Praying Man Removed From Plane

[Oni Koneko Damien]

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.

So getting delayed for the time it takes to get another flight is the most horrible punishment they can come up with for someone being, in your words, 'unforgivably stupid'? What the hell are you arguing against, that's fucking lenient for 'unforgivable stupidity'.

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 someone who gets shown, point blank, that such behaviour will not be tolerated will be far less likely to do it again in the future than someone who just gets a stern talking to.

[SCRawl]

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.

So getting delayed for the time it takes to get another flight is the most horrible punishment they can come up with for someone being, in your words, 'unforgivably stupid'? What the hell are you arguing against, that's fucking lenient for 'unforgivable stupidity'.

It was the biggest stick in the FA's bag. The airline or some other entity could certainly have come up with something more permanent, for sure, but these penalties were outside the FA's direct control.

It might not have been obvious, but my argument was that these actions were not unforgivably stupid.

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 someone who gets shown, point blank, that such behaviour will not be tolerated will be far less likely to do it again in the future than someone who just gets a stern talking to.

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)?

Correct me if I misunderstand the two of you, but you appear to be saying that the ultimate goal here was to make sure this particular passenger -- and, to throw in (because I'm generous) everyone who was within earshot of the conversation -- never commits the same set of errors again? A worthy goal, perhaps, but I'm not at all certain it's what the FA had in mind.

Most of the arguments here have been around making certain that this flight was safer. Making future flights safer seems a little outside this decision-making process to me.

[SCRawl]

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?

I have admit that I'm surprised to say it, but this is just about the clearest I've seen it described so far. Clearer than I've said it, and I'm the one making the argument. Yes, that's what my argument comes down to, based on the information I have coupled with the assumptions that I've made (and have already listed, though I can easily forgive someone not wanting to wade through seven pages of this discussion to find them).

When you put it that way, it doesn't sound like that much of an argument, does it?

[General Zod]

Correct me if I misunderstand the two of you, but you appear to be saying that the ultimate goal here was to make sure this particular passenger -- and, to throw in (because I'm generous) everyone who was within earshot of the conversation -- never commits the same set of errors again? A worthy goal, perhaps, but I'm not at all certain it's what the FA had in mind.

So what the fuck did the SA have in mind? Clearly you don't seem satisfied with anything less than assigning some sort of ulterior motive no matter what explanation is put forward.

Most of the arguments here have been around making certain that this flight was safer. Making future flights safer seems a little outside this decision-making process to me.

I don't think you're using quite enough straw there. You see, by reinforcing the notion on the asshat in the article that ignoring the FAs have consequences, it makes it so that he will not be likely to do so in the future. It will not necessarily prevent other asshats from doing the same, but if it corrects one person, then its done its job.

[SCRawl]

Correct me if I misunderstand the two of you, but you appear to be saying that the ultimate goal here was to make sure this particular passenger -- and, to throw in (because I'm generous) everyone who was within earshot of the conversation -- never commits the same set of errors again? A worthy goal, perhaps, but I'm not at all certain it's what the FA had in mind.

So what the fuck did the SA have in mind? Clearly you don't seem satisfied with anything less than assigning some sort of ulterior motive no matter what explanation is put forward.

Most of the arguments here have been around making certain that this flight was safer. Making future flights safer seems a little outside this decision-making process to me.

I don't think you're using quite enough straw there. You see, by reinforcing the notion on the asshat in the article that ignoring the FAs have consequences, it makes it so that he will not be likely to do so in the future. It will not necessarily prevent other asshats from doing the same, but if it corrects one person, then its done its job.

You've clearly missed your own point, so I'll take it to its logical conclusion for you. It is outside the role of the FA to correct passengers' future behaviour beyond the point that they safely leave the airplane. According to you and Oni, the way to be as sure as possible that the passenger won't ignore FAs in the future is to boot the guy. And you'd have a case, but that isn't the FA's job, unless you think that their job includes making future flights involving this passenger safer too. Got it?

No, the FA's decision had -- or at least should have had -- to do with what was best for this flight, and everyone on it. No ulterior motive is needed. Maybe the stress was too much and a bad decision was made, and maybe it was the right decision for reasons I don't know of (and will never know). Maybe it was just easier to get rid of this guy, rather than make the effort to keep him on the flight.

And with that, I say good night.

