Praying Man Removed From Plane

[Coyote]

Suppose, for example, that this person wasn't religious at all, but just scared of flying, and went to the back, out of the way, to do some quick Yoga or breathing exercises to calm himself.

Then the flight attendants would have asked him to go back to his seat. If he refused to answer they would have assumed there was something amiss and had him removed from the plane. What's your point?

As I said, he broke the airlines rules. They took him off the flight. The reason doesn't matter. Airlines and flight attendants probably have so much shit to deal with they don't have time to sort this crap out. Well within their rights to do what they did, and if he had no reason to go and pray right at that moment then he was either being an arsehole or being stupid.

Rules as a replacement for judgement? This sounds like the reasoning behind those silly-ass "Zero Tolerance" rules for various things at schools. "Zero Tolerance" weapons rules sound good, but then when a student gets expelled for having a butter knife or little kids expelled from school for kissing a classmate, then rules have been used as a blanket policy to cover all things, and avoid having to make a judgement call.

[Mr Bean]

As I said, he broke the airlines rules. They took him off the flight. The reason doesn't matter. Airlines and flight attendants probably have so much shit to deal with they don't have time to sort this crap out. Well within their rights to do what they did, and if he had no reason to go and pray right at that moment then he was either being an arsehole or being stupid.

What shit is that? As this issue demonstrates flight attendants now have the power to kick people off the plane for disobeying their orders.

What shit to deal with? Unruly passengers? drunk people making passes at them? Bar fights? What exactly does an airline attendant have to deal with, especially since as this issue demonstrate, if you make trouble they have the power to chuck your ass out

[Twoyboy]

Suppose, for example, that this person wasn't religious at all, but just scared of flying, and went to the back, out of the way, to do some quick Yoga or breathing exercises to calm himself.

Then the flight attendants would have asked him to go back to his seat. If he refused to answer they would have assumed there was something amiss and had him removed from the plane. What's your point?

As I said, he broke the airlines rules. They took him off the flight. The reason doesn't matter. Airlines and flight attendants probably have so much shit to deal with they don't have time to sort this crap out. Well within their rights to do what they did, and if he had no reason to go and pray right at that moment then he was either being an arsehole or being stupid.

Rules as a replacement for judgement? This sounds like the reasoning behind those silly-ass "Zero Tolerance" rules for various things at schools. "Zero Tolerance" weapons rules sound good, but then when a student gets expelled for having a butter knife or little kids expelled from school for kissing a classmate, then rules have been used as a blanket policy to cover all things, and avoid having to make a judgement call.

And what did they have to judge him on? They acted with what little information they had at the time. It's not like your examples where you can sit down, discuss it and make your decision later. The plane had to take off. So they followed the rules, removed him, discussed it, decided he wasn't a problem and let him board a later flight. They used both judgement AND the rules.

[Twoyboy]

As I said, he broke the airlines rules. They took him off the flight. The reason doesn't matter. Airlines and flight attendants probably have so much shit to deal with they don't have time to sort this crap out. Well within their rights to do what they did, and if he had no reason to go and pray right at that moment then he was either being an arsehole or being stupid.

What shit is that? As this issue demonstrates flight attendants now have the power to kick people off the plane for disobeying their orders.

What shit to deal with? Unruly passengers? drunk people making passes at them? Bar fights? What exactly does an airline attendant have to deal with, especially since as this issue demonstrate, if you make trouble they have the power to chuck your ass out

Are you saying that just because they have the power to deal with it they have no shit to deal with? Well jeez, next time the cops want a pay rise to deal with their job we can say "But you've been given guns and power of arrest, what more do you want?".

What I'm saying is without the power to remove guys like this one it would be a fucking problem because this is how they deal with shit. They used the powers they're given, and because he was praying, everyone bitches!

[Mr Bean]

And what did they have to judge him on? They acted with what little information they had at the time. It's not like your examples where you can sit down, discuss it and make your decision later. The plane had to take off. So they followed the rules, removed him, discussed it, decided he wasn't a problem and let him board a later flight. They used both judgement AND the rules.

