Jet2 Couple. Greedy or within their rights?

[Witchofzog]

I personally call greedy. They helped Jet2 staff restrain a woman who was trying to open the doors on a flight which was amazingly brave. Apparently this woman was acting crazed. But since they have heard that Jet2 are seeking 85k from the woman for the cost of diverting the flight etc, they are demanding a share in this. Apparently being given free drinks was an insult and they want money.

I think they are just being bloody greedy. What do you think?

I am sorry I can't supply a link as my phone won't let me

YANBu, I read that earlier. I mean if they hadn't helped and she got the door open they'd all have been dead. So really surely that's their reward - they lived!

They won't see a penny, anyhow.

Ridiculously greedy. They helped to save their own lives FFS!
Am sure they intervened for their own safety, not for the airline company, crew or other passengers.

I guess they will claim that Jet2 shouldn't have continued to serve her alcohol if she was that drunk.

And they can probably claim for emotional trauma - thinking the plane could crash etc etc

I reckon they have a chance.

@yabbers given the state she was in on the video I don't believe for a second she had only had alcohol. This also happened early on in the flight so the airline could not be responsible for what she had drunk. The airport - maybe, but again, did she drink in the airport or on the way to the airport? Was it whatever she had taken that took time to kick in and is it fortunate it didn't happen in the airport? Because if it did the whole airport would probably have been shut down for a period of time.

@askingquestionsallthetime

They are there to shoot the plane down if necessary, as someone else already said.

If it's a choice between a crazed lunatic getting hold of the controls and bringing a plane down onto, for example, a crowded city or shooting it down over the countryside then that's what they would do.

Things changed after 9/11 and it's now part of the RAF QRF's remit to make sure no one can use a passenger plane as a weapon, whatever the circumstances.

I read that in this case the fact they were sent to intercept the plane was because the message from the crew implied the passenger might have tried to get into the cockpit. Otherwise they would have just landed normally at the nearest airport.

Just to put anyone's mind at rest.
The door cannot be opened while the aircraft is in flight.
You can try as hard as you like, but it will not open.

The alternative to them intervening was at best cabin crew being injured, at worst a major incident happening on their flight.

Agree with jellybaby

They were brave - but so might I be if the alternative was having the plane depressurise and everyone n it (including myself) being plunged into a fiery hell!

What prompted this woman to try to open the doors?

Wasshe druk/ high? If so sh should not have been allowed to fly.

Was she ill/ terrified? If so, I doubt she' try to fly again.

As a PP has said- this is sending a message to any other idiots out there who might cause trouble on flights.

Jest2 won't actually expect to getaway cash - they are probably just sick of loutish behaviour.

I can’t believe people are calling the couple ‘greedy’. Jet2 should have immediately offered a reward. I notice none of the in-flight crew managed to restrain this woman! Why should the airline get £85k and the people who actually DID something are meant to be happy with a free G&T?

Comforted that the door can't be opened (thank you, for that info, UpHere)

Less happy that any plane risks being shot down if there is a disruptive twat on board . . .

Greedy and after their 15 mins of fame. They are after an invite onto a "celebrity show" no doubt next.

Friend is a paramedic and on a flight a few years ago she saved someone's life who was choking, avoided the flight being diverted.
She got a nice thank you letter from Thomson.

Wrong to expect money although maybe a pair of free flights would be a kind gesture of appreciation?

Agree with StillCoughing

It shouldn't have been up to the passengers to restrain the woman. The situation should not have happened. You buy a plane ticket, you expect to arrive at your destination without incident, and any incidents that do occurred are dealt with by the crew and suitable compensation is offered for any inconvenience.

They will get their money @schadenfreudePersonified as i said in my last post
Glad that you feel reassured by my post on door opening.

They will be trying to recover it from from her travel insurance. If a plane has to make a forced landing for medical conditions the airline claims from the insurance.

Why should the airline get £85k and the people who actually DID something are meant to be happy with a free G&T?

The airline isn't "getting" £85k, it's seeking to recover the substantial financial costs they incurred. What financial costs did this couple incur?

It'll help me sleep tonight UpHere.

The image of an enormous Goldfinger being sucked through a tiny window mid-flight still haunts me . . . .

What I always wonder when things like this happen is what good a couple of Tornado aircraft "escorting" a plane (when an incident is over) can possibly do?

If somebody hijacks a plane and tries to fly it over London they'd shoot it down rather than see it deliberately flown into Parliament/Buckingham Palace/The Shard. Such is the legacy of 9/11.

the airline must take responsibility for serving her so much alcohol surely?

The plane took off at 4.50 and she had kicked off enough for it to be turned round by 5.15. There’s no way they’d even have begun the drinks service by then.

And yes, doors can’t be opened in flight. Physics doesn’t allow it. a pilot explains

If they could be opened it would not be safe to have the door latches accessible to the public during the flight, regardless of the need to open them quickly in an emergency.

Notcopingwellhere Then they shouldn't have let her on that drunk?

Can't rember the door opening sequence of that aircraft but its not quite that simple the cockpit has to enable it.

85K ? Its to make an example of her I very much doubt if it will ever get paid.

And yes! beware the RAF alongside there terribly niace chaps but they will if their told to disable an aircraft;!

4.50 in the morning?

Greedy, your reward for restraining the passenger is the fact that no one got sucked out of a plane door and the plane didn't crash.
They should breathe a big sigh of relief and be grateful. They saved themselves as much as anyone else.

@LostinNorfolk
Airlines have their own insurance against the cost of medical diversion. They don’t claim on the passenger’s medical insurance. The passenger’s medical insurance is relevant when the passenger lands and is treated by medical authorities at destination as that cost does not fall to be paid by the airline.

Airlines may also have insurance against costs incurred by unruly passengers but their insurers may well decide to pursue the unruly passenger and recover what has been paid out. That is because the unruly passenger is at fault, whereas a passenger who suffers a health problem is not at fault.

@gamerwidow but they should never have had to do it. They should never have been put into the position of potentially being sucked out of a pane door.