Northwest WorldPerks (Discontinued Program) - Pax removed from flight

Was on NW1452 today from MKE to DTW. As boarding progressed, I heard a pax call someone an "a$$-h0le" (didn't see the altercation). Apparently, it involved one of the FA, but I'm not sure how or why this individual felt the need to insult one of the crew. None the less, this individual takes his seat in Y and other pax continue to board. After a couple of minutes, the lead FA / purser (a short, stocky, male) comes back to the pax and tells him he can voluntarily exit the aircraft, or a LEO will be called to escort him off. The pax tried to say that he did not call anyone that, but said they were "being an a$$" (I heard both comments - he lied the second time). The purser insisted he needed to exit the a/c or the police would be called. The pax collected his belongings and went to the front of the plane where he continued to try to negotiate to keep his seat. I heard him apologize a couple of times, but the pursor insisted that there was a "zero tolerance" policy.

Should this pax have been removed? - maybe
Did the FA/pursor overreact? - also maybe

Thoughts, observations, derogatory remarks?

If this person can not control himself and refrain from being insulting on the ground what's to prevent him from acting up at 35,000 feet? I think the FA was right. Better safe than sorry. Whether the passenger was at fault or not, one should never use such remarks when dealing with people.

If this person can not control himself and refrain from being insulting on the ground what's to prevent him from acting up at 35,000 feet? I think the FA was right. Better safe than sorry. Whether the passenger was at fault or not, one should never use such remarks when dealing with people.
True.

And, people get removed from planes for being intoxicated all the time as well. I guess constant use of profanity/name calling especially against FAs isn't all too different than being drunk while flying...

Was on NW1452 today from MKE to DTW. As boarding progressed, I heard a pax call someone an "a$$-h0le" (didn't see the altercation). Apparently, it involved one of the FA, but I'm not sure how or why this individual felt the need to insult one of the crew. None the less, this individual takes his seat in Y and other pax continue to board. After a couple of minutes, the lead FA / purser (a short, stocky, male) comes back to the pax and tells him he can voluntarily exit the aircraft, or a LEO will be called to escort him off.
Hi Gang. I am sitting at MSP waiting for a flight to STL, so I thought I would check in. One question -- What is a LEO? Thanks!

-Alan

I agree with the others and I'm glad that the FA took immediate action. As said previously, if the person could not control himself on the ground, why should the crew have to take a chance with dealing with him at 35,000 feet?

Post 911 there should be Zero tolerance for both verbal or physical outburst. I say " Way to go Northwest" :)

True.

And, people get removed from planes for being intoxicated all the time as well. I guess constant use of profanity/name calling especially against FAs isn't all too different than being drunk while flying...
Is it intoxicated or unruly and intoxicated? I like to think of myself as a "nice drunk". I am lucky I didn't get dumped out the door of my last flight MCO-MSP... {snickers}. The FC FA took good care of me, drink wise especially!

-Alan

A "LEO" is a law enforcement officer.

One question -- What is a LEO?

LEO= Law Enforcement Officer

Hi Gang. I am sitting at MSP waiting for a flight to STL, so I thought I would check in. One question -- What is a LEO? Thanks!

-Alan

LEO - Law Enforcement Officer

Hi Gang. I am sitting at MSP waiting for a flight to STL, so I thought I would check in. One question -- What is a LEO? Thanks!

-Alan

LEO = Law Enforcement Officer

A "LEO" is a law enforcement officer.

Liquid Entertainment Organizer :D

Liquid Entertainment Organizer :D
<sprays coke all over screen and keyboard>

All the best, James

Was on NW1452 today from MKE to DTW. As boarding progressed, I heard a pax call someone an "a$$-h0le" (didn't see the altercation). Apparently, it involved one of the FA, but I'm not sure how or why this individual felt the need to insult one of the crew. None the less, this individual takes his seat in Y and other pax continue to board. After a couple of minutes, the lead FA / purser (a short, stocky, male) comes back to the pax and tells him he can voluntarily exit the aircraft, or a LEO will be called to escort him off. The pax tried to say that he did not call anyone that, but said they were "being an a$$" (I heard both comments - he lied the second time). The purser insisted he needed to exit the a/c or the police would be called. The pax collected his belongings and went to the front of the plane where he continued to try to negotiate to keep his seat. I heard him apologize a couple of times, but the pursor insisted that there was a "zero tolerance" policy.

Should this pax have been removed? - maybe
Did the FA/pursor overreact? - also maybe

Thoughts, observations, derogatory remarks?

Removed? Absolutely.
Overreact? No.

As has been stated, if this passenger is behaving like this on the ground, what happens at 35,000 ft. and he doesn't get the drink he wants, or whatever? If he can't control his behavior, he doesn't fly...no chances taken in my opinion. Fellow passengers or the crew shouldn't be subject to verbal abuse of any kind.

If he was in fact intoxicated, it is against FAA regs. to knowingly board and transport an intoxicated passenger...for the safety of the flight and the passenger too. Come to LAS and watch the bank of red-eye departures...lots of DBs due to intoxication...whether or not your a quiet drunk, a funny drunk, or a mean drunk...it doesn't matter...it's not something we try to determine beforehand as things change as time progresses and altitude increases...

Come to LAS and watch the bank of red-eye departures...lots of DBs due to intoxication...

Something else to look forward to, for my MR in two weeks...

Steve B.

Hi Gang. I am sitting at MSP waiting for a flight to STL, so I thought I would check in. One question -- What is a LEO? Thanks!

-Alan

LEO = someone born in August???

Kidding

I've got to disagree with the general feeling here that the pax should have been removed for simply referring to someone as an "a$$hole". This isn't much different from saying to someone "You're a jerk" or "You're out of line". Sorry folks but one person's profanity is another person's everyday slang.

I've got to disagree with the general feeling here that the pax should have been removed for simply referring to someone as an "a$$hole". This isn't much different from saying to someone "You're a jerk" or "You're out of line". Sorry folks but one person's profanity is another person's everyday slang.
agreed. We cannot condem without knowing the facts, which we do not.

I've got to disagree with the general feeling here that the pax should have been removed for simply referring to someone as an "a$$hole". This isn't much different from saying to someone "You're a jerk" or "You're out of line". Sorry folks but one person's profanity is another person's everyday slang.

I'll agree with that to the extent that perhaps those with this everyday, in public, to someone you're supposed to show at least a minimum amount of respect, slang - belong on a bus, not a plane

I have to admit that my OP was made rather hastily before a connection at DTW and I didn't get to put in that post more of the details of what happened.

I was not a true "eye witness" to what happened at the boarding door as I was in a window seat in row 7 on that DC9 and the curtain blocked my view of the front cabin, more like an "ear-witness". However, I did hear a person say to someone else "you're just being an a$$-hole" from the front of the plane. It was more muttered than said, but it was heard in the cabin. I don't know what this was over. I will add that, like always, the overhead bins were full, and some pax bags were being checked. I don't know if this person fell into that situation, or if this precipitated the incident.

A few minutes later the pursor asked the pax to leave, which he did peacefully, but with the protestations mentioned before. Though I did hear him try to apologize and ask to stay on the flight. That's when I heard the pursor's explanation of the zero tolerance policy. The pax did not appear to be drunk or disorderly. I'm sure he was just having a really bad day and likely picked the wrong person or place to be rude.

After the boarding door was closed, the pursor came back to that part of the cabin and made a low-key apology in the general direction of the pax adjacent to the now vacated seat and announced that the pax was not on board.

I have to agree with the general sentiment that someone who is disorderly on the ground would be a bigger problem at altitude.

I'm just not sure that what happened this afternoon fell into that category. Now, please, don't get me wrong. I'm NOT trying to defend the guy. What he said was rude and very likely uncalled for. Rude is rude. And being rude to a FA is not the brightest idea. I'll also add that I have the utmost admiration for the crew as they have to put up with a lot, both from pax and management and that I personally only treat them as I treat everyone, with the respect that I'd like to be treated with. But ejection from the plane? It kinda seemed a little much to me. I realize this isn't the predominant sentiment here. Flame away.

I will add that my seatmates seemed satisfied that the pax was removed. One of them remarked that he might have been a dissatisfied, elitist FF, somehow feeling better that those around him. Impressions are everything, aren't they?

I've got to disagree with the general feeling here that the pax should have been removed for simply referring to someone as an "a$$hole". This isn't much different from saying to someone "You're a jerk" or "You're out of line". Sorry folks but one person's profanity is another person's everyday slang.

