Praying Man Removed From Plane

[SCRawl]

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?

A stern talking-to. Something like "Sir, I recognize that your faith is important to you, but in this environment you cannot ignore the instructions of this cabin crew. This is your first and only warning." According to the OP, the passenger said that he wasn't "trying to be rude", and (by all appearances) seemed calm. A strongly-worded warning probably would have done the trick.

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.

No, my examples were chosen carefully. My point was never that the offences were irrelevant, but rather that failure to comply on the first command likely wouldn't result in being de-planed.

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.

The fact that this might be company policy is irrelevant to whether or not the actions taken were excessive. If that's the policy, then my opinion is that the policy is too strict, but I don't hold myself out as an expert on aviation procedures. As I've said, my opinion is that there were less severe actions which could have been taken without compromising the safety of the flight.

[Coyote]

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.

...

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

...

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

...

What part of ignoring direct instructions by a flight attendent do you not understand, shithead?

...

Do you fucking get it yet?

I get it alright-- you're an ignorant fuck. In the previous cases I stated, people who also "refused flight attendant instructions" were the "victims". Now everyone's hiding behind "refused flight attendant's instructions" and it all well-and-good.

[General Zod]

A stern talking-to. Something like "Sir, I recognize that your faith is important to you, but in this environment you cannot ignore the instructions of this cabin crew. This is your first and only warning." According to the OP, the passenger said that he wasn't "trying to be rude", and (by all appearances) seemed calm. A strongly-worded warning probably would have done the trick.

Do you honestly think the flight-attendants didn't try doing this when they told him to get back to the seat and just leapt straight to ejecting him?

No, my examples were chosen carefully. My point was never that the offences were irrelevant, but rather that failure to comply on the first command likely wouldn't result in being de-planed.

And what if he refused on the second request? Would they still be too strict? How about the third? How many fucking chances should someone get before it becomes acceptable?

The fact that this might be company policy is irrelevant to whether or not the actions taken were excessive. If that's the policy, then my opinion is that the policy is too strict, but I don't hold myself out as an expert on aviation procedures. As I've said, my opinion is that there were less severe actions which could have been taken without compromising the safety of the flight.

How the fuck else are you going to determine whether it's excessive except to go based on what the policy suggests, or how punishment is handled on other airlines? "Gut instinct"? Yeah, that's a real great way of figuring out whether it's excessive.

[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.

You fail to understand the nature of delays in aviation.

No, after your previous post on the subject I believe that I understand it well enough -- still not very well, of course, but well enough for the purposes of this discussion.

I'm not saying that the passenger in question caused no delay. I'm saying that I'm assuming that no delay was caused. The evidence we have makes it sound as though people were still boarding, which is the reason for my assumption. If my assumption proves to be wrong -- a possibility I freely admit -- then so is my conclusion.

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.

This is all just related to my assumption: if it's going to take ten minutes (or whatever) to get everyone seated, and someone stands at the back of the plane (and, for the purposes of this assumption, is effectively ignored by the cabin crew) for two minutes in the middle of that, nothing has been lost in terms of the efficiency of the flight. If you tell me that that reasoning is full of shit, then based on what I know of you, I'll concede.

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.

I suppose that where we differ is whether or not de-planing should be the first bullet in the FA's gun.

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.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is why I assumed that there was no delay, rather than asserted it.

Not that it matters much to the FA here, but this is what I think the decision-making process was for the passenger. (Someone posted earlier that prayers for the orthodox types should be done standing and facing Jerusalem, if possible, so I'll assume for the purposes of this discussion that those are true).

- The plane's going to take off soon, so I should make a prayer to my sky pixie
- I'm supposed to stand, but I can't stand in my seat, and if I stand in the aisle it will impede boarding operations
- I'm supposed to face Jerusalem, but I can't do that here. I have to find a place to stand out of the way
- That lavatory is at the back of the plane, where there aren't any seats. I can stand there for two minutes without getting in anybody's way

Of course, I'm assuming that the passenger isn't an asshole. The above few lines fall apart if my assumption is incorrect (and I wouldn't give it better than 50-50 odds).

[Singular Intellect]

I get it alright-- you're an ignorant fuck. In the previous cases I stated, people who also "refused flight attendant instructions" were the "victims". Now everyone's hiding behind "refused flight attendant's instructions" and it all well-and-good.

Obviously you're just too fucking stupid to understand there's a difference between instructions related to safe operation of the flight and minimizing potential problems (ie: "sir, please take your seat and buckle up"), and 'instructions' that have nothing to do with that whatsoever (ie: "you're not allowed on this plane because I find your shirt objectionable").

