MilesBuzz! - Feinstein asks airlines to limit passengers to 2 drinks

"Feinstein asks airlines to limit passengers to 2 drinks/She says measure would fight 'air rage'"

See:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/c/a/2001/07/14/MN178377.D=TL


Now, for my body type, etc. I can drink nearly two drinks PER HOUR and still be legal to DRIVE.

Now, I don't generally get sauced on my flights -- but a pre-departure mimosa, a couple of (those small) glasses of wine with dinner, and perhaps some grand marnier with my ice cream sunday or some bailey's or kahlua in my coffee with dessert. This doesn't make me the slightest bit tipsy, but does help me enjoy an IAD-SFO transcon.

Mostly I will just be really ticked at Senator Feinstein if the airlines comply.

There's no such thing as "voluntary" when faced with a gun (legislation).

Separately, I'd be curious to know the breakdown of air rage incidents --
how many involve drunken passengers, and of those how many are flying employee class? (perhaps it's just my classist instincts, but I would imagine air rage is more likely to occur in back?)

While I don't think imposing a strict limit is necessarily the answer, I think flight attendants need to be more aware of how many drinks they are giving passengers. I was once sitting in front of a couple of young college-age guys who were clearly somewhat buzzed even before we took off. After flirting big time with the flight attendant, they were given at least 5 or 6 more drinks each, some of which were "on the house." By the time we landed they were rowdy, obnoxious, and had spilled a significant amount of their last drinks on themselves. Fortunately, nothing serious happened. IMHO, the FA should have stopped serving them after the first one. If FAs can't be responsible for preventing pax from getting drunk, who should be?

I agree with robinhood that the FA's need to pay attention to the specific case. Are airlines any different than bars when it comes to serving drinks? It's been established that bars are responsible for making sure their patrons don't get sauced and then go driving into the night. Most of us land and pick up a rental car or our own car on the way home. I also think that the airlines are being a bit two faced with the alcohol since they're making money on the deal, but yet also complain it's causing problems. Virgin has print ads showing their new bar in business class on the NY-LHR route. Does it matter that we're at 30,000?

I agree that a set limit is inappropriate, and I get sloshed as the first drink is set down on my tray! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

More appropriate, methinks are (as pointed out above) common sense serving techniques by the FA's. I know how difficult that can be since each pax (depending on the aircraft and the cabin) might be served by a few different FA's through a flight. But, I've been on flights where someone who had clearly had enough was practically hooked up to a liquor IV to the galley anyway.

It also seems to me a few of the air rage incidents I've read about involved empty bottles. THAT should be a primary issue-- pax who serve themselves!

I'm afraid I don't have a solution for that one. I know I couldn't handle an FA's job for more than one short flight. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Any limit would be hard to enforce. People flying on a one hour flight might be challenged to drink two drinks, and passengers on a 15 hour flight should be able to handle more than 2 drinks.

How would they enforce this, stamp your forehead everytime you have a drink?

Gleff,

Thanks for the link, but it didn't work. I posted another one here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/002806.html) in the news forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forumcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=In+The+News:+Miles+and+Points&number=109&DaysPrune=5&LastLogin=). http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cool.gif

Erik.

This rule would spawn new problems. Passengers would start tanking up at airport bars before departure and smuggling their own booze (minis, most likely) onto flights. Let FAs follow the same rules as bartenders. When a passenger has had enough, cut him or her off.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robinhood:
If FAs can't be responsible for preventing pax from getting drunk, who should be?</font>

Though I know what your point was, this question struck me as human. My gut instinct is to go, "Uh, the passenger?"

I was on a flight yesterday and ordered 2 drinks. I like to throw down a few quickly because it's the only way I can fall asleep on a flight. As I was preparing to lift my glass and take my first sip (no previous drinks at all that day)I hit the straw with my hand and spilled it all over myself. Did I appear drunk? Should I be served any more?

I had a total of 4 drinks in the first 1 1/2 hours of the flight. Then I took a nap the rest of the way.

I guess my point is that there is no way a fair limit can be set. Every one is different and has a different tolerance for drinking.

Word here from one who serves herself whilst onboard. Most times its not a problem, but once an FA did stop me from opening one of the bottles I brought with me.

Why do I bring my own? Because I like wine and I don't believe flying commercial means I should be forced to drink that cheap headache wine they serve. So, I bring a wine bag that holds an opener, a couple bottles and a glass or two, then I'm set.

I don't know what Diane would make of this, maybe some legislation would address it under subsection 3.2.01, part 6, sub-part of 4.

Anyway, thanks for the thread. Here I thought they frowned on me bringing on my own wine because I was avoiding some type of corkage fee!

Feinstein must be sauced on something to think that a mandated drink limit work. I agree with a previous post that the airport bars would cater to many fliers and would likely increase drunk and disorderly passengers.

I haven't seen many cases of drunk passengers, but there are two that come to mind. Both were where booze was complimentary, once in domestic first and the second in international coach. One of these incidents was quite ugly where the passenger was ultimately refused more alcohol by the flight attendant, and he started verbally abusing the FA.

I don't think that any legislation is needed, but maybe some guidelines are needed on how to handle the (rare) problem cases.

I have seen 2 serious cases of drunken behavior. The proposed rule would not have helped in either case.