While being a rude jerk in a public environment is not against the law and mostly ignored, being one in a small confined space can not be tolerated. Basically this is one of those things that the person should have learned in pre-school; “It’s not nice to call people a@@h@l3s.”

No, I too would have escorted him off. If it were in my companys office we would have taken the same stance.

I hope this person learned a lesson about public manners, but I doubt it. :D

Well, there is a huge difference between waving ones finger in someone's face and yelling 'YOU'RE AN A**H**E", and muttering under ones breath, 'you're just being an a**h**e'. Granted, both are rude, but one is confontrational and one is probably born of frustration. In the first case, I think the person should be removed from the plane, in the second, I am not so sure.

One a related note, twice in the past six months, while sitting up front, I have heard a FA refer to a pax as an a** to another FA (up in the galley). In both cases, the FA was right, the pax WAS being an a**, but still, should I have tried to have the FA arrested after the flight? In both cases, I said nothing, because I happened to agree with the FA (and what was said didn't offend me), but this doesn't mean what was said was not rude. What was said was said quietly, but I could still hear it.

I have to agree with the general sentiment that someone who is disorderly on the ground would be a bigger problem at altitude.

I must say there is nothing in the OP that suggests this pax was disorderly. No where does he say there was an argument or the pax raised his voice. Indeed twice it has been said that he peacefully left the plane apologizing. No ground or law enforcement people were involved so doesn't sound like a disorderly pax to me. This is America and in America you are allowed free speech and freedom of expression - if his view is that someone else is an a$$hole and he chooses to expresss that, that is his right and not grounds to be thrown of the airplane.

If indeed he was thrown of a plane because he called an FA and a$$hole then the FA is abusing his power. I suspect though that there was more to it and the name calling was just part of a bigger disconduct. As for havig a zero tolerance to misconduct, I agree, but name calling alone, while not to be encouraged, is not grounds to throw someone out. By the way we all name call and occasionally encounter FAs we may think the same of - we probably just don't say it as loud as he did

I must say there is nothing in the OP that suggests this pax was disorderly. No where does he say there was an argument or the pax raised his voice. Indeed twice it has been said that he peacefully left the plane apologizing. No ground or law enforcement people were involved so doesn't sound like a disorderly pax to me. This is America and in America you are allowed free speech and freedom of expression - if his view is that someone else is an a$$hole and he chooses to expresss that, that is his right and not grounds to be thrown of the airplane.

If indeed he was thrown of a plane because he called an FA and a$$hole then the FA is abusing his power. I suspect though that there was more to it and the name calling was just part of a bigger disconduct. As for havig a zero tolerance to misconduct, I agree, but name calling alone, while not to be encouraged, is not grounds to throw someone out. By the way we all name call and occasionally encounter FAs we may think the same of - we probably just don't say it as loud as he did

We'll agree to disagree...

While I'm fully aware that there are FAs out there that might abuse their "power", the customer was out of line in any regard and regardless of what might have happened, this obviously wasn't the way to handle it. I can take the heat from the customers better than most but when it comes down to calling me something profane or personal attacks, you might as well consider your confirmed reservation cancelled and my supervisor and manager will back me up 100%. I treat the customer with total respect and expect the same in return, because he/she is the customer doesn't give them the right to attack me verbally or physically for that matter and no matter how bad things are in this business, we don't need these type of customers.

If someone can't or won't behave in a civil manner on the ground, there is no way to predict his behavior in the air. The FA & purser deserve a compliment for a job well done in the this situation. An "a$$hole" on the ground could easily result in a costly diversion in the air with substantial inconvenience to all pax on the plane, not to mention the pax and crews scheduled to use that plane in the near term.

If indeed he was thrown of a plane because he called an FA and a$$hole then the FA is abusing his power.

On the contrary, I would submit that that is all the justification that the FA needs to have the guy bounced off the plane.


I've got to disagree with the general feeling here that the pax should have been removed for simply referring to someone as an "a$$hole". This isn't much different from saying to someone "You're a jerk" or "You're out of line". Sorry folks but one person's profanity is another person's everyday slang.


Maybe in your world, not in mine. There is a time and place for just about anything, but departure gates and airplanes are not the locale for offensive behavior.

...

when it comes down to calling me something profane or personal attacks, you might as well consider your confirmed reservation cancelled and my supervisor and manager will back me up 100%. I maintain that this is abuse of power. 9/11 has given the airplane some elevated status beyond that of any other environment on earth. We are suddenly subject to behaviourial rules that we could not even enforce in our homes. If husbands or wives had such powers, there would be no marriages left.

So what makes the FA different from other workers that gives them such draconian power to deny passage to clients they disagree with (who otherwise do not exhibit any threat to the aircraft?). A suspicion is not good enough unless backed by direct aggression(he called me an idiot means he might hijack the plane?) . All of us face abuse everyday. There is no other place where clients are automatically turned down because they personally attack providers (who sometimes might have been the ones at fault). I work in healthcare and we can never refuse to treat a patient simply because he calls a member of staff names. Even abusive or confrontational people have their rights.

People should not use 9/11 as a pretext to invoke power and control. This is nothing to do with threat to aircraft because no other person in the airline has such powers. If you shout at the phone agent or check-in staff or even GA none of them would threaten you with refusal to fly, but when you have an altercation with an FA it suddenly becomes a security issue?

I maintain that this is abuse of power. 9/11 has given the airplane some elevated status beyond that of any other environment on earth. We are suddenly subject to behaviourial rules that we could not even enforce in our homes. If husbands or wives had such powers, there would be no marriages left.

So what makes the FA different from other workers that gives them such draconian power to deny passage to clients they disagree with (who otherwise do not exhibit any threat to the aircraft?). A suspicion is not good enough unless backed by direct aggression(he called me an idiot means he might hijack the plane?) . All of us face abuse everyday. There is no other place where clients are automatically turned down because they personally attack providers (who sometimes might have been the ones at fault). I work in healthcare and we can never refuse to treat a patient simply because he calls a member of staff names. Even abusive or confrontational people have their rights.

People should not use 9/11 as a pretext to invoke power and control. This is nothing to do with threat to aircraft because no other person in the airline has such powers. If you shout at the phone agent or check-in staff or even GA none of them would threaten you with refusal to fly, but when you have an altercation with an FA it suddenly becomes a security issue?

I mentioned NOTHING about security here...nor is it strictly a security issue. An abuse of power? A "right" to fly? What happened to the businesses that posted the signs "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Of course, in matters of race, religion or the like, this would be an abuse (not to mention illegal). If someone chooses to verbally attack me or a coworker, I would strongly argue that we should be permitted to deny boarding...(actually, rule 35 of the Contract of Carriage covers this). The ticket you purchase doesn't give you the right to abuse those serving you, verbally, physically or whatever. If I walk into Nordstroms, Target, or whereever and call the cashier or salesperson something profane, what do you think the chances are that I will be asked to leave or security called to escort me out of the store? Yet, you somehow feel we are taking away a "right" of someone to deny them boarding...they can easily fly another carrier (a refund is issued in cases where one is prohibited to fly on a carrier).
Furthermore, I don't think boarding someone who is abusive in any way does a service to the other customers not to mention the crew on the aircraft with him/her for the next few hours.

From post #19:

After the boarding door was closed, the pursor came back to that part of the cabin and made a low-key apology in the general direction of the pax adjacent to the now vacated seat and announced that the pax was not on board.

It almost sounds like the person taken off the plane directed his remark to another passenger, not the FA. Not sure if the tolerance level would be different when 2 pax are involved versus pax and FA. I could see where a pax being rude/obnoxious to another pax would get them kicked off quicker than being rude/obnoxious to the FA.

I agree with NW in booting the pax out.

I was on a Lufthansa flight from Toronto to Frankfurt in F. When I climbed the stairs to the upper deck and looked for my seat I found someone occupying it. I double checked my boarding pass stub and sure enough I was assigned that same seat. I kindly asked the pax if he could please double check his boarding pass stub as mine indicated that his seat was assigned to me. He looked up and waived his hand as if to shoo me away :eek:

I called over the FA and mentioned what happened. She pulled out her flight sheet and matched my boarding pass stub to the seat in question. She also very nicely asked the pax if he would please present his boarding pass stub as their seems to be some confusion regarding seat assignment. Sure enough he was assigned a different seat but he still refused to move. The FA asked me if I would mind changing seats, now normally I would without hesitation but since this guy was being a ***Hole I said no that I was not prepared to move and that I wanted my original seat. She explained this to the pax who became rather upset and verbally abusive. The captain was called and had him escorted off the flight.

