全部
← Back to Squawk list
Airlines Can Refuse Drunk Passengers From Boarding Flight: German Court
A German court has ruled that an airline can refuse admittance to drunk passengers. A German man sued an airline after he and his wife were refused entry on a flight for being too drunk. (www.dw.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
It's hard to believe that this had to be adjudicated at all, but then the idiot at the center of the controversy is a lawyer. Of course airlines have the right to refuse entry to drunk passengers, primarily because they are a serious security risk! It would have sent a terrible message if the court had ruled otherwise.
What seems a little unusual in this case is that the passengers ended up having to pay for their alternative flight back. Looks like the court ruled that the airline is well within their rights basically to cancel their ticket, but I thought it was common practice (at least on Qantas) for the airline to refuse boarding and then just put them on the next available flight once they sobered up. Maybe only some airlines will do this -- or maybe they raised a huge stink after they were refused boarding, so the airline decided not to play nice. I didn't notice the airline mentioned in the article, but I assume it's Emirates.
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
Sorry--how is upholding the right of an airline to refuse boarding to a drunk passenger somehow "liberalism"?
Pretty simple. Look at everything else liberals support and you have no problem seeing the correlation. Every kid gets a trophy, transgender bathrooms, Antifa blocking roads and damaging cars, collages not allowing alternative speech, safe rooms for students to traumatized by conservative views. Want us to keep going? Liberalism, socialism, communism are all the same thing.
OK, I get that you've bought into the neo-Nazi philosophy. And it sounds like you might be nursing a grudge because you didn't get to go to college--or at least a good-enough college to learn not to use "collage" when you mean "college", and "to" when you mean "too". But I still don't see how this connects with a judge upholding the right of an airline to refuse boarding to a drunk passenger. Seems like you might have an argument if the judge hadn't upheld that right. But, in fact, he did; and so where's the liberalism in that decision? Or didn't you actually read the article?
I think the comment from Sparkie was intended for the opening responder, who bemoaned the fact that it even "had to be adjudicated in the first place". It makes more sense in that context, zero sense (as you point out) if it was intended as a shot at upholding the right of an airline to refuse boarding to a drunk passenger.
Yeah, I think you're probably right. Thanks for helping to clarify this!
Exactly Right...