... a danger?
Jun 14, 2011 | 10:48 pm
#16
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,783
Jeez...I guess we all had better watch our "potty-mouths" from now on! This is frightening, because I too have a tendancy to use a lot of four-letter words when I am tired and frustrated. I guess the 1st amendment doesn't apply to air travel in general after all. Wow, just, wow!
Jun 14, 2011 | 10:58 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,681
The word "dangerous" or "danger" did not appear anywhere in the article linked by the OP.
It's just a matter of faulty assumption that the passenger was removed because he posed a danger. Atlantic Southeast Airline being a privately owned company, they can choose to deny boarding to anyone they don't want to carry.
If the CEO of the airline just decided he didn't want any passengers who use the F-word in earshot of his employee - the airline can make it a policy to deplane any passenger who utters the F-word.
It's just a matter of faulty assumption that the passenger was removed because he posed a danger. Atlantic Southeast Airline being a privately owned company, they can choose to deny boarding to anyone they don't want to carry.
If the CEO of the airline just decided he didn't want any passengers who use the F-word in earshot of his employee - the airline can make it a policy to deplane any passenger who utters the F-word.
Jun 14, 2011 | 11:01 pm
#18
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,783
The passenger is entitled to IDB compensation, after which the ticket is invalid.
Jun 15, 2011 | 12:56 am
#20
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
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:
Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, or may remove any passenger from its aircraft, when refusal to transport or removal of the passenger is reasonably necessary in Delta’s sole discretion for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees. By way of example, and without limitation, Delta may refuse to transport or may remove passengers from its aircraft in any of the following situations:
1) When the passenger’s conduct is disorderly, abusive or violent.
1) When the passenger’s conduct is disorderly, abusive or violent.
Jun 15, 2011 | 5:57 am
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,783
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.
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.
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.
Jun 15, 2011 | 7:33 am
#22
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
The word "dangerous" or "danger" did not appear anywhere in the article linked by the OP.
It's just a matter of faulty assumption that the passenger was removed because he posed a danger. Atlantic Southeast Airline being a privately owned company, they can choose to deny boarding to anyone they don't want to carry.
If the CEO of the airline just decided he didn't want any passengers who use the F-word in earshot of his employee - the airline can make it a policy to deplane any passenger who utters the F-word.
It's just a matter of faulty assumption that the passenger was removed because he posed a danger. Atlantic Southeast Airline being a privately owned company, they can choose to deny boarding to anyone they don't want to carry.
If the CEO of the airline just decided he didn't want any passengers who use the F-word in earshot of his employee - the airline can make it a policy to deplane any passenger who utters the F-word.
Jun 15, 2011 | 7:37 am
#23
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,783
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.
The FA may face problems internally, but the passenger has no rights beyond IDB compensation.
Jun 15, 2011 | 3:04 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,684
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.
The passenger is entitled to IDB compensation, after which the ticket is invalid.
Mike
Jun 15, 2011 | 5:36 pm
#25
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,783
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.
Jun 15, 2011 | 5:39 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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.
Jun 15, 2011 | 6:05 pm
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,681
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..
*Quoting PT.
Jun 15, 2011 | 6:30 pm
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,783
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".
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.
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.
*Quoting PT.
The contract specifically allows boarding to be denied at the discretion of airline staff, even if that decision appears to be a "whim".
Jun 15, 2011 | 6:42 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Jun 15, 2011 | 6:47 pm
#30
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,783
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.
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.