Praying Man Removed From Plane

[SCRawl]

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.

And maybe -- I'd even say "probably" -- this guy wasn't going to after having had an abrupt conversation with the FA. The case can be made that he would be even less likely to ignore requests from the cabin crew, after having received a brief but to-the-point lesson about airline safety and its importance. As I said, though, if he was making "but I'm one of god's chosen people, you can't tell me shit" kinds of noises then certainly, de-planing's too good for him.

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.

Oh, for fuck's sake. No one is suggesting that the FA's request was unreasonable. No one. Show me where someone said that it was, and I'll eat my hat. The issue I've been raising is whether or not the best recourse for all concerned was to kick the guy off the plane, and we stand on opposite sides of that debate.

[General Zod]

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.

Yet again you can't seem to get over the idea that no thinking was done here. If you were serious about being "fair" you'd give both sides the benefit of the doubt, not just the asshole who got himself thrown off.

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.

Most people boarding are in the process of getting to their seat. This asshole was not. It doesn't take a genius to see that he poses a risk in delaying the flight, again clearly mentioned in the article.

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.

So you agree that it is his own fault for getting thrown off. So what's the problem?

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).

And yet you are leaning in favor of the asshole that gets himself thrown off for ignoring a reasonable request despite not having a clear picture.

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".

Then frankly you're an idiot who can't distinguish between a reasonable request and an unreasonable one.

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.

I could just as easily say you're being a dishonest asshole who can't get over the fact he was booted off for being religious as well. I was under the impression that poisoning the well tactics were frowned on.

[General Zod]

And maybe -- I'd even say "probably" -- this guy wasn't going to after having had an abrupt conversation with the FA. The case can be made that he would be even less likely to ignore requests from the cabin crew, after having received a brief but to-the-point lesson about airline safety and its importance. As I said, though, if he was making "but I'm one of god's chosen people, you can't tell me shit" kinds of noises then certainly, de-planing's too good for him.

Exactly how long do you think it would have taken to have an abrupt conversation with him? There clearly isn't that much time to board the plane before it takes off, and the time it takes to summon a guard after talking to him risks delaying the flight even more.

Oh, for fuck's sake. No one is suggesting that the FA's request was unreasonable. No one. Show me where someone said that it was, and I'll eat my hat. The issue I've been raising is whether or not the best recourse for all concerned was to kick the guy off the plane, and we stand on opposite sides of that debate.

Coyote in the previous page. If you think this situation is even remotely comparable to requesting someone to remove a political shirt, you cannot distinguish between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" requests.

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".

[SCRawl]

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.

The content of the passenger's monologue isn't relevant, or at least it isn't relevant to me. The points that speak most to me:

- the guy wasn't in the way, or was in the way as little as possible without staying in his seat, or so it seems to me.
- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)
- although he ignored direct attempts from the FA to communicate with him, the FA was swiftly informed by others about the nature and duration of the problem.
- in short order, the passenger became communicative again, and rather than try and fix the problem by fixing the passenger's understanding of the problem, they fixed it by giving him the boot.

[Darth Wong]

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.

The content of the passenger's monologue isn't relevant, or at least it isn't relevant to me. The points that speak most to me:

- the guy wasn't in the way, or was in the way as little as possible without staying in his seat, or so it seems to me.
- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)
- although he ignored direct attempts from the FA to communicate with him, the FA was swiftly informed by others about the nature and duration of the problem.
- in short order, the passenger became communicative again, and rather than try and fix the problem by fixing the passenger's understanding of the problem, they fixed it by giving him the boot.

So? Why is it unreasonable that if you ignore the flight crew, you can be tossed off for that reason alone, irrespective of whatever bizarre justification you have in your head?

People want to make an exception here because he was acting on his religion, not because they would ordinarily have much patience if they were on a plane with a passenger who would stand up and completely ignore the world around him for minutes at a time.

The fact is that if he was doing that for any reason other than religion, everyone on the plane would instantly agree "this guy is a fucking wacko and they should toss him off until he learns to behave."