Of course this point was addressed several times already, but you no doubt ignored them and will this one too.

[SCRawl]

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.

Sure, and while I don't have the training, experience, or an ass on the line like the FA in this case did, I do assert that absent a potential delay, the sternly-worded warning would probably have sufficed. Different people have different opinions, and mine is made in relative ignorance and comfort, compared with the FA in question. Certainly the FA's opinion is worth more than mine, but I wonder, after the fact, if she (I'll assume it's a "she", based only on percentages) honestly still thinks she did the right thing?

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.

Every passenger is potentially problematic. It is the level of potential that separates the ones that can stay from the ones who need to go, and while I will grant that Mr. Too-Jewish-For-This-Prayer-Shawl (my favourite line from this thread, by the way) was above average in this respect, it is my position that, based on what little I read in the OP, he wasn't far enough above average to warrant the boot.

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.

It certainly ought to be effective, yes. My position is merely that instead of using the sledge hammer to kill the ants, the flyswatter will do. To continue the analogy, if the pest proves to be too robust for the flyswatter, then better implements can be put to use.

[Broomstick]

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'.

Actually, I think I’ve been pretty consistent in arguing in favor of the airline employee in such situations, the exceptions usually being egregious cases (such as ejecting a woman for breast-feeding). If I recall, in that case the FA was found to be in error and apology issued.

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.

---- snip ----

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.

Well, what WOULD you put first?

Profit? The CEO’s bonus? The mechanics taking a coffee break? The paint scheme on the jet? What?

True, the safest airplane is the one that never takes off, but that’s not what airplanes are made for. Aside from that one little caveat – we are flying, taking that particular inherent risk – safety DOES come before all else, or it should.

A stern talking-to. Something like "Sir, I recognize that your faith is important to you, but in this environment you cannot ignore the instructions of this cabin crew. This is your first and only warning." According to the OP, the passenger said that he wasn't "trying to be rude", and (by all appearances) seemed calm. A strongly-worded warning probably would have done the trick.

Do you honestly think the flight-attendants didn't try doing this when they told him to get back to the seat and just leapt straight to ejecting him?

No, my examples were chosen carefully. My point was never that the offences were irrelevant, but rather that failure to comply on the first command likely wouldn't result in being de-planed.

And what if he refused on the second request? Would they still be too strict? How about the third? How many fucking chances should someone get before it becomes acceptable?

^ What he said.

What part of “ignoring orders” are you having a problem with? “Orders” usually implies something more than just a polite request.

The fact that this might be company policy is irrelevant to whether or not the actions taken were excessive. If that's the policy, then my opinion is that the policy is too strict, but I don't hold myself out as an expert on aviation procedures. As I've said, my opinion is that there were less severe actions which could have been taken without compromising the safety of the flight.

Aviation is a funny enterprise in that those involved with it frequently take extreme measures in regards to what appears to be some very minor stuff. That’s because, in aviation, minor stuff can become major in a hurry and thoroughly ruin your day. Aviation is the safest form of transportation in history despite the inherent risks of flight, not because it’s a safe thing to do. In order to achieve this risk has to be managed very, very tightly. You take care of shit before it’s a problem, whether that’s replacing engine parts before they wear out, or ejecting troublesome passengers before they cause a hazardous situation.

Sometimes the handling of these things can be subtle. For example, there have been occasions I have taken people as passengers on flights where I am not sure how they will react to the situation. In such circumstances, I will usually select a four-seat as opposed to a two-seat airplane and draft an experienced pilot/passenger to come along and watch the other passenger. This is usually a very friendly thing, with my “assistant” pointing out the sights, explaining what’s going on when I’m too busy to talk, and so forth, but that person will, at the first sign of “freak out”, motion sickness, or other unwanted reaction deal with that passenger so I can continue to fly the airplane. The airlines, however, do not have the luxury of appointing baby-sitters for troublesome passengers the way I do. The ratio of flight crew to passengers does not allow for that.

