Praying Man Removed From Plane

[General Zod]

This is directed at me, so I'll address it. I assume it, based on the preponderance of the evidence at hand. I do not state it as fact, and as Broomstick has stated, it is unknowable from the information we have. Working from that assumption, it is my position that the actions of the FA were unnecessarily harsh. Clearly, if my assumption proves to be wrong, then my argument falls apart.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Why the fuck does it matter if he actually causes a delay or not? The fact that he risked causing a delay should be more than enough justification. If he actually did cause a delay, I can almost guarantee getting thrown off the flight would have been the least of his trouble.

[SCRawl]

It isn't unreasonable that a person can be ejected from the plane for ignoring the cabin crew. What I find unreasonable was that it was the first club in this FA's bag, apparently.

*sigh*

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS THE CASE.

That's right, we don't. If it turns out that the FA made a reasonable attempt to get the guy to sit down and shut up once he started talking again, but failed due to the guy being an asshole, I'll accept my helping of crow.

WE HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE ON THIS FUCKING BOARD WHO HAVE WORKED IN THE INDUSTRY AND KNOW THE PROCEDURE WHICH AGREES WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE ATTENDANTS.

We know that ejection was within the authority of the FA for the actions taken by the passenger. Just because the authority exists does not mean that using it constitutes the best outcome.

[General Zod]

We know that ejection was within the authority of the FA for the actions taken by the passenger. Just because the authority exists does not mean that using it constitutes the best outcome.

The best possible outcome would have been the asshole not ignoring the FA and returning to his seat so he could avoid causing a scene entirely.

[SCRawl]

This is directed at me, so I'll address it. I assume it, based on the preponderance of the evidence at hand. I do not state it as fact, and as Broomstick has stated, it is unknowable from the information we have. Working from that assumption, it is my position that the actions of the FA were unnecessarily harsh. Clearly, if my assumption proves to be wrong, then my argument falls apart.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Why the fuck does it matter if he actually causes a delay or not? The fact that he risked causing a delay should be more than enough justification. If he actually did cause a delay, I can almost guarantee getting thrown off the flight would have been the least of his trouble.

I should have phrased my assumption slightly more clearly. The assumption is that the passenger was in no danger of causing a delay, based on the fact that he was only going to be there for a couple of minutes. If a person tried to stand next the shitter until removed, then yes, that is an actual potential for delay.

To sum up my assumption: the passenger knew (or at least strongly suspected) that he wouldn't cause a delay, since he was going to be standing next to the toilet for only two minutes, and the ongoing boarding operations were going to take longer than that; and that the FA knew the same thing, based on what she was told before the passenger "woke up", and what she was told by the passenger after.

As Broomstick pointed out, though, there could have been issues which wouldn't have been clear to the lay person on the scene which would invalidate my assumption. I freely admit that that could be the case.

[SCRawl]

We know that ejection was within the authority of the FA for the actions taken by the passenger. Just because the authority exists does not mean that using it constitutes the best outcome.

The best possible outcome would have been the asshole not ignoring the FA and returning to his seat so he could avoid causing a scene entirely.

No argument. But that isn't what happened, or there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

[Coyote]

He explained after ignoring her for a number of minutes. Are you intentionally being dense?

No, I have addressed this point several times, and acknowledged that because of this he did not help his own case. He could have and should have been more pro-active. But that doesn't change the fact that, once it was over and all had been explained, and he'd demonstrated that he was not being a raving loon, the cops were still brought in to remove him, which I continue to say was disproportionate. I've explained my point of view on this several times, and so I believe you're the one being purposefully dense. I'm not saying you have to agree with my conclusion, but you seem to act like I'm dismissing your explanation out of a lack of comprehension. I comprehend fully. I just disagree.

You seriously need to expand your repertoire of smileys. You seem to have an almost Freudian attachment to that one in particular.

Get back to me when you can come up with better insults and actually address points.

Well, good thing I'm not in this for "one-up" score, I'm more interested in the actual discussion. It seems to me that your idea of "addressing points" is "admit you're wrong, I'm right, and we will have successfully discussed the points".

