While not really a matter of Asia Miles per se, this is perhaps a little more important when considering which airline to choose.....

I would like to relate a recent experience involving Cathay Pacific and the cavalier manner in which they dealt with the problem. Given the current security environment and the context of the shoe bomber, I think that Cathay Pacific's response is egregious in its lack of concern.

I flew to Canada from Singapore via Hong Kong on December 06, 2001.

Approximately 20 minutes into the flight ex-Hong Kong, I noticed a passenger one row in front of me becoming belligerent and disruptive. While it is not uncommon to see ill-behaved passengers, it was clear that he was either drunk (he had consumed several drinks by this time) or drunk and under the influence of some other drug. He began making anti-Semitic remarks to the several Jews in across the aisle and then began to throw items at them. He then started becoming even more abusive and making fists and threatening violence toward them. At this stage I realized that this was not just a matter of loutish behaviour but was quickly developing into a security issue was likely to escalate and so advised the senior cabin crew. I was told that the problem had been noted and that the problem would be dealt with. However, the problem became worse and the involvement of the cabin crew (and cockpit crew as well) was passive to a level indicating that they viewed this as a nuisance rather than a security issue. The cabin crew proceeded only to move two young women, one seated beside and one seated behind the passenger.

The Jewish passengers were then served their Kosher meals in advance of the regular meal service. At this stage the passenger became even more threatening verbally to the Jewish passengers, demanding items off their meal trays and becoming more menacing physically. At this point I again advised the senior cabin crew and advised that an active rather than a passive role was perhaps the best means of nipping this escalating problem in the bud. Further, it was my estimation that the problem be best dealt with by a male member of the cockpit crew. I was again advised that the problem was being dealt with by the established protocol, a protocol based clearly on reducing the irritation of fellow passengers rather than as the obvious security issue which had developed and which would clearly escalate.

Subsequently, the problems escalated quickly. The passenger proceeded to the lavatory lit a cigarette. This was brought to the cabin crew's attention notwithstanding that it was glaringly obvious what had happened. The only apparent action that was taken was that a male member of the cabin crew sat in the rearmost 'jumpseat' to monitor the situation and the passenger's cigarettes (but not lighter) were confiscated. The passenger continued to be belligerent and threatening, demanding additional alcoholic beverages and becoming increasingly aggressive toward those in close proximity.

Given my vociferous protestations supported by others in close proximity, the cabin staff then presented a written warning to the passenger. Given his agitated state, this was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. He proceeded to crumple the paper and discard same.

Finally, the passenger, clearly unwatched by any Cathay Pacific staff and as yet not dealt with in any way by the cockpit crew, picked up some paper, increased the flame on his lighter to approximately 6 inches and ignited the paper. Given the seriousness of his actions and lack of any meaningful intervention I was forced to extinguish the flames with my hands. Notwithstanding that it was now obvious in most of the aircraft that there was a security and safety problem (the smell of burning material was strong) I again beseeched the senior cabin staff to have the cockpit crew take the necessary steps and make the appropriate intervention.

Quite some time later, and without an appearance by the cockpit crew, an announcement was made that there was a problem in economy class and that the aeroplane would be turning around and landing in Tokyo in approximately 1 hour 10 minutes.

Shortly before landing, the passenger became docile, given perhaps the effects of the liquor he had ingested. Children surrounding the passenger were moved and the seats filled with the younger and larger male passengers on the flight. Finally, the cabin crew made an appearance and put the passenger in restraints minutes before landing so that he could be offloaded in Tokyo.

I felt that appropriate security measures were not taken. In addition to filling out a comprehensive incident report I e-mail Cathay Pacfic's head of corporate security requesting a detailed explanation.

Unfortunately, Cathay Pacific treated the problem as a customer service issue when in fact it was a security issue. The head of corporate security replied advising only that my report had been forwarded to customer relations. Customer relations replied that they were sorry for "an uncomfortable flight" and referred to the incident as one involving just an "unruly passenger". A cigarette in a lavatory may, at a stretch, may be considered unruly - a fire ignited at one's seat requiring passenger intervention and an unscheduled stop does not fall into the definition of "unruly" nor cause merely an "uncomfortable flight" given the circumstances.

As such, I will leave it your discretion to determine whether Cathay Pacific cares for its client's security. Please contact me for additional details if required.

Sincerely,

Gregory Chubak

From a Cathay bulletin.

"While on the subject of difficult situations, in December we had a problem with a passenger on CX888 to Vancouver who set pieces of paper on fire in the cabin. Quite rightly, the captain diverted to Narita to offload him. The Japanese police did not intervene in the matter.

CX's Narita ground staff quickly got the word around to other airlines not to carry him. After two weeks stuck at Narita the passenger realised that his only way out of Japan was to return with CX to Hong Kong, where he was arrested by the police.

However, we were disappointed that he was only given a suspended custodial sentence. In times like these, security should be a major concern for everyone. We will continue to work, with the support of the police, to pursue such cases"

Perhaps they don't understand the meaning of *pursue*.

Jan 27, 2002
A growing number of "air rage" incidents is forcing the UK government to consider a ban on drinking alcohol on all domestic and international flights on British airlines.

A report in the London Sunday Times newspaper says the measure is being debated as part of preparations for a government study paper on aviation, due for publication in the spring.

The UK's airline safety authority, the CAA, has reported a big increase in the number of violent or threatening incidents on aircraft - up from 800 three years ago to 1,250 in 2001.

This steady increase in attacks by drunk passengers on cabin crew members has forced the issue on to the government's agenda. Should the proposals become concrete they will be opposed by airlines but already have the backing of cabin crew and groups representing the traveling public.

Doctors have added their weight to the argument, saying that alcohol on flights should be banned.

The newspaper says that the government put out a consultation document and many of those who replied urged a complete ban on in-flight drinking.

The Sunday Times cites Transport Department insiders as saying that the most likely scenario is a bar on airlines from which cabin crew would be able to control the number of drinks handed out. They do not see a complete ban on alcohol as being the answer.

If the guy had been on Singapore Airlines and had fonddled a female cabin crew, he'd be hauled off at the next port immediately.

Pity that CX can keep plastic knives but yet are totally passive on such incidents!

Not only was the guy hauled off, the aircraft made a diversion specifically to haul him off. When the local police refused to act, Cathay did its best to ensure he returned to a jurisdiction where the police would act. He was then charged, convicted and punished.

Don't see that as being passive. Airlines can't bind and gag people for anti semitic comments, only if the are genuinely seen as a threat to the safety of the aircraft.

As for Mr Chubak's points about wanting cockpit crew to appear, and wanting greater explanation from Cathay about security procedures on board:

(1) after 9/11, cockpit crew stay in the cockpit, behind locked doors. If 9/11 taught airlines anything, it is that you don't open cockpit doors inflight, even if hijackers are killing passengers and threatening arson.

(2) Passengers writing to an airline asking for detailed explantions about safety procedures will probably get passed to customer relations for a platitudinous reply only. And a copy passed to local law enforcement agencies, there is a Al Qaeda cell in Singapore. It can't be ruled out that the letter isn't from a accomplice of the unruly pax, trying to find out why the plan to the crew door open failed.

Outrageous behaviour by the pax and disappointingly low response from the cabin crew. Pity that this guy wasn't on ElAl flight. They would have taught him some manners.