I (a person with a mildly fear of flying) am all in favor for alcohol limits in pilots. Nevertheless, the article talks about "drunk" pilots, but someone that does not drink since 11 hours is in violation of the 12-hours rule, but I cannot think it as "drunk."
Moreover, strict-zero level sounds a bit too strong to me. What if you eat some over-ripe fruit that produced a bit of alcohol? Or maybe some alcohol based mouth-wash that you inadvertently swallowed a bit? I guess there are many cases where you get in touch with alcohol without even knowing and the amount is such that no effect on behavior are discernible.
It is not the first time that I hear a proposal like that. I classify this kind of proposal as "throwing money to the problem" (there is a problem? let's tax someone or --- in the best case --- let's give economic incentives).
The biggest problem of this kind of proposal (taxing flights to save the environment) is that they do not consider an almost obvious fact: when you take a plane, usually you have no other (reasonable) alternative.
Let's face it: flying is no fun. As Douglas Adams said
> It can hardly be a coincidence that no language on Earth has ever
> produced the expression "as pretty as an airport". Airports are ugly.
You must be at the airport 1-2 hours in advance, that means leaving home at least 3-4 hours in advance (maybe more). The procedure is not complex, but involved: check in, send the baggage, pass security (stay in the line, strip down, take the pc out, take out your shoes, ...) go to gate and wait on not-the-most-comfortable chairs, do the flig