I am sorry but anyone who does not know how to conduct themselves in a courteous respectful manner in public should stay home.

I maintain that this is abuse of power. 9/11 has given the airplane some elevated status beyond that of any other environment on earth. We are suddenly subject to behaviourial rules that we could not even enforce in our homes. If husbands or wives had such powers, there would be no marriages left.

So what makes the FA different from other workers that gives them such draconian power to deny passage to clients they disagree with (who otherwise do not exhibit any threat to the aircraft?). A suspicion is not good enough unless backed by direct aggression(he called me an idiot means he might hijack the plane?) . All of us face abuse everyday. There is no other place where clients are automatically turned down because they personally attack providers (who sometimes might have been the ones at fault). I work in healthcare and we can never refuse to treat a patient simply because he calls a member of staff names. Even abusive or confrontational people have their rights.

People should not use 9/11 as a pretext to invoke power and control. This is nothing to do with threat to aircraft because no other person in the airline has such powers. If you shout at the phone agent or check-in staff or even GA none of them would threaten you with refusal to fly, but when you have an altercation with an FA it suddenly becomes a security issue?

Well, since the OP states that he only heard part of what happened and did not actually see anything why are we all getting our undies in a twist? I think the subject is better served in dealing in facts and the fact is, we do not have a complete picture of what transpired so all these comments are based on what if this and what if that.

When I work as purser, I always include the following statement in my crew briefings: " We are expected to treat our customers with courtesy and respect. We are expected to treat each other with courtesy and respect. We also expect the same of our customers: to treat us and each other with courtesy and respect. If anyone fails to follow these simple guidelines, please let me know and we will discuss appropriate action.

In addition, I feel the boarding is a crucial time for us. It gives us the opportunity to observe passengers who may be acting intoxicated, ill, disruptive or suspicious. The best place to resolve a potentially disruptive scenario is on the ground and not in the air.

When I'm at 39,000 feet, 5 hours from landing at the closest airport, it is of utmost importance to have taken every step possible to ensure the safety and security of the flight and every individual on it which would include proactively handling potential problem passengers on the ground.

I worked a flight a year and a half ago, non-purser, where the crew observed an elderly Asian woman travelling with her daughter board the flight JFK-NRT. She looked as if she could die on the spot. The daughter and her mother were questioned and we even involved a CRO to assess the situation because we felt that a nearly 14 hour flight was not in the woman's best interest. The daughter insisted her mother was fine, had not medical conditions, etc. They were allowed to travel. In the middle of the flight, 7 hours from NRT, the elderly lady died in the restroom. The only diversion was 4 hours to ANc which was experiencing a blizzard. We might have landed, maybe not and if we had maybe not taken off again. So we flew another 7 hours with this woman's corpse and her emotionally distraught daughter. When we were performing CPR and using the AED, we discovered a rather large and recent scar from surgery.

Most of us have the experience and intelligence to make judgement calls and utilize other resources to verify our instincts. The safety and security of our flight is our foremost responsibilty. Anyone who disagrees with that wouldn't like flying with me and I probably would prefer not to have you on the flight either.

If he was in fact intoxicated, it is against FAA regs. to knowingly board and transport an intoxicated passenger...for the safety of the flight and the passenger too. Come to LAS and watch the bank of red-eye departures...lots of DBs due to intoxication...whether or not your a quiet drunk, a funny drunk, or a mean drunk...it doesn't matter...it's not something we try to determine beforehand as things change as time progresses and altitude increases...
I guess I have been lucky to miss the drunkies leaving LAS on my red-eye NWA flights, but, I have seen UA & HP DB plenty of pax at the gate, Once I witnessed UA kick someone off in a fashion similar to the OP post. I agree that if a FA feels threatened on the ground, they should not have to fly with that PAX. Airline personnel deserve the same respect as anyone else in the hospitality field receive.

Very interesting topic - leaves me with a lot of questions....

First off I'll have to say in my view this area seems pretty grey. Given that we have only a partial account of the incident to work with here I can't say if the ejection was justified. It does leave me with a lot questions to pose though.

First off, are some of you really saying that a simple verbal insult is sufficient grounds to eject someone from a flight? That seems like a very slipperly spot of ground to take a position on. Today's society is experiencing a lot of conflict over basic values. There are literally situations where one person's courtesy (e.g. offering to hold the door open for a woman) is another person's insult (I've seen situations where someone has been verbally berated for this simple old fashioned act of courtesy.) It seems to me that there has to be a reasonable standard (e.g. repeated use of real profanity) to get to this level of action. Obviously though if something physical was involved - I'm all for kicking the passenger out. Otherwise though I have some issues with putting that much authority and judgement in any individual without some sort of standard including oversight. The alternative is that we had all better start thinking about gagging ourselves in the boarding line right now.

Secondly - how far does one of these ejections go? Does getting removed from a flight completely cancel a ticket or does the ejected passenger just have to go cool down for a while and board a later flight. Would factors such as if the passenger was on an outbound or return flight be considered? (Not that I'm too much into mercy but the passenger has got to get home someway - leaving an irate person trapped away from home might actually make things worse). Does NW ban the passenger from flying on future flights? If so is there a time period or is it permanent? (Side bar: I remember someone assaulted a gate agent in EWR a few years ago - CO banned the guy from the airline permanently - have no idea how they enforced it.)

Third - I'm going to offer a mea cupla as a hypothetical to test the water here. About a year ago I was boarding a Pinnacle flight for the first time and learned a new reason to avoid Pinnacle flights - they don't give any leeway on carryons. I had my laptop and a small duffle - a combination that has always worked in the past - the GA let me go with it saying it shouldn't matter because the flight was half full. Me, the overconfident Gold Elite, figured I should be able to slide on OK.

I get ready to board the flight and the FA tells me I have to Gate Check one of the bags. I lost it - there had been some issues where I got stuck with a 5 hour connection in IND (the strange 'focus city' with no WC - what is with that anyway) - and told the FA she was being a "Bag Nazi." My head got the better of me though and I gate-checked my duffle but I lost it again when I saw the next guy in line get the same speech and try to weasel his way out of it - I told him the FA was a "Bag Nazi" and he should just give it up. The FA did discuss the matter with me after take off. She said that although she fully knew there was room on the plane per the GA's comments that she had recently seen an FA disciplined for not enforcing a single carryon room. So I decided to drop the ranting letter to NW about the "Bag Nazi" I was drafting and forgot all about it until now. By some of the terms being bantied about here that single comment might have gotten me thrown off my flight. My question then: should I have been thrown off the flight for that insult? I certainly didn't use a "F" word or an "A" word but "Nazi" certainly would invoke some strong emotion in some quarters.

I certainly didn't use a "F" word or an "A" word but "Nazi" certainly would invoke some strong emotion in some quarters.

Major difference in "Bag Nazi" being a reference to a comedy skitch about a "Soup Nazi". In my opinion F-you you're an a-h trumps funny-ha-ha in the how serious scale

Well, since the OP states that he only heard part of what happened and did not actually see anything why are we all getting our undies in a twist? I think the subject is better served in dealing in facts and the fact is, we do not have a complete picture of what transpired so all these comments are based on what if this and what if that.

When I work as purser, I always include the following statement in my crew briefings: " We are expected to treat our customers with courtesy and respect. We are expected to treat each other with courtesy and respect. We also expect the same of our customers: to treat us and each other with courtesy and respect. If anyone fails to follow these simple guidelines, please let me know and we will discuss appropriate action.

In addition, I feel the boarding is a crucial time for us. It gives us the opportunity to observe passengers who may be acting intoxicated, ill, disruptive or suspicious. The best place to resolve a potentially disruptive scenario is on the ground and not in the air.

When I'm at 39,000 feet, 5 hours from landing at the closest airport, it is of utmost importance to have taken every step possible to ensure the safety and security of the flight and every individual on it which would include proactively handling potential problem passengers on the ground.

I worked a flight a year and a half ago, non-purser, where the crew observed an elderly Asian woman travelling with her daughter board the flight JFK-NRT. She looked as if she could die on the spot. The daughter and her mother were questioned and we even involved a CRO to assess the situation because we felt that a nearly 14 hour flight was not in the woman's best interest. The daughter insisted her mother was fine, had not medical conditions, etc. They were allowed to travel. In the middle of the flight, 7 hours from NRT, the elderly lady died in the restroom. The only diversion was 4 hours to ANc which was experiencing a blizzard. We might have landed, maybe not and if we had maybe not taken off again. So we flew another 7 hours with this woman's corpse and her emotionally distraught daughter. When we were performing CPR and using the AED, we discovered a rather large and recent scar from surgery.