1. Man got on the plane stumbling. He had one or 2 more. Then started getting upset that he could not smoke. We were 3 hours in a line in MSP. Flight was to RST only 80 miles away. But there was an ice storm. In the end FBI removed the passenger.

2. On flight from SYD-LAX in F with my wife. Across the room was a 65-year-old couple, both drunk when they got on and getting worse. The swearing at each other was followed by physical violence. The crew intervened and I think they eventually just passed out.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lisamcgu:
Word here from one who serves herself whilst onboard. Most times its not a problem, but once an FA did stop me from opening one of the bottles I brought with me.

</font>

The FAs can receive a large fine if passengers consume alcohol brought on board - in the States at least.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lisamcgu:
Word here from one who serves herself whilst onboard. Most times its not a problem, but once an FA did stop me from opening one of the bottles I brought with me.

Why do I bring my own? Because I like wine and I don't believe flying commercial means I should be forced to drink that cheap headache wine they serve. So, I bring a wine bag that holds an opener, a couple bottles and a glass or two, then I'm set.
</font>

Whoa! So if you ate dinner at a nice restaurant and didn't like the wine they served there, would you bring your own? Why should flights be any different? I believe most states have laws regarding drinking in public places (and bringing your own booze to places that serve it), otherwise we'd have folks carting six packs into movie theatres and flasks into libraries.

To that end, where is it written that we as pax have a right to copious amounts of alcohol on our flights? In that case why don't we have bars that fly around in circles above each city, landing every 4 hours to refuel and refill? (LushAir flight 343 now departing date S11...*hic*) How about we allow pony kegs as carryons? Distribute martini shakers and swizzle sticks instead of pillows and blankets...mix your own!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dreadmon:
Whoa! So if you ate dinner at a nice restaurant and didn't like the wine they served there, would you bring your own? </font>

Yes!

Most restaurants here in the states will charge a corkage fee.. but if I'm having a special dinner I'll often bring along a correspondingly special bottle of wine.

For any DC folks out there, Melrose at the Park Hyatt waives the corkage fee on Sunday nights.. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I like my wine on those long international flights I make every few weeks, and I'll have as much of it as I can responsibly handle.

F**k you very much, Senator Feinstein.

Okay, Senator Feinstein, lets do a compromise on this. I will limit myself to two drinks in an airplane if you limit yourself to two terms in the US Senate.

And for those bringing their own nice special booze aboard, I was told this is OK, but it must be served to you by a FA.

MisterNice

Oh dear, this is the way to hell being paved with good intentions. I hate drunks on airplanes I really really do, but do we have to spoil life for everybody because of the actions of a minority.

I think that the person who made the comment about having seen most abuse where the alchohol was free is pertinent. I still think that whatever they do, people will still find a way. They take their own drink on "dry" airlines, and sup duty-free if they are denied. Is this is the Senator who was Gore's 2IC? Please excuse my ignorance, but I can barely take an interest in our own politicians let alone yours?! I am glad that you have (like ourselves) so little else to concern the legislators

I guess there isnt anything more important in the federal govt to worry about

What a stupid idea. Why is it that every time there's a small problem with a small number of people, the solution is to pass a big, repressive law?? Make individual people responsible for their own actions, enforce any applicable, sensible laws, and REPEAL laws that have outlived their usefulness or no longer make sense. I wish that every time a law was passed, another had to come off the books until our legal system was "cleaned up" and less complicated.

------------------
"Sire, it is not a revolt. It is a Revolution!"

I agree with MisterNice, Paul Palmer, THX1138 and Spiff! Don't these officials have more important things to do? My God, I live in California and am stuck with Feinstein for the time being...
I think each airline can regulate themselves regarding the "alcohol problem".

Preserve the gridlock!

Senator Feinstein has confused the words "democrat" and "demagogue".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PAUL PALMER:
Is this is the Senator who was Gore's 2IC? </font>

No, thank God. (can you imagine "Vice President Feinstein?" Even the possibility would have me calling real estate agents all over Canada...)

BTW, with regard to the subject of the thread, whatever happened to individuals taking responsibility for their actions?

[This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 07-16-2001).]

I read this and can only shake my head.

Sure, it's a challenge to come up with a solution to the problem of air rage, and an arbitrary two-drink limit may not be the answer (but two or three drinks is probably about right for the majority of Americans who are not overweight). Everytime I hear a story where an innocent pax or airline employee gets abused by a drunk pax, I feel something needs to get done. Fortunately, air rage is not as common as drunk driving, but I feel that sitting next to an obnoxious drunk on an airplane is a bigger infringement on my rights than what Senator may be Feinstein proposing.

I personally think a better response is to raise the price of drinks to something closer to $10 a shot and to abolish free drinks on international flights...

Also, while the majority of the posts here are against this Feinstein idea, I believe that there is a silent majority of regular folks and frequent fliers who would support some form of control on onboard drinking.

On a nonstop flight from JFK-HKG (a 16 hour flight!) in the upper deck of a 747 recently, only 10 or so "minis" were consumed (the airline had stocked something like 150) by the 25-plus C pax. Not everyone feels they have to drink when they travel.

Feinstein and her communist agenda continue to be an embarrassment to CA and the nation! This is just another example of her absurd, illogical, and undemocratic approach towards legislation. For someone who is "pro-choice" she sure doesn't want us to have much control over our bodies. The woman is off her rocker.

