Praying Man Removed From Plane

[SCRawl]

Armed with the knowledge gained from talking with the guy's friends, and based on the assumption that his actions at the time of the incident constituted no delay or other problems, would revisiting the issue in two minutes be an unreasonable compromise?

The consequence of even a short delay has already been explained.

As I stated, my position is based on the assumption that this person's antics did not constitute an actual delay. (In other words, there were other things going on which were not yet resolved, and would still hold up the flight.) Clearly, if this guy was actually holding up the departure of the flight, then he needed to get the boot.

And, as repeatedly pointed out, the man had already displayed his unwillingness to co-operate with the flight crew by ignoring them completely, that makes him a potential danger.

Taken together, those are reason enough for removing him.

Is it demonstrable that, because he ignored the FA once -- for a reason which was explained -- it was inevitable or at least reasonably forseeable that he would do so again later in the flight? Or is the argument that the decision-making process on the part of the FA goes something like "He's ignoring me right now, even though I just gave him a lawful order. He has to go." If the latter -- attended by the assumptions I've already made, with respect to the lack of a delay -- then my position is that that's being unduly harsh.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Is it demonstrable that, because he ignored the FA once -- for a reason which was explained -- it was inevitable or at least reasonably forseeable that he would do so again later in the flight? Or is the argument that the decision-making process on the part of the FA goes something like "He's ignoring me right now, even though I just gave him a lawful order. He has to go." If the latter -- attended by the assumptions I've already made, with respect to the lack of a delay -- then my position is that that's being unduly harsh.

It's unduly harsh that he *gasp* had to wait for a later flight while they determined whether his refusal to follow orders stemmed from simply being an asshole, or whether it stemmed from something that could be a severe security risk in an actual emergency?

Why is it so fucking hard to grasp that the guy broke the rules, and so they simply took the safest route and prevented him from being a potential threat in an emergency until they could determine the cause and ramifications? People are acting like getting kicked off the plane and having to take a later flight is simply an inexcusable offense.

[Kanastrous]

You don't get to ignore the rules, and the reasonable instruction of the cabin crew, more than once.

[General Zod]

As I stated, my position is based on the assumption that this person's antics did not constitute an actual delay. (In other words, there were other things going on which were not yet resolved, and would still hold up the flight.) Clearly, if this guy was actually holding up the departure of the flight, then he needed to get the boot.

Why should it matter if he causes a delay or not? If the regulations say that someone ignoring reasonable requests from the flight attendants can get the boot, then he should get the boot. Frankly there is nothing unreasonable about asking someone to take their seat in the middle of boarding, and anyone trying to pretend otherwise is being an assclown.

Is it demonstrable that, because he ignored the FA once -- for a reason which was explained -- it was inevitable or at least reasonably forseeable that he would do so again later in the flight? Or is the argument that the decision-making process on the part of the FA goes something like "He's ignoring me right now, even though I just gave him a lawful order. He has to go." If the latter -- attended by the assumptions I've already made, with respect to the lack of a delay -- then my position is that that's being unduly harsh.

The only thing you're working on is your assumptions. Which probably don't agree with what the actual regulations for that airline say.

[SCRawl]

Is it demonstrable that, because he ignored the FA once -- for a reason which was explained -- it was inevitable or at least reasonably forseeable that he would do so again later in the flight? Or is the argument that the decision-making process on the part of the FA goes something like "He's ignoring me right now, even though I just gave him a lawful order. He has to go." If the latter -- attended by the assumptions I've already made, with respect to the lack of a delay -- then my position is that that's being unduly harsh.

It's unduly harsh that he *gasp* had to wait for a later flight while they determined whether his refusal to follow orders stemmed from simply being an asshole, or whether it stemmed from something that could be a severe security risk in an actual emergency?

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying.

Okay, here's how I see the conversation going.

FA: "Sir, please take your seat."
GUY: "..."
FA: "Um, sir, I asked you to please take your seat."
Guy: "..."
Guy's friends: "Miss, he can't stop right now. Give it a minute, he'll be done soon. People are still boarding anyways, so it isn't like we're going anywhere."
FA: "Sorry, but I've given him an order, and he's ignored it. I'm going to call for the cops to have him removed."
Guy (a minute later): "Sorry about that, but I was praying. It won't happen again."
FA: "Too late, I've already called the police. You can explain it to them while you arrange for another flight."

Is it unreasonable to suggest that the FA says, instead of the last sentence, "Okay, go back to your seat, and next time, either ask first or interrupt your fucking prayer when someone gives you an instruction"?

Why is it so fucking hard to grasp that the guy broke the rules, and so they simply took the safest route and prevented him from being a potential threat in an emergency until they could determine the cause and ramifications? People are acting like getting kicked off the plane and having to take a later flight is simply an inexcusable offense.