Most of us have the experience and intelligence to make judgement calls and utilize other resources to verify our instincts. The safety and security of our flight is our foremost responsibilty. Anyone who disagrees with that wouldn't like flying with me and I probably would prefer not to have you on the flight either.

Thank you for the insider insight on this. What ever the reason, passengers can not be allowed to act like out of control children. I would rather have a PAX with issues dealt with on the ground rather than at 35,000 feet.

The question I have would be, “would it be ok for some one to come to our offices/ place of business act like a fool and curse at us?” Would we ask this person to leave if it did happen? @:-)

Thank you for the insider insight on this. What ever the reason, passengers can not be allowed to act like out of control children. I would rather have a PAX with issues dealt with on the ground rather than at 35,000 feet.

The question I have would be, “would it be ok for some one to come to our offices/ place of business act like a fool and curse at us?” Would we ask this person to leave if it did happen? @:-)

I do own a business and if someone came in acting like a fool and cursing I most certainly have that individual remove him/herself from my premises or have them removed. No doubt.

I do own a business and if someone came in acting like a fool and cursing I most certainly have that individual remove him/herself from my premises or have them removed. No doubt.

What if it were one of your biggest customers? I find that people will bend rules a lot easier when money (or loss of) is involved.

What many people (who support the passenger being removed because he used a profanity and was therefore "rude") are forgetting that there are many ways to be rude other than by using a profanity.

What about removing passengers who hog the armrests? That's rude, in my opinion.
In my opinion, it's rude to forget to flush the toilet - should such passengers be removed (I'd rather have them removed than someone who says "a$$0le"). And what about the men (and perhaps women) who pee on the seat/floor?.

What about passengers who are talking between each other and are using profanity in their conversation (for example, describing someone not present as an a$$hole or using "f---ing" occasionally in their conversation as many people do on a day to day basis ? Should they be removed?

What if the passenger next to you is watching a DVD that you deem to be rude and offensive (or if you're watching a DVD that the passenger next to you views in the same way (lots of DVDs with violence and killing would be rude and offensive, in my book - do I have the right to complain and get that passenger booted?).

What about the parents who won't control their children? That's rude, in my book. Some of the most serious safety issues I've seen have been created by unruly children - should parents who board with unruly children be denied seats and booted?

Some people consider seatmates who won't chatter with them to be rude. Should they have the right to get you booted if you're rude enough to refuse to chatter?

I consider people who talk loudly to be rude. Let's boot them!

What many people (who support the passenger being removed because he used a profanity and was therefore "rude") are forgetting that there are many ways to be rude other than by using a profanity.

I presume the question is... when a pax is asked at 35k to stop their rude behavior, will they show indignant silence... or indignant rage? There's no right or wrong, and the only way to be proven right is to have an "incident".

For you Bruce Campbell fans... "Good? Bad? I'm the one with the gun." For the FA... "Good? Bad? I'm the one who can kick you off". If pax didn't act like children, FAs wouldn't have to act like parents.

Steve B.

there are many ways to be rude other ...

What about ...
In my opinion, it's rude to ...
And what about ...
What about ...
What if ...
What about ...
Some people consider...
I consider...

None of which has any relevance to this matter whatsoever. The post was not about 101 ways to be rude on an airplane. The OP was regarding a specific incident by a specific individual whose behavior suggested to the airline personnel that he would be a risk in the air.

And reportedly, he got to find a different way home. :D

I do believe that Lindisfarne's post is relevant, MikeMpls. The ?? is which types of rudeness are grounds for expulsion & how/where shall the line be drawn.

From my experience, people who object when rules are enforced often call the enforcer an a--hole or a manpart. Perhaps the FA was concerned about the Px's reluctance to obey rules & commands more than his saying 'a--hole':
'Gee, what if I order him to buckle up or put his seat up for landing & get more a--hole attitude?'

What if it were one of your biggest customers? I find that people will bend rules a lot easier when money (or loss of) is involved.

Let me ask this. If I were to call someone an a--hole on this forum, would I get kicked off or suspended? And if I did, would it be deserved?

I do believe that Lindisfarne's post is relevant, MikeMpls. The ?? is which types of rudeness are grounds for expulsion & how/where shall the line be drawn.


No it isn't. Silly "what if" games are for people who think they can weasle through anything.

Apparently, with some flight attendants, you don't need to use a profanity, nor do you need to be rude, to be faced with the threat of being removed from a flight:

This passenger was merely trying to get a refund of Coach Choice fees (after a plane change resulted in her not getting a Coach Choice seat) and trying to get the names of two rude flight attendants when she faced this threat. This kind of abuse of authority by flight attendants occurs far too frequently (perhaps their pay has gotten so low they just don't care any more).

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2006/email0331.htm
(go to bottom of page)

<snip>
The young lady seated in (the previously exit row) 24D had paid for that privilege, and headed up front to speak to the flight attendant about a refund. She came back to her seat visibly upset, saying the attendant had been very rude, telling her that she didn't have time to deal with this, it wasn't her job, and that the passenger would just have to deplane and discuss it with the gate agent. The passenger declined and returned to her seat, planning, I suspect, to deal with it at MSP. But she made the "mistake" of stopping another flight attendant passing in the aisle to ask the name of the first attendant. She refused, and subsequently sent the purser back to deal with this.

This terse employee informed the passenger that the flight was "light staffed", that this wasn't their job, and that the passenger would have to leave the plane to get this done. The passenger declined, saying she would resolve it on the other end. Then she politely asked for both the first attendant's name and the name of the person she was talking to. The purser ignored the question, said she would get a comment card, and walked away.

<snip>The purser came back once the plane began to taxi, but was now both rude AND confrontational. So much so that the male passenger in 23D started to intervene, saying "that's not right", and was told if he wasn't directly involved to "stay out it". The purser then went so far as to suggest that the passenger in 24D was being disruptive, that TSA rules precluded giving out the flight attendants' names, and that if it was a problem, they could turn the plane around and go back to the gate and "deal" with this. The pursers tone left little doubt that this was meant as a threat.
<snip>

With regards to the original post:

Does a pax have to be repeatedly rude or is one utterance sufficient for ejection?

Does the utterance have to be loud or can it be at a conversational level?


Does it have to be clearly "rude" or perceived as rude? ["You are being niggardly with the peanuts"]

Does it have to be understandable as an insult? Can I, in a calm manner, tell the FA that (s)he is being "a morning loaf waiting to be pinched" or something more obscure yet equally poetic?

Does the utterance have to be in American English for it to be considered rude?

And, when do passengers get to exercise zero-tolerance? The forum has had it's share of rude FA stories!

For all the pontification, some people dont like the a-word, others dont care; any attempts to justify rudeness as grounds for ejection are self-righteous at best.

Major difference in "Bag Nazi" being a reference to a comedy skitch about a "Soup Nazi". In my opinion F-you you're an a-h trumps funny-ha-ha in the how serious scale


I dont recall any PBS show with a comedy "skitch" about a "Soup Nazi.

Can't rely on a common cultural context, especially in the aviation industry.

If you do, you are being an "A-ticket"
[Not fun -> small-minded -> from the old days when each Disneyland ride needed a ticket, ranging from "A'" through "E", "A" being used for the "no fun" rides]

Which begs the question, could someone get ejected for calling FA an "A-ticket" if she wont give an extra glass of water? Probably not with NWA, since the FAs all remember when Kruschev was denied permission to visit Disneyland.

No it isn't. Silly "what if" games are for people who think they can weasle through anything.
Refusing to consider what-ifs is for people afraid of critical thinking.

Nothing personal.

Apparently, with some flight attendants, you don't need to use a profanity, nor do you need to be rude, to be faced with the threat of being removed from a flight

Of course you left out the best part of the story -- apparently both the purser and FA realized that they had screwed up & offered their names & a complaint form:


Later in the flight, the purser brought the comment/incident form, had 24D complete it, and then collected it, finally giving out her name, but refusing to disclose the first attendant's name. Subsequently, the first attendant came to 24D and gave her own name.


Their names are clearly legible on their badges. I've only failed to read one once when the purser deliberately covered his badge as I walked by, but I'd already been given his name by another FA, and it was also sent to me by PM within FT.

Flight attendants are human, too. Nobody's saying they won't misbehave from time to time. Hopefully, complaints will be duly filed and the misbehaving flight attendants will be disciplined.

