For nervous fliers, having a cocktail or two to ease nerves on a flight isn’t unheard of. But apparently the United Kingdom has recently seen a dramatic uptick in the number of drunk passengers arrested for acting inappropriately in the air. The number of passengers arrested for being drunk or disorderly on flights or in airports has increased by 50 percent over the past year. And it’s causing a big problem for members of the cabin crew–roughly half have reported having to deal with a disruptive passenger over the same time period.

A BBC investigation surveyed 18 of the 20 UK police forces that serve major airports. They report arresting 387 passengers over the past year, up from 255 the year before that. Many cabin crew members reported that they were subjected to physical abuse from disorderly passengers. A woman who used to work in a Virgin cabin crew, Ally Murphy, told the BBC reporters about her experience, saying: “People just see us as barmaids in the sky.” She described being assaulted by passengers, stating:

I was pulled into an upper-class bed by a passenger who was feeling particularly lucky I guess. They would touch your breasts, or they’d touch your bum or your legs, or I mean I’ve had hands going up my skirt before.

It’s rage inducing, and you shouldn’t have to deal with that.

I guess I never reported it to the police because sadly, and this is completely wrong and only really occurring to me now, you kind of just accept it as part of the job. And it shouldn’t be.

Drunken fliers can potentially endanger their fellow passengers; Murphy also described a passenger trying to open an emergency door.

But in the U.S., incidents of unruly passengers actually seem to be decreasing. According to the FAA there’s been a steady decline in incidents voluntarily reported by airlines over the past few years–there were 147 in 2014, 105 in 2015, and 97 in 2016. So far, 22 incidents have been reported in 2017. But, those numbers, as well as the incidents reported in the UK, need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are surely drunk passengers who don’t alert suspicion, as well as “unruly” passengers who haven’t imbibed at all. And there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that some Americans like having a few on flights as well. A recent Vice op-ed authored by an anonymous flight attendant reported seeing plenty of drunk passengers, including those who experienced negative interactions between alcohol and calming drugs.

So, wherever you’re flying, don’t be a drunken jerk. It can be dangerous for you, other passengers, and the cabin crew.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Police See Big Increase in Drunk Flier Arrests appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hillary Clinton is a Nasty Woman?

The last presidential debate of the 2016 cycle was last night, and for all intents and purposes it was a lot more substantive than the first two. But, in true Trumpian fashion, the Republican nominee had a few inappropriate quips throughout the evening–including when he said that Hillary Clinton was a “nasty woman.” How did the internet respond? By pointing out that a lot of other “nasty women” are voting for Clinton.

I’m a nasty woman and I vote. #nastywoman #nastywomenunite

— Kate Binder (@katebinder) October 20, 2016

Nasty Woman seeks Bad Hombre to share long walks on the beach, leisurely afternoons reading, and trading off who is the real puppet.

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) October 20, 2016

The “nasty woman” comment, in the end, will sum up this presidential run and be the mark of the final undoing tonight. #debatenight

— Uzo Aduba (@UzoAduba) October 20, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules.

The problem for Amazon and other retailers with hopes of delivering orders via drones is the requirement that mandates the pilot to always be in the line of sight of the aircraft. In addition, drones can only fly in daylight, and can’t weigh more than 55 pounds.

DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems https://t.co/yr1VUrygOf #drones #flysafe pic.twitter.com/XaUTA9rhB7

— The FAA (@FAANews) June 21, 2016

The Big Brother Aspect

The biggest issue with regulating drones has been ensuring safety and privacy. Several groups have expressed fears that they could be used for spying on people, or are simply not safe enough. The fact that they can now be as small as insects, and can use cameras with facial recognition technology, is indeed unsettling to some. “The FAA continues to ignore the top concern of Americans about the deployment of commercial drones in the United States–the need for strong privacy safeguards,” Marc Rotenberg, president of Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Boston Globe.

Drone captures 70 tiger sharks feasting on a whale https://t.co/JGGv3F9pPa pic.twitter.com/gBrqVjmVYZ

— Drones (@drones) May 24, 2016

Despite this, some in the business sector are happy with the new rules. Michael Drobac, a lawyer for drone efforts at companies like Amazon and Google, said:

Within months you will see the incredible impact of these rules with commercial drones becoming commonplace in a variety of uses. This will show the technology is reliable, and then it becomes harder to argue against broader uses–like for delivery.

More Jobs

According to the press release from the Federal Aviation Administration, the new regulations could open up more than 100,000 new jobs within the next 10 years, and could generate more than $80 billion for the U.S. economy. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said: “We are part of a new era in aviation, and the potential for unmanned aircraft will make it safer and easier to do certain jobs, gather information, and deploy disaster relief.”

