Oh my he jokingly asked a question! GASP!! He must be punished, he is a career criminal!! I'll bet he was the proverbial "Class Clown" back in elementary school as well!

:rolleyes:

The story states that the baby was asleep on her mothers lap. Even if the baby was screaming, that is no reason to be sitting across from her, staring at her. That is creepy behavior. If you did the same thing outside a school, staring at a child for hours, you'd be arrested. Does anyone know what happened to this guy?

Being the proveribal "class clown" may be fine. Altough now as an adult you are responsible for you gestures and actions.

Some places and topics are not acceptable to joke about. A prime example is stating you have a bomb on an airplane. The outcome of the situation may not be what the subject initially expected.

Your comment has what bearing on the situation which I noted? Little to none, as far as I can tell. On the NW flight of which I was speaking, the fellow was knowledgeable enough to know to "obey" -- like a well-trained dog -- any and all ridiculous orders of the NW crew -- two of which certainly had a "chip on their shoulder".

As I explained before, people like to "test the waters" and push their limits with others. I would believe that it would be safe to say an A/C is not the place to do it now.

I find it hard to believe that the person in question did absolutely nothing but make a light-hearted comment and then was forced to suffer the wrath of the F/A and the Capt. :rolleyes:

In the last four years and numerous flights, I have only observed the Capt. come out and address someone on a couple of occasions.

Maybe it wasn't the comments that the subject made while on the A/C but the ones he made to the ticket agent or possibly other passengers on the jet bridge. ;)

There are always two sides to every story.

You can find hard to believe whatever you wish to find hard to believe. But your claim is an empty one as I was there and you were not.... and I and my companions were in front of him and behind him from the beginning to the end. ;)

There are not always two sides to every story, and there are certainly not two realities. ;)

There are not two realities and there is your side and the airline crews side.
I believe that would be.....two. ;)

edit:still can't spell

From the article:

This guy subjected himself to suspicion and sanction as soon as he refused to move. He IS lucky he didn't end up dead. If it had been me, my wife, and my daughter, I'm not so sure he would have been so fortunate.

Just out of curiosity, I have to ask: "Are you a fan of building your house of cards on quicksand?"

In the following account, what exactly are you disputing?

Well, what? His tone of voice? Big deal. :rolleyes:

It's probably pointless to ask, so Keep Imagining the Dream, as you wish or not.

The pilot even acknowledged that the above happened and the FA did not dispute the account. ;)

Acknowledged what happened? :confused:

The pilot acknowledged that he kicked him off the flight? The pilot acknowledged that the subject fully complied?

:confused:

Yes and yes .... although I don't think the pilot cared whether or not the compliant party was wise or not. ;)

Do you wish to try to build a house of cards somewhere other than on quicksand next time? :D

Then the subject did do something for the pilot to justify him being kicked off the flight.

Every dispute has to sides. As does this one. ;)

The pilot admitted he made a mistake, and so did the FA. ;)

Their joint-excuse was that they were having a bad evening given a drastic change to their plans too and if NW didn't have a crew and equipment reallocation, they wouldn't be in that situation to begin with.

You seem to want to be "the other side of the story" .... and you were not even there.

Why did you fail to mention this in your initial statement? A conclusion of a given event can only be farily sustained if all facts are known. (ie;both sides of the story.)

You revealed the pilots side of the story (some time after your initial story) and he admitted being in the wrong. This makes a alot of difference. Now there are two parties that agree on the same event. Now a conclusion can be made.

As I stated before, it is much easier to come to a conclusion when all facts are known. If all the facts are not known, it is possible that the conclusion will be corrupt. You decided to reveal all the facts at a later time which means you initial statement was tainted. (As in leaving out details of the entire event.)


If your story would have contained all known facts, then I would not have been debating the issue with you. :o

As an LEO, I'm rarely at the place to see both sides of the event. That is why LEO's rely on statements from all parties (both sides of the story). After hearing all the known facts, from the parties involved and witnesses, then a conclusion may be attempted. :rolleyes:

You chose to withhold the statement you made above, and I would believe for a specific reason. The reason I believe is so you could later say, "hey, look I'm right, and you're wrong. ;) :D

Trap. Prey. Meal. Remember that from the other night? :D

In this case, I was giving an example ... but I cannot apologize that such situation doesn't fit your needs. ;)

"Remember the danger of jumping to conclusions" (especially in the presence of poor investigation ..... or none).