[General Zod]

You've clearly missed your own point, so I'll take it to its logical conclusion for you. It is outside the role of the FA to correct passengers' future behaviour beyond the point that they safely leave the airplane. According to you and Oni, the way to be as sure as possible that the passenger won't ignore FAs in the future is to boot the guy. And you'd have a case, but that isn't the FA's job, unless you think that their job includes making future flights involving this passenger safer too. Got it?

Don't be a fucking idiot. My point has very little to do with future flights, if it happens to correct them on future flights, then it's incidental. The fact that it's an effective correctional tool for the moment is the important part.

No, the FA's decision had -- or at least should have had -- to do with what was best for this flight, and everyone on it. No ulterior motive is needed. Maybe the stress was too much and a bad decision was made, and maybe it was the right decision for reasons I don't know of (and will never know). Maybe it was just easier to get rid of this guy, rather than make the effort to keep him on the flight.

And with that, I say good night.

So, let me get this straight. You think her decision was too harsh, but you can't decide whether it was a correct decision or not? What the fuck kind of bullshit argument is this?

[Singular Intellect]

So, let me get this straight. You think her decision was too harsh, but you can't decide whether it was a correct decision or not? What the fuck kind of bullshit argument is this?

It's one of those arguements where he looks like a complete fucking idiot to everyone if we were talking about a guy juggling in the back of the plane.

But because the guy was praying, suddenly some people don't see it so clear cut.

It's all part of that "religion deserves special treatment and respect" mentality, with absolutely zero justification or logic and the only explanation you'll ever hear is "Just because!".

[Twoyboy]

This post was rebutted earlier in my absence, but I still wanted to reply myself. I hope no one minds the backtrack.

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.

It's an incredibly weak retort to say that every passenger poses a minor risk to delays and security when you agree this passenger posed an increased risk. I think one thing sets this passenger apart from your average elevated risk case: He did it deliberately. He chose his time, he chose to continue his prayers and ignore the FA. He is not just dense or ignorant, he was being obstinate and quite frankly should have understood where this would lead, not that it matters if he does or not.


Now, many people have argued the assumptions, etc. But seriously, who gives a flying fuck? The only thing we need to assume is that everything actually reported in the OP is correct. So we know:
1) He left his seat to go pray.
2) He ignored the FA's request when we have since heard he is under no religious obligation to continue.
3) He was removed from the flight, but put on a later one.

So the FA had the authority and reason to remove him under the rules. She had limited time (anywhere from 2 - 30 minutes) to make a decision. She knew nothing about this man except for a) he was ignoring her intentionally and b) his friends said he'd be done soon. So her choices were:
1) Leave him on - turns out not to be a problem = all good.
2) Leave him on - decides to pray during takeoff, during flight, during emergency evac, ignores more instructions during emergency, etc = very bad.
3) Discuss now - turns out guy is ok and reasonable = all good.
4) Discuss now - turns out guy is a nutjob, have to remove him anyway = missed flight window discussing.
5) Remove him, sort it out later = small delay for everyone else, guy gets on next flight.

Weighing up these risks, she put the well being of the rest of the passengers above that of the guy ignoring her and had him removed. I can't see how that doesn't seem reasonable.

[SCRawl]

You've clearly missed your own point, so I'll take it to its logical conclusion for you. It is outside the role of the FA to correct passengers' future behaviour beyond the point that they safely leave the airplane. According to you and Oni, the way to be as sure as possible that the passenger won't ignore FAs in the future is to boot the guy. And you'd have a case, but that isn't the FA's job, unless you think that their job includes making future flights involving this passenger safer too. Got it?

Don't be a fucking idiot. My point has very little to do with future flights, if it happens to correct them on future flights, then it's incidental. The fact that it's an effective correctional tool for the moment is the important part.

Maybe that was the point you wanted to make, but it wasn't the point you actually made. Try reading what you posted, then get back to me.

No, the FA's decision had -- or at least should have had -- to do with what was best for this flight, and everyone on it. No ulterior motive is needed. Maybe the stress was too much and a bad decision was made, and maybe it was the right decision for reasons I don't know of (and will never know). Maybe it was just easier to get rid of this guy, rather than make the effort to keep him on the flight.

So, let me get this straight. You think her decision was too harsh, but you can't decide whether it was a correct decision or not? What the fuck kind of bullshit argument is this?