No they ignored judgment and used rules, they made no mention of the fact that everyone else was seated(They would have done so if it were true because again that would make the airliner look better and they would have made sure the media got that point)

Boarding was still going on from all indications, he was not blocking the aisle(From all indications), they simple used their power to boot his ass off because he ignored them when they asked him to sit down, until he had finished praying then he sat down.

[Mr Bean]

Are you saying that just because they have the power to deal with it they have no shit to deal with? Well jeez, next time the cops want a pay rise to deal with their job we can say "But you've been given guns and power of arrest, what more do you want?".

What I'm saying is without the power to remove guys like this one it would be a fucking problem because this is how they deal with shit. They used the powers they're given, and because he was praying, everyone bitches!

Dipshit, cops know they are dealing with criminals, their job is to deal with criminals IE people who will not follow the law.

Flight attendants have a power that few in the service industry have, the ability to kick your ass out. In their industry(Service) they have rights and privileges few else in that industry can dream of. And they don't exactly have that physically demanding of a job to begin with. Their job is mostly about dealing with people, and they have the ability to stop dealing with people at will and boot their ass out if they so desire.

Again my sympathy meter is at zero, I've worked PR and I know my job would be a thousand times easier if I had the ability to say shut you cakehole and get the fuck out of my office to any customer who walked in the door.

[Coyote]

And what did they have to judge him on? They acted with what little information they had at the time. It's not like your examples where you can sit down, discuss it and make your decision later. The plane had to take off. So they followed the rules, removed him, discussed it, decided he wasn't a problem and let him board a later flight. They used both judgement AND the rules.

Dude, I assume you've been on planes before? If the plane was boarding-- and bear in mind that can take anyehwre from a half hour to an hour, depending on the type of plane, number of passengers, and how well the crew has its act together-- there's time to burn and no one at the back lavatory. Nothing was said about holding up the plane's takeoff or interfering with actual flight operations in any way. In fact, by making a fuss, I'd say the flight attended created more of a delay than if she'd just left him alone.

I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that this particular guy has flown before. The fact that he had boarded early in the rush and knew enough to go to the back of the plane, out of the way, indicates that to me. That means he probably knew how to time his prayer appropriately so as to take off on time.

Considering how time is wasted in airports already with shoe-checks, complaints over 3 ounces of liquid, and then fatasses who plod down crowded aisles and then stand there staring at the overhead bins like apes at the beginning of 2001 staring at the monolith, and people who insist on just a few more seconds with their cell phones, crackberries, or other PEDs, this guy was a minor nitpick at best.

Now I admit I'm making assumptions-- perhaps this flight-boarding was a model of well-timed efficiency and everyone was in their seats without hesistation or trouble within 10 minutes-- the article still said that the plane wa sin the process of boarding, and made no mention of movement delayed for this dude.

[Twoyboy]

No they ignored judgment and used rules,

Why does it have to be one or the other? Don't you have to use your judgement to exercise the rules? I say they used their judgement and decided to use the rules now to deal with someone who would have appeared to be a stubborn jerk and then decide on the particulars later.

they made no mention of the fact that everyone else was seated(They would have done so if it were true because again that would make the airliner look better and they would have made sure the media got that point)

Wow, I think you give the media WAY too much credit if you think they're this impartial.

The fact is, it does say they were in the process of boarding. I would assume they were somewhere near the end of boarding since if 50 passengers were standing up this one guy wouldn't have particularly stood out. But that is just my assumption.

Boarding was still going on from all indications, he was not blocking the aisle(From all indications), they simple used their power to boot his ass off because he ignored them when they asked him to sit down, until he had finished praying then he sat down.

I know very well why they booted him - because he refused a request from a flight attendant. That's what I said, and I agree with their decision to boot him until they could decide if he would be an in flight risk or not.

