I don't understand the hate toward her. There was an issue, a disruption, it was handled and she was charged. Move on. If she becomes a repeat aggressor, the airline can choose to blacklist her. But sitting here talking about don't ever fly if you have panic attacks is pretty unsympathetic to people who experience them. What's your alternative to long distance travel? Drive?
First—no one here is expressing any “hate” toward BF, so I reject that characterization. And the parents of this young woman went to great lengths to THANK the courts for their compassionate approach, and for their respect in this situation, so I don’t see any “hate” in that area, either. (See the above link to the bond article.) We are discussing what happens to people who have this kind of behavior on a commercial aircraft inflight, and her case in particular. That's not "hate".
*Yes-- she will have to travel by some sort of ground conveyance (bus, car, train, etc), or hire a private plane, for the forseeable future. (If a private plane and flight crew is willing, and the family can pay for it.) (more below)
*Yes, the airlines CAN (and have) blacklisted her for only ONE episode like this. Repeat violations are not necessary, and most airlines would not ever allow a passenger like that onboard again after such a very serious episode. The woman was out of control, assaulted and interfered with flight crew and other passengers, was subdued by 3 or more passengers, the flight was diverted, she was removed in restraints, and charged with federal crime/s, and it was all over the national news. At this point, it really doesn't matter to the airlines and FAA "why" she behaved the way she did-- that's up to mental health professionals and the federal courts and LE system to figure out.
*She has been bonded out, and has a
court appointed custodian. (more below). She is not a legally fully competent adult at this point in time.
*In the future, it will be up to BF to petition the airlines to have her travel privileges re-instated, if she is not on a master "no fly" list. That will be a lengthy process, and airlines are not required by any laws to let someone fly again that has had an inflight episode like this.
Having compassion doesn’t mean you ignore or disregard laws and rules because you think someone *might* be mentally ill, and it doesn’t mean someone is a “hater” if they enforce, support, and uphold laws and rules in a matter of fact, and decisive, manner.
I can be sympathetic about her possibly having serious mental illness, and at the same time, strongly support her being barred from commercial aircraft for the forseeable future. What she did was
very, very serious, and *could* bring her prison time, regardless of whether or not she has panic attacks or whatever her mental health diagnosis and situation is.
Had this kind of out of control behavior occurred in, say, a grocery store, the approach of employees and bystanders would have been considerably different, IMO, than what occurred on this flight. If this kind of behavior happened in a pre-school, and children were threatened and assaulted, the actions and reactions of staff and bystanders would also have been different.
The article also discloses that BF is not “just” anxious—but she has had her parents
appointed by a federal judge to be her guardians/ custodians for the forseeable future, as it applies to this federal prosecution, and the conditions of her bond. BF is 22 years old—an adult, so the fact that the federal magistrate appointed a custodian for her tells us A LOT about what is going on. At this point in time, BF is not considered BY THE COURT to be fully competent to manage her own affairs.
Courts generally have the power to appoint a guardian for an individual in need of special protection. A guardian with responsibility for both the personal well-being and the financial interests of the ward is a general guardian. A person may also be appointed as aspecial guardian, having limited powers over the interests of the ward. A special guardian may, for example, be given the legal right to determine the disposition of the ward's property without being given any authority over the ward's person.
Depending on the jurisdiction, a legal guardian may be called a "conservator", "custodian", or curator. Many jurisdictions and theUniform Probate Code distinguish between a "guardian" or "guardian of the person" who is an individual with authority over and fiduciary responsibilities for the physical person of the ward, and a "conservator" or "guardian of the property" of a ward who has authority over and fiduciary responsibilities for significant property (often an inheritance or personal injury settlement) belonging to the ward. Some jurisdictions provide for public guardianship programs serving incapacitated adults or children.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian
She was ordered to return from Detroit to Westchester, NY within 24 hours.
She was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation and care, and to comply with medication and therapy recommendations
She must return to Detroit in March for her next court appearance. Her federal charges have not been dropped, altered, or pleaded at this point in time.
Perhaps her parents are wealthy enough to afford to hire a private plane for them to return to Westchester, NY. Or maybe they will take a bus, or some combination of bus and Amtrack. Or maybe they will drive home. But it’s a pretty certain thing that BF and her guardian/s will not return to NY via commercial flight, nor back to Detroit in March. I highly doubt that any carrier will allow this woman on a commercial flight for a very long time.
However, I think if she complies fully with her mental health care, and court appearances, and has a cooperative attitude, apologizes, etc -- there is a good chance she might be able to avoid prison time, IMO. She could then get on with her life, work, school, and do what she needs to do to be mentally healthier. She may still face big fines, though, even without incarceration.