But maybe I'm just saying that because I'm still feeling the effects of the 3 drinks I had on my way back to LAX from DTW last night. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MisterNice:
Okay, Senator Feinstein, lets do a compromise on this. I will limit myself to two drinks in an airplane if you limit yourself to two terms in the US Senate.

And for those bringing their own nice special booze aboard, I was told this is OK, but it must be served to you by a FA.

MisterNice</font>


LOL..just learn with most of us in California learned..ignore Feinstein.

I've never been a fan of too much regulation. However, I've seen my share of drunks on planes and abuse by drunks to think that a limit or ban on alcohol may not be such a bad idea.

Wouldn't it perhaps be a better idea to just ban the "drunks"? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Sorry, but the ends do not justify the means.

The skies are not filled with skid row passengers as such a bill might lead us to believe. People who fly plastered are a tiny, tiny minority of the thousands of people who take to the skies each day. We don't need legislation that unfairly affects the overwhelming majority of passengers who drink responsibly.

It's this kind of stupid, knee-jerk legislation that really annoys me. A small number of people can't do Z (insert noun or verb here) responsibly, so let's forbid Z.

Why don't we take this idiotic proposition a step further. Someone was killed by a speeding motorist. Let's ban cars. Children have been injured while riding skateboards, let's ban them too. Cell phones might cause cancer, let's ban them as well. Somebody spilled coffee on themselves and died from the burns, let's ban coffee and all hot drinks for that matter. If we can save just one life by banning hot drinks, the world will be a safer, happier place.

Let's face it, the world is not a 100% safe place. You can either accept that and expect responsible behavior out of people, enforcable by law or you can try to regulate/restrict the world until each of us has his/her own nice safe padded room. For people who prefer option B, instead of flying, why not just stay home each day, it's so much safer!

"Smithers, who is that ignoramus??"

------------------
"Sire, it is not a revolt. It is a Revolution!"

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 07-16-2001).]

Feinstein ... what an officious twit!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:
Wouldn't it perhaps be a better idea to just ban the "drunks"? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif</font>

doc, this is by far the simplest solution. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Having flown over 2.5 million miles sofar (over 1 1/4 of it on UA) I have yet to encounter a single incident, but have always enjoyed peaceful flights in this regard.

This is another example of a politician creating a "problem" out of an absolute non-issue by and large.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cesco.g:
This is another example of a politician creating a "problem" out of an absolute non-issue by and large.</font>

I guess that is why the Flight Attendants union has made a big fuss over air rage... Maybe it's just in their imagination.

I am also one of those who thinks that the FAs often are responsible for the problems created by inebriated passengers.

I have been subject several times to this situation: After having asked a couple of times for a refill of wine after having finished dinner, sometimes the FA goes and fills a large glass up to the rim with wine. I am not sure of her intentions, but I get annoyed for several reasos: 1) Is she trying to tell me "you drink too much"? 2) Is she just saying "here have a lot and do not call me anymore for a refill as I am tired of you keeping to ask for more"? 3)I find it lacking class drinking wine from a regular glass that is full of wine.

Often, I noticed that when asking for one more drink, the FAs would give a few of the mini bottles to the passenger. It is as if the FAs are trying to save themselves from having to come again through the cabin to serve more drinks. They would rather give lots of drinks to passengers before they even ask.

------------------
The trouble with resisting temptation is...that you may not get another chance

[This message has been edited by Anagnorisis (edited 07-16-2001).]

Originally posted by dreadmon:

Whoa! So if you ate dinner at a nice restaurant and didn't like the wine they served there, would you bring your own? I believe most states have laws regarding drinking in public places (and bringing your own booze to places that serve it), ...
-----------------------------------
Reply posted by gleff:

Yes!

Most restaurants here in the states will charge a corkage fee.. but if I'm having a special dinner I'll often bring along a correspondingly special bottle of wine.

For any DC folks out there, Melrose at the Park Hyatt waives the corkage fee on Sunday nights..
__________________________

Hey, Thanks gleff! If you're ever flying into SNA, CA, let me know, and I'll give you the names of the restaurants around here that waive the corkage fee.

And, MisterNice, thanks for the tip on letting the FAs serve it - I'll test it on my next flight.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LAX 1K:

LOL..just learn with most of us in California learned..ignore Feinstein.</font>

I didn't vote for her

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
It's this kind of stupid, knee-jerk legislation that really annoys me.
</font>

Amen!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fallinasleep:
I guess that is why the Flight Attendants union has made a big fuss over air rage... Maybe it's just in their imagination.
</font>

Perhaps. Or more likely is that they wish to reduce their workload. After all, flight attendants are onboard primarily for your safety.

As a Republican, I find it refreshing that after 6 months of Bush's presidency, this is all she has to complain about.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by se94583:
As a Republican, I find it refreshing that after 6 months of Bush's presidency, this is all she has to complain about.

</font>

Oh, there's plenty more. It's just that as a Republican, you don't want to listen.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robinhood:
Oh, there's plenty more. It's just that as a Republican, you don't want to listen.

</font>

All I've got to say is:

ROFLMAO!!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Perhaps a two drink minimum in the Senate would be more productive? Nah...it would never fly.

