U.S. Airways Sues State Over Alcohol Sales
- Thread starter Couldbewrong23
- Start date
It's my understanding that it's not only New Mexico, but also Florida that is banning in-flight sales of alcohol... I think I read a message for Flight Attendants advising them of the Florida situation in addition to New Mexico...
vantheman63
Senior
I am 1,000% in the camp of US Airways on this issue. They should win, I hope they win and I would do whatever I could to support them in this effort.
It's COMPLETELY wrong that NM is doing this...or any state. Oddly enough, there are some bigger issues at stake here, for example, "who ultimately has a say and jurisdiction over a national airline" that will ultimately come into play.
I hope US nails NM...from a personal liberties point of view, it would be DEVISTATING to see NM win this one.
Shame on NM!!!
It's COMPLETELY wrong that NM is doing this...or any state. Oddly enough, there are some bigger issues at stake here, for example, "who ultimately has a say and jurisdiction over a national airline" that will ultimately come into play.
I hope US nails NM...from a personal liberties point of view, it would be DEVISTATING to see NM win this one.
Shame on NM!!!
On the ground the States may be able to regulate it. Certianly at the gate, though on the ramp and taxiways are a bit more muddled. Once in the air it's the National Airspace System. The States can scream as loud as they want, the Feds say "tough". This actually came up, I think in Mass., regarding aircraft noise. There was an aerobatic practice area over or near someones house. I dont' know which came first. The owner complained, and the local municipality passed a ban on something, can't remember if it was aerobatics or a no fly zone or what. A pilot orginization (I want to say EAA) challenged it with the FAA and won. The decision stated that the airspace is part of the NAS and only the Federal Government can dictate it's use and restrictions. Another example is in NY. AOPA fought (I believe sucessfully, though it may still be pending) New York States attempt at requiring background checks for anyone seeking a pilots license in the State. Unfortunatly for NY, pilot licensing is done by the Feds.
US Airways is free to seek relief through the court. I have no problem with this.
I hope they lose, though. Alcohol should only be served by people properly trained in an organization properly licensed, and the way US runs things, I wouldn't want US flight attendants serving alcohol (not a slam on the flight attendants, but rather a slam on management's mis-management of the whole operation).
I hope they lose, though. Alcohol should only be served by people properly trained in an organization properly licensed, and the way US runs things, I wouldn't want US flight attendants serving alcohol (not a slam on the flight attendants, but rather a slam on management's mis-management of the whole operation).
Should'nt US shoulder some of the blame for boarding him?
nycbusdriver
Veteran
As to the FAR, it is illegal for an airline to board a passenger who appears to be intoxicated:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 121.575 Alcoholic beverages.
(a ) No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him.
(b ) No certificate holder may serve any alcoholic beverage to any person aboard any of its aircraft who—
(1) Appears to be intoxicated;
(2) Is escorting a person or being escorted in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.221; or
(3) Has a deadly or dangerous weapon accessible to him while aboard the aircraft in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.219, 1544.221, or 1544.223.
(c ) No certificate holder may allow any person to board any of its aircraft if that person appears to be intoxicated.
(d ) Each certificate holder shall, within five days after the incident, report to the Administrator the refusal of any person to comply with paragraph (a) of this section, or of any disturbance caused by a person who appears to be intoxicated aboard any of its aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think that states should retain the right to require ABC licensing for operations at the gate. Federal Aviation Regulations take over at the time the airplane begins to move under its own power for the purpose of flight until it arrives at the destination gate. So even during taxi and extended ground delays off the gate, I think the airlines should fall under federal law and tell the states to "kiss my a**."
I lived in Virginia years ago and at that time (maybe still in effect) Virginia required a "Virginia Pilot License" from pilots who lived in the state. It was more of a hidden tax than anything, but I do know of general aviation pilots (with a Virginia address on their license) who were ramp checked by Virgina authorities and fined for not having the state license. At the time I was told that the law passed federal muster as long as the operation remained within the Commonwealth of Virginia. If you lived in Virginia but did not fly airplanes within the state, you didn't need a state license (which applied to me.) At any rate, they never bothered airline operations because they knew most airline pilots would probably have told them to go pound sand.
We have also seen the birth and rise of SWA at Love Field in Dallas (after it was closed to airline operations by federal law) by Herb Kelleher's clever use of the loophole for intrastate operations. Back at its inception, SWA flew exclusively within Texas and was allowed to continue to operate from Love Field because the federal rules only applied to interstate flights.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 121.575 Alcoholic beverages.
(a ) No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him.