[General Zod]

I should have phrased my assumption slightly more clearly. The assumption is that the passenger was in no danger of causing a delay, based on the fact that he was only going to be there for a couple of minutes. If a person tried to stand next the shitter until removed, then yes, that is an actual potential for delay.

The FA who had him removed clearly didn't agree with your assumption.

To sum up my assumption: the passenger knew (or at least strongly suspected) that he wouldn't cause a delay, since he was going to be standing next to the toilet for only two minutes, and the ongoing boarding operations were going to take longer than that; and that the FA knew the same thing, based on what she was told before the passenger "woke up", and what she was told by the passenger after.

The passenger was being uncooperative. Why should she take his "friends" words at face value?

[SCRawl]

From talking to a Cantor a couple of Months ago, my understanding is that a Jew is commanded by the Talmud to break their "Laws" in certain circumstances.

For example, if you are starving, you are commanded to eat unclean foods to survive. In this case, you have an irate flight attendant. It is better to break your prayers and do what she says instead of being kicked off the plane....

Earlier in this thread I speculated that the passenger might not even have known that it was a FA who was addressing him, or for that matter what she was saying. (Try talking to yourself in one language while simultaneously trying to listen to what someone's saying on TV in another language some time. I can't do it.)

Even if my speculation is correct -- and I make no claims that it is -- one could still say that he should have interrupted himself no matter who was trying to talk to him, on the off-chance that it was a person in a position of authority. And that would be a perfectly valid criticism. OF COURSE he should have stopped what he was doing, listened to what he was being told, and gone back to his seat. But that's not the argument, because that isn't what happened.

[Justforfun000]

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long and yet barely moved any futher ahead. I'm sure this one will end up Hosed.

One other thing irritates me here. The blocking of the aisle is to me the biggest single point here against this guys favour. I'll bet you dollars to donuts, that NO blocking of the aisle in that manner is appropriate. I'm certain the flight attendants themselves need to move back and forth from those areas, so he's completely in the wrong right there and I simply can't have any sympathy for his inconsiderate actions and on top of that, his deliberate REFUSAL to answer the crew.

That's the major crux of this argument. He is willingly refusing to listen. I don't buy this bullshit that he can't 'stop' praying. What if he heard a dog growling behind him? Would he ignore that too or would he stop praying and move? I mean come on. He's using his fucking religion as an excuse to ignore the crew and disobey the rules. That's as far as you have to look at it. I don't care HOW little his actions might have inconvenienced people.

[Vendetta]

I should have phrased my assumption slightly more clearly. The assumption is that the passenger was in no danger of causing a delay, based on the fact that he was only going to be there for a couple of minutes. If a person tried to stand next the shitter until removed, then yes, that is an actual potential for delay.

Anyone who does not go and sit straight in their seat as quickly as possible during boarding is a potential cause of delay. By going and standing around and not sitting down he was a risk of delay, by ignoring flight crew he was a safety risk. Safety risks get removed.

[SCRawl]

I should have phrased my assumption slightly more clearly. The assumption is that the passenger was in no danger of causing a delay, based on the fact that he was only going to be there for a couple of minutes. If a person tried to stand next the shitter until removed, then yes, that is an actual potential for delay.

The FA who had him removed clearly didn't agree with your assumption.

That isn't clear, at least not to me. It's clear that the passenger stood out (which is obvious enough, since he was standing on his own at the back of the plane while everyone else was trying to get to their seats), and it's clear that the FA approached the passenger because his behaviour caused concern. From what the FA knew at the time (and learned during the course of events) it isn't clear that a delay was even likely. It's certainly possible that that was the FA's understanding at the time, and that that was the reason for the kerfuffle, but that isn't clear to me.

To sum up my assumption: the passenger knew (or at least strongly suspected) that he wouldn't cause a delay, since he was going to be standing next to the toilet for only two minutes, and the ongoing boarding operations were going to take longer than that; and that the FA knew the same thing, based on what she was told before the passenger "woke up", and what she was told by the passenger after.