Happy Travels

As the resident Objectivist, well, I'm never happy about who occupies the White House. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 07-18-2001).]

http://216.33.240.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=94552269e87dff592fca2bcdbc7fc3c1&lat=995518063&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2etownhall%2ecom%2fco lumnists%2fdebrasaunders%2fds2001 0719%2eshtml

Debra Saunders

July 19, 2001

Feinstein Should Learn Her Limit

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., wants to butt into your life again. Last week, she sent a letter to the CEOs of seven major airlines, warning that if they don't implement rules that limit passengers to two drinks on domestic flights, "I am prepared to proceed with legislation."

Feinstein, you see, isn't aware that when people say, "There ought to be a law ..." it's just an expression. Why has the good senator decided that she can tell you how much you can drink on a plane? "In view of the 5,000 'air rage' incidents each year," she wrote, "I believe it is time for the airline industry to set standards voluntarily, or else Congress may step in."

Was there a study definitively linking alcohol to air rage that prompted Feinstein to threaten to slap the airlines with the heavy hand of federal law? No. A spokesman explained, "We have anecdotal evidence."

How special. Feinstein apparently doesn't need facts or research to propose laws that limit other people's freedom. She's heard anecdotes.

For those of you who are interested in facts, here are a few: The Air Transport Association, the lobbyist group for the major carriers, says that there were 610 million domestic passengers last year. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, 314 of these passengers were cited for unruly conduct.

This year, perhaps because of increased attention to the issue, there have been fewer citations -- 100 as of June 15. The FAA doesn't know how many were alcohol-related.

As Michael Wascom of the Air Transport Association noted, "We don't think that the hundreds of millions of law-abiding, cooperative passengers should be unilaterally penalized for the disruptive actions of a few."

What about Feinstein's claim that there are 5,000 "air rage" incidents annually? It's more factoid than fact. The number comes from the Air Transport Association, and it includes rude, disruptive behavior -- a loudmouth grousing about not making it into first class for example -- that does not result in legal action.

Wascom said the ATA used a ballpark figure -- between 3,000 and 4,000 air-rage incidents -- that came from feedback from carriers. (In other words, there is no hard data.) In other stories, advocates have racheted the number up to 4,000 to 5,000. Feinstein, her office confirmed, then took 4,000 to 5,000 to mean: 5,000. Call it inflated numbers for inflated lawmaking.

Even the Association of Flight Attendants -- which wants tighter rules on drinking and more training -- hasn't signed off on the idea. Said spokesperson Dawn Deeks, "At this point, we'd have to wait and see what the legislation actually asks for." It's hard to figure how flight attendants are supposed to keep track of who gets two drinks on a big flight. And: "We have to examine whether passengers drink more before they get on the flight."

I should think that flight attendants would appreciate having the discretion to dispense a third drink to a nervous flier -- especially when rules forbid them to serve drunken passengers and penalties for unruly plane behavior are steep.

Which leaves us with the question about what to do about politicians who are drunk with power? Hmmmm. Maybe a limit to two laws and two heavy-handed threats per year. Then maybe Feinstein would insist on hard facts before proposing to infringe on other people's rights.

All I have to say is: "give me a break".

More people flying = more porblems...but people have been drinking and flying since the Wright Brothers.

eom.

President Spiff?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by essxjay:
As the resident Objectivist, well, I'm never happy about who occupies the White House. ;)</font>

All this talk of booze in airline cabins and no one's mentioned that a pressurized airline cabin with dry, re-circulated air is a terrible place to consume alcohol?

In fact, my guess is that the atmospheric conditions exacerbate the tendency of some people to turn mean after a few drinks. What they can handle on the ground with no problem might actually cause a different result on an airplane.

While I do enjoy my cocktails, I've found that I just don't enjoy their effects at 35,000 feet as much as I used to, so I tend to pass on the bloodies more often than not.

I do think Feinstein's two drink idea is utterly ridiculous, of course.

Wow, 2 drink limit? I am sure the bean counters in Accounting are in agreement with the Feinstein's proposal. Why do we have to make so many rules and regulations for everything. Shouldn't it just be like a bar, if you see someone inebriated, you cut them off. Now we expect FAs to keep track of number of drinks!?! Wouldn't this be a cause for air rage by itself. "Whaddya mean I limited to 2 drinks on a 8 hour flight, come here you!"

Do we need the rules or can we just practice commmon sense. I have seen FAs act and think quickly on their feet.

Feinstein may have a point ... and the last post helps to make it. If FA's are able to point to a regulation limiting alcohol consumption ("sorry, there is a two drink maximum"), it could make their jobs easier. It would remove or limit the "discretion" issue. In other words, the FA would no longer have to deal with telling an intoxicated passenger that he was being "cut off," and then having to explain why the person across the aisle (who may be better at "holding his booze") can continue being served. Further back in this string there is a post that probably summarized the problem best ... at the end of the day, it is disingenuous of the airlines to make alcohol available and look upon it as a profit-making venture, and then later complain about the effects.

Its not the onboard drinks that are the problem, its the people coming onboard already tanked from the airport bars. And nobody in their right mind would want to close that cash-cow.


In my experience, even in first, the FA's discretly cut people off by not coming around as often, etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">.[/b]

And for those bringing their own nice special booze aboard, I was told this is OK, but it must be served to you by a FA.

