319
Get this in America.
One unruly passenger should not have the power to control 300 other flyers' plans.
They could cure a lot of it, if they stopped serving alcohol in the terminals or on the plane.
Do you want mass murder? Because taking away a republican’s right to get drunk and express their anger for not being served first is unconstitutional, and against the principles in which this country was founded. Liberty and justice for me.
Eh... Alcohol doesn't care about party lines
Tell that to the Conga! CHECKKKMMATEEE!!!
load more comments
(1 replies)
But then how would I get my breakfast beer? Only at an airport do you get the plausibility of being accustomed to a different time zone.
In all seriousness though, this is the classic "blame the person or the tool" argument.
I had a layover in Midway at maybe 7:30am once. Everyone — and I mean everyone — was drinking. Like, are you going to get the shakes between security and boarding?
Yes?
They'll never do that. Drug dealing is too lucrative and alcohol is the western world's favorite poison.
As a person who likes to drink a beer to take the edge off, meh.
You don't need alcohol or drugs to be a disruptive asshole.
You don't need alcohol or drugs to be a disruptive asshole
But it makes it easier. It's like a cheat code for dickhead, and bonuses stack with maga hat, tobacco of any kind, dodge ram keys or any clothing without sleeves.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
They should outfit planes with brigs.
Honestly that’s way less than it should be given how much other passengers were inconvenienced. That might be harder to quantify the value of, though, I suppose.
can start by reinbursing all passengers 3x their ticket value
The single highest individual penalty, $40,823, was issued to a traveler who brought their own alcohol on board, was intoxicated, attempted to smoke marijuana in the lavatory, and sexually assaulted a flight attendant – all in a single flight.
Elon? You flying commercial these days?
They said alcohol, not ketamine
Maybe it was just to wash down some Ambien.
The article doesn’t say why the pilot had to dump fuel to land. Was this because the plane needed to be lighter (dumping what would have otherwise been consumed)? If anyone can provide context that’d be appreciated.
Airplanes are usually limited to land at only around half of the total weight they can take off with.
This isn't normally a problem for normal trips.
If they went to a higher landing weight, the landing gear struts would have to be designed quite a bit stronger. This would make the landing gear heavier, and that would reduce the useful payload weight in the plane.
Which that’s something i find interesting about electric planes they’re testing. MTOW and MLW are almost identical in an electric plane. You can’t just dump fuel
The Perth to Sydney flight is a longer one. I think around 3000km, so maybe they had a bigger fuel load
Half the weight of a plane is the fuel??
A350-900
Maximum takeoff weight: 283 tonnes
Maximum landing weight: 207 tonnes
Manufacturers' empty weight: 115.7 tonnes
They dump fuel so they can safely land due to weight, as you guessed. In this case it was a cross-country trip, so the plane had a fair amount of fuel that needed to be offloaded.
The story in the article about the guy who tried to get into the cockpit is amazing... he's lucky he didn't get himself killed by the other passengers. Since that little incident twenty years ago even Granny will chew on your face if it looks like you're pulling that shit.
Neither the man nor the airline was publicly named, nor was it specified exactly what he did to earn such a hefty penalty.
Why the hell not? I feel like it's weird for this information to not be public in a case like this-- In this same article, there are three examples of other incidents where the details are known.
Phrases like the passenger "was disruptive," and “It’s far simpler to obey the directions of airline staff than cause unnecessary issues, which can end up hitting you in the hip pocket” seem weirdly euphemistic to me.
Tell me you're from Perth without saying you're from Perth...
So does "dump fuel" literally mean "sprinkle a large volume of jet fuel over a large swathe of countryside?" Does it become diffuse enough that the environmental impact is negligible, or do we get a big splash that kills everything in an AoE?
Like... I'm surprised the fuel cost is the focus here, and not the environmental impact of releasing jet fuel just... into the air I guess? But maybe it doesn't work the way I'm picturing.
That's exactly right. But much evaporates or is diffused over such a large area that no one particular piece of land gets a significant amount.
The alternative is landing overweight, risking potential damage or failure to the aircraft's landing gear, full of human lives, while still full of the explodey stuff.
The other alternative is designing planes to land at heavier weights, resulting in every other flight being less efficient.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Dumping fuel is not uncommon.
The plane needs to be a certain weight to land and so fuel burn is calculated into that.
Obviously planes don't intend to dump fuel but there are unforeseen circumstances which mean necessitate this.
It's hard to say but I should imagine dilution, has a large impact on any sort of environmental concerns.
jet fuel isn't dumped that rarely, it diffuses over an enormous area and isn't significantly harmful to the ground, but is a greenhouse "gas" source iirc.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
319 points (98.5% liked)
News
39328 readers
2852 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS