Praying Man Removed From Plane

[Darth Servo]

The OP states that he was "saying his prayers", not merely thinking them. Do you find it easy to say something while simultaneously following another monologue? And anyways, to hammer away at that point again, my argument was that he might not have known who was addressing him, much less what he was being told.

Oh please. He's on a plane. "Someone" tells him he needs to return to his seat. Who ELSE could it be but a member of the flight crew?

I'd like to know where my logic went south

Where you start defending a passenger on an airplane who chose to ignore direct instructions from the flight crew.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think that anyone involved in this thread thinks that it's cool for people to pull the stunt that the passenger did.

Then why the hell are you defending him?

[SCRawl]

Irrelevant to the point, fucktard. You're acting as if a lot of concentration is required in order to understand that kind of instruction, so if he was thinking about something else, he couldn't have comprehended it. That's bullshit of the highest order. The exact phrase the flight attendant used is immaterial as long as it doesn't require concentration to understand.

The OP states that he was "saying his prayers", not merely thinking them. Do you find it easy to say something while simultaneously following another monologue? And anyways, to hammer away at that point again, my argument was that he might not have known who was addressing him, much less what he was being told.

"Monologue"? MONOLOGUE? A flight attendant saying "Excuse me" is a fucking MONOLOGUE now? So complex that without your full attention, you can't understand it?

I meant "monologue" in the nominal sense -- as opposed to "dialogue", since there was only one speaker. I didn't mean to suggest that the FA was reciting Hamlet or something.

In related news, I just tried the experiment I suggested: I put the TV on the news, and recited a few lines from "The Merchant of Venice" I'd had to memorize in high school. Even though I knew what the news story was about, and I concentrated on it as hard as I could while still reciting the lines, I couldn't pick out what they were saying. And while I certainly knew that there was some talking going on, I couldn't have said what it was. Maybe some people have a better knack for this sort of thing than I do.

In any case, my argument wasn't that the passenger might not have known that someone was trying to talk to him -- it was that he might not have known that the FA was talking to him. I know -- and have already said -- that this was still a stupid thing to do, since he must have known that the FA might have been addressing him, and that that's not the sort of thing you can safely ignore.

You are so full of shit that it's oozing out of the goddamned hair follicles on the top of your head.

Alas, I remember fondly the days when I had hair follicles on the top of my head...

Clearly the passenger thought that he was okay doing it, but reality, as he found out, is rather different.

He found that out because he was thrown off the flight. If he was treated with kid-gloves as you demand, then he would not have learned that lesson.

As I've asked others: was he thrown off the flight, then, in order to make sure that he's going to misbehave on other flights in the future? Is it inconceivable that he could have gotten through this flight without further incident after being made aware of exactly how large a fuckup he'd already? I fully concede that something the guy did or said led the FA to believe that he wasn't going to get the message, but if he did, it isn't described in the OP.

[General Zod]

As I've asked others: was he thrown off the flight, then, in order to make sure that he's going to misbehave on other flights in the future? Is it inconceivable that he could have gotten through this flight without further incident after being made aware of exactly how large a fuckup he'd already? I fully concede that something the guy did or said led the FA to believe that he wasn't going to get the message, but if he did, it isn't described in the OP.

I'll repeat my demand on the earlier page. Consider this a put-up or shut up moment. What the fuck makes being thrown off for another flight an unduly harsh punishment? "There were alternatives" will not be an acceptable answer.

[SCRawl]

She is absolutely right in this point.

And I never suggested otherwise. I wish that people would stop thinking that I'm defending this guy's behaviour, because I have never, at any time, done so. It was chock full of stupid from the time he stood up until the time he stopped yammering in Hebrew.

My only point was that getting turfed from the flight seemed a bit harsh. That's all. Everything else I've posted here has been defending this point of view from everyone who chose to disagree with it.

If you (or another entity such as yourself) tells me that that's no longer going to be tolerated, then I'll meekly say "yes, sir" (or similar) and stop posting about this thread.

[Kanastrous]

SCRawl, I don't understand why you insist upon punishment being a dimension to this, at all.