Before the new rules, a piloting license was needed in order to operate a drone, but with the new rules you only need  a “remote pilot certificate,” which is attainable by passing an aeronautical knowledge test. You must be at least 16-years-old to fly a drone, and cannot fly the aircraft over other people. The new rules don’t affect hobbyists, however, so if you own a drone and want to know what is allowed, you can read the FAA’s “Fly for Fun” guidelines here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes it seems like airlines would do absolutely anything to squeeze an extra few bucks out of customers. From checked bags, to snacks, to Wi-Fi, it seems like there’s a fee for almost everything. But one lawmaker–Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois)–appears to be concerned about what kind of charges will be next, and has proposed a bill to prevent airlines from charging bathroom fees in the future.

Lipinski introduced the Comfortable and Fair Flights Act of 2015, in an attempt to combat what he sees as some unreasonable present or potentially future policies from airlines. In a press release from his office he highlighted two key provisions of the proposed legislation–prohibiting airlines from charging for bathroom use, and the fact that many airlines still charge customers baggage fees even if the bags are lost or delayed.

Lipinski stated, via press release:

More and more, when airline passengers get on a flight they expect to suffer from uncomfortable conditions; as a frequent flyer I understand this. One thing they should never have to worry about is access to a bathroom.  Unfortunately, commercial flights are not required to depart with a functioning bathroom, sometimes forcing passengers to endure a trip without this basic necessity.  Moreover, as ancillary fees continue to grow, the specter of an in-flight bathroom fee continues to loom in the background since first being broached in 2010.

Additionally, many of us are all too familiar with paying baggage fees and have come to accept them as part of the flying experience.  While lost and delayed baggage rates are declining, passengers who suffer from this inconvenience do so without the right to a refund, even after hours or days of delay.  Simply put, if you pay for a service, you should get that service promptly or get your money back.

While it may seem totally crazy that airlines would begin charging for bathroom use, it’s not totally out of the realm of possibilities. Ryanair, a European low-budget airline, proposed the idea in 2010, although no American company appears to be suggesting such a notion.

It’s not just about the fees, either, it’s about bathrooms for all. The bill would allow fliers to change their flights if the bathroom on their plane was out of service. According to Popular Mechanics, “FAA regulations do not specify whether airlines must have working restroom facilities aboard; it’s something that remains at the discretion of the airline itself.”

So, it doesn’t look like we’ll be having to shell out cash for bathroom access on flights anytime soon–and that’s a very good thing. But while we’re on the topic, can we get someone to do something about this equally horrifying patent from Airbus?

I’m not sure I would #enjoy the new @Airbus#Patent for #airplane#seat arrangement… pic.twitter.com/ldwLrl8m52

— Giovanni Banzola (@gbanzola) October 15, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congressman Introduces Bill to Prevent Airlines from Charging Bathroom Fees appeared first on Law Street.

Given that they spend a large amount of time checking passengers and throw away a number of passengers’ personal items, should airport transportation security officers have a hard time finding weapons? With an annual budget of $7 million, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials believe that they set the standard for excellence in transportation security. According to ABC News, after an internal investigation with the Department of Homeland Security red teams, reports have shown otherwise. In fact, the results were so shocking that it led to the resignation of the head of the department.

Red team agents posed as passengers and conducted a series of tests to see just how secure this system really is. TSA agents did not pass 67 out of 70 tests, failing to find several mock weapons and explosives. Homeland Security discovered that the TSA fails to stop fake weapons or explosives from being smuggled through security checkpoints 95 percent of the time at some of our nation’s busiest airports. One red team investigator was stopped after setting off a magnetometer. Shockingly, after a pat-down, TSA agents still failed to find the fake explosive device taped to the investigator’s back. Frustrated by these results Jeh Johnson, the Homeland Security Secretary, set out immediately for a detailed briefing at the TSA Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. DHS officials stated,

Secretary Johnson immediately directed TSA to implement a series of actions several of which are now in place, to address the issues raised in the report.

Melvin Carraway, the head of the TSA, resigned from his position as the acting administrator upon hearing these reports. He was appointed to this position in January of 2015 and was a veteran of the TSA for 11 years, holding many positions within the organization. Carraway was reassigned to serve in the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. There doesn’t appear to have been official word from Carraway on why he has resigned yet. Mark Hatfield will be his replacement until a new acting administrator is appointed. In regards to how the TSA will be dealt with moving forward, Johnson stated,

We take these findings very seriously in our continued effort to test, measure and enhance our capabilities and techniques as threats evolve.