FA’s usually frame their orders as requests – “Would you please return your lap trays and seatbacks to their upright positions”, “Would you please move”, etc. FA’s spend significant amounts of their time tending to the creature comforts of passengers – food (if the airline still does that), beverages, headphones for the movie, how to adjust air vents and lighting, barf bags, etc. They do this because customers ARE important and they very much would like to keep things as friendly as possible since that is much more pleasant for everyone. But, just like my “co-pilot” acting as watchdog, they are watching the passengers and will deal with any that seem problematic. The threshold for tolerance of disobedience is very low, and even then, there are far too many instances of passengers getting out of hand every year. Passengers start fights with each other and the crew, they cause injuries, sometimes they even cause deaths – and really, that’s a horrific state of affairs to have at 30,000 feet. Weapons are removed from passengers prior to boarding NOT just because of terrorists but also to avoid injuries among passengers should a fight break out – better bare fists than, say, screwdrivers. Between stress, fear, alcohol, and crowding there are already some heightened risks to the situation, which is yet another reason passengers are told to comply and orders are backed up with real authority and consequences.

Yes, sometimes an passenger is removed when he was not actually posing a threat. The aviation world would rather have that happen than miss someone who later goes on to cause a real problem. It’s called erring on the side of caution.

I'm not saying that the passenger in question caused no delay. I'm saying that I'm assuming that no delay was caused. The evidence we have makes it sound as though people were still boarding, which is the reason for my assumption. If my assumption proves to be wrong -- a possibility I freely admit -- then so is my conclusion.

I am saying that it is well within the bounds of possibility that they were operating on an extremely tight schedule. That 10 or 15 minutes to board may seem ample to the people filing on board, but they have a whole checklist to go through and if they need to take time to investigate, say, a door that does not seem to be operating properly (FA’s do check the doors prior to every flight as part of their duties) that could suddenly start eating up time in a way the passengers are not aware of, leading to FA’s scrambling to get the door to work AND get the passengers boarded quickly enough to avoid a delay. Well, if the door won’t work you’ll be delayed anyway, but they will attempt to make the deadline if at all possible. This may result in a lower tolerance for passengers that appear obstructive.

This is all just related to my assumption: if it's going to take ten minutes (or whatever) to get everyone seated, and someone stands at the back of the plane (and, for the purposes of this assumption, is effectively ignored by the cabin crew) for two minutes in the middle of that, nothing has been lost in terms of the efficiency of the flight. If you tell me that that reasoning is full of shit, then based on what I know of you, I'll concede.

I’m saying we, sitting here, have no way to determine that either way. Since lavs and galleys are frequently in the back of airplanes the FA’s may need to get to them as part of the pre-take-off checks. There are a few models of airplanes that have doors in the rear, and they would need to easily access those. There may be emergency equipment back there that needs to be checked. In the back by the lavs may appear to be out of the way, but in fact it might be in the way. There might be other reasons – for security reasons not everything done by FA’s is public knowledge.

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.

I suppose that where we differ is whether or not de-planing should be the first bullet in the FA's gun.

Typically, it’s not. They usually make the effort to clarify if there was a communication problem (Can he hear? Is it too noisy in here? Does he speak the same language I do?), but generally if you don’t obey by the second request they’re starting to consider if they should have you escorted out of the aircraft.

Of course, I'm assuming that the passenger isn't an asshole. The above few lines fall apart if my assumption is incorrect (and I wouldn't give it better than 50-50 odds).

Yes, as usual we don’t have the full story, and we won’t.

[Coyote]

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 this isn't pinned on taking one's seat. This happened during boarding, when there is no reasonable expectation that everyone will be in their seat. The situati0on would be quite different-- as would my position on the matter-- if everyone was seated, and then he got up to pray (or whatever).

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.

The fact that it has happened will show you that there are those who disagree with you. I'm sorry if that doesn't square with your vision of a perfect world, but there are those out there who just cannot see why it is such a big deal to ask someone to turn their offensive T-shirt inside out to go along to get along.

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

Well, that's precisely my point. If he was hustled off the plane for doing something that wasn't religious, but for some other arbitrary reason, I bet we'd have a bunch of people here excoriating the airline for having no sense of personal judgment and for having small-minded FA's throwing their weight around, and the usual griping about the silliness of "Zero-Toleance" all-or-nothing rules.

Try again with fewer false analogies, please.

I'll spell it the fuck out for you.

Airline: "We tossed this guy off because he was a communist, and he disobeyed a Flight Attendant's order telling him to get off."
SDN: "Boo! Bad! Unjust!"

Airline: "We tossed this gal off because she was dressed like a whore, and she disobeyed a Flight Attendant's order telling him to get off."
SDN: "Boo! Bad! Unjust!"

Airline: "We tossed this guy off because he was praying, and he disobeyed a Flight Attendant's order telling him to get off."
SDN: "Yeah! Fuck the religious asshole cocksucker bitchdog!"

