rightpedalRIGHTPEDAL
21st Aug 2002, 13:46
I was having dinner a little while ago in a quiet establishment in Antigua, and at the bar was a captain and an FO who, being a bit in the sauce, were loudly discussing the diminishing quality of the punters they transported around, and the subject of air rage.
What they were discussing in their plummy tones, was rather than having to land and let the authorities deal with abusive/menacing passengers, pilots should be armed and be allowed them to despatch them with "one to the back of the head".
They went on a bit more about these "earring wearing, tattooed oinks", who scam the gov't for their dole money tickets etc etc etc.
Now being a bit of a tattooed oink with a few holes in my lobes, not to mention being an aircraft captain myself, I started wondering about a few things.
1. Was it appropriate for these fine upstanding aviation professionals to be having such a loud public discussion?
2. Do they realise, that, unfortunately, it is upon these same "oinks" that they rely for their rather large income.
3. That anyone who heard could have tracked them down and taken follow up action in the form of a complaint to their company. Might have been a "News of the World" or Sun reporter there.
Just a thought...............
PS Apologies to all concerned 'twas a momentary lapse in reason. The semantics escaped me...to rephrase..."OIKS"
What they were discussing in their plummy tones, was rather than having to land and let the authorities deal with abusive/menacing passengers, pilots should be armed and be allowed them to despatch them with "one to the back of the head".
They went on a bit more about these "earring wearing, tattooed oinks", who scam the gov't for their dole money tickets etc etc etc.
Now being a bit of a tattooed oink with a few holes in my lobes, not to mention being an aircraft captain myself, I started wondering about a few things.
1. Was it appropriate for these fine upstanding aviation professionals to be having such a loud public discussion?
2. Do they realise, that, unfortunately, it is upon these same "oinks" that they rely for their rather large income.
3. That anyone who heard could have tracked them down and taken follow up action in the form of a complaint to their company. Might have been a "News of the World" or Sun reporter there.
Just a thought...............
PS Apologies to all concerned 'twas a momentary lapse in reason. The semantics escaped me...to rephrase..."OIKS"