And I do not think most employers would put up with this kind of behavior.
I’m not quite sure I understand you - do you believe that the bosses of these execs wouldn’t have found out about the misbehaviour if it hadn’t been in the press? Or do you mean that it would have been ironed over if it hadn’t been in the press?
Because the flight was delayed, so the execs missed their original date; the other customers will sue the execs; and the air line will probably also sue the execs for the damage. I have a hard time seeing how they could’ve kept this quiet.
On the other hand, if these type of people are symptomatic for the execs at this company - if most of the bosses are pointy-haired managers - they might not have noticed warning signs before.
Because the PR problem is not only that these execs behaved badly, it’s the question why a company would employ these clowns and not notice that they were less than full value.
And even if they hadn’t been on company time, for execs to show such a serious lack of judgment and self-control would be understandable reason for concern and a serious talk or warning in file even if off the clock.
As they were on company business they were at work.
In the U.K. in many jobs it is a dismissable offence to even drink alcohol in working hours let alone be drunk and obnoxious.
Also if they messed up this bad on this occasion whats the chances of them doing it on another occasion while working ?
Its a risk that the company doesn’t want or need to make.
For me it would come down to how valuable the employees would be relative to how costly the bad press would be. If they were deadwood, it would be a good excuse to unload them without having to pay them off for dismissal without cause. If they were the future of the company, then I would send them off to Homewood Health Centre in nearby Guelph to get them out of sight and cleaned up.
A company like RiM is probably fat with dead wood at this point in the game. They could probably get rid of half of their senior management and no one would notice.
Has it been revealed what exactly it was that these two knobs did?
They’re already facing huge fines and other penalties.
I’d like to think that our system allows for people to make an egregious mistake and learn from it. Lifetime bans for a single offense seem excessive in that regard.
Yes, what kind of a world would we live in if people weren’t offered the opportunity to force international flights to land because of their foolishness TWICE?
Is that a serious response, or just glibness?
Do you honestly think that a lifetime ban on flying is the proper response?
Does that even make sense? They were drunk and disorderly. One can, I imagine, be drunk and disorderly on the ground as well. Should they be handed lifetime bans on being in public places where alcohol is served?
Or, turning it around the other way, should everyone who is arrested for drunk and disorderly behavior be banned from flying? After all, people who can’t be trusted to comport themselves on the ground can hardly be trusted in the air.
Focusing on the fact that these guys were asshole idiots in a plane and banning them from being on planes ever again is both unjust and pretty silly.
I work for a Fortune 500 company in the US, and I’m sure that if something like this were to happen because of a couple of drunk execs, they would be fired and the company would be publishing a public apology for their behavior.
If they didn’t work for RIM, it might have taken a bit longer the employer to hear about it, but it still would have gotten to them, and the execs still would have been fired.
You think it’s silly?
I just wanna check to make sure you occupy the same reality as the rest of us. Flying is serious business these days. You’re not allowed to carry a pair of nail scissors with you and you can be taken down by an undercover agent for standing up while the seatbelt light is still on.
These guys behaved badly enough that a plane had to make an unscheduled landing. Hundreds of people were inconvenienced. Fuck 'em, they can take Amtrak.
Hmmm… imagine if they had been disruptive and the flight still continued and they were handed over the the Chinese authorities instead 
That is a different problem – one that lies with the authorities, rather than with the drunks.
As it stands, we don’t know the facts that resulted in the plane turning around. Were they drunk and verbally abusive, or were they physically abusive, or were they acting in a way to put the plane at risk? We don’t know at this time. It could be that they were just abusive drunks who made the flight miserable, but due to the over-the-top precautions of the authorities the flight turned around. It could be that they were actually putting the flight or other people on the flight at real risk of harm. Quite frankly, I have no more confidence in the reasonablness of the procedures and actual practices pertaining to security in the air than I have in the reasonableness of a couple of drunks.