[Twoyboy]

Dipshit, cops know they are dealing with criminals, their job is to deal with criminals IE people who will not follow the law.

Flight attendants have a power that few in the service industry have, the ability to kick your ass out. In their industry(Service) they have rights and privileges few else in that industry can dream of. And they don't exactly have that physically demanding of a job to begin with. Their job is mostly about dealing with people, and they have the ability to stop dealing with people at will and boot their ass out if they so desire.

They have the right to kick people off the airline's property. Every business owner has this right. Some filter it down to employees, some don't but stop acting like it's a fucking super power they've abused.

And that's not the point, the point is, they DO have a job to do, physically demanding or not. They DO have shit to deal with, whether they have the power to deal with it or not (you listed examples earlier). And their decision CAN (in the most serious cases) have lives depending on it. So if they're not sure, how the fuck can you blame them for booting him now and asking questions later?

[Twoyboy]

Dude, I assume you've been on planes before?

Yes, only domestic flights in Australia, but I figure it's not much different.

If the plane was boarding-- and bear in mind that can take anyehwre from a half hour to an hour, depending on the type of plane, number of passengers, and how well the crew has its act together-- there's time to burn and no one at the back lavatory. Nothing was said about holding up the plane's takeoff or interfering with actual flight operations in any way. In fact, by making a fuss, I'd say the flight attended created more of a delay than if she'd just left him alone.

I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that this particular guy has flown before. The fact that he had boarded early in the rush and knew enough to go to the back of the plane, out of the way, indicates that to me. That means he probably knew how to time his prayer appropriately so as to take off on time.

Considering how time is wasted in airports already with shoe-checks, complaints over 3 ounces of liquid, and then fatasses who plod down crowded aisles and then stand there staring at the overhead bins like apes at the beginning of 2001 staring at the monolith, and people who insist on just a few more seconds with their cell phones, crackberries, or other PEDs, this guy was a minor nitpick at best.

Now I admit I'm making assumptions-- perhaps this flight-boarding was a model of well-timed efficiency and everyone was in their seats without hesistation or trouble within 10 minutes-- the article still said that the plane wa sin the process of boarding, and made no mention of movement delayed for this dude.

Your right, they are assumptions. I made mine earlier that if one standing man stood out there can't have been too many people left standing. And even if there were, they didn't know how long this guy would take to sort out. He'd already ignored a flight attendant's requests to sit down. From what we KNOW from the article (and I can only assume everything they said IS actually true) they made the call to utilise the rules, boot him off and sort it out on the ground while the passengers and air traffic were less inconvenienced by it. Did they make the right call? Hindsight would say not, but with what they had to go on, I agree with the decision they made at the time.

[Coyote]

No they ignored judgment and used rules,

Why does it have to be one or the other? Don't you have to use your judgement to exercise the rules?

Not necessarily. If the rules say that someone making a disturbance is to be kicked out, then by applying the rules without any real sense of judgement then that could mean a woman trying to calm a crying baby, a man having a heart attack, or a passenger whose bag has burst open and spilled the contents on the floor. The attendant could as easily say "okay, that's it, you're outta here". It's the rules, but it's not sound judgement.

I say they used their judgement and decided to use the rules now to deal with someone who would have appeared to be a stubborn jerk and then decide on the particulars later.

The rules about ejecting problematic passengers is in force because of passengers that interfere with flight operations, crew, passenger, or airplane safety. Being a "rude jerk" may be annoying, but hardly qualifies. If those rules were indeed applied in such a random and blanket manner, I guarantee that most airplanes would fly with nothing but flight crew and luggage.

they made no mention of the fact that everyone else was seated(They would have done so if it were true because again that would make the airliner look better and they would have made sure the media got that point)

Wow, I think you give the media WAY too much credit if you think they're this impartial.

Impartial media, hell, it would be the airline showing that this man's actions had a direct impact on flight operations, either through safety or efficiency. If praying in the back of the plane actually disrupted the smooth running of the aircraft, trust me, it would have been the foundation upon which this rested-- not some flight attendant getting a bug in her butt.