It makes no difference why the guy was tossed off. He was tossed off because of a rules-over-judgment fallacy in approaching situations, and an overzealous FA tossed her authority around rather than think the situation through. The only difference is that this time, the guy did something the Mob disapproves of, so this time the lynching is "okay". What I see is slippery and ambiguous ethics, and a spin-control attempt to justify that convenient altering of ethics.

Sometimes, it is very telling to see how evenly and honestly people are willing to apply ethics when have to stick up for people you don't agree with or like.

[Coyote]

A stern talking-to. Something like "Sir, I recognize that your faith is important to you, but in this environment you cannot ignore the instructions of this cabin crew. This is your first and only warning." According to the OP, the passenger said that he wasn't "trying to be rude", and (by all appearances) seemed calm. A strongly-worded warning probably would have done the trick.

Do you honestly think the flight-attendants didn't try doing this when they told him to get back to the seat and just leapt straight to ejecting him?

If the FA was this reasonable about it, then why was there a fuss?

[General Zod]

>snip<

It makes no difference why the guy was tossed off. He was tossed off because of a rules-over-judgment fallacy in approaching situations, and an overzealous FA tossed her authority around rather than think the situation through. The only difference is that this time, the guy did something the Mob disapproves of, so this time the lynching is "okay". What I see is slippery and ambiguous ethics, and a spin-control attempt to justify that convenient altering of ethics.

Ah, here's the crux of the problem. You seem to be stuck on this absurd black and white horseshit that it must be either rules or judgment. I suppose in your world there's no possible way someone can make a judgment call that the rules must be enforced and brought into play because the situation warrants it.

[General Zod]

If the FA was this reasonable about it, then why was there a fuss?

I hear the media likes stirring up shit to gain ratings on occasion.

[SCRawl]

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.

How do they know that the nearsighted guy isn't going to lose his glasses if the plane crashes, and become a liability? How do they know that the fat guy isn't going to land on top of the guy sitting next to him, creating two bodies they'll have to move aside to let everyone else out of the plane?

We don't know the details of the conversation following the end of the passenger's prayer session, but I'm assuming that the passenger would have said something to explain himself. (I use the statement in the OP that he "wasn't trying to be rude" to justify the assumption, though without anything more concrete I can't simply assert it as fact.) If at that time the passenger had been given a warning with sufficient sternness (e.g. "you can't just ignore us, do it again and you'll find yourself free-falling home") it is my position that he would have behaved himself for the remainder of the flight.

If the passenger had, at that time, given the FA the impression that, no, he would be following the traditions of his faith to the letter, regulations be damned, then for sure, that's more than they have to put up with. As I was not party to the minute details of this conversation, I can't say with any certainty that this was not the case, but my gut (if you will) tells me otherwise.

[SCRawl]

A stern talking-to. Something like "Sir, I recognize that your faith is important to you, but in this environment you cannot ignore the instructions of this cabin crew. This is your first and only warning." According to the OP, the passenger said that he wasn't "trying to be rude", and (by all appearances) seemed calm. A strongly-worded warning probably would have done the trick.

Do you honestly think the flight-attendants didn't try doing this when they told him to get back to the seat and just leapt straight to ejecting him?

Yes, I really do think that this is what happened. Once the passenger was responsive to stimuli again, a conversation no longer than thirty seconds would have been enough to make things clear to him that it was imperative that he return to his seat, and not to ignore the lawful commands of the cabin crew again. If he was still acting like a dick, or gave the impression that a repeat performance was likely, then yes, an ejection would have been appropriate.

No, my examples were chosen carefully. My point was never that the offences were irrelevant, but rather that failure to comply on the first command likely wouldn't result in being de-planed.

And what if he refused on the second request? Would they still be too strict? How about the third? How many fucking chances should someone get before it becomes acceptable?

If the response upon the second request was effectively "go fuck yourself", or if the FA got the impression that requests subsequent to the second (or even first) would go unheeded, then the sledge hammer becomes a seriously viable and defendable option.

The fact that this might be company policy is irrelevant to whether or not the actions taken were excessive. If that's the policy, then my opinion is that the policy is too strict, but I don't hold myself out as an expert on aviation procedures. As I've said, my opinion is that there were less severe actions which could have been taken without compromising the safety of the flight.

How the fuck else are you going to determine whether it's excessive except to go based on what the policy suggests, or how punishment is handled on other airlines? "Gut instinct"? Yeah, that's a real great way of figuring out whether it's excessive.

