Now THAT would be a harrowing experience, double harrowing because a child was one of the victims. The sick pax could not be banned from flying, because no one could prove that he was not sick from some other reason, and it was just incidental to him over imbibing. But, I am sure for every pax who just gets sick from over imbibing, there is at least one pax who misbehaves from over imbibing, and causes a different kind of scene.

Regarding alcohol on an airplane, and the effects thereof, whether alcohol has caused someone to become either sick or misbehaving does not matter. What does matter is the old maxim...."The freedom of one man to swing his arms stops at the tip of another man's nose." For anyone who is unclear about what this means, it is that anyone should be free to do whatever they wish to, unless it impacts anyone else, in this case, if it impacts another pax's "quiet enjoyment" on a flight. (For those who are not aware, "quiet enjoyment" is both a legal and a social term.)

Does anyone know whether it is the laws of the takeoff state, the laws of the landing state, the laws of the airline's legal jurisdiction state (in other words, where the airline is headquartered or incorporated), or the laws of the state which the airplane is then flying over which would govern? Would anyone actually want to find the answer to the previous question, by experience, for real, in real life? I know for sure that I would not!

First, I have had a few drinks on planes before and have no problem with it in most cases.

However, the guy sitting in Seat 1C MGA-ATL last Monday (just in case he is reading) should have been cut off no question. In 3.5 hours he had to have had 8 -10 mixed drinks and by the time we landed he was slurring, leaning into me, and after landing having a intense argument with this boyfriend on the phone. It turned what is normally a nice relaxing flight into an uncomfortable one.

I think that flight attendants should have the discretion to cut off passengers at the first sign of unruly or inappropriate behavior. However, I don't think putting a standard 1 drink per hour limit out there is the answer. People tolerate alcohol differently.

Does alcohol affect you more on a plane? I have always felt this was the case but never knew for sure...

On thing to consider with the "one drink per hour" rule is the amount of booze in the drink. It is normally explained that a drink is a 12oz beer, 5oz wine, or 1oz of 80 proof liquor.

50ml airplane bottles equal 1.7oz, so we are talking about 6.8 "drinks" in three hours for your liver to process if you have had four airplane bottles.

First, you appear to be jumping to an incorrect conclusion (that I am siding with the FA in this matter) based on zero supporting evidence. I have had as much to drink on flights as the OP described, and it wasn't an issue for me on those occasions, so I'll take the OP at his word that it wouldn't have been an issue here. Pointing out that there are laws and regulations relevant to this issue does NOT automatically mean that someone supports the FA's decision (or the OP for that matter). It's simply a matter of fact--for instance I can tell you that one of the roads I drove on this morning has a speed limit of 40 mph. It's a fact. If you assume that because I pointed out the relevant law that I think everyone who drives over 40 mph on that road should be ticketed, you'd be wildly incorrect (I exceeded 40 mph myself this morning).

In addition to state laws (you're correct NV doesn't have a dram shop law, but MN does--I'm not a lawyer so I don't know for sure, but that could potentially be used in this case as the flight originated in MN), there is FAA FAR § 135.121:

(b) No certificate holder may serve any alcoholic beverage to any person aboard its aircraft if that person appears to be intoxicated.

(c) No certificate holder may allow any person to board any of its aircraft if that person appears to be intoxicated.

So, people can argue back and forth about whether the FA was correct, but asserting that the air line has no responsibility to monitor intoxication is simply incorrect.

My understanding is that prior to push-back, local laws apply. From that point until the plane is at the destination gate, federal laws apply. This means that "dram shop laws" do not apply to aircraft under FAA jurisdiction. FAA regulations do say that it is unlawful to serve alcohol to someone who "appears intoxicated" but does not prescribe any specific guidelines or penalties. The only exception to this is New Mexico, where it has been ruled that flights transiting over NM or landing in NM must follow the state's liquor laws.

If I were in your shoes I would have filed an assault complaint when you hit the ground.