The fact is, it does say they were in the process of boarding. I would assume they were somewhere near the end of boarding since if 50 passengers were standing up this one guy wouldn't have particularly stood out. But that is just my assumption.

Ahh, but they would have been standing in the aisle, not the rear lavatory. And even standing in the aisle, a man praying Orthodox Jew style would have stood out. You stand, face towards Jerusalem, and mumble in low tones in Hebrew while slowly bowing back and forth, with a prayer book in your hands. He probably had a tallit, or prayer vestment on as well. So yeah, he would have stood out regardless.

Boarding was still going on from all indications, he was not blocking the aisle(From all indications), they simple used their power to boot his ass off because he ignored them when they asked him to sit down, until he had finished praying then he sat down.

I know very well why they booted him - because he refused a request from a flight attendant. That's what I said, and I agree with their decision to boot him until they could decide if he would be an in flight risk or not.

He finished his prayers, apparantly still with time left for boarding operations, and apologized to the attendant for ignoring her. She also ignored his traveling companions who tried to explain. She had opportunities to approach this from another angle, but chose to be an asshole.

[Darth Onasi]

He finished his prayers, apparantly still with time left for boarding operations, and apologized to the attendant for ignoring her. She also ignored his traveling companions who tried to explain. She had opportunities to approach this from another angle, but chose to be an asshole.

You know what? In the end, that's her perogative. Regardless of the reason, he didn't answer. He put the attendants under unecesarry stress and no, his friends explaining why he's ignoring them doesn't cut it.

Now, this guy could've done this before boarding, or asked permission to do this noting that he wouldn't be able to communicate for the duration.
Instead he was an asshole about it and got kicked off. Too bad for him.

[Coyote]

I tell y'all what, if people can be booted out of places just for the crime of being an asshole, pretty much everyone on this board is in some deep shit.

[Coyote]

It makes me wonder-- considering how much "asshole" behavior goes on in a plane, during boarding, when there are many, many rude, ignorant, annoying, asshole things going on, why is this guy's praying considered more worthy of anti-asshole behavior? Screaming babies, people who won't turn of their PEDs or talking loudly on their cellphones beforehand, people who insist that if they shove just a little harder that goddamn thing-that-should-have-been-checked will, indeed, go in the overhead bin..?

There is a concerto of obnoxious behavior going on in a situation like this, but why this guy?

[Twoyboy]

Not necessarily. If the rules say that someone making a disturbance is to be kicked out, then by applying the rules without any real sense of judgement then that could mean a woman trying to calm a crying baby, a man having a heart attack, or a passenger whose bag has burst open and spilled the contents on the floor. The attendant could as easily say "okay, that's it, you're outta here". It's the rules, but it's not sound judgement.

Ok, fair enough, you can use the rules with no sound judgement. But to me, in this case, I'd say the flight attendant used judgement. She jumped to no conclusions and asked the man to take his seat first. Only when he ignored her did she instigate action.

The rules about ejecting problematic passengers is in force because of passengers that interfere with flight operations, crew, passenger, or airplane safety. Being a "rude jerk" may be annoying, but hardly qualifies. If those rules were indeed applied in such a random and blanket manner, I guarantee that most airplanes would fly with nothing but flight crew and luggage.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply they kicked him off purely for being a stubborn jerk. In this case his appearance to be a stubborn jerk was not confined to being a problem for the flight attendant like say, a sleaze bag. In this case, ignoring flight attendants could be a danger to the safety of himself or others in an emergency.

Impartial media, hell, it would be the airline showing that this man's actions had a direct impact on flight operations, either through safety or efficiency. If praying in the back of the plane actually disrupted the smooth running of the aircraft, trust me, it would have been the foundation upon which this rested-- not some flight attendant getting a bug in her butt.

And what we have is not a report from the airline, but a media report. It doesn't matter what the airline would have been wanting to say to people, they didn't report it!