If you're lumping me in with the "people" you mentioned in your last sentence, I'll ask you to demonstrate that. Of course there are actions a person might take which would necessitate their removal. Where we differ in opinion is whether or not the simple refusal -- which was temporary, and explained during (and probably) after the fact -- makes a passenger into a "potential threat in an emergency".

If we're going to suggest that the passenger in question was a danger in the future because of his actions over the course of two minutes, then why was he allowed to fly on a later flight? Was he any less likely to be a "potential threat" on that flight?

Yes, he broke the rules, but really, does every rule infraction mean that the ultimate -- well, penultimate (since they didn't kill the guy) -- consequence must be applied?

[SCRawl]

As I stated, my position is based on the assumption that this person's antics did not constitute an actual delay. (In other words, there were other things going on which were not yet resolved, and would still hold up the flight.) Clearly, if this guy was actually holding up the departure of the flight, then he needed to get the boot.

Why should it matter if he causes a delay or not? If the regulations say that someone ignoring reasonable requests from the flight attendants can get the boot, then he should get the boot. Frankly there is nothing unreasonable about asking someone to take their seat in the middle of boarding, and anyone trying to pretend otherwise is being an assclown.

I never suggested that the request was unreasonable. I merely suggested that the resolution applied -- booting him off the plane -- was. As you say, the regulations say that ignoring reasonable requests can result in getting the boot. Does that always mean that getting the boot is always the appropriate response, or can circumstances allow something less than this?

The only thing you're working on is your assumptions. Which probably don't agree with what the actual regulations for that airline say.

My only assumption was that no delays were caused by the passenger's actions.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I never suggested that the request was unreasonable. I merely suggested that the resolution applied -- booting him off the plane -- was. As you say, the regulations say that ignoring reasonable requests can result in getting the boot. Does that always mean that getting the boot is always the appropriate response, or can circumstances allow something less than this?

...

My only assumption was that no delays were caused by the passenger's actions.

Ooooookay, let's go through this nice and slowly:

The passenger in question ignored a direct, lawful order from a flight attendant.

The flight attendants are the ones who will be keeping people alive in the event of an emergency.

One thing that *really* helps to keep people alive is listening to and following the orders of the people who know what the fuck they are doing and are trained to do it, i.e., the flight attendants.

Thus: Ignoring the lawful orders of a flight attendant, whether or not the plane is on the ground, whether or not it causes a delay, shows that you could quite possibly be a liability that could get yourself and other people killed should an actual emergency arise when the plane is in flight.

Thus getting booted is entirely fucking reasonable.

Lesser penalties, I assume, would occur for infractions that *don't* have the possibility of becoming life-threatening in an emergency.

[General Zod]

I never suggested that the request was unreasonable. I merely suggested that the resolution applied -- booting him off the plane -- was. As you say, the regulations say that ignoring reasonable requests can result in getting the boot. Does that always mean that getting the boot is always the appropriate response, or can circumstances allow something less than this?

When it comes to a service where safety is and should be the highest concern? Disruptive passengers who refuse reasonable requests should absolutely get the boot. Right now it seems as if you're arguing over semantics.

My only assumption was that no delays were caused by the passenger's actions.

Clearly, if this guy was actually holding up the departure of the flight, then he needed to get the boot.

This assumes that the regulations in the flight service agrees with what you are saying, ie - that he shouldn't get the boot unless he's delaying boarding. Since safety is the highest concern a passenger refusing a reasonable request has the potential for creating more disruption later on, so why should there be any degree of tolerance for a grown man who should know better?

[SCRawl]

I never suggested that the request was unreasonable. I merely suggested that the resolution applied -- booting him off the plane -- was. As you say, the regulations say that ignoring reasonable requests can result in getting the boot. Does that always mean that getting the boot is always the appropriate response, or can circumstances allow something less than this?

...

My only assumption was that no delays were caused by the passenger's actions.

Ooooookay, let's go through this nice and slowly:

The passenger in question ignored a direct, lawful order from a flight attendant.

Sure, we agree here.

The flight attendants are the ones who will be keeping people alive in the event of an emergency.

No problem so far.

One thing that *really* helps to keep people alive is listening to and following the orders of the people who know what the fuck they are doing and are trained to do it, i.e., the flight attendants.

Absolutely.

Thus: Ignoring the lawful orders of a flight attendant, whether or not the plane is on the ground, whether or not it causes a delay, shows that you could quite possibly be a liability that could get yourself and other people killed should an actual emergency arise when the plane is in flight.

Thus getting booted is entirely fucking reasonable.

Lesser penalties, I assume, would occur for infractions that *don't* have the possibility of becoming life-threatening in an emergency.

This is where your logic comes off the rails. The infraction as committed had approximately zero chance of becoming a life-threatening situation. Had he committed the same offence in an emergency, then for sure, lives would be threatened. What it seems as though you're saying is that because he refused to obey an instruction once, he's more likely than an average person to do so on a future occasion. And if that's the case, then why let him fly at all?