The fact that the passenger was ejected demonstrates that the policy allows such an action, which is why I said that the policy is irrelevant. I'd bet that there is a continuum of actions the FA could have taken, and she went right for the sledge hammer. Maybe there was a reason for it, I can't say that I know one way or the other, but from what I read it seems to have been too harsh.

[General Zod]

Yes, I really do think that this is what happened. Once the passenger was responsive to stimuli again, a conversation no longer than thirty seconds would have been enough to make things clear to him that it was imperative that he return to his seat, and not to ignore the lawful commands of the cabin crew again. If he was still acting like a dick, or gave the impression that a repeat performance was likely, then yes, an ejection would have been appropriate.

Don't be so fucking stupid. The passenger wasn't deaf or otherwise incapable of perceiving them. He deliberately chose to ignore them. As a fully grown adult he should have known better than to ignore the crew of the airline.

If the response upon the second request was effectively "go fuck yourself", or if the FA got the impression that requests subsequent to the second (or even first) would go unheeded, then the sledge hammer becomes a seriously viable and defendable option.

Frankly, the fact that the guy chose to ignore them completely shows that he wasn't going to be cooperative. I don't see how anyone can possibly think he'd be any more reasonable after the first request.

The fact that the passenger was ejected demonstrates that the policy allows such an action, which is why I said that the policy is irrelevant. I'd bet that there is a continuum of actions the FA could have taken, and she went right for the sledge hammer. Maybe there was a reason for it, I can't say that I know one way or the other, but from what I read it seems to have been too harsh.

In other words, you're pulling shit out of your ass.

[SCRawl]

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

---- snip ----

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.

Well, what WOULD you put first?

Profit? The CEO’s bonus? The mechanics taking a coffee break? The paint scheme on the jet? What?

True, the safest airplane is the one that never takes off, but that’s not what airplanes are made for. Aside from that one little caveat – we are flying, taking that particular inherent risk – safety DOES come before all else, or it should.

The fact that the plane must move from point A to point B, with the minimum acceptable level of risk, at a cost that allows the airline to continue to operate, is the first concern. Otherwise you're not running an airline, you're doing something else. (I freely admit that my argument about safety was only a little better than word play. Obviously, if you can't fly safely, you can't fly at all, but the "flying" part is no less important than the "safely" part.)

What part of “ignoring orders” are you having a problem with? “Orders” usually implies something more than just a polite request.

The story in the OP suggests that the duration of "ignoring orders" was rather brief, at the conclusion of which the passenger was coherent, and (presumably) reasonable enough to follow any further commands. I'd be willing to bet that if no FA came over during this time, we would never have heard of it.

---Much snippage---

Broomstick, I'm pretty sure I get what you're telling me: that, among other things, the situation for the cabin crew is more complicated than it looks to someone not involved with aviation, and that the safety of the flight would very much have been on the mind of same. Knowing what little I know about this specific situation, even when bolstered by what you've been able to tell me about aviation procedures in general, still leaves me with the impression that a kinder, gentler outcome could have been reached without the flight incurring significant additional risk.

[SCRawl]

Yes, I really do think that this is what happened. Once the passenger was responsive to stimuli again, a conversation no longer than thirty seconds would have been enough to make things clear to him that it was imperative that he return to his seat, and not to ignore the lawful commands of the cabin crew again. If he was still acting like a dick, or gave the impression that a repeat performance was likely, then yes, an ejection would have been appropriate.

Don't be so fucking stupid. The passenger wasn't deaf or otherwise incapable of perceiving them. He deliberately chose to ignore them. As a fully grown adult he should have known better than to ignore the crew of the airline.

Here's a thought: maybe the passenger had no idea he was being addressed by a member of the cabin crew. I know that if I were muttering something to myself, concentrating on putting one word after another, and (here I venture into speculation) had my eyes closed while doing so, I probably wouldn't understand what someone right next to me was saying. I would know that someone was probably trying to say something to me, but if I know I'm only going to be another minute or two, whatever that conversation is going to be can wait until then. I mention it only as another possible reason for this person's actions.

In any case, as has already been stated, the delay in acknowledging the FA was brief, and the FA was fully informed about its nature. We agree that the passenger should have stopped what he was doing to talk with the FA, but given that he didn't, and the FA know why and roughly for how long, we clearly disagree about whether or not that should have had some impact on the decision that was ultimately made.

