319
submitted 3 months ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world

According to the Australian Federal Police, a then-32-year-old man from Western Australia was disruptive on a flight headed from Perth to Sydney. As a result, the plane had to turn around and go back to Perth, which meant that the pilot was forced to dump some fuel to land.

Now, the passenger has been ordered to pay $8,630 AUD ($5,806 USD) back to the airline to cover the cost of the wasted fuel. The Perth Magistrate Court also fined him $6,055, meaning that his mid-air misbehavior has a total price tag of $11,861 – likely many times higher than whatever h

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 112 points 3 months ago

Get this in America.

One unruly passenger should not have the power to control 300 other flyers' plans.

[-] ShadowRam@fedia.io 28 points 3 months ago

They could cure a lot of it, if they stopped serving alcohol in the terminals or on the plane.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 24 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hey, man. I’m blue, through and through, but don’t touch my right to get fucking wasted in the middle of the day, or morning, at an airport. You down to tussle? Because I’m throwing hands.

[-] Tujio@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago

What's the point of taking a vacation if I don't get to send my coworkers pictures of my airport mimosa as they're clocking in at 8am?

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 15 points 3 months ago

Please dont take one of the remaining socially acceptable places to get absolutely blitzed before noon. Football tailgates are only in the fall

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

This guy flies.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 13 points 3 months ago

please do not cut off your hands and throw them at me in a drunken rage.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago

DONTCHUTELLMEWHATTODO!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago

Eh... Alcohol doesn't care about party lines

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 4 points 3 months ago

Tell that to the Conga! CHECKKKMMATEEE!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

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?

[-] Tujio@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago
[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago

Alcohol is the only way to survive the terribleness that is air travel, until such a time that weed vending machines become available in airports, or air travel becomes less shitty. The latter will never happen. Former inside of a decade.

[-] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago

It's pretty much a ritual of mine to be and stay hammered most of my travel day.

Chug most of a half pint of liquor in the parking garage, double of Johnnie Walker Black for pretty much every hour I'm in the airport, order some mini bottles (or carry on my own) on the plane, sleep until my destination, and then do whatever it is I'm doing that day.

But then, I handle my alcohol extremely well (and have the red hair gene that makes you less susceptible to its effect and process it more quickly). So I don't really get in trouble.

[-] couch1potato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

Scotch-in-your-3-1-1-bottles team, unite!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

This only works for shorter flights, but you can eat an edible before you go into the airport. I reccomend one that you've tried before the flight so you know how high you'll get and how long it'll last.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 01011@monero.town 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They'll never do that. Drug dealing is too lucrative and alcohol is the western world's favorite poison.

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

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)
[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

They should outfit planes with brigs.

[-] subtext@lemmy.world 74 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

can start by reinbursing all passengers 3x their ticket value

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Depends on who gets to decide what qualifies as "bad behavior"

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 19 points 3 months ago

It must have been bad enough for the staff to decide that it's better to fuck up a plane full of passengers itinerary by turning around than continue on with the flight. I seriously doubt anyone would want to make that call unless they absolutely had to.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 63 points 3 months ago

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?

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

They said alcohol, not ketamine

[-] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Maybe it was just to wash down some Ambien.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 62 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] lud@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

Which is good for the environment but makes it really hard to design airplanes.

I'm guessing it's comparable to designing SSTOs in KSP where it's hard to get to orbit (and often back) on a single stage because you don't get much lighter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Geobloke@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

The Perth to Sydney flight is a longer one. I think around 3000km, so maybe they had a bigger fuel load

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

Half the weight of a plane is the fuel??

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

A350-900

Maximum takeoff weight: 283 tonnes

Maximum landing weight: 207 tonnes

Manufacturers' empty weight: 115.7 tonnes

[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Geobloke@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

Tell me you're from Perth without saying you're from Perth...

[-] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] nucleative@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

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)
[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
319 points (98.5% liked)

News

23644 readers
2295 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS