us AAirways
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2012
- Messages
- 973
- Display Name
Display name:
us AAirways
An FA or pilot could just decide they don't like you and say you made some comment...off you go...no recourse.
"Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures"
- Thread starter ElPaso Pilot
- Start date
dcmoser
Pre-Flight
This was my thought exactly. I haven't met a media person yet who didn't have a high testosterone level and a self thought of invincibility. Would like to hear both sides.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
Tossing folks off planes in this day and age probably didn't decrease drama.
Having power and abusing it is also common place and given the police and TSA threads I see today, its widely accepted too. Who cares about right and wrong or those pesky rules when you have the power and can use it to make your day go by a little easier.
If I were an FA and I couldn't deal with the general public, I'd find a new line of employment. PRONTO. I hear the escape slide works well for FAs who wish to do just that.
Last edited:
What a self important jerk, his rambling and whiny writing style reminds me of Capt. Zoom.
He got kicked off for violating the rules and then explaining that he is NOT a terrorist. Idiot.
This is what Rule 21 in Uniteds contract of carriage states under subheading H
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
(list of specific conditions)
So yes, if the captain decides you are a potential safety risk on a transatlantic flight, he can kick you off. His reason does not have to be one of the 18 enumerated reasons. Apparently this captain decided to side with a member of his crew when it came to deciding between the believability of a staff member he knows and a stranger he doesn't know.
I'm no lawyer, but being denied boarding based on a provision in a civil contract, while pretty annoying, is certainly not 'false imprisonment'
.
He got kicked off for violating the rules and then explaining that he is NOT a terrorist. Idiot.
This is what Rule 21 in Uniteds contract of carriage states under subheading H
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
(list of specific conditions)
So yes, if the captain decides you are a potential safety risk on a transatlantic flight, he can kick you off. His reason does not have to be one of the 18 enumerated reasons. Apparently this captain decided to side with a member of his crew when it came to deciding between the believability of a staff member he knows and a stranger he doesn't know.
I'm no lawyer, but being denied boarding based on a provision in a civil contract, while pretty annoying, is certainly not 'false imprisonment'
.douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Maybe, but for some reason there are many people in this day and age that feel that any time they do not like what they are being told to do by an authority figure(be it a FA or a police officer) it gives them the right to bully said authority figure. If you act like a spoiled two year old, do not complain when you are treated as such.
Furthermore, I am not sure if this is so, but the flight he was on was a commercial flight. Does the airline not have the right to cancel his ticket if they feel he is a danger to the flight for whatever reason they see fit as long as it does not violate loacl and federal statute(such as discrimination).
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Truth hurts Huh ......
Hello Spin Zone...
You mean the truth that that 47% figure was pulled out of a certain politician's empenage?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Do you have inside information?
woodstock
Final Approach
There is always more to the story.
I fly United frequently and have rarely had issues with them. I like Air France better, but United has not done me wrong (that was worth remembering).
You mean the truth that that 47% figure was pulled out of a certain politician's empenage?
I was agreeing with ya....
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Evidently most/all of you didn't read the comments to the blog.
NBC did a follow up with other passengers on the flight. Every single one of them back the passenger's story. 3 of them even posted in the comments section.
NBC did a follow up with other passengers on the flight. Every single one of them back the passenger's story. 3 of them even posted in the comments section.
comanchepilot
En-Route
Not exactly true - in this case if I were representing the guy I'd make a not only a breach of contract claim but the tort of false imprisonment. . . . he was involuntarily detained in Newark when he should have been enroute to Instanbul.
United's Contract of Carriage is silent as to photography - and I doubt seriously they would argue in a court that their inflight magazine in intended to modify the terms of their contract of carriage . . .
comanchepilot
En-Route
and there is the problem . . .because it satisfies every element of the definition if the facts are provable.
she is going to say, after consultation with an attorney, that she heard him say 'x' - it is irrelevant whether he did or not - she is under no legal requirement to actually understand what someone says - her perception is what is relevant and so - he loses. Not that United would want the FA and Captain dragged through depositions and trial - so they'd settle it.
If the Captain bases his decision upon a set of facts that are knowingly false to the flight attendant- then how can you support such a decision? We would not support it if cops lied on the stand or in an affidavit but its ok for a flight attendant?
Gerhardt
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,534
- Display Name
Display name:
Gerhardt
Man, as long as we weren't talking politics, you'd be a fun road trip companion.