(b ) No certificate holder may serve any alcoholic beverage to any person aboard any of its aircraft who—
(1) Appears to be intoxicated;
(2) Is escorting a person or being escorted in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.221; or
(3) Has a deadly or dangerous weapon accessible to him while aboard the aircraft in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.219, 1544.221, or 1544.223.
(c ) No certificate holder may allow any person to board any of its aircraft if that person appears to be intoxicated.
(d ) Each certificate holder shall, within five days after the incident, report to the Administrator the refusal of any person to comply with paragraph (a) of this section, or of any disturbance caused by a person who appears to be intoxicated aboard any of its aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think that states should retain the right to require ABC licensing for operations at the gate. Federal Aviation Regulations take over at the time the airplane begins to move under its own power for the purpose of flight until it arrives at the destination gate. So even during taxi and extended ground delays off the gate, I think the airlines should fall under federal law and tell the states to "kiss my a**."
I lived in Virginia years ago and at that time (maybe still in effect) Virginia required a "Virginia Pilot License" from pilots who lived in the state. It was more of a hidden tax than anything, but I do know of general aviation pilots (with a Virginia address on their license) who were ramp checked by Virgina authorities and fined for not having the state license. At the time I was told that the law passed federal muster as long as the operation remained within the Commonwealth of Virginia. If you lived in Virginia but did not fly airplanes within the state, you didn't need a state license (which applied to me.) At any rate, they never bothered airline operations because they knew most airline pilots would probably have told them to go pound sand.
We have also seen the birth and rise of SWA at Love Field in Dallas (after it was closed to airline operations by federal law) by Herb Kelleher's clever use of the loophole for intrastate operations. Back at its inception, SWA flew exclusively within Texas and was allowed to continue to operate from Love Field because the federal rules only applied to interstate flights.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 178
A few thoughts:
1. New Mexico, and any other state, has the right to create and enforce any liquor laws it chooses on ** land ** belonging to New Mexico.
2. US Airways has the right to legally question any desparity it feels it is subject to in the implimentation and enforcement of laws and regulations in effect in any state.
3. FAR's do say that airlines must not board a passenger who ** appears ** to be intoxicated, nor may serve alcohol to any person who ** appears ** to be intoxicated. The key word is ** appears ** . For someone to ** appear ** intoxicated one must have enough interaction with that person to make a knowing observation. At present it is entirely possible to board an intoxicated person because a person with just a carry-on can get a boarding pass at home Then simply only need to pass though a TSA checkpoint, then simply only present a boardintg pass to a gate agent and walk on a plane past FA's that say hi and the person never needs to utter a single word to any airline employee. So, unless the person is staggering drunk, they can potentially make it onto the plane and never meet the criteria of ** appearing ** intoxicated because no true interaction need occur.
4. I still firmly contend that alcohol distribution should be prohibited on all airlines, period. Airports should not have bars in them that serve alcohol. There are too many potential problems that can arise and I believe that if people need to drink to get on a plane they should be on a train or bus instead. My belief is not based in religion or anything other then casue and effect, as well as a basic question of why do it if there are so many potential detrimental effects.
1. New Mexico, and any other state, has the right to create and enforce any liquor laws it chooses on ** land ** belonging to New Mexico.
2. US Airways has the right to legally question any desparity it feels it is subject to in the implimentation and enforcement of laws and regulations in effect in any state.
3. FAR's do say that airlines must not board a passenger who ** appears ** to be intoxicated, nor may serve alcohol to any person who ** appears ** to be intoxicated. The key word is ** appears ** . For someone to ** appear ** intoxicated one must have enough interaction with that person to make a knowing observation. At present it is entirely possible to board an intoxicated person because a person with just a carry-on can get a boarding pass at home Then simply only need to pass though a TSA checkpoint, then simply only present a boardintg pass to a gate agent and walk on a plane past FA's that say hi and the person never needs to utter a single word to any airline employee. So, unless the person is staggering drunk, they can potentially make it onto the plane and never meet the criteria of ** appearing ** intoxicated because no true interaction need occur.
4. I still firmly contend that alcohol distribution should be prohibited on all airlines, period. Airports should not have bars in them that serve alcohol. There are too many potential problems that can arise and I believe that if people need to drink to get on a plane they should be on a train or bus instead. My belief is not based in religion or anything other then casue and effect, as well as a basic question of why do it if there are so many potential detrimental effects.
N965VJ
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
- Reaction score
- 149
The same could be said for outlawing tobacco as well, but there is too much money to be made both in the private sector as well as tax revenues.
N965VJ
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
- Reaction score
- 149
No, I mean outlawing tobacco entirely.
Guys like Bloomburg in New York City would never go for that. A pack of Marlboros at the Bunny Deli is almost ten bucks with his tax.
Pick up a history textbook; prohibition failed.