[General Zod]

This is where your logic comes off the rails. The infraction as committed had approximately zero chance of becoming a life-threatening situation. Had he committed the same offence in an emergency, then for sure, lives would be threatened. What it seems as though you're saying is that because he refused to obey an instruction once, he's more likely than an average person to do so on a future occasion. And if that's the case, then why let him fly at all?

Why the fuck does it have to be life-threatening to remove someone? Are you honestly so dense that you can't see why someone should remove a passenger or customer for anything other than something life-threatening? Stores remove disruptive customers all the fucking time for non life-threatening reasons. For an airline that puts safety above everything else the regulations are even more strict, so where is the problem exactly?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying.

Okay, here's how I see the conversation going.

FA: "Sir, please take your seat."
GUY: "..."
FA: "Um, sir, I asked you to please take your seat."
Guy: "..."
Guy's friends: "Miss, he can't stop right now. Give it a minute, he'll be done soon. People are still boarding anyways, so it isn't like we're going anywhere."
FA: "Sorry, but I've given him an order, and he's ignored it. I'm going to call for the cops to have him removed."
Guy (a minute later): "Sorry about that, but I was praying. It won't happen again."
FA: "Too late, I've already called the police. You can explain it to them while you arrange for another flight."

Is it unreasonable to suggest that the FA says, instead of the last sentence, "Okay, go back to your seat, and next time, either ask first or interrupt your fucking prayer when someone gives you an instruction"?

Yes, this guy already showed he was willing to ignore the person who would be responsible for keeping him alive in the event of an emergency. The safest and most reasonable course of action is to get him the fuck off the plane, *then* determine why this happened, and only allow him back on if it can be proven that something like this will never happen again.

If something goes wrong in mid-air, peoples' lives are going to depend on the flight attendants' ability to get people to do as they say, when they say it. Not five minutes later, not when they're done praying. If it is not made perfectly fucking clear that a refusal to cooperate will not be tolerated, there's the chance that this fuck will ignore everyone and start praying if things go to hell in mid-air, causing himself and others to get injured or killed by his asshole behaviour.

If you're lumping me in with the "people" you mentioned in your last sentence, I'll ask you to demonstrate that. Of course there are actions a person might take which would necessitate their removal. Where we differ in opinion is whether or not the simple refusal -- which was temporary, and explained during (and probably) after the fact -- makes a passenger into a "potential threat in an emergency".

The passenger ignored a lawful order from someone who is entrusted with his life, that immediately marks him as a potential threat, even if he doesn't understand the import of what he did. When you're sending people miles through the air in a sealed container, where, if things go wrong, they have to potential to go *really* fucking wrong, safety is paramount. Following the orders of those trained to give them is an integral part of that and failure to do so on the plane, no matter what the situation, demonstrates a possible safety hazard that could get people killed.

If we're going to suggest that the passenger in question was a danger in the future because of his actions over the course of two minutes, then why was he allowed to fly on a later flight? Was he any less likely to be a "potential threat" on that flight?

Perhaps because they determined that he understood the importance of following lawful orders and not ignoring flight attendants? Perhaps because getting your ass booted from a plane and having to scramble to get another flight is a *really* good deterrent to doing whatever it was that got your ass booted in the first place?

Punishment is intended, mostly, to deter future repetitions of the action that got punished. I'm pretty certain that is what happened in this case.

Yes, he broke the rules, but really, does every rule infraction mean that the ultimate -- well, penultimate (since they didn't kill the guy) -- consequence must be applied?

If that infraction shows that the guy is a safety hazard that could get people fucking killed? Yes. Fuck yes. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[SCRawl]

I never suggested that the request was unreasonable. I merely suggested that the resolution applied -- booting him off the plane -- was. As you say, the regulations say that ignoring reasonable requests can result in getting the boot. Does that always mean that getting the boot is always the appropriate response, or can circumstances allow something less than this?

When it comes to a service where safety is and should be the highest concern? Disruptive passengers who refuse reasonable requests should absolutely get the boot. Right now it seems as if you're arguing over semantics.

I can see why you might think that, and it wasn't my intention. What I was trying to impress is that there are actions the FA could have taken which would have resolved the situation to everyone's satisfaction and still let the passenger stay on the plane.

My only assumption was that no delays were caused by the passenger's actions.

Clearly, if this guy was actually holding up the departure of the flight, then he needed to get the boot.

This assumes that the regulations in the flight service agrees with what you are saying, ie - that he shouldn't get the boot unless he's delaying boarding. Since safety is the highest concern a passenger refusing a reasonable request has the potential for creating more disruption later on, so why should there be any degree of tolerance for a grown man who should know better?

Ah, I see what you mean, but no, the regulations still aren't part of my assumption.