Do you have any precedent where someone successfully sued for false imprisonment after he was denied boarding of a bus/taxicab/plane or told to leave a bar? Now back when people got locked into planes for 5 hour holds on the tarmac, yes, there was an imprisonment issue, but being told to step off a plane ?
'Refusal to transport' is covered in Rule 21 of the contract of carriage. The only remedy under that contract is a refund of the fare under Rule 27A. This is a simple contract dispute.
So the fact that you think you would be able to push this frivolous lawsuit through to a settlement makes your legal construct underlying the suit valid ?
Dumbass blogger admitted that he called the FA back and argued with her about not being a terrorist. You really think a court in NYC will second guess a security related decision of an aircrew in a he-said she-said scenario ?
All this would have been done and over with after a 'oh I'm sorry, didn't know I can't take pictures'.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
If refusing to fulfill the contract of carriage meets the definition of false imprisonment, is there nothing in the definition about other transportation being unavailable?
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
133,000+ miles on United and their partners last year. Premier 1K on their frequent flyer program. So, I have some exposure to them.
That said, the guy sounds like a jerk to me. The DYKWIA stunt sealed his fate. As others have noted, if he's said, "sorry" and kept his mouth shut he would have been fine. Now, I've never been questioned about taking pictures on a flight. I don't do it often, but the last time was to document a "window" seat that wasn't (no window). Oh well...
I have seen a passenger get bounced from a flight once. Not United, it was US Air. And I thanked the FA afterwards as this guy was nuttier than a fruitcake and I wasn't looking forward to spending 6 hours across the aisle from him. He had been introducing himself to complete strangers in the boarding area, with a different claim of who we was each time. It continued after we boarded and he was introducing himself to passengers as they went down the aisle. When he introduced himself, within earshot of the purser, as "Dan Cooper", he was bounced immediately. For those too young to remember, Dan Cooper = D. B. Cooper. The only person to hijack a plane and parachute from it. Up here in the PNW. 727s and DC-9s were modified after his stunt with a "D.B.Cooper device" that locks the airstair once sufficient airspeed is attained so nobody can lower it in flight and bail out. BTW, nobody saw Cooper again after he bailed out. He was either successful or died in the attempt (landed in the Columbia River?), but some of the money was found some time later on the bank of the Columbia. In any case, I was happy to see this clown bounced from the flight.
As for the blogger? He brought his problems on himself. Arguing with an FA is always a losing proposition.
That said, the guy sounds like a jerk to me. The DYKWIA stunt sealed his fate. As others have noted, if he's said, "sorry" and kept his mouth shut he would have been fine. Now, I've never been questioned about taking pictures on a flight. I don't do it often, but the last time was to document a "window" seat that wasn't (no window). Oh well...
I have seen a passenger get bounced from a flight once. Not United, it was US Air. And I thanked the FA afterwards as this guy was nuttier than a fruitcake and I wasn't looking forward to spending 6 hours across the aisle from him. He had been introducing himself to complete strangers in the boarding area, with a different claim of who we was each time. It continued after we boarded and he was introducing himself to passengers as they went down the aisle. When he introduced himself, within earshot of the purser, as "Dan Cooper", he was bounced immediately. For those too young to remember, Dan Cooper = D. B. Cooper. The only person to hijack a plane and parachute from it. Up here in the PNW. 727s and DC-9s were modified after his stunt with a "D.B.Cooper device" that locks the airstair once sufficient airspeed is attained so nobody can lower it in flight and bail out. BTW, nobody saw Cooper again after he bailed out. He was either successful or died in the attempt (landed in the Columbia River?), but some of the money was found some time later on the bank of the Columbia. In any case, I was happy to see this clown bounced from the flight.
As for the blogger? He brought his problems on himself. Arguing with an FA is always a losing proposition.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
I learn so many new laws of the universe from online forums.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
It's not a he said she said, it's a he and all the other passengers around him said vs she said. Perhaps reading further than just what the article stated would help your case.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I seriously doubt that if a flight attendant instructed a passenger to remove all their clothes, transfer all their assets to the attendant's bank account, or commit suicide, etc. that the passenger would be violating federal law by failing to comply.
I can see where failing to comply could be considered "interference" but I don't think that they are synonymous either.
BTW, the statute provides a fairly detailed and limited definition of what constitutes "interference":
"One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection."
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if an airline captain has the right to refuse to allow any passenger to fly on his airplane for any reason.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
But if that reason was truly way out there they might find themselves being relieved by another captain.
I read the article, I read the comments, they do not support your statement.