The passenger was being uncooperative. Why should she take his "friends" words at face value?[/quote]

The passage of a small amount of time would have been sufficient to prove whether or not their claims were correct. And it isn't as though the FA had to wait by the guy's side to find out; she could have carried on with her other duties for a few minutes, and check back after that.

[Darth Wong]

The article stated that she tried to talk to him, his friends tried to explain, and then when he finished he, himself apologized and explained, but the cops were already called. That's all we have to go on.

It's enough, frankly. If his attitude is "I will listen to the flight attendant when I am goddamned good and ready", that's the wrong attitude. If he copped that attitude for any reason OTHER than religion, you would be right there agreeing. But noooo, it's religious, so he's being persecuted! And we here at SDN are sooooo unfair, right?

[Vendetta]

The passage of a small amount of time would have been sufficient to prove whether or not their claims were correct. And it isn't as though the FA had to wait by the guy's side to find out; she could have carried on with her other duties for a few minutes, and check back after that.

And the safety implications if he did the same thing during an emergency situation?

Are you even listening to this point? It's rather important.

[Singular Intellect]

The article stated that she tried to talk to him, his friends tried to explain, and then when he finished he, himself apologized and explained, but the cops were already called. That's all we have to go on.

It's enough, frankly. If his attitude is "I will listen to the flight attendant when I am goddamned good and ready", that's the wrong attitude. If he copped that attitude for any reason OTHER than religion, you would be right there agreeing. But noooo, it's religious, so he's being persecuted! And we here at SDN are sooooo unfair, right?

As myself and others have pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't matter what the fuck he was doing. Whether it was praying, singing, yoga, etc.

Of course this point will no doubt be ignored again by the fuckwits whining that the attendents should've cut him more slack when they have absolutely no reason or obligation to do so.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Sooo... if a cop asks someone to please get out of the car, and that person refuses to even acknowledge the cop, the cop continues to ask, warns the man that if he doesn't get out of the car, he will be forced out, and finally drags the man out of the car, and the man says he was praying and would eventually do it, would anyone be so up in arms?

He wasn't delaying anyone. He wasn't even on a plane, in a much safer area. He wasn't blocking any aisles. He was perfectly reasonable once he started talking to the cop. Obviously the cop was being unreasonable in expecting someone to follow a command from him in a situation where that sort of thing is expected.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Are you even listening to this point? It's rather important.

It's been brought up at least a dozen times already, and the extent he addressed it was pretty much, "Well, a nearsighted guy might lose his glasses and also cause problems so... um... quantum?"

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The article stated that she tried to talk to him, his friends tried to explain, and then when he finished he, himself apologized and explained, but the cops were already called. That's all we have to go on.

It's enough, frankly. If his attitude is "I will listen to the flight attendant when I am goddamned good and ready", that's the wrong attitude. If he copped that attitude for any reason OTHER than religion, you would be right there agreeing. But noooo, it's religious, so he's being persecuted! And we here at SDN are sooooo unfair, right?

IIRC, every time one of those 'So-and-so kicked off a plane for shirt/skirt/breastfeeding issue' articles came up, one of the first things that happened was people going, "Well, maybe so-and-so was being a right asshole and getting kicked off the plane was completely justified."

[Darth Wong]

What pisses me off about Coyote's predictable bullshit is that he's accusing everyone else of making a special exception here because of religion, when that is precisely what he is doing. Picture some big fat Texan saying "I'll listen to the flight attendant when I'm good and ready", and he would be all for throwing the guy off the plane. But it's a pious Jew, so OH NO PERSECUTION!!

[Darth Onasi]

And they're still using the benefit of hindsight to judge the flight attendant instead of considering that she had to make an on the spot decision while people were still boarding in order to ensure their safety.
Which by the way includes the safety of the uncooperative asshole in question.

[Vendetta]

Are you even listening to this point? It's rather important.

It's been brought up at least a dozen times already, and the extent he addressed it was pretty much, "Well, a nearsighted guy might lose his glasses and also cause problems so... um... quantum?"

Of course, the fact that that's exactly why the FA's instructions should be complied with, so that they can devote their time to dealing with people who need help without having to worry about people who are able to comply but simply think they have something better to do, won't penetrate either.