If my assumption was invalid, then for sure, you have to get rid of the guy. No need for discussion, no disagreement. Boot his sorry ass.

If my assumption is valid, then sure, the risk of bootage still remains. Where we differ is in the way this particular offence was resolved.

Look, if the only penalty for disobeying the rules is being de-planed, then things can get silly:

"Sir, your seat is not in the locked, upright position. These guards will escort you to the exit."

"Sir, that bag will not fit in the overhead compartment. Please make arrangements for alternate transportation."

Granted, my examples are silly in the extreme. They serve only to illustrate that there can be more than one reasonable outcome to this kind of situation.

Like Oni, you seem to be making the assertion that because the passenger demonstrated the willingness to ignore a lawful order from a member of the cabin crew, that he's more likely to do so in the future, and would therefore become a hazard to everyone's safety later in the flight. And if that is the case, why isn't he blacklisted for the rest of his life?

(I could probably have phrased everything a little better, but I have to go.)

[Oni Koneko Damien]

This is where your logic comes off the rails. The infraction as committed had approximately zero chance of becoming a life-threatening situation. Had he committed the same offence in an emergency, then for sure, lives would be threatened.

Oh for fuck's sake, you still don't get it, do you? Safety... fucking... first. Do you know why people do fire drills? Do you know why factory workers are required to wear appropriate hazmat gear? Do you know why certain professions are trained to immediately respond to certain commands or conditions, no matter how non-life-threatening the situation might be?

Because when the shit hits the fan, these people HAVE to be able to react the right way in order to prevent injury and death. A factory worker who doesn't wear his required protective gloves, even if the particular situation he's not wearing them in isn't exactly dangerous, will get disciplined and possibly fired. This includes airline passengers. You weed out the ones who don't follow orders in a non-life-threatening situation because should things go to hell, they are that much more likely not to follow orders when the flight attendants are trying to keep people alive.

What it seems as though you're saying is that because he refused to obey an instruction once, he's more likely than an average person to do so on a future occasion. And if that's the case, then why let him fly at all?

Perhaps because he simply didn't understand the importance of following orders at first, and it took getting booted off the plane and scrambling to get an alternate flight to pound home the importance of following orders? Just because someone's an asshole once doesn't mean they're incapable of changing given the proper motivation, and getting booted off the plane is pretty damn good motivation.

[General Zod]

I can see why you might think that, and it wasn't my intention. What I was trying to impress is that there are actions the FA could have taken which would have resolved the situation to everyone's satisfaction and still let the passenger stay on the plane.

Like what? People keep mentioning alternatives. What alternatives were there to giving him the boot that would have worked?

Ah, I see what you mean, but no, the regulations still aren't part of my assumption.

If my assumption was invalid, then for sure, you have to get rid of the guy. No need for discussion, no disagreement. Boot his sorry ass.

If my assumption is valid, then sure, the risk of bootage still remains. Where we differ is in the way this particular offence was resolved.

Look, if the only penalty for disobeying the rules is being de-planed, then things can get silly:

"Sir, your seat is not in the locked, upright position. These guards will escort you to the exit."

"Sir, that bag will not fit in the overhead compartment. Please make arrangements for alternate transportation."

Granted, my examples are silly in the extreme. They serve only to illustrate that there can be more than one reasonable outcome to this kind of situation.

Piss poor exaxmples too. Returning the seat to a locked and upright position are important safety measures in that they can hinder evacuations if something goes wrong. Having luggage that won't fit in the overhead compartments are likewise for similar reason as the seat being locked and upright. It helps to come up with examples that actually help your case, usually.

Like Oni, you seem to be making the assertion that because the passenger demonstrated the willingness to ignore a lawful order from a member of the cabin crew, that he's more likely to do so in the future, and would therefore become a hazard to everyone's safety later in the flight. And if that is the case, why isn't he blacklisted for the rest of his life?

Perhaps because removing him for a later flight is standard procedure for a first offense? I'd imagine if he did this more often he would be blacklisted. Honestly, this isn't that difficult.

[Singular Intellect]

The whole arguement that this guy should've been treated "nicer" seems to be a reflection of the general idea that religious activities and behavior are deserving of more respect.

If this had instead been an incident of some guy juggling apples in the back of the plane and ignoring flight attendent instructions for two minutes, I strongly doubt anyone would've objected at all that he was simply being an asshole and a potential security risk, and therefore rightfully booted off the plane.

Such is the reality of how ingrained it is in so many people that religion should be treated as special and less subject to the rules than everything else.

[Broomstick]

As I stated, my position is based on the assumption that this person's antics did not constitute an actual delay. (In other words, there were other things going on which were not yet resolved, and would still hold up the flight.) Clearly, if this guy was actually holding up the departure of the flight, then he needed to get the boot.

You fail to understand the nature of delays in aviation.