It does not matter whether he continued to take pictures. What matters is that he became argumentative and used the T-word, he admits that fact in his own article. Once you go there, there is no way back (just as you could never 'joke' about bombs in the post 1993 environment).
I don't think think it would extend to any reason. Refusing transportation to someone due to the color of their skin or outwardly visible religious identity for example would not and should not hold up to review. Refusing transportation due to a security concern is something different.
According to the press, Alec Baldwin got kicked of an AA flight for 'playing words with friends'. No, he didn't get kicked off for playing, he got kicked off for refusing to stop and making a scene about it. Ironically: 'After Baldwin was removed from the flight, he was booked on a later flight with American, but continued to hurl insults at American Airlines while heaping praise on United'.
All this falls under the airlines 'passenger misconduct' policy. Here is the definition for a 'level 1' incident from the relevant US Air form:
Passenger does NOT comply with verbal requests - Notify Captain of situation, present Written Warning (below) to passenger and complete report.
My plane, my rules. My boat, my rules. Their plane, their rules.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
You either are straight up lying, or taking the side of the flight attendant regardless of the comments, because if you read the comments you will see that there were passengers on that flight that witnessed it and support the story verbatim as told by the author, and that NBC did a follow up with passengers and all of them agree that how he told the story is exactly how it went down.
You aren't a United FA by chance are you?
woodstock
Final Approach
How do we know those comments aren't plants by friends of his? Or aliases, etc?
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
No person should be allowed to get away with such a blatant disregard for context. Discarding context when determining the meaning of words should not even be argued as regrettably acceptable. A great deal of harm is done by accepting such nonsense as something we all must learn to accept and stop whining about. So I don't appreciate statements and claims that overlook the FA's duty to act responsibly and rationally.
Unfortunately you and a lot of people now have that irrational meme imbedded in their thinking; from an NBC correspondent:
http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/unite...king-photo-making-terrorist-comment-1C8455938
"Other passengers on that United flight 904 corroborated Klint's story."
...
"Klint insists he followed the flight attendant’s instructions and was not uncooperative in any way. He acknowledges, however, "perhaps I should not have used the term ‘terrorist.'""
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I can't find the link on the comments - it may have been on another page as I've seen this story in a couple places - but NBC actually asked other passengers what happened, and they all corroborated his story. Or are you saying he planned this whole thing ahead of time and got all his friends to go with him to Istanbul specifically so he could do this? Doubtful.
Edit: Jim posted the link right above me.
The only 'NBC story' referenced in the comments was an entry on NBCs travel site. The only facts the other passengers can attest to is the conversation between the blogger and the FA. The blogger readily admits that he argued and brought up the terrorism issue. The other passengers can neither comment on the conversation between the FA and the pilot nor the conversation between the pilot and the GS representative.
Hate the company and their grouchy employees. Stuck taking their transatlantic flights more than I care for.
That blogger guy reminds me of the dimwits who talk themselves into getting arrested after a traffic stop for failure to yield.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Which is what I was referring to with it being a he plus all the other passengers said vs she said. But I think you deliberately ignored that because it didn't fit well with your argument.
woodstock
Final Approach
Honestly don't care and I'm not about to waste even more time than I already am on this issue. But I do know there are always a few sides to a story and the immediate passengers may not have seen or heard everything. UA doesn't look good, naturally, and even if they have a valid side to present it won't mean much. Will people stop flying them? Nope. They still want to get from A to B. When I'm on a plane all I want to do is get from A to B safely (and not ill from food poisoning or have to sit next to smelly pax -all bigger issues than photographing my surroundings).
I suspect using the word terrorist was all it took. I think we all know how hard it is to undo a mistake when you are already airborne and how risk averse airlines are. And if he was making a nuisance of himself during boarding, and was already holding up the departure on this dumb issue that he should have dropped with a polite "sorry, I didn't know" then, big whoop. If he just had to have more photos, then wait until her back is turned. If he did NOT have to have more photos, then just shut up and have a drink.
For all we know he's doing all this whining to get freebies from the airlines (which he probably will). Just the fact that he wrote a long article about his butthurt makes him look somewhat suspect.
I am ignoring it because it makes no difference for the mechanism how he got kicked off plane. He somehow managed to get the FA to a point that she had to take her concern to the captain. Most captains seem to have a 'zero BS' policy on this and if you manage to make the staff 'uncomfortable' (e.g. by claiming 'I am not high', 'I am not drunk' or 'I am not a terrorist'), you are gone.
The guy runs a blog.
