Unruly Passenger Forces JetBlue Flight To Make Unscheduled Landing

An unidentified passenger is being questioned by the Denver police department after his unruly behavior forced a JetBlue flight from New York to San Francisco to land at DIA.

No word on what the guy was doing to disrupt the flight, but everyone is ok and the diverted passengers were given vouchers for a free one-way flight.

We know this time of year is stressful, but try to behave yourselves.

Plane diverted to Denver after in-flight disturbance [9News]
(Photo:Meghann Marco)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. timmus says:

    Here’s the flight path… interesting:
    [flightaware.com]

    Seeing as it landed at 5 am, being a red-eye flight, I bet there were some pissed passengers.

  2. timmus says:

    Also looks to me like they took over 3 hours to get the plane on its way again. What’s the delay, JetBlue?

  3. missdona says:

    I got diverted to SFO on the way to Hawaii last April. Delta gave us all apologies, which isn’t as good as a one way ticket.

  4. azntg says:

    @timmus: Being that Jetblue had to make an unscheduled landing, I’d give the benefit of the doubt in that case.

  5. rgs says:

    It might help if you read the article a little more carefully. Red-eye flights almost always go west to east and the article said it was flying from San Francisco to New York, not New York to San Francisco. The JetBlue red-eye from San Francisco to New York is scheduled to leave at 11:05 pm, which would put it over Denver at about 2 am local time if it was on time. Since it landed at about 5 am, that means it was at least 3 hours late, which might explain why the guy was pissed, especially if the late flight was going to cause him to miss a connection. The article doesn’t say what was meant by “unruly”, so it could have been an unpleasant passenger or a flight attendant with a very bad attitude.

  6. Hoss says:

    “unruly”

  7. Hoss says:

    “Unruly” includes mentally disturbed…no detailed information on this one

  8. socalrob of the 24 and a half century says:

    @timmus:
    Considering they came in for an unscheduled landing, and its a busy travel season… that might be why the delay.

    But at least they were cool about the delay. Thats why I like Jet Blue. I haven’t had a problem with them, always good times.

  9. missdona says:

    @missdona: I was diverted due to a crazy detoxing bitch. We’d all call her “unruly.”

  10. UpsetPanda says:

    When planes have to make an unscheduled landing, not only do they have to talk to air traffic control, they have to integrate themselves with a traffic pattern that has to be reconfigured just a bit to accommodate a new plane. Also, they have to secure a terminal to land at, and airport security needs to be fully updated of the situation and circumstances that led to the unscheduled landing, in this case, there was an unruly passenger. I think a 3 hour delay is fully possible if security had to make sure that the “threat” was contained and it was an isolated incident and making sure there isn’t a bigger problem, like this guy has no contact information and they can’t find whoever he was meeting at the destination airport).

    Good job, JetBlue though, in making things a little more tolerable for their passengers.

  11. Trai_Dep says:

    …Another New Yorker slipping into a blind panic over the thought of having to be nice for a change while visiting the Golden State of California.

  12. NoWin says:

    Darn, too bad we lost out building the SST years ago. Then the unruly ones could get unruly “after” they had reached their destination, saving the rest of us from their own idiocity.

  13. mantari says:

    Nobody (on the ground) wants an SST except for ocean flights. A NY to SF flight via SST? Let’s hope not.

  14. BK88 says:

    @CaffeinatedSquint: At 3am MST? No
    coordination with traffic pattern and integration required. The initial
    delay is with coordinating with one of the airline’s dispatchers to see
    what airport they are approved to land at by the FAA is the closest,
    according to their operating certificate.

    Dealing with ATC is easy, “Denver Center, Jetblue 648 needs to
    divert to Denver International, unruly passenger.” Then the controller
    changes the destination and gives them their routing to Denver, pretty
    much direct at 3AM MST. The dispatcher then does the coordination for
    security and securing a gate.

  15. timmus says:

    Heh… that’s the most hilarious justification I’ve ever heard for building the SST. I propose it be graphed as typical blood alcohol level vs. arrival time at the destination city (with Boeing 747 poo-poohed with a separate graph line).

  16. coren says:

    It’s also possible that they got some refueling done, just to be on the safe side.

  17. Buran says:

    @mantari: What, you pansies can’t handle a backfire-like sound for one second? It’s attitudes like yours that keep us running dirty power plants instead of building new cleaner wind/nuclear/solar plants.

  18. Buran says:

    @timmus: I sure hope they compensated the passengers somehow for failing to do what they said they would — this delay is certainly under their control and the plane didn’t fall out of the sky or get forced down due to weather. They could have continued on.