MisterNice[/B]</font>

This policy is mainly for special occasions-someone proposes on a flight, anniversary, etc. It is not and never was meant as a way to
a) get around the cost of alcohol in coach
b) BYOB
c) have the "right" to demand service as long as there was some of your own stash left.

As a FA, I am required to stop someone from consuming from his/her own supply as it is an FAA reg. We are also required to discontinue serving anyone that "appears to be intoxicated". Unfortunately, it takes a strong gut to cut someone off and many FA's are afraid of the negative repercussions that sometimes result. Management has created its own monster here. For many years in the 90's it was constantly "Accomodate the customer. The customer is ALWAYS right.",etc. When a customer was "cut off" and then wrote in to complain about the bad service', never mentioning their alcohol consumption, the employee would be counselled or reprimanded for creating an unhappy customer. After being denied further alcohol service on one flight, the passenger got off the aircraft and told the Passenger Service Agent meeting the flight that he had witnessed the FA using cocaine on the flight! She had to submit to a drug test since an accusation had been made. All because someone didn't get their way.

I personally do not have a problem cutting someone off if they've gotten loud, etc. Usually, if someone is really knocking 'em back I'll kindly ask if someone will be picking them up from the airport or if they plan to drive. Most folks are not offended by this and some have even thanked me for my concern.

Government regs on limiting alcohol service is NOT the answer. I would like to see management standing behind the decisions of its front line employees instead of putting us between a rock and a hard place http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The SF Examiner had a great headline over a piece written by Warren Hinckle it was...."DiFi no on fly High".

The column basically said what has been said here that the people who want to drink will drink more in the lounges and bring their own booze on board. Also stated that people have been drinking onboard since the beginning, even having cocktail lounges in the bumps on the early 747's w/o incident till the airlines started treating people poorly, then voila - air rage!

In defense of our outstanding Senator from California, she is not proposing lesiglation, but voluntarylimits by the airlines.

When doing something, you should always go all the way..... PROHIBITION here we come.. woohoo!

I have flown over 3,000 commerial flights and have never encountered anything. Diana Feinstein is such a fraud anyway. She promised to vote for a balanced budget if re-elected. Within a year she voted against it. What does that tell you about integrity.

quote by MisterNice:

And for those bringing their own nice special booze aboard, I was told this is OK, but it must be served to you by a FA.
_____________________

Originally posted by Skymaid80:

This policy is mainly for special occasions-someone proposes on a flight, anniversary, etc. It is not and never was meant as a way to
a) get around the cost of alcohol in coach
b) BYOB
c) have the "right" to demand service as long as there was some of your own stash left.
___________________________

I bring my own wine for exactly the first reason you mention. To me, it makes flying more like a pleasant occassion and I believe the FAs I've encountered, with a friendlier, more positive outlook, see this.

And MisterNice goes along when he states, "for those bringing their own nice special booze aboard." He has probably run into the same type of FAs, agreeable ones, who understand this and don't automatically think those with nice i.e. expensive bottles are bringing them aboard for one of the reasons you lament.

I noticed most of your long, opinionated post related to cutting off those who have drank too much, in fact all of the post after the first paragraph related to just that. It would seem you just used MisterNice's post as a springboard, so you probably didn't care that your rebuttal made no sense to the point he and I were making, as long as it seemed, in your mind, to serve as a seque into what you wanted to say.

But, if you indeed have such a harsh outlook, for the sake of those of us who are trying to change our flight from a tense, watchful, wary, to be avoided event, as how you, seemingly hardened, want us to look at it, into a special occassion i.e. a pleasant, quaint, nice part of our trip, would it be too much to look, as most other FAs do, upon those of us opening a special bottle from our own "stash" (wine cellars), as doing just that, enjoying a special occassion?

lisamcgu

[This message has been edited by lisamcgu (edited 07-23-2001).]

Typical silliness in government. The Senator is clearly grandstanding on an issue she wishes to make her own. Whatever 'law' the US passes, if it chooses to waste it's time and money, is irrelevant in other countries, something that Ms. US centric Feinstein probably forgets about.
Let the market dictate policy, please. Airlines are not primarily in the bar business, and will seek limits on drinks if prudent.

Cheers to one and all!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SFOPIT:
Whatever 'law' the US passes, if it chooses to waste it's time and money, is irrelevant in other countries, something that Ms. US centric Feinstein probably forgets about.
</font>
Like I said (earlier), there is no lawbeing proposed.

Last week, she sent a letter to the CEOs of seven major airlines, warning that if they don't implement rules that limit passengers to two drinks on domestic flights, "I am prepared to proceed with legislation."

Opus-
Considering the quote from her letter in my original post above, I don't see how you can say DiFi is not "proposing" a new law. She clearly wants to limit onboard drinks but would rather coerce the airlines into doing it "voluntarily" before "proceeding with legislation".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Top Tier:
I don't see how you can say DiFi is not "proposing" a new law. She clearly wants to limit onboard drinks but would rather coerce the airlines into doing it "voluntarily" before "proceeding with legislation".

</font>

If she were proposing a new law, she would have introduced a bill in the Senate. It's not all that hard to do, really (especially if you're a U.S. Senator).

She hasn't, because she knows it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at passing.