[Vendetta]

- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)

The point is that the FA can't wait until someone causes an actual delay, they have to act to prevent an actual delay before it happens, they also have to act to ensure the safety of every other passenger, and that means removing someone who is ignoring them, no matter the reason, and no matter what excuses are made by their friends, because if that happens again in an emergency situation, it will be an actual danger, and the flight crew have to err on the side of safety if there is even a small chance of that, due to the potential consequences.

You're not getting it, because you're not thinking about prevention.

[General Zod]

- the guy wasn't in the way, or was in the way as little as possible without staying in his seat, or so it seems to me.
- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)

Doesn't matter whether he did or not. He posed a risk in causing a delay by refusing to get to his seat in a reasonable amount of time. From the moment you get on the aircraft your first thought should be to get to your seat.

- although he ignored direct attempts from the FA to communicate with him, the FA was swiftly informed by others about the nature and duration of the problem.

I fail to see why this is noteworthy at all. The FA weren't speaking to his friends, they were speaking to him. Anyone but a complete idiot or someone wanting to be a confrontational douche would have noticed people asking him to return to his seat.

- in short order, the passenger became communicative again, and rather than try and fix the problem by fixing the passenger's understanding of the problem, they fixed it by giving him the boot.

The passenger had the opportunity to fix the problem. He didn't, so they reacted appropriately; this is not rocket science. All it should have taken was someone tapping his shoulder to get his attention if he wasn't intending on ignoring them from the start.

[SCRawl]

And maybe -- I'd even say "probably" -- this guy wasn't going to after having had an abrupt conversation with the FA. The case can be made that he would be even less likely to ignore requests from the cabin crew, after having received a brief but to-the-point lesson about airline safety and its importance. As I said, though, if he was making "but I'm one of god's chosen people, you can't tell me shit" kinds of noises then certainly, de-planing's too good for him.

Exactly how long do you think it would have taken to have an abrupt conversation with him? There clearly isn't that much time to board the plane before it takes off, and the time it takes to summon a guard after talking to him risks delaying the flight even more.

Thirty seconds, maybe a minute. And since it was known that the guy would "snap out of it" within a certain time frame, it isn't like they had to wait around standing next to him.

Oh, for fuck's sake. No one is suggesting that the FA's request was unreasonable. No one. Show me where someone said that it was, and I'll eat my hat. The issue I've been raising is whether or not the best recourse for all concerned was to kick the guy off the plane, and we stand on opposite sides of that debate.

Coyote in the previous page. If you think this situation is even remotely comparable to requesting someone to remove a political shirt, you cannot distinguish between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" requests.

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 not the same thing at all. Coyote suggested that the reaction from the FA was unreasonable, not that the request -- "Sir, please return to your seat" -- was unreasonable. And on that point he and I agree.

[Coyote]

Where does the flight attendant have the authority to manufacture arbitrary dress codes?

They have the authority to eject a person, period. And it's ideally for safety and similar reasons, but it has been applied for arbitrary reasons as well.

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?

I'm actually surprised about that-- I was always told that an airplane lavatory cannot be used while the plane is on the ground, prepping for takeoff. If the toilets are off-limts, it seems to me that the guy chose a good spot where there was guaranteed no traffic-- but if toilets can be used on the ground, then yeah, he was being inconvenient.

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.

From my perspective, his apology to the FA and attempt to epxlain ex post facto was, in fact, reasonable. My perspective was that the situation was a non-event, and if anything the FA's insistence on calling security regardless created more of a potential for delay. If giving this guy the benefit of the doubt makes me a "religious fucktard", then so be it.

[Kanastrous]

- the guy wasn't in the way, or was in the way as little as possible without staying in his seat, or so it seems to me.

He was sufficiently in-the-way that the paid and trained professionals whose job it is to handle passengers' movement around the cabin, identified him as a problem. I wasn't there to observe, so the attendants' judgment on the matter is good enough, for me.

- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)

Since it's an assumption, why not discard it?

- although he ignored direct attempts from the FA to communicate with him, the FA was swiftly informed by others about the nature and duration of the problem.

His uncommmunicativeness (whee! new word!) is the problem, all by itself. Unless he was a deaf-mute, he has to answer for himself. Period.

- in short order, the passenger became communicative again,

Short order being unsatisfactory. Instant responsiveness being what the FA - quite reasonably - was expecting. He's right in front of her. She's speaking directly to him. His non-responsiveness was purely his own choice.

and rather than try and fix the problem by fixing the passenger's understanding of the problem, they fixed it by giving him the boot.

