Lack

The OP admitted having drunk enough to put him over the legally defined limit. And his behavior on board certainly warranted the actions taken by the cabin crew, which he also admits were justified.

He misjudged his capacity in that regard, could have happened to anyone for various reasons. Rather then owning up to it, he's shifting blame to another party because of events that followed...

weero

Then why you bring up that metric??? If it is irrelevant what the other pax like or not then why fanfare it and then try to change the goalpost when being called out on it?
None of which LOT made any effort whatsoever to address or assess. Hence for any legal means the OP was sober and not ill.
With all due respect but that is just total rubbish. The airlines offer booze in their lounges. So you are allowed and encouraged to get tipsy in there.

If you do not say the OP was drunk then there is no grounds for the unfit to fly assessment.
Pure speculation and a quirky one at that: if he vomited because he had to run then he was clearly fit to fly after having vomited. That stance makes no sense whatsoever.

And regarding the "dangerous disease" - the air in the plane is circulated. If that was the concern of the crew, deplaning would have been the only responsible measure.

Lack

Question is do they have to? Where they supposed to call the cops for a mandatory test? I'm sure that would be the procedure if the passenger was unruly etc, but not sure if it's SOP for "just unfit".
Either way, airline has their cabin and ground crew testimony, OP has nothing.

Or could be a sign of a bigger problem. I don't think the crew wanted to take any gambles being stuck in a metal tube for a couple hours. What if the pax was seriously ill and needed medical attention while airborne? What if he died before they could land? Success-fee lawyers would be all over that case.

weero

What makes you think that this was not an IDB?

Remember that the airline sold the OP a ticket in CH and independent on their filthy fine print owed the OP transport. They denied the OP transport on undisclosed grounds. It is solely LOT's duty to prove that the OP could not fly.
Sounds bulletproof to me.
No judge in an SCC just a mediator.

Where do you see the risks? This is not suing LH on German soil.
Perfectly fine for females to stay slim. And also great for the less slim feminists hired to write unread reports on how terrible bulimia is.

You want to go where?

Also, to put this into perspective, virtually all of these laws refer specifically to the act of operating a motor vehicle, whether it be automobile, train, boat, or plane. They are not legal definitions of drunkenness as regards to signing a contract or will, being in public, or sitting on a plane.

I understand that airlines can deny people the right to fly at their discretion. However, I would presume that judges are going to be very wary of allowing airlines to do that and then claim that they no longer have to fulfill the contract at all and can just keep the would-be passenger's money, without some clear evidence that it was the client's fault. Heck, if that were the case, it's a great business opportunity. Start an airline - never actually let anyone fly, and just keep collecting the profits til people catch wise.

weero

No. They only need to do that if they want to deny further transport to the OP.

And this is where most mis-read the OP. The crew clearly acted only out of concern and hence had the OP's support and collaboration. They promised the OP that the desk would find an alternative for him.

Ground staff however tried to dump all fault on the OP without living up to any standards of securing a connection.
Beg you pardon? LOT has zero evidence, OP has the receipts for the alternative ticket. Including the credit card receipt which proves that the airline that just deemed him unfit to fly deems him fit to fly.

If testimonies from the crew would be heard (for a higher court), they could then deliver their promise that the OP would be rebooked on a later flight. That would get over well with LOT's defrauding of the OP.
No one - especially not the OP - has an issue with this.

Lack

It's just establishing a baseline, or narrative for the events.
Funny fact, in Poland same limit applied to operating a bicycle.

You can make and argument that offering him another ticket fulfilled that promise. Or in the old-mafia style way, you could interpret "being taken care off" meaning ending up in a trunk of a black car, then they clearly failed on that.

I'm sure they had to make a report of some sort, possibly change the flight manifest etc. Plus the eye witnesses whose version of event rarely gets disputed.
How exactly is a receipt relevant here? Using a credit cards as fit to fly assessment?

Fit to fly assessment done at the point of purchase would be quite a interesting procedure.

Or they could delivery the opposite.

You want to go where?

Well, at the minimum, they considered him fit to enter into a contract. It doesn't take much to argue if he was fit to do that, he was fit to sit in an airplane seat. We aren't asking the OP to fly the plane.

Lack

I think there are major differences between being on a plane or signing a credit card slip.

gojko88

I agree - asking an intoxicated person to sign a slip for several hundred Euros could even be deemed fraud.

szczurwa

Great answer, thank you ^^^

Lack

Which is obviously a bigger offense then jeopardizing safety and well being of yourself and other passengers 10km up in the sky. Not to mention proving the point of not being fit to fly on the first flight...

mfkne

I don't see any basis for a claim under EU 261/2004.

It states quite clearly what does and what doesn't constitute denied boarding:

kamel123

I couldn't agree more to this. Yes, the airline could have been a bit more helpful with rebooking, but come on. I am generally pretty appalled by the number of passengers who get drunk on flights (it's free!) and stuff themselves in lounges (it's free, too!), and somehow believe it's ok and normal standards of decency don't apply. If I was in the same situation as the OP, I would be so embarassed about myself that I would certainly not tell anyone (even on an anonymous internet forum), let alone complain at length.

weero

So which one is it in your split-personality world-view: did LOT think he was badly drunk or did they not?

If they did, they did the right thing booting him and did the wrong thing selling him a ticket and letting him fly. If they did not, the IDBed him and hence owe full compensation.

Just decide on one version you want to accuse the OP of.
Well the Mafia narrative goes well with having an intoxicated person sign the slip.
Yes. With a time stamp from a unbiased party. Unlike a report which is filed by an employee who needs to shield their interest.
So you say that their statements are worthless and they should not be heard? I am trying to deconvolve the message here.