In terms of codified policy, everything Broomstick mentions is clearly aimed at safety and efficiency and yes, there is an on-the-spot judgment element but the crew's decision was clearly in line with regulations.

Zod's already pointed out that if punishment were in some way the crew's or airline's aim, then they would not have accommodated him on a later flight.

Look at this from solely the crew's perspective, because in terms of authority and control, it's their perception of this muttering, swaying, closed-eyed, man rocking to and fro as he stands unresponsive on a jetliner in the very process of preparations for departure, that explains their actions.

[Darth Servo]

My only point was that getting turfed from the flight seemed a bit harsh. That's all. Everything else I've posted here has been defending this point of view from everyone who chose to disagree with it.

SCRawl, people get turfed from a flight for refusing to properly stow their carry-on.

[SCRawl]

As I've asked others: was he thrown off the flight, then, in order to make sure that he's going to misbehave on other flights in the future? Is it inconceivable that he could have gotten through this flight without further incident after being made aware of exactly how large a fuckup he'd already? I fully concede that something the guy did or said led the FA to believe that he wasn't going to get the message, but if he did, it isn't described in the OP.

I'll repeat my demand on the earlier page. Consider this a put-up or shut up moment. What the fuck makes being thrown off for another flight an unduly harsh punishment? "There were alternatives" will not be an acceptable answer.

When I start taking directives from you, I'll be sure to let you know. Last time I checked you were not listed as a moderator for this forum.

Nevertheless, I'll humour you.

First of all -- and this isn't all that meaningful -- the next flight wasn't for another day. That can't be part of the equation for the FA, I know, but it certainly makes the "punishment" more harsh.

Second: why are we talking about "punishment" at all? Is that what being booted off was? Punishment? It was necessary to correct the behaviour of the passenger, certainly, but any action taken was not for the purpose of punishing him. There are other authorities responsible for that. No, the purpose behind giving him the boot was to make sure that he wouldn't do something like that again, and it is my position that less stern measures would have, given what we know from the OP, been successful. I recognize that such measures might not have been as certain to be successful as not having him on the flight, but really, how certain do you have to be? 100% can't be the realistic goal, because the cabin crew couldn't have been 100% sure of anyone.

[General Zod]

When I start taking directives from you, I'll be sure to let you know. Last time I checked you were not listed as a moderator for this forum.

So because I'm not a moderator you can ignore me when I call you out on your bullshit?

First of all -- and this isn't all that meaningful -- the next flight wasn't for another day. That can't be part of the equation for the FA, I know, but it certainly makes the "punishment" more harsh.

HOW WAS IT HARSH? Unless this was a business flight of some sort you can't honestly say that he was harmed or otherwise unduly punished in any fashion. At best he was inconvenienced.

>blah blah snip blah blah <

I wasn't aware that regurgitating the same bullshit you spouted through the entire goddamned thread and semantics whoring counted as answering my point. Further, what's with this 100% certain horseshit? Nobody but dishonest wankers fall back on needing to know something for 100% certain.

[SCRawl]

We happen to differ over this.

Does it make an impression on you at all that your opinion is also differing with the members of this board who are either professionals or highly knowledgeable through personal experience within the given subject matter?

It does, actually. More than it might appear. The opinions you mention, though, have almost exclusively been related to why the passenger's behaviour was considered as serious as it was, or the fact that de-planing him fell within the bounds of the FA's authority. (There were plenty of other things, too, but I'm not going to start listing them all now.) These are things with which I have never disagreed.

My only problem with this whole scenario -- and I've typed it so often now that muscle memory is starting to kick in -- is that I don't think that it was necessary to fly this plane without the passenger.

It's possible that the FA maybe made a snap decision, and maybe regretted it later.

It's possible that the passenger's actions (beyond what we already know of) made it clear enough that his behaviour was not at all likely to be corrected with anything short of an ejection.

My position is that the actions we know of for certain -- those posted in the OP -- don't make him an uncorrectable risk to the safety of the flight.