Ahh, but they would have been standing in the aisle, not the rear lavatory. And even standing in the aisle, a man praying Orthodox Jew style would have stood out. You stand, face towards Jerusalem, and mumble in low tones in Hebrew while slowly bowing back and forth, with a prayer book in your hands. He probably had a tallit, or prayer vestment on as well. So yeah, he would have stood out regardless.

Like there's a huge separation between the aisles and and near the rear lavatory on a cramped plane. With plenty of other people standing up, I still believe he would not have been noticeable unless the flight attendant was almost next to him. Which she may have been, but it's still not the point. As stated earlier, this does not negate the reasons for kicking him off.

He finished his prayers, apparantly still with time left for boarding operations,

Where does it say they were still boarding when he finished his prayers.

and apologized to the attendant for ignoring her. She also ignored his traveling companions who tried to explain. She had opportunities to approach this from another angle, but chose to be an asshole.

His travelling companions tried to explain, but if you think you might be dealing with someone who's going to be a problem, they're not the best people to believe. Like the guy who comes aboard drunk, and his mates say, "Don't worry, he won't be a problem". Yeah, right.

[Twoyboy]

It makes me wonder-- considering how much "asshole" behavior goes on in a plane, during boarding, when there are many, many ruse, ignorant, annoying, asshole things going on, why is this guy's praying considered more worthy of anti-asshole behavior? Screaming babies, people who won't turn of their PEDs or talking loudly on their cellphones beforehand, people who insist that if they shove just a little harder that goddamn thing-that-should-have-been-checked will, indeed, go in the overhead bin..?

There is a concerto of obnoxious behavior going on in a situation like this, but why this guy?

I've answered this in my last post. Because this specific behaviour (ignoring instruction from a flight attendant) can cause a danger to himself and others in an emergency.

[Kanastrous]

and then fatasses who plod down crowded aisles and then stand there staring at the overhead bins like apes at the beginning of 2001 staring at the monolith,

(staggers to feet after falling over laughing)

thanks for that

[Crazedwraith]

Why did the guy just ask the attendant if it was alright, before starting to pray. Then no muss no fuss, no complaints. Generally I think all parties in this were being rather silly. I can hardly think there was a real need to chuck him off after he stopped praying and apologised.

[Coyote]

Why did the guy just ask the attendant if it was alright, before starting to pray. Then no muss no fuss, no complaints. Generally I think all parties in this were being rather silly. I can hardly think there was a real need to chuck him off after he stopped praying and apologised.

I'll certainly grant that such is, indeed, what he should have done from the start.

[Darth Wong]

Every time I see the thread title, I think it says "Prying man removed from plane", and I get the image of some guy trying to jimmy open the cockpit door.

[SCRawl]

It seems to me that it comes down to this: if the plane was ready to get underway, but was being held up by the man who was ultimately ejected, then he was clearly at fault, and needed to be dealt with. If other things were going on which would not have allowed the plane to proceed anyway -- such as other arriving passengers, which, from the text I read, seems to be the case -- then booting out this guy for "disobeying orders" seems rather harsh to me.

Unfortunately, I don't have an accurate timeline, so I can't say for certain where the fault truly lies.

[Ace Pace]

Why can't an Orthodox Jew stop praying once he starts? What is the actual rule for that?

From my understanding of the rules, is that once you start your prayers, you have to finish them. However, theres a huge exception, if theres a need for you to stop, you stop. Judaism is very flexible in that regard, he could have prayed in his seat, or whereever he wanted as long as it's a dignified place.

However, going by the description of the clothes, he's an ultra-orthodox Jew, which freely ignore their own laws in order to be dicks.

[Edi]

Why can't an Orthodox Jew stop praying once he starts? What is the actual rule for that?

From my understanding of the rules, is that once you start your prayers, you have to finish them. However, theres a huge exception, if theres a need for you to stop, you stop. Judaism is very flexible in that regard, he could have prayed in his seat, or whereever he wanted as long as it's a dignified place.