It is not clear to YOU that such behavior could be causing a delay. However, flight crews have only limited time in which to board everyone. While, as I stated, there is tolerance for those too feeble or otherwise at disadvantage, willful asshatery is not OK. The airlines do exert effort to assist those truly needing help - such as the elderly, disabled, sometimes families with small children, etc. - to get the boarded as efficiently and quickly as possible, and an old person tottering on a cane will be tolerated when moving slowly or needing to pause to steady themselves. But, again, time is limited - they can not accommodate those who truly need time and assistance AND deal with able-bodied people being obstacles, intentional or not.

Is it demonstrable that, because he ignored the FA once -- for a reason which was explained -- it was inevitable or at least reasonably forseeable that he would do so again later in the flight?

Yes, there is a pattern that people who fail to cooperate with a FA once are more likely to do so in future than someone who has been cooperative all along. Granted, not everyone who fails to cooperate will will make the same mistake in the future, but FA's are not psychics.

Or is the argument that the decision-making process on the part of the FA goes something like "He's ignoring me right now, even though I just gave him a lawful order. He has to go.

Yes, that is basically the thought process, but it is based on prior observation that people who are noncompliant at boarding are far more likely to cause trouble later on that people who are compliant. Again, this is not arbitrary or cruel, it's based on experience. It is already a problem that many people find flying stressful and can act in an uncharacteristic fashion due to fear -- mix that with noncompliance and it can be a serious problem.

If the latter -- attended by the assumptions I've already made, with respect to the lack of a delay -- then my position is that that's being unduly harsh.

You are not qualified to determine if there is a delay or not. Want to know something else? Neither am I - and I have considerably more knowledge and experience in aviation than the average person. That's why when I fly commercial I shut the fuck up, listen to the flight crew, and when they say "Jump!" I say "how high and how often" even as I push off the floor. In order to prepare for take-off a flight crew must do far more than merely board the passengers, and do it in a limited time. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing if there is something else going on that needs attention or affecting how much time they have to board passengers. At that point, one of the goals of the flight crew is to avoid delays. If there was no delay (and we don't know either way in this case) that in no way proves Mr. Prayer wasn't an obstacle/problem - his removal might have prevented a delay, in which case it was the correct decision even if the problem/delay wasn't "obvious" to an outside observer.

[Justforfun000]

I sympathize with the general idea towards letting the man have a break and just reprimand him as to why he cannot do this kind of thing, but as Broomstick is explaining quite eloquently, we simply do not have the right, knowledge or authority to decide whether their decision to remove him was ideal. The paper is reporting it just to stir up the argument of religious freedom & rules. No doubt about it. They are shit disturbers, but what else is new besides the sky is blue?

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying.

Okay, here's how I see the conversation going.

FA: "Sir, please take your seat."
GUY: "..."
FA: "Um, sir, I asked you to please take your seat."
Guy: "..."
Guy's friends: "Miss, he can't stop right now. Give it a minute, he'll be done soon. People are still boarding anyways, so it isn't like we're going anywhere."
FA: "Sorry, but I've given him an order, and he's ignored it. I'm going to call for the cops to have him removed."
Guy (a minute later): "Sorry about that, but I was praying. It won't happen again."
FA: "Too late, I've already called the police. You can explain it to them while you arrange for another flight."

I see a flawed assumption in this chain of events - more on that a bit later.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that the FA says, instead of the last sentence, "Okay, go back to your seat, and next time, either ask first or interrupt your fucking prayer when someone gives you an instruction"?

FA's actually do have some discretion here, but remember that while their actions are law while on board they can certainly be called upon to explain their actions later, and if found unjustified, can be punished for a wrong decision. If she decides to allow this passenger to remain and he causes a problem later she can be called to task for her wrong decision. This may be in the form of civil authorities handing out punishment (everything from a verbal warning to fines) or, if there is a genuine emergency, possibly a confrontation with terrain, fire, disarticulated bodyparts, or other unpleasant physical manifestations of a Bad Thing. This is, no doubt, a factor in her decision to have him removed.

I'll ask you to demonstrate that. Of course there are actions a person might take which would necessitate their removal. Where we differ in opinion is whether or not the simple refusal -- which was temporary, and explained during (and probably) after the fact -- makes a passenger into a "potential threat in an emergency".

From the viewpoint of the airlines and FAA - yes, refusal to comply with the orders of the flight crew at any time does, indeed, make you a potential threat. That is different from deaf people, "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking to him", difficulties due to high ambient noise levels, and other such failures of communication.

If we're going to suggest that the passenger in question was a danger in the future because of his actions over the course of two minutes, then why was he allowed to fly on a later flight? Was he any less likely to be a "potential threat" on that flight?

Yes, he broke the rules, but really, does every rule infraction mean that the ultimate -- well, penultimate (since they didn't kill the guy) -- consequence must be applied?