You're among those resident experts, WP. If you or Broomstick (or someone I've left out who'd qualify equally) tell me that I'm full of shit, and I'll make just one more post in this thread: an apology and a concession.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

We happen to differ over this.

Does it make an impression on you at all that your opinion is also differing with the members of this board who are either professionals or highly knowledgeable through personal experience within the given subject matter?

My only problem with this whole scenario -- and I've typed it so often now that muscle memory is starting to kick in -- is that I don't think that it was necessary to fly this plane without the passenger.

is that I don't think that it was necessary to fly this plane without the passenger.

I don't think

And that is the entirety of your argument right there. You don't think. It is nothing more than a subjective opinion based on ignorance. Want to know why several people are calling you a moron now? Because you've spent, what, seven pages now running around in circles trying to defend an opinion based on ignorance. Going against the experience of those who have DIRECTLY WORKED IN THAT FIELD.

You're being called a moron because you've essentially said, "Yeah, I don't know jack shit about what's going on here, and these other people do. But they're still wrong and I'm right, I think."

[Broomstick]

Ten Pages? Ten Pages?!?

unbelievable.

A friend of mine is a flight attendant and she has repeatedly told me how many passengers seem to not understand the attendant's job. Many people think its to see to their comfort and serve them snacks. Its not. The attendants' number one priority is passenger safety.

People, you board a plane, you do what the flight attendant tells you. The flight attendant can essentially invoke their own version of Susan Ivanova's Babylon 5 mantra...

The Flight Attendant is GOD

If you don't like it, you can always complain to customer service after the flight.

But...but...what if the attendent tells you you're not allowed to wear a particular shirt? What if they tell you to strip down naked and dance for them? [/Coyote][/SCrawl]

After you are escorted off the airplane for failing to comply with the request be sure complain to customer service and anyone else who will listen. FA's ARE accountable for what they do, and overstepping the proper bounds will be punished. Asking passengers to strip down is not part of FA duties - that belongs to the Transportation Security Administration, you know, the people who pass you and your carry-on's through screening, pat you down, ask you to remove bits of clothing and body-jewelry, etc. Sometimes customs. Flight attendants ONLY have the "I am God" authority in regards to issues of safety and operating procedures - not other things. Abuse of power can bring stiff penalties.

Besides, would you want to be stuffed into a small metal tube hurtling through the stratosphere with a crazy, power-mad FA anyway?

[SCRawl]

When I start taking directives from you, I'll be sure to let you know. Last time I checked you were not listed as a moderator for this forum.

So because I'm not a moderator you can ignore me when I call you out on your bullshit?

So declining to take orders from you and ignoring you are the same thing?

First of all -- and this isn't all that meaningful -- the next flight wasn't for another day. That can't be part of the equation for the FA, I know, but it certainly makes the "punishment" more harsh.

HOW WAS IT HARSH? Unless this was a business flight of some sort you can't honestly say that he was harmed or otherwise unduly punished in any fashion. At best he was inconvenienced.

You try losing a full day from your schedule some time, and spend it in an airport. Then tell me how harsh it is.

I wasn't aware that regurgitating the same bullshit you spouted through the entire goddamned thread and semantics whoring counted as answering my point. Further, what's with this 100% certain horseshit? Nobody but dishonest wankers fall back on needing to know something for 100% certain.

The 100% figure I mentioned was what they got when they booted him from the plane. He was, at that point, 100% certain to not cause any more problems. My question was: how certain do they have to be before the boot becomes the best option?

[General Zod]

You try losing a full day from your schedule some time, and spend it in an airport. Then tell me how harsh it is.

People I work with fly all the time on business and have had to put up with shit like getting flights rescheduled or bumped. Yet they consider it an inconvenience. Most people consider it an inconvenience. So what the fuck makes you so goddamned certain that it's harsh?

The 100% figure I mentioned was what they got when they booted him from the plane. He was, at that point, 100% certain to not cause any more problems. My question was: how certain do they have to be before the boot becomes the best option?

Reasonable doubt. That is all anyone but a dishonest mealy-mouthed hatfucker needs.