However, going by the description of the clothes, he's an ultra-orthodox Jew, which freely ignore their own laws in order to be dicks.

Thanks for this clarification. So what it means is that the guy was just an asshole and got exactly what he deserved.

[Darth Onasi]

It makes me wonder-- considering how much "asshole" behavior goes on in a plane, during boarding, when there are many, many rude, ignorant, annoying, asshole things going on, why is this guy's praying considered more worthy of anti-asshole behavior? Screaming babies, people who won't turn of their PEDs or talking loudly on their cellphones beforehand, people who insist that if they shove just a little harder that goddamn thing-that-should-have-been-checked will, indeed, go in the overhead bin..?

There is a concerto of obnoxious behavior going on in a situation like this, but why this guy?

He specifically ignored the attendants when challenged. At that point he violates what he automatically agreed to when he boarded the damn plane.
I don't care if it's an orthodox Jew or a guy playing his Nintendo DS, if you're asked to respond you respond.

I don't see how the "Well I saw this guy get away with it" is any excuse.

[Broomstick]

It's sounds like the airplane is being dicks about this.

Lets review
Plane was not airborne yet, we don't know if it was in the number 1 slot for take-off, but unless it was, the standing praying man did not affect anyone.

Let me repeat that unless that plane was on the airstrip ready to take off in lets say the next five minutes, his praying affected no one.

You do not understand how scheduling for take-off works.

When the pilot in command determines they are ready to go (which, from the point of view of the airline, better damn well be no later than the time the company wants it to be and has scheduled) they go through the necessary procedures to obtain a "slot" from ATC. Once they have that in hand, they have fifteen minutes to physically get off the ground. If they miss that "window" they go to the back of the line. At busy times of the day that can mean an hour or an hour and a half or even more. Thus, a delay of just a few minutes can and at times has resulted in a major delay in a flight.

I realize the paying public does not generally know or understand this, but it is the way the system works in the US.

If he however decided to start praying while everyone was boarding then he might have caused and issue, but as far as the article reads, everyone was boarded, everyone was seated.

Still, it is a media report, that means second-hand at best. I was not able to find another article, which might have shed more information on the situation.

How the flying fuck did he put his passengers in danger?

It was not the praying that was a problem, it was ignoring the flight attendant. In an emergency, you can't always wait two minutes for Mr. I'm Too Jewish for my Prayer Shawl to finish his ritual.

A lot of aviation safety has to do with preventing problems instead of waiting to see what will happen. As part of this, the orders of flight crew have the force of law once you are aboard the airplane. If the man had either moved to his seat while still praying, or asked the attendant if he could continue then sit down, there probably would not have been such as issue. The flight crew, however, will always have an extremely low tolerance for anyone who refuses to acknowledge them. What would such a person do in an emergency?

The courts have typically sided with flight attendants in any dispute with a passenger, exceptions are very rare. This usually falls under Federal aviation regulation (FAR) 91.11 "Prohibition on interference with crewmembers".

I know from lots of travel experience that flight attendants wander at will up until around thirty seconds before takeoff, then they sit down. This is an issue where a Cover your ass regulation(Between Zee Gate and Zee other Gate No Passenger Shall Ever stand up unless given Permission By Zee Commandant of Zee Plane!) and abused by a few dickish flight attendants to kick someone of their plane.

The flight attendants "wander at will" because that is part of their job, which I assure you is NOT random strolling but rather checking to make sure all is secured and proper prior to take-off. They must be up and moving around to do this.