Again, I think you have a misunderstanding of how and why these actions are taken.

It is routine to remove potentially problematic passengers from flights prior to take-off. The most common reason is being drunk out of one's head - aside from the problems that an incapacited drunk can cause during an emergency, the flight environment also magnifies the effect of alcohol on the brain meaning that even if they don't drink another drop they will become MORE incapcitated at altitude, and it also raises the potential for a medical emergency. There are other reasons, though, including arguing or disobeying flight crew.

The standard procedure is to remove said passenger and put them on the next flight - the airline usually puts them on the next flight, the passenger does not have to "scramble" for this (although, of course, it is their option to go with another carrier if they choose to do so). It is not unusual for there to be no additional charge for this. Why does the airline do this? Simple - it gives them an opportunity to observe the person.

Let's take the situation of someone being drunk off their ass. This does happen. People are fearful and drink for courage, and may drink too much. There may be a hold up in the schedule, so they sit in a bar to pass the time and drink too much (weather delays are known to be a major cause of this sort of thing). They may be an alcoholic. Whatever. People fuck up and drink too much and arrive at the gate shitfaced. There are actually regulations regarding people flying under the influence of drugs, legal or not. It is against regulations for someone to board while drunk and/or incapacitated (having a drink or two is legal as long as you behave AND you are not rendered intoxicated - there is a gray area there, this is true, but good behavior counts for a LOT here). So... they deny boarding (frequently endure much swearing) and book the person on the next flight.

Then they watch the person.

IF said person stays away from booze (it's not unknown for gate crew to encourage them to eat some food, or even to give then a voucher for a meal thought the latter is becoming less common these days), acts reasonably, sobers up somewhat, and endures the delay in their travel they will almost always be allowed on the next flight out. Why? Because they have demonstrated some ability at self control and rule compliance. Such a person may not be operating at full capacity but is likely to obey in a real emergency. IF said drunk goes back to the bar and keeps boozing it up, if they get abusive or disruptive, fuck no they will not be allowed on the next flight out.

Ditto for most other reasons for denial of boarding. Got someone with puke-worthy body odor? If they're willing to wash up, change clothes, and come back tolerable they'll be allowed on. Got someone who freaked out but is much more reasonable a few hours later, or the next morning (stress again - fear, or people traveling to funerals or the like can fall into this category) and they'll be let on board. Still being an asshat? Fuck you, go away.

So, really, being taken off the airplane and put on the next one out is NOT the "penultimate" punishment - there's "denied this trip, go find another airline", followed by "You're not flying our airline again" or possibly "arrest", to "You're not flying ANY airline anymore" and/or arrest. Well, now there's "shot dead by a Flight Marshall", but those are the ones NOT weeded out by the above and pretty damn rare.

Is being taken off a flight inconvenient? You betcha. You know something else? Most people learn their lesson in just one de-planing. Fancy that. It's a very effective way to drive the point home that you do what the flight crew tells you to do.

[Coyote]

The whole arguement that this guy should've been treated "nicer" seems to be a reflection of the general idea that religious activities and behavior are deserving of more respect.

I'd like to find where I said that this guy-- because he was praying-- deserved "more" respect.

We've had situations presented here before where people were ejected from planes for a variety of arbitrary reasons-- people with t-shirt slogan that espouse unpopular views or women dressed skimpy. In each of those cases, the Flight Attendants told those people to leave, FA's were disobeyed, and scenes were had, security called, and people here tended to line up in favor of the person who's rights were 'trampled'.

But now we have a guy being hustled off a plane by a Flight Attendant because he was praying, and suddenly it's torches, nooses, and Flight Attendants are GOD, even though it cannot be shown that there was any delay to the plane or any complaint or inconvenience at all.

If this had instead been an incident of some guy juggling apples in the back of the plane and ignoring flight attendent instructions for two minutes, I strongly doubt anyone would've objected at all that he was simply being an asshole and a potential security risk, and therefore rightfully booted off the plane.

In my earlier examples I used the idea of a guy that was nervous about flying, or whatever, who'd go to the back of the plane during boarding and do Yoga to calm himself, only to be frogmarched off the plane. I wondered if the mob would be so quick to side with the Flight Attendant as they are in the case of a guy praying.

Now here in this crowd, for most people "being religious" is considered a step above child molestation in the hierarchy of horrible things a person could do, so all the folks who once stood up for others that were rousted by Zero-Tolerance type policies are now chanting "burn the witch!"

Such is the reality of how ingrained it is in so many people that religion should be treated as special and less subject to the rules than everything else.

No, actually, I'd like to see the same reaction to this guy that was garnered by others who were strong-armed by "rules over judgment" types. I think this guy is in the exact same boat as someone who wore an "offensive" t-shirt (but was otherwise presentable) and was ejected from a flight by an overzealous FA.

