruly passenger?

You know cruise ships STILL have their own brigs right? You know they have that available so they don't have to return to port until the end of the voyage right?

How about just introduce an emergency "Brig seat"?

And if this happens in the middle of the atlantic ocean, perhaps what you are suggesting is reasonable. But if this happens 90mins into the flight, it is risky to just be on top of the ocean when hell breaks lose. You put the belligerent person on restrains.... what happens if now you get another handful that thinks "oh well thats too far" all of the sudden you get a mile-high brawl.
#15208250
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I would rather force airplanes to fly back to their departure point than give airlines the right to assault and detain people against their will.


Cruise ship staff already have that right available to them in order to avoid disrupting the trip, and they also have the means to do it. Brigs are still a part of almost every modern naval and commercial ship. You'll probably argue they also have the space and extra crewmembers to do it more safely, but that's besides the point to me. I mean we have modern emergency restraint technology too.
#15208252
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I would rather force airplanes to fly back to their departure point than give airlines the right to assault and detain people against their will.

Well, that makes one of us.

I would prefer to allow airlines to detain and assault people against their will, rather than return to their departure point.

I'm sort of taking the piss. And I'm sort of pissed (in the British sense of the term, not the American sense.)

I do have one stupid story to relay.

Once I was taking a flight from Shanghai to San Francisco. I had the good sense to buy a bottle of Baijiu at the gift store before I got on the plane.

I drank most of the bottle, and woke up strapped to a bed in a hospital in San Francisco. I don't usually black out drunk, but I did that time. I didn't remember any of it, but when they released me, one of the security guards said something to me, "you need to get your shit together. Yelling at cops? You want to get back to Oregon, right?" Another security guard said something like, "are you going to tell all of them up in Oregon that we do you like this down here?" I said, "yup."

I woke up strapped to a hospital bed, arms and legs tied. I tried to reach the straps with my mouth to untie them, but to no avail.

The good news was, my carry on backpack was there with me at the hospital, and there was still a little Baijiu left, so I got to hit it when they let me out.
#15208304
colliric wrote:Cruise ship staff already have that right available to them in order to avoid disrupting the trip, and they also have the means to do it. Brigs are still a part of almost every modern naval and commercial ship. You'll probably argue they also have the space and extra crewmembers to do it more safely, but that's besides the point to me. I mean we have modern emergency restraint technology too.


I doubt that you understand brigs correctly, and your supposition is almost certainly incorrect in some important ways.

But even if ships do it, I still do not think they should have the right either.
#15208309
Pants-of-dog wrote:But even if ships do it, I still do not think they should have the right either.


The Brig is needed in case a passenger or crew member breaks the law whilst on board the ship and needs to be arrested and detained until the authorities can organise to receive them at the next port or when they return back home.

For example, they commit a murder or robbery whilst on board. But they can also use it to temporarily detain and restrain unruly passengers causing trouble for the others.

For similar reasons they also have a morgue in case someone dies on board.

Returning to port immediately will wreck the other cruise passengers holidays and is a waste of fuel.
#15208316
@colliric

None of that is relevant to how planes currently operate.

In terms of the OP, the airline was forced by this unmasked person to return to its point of departure. To continue with this person unmasked would have been to risk the health and safety of everyone else on board. Assaulting and confining this person is a crime, despite your fantasies, so that option was not available.

Once this person chose to be unmasked, the airline was forced by policies to do what they did.

If you wish to argue that jet fuel and climate change are important, then this unmasked person should be fined for the cost of said fuel and the cost of removing the carbon from the atmosphere.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

A lot of patriotic russian bloggers have become cr[…]

Yes. We agreed earlier in the thread that the on[…]

https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-defends-sendi[…]

But is it also trans-gendering and it what directi[…]