If the response upon the second request was effectively "go fuck yourself", or if the FA got the impression that requests subsequent to the second (or even first) would go unheeded, then the sledge hammer becomes a seriously viable and defendable option.

Frankly, the fact that the guy chose to ignore them completely shows that he wasn't going to be cooperative. I don't see how anyone can possibly think he'd be any more reasonable after the first request.

I think what you're saying is that the decision to bounce the passenger was made before he stopped the chanting, and that no further explanations or warnings subsequent to that should have had any effect on that decision. Do you really think that that's reasonable?

The fact that the passenger was ejected demonstrates that the policy allows such an action, which is why I said that the policy is irrelevant. I'd bet that there is a continuum of actions the FA could have taken, and she went right for the sledge hammer. Maybe there was a reason for it, I can't say that I know one way or the other, but from what I read it seems to have been too harsh.

In other words, you're pulling shit out of your ass.

If you can tell me a better place to pull shit from...

Actually, Broomstick's information in this thread suggests that consequences less severe than de-planing were available, if not preferable for one reason or another.

[Twoyboy]

OK, in some respects this argument has turned into a discussion over whether or not he did delay the flight and another on whether or not people are/should be given preferential treatment for prayer over other kinds of actions. But neither of these things matter.

The point of this is that he ignored a request from a flight attendant. At that point, no matter what his friends say he's doing, the flight attendant has to decide:
1) Is there a chance he'll do it again and delay the flight more than removing him would?
2) Is there a chance he'll do it in an emergency and endanger people's lives?

Since she would not have been reasonably assured that the answer to both of these would be "no" without more discussion, she minimised the damage (flight delays and risk) by removing him and sorting it out later.

Did it in actual fact cause more delay then not removing him? Probably, but less than letting him stay on the plane and have him do the same thing during taxiing (which she was not assured would not happen).

Was he actually a threat? Not by the looks of it, but if I'm flying on that plane, I'd appreciate that the airlines policies were conservative.

Do you think that you could have been assured of the two points above?

[SCRawl]

OK, in some respects this argument has turned into a discussion over whether or not he did delay the flight and another on whether or not people are/should be given preferential treatment for prayer over other kinds of actions. But neither of these things matter.

The point of this is that he ignored a request from a flight attendant. At that point, no matter what his friends say he's doing, the flight attendant has to decide:
1) Is there a chance he'll do it again and delay the flight more than removing him would?
2) Is there a chance he'll do it in an emergency and endanger people's lives?

Since she would not have been reasonably assured that the answer to both of these would be "no" without more discussion, she minimised the damage (flight delays and risk) by removing him and sorting it out later.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, every passenger on board that plane might pose the same risk. It is true that the man who was removed demonstrated a greater than average risk, having done so already, but it has been my contention that alternative means of persuasion -- which fall short of de-planing him -- could have been used.

(Of course, it's possible that these means were attempted and, in the eyes of the FA, they failed, but there's no indication of it in the OP.)

Was he actually a threat? Not by the looks of it, but if I'm flying on that plane, I'd appreciate that the airlines policies were conservative.

At what point does being conservative become silly, though? We probably agree that bouncing this guy was, if not entirely appropriate, at least not entirely unjustified. If you're going to eject passengers "just to be on the safe side", then there's going to be a lot of ejecting going on.

Do you think that you could have been assured of the two points above?

Being assured is a rather high standard to keep. You can't be assured of the behaviour of any passenger unless they're dead.

[General Zod]

As I pointed out in an earlier post, every passenger on board that plane might pose the same risk. It is true that the man who was removed demonstrated a greater than average risk, having done so already, but it has been my contention that alternative means of persuasion -- which fall short of de-planing him -- could have been used.

Slippery slope nonsense. None of the other passengers were flat out ignoring reasonable requests.

(Of course, it's possible that these means were attempted and, in the eyes of the FA, they failed, but there's no indication of it in the OP.)

Because all journalists are such paragons of honesty.

At what point does being conservative become silly, though? We probably agree that bouncing this guy was, if not entirely appropriate, at least not entirely unjustified. If you're going to eject passengers "just to be on the safe side", then there's going to be a lot of ejecting going on.

It becomes silly when people start lacking the ability to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable requests, like some people in this thread.

[Darth Onasi]

How do they know that the nearsighted guy isn't going to lose his glasses if the plane crashes, and become a liability? How do they know that the fat guy isn't going to land on top of the guy sitting next to him, creating two bodies they'll have to move aside to let everyone else out of the plane?