If this guy was booted out because he was wearing an "Obama '08" campaign button, and talking loudly with his friends about how great Obama was and brushed off the FA's attempt to shush him, would the reaction here be different? I think it would be.

[Singular Intellect]

The whole arguement that this guy should've been treated "nicer" seems to be a reflection of the general idea that religious activities and behavior are deserving of more respect.

I'd like to find where I said that this guy-- because he was praying-- deserved "more" respect.

We've had situations presented here before where people were ejected from planes for a variety of arbitrary reasons-- people with t-shirt slogan that espouse unpopular views or women dressed skimpy. In each of those cases, the Flight Attendants told those people to leave, FA's were disobeyed, and scenes were had, security called, and people here tended to line up in favor of the person who's rights were 'trampled'.

And guess what? Both those incidents did not compromise the safe operation of the aircraft in question. Not heeding instructions by the aircraft personnel on the other hand does present a serious potential problem.

But now we have a guy being hustled off a plane by a Flight Attendant because he was praying, and suddenly it's torches, nooses, and Flight Attendants are GOD, even though it cannot be shown that there was any delay to the plane or any complaint or inconvenience at all.

Quit lying, fucknuts. He was 'hustled' off the plane because he ignored direct instructions from the flight attendents.

His praying is incidental; the only bearing his actual acitivity has is the fact people think that because he was praying he should've been given more leniency, and it's a another example of religious morons thinking that their moronic beliefs make them exception to the rules.

If this had instead been an incident of some guy juggling apples in the back of the plane and ignoring flight attendent instructions for two minutes, I strongly doubt anyone would've objected at all that he was simply being an asshole and a potential security risk, and therefore rightfully booted off the plane.

In my earlier examples I used the idea of a guy that was nervous about flying, or whatever, who'd go to the back of the plane during boarding and do Yoga to calm himself, only to be frogmarched off the plane. I wondered if the mob would be so quick to side with the Flight Attendant as they are in the case of a guy praying.

If he had ignored direct instructions by the flight attendents for two minutes, fucking right he should be boot off the plane.

Such is the reality of how ingrained it is in so many people that religion should be treated as special and less subject to the rules than everything else.

No, actually, I'd like to see the same reaction to this guy that was garnered by others who were strong-armed by "rules over judgment" types. I think this guy is in the exact same boat as someone who wore an "offensive" t-shirt (but was otherwise presentable) and was ejected from a flight by an overzealous FA.

If this guy was booted out because he was wearing an "Obama '08" campaign button, and talking loudly with his friends about how great Obama was and brushed off the FA's attempt to shush him, would the reaction here be different? I think it would be.

What part of ignoring direct instructions by a flight attendent do you not understand, shithead? Praying, juggling, yoga, wearing a shirt calling women whores...none of that fucking matters to the reason why he was removed from the fucking plane. He didn't listen to the authoritive figures on the plane responsible for the safety and well being of all their passengers.

In case you're still fucking dense, let me quote the article to you:

NEW YORK - A passenger who left his seat to pray in the back of a plane before it took off, ignoring flight attendants' orders to return, was removed by an airport security guard, a witness and the airline said.

The Orthodox Jewish man, who wore a full beard, a black hat and a long black coat, stood near the lavatories and began saying his prayers while the United Airlines jet was being boarded at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Wednesday night, fellow passenger Ori Brafman said.

When flight attendants urged the man, who was carrying a religious book, to take his seat, he ignored them,

Do you fucking get it yet?

[General Zod]

We've had situations presented here before where people were ejected from planes for a variety of arbitrary reasons-- people with t-shirt slogan that espouse unpopular views or women dressed skimpy. In each of those cases, the Flight Attendants told those people to leave, FA's were disobeyed, and scenes were had, security called, and people here tended to line up in favor of the person who's rights were 'trampled'.

Perhaps because the vast majority of the time those were not reasonable requests. You're an idiot if you think asking someone to take their seat while boarding isn't a reasonable request.

But now we have a guy being hustled off a plane by a Flight Attendant because he was praying, and suddenly it's torches, nooses, and Flight Attendants are GOD, even though it cannot be shown that there was any delay to the plane or any complaint or inconvenience at all.

Who gives a fuck whether or not there was an actual delay? The fact that the asshole was refusing a reasonable request is more than sufficient. And before you break out the hilarious false analogies, no, asking someone to take off a political t-shirt or get naked is not a reasonable request.

In my earlier examples I used the idea of a guy that was nervous about flying, or whatever, who'd go to the back of the plane during boarding and do Yoga to calm himself, only to be frogmarched off the plane. I wondered if the mob would be so quick to side with the Flight Attendant as they are in the case of a guy praying.

Would you be so quick to side with the guy if he wasn't doing something religious? Honestly.

Now here in this crowd, for most people "being religious" is considered a step above child molestation in the hierarchy of horrible things a person could do, so all the folks who once stood up for others that were rousted by Zero-Tolerance type policies are now chanting "burn the witch!"