The Federal aviation regulations are quite specific that NO ONE is to be anything other than strapped in while the airplane is moving on the ground except for flight crew performing their duties. This is clearly covered under FAR 91.107 "Use of Safety Belts, Shoulder Harnesses, and Child Restraint Systems" and arguably 91.105 "Flight Crewmembers at Stations" as well. There are some other rules at play here as well, but that should be enough to satisfy anyone here that this is not arbitrary shit made up by flight attendants to piss off the public, nor is it sadism on the part of the airlines. This is from the Federal government, and failure to comply on the part of the flight attendants can have serious consequences - in addition to potentially losing their jobs they could also be subjected to heavy fines if they have not made a good faith effort to get passengers to comply with these rules. It's rare for crew to be punished in that manner because they all know the rules and they know why those rules are there. It is not safe for people to be unbelted aboard a moving aircraft, and it's more unsafe to do so while it's moving on the ground (where are are lots of hard objects nearby to collide with) than while in the air at crusing altitude - which is why the captain is given discretion to turn off the seat belt light so you can piss if you need to do so.

And, in fact, the pilot(s) DOES have the authority to order you to remain in your seat the entire flight, need to piss or no. I'm sorry if this is hard for you to grasp but it IS true.

These regulations are not "cover your ass", they are the rules and they have been written for reasons of safety - or, we aviators often say, "written in blood". Most Part 91 regulations came about because someone died, or several someones. Most of the "whoops! No seat belt!" accidents occurred back in the 1920's or thereabouts, but since the laws of physics haven't changed don't expect the regulations to do so.

More power to you, as long as it's reasonable(It was)

Praying was not the problem - ignoring the flight attendant was the problem. THAT is against the regulations that have been instituted for your safety.

it does not acutally interfiling with the planes operation(It does not unless you decide it was)

If they're starting to run late, they're trying to get everyone settled and seated - yes, potentially this WAS interfering. Even if that was not the case and they had plenty of time, ignoring a flight attendant who has asked you to do something is almost always judged as "interferring with the flight crew". Don't do that. You will lose.

There's such a thing as obeying the absolute letter of regulation and then there is obeying the Spirit of Regulation.

The "spirit of regulation", as you put it, is to obey the flight crew at all times. If they ask you to sit down you sit down. Now. Because it's not a request, it's an order, even if there is a "please" and sweet voice attached to it. The "spirit" here is to prevent a problem, not wait for it to happen. An airplane is NOT a democracy.

If the flight crew do not obey the letter of the regulations and the FAA comes down on their ass (and it has happened) they will be much more inconvenienced that simply being removed from a flight and getting on board the next day.

If someone is pacing before take-off and refuses to sit down, then yes kick his ass off. If someone stands up to pray, no worries unless as I said we are in Take-off position number 1.

You will never get to take-off position 1 under that reasoning because you can not even ask to take-off until all passengers are seated and secured - because until that happens you aren't ready. They have to be able to move the minute they get clearance because they may have to get from the ramp to take-off in fifteen minutes or less, and at a busy airport that can be a challenge.

Oh, you say, if there's a traffic jam at the airport then everyone is delayed and it's OK, right? No, it's not - the slot has to do with fitting the airplane into traffic in the air - not on the ground. It's not just the traffic at the airport, it's the traffic above the airport, too.

If he wants to pull porta-rug and pray towards Mecca, that's fine too, assuming he's quick about it and again does not acutally interfere with the operation of the plane. He is not going to make us get off the ground any slower UNTIL we hit the physical runway when it does become a hazard.

Again, you reveal your ignorance of how these things operate. That's not your fault, probably, as most people never have reason to learn why the flight crew are so fucking anal about getting you to sit down. You have to be in your seat BEFORE the airplane starts to move. See above regulations, particularly 91.107 Failure to sit down and strap in IS interfering with operations when the flight crew tells you to do so. Now, if the airplane is on fire, yeah, fuck the regulations, no one is expecting you to sit there and burn to death (in fact, the regulations have several paragraphs about ignoring regulations in an emergency, most specifically 91.3(b) but that pertains to pilots though it's frequently extended to others in the "spirit of regulation", which is that safety and preservation of life are paramount to all other things in aviation) Otherwise - do what you're told. If you don't like it you have two choices - take an alternate means of transportation, or get yourself a pilot's license so you can run your airplane as you please (although if you disregard regulations the FAA may come after your ass).