The First Amendment never applied to private businesses in the first place.

Here you are wrong. When a ticket is purchased, a contract is formed between the carrier and the passenger; it is called the contract of carriage. It explains when a carrier may refuse travel and I doubt the F-ford is on the list.

The condition of carriage allow the carrier to deny boarding at its discretion, however. That discretion could be anything even if it's something like how the passenger is dressed or the language used by the passenger.

The passenger is entitled to IDB compensation, after which the ticket is invalid.

Or this one.

Wrong!!

Actually, ASA is bound by Delta's CoC. And if Delta's CEO decided they wouldn't transport any pax who cursed, they would have to amend the CoC. Any passengers who bought tickets under the old CoC would still be bound by that contract. Also, as a common carrier in a "deregulated" industry, Delta's CEO is not free to make decisions at a whim. He is still subject to massive amounts of federal regulations.

Despite your logical errors, you happen to also be right in this case, because the current CoC covers this situation:as long as you can say cursing is disorderly or abusive, and that the language may impact the comfort of other passengers.

You are wrong.

An airline can simply exercise the "discretion" clause and order every gate agent and flight attendant to IDB anyone who cursed because the CEO has decided he doesn't want any of his employees to be made uncomfortable by hearing the F-word. That requires zero change to the CoC.

A common carrier is only barred from discrimination in specific ways (race, religion, etc...) and people who use the F-word isn't a protected class. Therefore the airline CEO would be completely within his rights to order every employee to enforce the new rules.

Except it's not their policy. In fact, delta apologized to the man. It was only a fa's paranoia or hypersensitivity. And if it were their policy, which it clearly is not, it would be an asinine policy and maybe customers should no so they can give their business elsewhere.

It is the policy of the airline to give FA's discretionary authority to IDB the passenger.

The FA may face problems internally, but the passenger has no rights beyond IDB compensation.

What about the Jet Blue passenger who was removed from the flight due to his "offensive" t-shirt? I seem to remember that he got a decent settlement.

Mike

He may have, but he didn't get back on that flight.

The right to do something doesn't mean the person acting is free from consequences.

Nevertheless, it's a falsehood to believe that a ticket is somehow a guarantee of a "right" to fly. It's just a commercial transaction which the airline can void at its discretion.

A ticket is a contractual right to fly, and can be enforced, at law, as a contract. If he was not disruptive under a reasonable construction of the term, he was in compliance with the CoCs and the airline was in breach. No once can simply "void" a contract at their discretion -- that renders the contract illusory and unenforceable. Airline CoCs have a lot of conditions under which the airline can deny passage. It cannot, however, arbitrarily deny passage for reasons outside the express terms.

~$244,000 paid by JetBlue and/or taxpayers.

Beat the rap not the ride much? :rolleyes:

Oh, and speaking of consequences, I think JetBlue and the feds wish they let him board that flight, and I'd bet that they adjusted their attitudes and policies so that they don't get dinged again..

A countract is a contract; it has terms. To call it a transaction that can be voided at a whim is to misunderstand the term "contract". In this case, "if [the passenger] was not disruptive under a reasonable construction of the term, he was in compliance with the CoCs and the airline was in breach."* A reasonable construction of a term is not something left to the whim of a CEO; the discretion is limited.

*Quoting PT.

That is because while IDB can be done at discretion, it violates the law if that discretion is based on racism.

That was what Raed Jarrar alleged and it's why he had standing to bring a case. He wasn't suing because of a breach of the conditions of carriage - he was suing on the basis that a common carrier can't discriminate on race.You are wrong.

The contract specifically allows boarding to be denied at the discretion of airline staff, even if that decision appears to be a "whim".

'Fraid not. Look up the definition of, "illusory consideration."

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...nts-plane.html

Take a look at this story just posted and show me where the "illusory consideration" is.

The terms of arlines' conditions of carriage has been challenged many times, and I have yet to hear of a single court claim "illusory consideration" and revoke the contract.