[QUOTE=USirritated;16245041]Now THAT would be a harrowing experience, double harrowing because a child was one of the victims. The sick pax could not be banned from flying, because no one could prove that he was not sick from some other reason, and it was just incidental to him over imbibing. But, I am sure for every pax who just gets sick from over imbibing, there is at least one pax who misbehaves from over imbibing, and causes a different kind of scene. QUOTE]

If he was sick for some other reason he would have had the control to throw up on himself or the floor, not an infant.

Key Johnny Mac:


YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

No serving to people that appear intoxicated is different from keeping people "sober". When I say sober I mean to imply a higher standard of sobriety than "doesn't appear intoxicated". Yes, there is an obligation to not serve people that are clearly intoxicated. I know people who know people who were involved in a tragic situation involving overserving. There's a big difference between enforcing that reasonable standard and saying "you can't have enough booze to be anything less as sober as a judge". I think most state laws hold a similar standard as the FAR - the drinker needs to give outward signs of being drunk, or you need to have some other reason to believe them intoxicated. I may have given an overly broad impression of what I meant, but to me there's a difference between making a reasonable effort not to serve an intoxicated person and making sure someone stays sober.

My above posting was generally meant to be rhetorical. Great answer by houserulz though, and I do remember there was a major case in the news not too long ago referring to the NM situation.

Probably a waste of time, because it would be impossible to prove intent or malice. If assault were an easy case to prove in an accidental case, such as this was, then every time there is a car accident, there would be an accompanying assault charge filed.

Just as a general guideline, I looked up "assault" on Wikipedia, and this is what I found: "Assault is a crime of violence against another person. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force. Assault in some jurisdictions is defined more broadly still as any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent; but in some common law jurisdictions, this is defined instead as battery. Some jurisdictions have incorporated the definition of civil assault into the definition of the crime making it a criminal assault to intentionally cause another person to "apprehend" a harmful or offensive contact."

Further, I also looked up "assault (tort)" referring to one party suing civilly regarding assault, and this is what I found: In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence."

Bottom line for both, if there is no intent, there is LIKELY no assault. There may well be other ways to go after someone who regurgitated on you, but assault would be sketchy at best.

We might be dragging this stuff out beyond what is necessary for this thread, however, I should point out that sick people often do not have control, and getting sick in that way is not always something that builds, it can be essentially spontaneous, depending on the cause.

And it is so cheap that after one glass (even though they are small) you stink like you’ve just swallowed an entire bottle.

I have stopped drinking wine in FC for this reason and switched to mixed drinks. I do enjoy the wine in BE along with the larger glass size.

From a fellow Rum and Coke Zero drinker
 

Unfortunate that the bouncer cut you off, must say it's a little odd since on multiple occasions I've had 4-5 rum and coke zero's on equal distance flights.
That's why I always carry two non-descript 50ml bottles of Bacardi in my carry on. Never been stopped at security, and never noticed by the drink police in the air.^

In some countries it is an offense to serve alcohol to an already intoxicated person and often alcohol can only be sold by staff qualified to serve responsibly through Alcohol Server Training.

The blood alcohol content (BAC) for legal operation of a vehicle is typically measured as a percent of unit volume of blood. This ranges from a low of 0.00% in Romania and the United Arab Emirates, to 0.05% in Australia and Germany, to 0.08% in the United Kingdom, the United States, and New Zealand.

Bottom line, it can only be up to the discretion of the server, in this case, the FA. General safety, and specifically that FA's job are at stake. Also, clearly the FA can not keep track of ALL of the various laws which may, or may not, be at play. So, it is just easier, and correct in my opinion, for the FA's to err on the side of caution.

(emphasis mine)

And some would say that by definition, this sort of behavior makes you (or anyone) an alcoholic. That would be my definition, and I am guessing that it would be the definition of many, and probably the definition of most non or light casual drinkers.

Are you actually saying that after you get cut off by the flight attendant that you MUST make sure that alcohol is still at your disposal so that you can continue drinking?