Acceptable ...disregarded ... I am not and have no intention of being judge & jury over the OP or the situation but most of the others posters on this thread have put themselves into that position. My issue is totally with those responses that indicate the FAs actions are acceptable solely because one and there was ONLY ONE per the OP, curse word escaped the OPs mouth. Let's not forget per the OP, that one curse was also not directed at the FA, but the situation.

We don't and likely will never know the full story, but the people posting on this thread are saying that the FA's actions are fully acceptable because *gasp* someone cursed in the FAs presence. Get a life folks, open your ears ... without substantially more to this story - e.g. was the OP standing the aisle ranting in the FAs face, did they make a move to stand up, were they addressing comments to directly rile up other passengers -- and there is nothing to substantiate any of those scenarios. Still, the posters here want to tar and the feather the OP because he cursed ... once ... about the situation? Sorry, I cannot, do not and will not understand that position.

The FA was incorrect to get law enforcement involved without SOMETHING else to this story which the OP doesn't detail and very possibly does not exist. Note that none of my "other" incidents in any way, shape or form are related to the fact that the guy cursed.

I too am under 35, and if the OP was loud and obnoxious, while cursing, I could understand the FA's actions.

I do however, agree that total incompetence and unresponsive FAs are "f-n ridiculous" just wouldn't say it out loud.

R/
Dan

Yes, it probably is wasting money on lawyers, unless going through small claims court, but what misdemeanor? People can mention "misdemeanor" all they want in an effort to smear paint, but that paint has not been applied legally when the police haven't filed charges with prosecutors pursuing them and getting a conviction.

There's a contract for passage between A and B, even if one party was in breach. If AA doesn't want to fulfill on that contract or reimburse the counterparty, they may end up paying more to defend themselves by asserting breach by counterparty than it costs to reimburse the counterparty.

Well said. I would add ...

When you use a curse in a restaurant you are not detained by police. I am sure the px would have been delighted to have been told to immediately leave the airplane. :)

Related topic -- I noticed an uptrend in customer service people seemingly trying to get you to curse so as to then have an excuse to deny you further service. IOW: "Now that I've screwed up enough to make you curse I can quit trying to correct my mistakes."

Like others have stated, only one of us knows what really happened, and there could be somewhat, yet unlikely circumstances that led to the FAs actions.

There was no breach of contract, as the px made it from point A to B. There is also no denying that cursing in VA is in fact a misdemeanor. Going to court, and not denying the admitted infraction was committed; however stupid it is, would not be recommended, as you would only be waiting your own time and money.
The OP, and I would do the same in his shoes, should state his case to Customer Relations and he will be more likely to receive compensation than pursuing the legal route.

That old line of "there's always more to the story" is not going to add to the discussion.

Did I disagree with any of that before? No.

Crying "misdemeanor" is with little legal substance when there's no charge with prosecution and conviction for that charge.

You seem to be saying that perjury is smart. Perjury is stupid. Also, admitting cursing is not a one-way ticket to a conviction or even to losing a case in Virginia.

And if the OP doesn't receive what the OP considers adequate compenastion through that route, there's always the small court game, one that will likely cost AA more money and may even bring some satisfaction to the OP for this ridiculous situation.

Professionalism is going away...this story is a perfect example..the recent story about the cop that went off on the kid near St.Louis is another. Saying "f*ck" in this context is not worthy of being booted and having LE called EVER. Anyone that says otherwise is trying to justify bad behavior.

Power corrupts and it has been known since the beginning of time. Stewardesses/Stewards have been given too much leeway with the whole "disobeying flight crew" rules...wait staff don't have this luxury and it's why you don't get tossed from restaurants.

Yes being nice is best...but saying "f*ck" when frustrated is not a big deal...geesus.

This FA needs to get a new job if she's so delicate the mere mention of the word f*ck within her earshot sends her off the deep end.

Unless the OP was a real threat (which the LEOs apparently determined was not the case), it was a waste of everyone's time. She missed a great opportunity to build some customer goodwill by empathizing with the customer and assuring him it was frustrating for her as well.

If you agree that the FA acted reasonably, you may want to become a recluse and avoid all contact with the outside world because some of us say F*CK when we're frustrated. F*cking deal with it.

Isn't leaving out the swearing part kind of a lie and changes the complexion of the whole incident. Not to mention that it seems as if it puts more on the FA who didn't start the whole thing to begin with? And doesn't it seem its being cleaned up to the airline so it feels more obligated to compensate the instigator of this mess? Just asking.

So why can't you deal with frustration without saying the f-word..limited vocabulary?

That is totally and entirely irrelevant ... can YOU deal with hearing it or do you jump off the deep end like the FA apparently did per the OP and call the POLICE?

No, I wouldn't jump off the deep end but why is his need to use that kind of language, in an inappropriate setting, more important than our desire to not have to hear it. As I've said before, we have lowered our standards in everything to just about rock bottom. It doesn't matter whether the whole plane heard or just a few. Everyone else was dealing with the same situation and could do it without creating the situation that arose. And then his behavior delayed them even longer, because they had to sit and wait for him to be escorted off the plane first.

The situation in general, we don't know whose "fault" that is other than what we've been told and the airline/airport for making the plane sit on the tarmac. The latter delay is the FAs fault for calling the police in the first place, no one elses ...

Having to "hear" the word ... wow - ever hear of tolerance? Your standard is different than many others, sorry you're so unaccepting that anyone can differ from your perception and expectations in their behavior.

OH - and the most important part, how do YOU know what others on the flight were saying, feeling or doing?

:rolleyes: What would the FA have done at another airport in another state without the antiquated swear word law ? I think she still would have had the OP removed. The FA was frustrated herself (maybe with AA, maybe with her long day), annoyed by the passenger, and didn't follow basic customer service rules about what to do with unhappy customers.

Excuse me, did I miss a part about the captain having to call a whole squad of airport police because there were so many other people on the flight that didn't know how to deal with the delays?

Going back to the tolerance remark, this sounds like we are suppose to ignore a two year old throwing a tantrum because he is not getting his instant gratification.