We don't know the details of the conversation following the end of the passenger's prayer session, but I'm assuming that the passenger would have said something to explain himself. (I use the statement in the OP that he "wasn't trying to be rude" to justify the assumption, though without anything more concrete I can't simply assert it as fact.) If at that time the passenger had been given a warning with sufficient sternness (e.g. "you can't just ignore us, do it again and you'll find yourself free-falling home") it is my position that he would have behaved himself for the remainder of the flight.

He can assure them all he likes, it won't change the fact that he demonstrated that he was capable of conciously ignoring the flight attendants. There's a difference between being mildly disabled in an emergency situation and deliberately making yourself stand out like this.

If the passenger had, at that time, given the FA the impression that, no, he would be following the traditions of his faith to the letter, regulations be damned, then for sure, that's more than they have to put up with. As I was not party to the minute details of this conversation, I can't say with any certainty that this was not the case, but my gut (if you will) tells me otherwise.

As I understand it, booting him off the plane isn't a punishment - it's a precaution. In the end he gets his trip delayed - that's all.
They can't just let him stay while they research his motivations, some make light of the fact that passengers were still boarding. Well, those are passengers the flight attendants are responsible for and must make sure they have safely taken their seats without spending all their time arguing with the guy who likes to ignore people.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Well, I was going to try and reply to a few posts point-by-point, but then I realized absolutely nothing new was brought to the argument. We still have, "Well, safety in a sealed container at 40,000 feet isn't *that* important," "They weren't being nice enough, they should have just talked to him more, those evil, trained attendants who have been doing their job for far longer than I've even considered this scenario, waaaah!" and "Well, we should ignore an already known potential hazard because <insert vague, unknown potential hazard here>."

Yeah, you're right, we should take airbags out of cars because there are other unknown potential hazards a driver could run into. We should make drunk driving legal because one-armed drivers are also a potential hazard on the road. There's nothing blatantly stupid at all about the whole "We can't minimize *all* potential hazards, so we shouldn't minimize *any*" line of reasoning, is there?

[Darth Wong]

I'll spell it the fuck out for you.

Airline: "We tossed this guy off because he was a communist, and he disobeyed a Flight Attendant's order telling him to get off."
SDN: "Boo! Bad! Unjust!"

Airline: "We tossed this gal off because she was dressed like a whore, and she disobeyed a Flight Attendant's order telling him to get off."
SDN: "Boo! Bad! Unjust!"

Airline: "We tossed this guy off because he was praying, and he disobeyed a Flight Attendant's order telling him to get off."
SDN: "Yeah! Fuck the religious asshole cocksucker bitchdog!"

It makes no difference why the guy was tossed off. He was tossed off because of a rules-over-judgment fallacy in approaching situations, and an overzealous FA tossed her authority around rather than think the situation through. The only difference is that this time, the guy did something the Mob disapproves of, so this time the lynching is "okay". What I see is slippery and ambiguous ethics, and a spin-control attempt to justify that convenient altering of ethics.

You are incredibly full of shit, which is not unusual for you when religious issues crop up. The fact is that the flight attendants do NOT have the right to tell people they can't be communist, or to make up arbitrary dress codes because of their personal religious mores (and by the way, I saw a picture of the woman in question; she was not dressed lke a whore, unless you're fucking Pat Robertson). They DO, however, have the right to tell people to take their seats during boarding and de-boarding operations. This stupid asshole could have chosen to pray in his seat, and nobody would have had a problem with it. But noooo, he had to partially block the aisle, and he had to do it while the plane was boarding: that makes him an inconsiderate prick at the very least, and to be honest, it looks to me like he was looking for a confrontation. Anyone who's ever boarded a plane knows how much pressure there is to make things as convenient as possible for the flight attendants and other passengers during that time.

Your deliberate refusal to recognize this distinction only indicates that you have an agenda of your own: ironic in light of your sanctimonious preaching about ethical consistency.

[Coyote]

You are incredibly full of shit, which is not unusual for you when religious issues crop up. The fact is that the flight attendants do NOT have the right to tell people they can't be communist, or to make up arbitrary dress codes because of their personal religious mores (and by the way, I saw a picture of the woman in question; she was not dressed lke a whore, unless you're fucking Pat Robertson).

They do not have the right, but they do have the authority, and they use that authority as it suits them, even if from time to time they use it with poor judgement. For example, the woman that was ejected for her clothes-- I agree with you that she wasn't dressed like a "whore" except under the most anal-retentive interpretations of the word-- but that's just it. The FA in question apparantly was, indeed, anal-retentive and considered her dress inappropriate and had her ejected.