[Singular Intellect]

What pisses me off about Coyote's predictable bullshit is that he's accusing everyone else of making a special exception here because of religion, when that is precisely what he is doing. Picture some big fat Texan saying "I'll listen to the flight attendant when I'm good and ready", and he would be all for throwing the guy off the plane. But it's a pious Jew, so OH NO PERSECUTION!!

This is getting back to what I touched on earlier, whereas many people have it so ingrained in their thinking that anything religious is automatically deserving of more respect. Why? You never get an answer more than "Why? Just because!".

I don't remember which it was, but one even commented that the attendent should've "gone on to something else for a couple of minutes and then come back, and there would've been no problem".

[Kanastrous]

But it's a pious Jew, so OH NO PERSECUTION!!

You know, historically it's difficult to be certain one even is a pious Jew, if no one's persecuting you...

[SCRawl]

Are you even listening to this point? It's rather important.

It's been brought up at least a dozen times already, and the extent he addressed it was pretty much, "Well, a nearsighted guy might lose his glasses and also cause problems so... um... quantum?"

Of course, the fact that that's exactly why the FA's instructions should be complied with, so that they can devote their time to dealing with people who need help without having to worry about people who are able to comply but simply think they have something better to do, won't penetrate either.

There is no dispute that the passenger made several mistakes in his zeal to perform the rites of his faith -- at least, you don't have any with me. From the moment he stood up until the moment he stopped the chanting, at each step he did something that was stupid.

Where we differ -- and I'm getting really tired of making this point over and over again -- is whether or not his actions were unforgivably stupid, and whether or not the situation could have been corrected with the passenger remaining on the plane.

The argument has been made that, as safety is such an important factor in air travel, a person who shows a willingness to ignore the requests and commands of the authority figures on the flight is a dangerous thing to have on board. While I do not dismiss this argument, I believe that it can also be argued that someone who gets dressed down about such a problem is actually less likely to repeat it in the future.

And they're still using the benefit of hindsight to judge the flight attendant instead of considering that she had to make an on the spot decision while people were still boarding in order to ensure their safety.

I recognize that I'm arguing the point in a different environment from the FA who had to make the call, but there's no way around it; I can't recreate the conditions of the situation. I'm not suggesting that we hang the FA from the nearest yardarm. With the scant evidence I had upon reading the OP, my reaction was that things could have been handled easier. More arguments have been piled on top of that evidence, and my position hasn't changed, not because I haven't been reading these arguments, but because I find them not to be persuasive.

[General Zod]

Where we differ -- and I'm getting really tired of making this point over and over again -- is whether or not his actions were unforgivably stupid, and whether or not the situation could have been corrected with the passenger remaining on the plane.

If it were unforgiveably stupid, he'd never be permitted to fly on that airline again. Instead of merely being told to get a different flight. You seem to have this bizarre disconnect that getting taken off temporarily was actually harsh.

The argument has been made that, as safety is such an important factor in air travel, a person who shows a willingness to ignore the requests and commands of the authority figures on the flight is a dangerous thing to have on board. While I do not dismiss this argument, I believe that it can also be argued that someone who gets dressed down about such a problem is actually less likely to repeat it in the future.

Let's put it another way. Suppose you have someone who tends to drive over the speed limit all the time, but otherwise never harms anyone. Which do you think is going to have a greater impact on their habit? Taking away their driving privileges for a certain amount of time, or 'just' giving them a stern talking to? (IE - a ticket)?

[Singular Intellect]

SCRawl, your arguement seems to boil down to nothing more than "the attendents could've been more lenient if they wanted to".

Obviously they could have, but so fucking what?

A police officer can also be lenient and just issue you a warning rather than writing up a ticket because you were speeding. But guess what? Whether the officer writes you that ticket or just tells you to watch it, the guilty party has zero fucking right to complain either way. You break the rules, you deal with the consequences. And sometimes part of those consquences can be having to face someone who is neither interested nor obligated to giving you special treatment or handling you with kid gloves.

Such is life. Deal with it.