However, that still has no bearing on the original post. Pax who threaten to be a risk in the air must not be allowed to fly. Personally, I prefer the "kill them all and let God sort them out" approach -- get them OFF the plane and let them discuss it will local management &/or law enforcement authorities while the plane continues on to its destination.

Welcome to the post-911 world.

None of which has any relevance to this matter whatsoever. The post was not about 101 ways to be rude on an airplane. The OP was regarding a specific incident by a specific individual whose behavior suggested to the airline personnel that he would be a risk in the air.

And reportedly, he got to find a different way home. :D
He mumbled the a-word under his breath - that suggests he will be a threat in the air?

Sounds to me that he encountered a drama-loving FA who was jonesing for a fix.

I can understand bouncing an abusive pax or caller, but a mumbled a-bomb? Too many people look for reasons to fake outrage so as to go passive-aggressive postal on a customer: "Ohhh, you let slip a naughty word, now I get to dump all over you, threaten you with arrest, ruin your day and cost you a lot money and I'll do it without raising my voice - aren't I superior to you?"

How about more reasoned approach? Ask the passenger to refrain from rude behavior, measure his response and then do a "threat assesment."

I formerly worked for a large legal database company. We routinely took calls from stressed out lawyers and many an f-bomb was dropped. A true professional can both ensure the behavior does not continue while still assisting the customer.

My advise to the FA: if you hate your life and your job so much that you feel the need to cause ruin to others who have done you such a small slight, get out of the industry - I don't want you on my next flight.

Refusing to consider what-ifs is for people afraid of critical thinking.

Nothing personal.

What-if's in this context are for those would needlessly rationalize anything ad infinitum.

Nothing personal. :rolleyes:

Pax posed a threat, crew made a decision and he was off the plane while it was still safe on the ground. Job well done, NW! ^

Pax posed a threat, crew made a decision and he was off the plane while it was still safe on the ground. Job well done, NW! ^
Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW. :td:

He mumbled the a-word under his breath - that suggests he will be a threat in the air?.

Might be a good idea if you were to reread the original post before you expound -- there were two such outbursts. A pattern was developing:

...I heard a pax call someone an "a$$-h0le" ...The pax tried to say that he did not call anyone that, but said they were "being an a$$" (I heard both comments - he lied the second time).

How about more reasoned approach? Ask the passenger to refrain from rude behavior, measure his response and then do a "threat assesment."

How do you know they weren't doing just that when the second outburst occurred? Not that it would make much difference to me.

A true professional can both ensure the behavior does not continue while still assisting the customer.

You weren't crewing an airplane. It's a whole different world.

Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW. :td:

Which shows you don't fly NW much, if at all, but are here only to troll the board. It's been 10 months since I had an issue w/ a NW flight attendant that was worth mentioning to NW.

Might be a good idea if you were to reread the original post before you expound -- there were two such outbursts. A pattern was developing:
You need to reread the OP. There was only once incident - the second use you are referring to (out of context) was when the pax was trying to talk his way out of getting the boot.

How do you know they weren't doing just that when the second outburst occurred? Not that it would make much difference to me.
No second outburst. We accept the story as presented - the purser told the man there was a zero tolerance policy, in other words, the decision was made in advance.

Pax posed a threat, crew made a decision and he was off the plane while it was still safe on the ground. Job well done, NW! ^Let us assume all he did was to use a profanity against the FA, no confrontation, no violence or threat of, then what threat specifically do you think this pax could have posed? Fine to say it is post 9/11 world but believe me oneday we can al become unsuspecting victims by virtue of either misunderstanding, harmless comments, minor alracations or loss of temper. Someone has to keep these FAs in check. It is abuse of power, many humans transform when they get any form of power over another, similar to what happens to men fighting war - the conquerers find it difficult not to impose their 'power' on those weaker as seen time and time again in various conflicts were the conquerers, otherwise normal law abiding citizens suddenly turn into abusive monsters. An FA would in any other setting would cope with personal attack in the way we all do and not by misinvoking their powers under the guise of 'threat to aircraft'.

I'm all for enforcing the rules and conducting one's self in a civilized manner. However, I'm a little curious about the so-called "zero tolerance policy". Unless this policy is explicitly stated, I don't think it's really enforceable. Of course the airline can do whatever it would like at the gate...but wouldn't this present a fairly juicy legal target down the line if someone were inclined to pursue it?

If the airline(s) don't spell out very specifically what's against the rules...and then don't in fact really say how the rules will be applied (i.e. "zero tolerance"), is it really reasonable to expect 100% compliance? IF NW does indeed have a zero tolerance policy for any kind of profane language...shouldn't the GA make such an announcement during boarding, or can't they post a sign at the podium/gate?

I've heard profanities from both other PAX and FAs. I've yet to see anyone thrown off the plane for it.

No it isn't. Silly "what if" games are for people who think they can weasle through anything.

Great point, my 13 year old is a master at the "what if's".

In all fairness though, in most meetings I attend there will always be a “what if’r” lurking someplace in the back. Typically these are people who do not have an original thought but feel the need to contribute to the conversation.

For example, “Jimmy your sales projection is 27% lower for the 2nd quarter”. Jimmy could what if this to; “ Yes but what if it were the 3rd quarter and I was on vacation?” :D

At the end of they day, dont be stupid and curse at cops, chiefs and FA's. My experience has been that you will never win. ;)

Which shows you don't fly NW much, if at all, but are here only to troll the board. It's been 10 months since I had an issue w/ a NW flight attendant that was worth mentioning to NW.
Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

You need to reread the OP. There was only once incident - the second use you are referring to (out of context) was when the pax was trying to talk his way out of getting the boot.

No second outburst. We accept the story as presented - the purser told the man there was a zero tolerance policy, in other words, the decision was made in advance.

I did reread it -- at least twice. The second incident only confirms that they were making the correct decision. The OP not only heard the profanity a second time, but the ex-pax was also trying to lie his way out of the situation. Good riddance!

Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW. :td:

Do you mean attacks like this or staying on subject? :D

agreed. We cannot condem without knowing the facts, which we do not.

agreed - we only know a small part of the story...

Am I actually reading this? NW FA's are like "men fighting war ... conquerors ... abusive monsters"?

My God, I think you're right: "Someone has to keep these FA's in check."

Down, FA, down! Somebody put on a leash on this mean FA, please!

FA's "transform when they get any form of power"? I can just see them now, back in the galley, doing their Incredible Hulk transformations as part of their pre-flight prep.

Sheeeeesh!

Let us assume all he did was to use a profanity against the FA, no confrontation, no violence or threat of, then what threat specifically do you think this pax could have posed? Fine to say it is post 9/11 world but believe me oneday we can al become unsuspecting victims by virtue of either misunderstanding, harmless comments, minor alracations or loss of temper. Someone has to keep these FAs in check. It is abuse of power, many humans transform when they get any form of power over another, similar to what happens to men fighting war - the conquerers find it difficult not to impose their 'power' on those weaker as seen time and time again in various conflicts were the conquerers, otherwise normal law abiding citizens suddenly turn into abusive monsters. An FA would in any other setting would cope with personal attack in the way we all do and not by misinvoking their powers under the guise of 'threat to aircraft'.

Since when does a calm statement that someone is being an a--hole constitute an 'outburst' anyway? Society has forgotten what the phrase 'loss of temper' really means! It was so different during Harry Truman's Presidency.

Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

The reliability and authority of the poster can be an essential element of any discussion. You pretty much lost it with this one:

Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW. :td:

No it isn't. Silly "what if" games are for people who think they can weasle through anything.

Your comment here is rude. Now - you weasle out of that...

Do you mean attacks like this or staying on subject? :D
Yes, actually. I'm discussing the instance being discussed and have not attacked anyone participating in the discussion.

The reliability and authority of the poster can be an essential element of any discussion. You pretty much lost it with this one:
Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

This thread has gotten ridiculous. No one actually knows what the circumstance was that got the pax thrown off. There could be a key element that we don't know about to have him removed. A F/A cannot single handedly make a decision to remove a pax. The capt. must become involved and the gate agent as well.

On the other hand, I had a pax removed on my last flight. My jumpseat was inoperable and rather than delay the flight, the mechanics taped it up, deferred it and gave me 1B. One pax was very upset because he wanted his FC upgrade. He sat down in 1B and said I would have to take his Y seat. I explained the situation and the necessity of being close to the broken jumpseat. I even gave him some amenity coupons. He wouldn't budge. He told me that during the flight he would be coming up to FC to take the seat as I wouldn't need it (a novel idea I thought). I told him that should we encounter turbulence I would be too far from my broken jumpseat. I empathized with him, it was a crappy situation but my job is to ensure everyone is safe...including me. If I am working in FC and turbulence hits, a seat in row 38 doesn't work for me.