It's because there's a whole whack of missing information that I'll never have. It would be rather presumptuous of me to say that there couldn't possibly have been a good reason for ejecting this passenger, since I'm not in full possession of the facts. As I've already stated: based on the information I do have, and the (reasonable) assumptions I've made, the decision seems to have been too harsh. You might call it bet-hedging, but I'm not going to plant my feet and take an absolute stand on anything without the whole picture.

Here's an example of something that might have happened which would invalidate one of my assumptions and still be consistent with the report in the OP. In his first response to the FA, let's say that the passenger said that he would pray when and where he wanted, and wouldn't let some Gentile tell him otherwise. Or, let's say that boarding operations were essentially complete when he started his little prayer session, and that the whole flight was waiting on him to get moving. I don't know for a fact that either of these things (or a host of others) didn't happen, so I'm basing my reaction on what I do know.

[SCRawl]

So, let me get this straight. You think her decision was too harsh, but you can't decide whether it was a correct decision or not? What the fuck kind of bullshit argument is this?

It's one of those arguements where he looks like a complete fucking idiot to everyone if we were talking about a guy juggling in the back of the plane.

But because the guy was praying, suddenly some people don't see it so clear cut.

It's all part of that "religion deserves special treatment and respect" mentality, with absolutely zero justification or logic and the only explanation you'll ever hear is "Just because!".

Absolute horseshit. I'm among the last people on this board who'd ever make apologies for religious behaviour. I did say that I'd find it difficult to imagine why a sane person would act that way for nonreligious reasons, but if I gave it some thought I'm sure I could come up with one.

[Coyote]

Sigh-- I thought I had made this clear. I wasn't trying to give this guy "special" consideration because he's religious. I gave numerous examples of anything else he could have been doing to show that the FA acted disproportionately.

The only reason religion comes into it at all, from my perspective, has nothing to do with the airlines' actions, but in how the man is perceived here, during this thread.

[General Zod]

Here's an example of something that might have happened which would invalidate one of my assumptions and still be consistent with the report in the OP. In his first response to the FA, let's say that the passenger said that he would pray when and where he wanted, and wouldn't let some Gentile tell him otherwise. Or, let's say that boarding operations were essentially complete when he started his little prayer session, and that the whole flight was waiting on him to get moving. I don't know for a fact that either of these things (or a host of others) didn't happen, so I'm basing my reaction on what I do know.

Mealy mouthed mindless middle horseshit. According to your logic, nobody should ever get speeding tickets when pulled over as long as they said they weren't trying to speed or be wreckless. Fortunately the rest of the world does not rely on just stated intent to decide guilt on, since the this asshole's actions demonstrate his intent pretty clearly for most people.

[Singular Intellect]

Sigh-- I thought I had made this clear. I wasn't trying to give this guy "special" consideration because he's religious. I gave numerous examples of anything else he could have been doing to show that the FA acted disproportionately.

Oh really?

Let's use Wong's example then and the person in question is a fat redneck who ignores the attendent for a couple of minutes because he's busy picking his nose. Afterwards his excuse is "Sorry, don't mean any disrespect, but I'll listen to the attendent when I'm good and ready".

Explain why that asshole should be cut any slack whatsoever.

[Singular Intellect]

So, let me get this straight. You think her decision was too harsh, but you can't decide whether it was a correct decision or not? What the fuck kind of bullshit argument is this?

It's one of those arguements where he looks like a complete fucking idiot to everyone if we were talking about a guy juggling in the back of the plane.

But because the guy was praying, suddenly some people don't see it so clear cut.

It's all part of that "religion deserves special treatment and respect" mentality, with absolutely zero justification or logic and the only explanation you'll ever hear is "Just because!".

Absolute horseshit. I'm among the last people on this board who'd ever make apologies for religious behaviour. I did say that I'd find it difficult to imagine why a sane person would act that way for nonreligious reasons, but if I gave it some thought I'm sure I could come up with one.

Refer to my last post example then. Explain why anyone should cut the fat redneck slack because he was busy picking his nose, and his excuse is "No disrespect, but I'll listen to the attendent when I'm good and ready."

[Darth Wong]

Sigh-- I thought I had made this clear. I wasn't trying to give this guy "special" consideration because he's religious. I gave numerous examples of anything else he could have been doing to show that the FA acted disproportionately.