Nothing to fix - if his reading of the contract terms under which he bought his ticket - terms including the requirements regarding his interaction with the cabin crew and obedience to their instructions - then he walked on the plane knowing what he needed to know. And if he didn't, well, that's 100% his fault, and the consequences are 100% his problem.

[SCRawl]

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.

The content of the passenger's monologue isn't relevant, or at least it isn't relevant to me. The points that speak most to me:
- the guy wasn't in the way, or was in the way as little as possible without staying in his seat, or so it seems to me.
- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)
- although he ignored direct attempts from the FA to communicate with him, the FA was swiftly informed by others about the nature and duration of the problem.
- in short order, the passenger became communicative again, and rather than try and fix the problem by fixing the passenger's understanding of the problem, they fixed it by giving him the boot.

So? Why is it unreasonable that if you ignore the flight crew, you can be tossed off for that reason alone, irrespective of whatever bizarre justification you have in your head?

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.

People want to make an exception here because he was acting on his religion, not because they would ordinarily have much patience if they were on a plane with a passenger who would stand up and completely ignore the world around him for minutes at a time.

The fact is that if he was doing that for any reason other than religion, everyone on the plane would instantly agree "this guy is a fucking wacko and they should toss him off until he learns to behave."

I'm not one of these people who want some sort of religious exception. The fact that his reasons were religious in nature carried no weight in my reaction to the story. I do find it difficult to imagine a circumstance which would explain the behaviour of this passenger, though, that doesn't involve either religion or mental illness

[Oni Koneko Damien]

...and since my last post, this is what happened:

"He didn't cause a delay, I think."

"The people whose job it is to determine and prevent that state otherwise."

"But... he didn't cause a delay, I think!"

...

"You side with people who get kicked off for wearing certain shirts!"

"Wearing a shirt is not a safety hazard, nor is it a potential safety hazard by any stretch of the imagination, that was not a reasonable, lawful order."

"But... you side with people who get kicked off for wearing certain shirts!"

...

"His friends explained things!"

"His friends are irrelevant, HE ignored an order from the person who would be keeping him alive in case of an emergency, identifying him as a potential hazard. His friends explaining things will not save his life and the lives of others in his way if he decides to ignore them again."

"But... his friends explained things!"

...

"He didn't really cause a delay."

"There is a world of finely timed shit going on behind the scenes in an airline, and the attendants are quite rigorously trained to determine when a person is causing a delay or not, and what to do in that situation. If they said he's causing a delay, they'd be far more qualified to judge than any of us."

"But... he didn't really cause a delay!"

If this keeps up, I predict that I could come back here in an hour or so and see that things have gone on in yet another circle.

[General Zod]

Thirty seconds, maybe a minute. And since it was known that the guy would "snap out of it" within a certain time frame, it isn't like they had to wait around standing next to him.

And if he chose to continue ignoring her? Then what? How do you know that she didn't try multiple times to get a response out of him before calling security?

That's not the same thing at all. Coyote suggested that the reaction from the FA was unreasonable, not that the request -- "Sir, please return to your seat" -- was unreasonable. And on that point he and I agree.

Which is pure and utter horseshit. The fact that some retards seem to think that what the request in question shouldn't matter is completely brain-dead thinking, when it should directly impact the punishment used.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

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.

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES HE WAS ASKED TO COMPLY BEFORE BEING BOOTED.

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.

[Coyote]

Yet again you can't seem to get over the idea that no thinking was done here. If you were serious about being "fair" you'd give both sides the benefit of the doubt, not just the asshole who got himself thrown off.

Well, the "other side" of the argument already has plenty of partisans, and the praying guy was being quite thoroughly dogpiled. So I wanted to ask if this was really looking at all sides of the issue. From your perspective, apparantly, it was. I remain unconvinced. If she did think about it at all, she didn't seem to think about it very much.

Most people boarding are in the process of getting to their seat. This asshole was not. It doesn't take a genius to see that he poses a risk in delaying the flight, again clearly mentioned in the article.

