Via CBS Atlanta, this is quite possibly the greatest reason ever for a diversion for a flight from Los Angeles to New York:
The American Airlines flight made an emergency stop at Kansas City International Airport due to an unruly passenger, authorities said.
The woman disrupted the flight in part by belting out Whitney Houston songs. And based on the video posted by a passenger on the flight, the woman won’t be getting a golden ticket onto the American Idol competition anytime soon.
…
As she was leaving the plane, she crooned, “I will always love you,” which was written by Dolly Parton and sang by both Parton and Houston.
And if you click the link there’s even a video!
The part that’s most puzzling is that when the aircraft diverted the lady was interviewed and released without charges. If she was actually “interfering with the flight crew,” am I wrong to think she’d be charged with something for that?
So yeah, it sounds to me like her only crime was singing Whitney Houston songs poorly… which is awesome.
My last question is, did American accommodate her from Kansas City to New York? If so, did she get to connect? So is this what it takes to get three segments on a domestic mileage run? 😉
wow, I sit corrected. There is a criminal law on this but I guess they will take action under the FAR not the criminal law. I looked further into it because I clearly don't have much of a life if I enjoy reading cases and never went to law school:"...who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or...
wow, I sit corrected. There is a criminal law on this but I guess they will take action under the FAR not the criminal law. I looked further into it because I clearly don't have much of a life if I enjoy reading cases and never went to law school:"...who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment. Intent does not have to be specific. . I'd hardly say you could prove in criminal court the flight attendant was assaulted or intimidated, but the fine under the FAR's I believe goes up to $25,000 and/or 1 year in jail. Something along those lines as a maximum penalty seems appropriate. And if the airline got her drunk and that was the cause, woe be to them--that's a real bad situation for the FA's involved and the airline.
Regarding the diversion of the plane, on a completely separate note, I got sick on a BA flight and the cabin crew got to the point of trying to determine whether to divert the aircraft because they could not reach Medlink. It was weird because they were telling me they needed to make a decision on whether to divert and were quite literally asking me whether they should divert the plane. Of course they waited until 4 hours into the illness and 1 hour from the destination. No medical doctors stepped forward. I sort of wonder if I can log pilot-in-command time in a big jet for making that decision for them
The regulation says: "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this Part." [part 121 , Air Carrier Operations]
First, it's an administrative law (although criminal penalties can attach), and secondly she could be fined or charged at a later time, so letting her go doesn't mean she's off the hook.
I do think it's hilarious. I...
The regulation says: "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this Part." [part 121 , Air Carrier Operations]
First, it's an administrative law (although criminal penalties can attach), and secondly she could be fined or charged at a later time, so letting her go doesn't mean she's off the hook.
I do think it's hilarious. I think generally bureaucrats frown on hilarity like this.
I would have loved to have been on the flight and would have not cared about a diversion just to get a video of that myself.
That regulation does not mean you are interfering with a crewmember if you don't obey their every instruction, but i'd think this type of behavior should only be permitted on flights to Vegas.
I'm from KC and today heard a Dallas-based flight attendant tell an older woman that photos of the aircraft weren't allowed unless she was a member of the press. Wish I was able to see the widebody but did see an Air Canada 767 (charter?) at MCI.
Sad. For the PAX already aboard,it was probably a great choice by that Captain and crew. In most cases, I like to see 'Video enhancement,' but this time I'll pass - bot so many thanks for offering. Was the woman accommodated for the rest of her trip? Probably, but who cares?
A simple, basic rule for flying: Those who behave as civilized [fill in other words] will be treated as such. Those who do...
Sad. For the PAX already aboard,it was probably a great choice by that Captain and crew. In most cases, I like to see 'Video enhancement,' but this time I'll pass - bot so many thanks for offering. Was the woman accommodated for the rest of her trip? Probably, but who cares?
A simple, basic rule for flying: Those who behave as civilized [fill in other words] will be treated as such. Those who do not behave in a civilized [additional words as necessary] will not - and risk removal from the airplane. Best bet: Behave like a civilized [more words if necessary] person and your trip will probably be flawless. When flying, blending and becoming inconspicuous is not a bad thing. Idiocy is not a crime, but...
So funny since I just flew out of MCI today!!! Now in YYZ heading to FRA.
@lucky
At the end of the post:
"McBride said American refused to fly the woman on to her destination, so she had to make other arrangements."
Hilarious! I would have been so irritated to be delayed like this but bad singing would be bad too!
Kansas City.. Will always love you.... EMILY for sure!
@Mikey
No of course it's not an FAA rule. The FAA doesn't care about details like that, in the same way that they don't make rules regarding if FAs can leave the plane on the ground, or about how much carry on luggage you can take aboard, or anything else like that. Those are all carrier rules. I really wish this "it's an FAA rule" silliness would stop.
The ultimate irony would be if they diverted to Houston :)
Interesting, didn't hear that the first time I watched the video.
Best I know AA's policy (which is listed in their inflight magazine) is that you can't take pictures of other people on planes.
Is that " no photos allowed on the aircraft" an official faa rule, airline term of service when you buy a ticket, or just ass covering at the spur of the moment?
That headline is worth of The Onion
hmm...another photo incident.
I love your personality in articles, but can we have real words in headlines?
"cause" --> because
You can't take pictures on an airplane? Says who? Since when? Y'all bloggers are all gonna get arrested. LOL.
Kansas City got their long-awaited wide body plane!
No wonder it did not get much traction as a story. Nobody in Atlanta watches that station for news :p
Video at 00:59 [flight attendant] "No photos are to be taken on the aircraft."
Interesting (not to redux the recent Matthew Klint United plane boot for snapping photos and mention of the "T" word).