So all she can do to draw attention to herself is send a letter to the CEOs, and announce it to the media. This guise of asking the airlines to institute a "voluntary" policy only proves that she knows there's nothing she can really do about it, but she's banking that some people are stupid enough to think that she can.

How typical.

Consider this scenario: What if someone you knew died in an airline accident caused by the actions of a drunken passenger?

It will only be a matter of time before some drunkard manages to break into a cockpit and causes such a tragedy... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Aren't some sober folks also kinda' nasty and perhaps a bit demented and possibly violent too? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I fly back and forth to Hawaii a minimum of 8x a year, these flights tend to have more of a party atmosphere than say a flight SFO-ORD. Even on the AM flights people tend to start the day off with a champagne or Mimosa and continue with MaiTais, etc. (most are starting a well earned vacation). In the course of this 5+ hour flight I have never seen anyone get visibly drunk or disruptive,(much less storm the cockpit) I think this whole issue is way overblown.

Tragic as such an event might be, I'd still not be so reactionary as to propose a set limit on the number of drinks a person may consume. Individuals must be accountable for their own actions without blanket legislation for the population at large.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by avek00:
Consider this scenario: What if someone you knew died in an airline accident caused by the actions of a drunken passenger?

It will only be a matter of time before some drunkard manages to break into a cockpit and causes such a tragedy... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif</font>



------------------
"Sire, it is not a revolt. It is a Revolution!"

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:
Aren't some sober folks also kinda' nasty and perhaps a bit demented and possibly violent too?</font>

I am. Especially before coffee! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Spiff, what you say makes a good deal of sense.

However, having said that,let me say this: Since when, in recent years, does good sense have ANYthing to do with anything??

Haven't you heard the new mantra--we are not responsible for our actions! It is (fill in the blank here...) __________'s fault.

We do not need to hear any nonsense about responsibility, because none of us are responsible for our actions.

So there.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

I just had a thought, alcohol has been a part of air travel since the very begining with very few instances of air rage until recently.

Conversely, Smoking has only been restricted/banned in airports and aircraft for a relatively short time and in the same period air rage cases have dramatically increased, perhaps a Senator from a tobacco state could send a letter to the Airlines asking them to provide two cigarettes and a smoking lounge area to each passenger in order to prevent air rage.

(Tongue only partially in cheek)

1) for our under-21 FTers, have you been able to get an alcoholic drink on board an airplane in the U.S.? do flight attendants card pax who look young?

2a) would someone please refresh my memory as to why the airlines no longer permit smoking on aircraft. did the airlines volunteer? did pax demand it? was it in response to flight attendants threatening a lawsuit against the airlines? did the government pass a law?

2b) is air travel more pleasant now that all domestic flights in the U.S. are non smoking?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Since when in recent years does good sense have ANYthing to do with anything??</font>

Since always. Airlines may not be perfect in their ground practices, but if their equipment dropped from the sky on a regular basis, anything would not = anything. Life and not-life are distinct concepts.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">We do not need to hear any nonsense about responsibility, because none of us are responsible for our actions.</font>

How’s that? If we’re capable grasping the concept of nonsense, then we are capable of evaluating the counter-argument.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Leisuremiles:

Conversely, Smoking has only been restricted/banned in airports and aircraft for a relatively short time and in the same period air rage cases have dramatically increased, perhaps a Senator from a tobacco state could send a letter to the Airlines asking them to provide two cigarettes and a smoking lounge area to each passenger in order to prevent air rage.

(Tongue only partially in cheek) </font>

Actually, Sabena does take this approach, sort of. I was looking at their website because my daughter was flying with them, and in their Q&A section, they say they offer nicotine gum to those pax for which a nonsmoking flight is a serious problem!

Raising a Glass Or Two -- No More -- To Safety in Flight

By Keith L. Alexander
Wednesday, July 25, 2001; Page E01

Imagine this future: You've closed a big deal or, better yet, you've blown a big deal and you're getting on the red-eye at LAX for the five-hour flight to Dulles. You order a double martini, then ask for another.

No can do, says the flight attendant. Two little bottles of booze is the limit. You're looking at 4 hours and 50 minutes of seltzer water and a movie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/columns/workplace/businessclass/A45259-2001Jul24.html

Essxjay -

I am in complete agreement with you!

What I was doing there was playing devil's advocate, acting like those too-many people who always blame society for their own irresponsible behavior instead of themselves.

I guess I should have wrapped the whole post in a smiley face or something. I am sorry if I led you astray by what I wrote.

Are we friends again? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by hnechets (edited 07-25-2001).]

You know, Sen. Feinstein may have a point. I think the airlines SHOULD set a limit.

My only suggested modification to the esteemed Senator's plan is to change the limit....to 14 (but only for domestic flights).

Sorry for the rant, hnechets. I, too, really go ballistic over the blame game.

Buds again? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

{durned dupes}

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 07-25-2001).]

I'm strongly in favor of letting the FA's retain discretion on what to serve. Trying to slap an uniform limit on such a diverse a flying population is just foolishness. 2 drinks can get someone sloshed, loud, and angry while another passenger can down 6 or 8 and simply fall asleep.

