Jocelynn Scutt seems to have forgotten the human right to freedom of association. Babies don't have a "human right" to be everywhere, regardless whether or not the owners of the place want them to be there, and neither do people who urinate on the floor. If Joceyln, and everyone who agrees with her, want to provide airline flights on the basis she espouses, they are should do so - at their own cost. Go ahead. Publish a prospectus and raise capital on the basis stated. That way cost and values will be perfectly aligned, and there will be no question of facile moral grandstanding on Jocelyn's part. Or perhaps I have a "human right" to be in Jocelyn's house without her consent and urinate on her loungeroom floor? There is no such thing as a "human right" to airline flights.

Good article Jocelynne. Airlines are different to most businesses in that their operations are not subject to state and local government jurisdiction.

Airlines create a lot of noise and pollution that would not be tolerated in any other business. In return, there is an implied social contract to carry all passengers. Obviously people who are violent or drunk are not tolerated but those with children or with a disability should be catered for as part of the social contract.

Peter Hume "Or perhaps I have a "human right" to be in Jocelyn's house without her consent and urinate on her lounge room floor?"

A puerile, invalid comparison - if in Jocelyn's house you could chose to use the toilet, go outside, or even use the kitchen sink. Those options were not available to Depardieu.

I have been in a similar, prostate caused, situation due to a long delayed push-back, but fortunately a male attendant opened a toilet for me against the protests of the female staff, just before urine would have involuntarily flown from my bladder.

What did these idiots expect me to do? Because they can "hold on" for long periods does not mean all can. What harm is there in using the toilet when the plane is stationary (or moving for that matter) at a time when it's safe for cabin staff to move around

L.B.

If it's not inconveniencing everyone else, I agree that the airline should do as you suggest. But that's not what Jocelynne's talking about. She's saying if it's *not* convenient for everyone else, you've got a *right*.

The puerile invalid argument is all Jocelynne's own; my argument is only reflecting hers at its own level. It's puerile because Jocelynne has failed to make the most basic distinction between somebody wanting something, and having a right to it. And it's invalid unless it applies equally to everyone else - including her!

Wattle
That's like saying because you make noise, there's an "implied social contract" that other people have a right to come onto your property without your consent.

I doubt I have ever read such a strange article as this one on OLO before!

Surely we can't equate an airline's discrimination against passengers with babies, with an obvious drunken idiot peeing in the aisle of a plane?

If, as the author suggests, Depardieau had a prostate problem, then he would have a reduced or slow 'flow' and thus would not have a 'strong stream' of urine that was too much for the bottle provided for him to pee in. Lol.

More than likely, he had drunk too much (as alleged by a newspaper report I read), and he had a full bladder from the alcohol over-indulgence.

How many other men have you heard of that needed to pee in the aisle of the plane because of not being allowed to go to the toilet during take-off or landing?

Not too many I would suggest.

Your suggestion that the airlines should provide portable urinals for men to pee in if the 'urgent' need arose during the short time of take-off and landing is laughable.

If they had an incontinence problem they would surely be able to attend to this problem themselves? Incontinence pads are quite effective these days.

Urinating into containers while seated in airline seats would be unpleasant in the extreme for all those around the man.

suzeonline,

You obviously have no direct experience of the range of men's prostrate-induced urine "problems", unless you are a man hiding behind a woman's pseudonym.

Being old, I have years of extensive personal experience, as well as detailed experience of the "problems" of close male friends, and you are dribbling (could not help that).

As a nurse, Mr Loveday, I have extensive experience with men with prostate problems actually. And my father suffers from this disorder.

Having taken many, many elderly men with prostate problems to the toilet in hospitals over the years, and stood by while they use a urinal, I can assure you none of them had a 'strong stream'!

Yes, they dribbled, and yes many were incontinent, but I never met any who acted like this drunken actor did in the aisle of a plane!

Are you suggesting that because he may have had a prostate disorder that it was ok for him to pee in the plane aisle, or that you would suggest he was being 'discriminated against' because he wasn't allowed to get up and go to the toilet during take-off or landing?

What about if they let him go to the toilet at this time, and he fell and fractured his skull as the plane hit turbulence?
Would he then be likely to take the airline to court?
What a load of rubbish.

susieonline wrote "What about if they let him go to the toilet at this time, and he fell and fractured his skull as the plane hit turbulence?"

Huh?

The plane was on the ground! Read the story "...Depardieu is removed from the aircraft....".

Do you think they chucked him out mid-flight or that that stationary planes hit turbulence?

The prostate issue aside (and who knows what they deem a "strong stream"; mine is at times a steady stream, but urgent), to ban someone who says it is urgent from urinating on a stationary plane is unwise, even irrational.

What if susieonline had diarrhea? Would she think the attendants should make her "poo her pants"?

The attendants are like trained monkeys about standing - I once remembered I'd omitted to turn off a mobile in the overhead cabin, and stood up to so do. Two female attendants rushed up and ordered me to sit down. During the time I explained what I wanted to do and they repeated their order, I could have turned it off 5 times.

So my "safety" was more important than the alleged danger to everyone caused by the phone being on! They could stand with safety, but I could not? Not even to safeguard the safety of all passengers and crew, according to the spiel they presented just minutes earlier?

The danger to anyone of letting Depardieu use the toilet approximates to 0.00000000.

Mr. Loveday, a plane taxiing to it's take off position IS considered part of the take-off procedure.
Read the real story:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0818/1224302639122.html

The plane was moving, the seatbelt signs were on, and the air-hostesses had told him to sit down repeatedly.
There is no conspiracy on the airways to stop you doing what you want ... but merely to keep you safe.

What about those whose disabilities confine them to bed? Should the airlines have a legal obligation not to discriminate, and have to accept them bed and all?

Peter Hume, the airlines will accept anyone, as long as they can pay for the 5 or 6 seats needed to accommodate a portable stretcher bed.
Not many disabled people confined to bed could afford that!

I have accompanied several sick bed-ridden people flying from Northern Australia to Perth hospitals via commercial passenger planes.
The Health Department paid for this though.