Back to Squawk list
  • 34

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. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

indy2001 25
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.
David Rei 1
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.]

Ben Thurston 9
Sorry--how is upholding the right of an airline to refuse boarding to a drunk passenger somehow "liberalism"?
Ty Miller -9
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.
Ben Thurston 3
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?
n9341c 3
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.
Ben Thurston 1
Yeah, I think you're probably right. Thanks for helping to clarify this!
sparkie624 0
Exactly Right...
sharon bias 17
I wish more US airlines would have a backbone and keep drunk and disorderly passengers off the planes. A fairly high percentage of flights that have to make emergency landings due to passenger problems are because the passenger is disorderly, not ill.
working in passenger service supervison at ORD some years back, I refused a passenger four days in a row to travel on us overseas as each time he showed up to the gate he was three sheets under. But he was a happy drunk; he just kept saying "what am i supposed to do all day; not drink?"
David Tsai 4
"Um... yes?"
Stupidity. Just the sheer fact that this individual could have caused a major disturbance in flight, not been able to take care of themselves during an emergency requiring additional, and wasted manpower. Since the claimant is in the legal community I'm sure he really felt he could win some money. Glad to see the Airlines stood its ground...way too many of them feel it's easier to settle out of court.

In American courts, he would be paying the airline legal fees as well.
Martin Doyle 1
Very unlikely. Absent a contract provision awarding fees to the winning party, US courts only award fees n the most extreme cases.
Greg77FA 7
What is amazing to me is American Airlines (AA) provides free drinks to those in exit rows. I am not kidding. Like - What is that about?!? And this was like 3 weeks ago on a flight from BOS to DFW.
David Rei 2
I wasn't aware that those in exit row seats automatically got free alcoholic beverages on AA flights (at least on domestic routes). The exit row seats are usually premium seats that passengers have to pay extra for UNLESS they are premium passengers. Executive Platinum flyers can sit there for no additional cost, so that's typically where they sit when they're not up front. Then their exec. platinum status is what gets them the free drinks.
Tim Duggan -6
Greg77FA? You and I both know that once on-board a few drinks provided BY the F/As isn't bad. In the rare case that an emergency develops?? YOU, as a Flight Crew member will assign ABAs (Able Bodied Assistants) to Exits. That's in your training, correct?? I feel that IN such a scenario, the adrenaline kicks in...and any alcohol in the person's body is overrun.
Surely, you do not believe that. Science, as well as Human Factor testing during emergency situations, have proven just the opposite of what you are stating.

This is not late-breaking news but the FAA has actually testing Human Factor scenario's with "drunk" passengers / flight crews.
if a person seems unstable,smells of alcohol, and the first thing they ask for is a glass of champagne as the aricle says,i can understand why a flight attendant would tell the captain, and the passengers would not be allowed to fly..i believe the article said it was from Brisbane to dubai,and that's not a short hop...drunken passengers either just go to sleep or they cause a ruckus, and its usually the latter!
lecompte2 2
The simple solution is explained in the article, the Captain made the decision to refuse boarding to the drunk passengers. This decision for the safety and comfort of the passengers and crew should always be final. No matter what any judge says.
There seems to be a lot of soap-boxing going on around this, but looking at the topic objectively, what should be the "legal limit" for being an airline passenger? One drink and you can't fly the plane. More than two drinks (in most places) and you can't drive a car. Generally there's an expectation that rules are somewhat well defined. Arguments about the potential for disturbance during flight and additional assistance during an emergency might as well be made against those with disabilities. I just think it'd be better all round if there were a somewhat objective approach taken, rather than something that at times comes across as a bit puritanical.
Alcohol is ONLY a disaster waiting to happen and therefore should NEVER be served on any aircraft, air crews know this all to well...
Tim Duggan -6
In the USA it is part of the FARs. This is not new "news".

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Larry Toler 6
Are you kidding me? While I worked terminating air freight at Ramstein AB, our Germans worked their asses off until 2200 hours.
gambia800 -6
shit Europe dhit Germany


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.