In the end, he got abusive along with his unwillingness to move suggested to me that he would not be cooperative during the flight.

This thread has gotten ridiculous. No one actually knows what the circumstance was that got the pax thrown off. There could be a key element that we don't know about to have him removed. A F/A cannot single handedly make a decision to remove a pax. The capt. must become involved and the gate agent as well.

On the other hand, I had a pax removed on my last flight. My jumpseat was inoperable and rather than delay the flight, the mechanics taped it up, deferred it and gave me 1B. One pax was very upset because he wanted his FC upgrade. He sat down in 1B and said I would have to take his Y seat. I explained the situation and the necessity of being close to the broken jumpseat. I even gave him some amenity coupons. He wouldn't budge. He told me that during the flight he would be coming up to FC to take the seat as I wouldn't need it (a novel idea I thought). I told him that should we encounter turbulence I would be too far from my broken jumpseat. I empathized with him, it was a crappy situation but my job is to ensure everyone is safe...including me. If I am working in FC and turbulence hits, a seat in row 38 doesn't work for me.

In the end, he got abusive along with his unwillingness to move suggested to me that he would not be cooperative during the flight.
Sounds like somebody had to go ...

Good points all around.

Can you elaborate on what constitutes abusive?

Do you know of any scenarios where a pax deplaned citing concerns about the professionalism of the FA or crew? If so, what happens then?

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

And again, I ask, if were to call another FT member an a--hole here on the board, would it be considered grounds for a temporary or permanent suspension? Why or why not?

This thread has gotten ridiculous. No one actually knows what the circumstance was that got the pax thrown off. There could be a key element that we don't know about to have him removed. A F/A cannot single handedly make a decision to remove a pax. The capt. must become involved and the gate agent as well.

On the other hand, I had a pax removed on my last flight. My jumpseat was inoperable and rather than delay the flight, the mechanics taped it up, deferred it and gave me 1B. One pax was very upset because he wanted his FC upgrade. He sat down in 1B and said I would have to take his Y seat. I explained the situation and the necessity of being close to the broken jumpseat. I even gave him some amenity coupons. He wouldn't budge. He told me that during the flight he would be coming up to FC to take the seat as I wouldn't need it (a novel idea I thought). I told him that should we encounter turbulence I would be too far from my broken jumpseat. I empathized with him, it was a crappy situation but my job is to ensure everyone is safe...including me. If I am working in FC and turbulence hits, a seat in row 38 doesn't work for me.

In the end, he got abusive along with his unwillingness to move suggested to me that he would not be cooperative during the flight.

Did he have a 1B BP? Just curious....

As i've said one other time today. The mudslinging needs to stop.

And again, I ask, if were to call another FT member an a--hole here on the board, would it be considered grounds for a temporary or permanent suspension? Why or why not?
I honestly do not know. What if you used a smaller font and a cooler color followed by a smiley face? :)

Did he have a 1B BP? Just curious....

He did not. There were probably parts of the story I missed too. The gate agent was not aware that 1B should have been blocked. He came down to the airplane during boarding to give us bag check tags and he said FC will be full. I mentioned the 1B was blocked and he said he didn't know that. He could have issued the seat and then had to take it back which would have made anyone mad. I don't know what went on at the gate.

All I can tell you is that this guy was refusing to move from the seat, he was platinum and claimed he was next on the list for an upgrade. He got an apology and miles and he still chose to use profanity. In addition, he told 2 other people that he would be using "his" seat during the flight. I did not want to fight with him during the flight so I asked him to leave. His behavior on the ground indicated that we would have a problem in the air.

I dont recall any PBS show with a comedy "skitch" about a "Soup Nazi.

Can't rely on a common cultural context, especially in the aviation industry.

.

I think the reference was from Seinfeld - there was a character referred to as the "Soup Nazi" at restuarant who would deny service to people based on the slightest transgression.

Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW. :td:


Regarding your earlier question on what constitutes abusive: The above is a perfect example. A lot of FA’s don’t like being referred to as “Drama Freaks”.

Now please lets all play nicely. ;)

Regarding your earlier question on what constitutes abusive: The above is a perfect example. A lot of FA’s don’t like being referred to as “Drama Freaks”.

Now please lets all play nicely. ;)
Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

This entire discussion supports my comment made way up on page 2 "Sorry folks but one person's profanity is another person's everyday slang."

Flight attendants aren't trained anywhere near as well as many professionals who have authority over the public (police, military, etc.) - part of any such training always includes *what constitutes abuse of one's authority* and I suspect FAs don't get sufficient training in this area.

There are some people in this discussion thread who have been nasty and irate enough that I feel they have been far more rude than a passenger who says a$$-ole.

To some degree, we agree to having our rights limited when flying (just as you can't cry out "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater) but the airlines (and its employees) are not unrestricted in the degree to which they can limit our rights.

If, for example, an airline wants to restrict profanity, it needs (at the very least) to post the words it considers profane and be as consistent as possible in enforcing this restriction (including from its own employees - listen to flight attendants chatting in the galley sometime! I at times have contemplated writing a complaint as I don't think employees should be talking about clients (which passengers are) within 100 feet of them, if at all!).

Given what the OP said about the situation in the first and subsequent posts, I think the passenger has good reason for a law suit and hope he pursues this. No reasonable person could believe that a person who says/does what was described could be regarded as any kind of threat. You may not want to hear it, but part of being out in public is dealing with the public who might have mores and norms different from yours (if you can't deal, stay home).

I'm sure everyone here has a favorite word they occasionally use that to another could be offensive: "Jesus", "damn", "suck" (to an acquaintane of mine, this is a profanity), "$hit" (muttered under one's breath as yet another flight delay is announced), and so on. Are you willing to have all your conversations on an airline censored, with the penalty being getting booted off the plane if you dare utter a forbidden word?

The language I've heard in FC when there are 6-7 men (out of 8 seats) flying to/from business meetings is usually far worse than anything I've heard in coach (and certainly has included uses of "A$$ole"), so perhaps the airlines could begin by directing their policing attempts in first class (this would be the trial period).

Of course, this whole discussion is very Amero-centric. What about words like "bloody", "shag", "arse", (and I won't list others which to many British are every-day slang but to Americans are generally highly offensive).

(I suspect some here would say calling a FA a "drama freak" would be adequate to get a passenger booted (better add that to the list of profanities/restricted language) but I personally think it describes the FA's behavior fairly well (assuming the person who witnessed the situation got all the relevant details)) - perhaps "severely overreactive flight attendant who abuses her authority" would be a little more to the point - but not as concise.)

I honestly do not know. What if you used a smaller font and a cooler color followed by a smiley face? :)

Okay...And again, I ask, if someone were to call another FT member an a--hole here onthe board, would it be considered grounds for a temporary or permanent suspension? Why or why not? :cool:

Actually, the way the discussion is deteriorating I may find out soon enough. :D

Okay...And again, I ask, if someone were to call another FT member an a--hole here onthe board, would it be considered grounds for a temporary or permanent suspension? Why or why not? :cool:

Actually, the way the discussion is deteriorating I may find out soon enough. :D

Why would you object to being called "a hole"? (You can't call someone the profanity you mean on the board - it gets edited out - so your question is moot. :D In any case, the rules which can be imposed in a private forum such as FT are different from the rules which the courts will allow a business which serves the public to impose (of course, when security is of essence, the courts will give more leeway, but I don't think the courts would support the FA mentioned in the OP).

Okay...And again, I ask, if someone were to call another FT member an a--hole here onthe board, would it be considered grounds for a temporary or permanent suspension? Why or why not? :cool:It would be considered a personal attack. Go read the FlyerTalk terms of service. Such language is not tolerated on FlyerTalk. That's what the rules state. They make plenty of sense.Actually, the way the discussion is deteriorating I may find out soon enough. :DPlease don't think that the moderators actually enjoy handing out punishments.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Xyzzy
NW forum moderator

LEO = someone born in August???

Kidding
Also someone born in July! :rolleyes:

I've got to disagree with the general feeling here that the pax should have been removed for simply referring to someone as an "a$$hole". This isn't much different from saying to someone "You're a jerk" or "You're out of line". Sorry folks but one person's profanity is another person's everyday slang.
People need to clean up their slang! ;)

It would be considered a personal attack. Go read the FlyerTalk terms of service. Such language is not tolerated on FlyerTalk. That's what the rules state. They make plenty of sense.Please don't think that the moderators actually enjoy handing out punishments.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Xyzzy
NW forum moderator

Thank you for the response. My entire point that you kindly are helping me make is that if it is not appropriate here on an anonymous forum, why do you feel some of you feel it is appropriate on the airplane?