Unnamed officials spoken to by ABC News admitted that these results were disappointing. Government officials claim that because red team agents are familiar with TSA procedures these results are not realistic and they are able to get past security in ways that terrorists could not. The TSA requires every passenger to go through various security checks before boarding a plane. Many believe that this process is nothing but an unnecessary and insulting ritual that does not protect anyone’s safety. It seems as if the TSA is more concerned with throwing away harmless personal items than finding weapons that threaten the lives of others.

The @TSA may not be able to find any bombs, but they sure as hell can find my shampoo..

— Larry Kraus (@lsk0334) June 2, 2015

The TSA has been failing to detect mock weapons for years and studies like this spark concerns that airline security is no safer than it was during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With very few improvements, TSA has to figure out how to change their security procedures and stop these incidents from occurring.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Acting Head of the TSA Resigns After Shocking Test Results appeared first on Law Street.

The number one post on Law Street last week was written by Alexis Evans, who provided warnings about a secret TSA checklist for spotting terrorists. Check out her article if you want to avoid behaviors that could lead to some extra security scrutiny. The number two post, also written by Alexis Evans, discussed Jay Z’s new company–Tidal. Tidal may revolutionize the music industry, or it may end up pushing users back to pirating music. Finally, the number three post was written by Anneliese Mahoney about the banning of smart watches in college classrooms. Professors are concerned that they would help students cheat, and don’t want to see them brought in on test day. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 TSA Has Secret Checklist to Spot Terrorists. Hint: Don’t Yawn at Security

This checklist is part of a controversial TSA program to identify potential terrorists based on behaviors that “indicate stress or deception.” The program is known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT. SPOT is operated by trained individuals known as ‘Behavior Detection Officers’ who observe and interact with passengers during screenings. Read the full article here.

#2 Tidal: Music Industry Revolution or Expensive Setback?

How would you feel about a music streaming service with CD quality sound, video and editorial content, full offline capabilities, and exclusive tracks from your favorite artists? Sounds amazing, right? But is it worth ditching your free Spotify account for a $20-a-month fee? Rapper and business mogul Jay Z thinks that it is, and has enlisted a crew of Illuminati grade artists to back him. Read the full article here.

#3 Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating?

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s happened to everyone. You arrive at the airport, ready to jet off to a choice destination. You go up to the counter and suddenly you get hit with some BS fee. Your luggage weighs too much or maybe you have too many bags. You want to change your seat to sit with your family, but you have to pay for that too. It’s all quite infuriating, inconvenient, and most of all, expensive.

These fees have, quite frankly, gotten ridiculous. A recent USA Today study found that there are fees as high as $400 to check an overweight bag (71-100) pounds on international flights for some airlines. American Airlines charges up to $450 for such a bag on some of their international flights. There are  ridiculous charges for changing international flights, up to $400 in some cases. And there are some weird fees that are pretty cheap, but still incredibly annoying. For example, most airlines now charge around $10-$25 to book a round trip ticket from a mobile device. Frequent flier mile users can get charged just to use those miles. For example, Jet Blue and Delta both charge $25 to book a free ticket online or on a mobile device. Keep in mind that these are all just fees that apply to coach customers; first class customers have the potential for even more fees to be levied against them.

According to a few recent polls, baggage fees are hated the most by travelers, but flight change and cancellation fees were a notable second.

Why do airlines charge such exorbitant fees? Well, quite frankly, because they can. They know that people will pay to fly because they have no choice. It’s completely legal for them to institute these fees. It’s not a monopoly, but there are a finite number of places that customers can turn to to get flights. And these fees have been incredibly lucrative  for the companies — as the USA Today piece put it, “according to the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 15 U.S. airlines reported revenues of $2.6 billion from baggage fees and $2.1 billion from reservation-change fees during the first three quarters last year.”

A separate survey by Fly.com didn’t focus on the fees that travelers have to pay, but rather the fees they would want to pay. That’s right, airline passengers said they would pay more fees for certain perks, such as a fast pass to get through airline security, a guaranteed overhead bin in their area, or for their checked luggage to come out first.

After all, it would kind of make sense for airlines to offer more extensive kinds of service. In most aspects of life, we are able to choose different features based on affordability and convenience. Currently most airlines only distinguish between coach and first class, leaving travelers with only two options. (Although some airlines do offer things like extra space seats for a little more.)

It’s probably wishful thinking, but charging people only for the things they want — like overhead bin space — may lower the prices for the rest of us?

I know this is an overused gif, but it was too applicable to pass up.

Nah, these prices are never going down, we should all just get used to paying an arm and a leg for some of our flights.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airline Fees Are Getting Even More Annoying appeared first on Law Street.