Kevin AA

The fact that the woman didn't have a HEPA mask (to keep herself alive from her "life-threatening allergy") is telling. Having medical documentation that says she can fly on a plane with dogs, just not pet them (because it would kill her), would allow her to stay.

No documentation, no HEPA mask, just a demand that the dogs be ejected ==> GET OFF

Renard

Exactly. The police should not be called in to enforce what was essentially a corporate policy. Calling in the police is starting to seem more and more like simply a lazy way to solve a sticky problem: “Not my problem. Call the cops.”

The call for cellphones away was very much an effort to cover up.

Airlines. If you call in the police to enforce your corporate policy and somebody is dragged off, expect it to be taped. Expect it to go viral. Expect bad press. If you don’t want this, don’t call in the police and it won’t be taped. Enforce your own policies in a manner similar to what is described above—don’t expect the police to do it and for the taxpayers to pay for it.

FlyingNone

----------
Sorry, I'm really referring to the use of brute force to evict someone from a flight.

Proudelitist

It goes beyond a corporate policy, into a private property trespass, which is illegal and therefore a police matter.

Dalewood

OMG, were these done by Southwest or by random computer users? I never saw them.

Sjondorn

If it was up to you and you have to (for whatever reason) evict someone from a flight, who evidently doesn't want cooperate, what would you do then?

Troopers

She likely didn't ask at the gate, just like she doesn't ask before entering a restaurant or any other facility.

Anyways, she is a whack job, no doubt.

Troopers

It's no different when a pax forces a plane to divert. The other pax get compensated for the delay, put on different flights, etc. Crazy pax likely gets fined and airline made whole. Cost of doing business.


If WN did offer alternatives, they would have said so. They would have stated their attempts to rectify the situation. There is no reason not to share this.

Panther02

I have inside sources so here goes:
Flight attendant found out life threatening allergy and called Ops agent.
Ops agent confirmed life threatening and asked for medical certificate.
She was offered first flight the next day by Ops agent and asked to deplane.
Since she didn't deplane, three cops approached her one by one and asked her to deplane. Then the captain asked her to deplane. Cops then forced her off.

Asked to deplane because it was life threatening. If just allergy, they'd create a buffer zone. Needs a medical certificate dated in the past 10 days saying ok to fly despite life threatening allergies. Due to no certificate, ESA trumps allergy. If she had a certificate, it would be the first one (between ESA and allergy) to check in stays.

UA Apologist

Here we go. Our expert on analogies now compares cutting off a hand, which causes damage that is not fixable and is permanent, to pushing a passenger off a plane.

toomanybooks

I have asked this twice. No answer.

davie355

Very simple: cancel the flight

UA Apologist

Why not evacuate the airport as well?

jvc

Nobody should expect to impose restrictions upon fellow pax (be they people, animals or peanuts) for personal reasons.

TBD

Not a lawyer, but pretty sure this isn't correct.

The passenger and the airline had a legal agreement for the passenger to be on the plane (document = boarding pass).

The airline can't just decide unilaterally that she's no longer welcome and is now "trespassing".

If, for policy reasons, she's to be removed, then it is a matter of company procedure. That is a civil issue and not a criminal issue. The police should not have intervened.