Originally Posted by
Wally Bird
We're at an impasse.
My lay reading is that, absent any specific exclusion, the right to travel applies equally to all modes and I really don't follow the argument about any implicit, unspecified prohibitions. So we'll leave it there.
I would agree with you here if there was a simple addition.
Every mode of transport, no exceptions, has its regulatory requirements and / or laws that govern what you can and cannot do while performing that mode of transportation or requirements that one must meet before using a particular mode of transport. Air travel is no different. Most, if not all, are designed for the safety of the traveler and any other member of the citizenry that may be affected by an individuals use of a transportation mode. Its been this way for more than a century. As each new mode of transportation has been added to our choices along with them have come restrictions and requirements.
In the case here, the ultimate authority on who can or cannot board an aircraft is the aircraft commander. To deny someone passage on his aircraft he / she must have a tangible and rational reason for the decision. In this case it was the comfort, and possibly the safety, of the other passengers on board the aircraft. It was his decision and his alone. None of us were there, we don’t know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PIC’s (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We don’t have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.