Yeah ... all of which did not involve deliberately ignoring a flight attendant, which is the whole crux of this matter and which makes your counter-examples nothing more than red-herrings. Are you trying to be a dishonest fuckwad?

The only reason religion comes into it at all, from my perspective, has nothing to do with the airlines' actions, but in how the man is perceived here, during this thread.

Bullshit. You're just being a religious fucktard, and a dishonest one to boot.

[Coyote]

To be "dishonest" I'd have to be engaging in an attempt to deceive. I don't believe I am.

As to my other examples, the ones I gave were examples where people's concentration was focused on something else-- yoga, breathing excersises, loud political discussions, etc. A fat redneck just sitting there picking his nose isn't concentrating on anything in particular and would, in fact, be acknowledging his awareness of the Flight Attendant by saying "I'll sit down when I'm damn good and ready" and stating his intent to complicate things with clear thought.

I'm not going to have my point of view dragged out onto some wierd branch argument or supposition for easier targeting. The deliberately obtuse redneck is not, IMO, an accurate comparison. In the case of the guy that was praying, his attention span was diverted and afterwards he clarified and apologized-- not the same as telling the FA "I'll sit down when I'm damn good and ready".

The guy could have been texting on his phone. Listening to an iPod. Thinking about some major event in his life and just not engaging with his surroundings. Have the political discussion. Or, in this case, he was praying. Any of these, once the FA got his attention and he explained and apologized, could have stopped right there, but she called the cops. I think it was an over-reaction.

[Darth Wong]

If some guy was involved in a political shouting match on an airplane which was so intense that he ignores a flight attendant's objections for two straight minutes, you honestly think anyone would have a problem with throwing that asshole off the plane?

Like it or not, it is a case of some guy saying "I will listen when I am goddamned good and ready". When you're praying, you may choose to pretend you can't hear outside voices, but that's bullshit and you know it.

The guy could have been texting on his phone. Listening to an iPod. Thinking about some major event in his life and just not engaging with his surroundings. Have the political discussion.

And if he ignored a flight attendant's instruction to take his seat for two full minutes while doing this, I would fully support throwing the imbecile off the plane.

Any of these, once the FA got his attention and he explained and apologized, could have stopped right there, but she called the cops. I think it was an over-reaction.

So if some guy was walking around the back of the airplane having a loud political argument for two full minutes while ignoring flight attendants telling him to take his seat, you would honestly think "hey, the guy is really into his political discussion, the flight attendant should take a chill pill"? Frankly, I don't believe you for a minute.

I've flown enough times to know that a single difficult passenger can be a major problem on a flight, and if you take off with somebody like that on board, you're stuck with him for hours. Why should everyone be obligated to give the guy the benefit of the doubt? Once someone demonstrates that he won't act like everyone else and do as the flight attendant says, I would red-flag him as a difficult passenger. Wouldn't you?

[Coyote]

If some guy was involved in a political shouting match on an airplane which was so intense that he ignores a flight attendant's objections for two straight minutes, you honestly think anyone would have a problem with throwing that asshole off the plane?


...


I've flown enough times to know that a single difficult passenger can be a major problem on a flight, and if you take off with somebody like that on board, you're stuck with him for hours. Why should everyone be obligated to give the guy the benefit of the doubt? Once someone demonstrates that he won't act like everyone else and do as the flight attendant says, I would red-flag him as a difficult passenger. Wouldn't you?

Okay, I can see that. Even if the guy appears to not be a problem, there's still the sense that the FA will have to maintain a constant awareness, and if the flight is crowded or having other problems, the crew may not have the attention to spare....

I'm going to concede, especially in light of the fact that there never was enough information to get a wholly clear picture of the situation, and there may well be other things going on with the plane or crew that caused them to have no hedge room left for anyone out of the ordinary.

[Kanastrous]

The only reason religion comes into it at all, from my perspective, has nothing to do with the airlines' actions, but in how the man is perceived here, during this thread.

For whatever little it's worth, *I* don't see any real difference between a man creating trouble by praying-while-ignoring-the-cabin-crew, and a man - for example - creating trouble by standing there reciting the periodic table, while ignoring the cabin crew. Or mumbling excerpts from Das Kapital. Or whatever.

The only reason that prayer is a salient aspect of the story, is that had he been doing anything besides praying to cause this incident, people who think that prayer is a positive thing to be accommodated wouldn't be defending him.

