strickerj

That wouldn't explain why the issue has gotten worse lately, even after many airlines suspended cabin service.

I do agree this will more likely have a net negative effect financially since alcohol sales in coach are profitable. I imagine this is just good PR to make it looks as though they're doing something, and it'll quietly be reversed as soon as the attention is off.

aroundtheworld76

Several of the "dry" MENA carriers allow BYOB.

https://onemileatatime.com/im-having...a-dry-airline/

TGarza

Some forum members discussed purchasing a bottle of wine at a Priority Pass restaurant/store using the $28 benefit until PP changed the rules.

MiamiAirport Formerly NY George

Exactly the problem starts at lounges or airport bars. Face reality gate agents aren't going to always stop overly intoxicated passengers from boarding. Add to this tight seating, really full planes, delays, being forced to wear a diaper on your face for hours on end and problems are going to erupt. If anything airport bars should be limited to the number of drinks they can serve but then again booze is where they make their money and airport authorities aren't going to clip their wings.

Duke787

No chance this is about "prohibition" -- alcohol has an enormous profit margin (think about all the restaurants that only break even because of liquor sales).

This is 100% about short term cost cutting but the better way to describe it would be cash flow management. Alcohol has a big profit margin but you still have to buy the stuff so I'm guessing the airlines are looking at their daily/weekly/monthly cash flows and the rollout of liquor is being timed to specific cash flow metrics they are looking to achieve internally before making the OpEx spend (and I would guess existing stock is being used to cover first class and perhaps some small incremental buys as they get through that existing stock).

Remember how badly beaten down this industry way last year with passenger numbers and the amount of money they were losing on a daily basis. When you are in survival mode your instinct is to preserve cash even above investing it in an area with high ROI (like alcohol sales). Eventually they'll get back to stable passenger numbers and cash flow and be comfortable making bigger scale alcohol purchases (which in turn can fund other F&B purchases or bigger alcohol purchases with the additional FCF that comes from alcohol sales).

nd2010

The ban on consuming your own alcohol is rarely enforced and will probably only be enforced if the passenger is unruly. Those small shots of liquor are small enough to go through security and with no limit on the quantity, someone could bring 5-10 and get really drunk. Guarantee it happens on every flight to or from LAS.

pinniped

I don't think you can get 10 in the freedom baggie.

I've seen FAs tell people they cannot open their duty free bottles in-flight. I haven't personally seen people sneaking in the minis but if an FA saw it, they would likely tell you to stop. Of course, it's not hard to slip a mini into a Diet Coke without being noticed, but it seems like a lot of effort just to have a couple drinks.

mtofell

I worked the restaurant/bar biz for nearly two decades earlier in life and know a lot about dealing with drunks. Our liquor control commission standards were always that you can't serve a "VIP" (visibly intoxicated person). Airport lounges seem to not be held to the same standard (or don't care). I regularly see absolutely hammered people waddling out of the airport bars and onto the planes and nobody seems to care. If the alcohol is really the cause of the problems some enforcement at the airport level would be a good place to start. It's not as though there's no template for making rules at an airport. I'd challenge anyone to name a place where there are more.

Recently, on a trip from PDX > OGG (Maui) I was at the gate about 15 minutes before boarding and two EXTREMELY drunk females arrived. Loud, carrying on about the party the night before (that likely hadn't ended yet). They were swearing and just making a HUGE spectacle. I was shocked that the GA let them on the plane without batting an eye. They boarded before me and were continuing on in the same manner on the plane. As I was boarding I asked one of the FAs why they were allowed to board and all she said is, "they are being watched." Luckily, they just passed out shortly after takeoff and there was no incident.

I'm just left wondering how many of these increased number of incidents could have been avoided with a little more prevention, either by the airline staff prior to takeoff or at the airport bar. It's just a bit hard to believe that an otherwise calm person has two beers and all of the sudden jumps from their seat and punches a FA.

MiamiAirport Formerly NY George

Exactly. The paxs that cause in flight problems is getting bombed before they board and they all are not going to get stopped by a GA. We have an "eye on them" doesn't mean a whole lot when your over the Pacific ocean.

At my home airport MIA I walk past the terminal bars and I see and particularly hear people totally out of control with drinking. Then they will then get on a flight. Lately there's been about 1-2 flights a week at MIA. It's time that airport bars were reigned in.

pinniped

I wonder if airport lounges are under different rules as "private clubs" (?). Are they licensed the same way that regular bars are licensed? Can they be inspected at any time by the city the same way a bar can?

In some lounges, I can pour my own drinks. In others, it's a bartender serving but there's no cost and no real limit, short of becoming belligerent and getting kicked out. In one were inclined to get liquored up in a hurry, the lounge is the place to go. The regular airport bar at least has the regulating function that the drinks are typically quite expensive.

The lounge may have once been the domain of business travelers, but now it's everybody who signed up for one of many easy-to-get credit cards.

cmd320

There's an additional loophole in that FAR. Since it's the certificate holder operating the aircraft that must provide the alcoholic beverage, one can theoretically obtain said beverage from the airline's lounge, get a to-go cup, and bring that on board. This is a good way of ensuring a PDB when the cabin crew fails to provide one and does not violate any FARs.

LarryJ

The regulation does not say that the certificate holder operating the aircraft must provide the beverage, it says that it must serve the beverage..
The reason for the requirement is so that crewmembers have the ability to cutoff someone who becomes obviously intoxicated during the flight.

The regulation would allow the passenger to provide the alcohol as long as a crewmember serves it to him during the flight. I'm not aware of any large airlines that have procedures in place to allow this to happen. They all choose to prohibit all consumption of passenger alcohol on board the aircraft.

cmd320

Yes, and one may be served the beverage at the airport. The FAR doesn't state that the beverage must be served on the plane.

LarryJ

How do you know if the bartender in the airport, or airport club, is employed by the subsidiary that holds the operating certificate?

cmd320

It doesn't make a difference. If you go into a Delta SkyClub for example, even though the lounge may be operated by Sodexo, it's doing business as Delta and therefore, the food and beverage within the lounge are being served to the customer by Delta. Now, if you go into an Amex Centurion Lounge and take beverages out of that lounge onto an AA flight, that's a different story.

Another area that isn't prohibited by this FAR is retaining beverages served by the certificate holder from previous flights. For example, if I order four G+Ts on flight 1 but only consume two of them taking the remaining two gin minis onto flight 2, both operated by the same airline, then based on this regulation the certificate holder has served me that beverage and I may consume it whenever I like. I'm not saying there aren't airline policies that prohibit this, but from an FAR point of view there isn't any violation there.