I think that focusing on the plane is silly. People get drunk and disorderly. They should be punished. I don’t agree that they should be punished overwhelmingly disproportionately to their location.
Are you holding up those practices as examples of the sort of sound thinking that should guide our response in this case? Because to me they are absurd and cartoonish overreactions caused by irrational fear and a cover-your-ass mentality.
Should people who crash their cars on the freeway be prohibited from ever driving again? They often inconvenience thousands or tens of thousands of people.
I’m not saying we should give these guys a slap on the wrist. I’m saying a lifetime flying ban is excessive. Can’t we fine them 10s of thousands of dollars, let 'em spend a few weeks in jail, and ground them for a year or two? That’s not enough? We think they’re such a threat that they have to be prevented from boarding an airplane 30 years from now?
Just to throw out another point: lots of murderers get out of jail after a few decades, and are allowed to fly on airplanes. Do we really think that these two drunk idiots are so irredeemable that they deserve a lifetime ban?
Sheesh, they ended up having to drive across the Prairies to Winnipeg. Isn’t that enough punishment? I mean, Winnipeg? Good God!
Must agree with those like Tastes of Chocolate and others who say that had they been execs for some less-headliney corporation the consequences would probably still be dismissal, just that we the common public, outside of those immediately affected, would not have heard about it. Otherwise you’d be presuming that absent press headlines the corporations would ***not ***discipline harshly this kind of incident.
And what with them being in Canada, that’s having them *** really*** fucked.
After the humiliation, the heavy fines, and the job losses (and the very real possibility of a lot of small claims actions against them personally by the other passengers), I doubt if either of them will disrupt a plane again, so banning them from flying would not be of any benefit to the public, whereas not banning them would make it easier for them to continue with their careers (albeit with other employers), resulting in more tax revenues for the public.
The OP asks a question with a ludicrously simple answer: They should be fired because their bosses think they should be fired.
Being a little more charitable, the OP might be construed as asking whether the bosses should think they should be fired. But the OP states outright that the bosses basically had no choice.
I think what the OP is trying to ask, then, is “Should their employer have been mentioned in the news story?”
The answer is “I’m okay with it.” It’s part of what makes the story a story that these weren’t just a couple of guys–they were executives. That makes what they did more interesting, and “news” seems to mean, among other things, “what’s interesting.”
But that leads immediately to the question “Executives for what company?” Can’t see any reason for the newspaper not to mention this if they’re going to mention they’re executives. If they don’t, someone else will anyway…
I wonder if each of the passengers will be offered a free app . . . .
I’m not focused on their location, per se. I’m focused on the level of bad behavior necessary to get a plane to make an unscheduled landing. That said, you behave that way in a bar, you’re certainly likely to be banned from that bar.
If they did it because they were too fucked up to drive, sure. Otherwise… really? No, really? You sure you don’t wanna try that one again, using a situation that bears some tiny bit of resemblance to the situation described in the OP?
I suspect a criminal penalty of being permanently grounded is unlikely, though it wouldn’t break my heart. Other than that, I think it’s up to the airlines, isn’t it? Is there some constitutional right to fly that I’m not aware of?
i agree with what happened to them, but personally myself the first thing I would be doing is lawyering up for the lawsuit against rim. They probably have something in their work place book, that says something about employee privacy. Since I have no idea about how different it is for the higher paygrades, I’d assume that it should not be all that different than mine, that my current employer can only say that I worked between x and y time frame and that the last position I held was z.
Beyond that, anything further is a violation of privacy laws.
As soon as they got released from RCMP custody they should have had orders to report back to waterloo and the meeting with their HR people. Rim should not have issued a press release saying they were going to be separated from the company, even before they got back into Ontario.
They should have had oppurtunity to tell their side of the story, and then gone for the high jump if it does not contradict what the air canada people say. But the most Rim should have said is that these two folks are no longer in their employ and that it.
At the very minimum, I would be suing Rim to cover what they are supposed to pay Air Canada for diverting that flight,
Declan