[SCRawl]

Like it or not, it is a case of some guy saying "I will listen when I am goddamned good and ready". When you're praying, you may choose to pretend you can't hear outside voices, but that's bullshit and you know it.

That's not quite so clear-cut, at least not to me. The OP states that he was "saying his prayers" (probably in Hebrew), which implies to me that he was vocalizing, as opposed to just thinking to his imaginary friend. I can't talk to myself and still follow what someone else right next to me is saying. Can you? If we further assume that his eyes were closed, or that he wasn't looking in the direction of the FA at the time -- not a huge jump -- then it's entirely possible that he had no idea that he was being addressed by a member of the cabin crew.

Is it a stupid, inconsiderate way to behave, considering the environment? You betcha. This guy did plenty of stupid things during this sequence of events.

We've gone around and around with this for days now, and I'm tired of it. Let's see if this olive branch can satisfy everyone:

My opinion is that, given that there was nothing (or at most very little) more to the story than what appears in the OP, the boot was too harsh a reaction to this circumstance. If there were any additional factors -- such as, but not limited to: belligerence on the part of the passenger; or that a delay due to his actions was obvious or inevitable -- then clearly my assumptions are invalidated, and so are my objections. I'm not going to say that there's no way he deserved the boot, and that my judgement supercedes that of a trained member of the cabin crew who was actually on the scene. I will say, though, that there had to be more to it to make the boot a fair and measured response.

[General Zod]

That's not quite so clear-cut, at least not to me. The OP states that he was "saying his prayers" (probably in Hebrew), which implies to me that he was vocalizing, as opposed to just thinking to his imaginary friend. I can't talk to myself and still follow what someone else right next to me is saying. Can you? If we further assume that his eyes were closed, or that he wasn't looking in the direction of the FA at the time -- not a huge jump -- then it's entirely possible that he had no idea that he was being addressed by a member of the cabin crew.

All it would take is a tap on the shoulder to get someone's attention. Unless you're going to suggest you would ignore a tap on the shoulder as well.

My opinion is that, given that there was nothing (or at most very little) more to the story than what appears in the OP, the boot was too harsh a reaction to this circumstance. If there were any additional factors -- such as, but not limited to: belligerence on the part of the passenger; or that a delay due to his actions was obvious or inevitable -- then clearly my assumptions are invalidated, and so are my objections. I'm not going to say that there's no way he deserved the boot, and that my judgement supercedes that of a trained member of the cabin crew who was actually on the scene. I will say, though, that there had to be more to it to make the boot a fair and measured response.

By your mealy-mouthed reasoning, the attendants should be forced to treat any and all bullshit short of full-blown confrontationalism with kiddy-gloves. This does not follow in any environment where safety and time are high priorities, especially if there's more than one problem that they happen to have to deal with. But way to demonstrate the mindless-middle mindset that the article was precisely hoping to get a reaction out of.

[Darth Wong]

Like it or not, it is a case of some guy saying "I will listen when I am goddamned good and ready". When you're praying, you may choose to pretend you can't hear outside voices, but that's bullshit and you know it.

That's not quite so clear-cut, at least not to me. The OP states that he was "saying his prayers" (probably in Hebrew), which implies to me that he was vocalizing, as opposed to just thinking to his imaginary friend. I can't talk to myself and still follow what someone else right next to me is saying. Can you? If we further assume that his eyes were closed, or that he wasn't looking in the direction of the FA at the time -- not a huge jump -- then it's entirely possible that he had no idea that he was being addressed by a member of the cabin crew.

Don't be a goddamned idiot. Are you telling me that if you're talking to yourself and someone taps your shoulder and says "Hey YOU" in your ear, it won't register? You're making it sound as if the flight attendant was dictating War and Peace into his ear, and his only crime was not following it. What a load of horseshit.

Is it a stupid, inconsiderate way to behave, considering the environment? You betcha. This guy did plenty of stupid things during this sequence of events.

We've gone around and around with this for days now, and I'm tired of it. Let's see if this olive branch can satisfy everyone:

My opinion is that, given that there was nothing (or at most very little) more to the story than what appears in the OP, the boot was too harsh a reaction to this circumstance. If there were any additional factors -- such as, but not limited to: belligerence on the part of the passenger; or that a delay due to his actions was obvious or inevitable -- then clearly my assumptions are invalidated, and so are my objections. I'm not going to say that there's no way he deserved the boot, and that my judgement supercedes that of a trained member of the cabin crew who was actually on the scene. I will say, though, that there had to be more to it to make the boot a fair and measured response.