Big controversy --> links from numerous secondary sites pointing to his drivel --> lots of clicks on his blog --> lots of click-throughs to his advertisers --> lots of money in his pocket.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
OK, I guess I should have written "any reason not prohibited by law". And WRT to "review" I didn't mean to imply that said refusal couldn't have repercussions later for the pilot and/or airline, just that like many businesses I expect the airlines to stipulate in their customer contracts (i.e. ticket fine print) that they reserve the right to refuse anyone they choose. But if they invoke that right for reasons that are based on illegal discrimination someone's gonna be in trouble.
IIRC a couple years ago a woman was expelled because her skirt was too short.
comanchepilot
En-Route
How does it go again?
A friend comes to bail you out but a true friend is sitting in the cell with you saying, 'that was FUN!'
comanchepilot
En-Route
ugh, there is no passenger conduct policy in the United contract - you cannot willy nilly add terms to the contract because you think you can. They might have a policy for employees- but if it is not in the contract of carriage- thats nice.
I have told cops, bureaucrats and others who tell me its 'policy,' the following:
"I understand you have a policy, but I am not an employee of your organization and I am not required to follow your policy." [assuming I'm not - and often you aren't - its like going to the doctor and seeing a place to put your social security number when you are not a medicare or medicaid patient. Whats the point? just because they want it? I ALWAYS ask about what their document security protocol is when they ask me for it. You always get the blank stare and then they take the form back]
I'm aware that I bear the consequences then. Its like rolling up to DUI checkpoint - I have these printed cards that say:
"I intend to remain silent and I refuse to answer any questions. Thank you for working this evening and for respecting my absolute Right to remain silent."
I ALWAYS get pulled over. Why? Because I am exercising my rights - not because of any suspicion I am drinking alcohol. I get taken out of the car and asked to perform FST. I refuse - handing them another piece of paper in my console:
"I refuse to answer any questions and refuse the field sobriety test. I refuse to blow in your flashlight and my only method of compliance will be to arrest me. I remind you of your oath to uphold the Constitution."
That always get the lecture - 'don't waste my time, why don't you cooperate, etc etc etc etc.' I've been called lots of names - often by friends even. But you know - every police sergeant whom I speak with after I file the violation of my rights complaint since the only reason I get pulled out of line is invocation of my rights - I yet to see a police organization argue in front of police review board that invoking constitutional rights is suspicious conduct - and the sergeants tell me that they get training dollars as a result of my complaints and if they were in a line, they wouldn't cooperate either.
Think what you will - and everyone has an opinion on this - but I know the law - and I know my rights - and I understand when it is appropriate to exercise them.
FACTS: Recent DUI checkpoint in my community. 8 officers. 6p -2am. 2000 cars monitored through the checkpoint. 1 DUI. ONE. Don't you think that these 8 officers could have each arrested at least one or two if they were patrolling on a Friday night?
Last edited:
They have a whole laundry list of things that can get you kicked off, but the list starts with 'including, but not limited to:'
One of the items listed is Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Just last week, some bimbo was told to cover up, which of course bought her 15 minutes of fame including an appearance on the 'today show'
.The point is that FTC requires me to verify your identity before I provide a 'consumer account' to them (e.g. by providing medical services without requiring up-front payment).
comanchepilot
En-Route
A social security number is specifically not allowed to be used for identification purposes. Says so both right on the card and right in the law and regulations.
You are providing a consumer account to the FTC? Really - for what purpose?
Next, if you READ your provider contract with the insurers it states that - in every provider contract I have seen - that such information may be requested but not required as condition to treat. The only reason you need that information is to run a credit check - which you can't do without specific consent. I've never see a doc or hospital ever give me a credit check consent form.
I am extending credit to you. To avoid impersonation fraud, I (or rather my staff) have to verify that you are the person you claim to be. If I want to be able to collect from you, the SSN is one of the identifiers commonly used. This is what the Dood Frank agency considers 'appropriate proof of identity':
(1) Consumer file match. The identification information of the consumer including his or her full name (first, middle initial, last, suffix), any other or previously used names, current and/or recent full address (street number and name, apt. no., city, state, and zip code), full nine digits of Social Security number, and/or date of birth.
That's so funny. Tonight, I am working on adding another provider, so I actually have the folder with all my insurer contracts open next to me. None of them addresses what information I can collect from their subscribers. They say I can't withold services because of race, gender, creed, color, national origin, marital status or physical or mental handicap. The blues specifically give me permission to fire patients if they are 'unmanageable', I like that.