... a danger?
 

Children's author removed from flight for wondering ... was taking so long.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110614/..._plane_cursing

:eek: 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!

Every day, when I read this forum, I always think of the phrase 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Another example of I can so therefore I will. I hope they hold this flight attendant accountable for their actions.

The day they figure out how to read my mind?
I'll be put in a cage for the rest of my life.

Wow. Just wow.

That is funny... although you know what they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I guess I'd better not try to read THIS children's book on the aircraft...

Probably too much to hope that the flight attendant was immediately fired. Way too much to hope that they never end up in another position where they might actually have to interact with a human being.

Always a favorite.

Mike

A Brooklynite cursing? How could that be dangerous, or even unusual?

A lot of them use curse words as adjectives on a regular basis.

And as nouns, verbs and gerunds.

Hell, that's suspicious behavior on its own. "The guy's from NYC and he's not cursing? Better pull him aside for secondary screening. Something's not right about this."

;);) thanks, that was just too funny...

Quote: "We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused," the airline statement said.

Mike Yup, it should be "We apologize for the massive unimaginable inconvenience this obviously caused, but we will do nothing to make up for it".

LOL! Thanks for pointing this one out, Joe! I've got to get this for my son and daughter-in-law. My grandson is just like his dad when it comes to bedtime, fighting sleep until the absolute last minute. I LOVE it! :D

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.

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.

Sorry, missed this.

When a passenger is involuntarily removed from the flight by the airline's employee, the contract stipulated IDB compensation as well as a refund if the passenger is not rebooked on another flight. After that process, the ticket is no longer valid and the individual no longer has a valid contract.

Thus the contract was fulfilled in every particular - even if the passenger didn't make it on the plane.

IDB does not mean the airline just "void" a contract. It means the airline exercised its rights within the contract to void the passenger's passage on its plane.

You are wrong. First, for the reasons PTravel stated regarding illusory contracts. Second, here's the actual Delta contract of carriage (pdf). It doesn't say they can refuse to transport passengers on a whim or at the discretion of airline staff. Refusal to transport must be reasonable.

You should actually read the article that you linked to. The US Air contract of carriage specifically forbids "indecent exposure or inappropriate" attire. He was denied boarding because his pants were below his butt, "indecent exposure." The airline spokesperson justified the refusal to carry based on that clause of the contract of carriage.

Just because that was the stated reason, does not mean that it was the real or entire reason. What if, for example, a jury can be convinced that far more "inappropriately" dressed passengers are allowed by the airline to fly?

If the passenger sues USAir for this, he could potentially win. I wasn't defending what the USAir employee did or stating that it was justified. I was commenting on Plato's assertion that the incident demonstrated that passengers could be denied boarding on an airline employee's whim and that the contract of carriage allows airlines to do whatever they want. The airline is (so far) defending this as pursuant to a specific clause in the contract of carriage.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were. I quoted that part of your post merely to show the particular point I was addressing.

You are wrong.

Please point out for us where the CoC states such a requirement to be "reasonable".You should read what PTravel is claiming.

The theory of "illusory consideration" is that if the passenger didn't read the contract and didn't understand it, then he can't be bound by it. If that was actually true instead of a legal fiction, then US Air couldn't enforce the dress code at all.

If you concede that US Air had the legal right via the condition of carriage to deny boarding to that person, then the whole idea of "illusory consideration" is already thrown out the window because you've bound the passenger to the contract.

Wearing a t-shirt is not "acting".

I was referring to the airline employee.

Tell that to Megan Fox.

One more time: Airlines cannot refuse passage "on a whim," as you claimed. This is Contracts 101. Don't believe me if you want, I'm not getting into an argument with you about it.