Originally Posted by Plato90s
All of the examples cited (false arrest, sentence death) involve somebody in a position of authority breaking the law. There are penalties associated with littering, and a judge sentencing a penalty beyond what the law allows is breaking the law.
That is not the case here. A fact not in dispute is that the ejected passenger did disobey the instructions of the FA when he sat down in 1A despite his request being denied.
Not so. This "fact" is most certainly in dispute. The passenger said the the FA did not tell him not to sit in 1A. Blumie says the FA said only, "Flight is full."
False arrest is not against the law, per se. It is a civil matter. One can sue the officer or department, but not have the offending party arrested as a ciminal. The only way that I know of for the government to step in would be if another, higher jurisdiction intervened, such as prosecuting the offending cops for violation of the person's civil rights under the constitution.
Originally Posted by Plato90s
Thus the entire analogy is false. The FA's authority was properly invoked, and he was not breaking the law to do so.
Not so. Since the passenger did nothing to compromise security, and since he did not disobey a proper instruction, then the FA exceeded his authority. He does not have the authority to throw anyone off the plane without sufficient reason. (The erroneuous information, "the flight is full," contains no instruction at all, lawful or otherwise. The passenger said he did not hear it anyway. That Blumie heard it doesn't mean the passenger did. My hearing is not as good as many people's and I often have to ask what was said that others did hear.)
Originally Posted by Plato90s
The continued mixup between the desire for what is "right" in someone's opinion to be the equivalent of "legal" is the problem. Your line of argument works backwards from the desired result, and then assigns blame based on whoever acted to create the "wrong" solution. Since the FA had the ability to avert the "wrong" solution, he must have been at fault for things not turning out "right".
No. I wish you would not put words in my mouth. Every response of yours has misunderstood my position and you put your minsunderstanding back in my mouth. Someone took an egregiously wrong action which resulted in an injustice being meted out to someone who did not deserve it. This didn't just happen. Someone did it. That person is responsible for their judgement.
It is you, my friend, who are trying to make what you think is right into a legally justifiable action: the ejection. From all available information it simply was not.
I just don't get how you can think that every FA should be able to eject anyone they want without good cause!
Originally Posted by Plato90s
Since everyone's view of "right" and "wrong" differs from other people, this line of thought creates an adversarial environment where someone is always wrong.
My perspective is that we have laws and procedures which allow everything to know what their rights and responsibilities are. When due process is followed, I respect the results even if I disagree with it. But if the process continues to produce the "wrong" results, I'd work to change the process. People who believe the process created the "right" results would oppose the change.
But we're not fighting about the immediate result, but are instead working on changing how things are done. There's a lot more chance for compromise solutions that a confrontation over specific situations.
I agree. However, it is not an "either/or" situation. It is both/and.
Yes, a better process needs to be instituted with proper training. I would like to think that Blumie's letter alone would bring that about.
However, an egregious wrong in a situation should
also be addressed on its own merits.
If AA or the FA gets away with cowing people and abusing their rights - even if they are a jerk according to whomever - then there is no impetus for them to correct behavior. This is the part of the reason for so called zero-tolerance re air-rage ... to send a message. Well air-rage can go both ways, and those in authority who sucumb to it also need to be sent a message.
If the FA was 1/100th as hard to convince of the error of his action as you have been to see that he was wrong, then he would never have impetus to change without a penalty.
What's more, all cabin crews need to know that their power must be properly used and that they are not immune when they abuse a passenger.
Originally Posted by Plato90s
That's why I really approve of Blumie's reaction. He thought it was the wrong result, and he's suggesting an alternative to the people who can help change the process to prevent a recurrence.
I also approve of Blumie's action.
However, Plato90s, c'mon. If it was the wrong result, then the FA did not do his job correctly to say the least. Why are you so protective of FAs?
If that is so, then a penalty should apply. Just as we have seen air-rage passengers prosecuted and sued for damages, so should errant FAs. I am NOT one of those who is against FAs and for passengers by reflex, nor the other way around. Whoever causes harm should be subject to correction and perhaps to penalty.
I hope the passenger - with supporting witnesses like Blumie - will cause this particular FA to be corrected ... and firmly.
Best wishes. Back to the game.