  19. VaMPKiSS1 says:

    @Buran: One second? Backfire-like sound?? You’ve obviously never heard the SST fly over. I live near JFK and for most of my life I could set my clock by the arrivals and departures of the SST, and the way it would obliterate all other sound and shake my house and knock my cabinets open, which is why we had to rubber band the doors shut so the dishes wouldn’t fall out.

    @trai_dep: New York would collectively like to invite you to kiss our ass.

  20. EtherealStrife says:

    Could consumerist be more vague?

    @VaMPKiSS1 and @mantari: Whatever. I spent over a decade next to a MCAS with frequent low-altitude supersonic flights and it was no biggie. I don’t have any experience with the SST, but with the recent SSBD [en.wikipedia.org] and other improvements in the last 30 years current gen SSTs would not be the same as the concordes of old.

    @VaMPKiSS1: I believe you furthered trai_dep’s point. =P

  21. Buran says:

    @VaMPKiSS1: Actually, yes I have been under flyovers of supersonic aircraft before. There’s no need to assume that someone is a clueless idiot before spouting off at them.

  22. VaMPKiSS1 says:

    @Buran: I kept reading over my post and looking for the words “clueless” and “idiot” in it and I couldn’t find them. Mind helping?

    @EtherealStrife: Hey, he took the first shot. You want people to be “nice” to you, you should probably not go out of your way to paint them with a stereotype brush, heh. :P

    As to the other topic, I often find Military plane fly overs to be a lot, LOT quieter than the SST ever was. I think they were probably better designed, obviously. And maybe planes designed today would be a lot quieter (which probably wouldn’t be hard, given how friggen loud that sucker was). I just find the characterization of the sound as a “one second backfire like sound” to be severely misleading. It was nothing like a truck backing up a block over. You knew the SST was going over, whether you were asleep or awake, and I’m a person used to the sound of airplanes overhead.

  23. meneye says:

    Next time they should just ‘shut him up’ and continue the flight.

  24. Buran says:

    @VaMPKiSS1: Huh? I only have one post in this thread, so I’m not sure where that came from.

  25. Buran says:

    @VaMPKiSS1: oh there it is. Stupid thing ate it. And I didn’t say you actually used those words, but I did sense an undercurrent of “you don’t know what you’re talking about” when in fact I heard the kind of sound I described, so why the assumption that that was not what I heard?

  26. clevershark says:

    It’s amazing that the Concorde had as long a career as it did, given the comments here that describe its sound as a building-razing sonic armageddon.

  27. VaMPKiSS1 says:

    @Buran: You know, I’m starting to think there might be a miscommunication. I’m going to swap out a word and see if it doesn’t clear it up, because it occurs to me that when I say SST and when other people say SST, we might not mean the same thing.

    From my earlier post: “You’ve obviously never heard the Concorde fly over.”

    Not to say you’ve never heard any supersonic aircraft, but oh my god the noise that thing made. But I’d also like to point out the irony in you being sensitive when your post called people pansies to begin with. A little projection, maybe? :P

  28. ToadKillerDog says:

    [consumerist.com]
    CLEVERSHARK Ignore this post everybody. Just testing how to inbed a user name.

    This is just a test. If it had not been a test something thoughtful and incisive would have been said but this is just a test.

  29. Rusted says:

    @VaMPKiSS1: I’ve heard the Concorde take from Dulles on afterburner. That was awesome. Major awesome. Loud like God with a bullhorn.

  30. AlphaTeam says:

    Yeah was on a flight where there was an unruly passenger. Luckily it was before take off, but the guys yelled at a flight attendent when she asked him if he would lower his voice as he was goofing around.

    Next thing I knew, the captain cut the engine and a bunch of TSA guys came on the play and escorted the guy off.

  31. @clevershark: I’m dying laughing.

  32. ekthesy says:

    @VaMPKiSS1:
    @Buran:

    I also lived near JFK in the Concorde days, and I can verify that during approach and landing, it was incredibly loud. The first time I heard it, I was on the beach and I thought that a bomb had gone off. I recall almost a ripping sound, (even though the airspeed was clearly subsonic).

    I have also heard stories of dishes falling out, etc. A friend of mine had a cabinet anchored to the wall; one day it just fell out. Years of vibrations had worn away the Sheetrock around the wall anchors.

    Both of you may indeed be correct. Buran, keep in mind that we experienced the SST during landing, when it was 300 feet above our heads–not during 35,000′ flyover. Your experience may have been different, and thus seemed less bothersome.

  33. joellevand says:

    They left the unruly passenger at DIA? Shit. He/she’ll never see the light of day again!