The FA could, at first, wonder if this is indeed the case, but his friends explained that it wouldn't be a problem (yes, I know, small comfort) and then he himself explained. If he continued to ignore her and blow her off even after completing his prayers, or if he'd said "fuck off, bitch," then yeah, I could see her filing this guy in the "problem child" category and having him removed just to be sure.

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.

So you agree that it is his own fault for getting thrown off. So what's the problem?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't think it was his fault for getting thrown off. I am saying that, had he applied some foresight, he could have made this a non-issue from the start. But I still think that it was an over-zealous Flight Attendant who made the final call.

And yet you are leaning in favor of the asshole that gets himself thrown off for ignoring a reasonable request despite not having a clear picture.

And you remain glued to the side of a Flight Attendant for what could be a knee-jerk reaction on her part, also without a fully clear picture of what happened. Don't blame me because the article isn't that clear.

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".

Then frankly you're an idiot who can't distinguish between a reasonable request and an unreasonable one.

Do you have anything coherent or just more ZOMFG$#^#FALLACY@%$^%FUCKTARD$$$ spittle-spraying?

I could just as easily say you're being a dishonest asshole who can't get over the fact he was booted off for being religious as well. I was under the impression that poisoning the well tactics were frowned on.

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

[Kanastrous]

I know that one's *my* favorite...

[Coyote]

- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)

Since it's an assumption, why not discard it?

Some of the arguments have rested on the idea that his praying caused a delay in the flight, or potentially did, when there is no evidence to support that, and I also counter with the idea that if anything endangered the scheduled departure time, it was the additional few minutes required by the police to come in and remove the guy. The police aren't going to come in through the window-- they have to go up the same crowded aisle the passengers are in, thus exacerbating any potential delay time.

The article didn't say anything about a delay either way (for him or the cops), so we are left with the conclusion that departure was not adversely affected.

[SCRawl]

- the guy wasn't in the way, or was in the way as little as possible without staying in his seat, or so it seems to me.

He was sufficiently in-the-way that the paid and trained professionals whose job it is to handle passengers' movement around the cabin, identified him as a problem. I wasn't there to observe, so the attendants' judgment on the matter is good enough, for me.

He stood out, at least, which is probably what got the attention of the FA. This is not the same thing as actually being a problem. Certainly, if he remained there for a long time, he'd have been a problem, but to say that standing in that place at that time he was a problem isn't clear, at least not to me.

- he didn't cause an actual delay to the flight. (This is an assumption, based on the wording of the OP.)

Since it's an assumption, why not discard it?

The OP states that the flight arrived on schedule, so he can't have delayed things very much, if at all. It also states that this took place while boarding was still taking place, which, to my mind, means that the plane was in no danger of moving in the short term.

As for why I haven't discarded the assumption, it's because making the "no delay" assumption makes more sense than the alternative. If my assumption is later proved to be invalid, then so is my argument.

- although he ignored direct attempts from the FA to communicate with him, the FA was swiftly informed by others about the nature and duration of the problem.

His uncommunicativeness (whee! new word!) is the problem, all by itself. Unless he was a deaf-mute, he has to answer for himself. Period.

And as I've said multiple times now, I don't agree that the first option at the FA's fingertips ought to be the boot.

- in short order, the passenger became communicative again,

Short order being unsatisfactory. Instant responsiveness being what the FA - quite reasonably - was expecting. He's right in front of her. She's speaking directly to him. His non-responsiveness was purely his own choice.

No argument, he certainly should have responded immediately. This story is littered with lots of things the passenger should have done, instead of what he did. The fact is that, given what he did, what is the best resolution for everyone?

and rather than try and fix the problem by fixing the passenger's understanding of the problem, they fixed it by giving him the boot.

Nothing to fix - if his reading of the contract terms under which he bought his ticket - terms including the requirements regarding his interaction with the cabin crew and obedience to their instructions - then he walked on the plane knowing what he needed to know. And if he didn't, well, that's 100% his fault, and the consequences are 100% his problem.

And you've read the fine print every time you've bought a ticket to the movies, or the baseball game, or an airline flight? Even if you assume that he ought to have known better -- which is a fair assumption -- does this mean that getting bounced is the appropriate response?

[Kitsune]

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....

