Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Four Brooklyn men claim they were kicked off flight for looking too Muslim

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Four Brooklyn men claim they were kicked off flight for looking too Muslim

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 21, 2016, 10:55 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
From the American Airlines Contract of Carriage:



INAL but seems like American, and I would think other airlines use similar language, can remove a person for just about any reason or no reason.

Maybe flyer groups need to challenge the validity of these one sided contracts.
I'm not seeing that from this list. I don't think the list covers an idiot FA panicking. I don't see where these guys did anything on the list.
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2016, 11:27 am
  #47  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SAN
Posts: 284
I'm not a legal expert by any means but this to me seems to suggest that the list is not all inclusive.

for one or several reasons, including but not limited to:
In other words the reason does not even have to be on the list to be considered valid. So it does seem to me they can remove you for any reason of their choice.
blue_can is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2016, 11:46 am
  #48  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by blue_can
I'm not a legal expert by any means but this to me seems to suggest that the list is not all inclusive.



In other words the reason does not even have to be on the list to be considered valid. So it does seem to me they can remove you for any reason of their choice.
Just because a contract says that other grounds for terminating/changing contract are not ruled out does not mean that the other grounds are valid legal grounds for terminating/changing the contract without counterparty consent.

Just because a contract has a clause doesn't necessarily make that clause enforceable in any and all courts of law.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2016, 11:52 am
  #49  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SAN
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Just because a contract says that other grounds for terminating/changing contract are not ruled out does not mean that the other grounds are valid legal grounds for terminating/changing the contract without counterparty consent.

Just because a contract has a clause doesn't necessarily make that clause enforceable in any and all courts of law.
I understand there are exceptions such as violating federal anti-discrimination laws. But assuming whatever reason does not fall into these categories and is not on the list, if it not legally enforceable why have the contract worded in the way it has been done?
blue_can is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2016, 1:16 pm
  #50  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by blue_can
I understand there are exceptions such as violating federal anti-discrimination laws. But assuming whatever reason does not fall into these categories and is not on the list, if it not legally enforceable why have the contract worded in the way it has been done?
Because companies want to try to have their cake and eat it too, if they can find a gullible party or a corporate apologist to fall for or sell the contract of adhesion's language as if the open-ended language is the final word in some court or another even when it isn't.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2016, 8:53 pm
  #51  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Originally Posted by perbinder
This the reason as a Sikh I have stopped flying AA and flying to the USA. I now prefer to spend my money where it is wanted.

However, I did see in the comments of an American newspaper that the commentator was a passenger on the flight and these guys were drunk and boisterous.

Looking at the Sikh guys pics - may not be too shocked by that.

Guess the real truth will not come out unless there really is a trial.
In other words, perhaps "Muslim" has nothing to do with it. Drunk & boisterous should be kicked off the plane.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2016, 9:15 pm
  #52  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
In other words, perhaps "Muslim" has nothing to do with it. Drunk & boisterous should be kicked off the plane.
We know they weren't drunk and boisterous because that would have been mentioned at the time. The only claim we have that they did anything wrong is by some random commenter on a newspaper story.

The commenter was either Annie Jacobsen or Todd Petruna.
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2016, 12:43 pm
  #53  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: YOW
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by Carl Johnson
OK, my defense of the FA on the ground that the FA was "too dumb to pour rainwater out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel," and my (apparent) contention that stupidity is a legitimate defense for the FA's behavior didn't clue you in to my true attitude?
My Apologies- I misread your statement.
mromalley is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.