The FAs, being bartenders of sorts, should get to draw the line. If it's necessary to cut them off, the FA should inform other members of the flight crew that this particular passenger is cut off, so he doesn't get served by another FA unaware of this. A note should be made in the log that the passenger was refused further alcohol service, as defense against future complaints.

Better this than a draconian policy which seek to turn FA's into automatons who must do everything according to policy instead of treating them like the well-trained professionals they are.

Hey, we've never been anything else, essxjay.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

{durned dupes}
Ditto...

[This message has been edited by hnechets (edited 07-25-2001).]

Hey, we've never been anything else, essxjay.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Maybe Ms. Feinstein forgot, but I think she was there;

In 1919 the US Congress (Senate Included) passed the Amendment XVIII (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxviii.html) (Prohibiting the sale, manufacture, transportation, importation & exportation of intoxicating liquors) Now, let recall, did this operation of law yeild the desired result? Well if that result was make some mobsters & the Kennedy's wealthy then it did.

But alas,
Amentment XXI (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxi.html) (Repealed Amendment XVIII).
So I guess it didn't quite work as expected, or maybe it just helped to make a big mess even messier.

Why on earth would she think that a legislative body could do what common sense cannot? This type of attitude blows me away.

[This message has been edited by Dudemon (edited 07-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Dudemon (edited 08-05-2001).]

I guess common sense is most important.

1. From the F-A's who like someone suggested are like bartenders and should have the power and the knowledge to tell someone "Sorry Buddy, the bar is closed for you."

2. From the passengers themselves. (oh Man am I going to be flamed for this one!) Flyers should set their own limits and not get tanked on the plane. and Remember, alcohol leaves you more dehydrated than other drinks. Water is best. Then soft drinks.

I try to limit myself to one drink, or two on trancons and then hopefully go to sleep right away. Even with one drink I wake up so dehydrated I could drink all of Poland Spring. Trying to limit myself to NOTHING in the alcoholic genre.

(These opinions are not reflective of other flyers and apologizes for those who I offend.)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dudemon:
Why on earth would she think that a legislative body could do what common sense cannot? This type of attitude blows me away.
</font>


You have hit the nail on the head! Please allow me to buy you a drink!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dudemon:


But alas, Amentment XXI (Repealed Amendment XVIII).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxi.html
So I guess it didn't quite work as expected, or maybe it just helped to make a big mess even messier.

Good point. If you are in San Francisco, do visit the 21st Amendment Restaurant and Microbrewery. Great name and place to tilt one in Feinstein's state- California!

And if you are there Sept. 8, you can join other fellow FTers as well. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The FAs DO have the power to say "You've had enough." It is when they exercise that power that many air rage incidents occur.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by avek00:
The FAs DO have the power to say "You've had enough." It is when they exercise that power that many air rage incidents occur.</font>

Two questions: First, how do you define air rage? (i.e., is it physical violence like a shove, or can it be as "mild" as a rude remark like "Hey, $@&% you") Second, on what evidence do you base your assertion that many air rage incidents occur when the FAs exercise their cut-off power? If from your witnessing of incidents of that nature, I certainly accept that. However, I suspect (and this is merely my own conjecture) that although some may occur for the reason you cited, most probably occur as a result of passengers who were already near their "breaking point" before they boarded for other reasons (e.g., bad day, running late, sick with the flu, etc.) and are just ready to explode anyway and I'm sure the environmental factors (dehydration, low oxygen levels) don't help either.

Bottom line, Sen. Feinstein's idea may help a _little_ bit, but she should find a bigger fish to fry than things like this.



[This message has been edited by Lucky5 (edited 07-26-2001).]

runningshoes mentioned the pathetic legal precedents in some places where "bars are responsible for making sure their patrons don't get sauced and then go driving into the night". Do we really want any more laws that absolve individuals of responsibility for their own conduct? Of course not.

The current situation of FAs having to make the call as to whether to serve someone is clearly best. After all, what about all the people who are technically affected by alcohol but just want to sleep?

This reminds me of a very relaxed flight I had to the USA via Auckland (in economy class, what's more) on Qantas. About to depart AKL, the FA was serving the pre-departure orange juice. An American guy next to me politely (and quietly) said to her that some vodka would be nice to go with the OJ.

We were near the back and she'd almost finished serving others, and she returned shortly after with a full glass of vodka!
Being a pleasant neighbour, he offered to split it with me. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I hear Senator Hillary Clinton (D NY) is introducing a bill into the Senate limiting all federally elected officials to two (2) "affairs" per term. As I remember my history this would probably only apply to all newly elected officials (ie not Rep Gary Condit (D CA) etc).

MisterNice

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fallinasleep:

is air travel more pleasant now that all domestic flights in the U.S. are non smoking?</font>

Definitely!. The stench used to be awful. Many smokers agree!

That said, don't ban my booze. How can you enjoy a nice meal in First without the aperitif, the wine, and the digestif?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Nobbi

The Air Transport Association, the industry's Wash based trade group, said, "This proposal is poor public policy that would unilaterally penalize the hundreds of millions of cooperative, law-abiding passengers because of the disruptive, rude, and often illegal conduct of a few."

Flight crews also oppose the Feinstein plan, but from a different viewpoint. The Association of Flight Attendants says airlines should limit passengers to one drink at a time during flights, and stop serving alcohol before takeoff.