Well..... if someone came to your office and called you an a--hole, would you kick them out or let them stay, and perhaps serve them coffee as well???

Thank you for the response. My entire point that you kindly are helping me make is that if it is not appropriate here on an anonymous forum, why do you feel some of you feel it is appropriate on the airplane?

I believe the answer to this question is in my message #79 above. It's not that complicated.

Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

There is nothing personal in this. With your reference to NW FA's as "drama queens" and a "typical day on NW", you've made your credibility part of the topic.

Incidentally, I was rebooked from DL to NW today. The DL gate agent was a bit too agressive & put me on a NW flight as the jetway was closing (good job, DL! but just a little too good! :) ), so I ended up having the Plat line rebook it, checked in when the GA returned (directly into FC), and had a really nice flight back to MSP with wonderful FA's.

And that, my friends, is really a typical day on NW -- the front-line folks and crews are doing a great job in spite of the economic challenges that the airline faces.

Yes, I have my concerns with the long-term outlook for NW, and my wife & I are among those considering a switch to UA, but our concerns are not with those who are manning the gates, ticket counters & airplanes for NW.

I believe the answer to this question is in my message #79 above. It's not that complicated.

I respectfully disagree. As I stated in post #27 and I'll C & P the relevant part "Well, since the OP states that he only heard part of what happened and did not actually see anything why are we all getting our undies in a twist? I think the subject is better served in dealing in facts and the fact is, we do not have a complete picture of what transpired so all these comments are based on what if this and what if that."

You are condemning someone based on an incomplete picture and I sincerely doubt the courts would consider that as appropriate.

Thank you for the response. My entire point that you kindly are helping me make is that if it is not appropriate here on an anonymous forum, why do you feel some of you feel it is appropriate on the airplane?
Two quick ways to distinquish posting it in a forum and mumbling it on an airplane: one, you post it and it stays there forever, re-offending the target and exposing the vulgarity to others for associating with the target. In contrast, when you mumble it a few people may hear it, but it does not linger in the air for others who later walk by. Much greater harm having it posted. Two, the penalty for posting to a forum is a suspension from posting and searching. Offending users can still avial themselves of the services of the forum. On the plane, where the harm is lighter, the penalty is far more severe - threatened legal action, lost time, missed connections (luggage?) extra cost, missed meetings.

Getting removed from a plane is a real, substantial penalty that should not be metered out for a mumbled a-bomb.

In any case, the rules which can be imposed in a private forum such as FT are different from the rules which the courts will allow a business which serves the public to impose (of course, when security is of essence, the courts will give more leeway, but I don't think the courts would support the FA mentioned in the OP).

No it isn't. FT and NW are both private businesses. You have no right to post in FT, and you have no right to fly on NW. As long as they do not discriminate illegally (race, sex, etc.), your patronage is at their pleasure.

Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.
You love that line.. you attack FAs, but if someone pushes back on you for your comments..
Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

You are condemning someone based on an incomplete picture and I sincerely doubt the courts would consider that as appropriate.

I refer you to my post # 77, in particular "Given what the OP said about the situation in the first and subsequent posts, I think the passenger has good reason for a law suit and hope he pursues this. No reasonable person could believe that a person who says/does what was described could be regarded as any kind of threat. You may not want to hear it, but part of being out in public is dealing with the public who might have mores and norms different from yours (if you can't deal, stay home)."

Of course, the courts won't condemn the airline/FA if you or I went to court. But the passenger removed from the flight would have the full story and, if the person who witnessed the event more or less got the gist of the story, I believe the passenger would have a fairly solid court case.

The story told about this passenger is NOT isolated -- FAs *do* abuse their authority, and need to be better trained to *not*. Otherwise, the airlines will begin facing more and more lawsuits (which result in higher ticket prices for everyone).

There is nothing personal in this. With your reference to NW FA's as "drama queens" and a "typical day on NW", you've made your credibility part of the topic.

Incidentally, I was rebooked from DL to NW today. The DL gate agent was a bit too agressive & put me on a NW flight as the jetway was closing (good job, DL! but just a little too good! :) ), so I ended up having the Plat line rebook it, checked in when the GA returned (directly into FC), and had a really nice flight back to MSP with wonderful FA's.

And that, my friends, is really a typical day on NW -- the front-line folks and crews are doing a great job in spite of the economic challenges that the airline faces.

Yes, I have my concerns with the long-term outlook for NW, and my wife & I are among those considering a switch to UA, but our concerns are not with those who are manning the gates, ticket counters & airplanes for NW.
YMMV

Now, please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

Two quick ways to distinquish posting it in a forum and mumbling it on an airplane: one, you post it and it stays there forever, re-offending the target and exposing the vulgarity to others for associating with the target. In contrast, when you mumble it a few people may hear it, but it does not linger in the air for others who later walk by. Much greater harm having it posted. Two, the penalty for posting to a forum is a suspension from posting and searching. Offending users can still avial themselves of the services of the forum. On the plane, where the harm is lighter, the penalty is far more severe - threatened legal action, lost time, missed connections (luggage?) extra cost, missed meetings.

Getting removed from a plane is a real, substantial penalty that should not be metered out for a mumbled a-bomb.

You can rationalize it and play the "what if" game ad infinitum. The bottom line is that is not going to matter. If NW staff witness you behaving in a vulgur and/or threatening manner toward themselves or others, they have a decision to make, and they will make that decision.

Try suing them in conciliation court here in MSP and see how far you get in such a case. :D

You love that line.. you attack FAs, but if someone pushes back on you for your comments..
Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

The single FA is part of the discussion, just as the passenger. Many have commented and interpreted the pax. I have commented and interpreted the FA.

I refer you to my post # 77, in particular "Given what the OP said about the situation in the first and subsequent posts, I think the passenger has good reason for a law suit and hope he pursues this. No reasonable person could believe that a person who says/does what was described could be regarded as any kind of threat. You may not want to hear it, but part of being out in public is dealing with the public who might have mores and norms different from yours (if you can't deal, stay home)."

Of course, the courts won't condemn the airline/FA if you or I went to court. But the passenger removed from the flight would have the full story and, if the person who witnessed the event more or less got the gist of the story, I believe the passenger would have a fairly solid court case.

The story told about this passenger is NOT isolated -- FAs *do* abuse their authority, and need to be better trained to *not*. Otherwise, the airlines will begin facing more and more lawsuits (which result in higher ticket prices for everyone).

Removing someone for simply calling someone an a--hole would not seem reasonable. However, and I will repeat again that we do not know the whole story, the OP does not know the whole story and it is possible that the passenger was removed for somethiing more than simply that. If you called me an a--hole while I was working a flight or at my own place of business, I would not have you removed for simply that. It would be for the actions that either precipitated the insult or subsequent behavior.

You can rationalize it and play the "what if" game ad infinitum.
Note: not a single "what if" in the post to which you have responded.

The bottom line is that is not going to matter. If NW staff witness you behaving in a vulgur and/or threatening manner toward themselves or others, they have a decision to make, and they will make that decision.

Try suing them in conciliation court here in MSP and see how far you get in such a case. :D
Now we are returning to the issue: what is vulgur, what is threatening? A mumbled a-bomb is neither. The FA over-reacted and over-reached.

Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal asides.

The single FA is part of the discussion, just as the passenger. Many have commented and interprited the pax. I have commented and interpreted the FA.

... as we have commented and interpreted you. Your tag line is getting kind of repetitious. You hit rock bottom with the "drama queens" comment.

If you called me an a--hole ... at my own place of business, I would not have you removed for simply that. It would be for the actions that either precipitated the insult or subsequent behavior.

You very well end up on the losing end of a costly lawsuit if you removed someone from a public place of business simply for uttering that word. It does, however, depend on what your business is and how public it is. (Macy's, for example, would not stand a chance if they removed someone for simply using that word).

Even Cheney got away with using a profanity against a Senator on the floor of the Senate - and this was broadcast across the US.

Removing someone for simply calling someone an a--hole would not seem reasonable. However, and I will repeat again that we do not know the whole story, the OP does not know the whole story and it is possible that the passenger was removed for somethiing more than simply that. If you called me an a--hole while I was working a flight or at my own place of business, I would not have you removed for simply that. It would be for the actions that either precipitated the insult or subsequent behavior.
I completely agree.

