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

Buds again?

{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.

{durned dupes}
Ditto...

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

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

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

In 1919 the US Congress (Senate Included) passed the Amendment XVIII (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Amentment XXI (Repealed Amendment XVIII).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.)

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/constitut...ndmentxxi.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.

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.

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.

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

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?



Nobbi