[Coyote]

People want to make an exception here because he was acting on his religion, not because they would ordinarily have much patience if they were on a plane with a passenger who would stand up and completely ignore the world around him for minutes at a time.

I'm not one of these people who want some sort of religious exception. The fact that his reasons were religious in nature carried no weight in my reaction to the story. I do find it difficult to imagine a circumstance which would explain the behaviour of this passenger, though, that doesn't involve either religion or mental illness

The religion angle is irrelevant as far as the Flight Attendant's actions, IMO. If he'd been talking loudly about Barack Obama, and ignoring the FA's requests, I'd be of the same opinion I am now.

The only reason I think the religious angle come sinto this is because of the reaction people had here. If he was booted because he was doing something religious, people here don't have a problem with it. If he had, indeed, been booted because he was talking about Obama and ignoring the FA's requests to be quiet, I think the boot would be on the other foot.

[Coyote]

Thirty seconds, maybe a minute. And since it was known that the guy would "snap out of it" within a certain time frame, it isn't like they had to wait around standing next to him.

And if he chose to continue ignoring her? Then what? How do you know that she didn't try multiple times to get a response out of him before calling security?

Because it said she tried to talk to him twice, his friends told her what was going on, he finished, apologized and explained. She could have chewed him out but instead just called the cops, even though it could have ended right there.

That's not the same thing at all. Coyote suggested that the reaction from the FA was unreasonable, not that the request -- "Sir, please return to your seat" -- was unreasonable. And on that point he and I agree.

Which is pure and utter horseshit. The fact that some retards seem to think that what the request in question shouldn't matter is completely brain-dead thinking, when it should directly impact the punishment used.

You like chasing your own tail, don't you? I never dismissed the request, it was how she handled the situation afterwards. Wake up.

[General Zod]

Well, the "other side" of the argument already has plenty of partisans, and the praying guy was being quite thoroughly dogpiled. So I wanted to ask if this was really looking at all sides of the issue. From your perspective, apparantly, it was. I remain unconvinced. If she did think about it at all, she didn't seem to think about it very much.

Meaningless speculation. We know he ignored her for a number of minutes. Anyone with any training whatsoever would have made multiple attempts to get him to respond, and yet for some asinine reason you seem to think she didn't.

The FA could, at first, wonder if this is indeed the case, but his friends explained that it wouldn't be a problem (yes, I know, small comfort) and then he himself explained. If he continued to ignore her and blow her off even after completing his prayers, or if he'd said "fuck off, bitch," then yeah, I could see her filing this guy in the "problem child" category and having him removed just to be sure.

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

No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't think it was his fault for getting thrown off. I am saying that, had he applied some foresight, he could have made this a non-issue from the start. But I still think that it was an over-zealous Flight Attendant who made the final call.

Who the fuck else could be blamed here? He had the opportunity to correct the situation multiple times. He refused to do so. As far as I'm concerned it's his fault.

And you remain glued to the side of a Flight Attendant for what could be a knee-jerk reaction on her part, also without a fully clear picture of what happened. Don't blame me because the article isn't that clear.

The way the article is written doesn't leave too much room for interpretation on behalf of the religious guy. So why is there so much room for interpretation on behalf of the FA? Gee, I can't possibly imagine the press wanting to cause a small shit-storm for ratings or anything. . .

Do you have anything coherent or just more ZOMFG$#^#FALLACY@%$^%FUCKTARD$$$ spittle-spraying?

Do you have anything coherent or just more mealy-mouthed middle minded bullshit?

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.

[SCRawl]

...and since my last post, this is what happened:

"He didn't cause a delay, I think."

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?

[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.

[Coyote]

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.

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES HE WAS ASKED TO COMPLY BEFORE BEING BOOTED.

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.

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.

Broomstick knows what the proper procedure is, but we don't know if that was followed exactly. For the record I'm inclined to say it probably was. I am fairly certain that if either the man or the FA had become violent, or flippe dout somehow, it most likely would have been reported by th media, which loves such displays.

In a way, though, that makes the situation all the more puzzling to me-- if she was able to speak with him calmly, afterwards, and everything was handled in a conciliatory manner, I'm back to wondering why the FA found it necessary to have him removed by cops.