My discussions have presumed, as they must, the story contained the relevant facts.

Looking larger, we don't know the full set and maybe it was reasonable and maybe it was not. My experience with NW, which has been the bulk of my travel for the past few years though I am with Onepass, has largely been negative.

You very well end up on the losing end of a costly lawsuit if you removed someone from a public place of business simply for uttering that word. It does, however, depend on what your business is and how public it is. (Macy's, for example, would not stand a chance if they removed someone for simply using that word).

Even Cheney got away with using a profanity against a Senator on the floor of the Senate - and this was broadcast across the US.

What would the cause of action be? Assault? Intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Note: not a single "what if" in the post to which you have responded.


Now we are returning to the issue: what is vulgur, what is threatening? A mumbled a-bomb is neither. The FA over-reacted and over-reached.

I am absolutely dense and have not been able to get a complete picture of what actually happened. Please enlighten me since you possess an insight to the truth of the situation that many of us don't. I apologize for my obtuseness. :(

You very well end up on the losing end of a costly lawsuit if you removed someone from a public place of business simply for uttering that word. It does, however, depend on what your business is and how public it is. (Macy's, for example, would not stand a chance if they removed someone for simply using that word).

Totally false. In Minnesota, for example, you can be banned from any business or residence by being asked to leave and told specificly to remain off the premises. If you return under those circumstance, you can be arrested for trespassing.

I am absolutely dense and have not been able to get a complete picture of what actually happened. Please enlighten me since you possess an insight to the truth of the situation that many of us don't. I apologize for my obtuseness. :(
You are forgiven. :rolleyes: Please read a post #99 above to better frame your perspective.

My discussion is based on the recitation of facts provided by the OP, framed by my experiences with NW. I appreciate there may be a slew of non-disclosed factors. However, if we declined to discuss anything wherein we had not obtained perfect knowledge, there would be little opportunity for debate.

I'll just do a quick in-and-out:

In all seriousness, unfortunately, profanity is a significant part of the American vernacular. You hear it everywhere. Distasteful, definitely, and deserving of an apology. But simply uttering a profanity is not grounds for removal, IMO. Of course, if there were other issues like disorderly conduct, public intoxication, etc. that would be a different story. Sometimes you just have to give people the benefit of the rigors of airline travel these days. Employees are upset at the company, or delays, or rude pax, or.... Pax are upset at the service, or missing an upgrade, or lack of overhead space, or TSA, or delays, or...

Some people find profanity very offensive, but when its heard on the radio, tv news, people on the bus, not to mention movies/music/etc., you sort of have to accept that it's part of our speech. Going to the extreme of removing a pax because they uttered a profanity is overboard, assuming there are no other factors as outlined above.

Totally false. In Minnesota, for example, you can be banned from any business or residence by being asked to leave and told specificly to remain off the premises. If you return under those circumstance, you can be arrested for trespassing.

Generally, a privately operated business is just that - private. A business can choose to exclude anyone (generally) with whom it does not seek to do business.

Other than suing under some assault or battery theory, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, I'm not certain what other causes of action anyone would have if they called an FA a profanity and were ejected from the plane, especially if reaccomodated on another flight (someone chime in if I'm overlooking something).

... as we have commented and interpreted you. Your tag line is getting kind of repetitious. You hit rock bottom with the "drama queens" comment.
I never said "drama queen" much less "drama queens." Drama Queen has a specific meaning I purposely avoided as it would be inappropriate.

I never said "drama queen" much less "drama queens." Drama Queen has a specific meaning I purposely avoided as it would be inappropriate.

Oops, the exact quote is:

Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW. :td:

Gee, so sorry, as if your refering to a "drama-freak FA" is any significant difference.

^ once again to the NW front-line employees & flight crews who do such a great job.

I don't think I've had this much fun since the Plat-for-$75 thread in the CO forum. :)

You are forgiven. :rolleyes: Please read a post #99 above to better frame your perspective.

My discussion is based on the recitation of facts provided by the OP, framed by my experiences with NW. I appreciate there may be a slew of non-disclosed factors. However, if we declined to discuss anything wherein we had not obtained perfect knowledge, there would be little opportunity for discussion.
The way I see it, unless the passenger suffered from Tourette's Syndrome, then a previous event unknown to all including the OP must have precipitated his utterance. I'm sorry if the majority of your travel experiences with NW have been negative but you shouldn't allow that to cloud your judgement especially in light of incomplete facts.

I never said "drama queen" much less "drama queens." Drama Queen has a specific meaning I purposely avoided as it would be inappropriate.

How do U draw the line between a drama queen & a drama freak? The latter includes men? ;)

Ok all the baiting and complaing and mudslinging really needs to stop. This is worse than dealing with children. Everyone consider this some type of warning :).

How do U draw the line between a drama queen & a drama freak? The latter includes men? ;)
Some men are queens, too.... ;)

Ok all the baiting and complaing and mudslinging really needs to stop. This is worse than dealing with children. Everyone consider this some type of warning :).

As the OP, I'll second that.

I started this thread hoping to begin an insightful discussion as to whether the FA or the pax had overstepped the bounds of appropriate behaviour. Clearly, there are FTers in both camps. I just didn't expect the battlefield between them.

I had hoped to find out if others had witnessed similar events. Were they common? What were the circumstances? Has this happened to, or been done by, someone here?

I admitted to the weakness of the lack of complete information in my initial posts. Parts of this thread have been insteresting, however, there has also been a lot of jumping to conclusions. Let's please stick to the information provided, incomplete though it may be. Provide relevant experiences. Share information (that IS what FT is all about).

Thank you.

I started this thread hoping to begin an insightful discussion as to whether the FA or the pax had overstepped the bounds of appropriate behaviour. Can I just ask for completeness and also for posterity (before this thread comes to an increasingly likely enforced termination), what was your opinion on this matter? From the bit you did hear/witness, did you think it was appropriate to disembark the pax?

The way I see it, unless the passenger suffered from Tourette's Syndrome, then a previous event unknown to all including the OP must have precipitated his utterance. I'm sorry if the majority of your travel experiences with NW have been negative but you shouldn't allow that to cloud your judgement especially in light of incomplete facts.My review of the facts presented in the OP and in the subsequent clarifying posts show a pax who mumbled an a-bomb, sat down, was perfectly calm and was tossed from the plane.

Using the facts as given, this was over-reaching and over-reacting by the FA and is consistent with the hostility NW FAs have displayed to pax of late. I'm sorry the FAs don't like their contracts, sorry they feel that NW has unfairly cut their benefits and sorry they think pax don't pay enough. But that is no excuse to take it out on pax and cause such substantial harm to a pax because of a mumbled, low-grade swear word.

I don't think I've had this much fun since the Plat-for-$75 thread in the CO forum. :) :rolleyes:

Using the facts as given, this was over-reaching and over-reacting by the FA and is consistent with the hostility NW FAs have displayed to pax of late. I'm sorry the FAs don't like their contracts, sorry they feel that NW has unfairly cut their benefits and sorry they think pax don't pay enough. But that is no excuse to take it out on pax and cause such substantial harm to a pax because of a mumbled, low-grade swear word.


Originally Posted by JMR
Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW.


Ok you can go home now. Your issues with NW, NW’s FA’s and a number of NW forum contributors are well known and understood.
Thanx for playing and may the force be with you. ^

Originally Posted by JMR
Drama-freak FA has bad day, takes it out on PAX, typical day for NW.


Ok you can go home now. Your issues with NW, NW’s FA’s and a number of NW forum contributors are well known and understood.
Thanx for playing and may the force be with you. ^
Sigh - are you so afraid of addressing the substantive facts that you can only resort to attacking me? Are you suggesting only those who agree with you are welcome to post?

Your issues with reasoned debate are noted, so please feel welcome to move along. This is a free thinking zone and it can get messy.

Let us now return to the topic at hand: I've explained why I believe the FA was out of line. Can anyone offer an intelligent reason why mumbling a low-grade swear word warrants getting removed from the plane?

Sigh - are you so afraid of addressing the substantive facts that you can only resort to attacking me? Are you suggesting only those who agree with you are welcome to post?

Your issues with reasoned debate are noted, so please feel welcome to move along. This is a free thinking zone and it can get messy.

Let us now return to the topic at hand: I've explained why I believe the FA was out of line. Can anyone offer an intelligent reason why mumbling a low-grade swear word warrants getting removed from the plane?


Ok well since this thread has pretty much been hijacked by a few. I'm going to close it. This isnt' getting anywhere.