I don't think you're using enough straw in there.

No, actually, I'd like to see the same reaction to this guy that was garnered by others who were strong-armed by "rules over judgment" types. I think this guy is in the exact same boat as someone who wore an "offensive" t-shirt (but was otherwise presentable) and was ejected from a flight by an overzealous FA.

If you think it is then you clearly lack the capacity to distinguish a reasonable request from an unreasonable one.

If this guy was booted out because he was wearing an "Obama '08" campaign button, and talking loudly with his friends about how great Obama was and brushed off the FA's attempt to shush him, would the reaction here be different? I think it would be.

Try again with fewer false analogies, please.

[Darth Onasi]

If this guy was booted out because he was wearing an "Obama '08" campaign button, and talking loudly with his friends about how great Obama was and brushed off the FA's attempt to shush him, would the reaction here be different? I think it would be.

This would be relevant if the man had been booted out for what he was wearing, or actually for praying.
How many times must everyone say that the only reason he got kicked out is because he ignored the flight attendant.

Sure with hindsight sitting in front of our computers analysing the situation, maybe we can see that the flight attendant may have had other options.
But in case you forgot, they have an entire plane full of passangers to manage and ANY potential liability can make their job that much harder.

[SCRawl]

This is where your logic comes off the rails. The infraction as committed had approximately zero chance of becoming a life-threatening situation. Had he committed the same offence in an emergency, then for sure, lives would be threatened.

Oh for fuck's sake, you still don't get it, do you? Safety... fucking... first.

This reminds me of those brake repair places whose tag lines read something like "because the most important component of your car is its brakes". Which is complete bullshit: the most important part of your car is the engine. If you don't have an engine, you don't have a car. Brakes are certainly very important, and to operate a car without brakes in a populated area would be doing a disservice to yourself and to your fellow citizens, but by definition, they can't be the most important component of any self-propelled vehicle.

Similarly, safety cannot be the absolute most important concern, overriding all others, for any company involved with transporting things or people. If it was, then nothing would ever move anywhere, unless it somehow became safer to move than to stand still. Don't get me wrong: safety is still very important, but it can't be first.

What it seems as though you're saying is that because he refused to obey an instruction once, he's more likely than an average person to do so on a future occasion. And if that's the case, then why let him fly at all?

Perhaps because he simply didn't understand the importance of following orders at first, and it took getting booted off the plane and scrambling to get an alternate flight to pound home the importance of following orders? Just because someone's an asshole once doesn't mean they're incapable of changing given the proper motivation, and getting booted off the plane is pretty damn good motivation.

Is the passenger in question a two-year-old, who needs to burn his hand on the stove before learning not to touch it? (For the record, my two-year-old never burned her hand, fortunately, but I still have to tell her repeatedly not to touch the stove.) Is the only way to modify future behaviour of an adult -- even one who's silly enough to stand chanting to his sky-pixie in open defiance of the cabin crew -- being jettisoned (figuratively) from the plane?

We clearly disagree about the appropriate level of response to this transgression. Assuming again the lack of a delay (which, I know, pisses people off, but there will be more in near-future posts about it), I think that a stern talking-to would suffice, and others here do not.

[Darth Onasi]

Similarly, safety cannot be the absolute most important concern, overriding all others, for any company involved with transporting things or people. If it was, then nothing would ever move anywhere, unless it somehow became safer to move than to stand still. Don't get me wrong: safety is still very important, but it can't be first.

When it comes to something as basic as responding to the goddamn crew when asked to, yes safety comes first.
How do they know he's not going to plop down in the aisle in the middle of an emergency and start praying?
He demonstrated that he didn't think he had to follow the rules he agreed to when he boarded, that's a liability plain and simple.

[General Zod]

Is the passenger in question a two-year-old, who needs to burn his hand on the stove before learning not to touch it? (For the record, my two-year-old never burned her hand, fortunately, but I still have to tell her repeatedly not to touch the stove.) Is the only way to modify future behaviour of an adult -- even one who's silly enough to stand chanting to his sky-pixie in open defiance of the cabin crew -- being jettisoned (figuratively) from the plane?

We clearly disagree about the appropriate level of response to this transgression. Assuming again the lack of a delay (which, I know, pisses people off, but there will be more in near-future posts about it), I think that a stern talking-to would suffice, and others here do not.

You're right, the passenger isn't a 2 year old, so what makes you think a stern talking-to would be effective? When you're an adult you're expected to know better and comply with the guidelines and regulations of a place you go to. So why the fuck should an adult get off with just a stern-talking to when he doesn't have the excuse of ignorance a 2 year old would? It makes sense to anyone but someone wanting to play up the mindless-middle bullshit card that you give adults much more serious consequences for fucking something up, and quite frankly being taken off the flight is a slap on the wrist.