Now we all know that the reason the FAs have this unquestioned authority is so they can enforce safety rules. I'm certainly not against that, and I'm not saying this is wrong. But we've encountered situations before where such sweeping rules were used to justify doing something without thinking about it. A sweeping "No Weapons at School" rule sounds like a non-brainer until we find out about A-students with no record of trouble getting booted because someone saw a butter knife in their car trunk.

They DO, however, have the right to tell people to take their seats during boarding and de-boarding operations. This stupid asshole could have chosen to pray in his seat, and nobody would have had a problem with it. But noooo, he had to partially block the aisle,

It said in the article that he went to the back of the plane, near the lavatory, where there would be no one trying to walk through. He made an obvious effort to not interfere with what was happening, ie, the boarding of the plane. People were still boarding; this boarding is a time-consuming process that involes several dozen people being out of their seat for the quite awhile.

...and he had to do it while the plane was boarding: that makes him an inconsiderate prick at the very least, and to be honest, it looks to me like he was looking for a confrontation. Anyone who's ever boarded a plane knows how much pressure there is to make things as convenient as possible for the flight attendants and other passengers during that time.

I have stated before he should have handled this better beforehand, praying in the terminal prior to boarding, or telling the flight attendant what his plans were prior.

From what I can tell of the situation while boarding, he did not present a safety hazard and seemed to realize afterward that his actions were misinterpreted. We don't have a clear picture of what transpired and half of what we're discussing is being deduced from what isn't mentioned in the article (whether the plane was delayed or not-- it' not mentioned, and it seems logical that it would be if this guy caused it).

Your deliberate refusal to recognize this distinction only indicates that you have an agenda of your own: ironic in light of your sanctimonious preaching about ethical consistency.

Like I mentioned, I see this guy in the same light as I see others who were ejected from aircraft by over-zealous flight crews who did not apply a sense of rational judgement to the situation. I've also already clarified why I think the reaction here is ironic, since I perceive this guy to be no different than a person who was dressed "offensively".

If I have any "agenda" here at all, I think it is pretty clearly spelled out-- I feel that the benefit of the doubt which is given pretty liberally in other situations is withheld in this situation because of the general attitude about religion here. I've made no bones about that throughout this. The "agenda" from my perspective is when people here state that they are happy he got booted specifically because he's
religious ("Fundie asshole got exactly what he deserved") and try to fig-leaf that by saying "well, people should obey flight attendants because it's important for safety". Safety had nothing to do with this; nor did it have anything to do with previously discussed boot-offs in which the general mood was against the Flight Attendants for their poor judgement.

[Darth Wong]

They do not have the right, but they do have the authority, and they use that authority as it suits them, even if from time to time they use it with poor judgement. For example, the woman that was ejected for her clothes-- I agree with you that she wasn't dressed like a "whore" except under the most anal-retentive interpretations of the word-- but that's just it. The FA in question apparantly was, indeed, anal-retentive and considered her dress inappropriate and had her ejected.

Where does the flight attendant have the authority to manufacture arbitrary dress codes? And even in this case, the woman didn't outright ignore the flight attendant; she tried to be reasonable but got thrown off anyway.

It said in the article that he went to the back of the plane, near the lavatory, where there would be no one trying to walk through. He made an obvious effort to not interfere with what was happening, ie, the boarding of the plane. People were still boarding; this boarding is a time-consuming process that involes several dozen people being out of their seat for the quite awhile.

The last time I boarded a plane, I went to use the lavatory while waiting to take off because I knew it would be a while before I could get up once the plane got moving, and one of the two lavatories at the back was in use. If this guy was blocking the other one, I would have been rather annoyed. Seriously, why the fuck couldn't he just sit in his goddamned seat?

Like I mentioned, I see this guy in the same light as I see others who were ejected from aircraft by over-zealous flight crews who did not apply a sense of rational judgement to the situation. I've also already clarified why I think the reaction here is ironic, since I perceive this guy to be no different than a person who was dressed "offensively".

That's fucking brain damaged. A person who is refusing to follow instructions and a person who is trying to be reasonable but apparently has a too-short skirt are NOT equivalent.

As I said, this is just you being a religious fucktard.

[Kanastrous]

FWIW is I had been the FA, and the fellow had been standing there mumbling the Periodic Table of the Elements to himself, while ignoring my efforts to speak with him, I suspect I would have dealt with him in precisely the same way.