The FAA, which reported 314 incidents involving "unruly" pax last year, says it may study possible connections between drinking and "air rage."

Are most flyertalk aficianados essentially libertarians? I'd like to proposea "voluntary curb" on politician-bashing (some of us respect Dianne Feinstein very much despite her inevitable incliniations to act like an overzealous girl scout.) Surely we can have an interesting discussion about this topic without the vituperative remarks. (I did like the wisecrack about the Hillary Clinton two-affair limit proposal though...)

Just my 2 cents worth. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Sorry, duplicate post.

[This message has been edited by raffy (edited 07-27-2001).]

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- The airline industry has flatly rejected a U.S. senator's request to impose a two-drink limit on all domestic flights.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sent letters to seven major airlines, asking they adopt a new policy to help control alcohol-induced "air rage." In the letter, she threatened congressional action if the airlines did not comply. Her idea did not fly.

The Air Transport Association, the industry's Washington trade group, says, "This proposal is poor public policy that would unilaterally penalize the hundreds of millions of cooperative, law-abiding passengers because of the disruptive, rude, and often illegal conduct of a few."

Flight crews are also oppose the Feinstein plan, but from a different vector. The Association of Flight Attendants says airlines should limit passengers to one drink at a time during flights, and stop serving alcohol before takeoff.

The FAA, which reported 314 incidents involving unruly passengers last year, says it may study possible connections between drinking and "air rage."


[This message has been edited by raffy (edited 07-27-2001).]

BA looked at this, but I remembering the days at BCAL when we could only serve 2 cocktails, 1 wine, and 1 liquor on flights in and out of Tripoli when the oil men were used to drinking the bar dry by the time we were out over Malta on the way home. I know that this sounds like a piece of "do-goodism" that is the thin end of the wedge. I think that we know when the answer has to be "no" (we give away all our booze across the entire network). The only danger comes when different cabin staff serve the passenger not knowing what has gone down before. Then I might have to intervene. Actually, recently some of the worst drunks have been in First Class. At least they are in a seat they can sleep it off in.

ROTFLMAO, MisterNice!

Insightful question, renoel. I consider myself a little-L libertarian, and have noticed that many others - but certainly not all - here are also somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I think that tends to translate into a laissez-faire attitude when it comes to air travel.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by essxjay:
I consider myself a little-L libertarian, and have noticed that many others - but certainly not all - here are also somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal.</font>

I suspect this would lead many here to have a lot of disagreements with their politicians.
It seems that US politicians, in particular, are incapable of being fiscally conservative without also being bible-wielders who wish to stifle personal freedom and thrust their moral views down everyone's throats. (Latest example being the whole issue of denying US federal funding to any overseas organisation which performs abortions.)

Few Business Class columns have generated the heated responses from readers as the one last week that detailed California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposal to cap at two the number of drinks airlines can serve passengers.

Indeed, some of the e-mails and letters couldn't be reprinted here because, well, this is a family newspaper. Most who responded thought the idea was ridiculous and wouldn't fix anything.

"It's the airlines, not alcohol" that's the problem, said Tina Ali-Davis, an Alexandria-based computer software consultant. "If the planes left on time and if their employees treated us with a drop of respect, you wouldn't see folks blowing up.

"If anything, several drinks calm us down so we don't lash out and wring someone's neck," Ali-Davis added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12646-2001Jul31.html

The airlines should prohibit the wearing of underwear on all flights! The reason? Fully 100% of those involved in air rage incidents did so while wearing underwear!

Do I have an evidence of the connection between wearing underwear and air rage? While I don't have any evidence of a direct cuase-and-effect relationship, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming!

NOT!!!! I have it on good authority, the two "models" who happened to be sisters and were raging and fighting on AS recently, were underwear-challenged.

MisterNice

That's it! Where's the Moderator?! Obviously, these last posts should be under another thread -

Comfort While Flying - Going Commando

Then again, I know I would be less inclined to upset if I was a little more "comfortable." Who's idea was this? I think its Great! From now on, no more underwear for me while flying!

Save your appreciative remarks, just doing my part to reduce air rage.

lisamcgu

[This message has been edited by lisamcgu (edited 08-01-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by essxjay:
ROTFLMAO, MisterNice!

Insightful question, renoel. I consider myself a little-L libertarian, and have noticed that many others - but certainly not all - here are also somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I think that tends to translate into a laissez-faire attitude when it comes to air travel.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by raffy:
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- The airline industry has flatly rejected a U.S. senator's request to impose a two-drink limit on all domestic flights.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sent letters to seven major airlines, asking they adopt a new policy to help control alcohol-induced "air rage." In the letter, she threatened congressional action if the airlines did not comply. Her idea did not fly.</font>

Now that Di Fi's pulled off her little media stunt and the airlines have called her bluff, it'll be interesting to see if she actually goes ahead with her "threatened congressional action."

Somehow, I doubt it...

Let's be vigilant. While I can't see Congress passing Sen. Feinstein's envisaged law as stand-alone legislation, she could sneak her concepts into an amendment to an unrelated bill.

If somehow the proposed Feinstein BAN ON AIRLINE BOOZE gets passed and implemented, then maybe the ostrich-like voters of California will finally sober up (hey, get it?) and admit what a fitful fake flightly phony flake she really is and not re-elect her.

MisterNice