What the fuck makes you think that a logical conclusion is a matter of negotiation? And why the fuck should there be a "fair and measured response" when someone is refusing to listen to flight crew instructions? Boot the fucker off until he learns how to listen to the flight crew. Like it or not, when you are on the plane, it is not supposed to be 'fair". When they say that you should get in your seat, you're supposed to obey.

[Coyote]

All it would take is a tap on the shoulder to get someone's attention. Unless you're going to suggest you would ignore a tap on the shoulder as well.

For Orthodox Jewish prayer, it is very ritualized and very strict. Once you start, you don't stop unless there's an obvious threat to life. Some say that you go kinda trancelike for a moment, tuning out your surroundings. I myself could neither confirm nor deny, not practicing that myself. If you interrupt, you have to start again.

Anyhow, that's for information purposes; I'm not trying to rekindle my role in the discussion.

[SCRawl]

That's not quite so clear-cut, at least not to me. The OP states that he was "saying his prayers" (probably in Hebrew), which implies to me that he was vocalizing, as opposed to just thinking to his imaginary friend. I can't talk to myself and still follow what someone else right next to me is saying. Can you? If we further assume that his eyes were closed, or that he wasn't looking in the direction of the FA at the time -- not a huge jump -- then it's entirely possible that he had no idea that he was being addressed by a member of the cabin crew.

All it would take is a tap on the shoulder to get someone's attention. Unless you're going to suggest you would ignore a tap on the shoulder as well.

No, I wouldn't, but this isn't about what I would do, or what a sensible person would have done. It's about what this guy did. And I'm not suggesting that the passenger wasn't aware that someone wanted to get his attention -- I'm suggesting that he was aware that someone wanted to talk to him about something. As I said, it's silly and (as he discovered) dangerous to do this in an airplane.

My opinion is that, given that there was nothing (or at most very little) more to the story than what appears in the OP, the boot was too harsh a reaction to this circumstance. If there were any additional factors -- such as, but not limited to: belligerence on the part of the passenger; or that a delay due to his actions was obvious or inevitable -- then clearly my assumptions are invalidated, and so are my objections. I'm not going to say that there's no way he deserved the boot, and that my judgement supercedes that of a trained member of the cabin crew who was actually on the scene. I will say, though, that there had to be more to it to make the boot a fair and measured response.

By your mealy-mouthed reasoning, the attendants should be forced to treat any and all bullshit short of full-blown confrontationalism with kiddy-gloves. This does not follow in any environment where safety and time are high priorities, especially if there's more than one problem that they happen to have to deal with. But way to demonstrate the mindless-middle mindset that the article was precisely hoping to get a reaction out of.

So, in other words, to use any measures at the FA's disposal anything short of de-planing the passenger is treating him with kiddy-gloves?

[Darth Wong]

All it would take is a tap on the shoulder to get someone's attention. Unless you're going to suggest you would ignore a tap on the shoulder as well.

For Orthodox Jewish prayer, it is very ritualized and very strict. Once you start, you don't stop unless there's an obvious threat to life. Some say that you go kinda trancelike for a moment, tuning out your surroundings. I myself could neither confirm nor deny, not practicing that myself. If you interrupt, you have to start again.

Anyhow, that's for information purposes; I'm not trying to rekindle my role in the discussion.

I wonder if this guy was from Israel. I hear that in Israel, Orthodox Jews are accustomed to basically being allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they can claim a religious basis. I was under the impression that they're treated almost like a special noble class, in the sense that the rules which apply to normal people don't apply to them. It's entirely possible that when the flight attendant tried to interrupt him, he thought "Oh look, this gentile thinks she can tell me what to do even though I'm engaging in religious activities and therefore invincible."

So, in other words, to use any measures at the FA's disposal anything short of de-planing the passenger is treating him with kiddy-gloves?

If someone deliberately ignores a flight attendant's instruction to take his seat for two full minutes? Yes. Kid-gloves means that you choose to be lenient when you really don't have to be, and that's exactly what you seem to think is mandatory in this case, for no discernible reason whatsoever other than your subjective discomfort with a flight attendant getting impatient with a wacko who ignores instructions.