[Darth Wong]

You try losing a full day from your schedule some time, and spend it in an airport. Then tell me how harsh it is.

If his beliefs and rituals are that important to him, then he will accept not flying at all. When you board an airplane, you're supposed to follow the rules. If you don't like that, then get the fuck off the plane.

Your stubbornness is not endearing. All you do is concede point after point after point, and then say "Yeah, but I still think I'm right anyway."

[Darth Servo]

The 100% figure I mentioned was what they got when they booted him from the plane. He was, at that point, 100% certain to not cause any more problems. My question was: how certain do they have to be before the boot becomes the best option?

You're going to be 30,000 feet above the ground. What kind of unnecessary chances are you going to take?

[Darth Wong]

SCRawl's argument seems to have devolved to "they were not absolutely forced to kick this guy off the plane, so it was wrong." At this point, I don't think he would accept anything less than an act of violence to justify kicking this guy off the plane.

[SCRawl]

SCRawl's argument seems to have devolved to "they were not absolutely forced to kick this guy off the plane, so it was wrong." At this point, I don't think he would accept anything less than an act of violence to justify kicking this guy off the plane.

It does seem that way, doesn't it. It isn't -- or, at least, that isn't how I have it arranged in my mind -- but it does seem that way. I'm left with three possibilities: I'm unable to articulate my argument properly; you are all unable to understand my argument; or my argument is faulty. At this point, that last option is looking to be the likeliest, and not just because we're now over an hour past my bed time.

Ladies and gentlemen of SDN, I apologize to you for unnecessarily extending the length of this thread. I concede that you are all probably right about this disagreement, and that I am probably wrong about it. I further state that I am being perfectly sincere without reservation, and am under no duress from any party.

If this concession is not sufficient, I hope that the correct authorities will tell me so.

Good night.

[lPeregrine]

I hope it's not just a +1, but I'd like to emphasize the point that these planes are on a much tighter schedule than most non-pilots realize. I fly a much smaller plane out of a smaller airport (but one that still has a lot of airline traffic), but I still get a lot of opportunities to hear their communication with the tower/ground control. They really are pretty strict about this, I've heard ground refuse to give them clearance because they weren't at their assigned release time yet, and a lot of worrying in general about the exact assigned schedules. It can only be worse at a much busier airport like JFK. When you have a lot of planes trying to use the runway, taxiways, gates, nearby airspace, destination airspace, etc, I can see why the airlines would be concerned about unnecessary delays. And when you're burning huge amounts of fuel on those big planes, any delay can mean a lot of lost money.

And you might think his "I couldn't hear, I was busy praying" excuse is pretty silly, but if it's true, it's far, far worse. A passenger who is completely unable to respond to the outside world is an incredibly dangerous thing to have in an emergency. If the excuse is true, they were entirely justified in throwing him off the plane. I know I wouldn't even think about flying with someone like that as a passenger.

But it all comes down to common sense. He thought he was above asking "excuse me, it looks like we have some time before departure, do you mind if I go pray in the back for a few minutes?", he gets to deal with the consequences.

[Coyote]

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.

They certainly feel that way, but the majority of the public, the non-Orthodox, tended to see them as annoying parasites, or (at best) quaint anachronistic characters. They are exempt from public Conscription, and get welfare to study Torah and an additional welfare check bonus for each kid.

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."

It's possible. I saw an Orthodox guy in Beer-Sheva who refused to ride in a taxicab because he'd have to share the fare with a female; some of them shield their eyes from female passers-by on the street. It's as bad as some of the Islamic groups.

[Ace Pace]

They are exempt from public Conscription, and get welfare to study Torah and an additional welfare check bonus for each kid.

The welfare check is valid for any kid, it's just that Haredi (ultra orthodox) are the only ones who hit the 10 kids mark, they and the Beduins.

A quick note, Coyote, I think the more precise term is Ultra-orthodox, Orthodox brings to mind Datiim Leumim, ergo those who are religious, yet serve and all that.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, what you're describing is usually called "ultra-orthodox" here in North America.