WN Asks Pax to Stop Recording BWI Ejection
Oct 5, 2017, 6:21 pm
#317
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,323
"I was a brown woman with a hoodie." Her exact words, according to an ABC news video.
Well, no one saw THAT one coming, did they?
Because, as I predicted, she will NOT prove (in a deposition, or in court), that she has a "life threatening allergy to dogs", so suddenly, she now alleges that she never made that allegation.
As I also said, it was disheartening that Southwest ever apologized for this sham.
Disney and Wal-Mart are well-known in the legal world for their vigorous defense of lawsuits. I hope Southwest does not cave in to this scammer.
This thread devolved many, many posts ago with debating the merits (or not) of allowing animals on board. That is not, nor has it EVER been the issue.
Rather, the sole issue is whether the Captain of this flight had the right to remove her from the plane, based on the facts as the crew understood them to be (a factual issue for the court). And, since it will be proven that the Captain DOES have that responsibility and right, then, therefore this "brown woman with a hoodie" disobeyed flight crew instructions. Bye Bye
Well, no one saw THAT one coming, did they?
Because, as I predicted, she will NOT prove (in a deposition, or in court), that she has a "life threatening allergy to dogs", so suddenly, she now alleges that she never made that allegation.
As I also said, it was disheartening that Southwest ever apologized for this sham.
Disney and Wal-Mart are well-known in the legal world for their vigorous defense of lawsuits. I hope Southwest does not cave in to this scammer.
This thread devolved many, many posts ago with debating the merits (or not) of allowing animals on board. That is not, nor has it EVER been the issue.
Rather, the sole issue is whether the Captain of this flight had the right to remove her from the plane, based on the facts as the crew understood them to be (a factual issue for the court). And, since it will be proven that the Captain DOES have that responsibility and right, then, therefore this "brown woman with a hoodie" disobeyed flight crew instructions. Bye Bye
Oct 5, 2017, 9:13 pm
#318
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: AA Gold, Enterprise PLT, Marriott Gold
Posts: 604
"I was a brown woman with a hoodie." Her exact words, according to an ABC news video.
Well, no one saw THAT one coming, did they?
Because, as I predicted, she will NOT prove (in a deposition, or in court), that she has a "life threatening allergy to dogs", so suddenly, she now alleges that she never made that allegation.
As I also said, it was disheartening that Southwest ever apologized for this sham.
Disney and Wal-Mart are well-known in the legal world for their vigorous defense of lawsuits. I hope Southwest does not cave in to this scammer.
This thread devolved many, many posts ago with debating the merits (or not) of allowing animals on board. That is not, nor has it EVER been the issue.
Rather, the sole issue is whether the Captain of this flight had the right to remove her from the plane, based on the facts as the crew understood them to be (a factual issue for the court). And, since it will be proven that the Captain DOES have that responsibility and right, then, therefore this "brown woman with a hoodie" disobeyed flight crew instructions. Bye Bye
Well, no one saw THAT one coming, did they?
Because, as I predicted, she will NOT prove (in a deposition, or in court), that she has a "life threatening allergy to dogs", so suddenly, she now alleges that she never made that allegation.
As I also said, it was disheartening that Southwest ever apologized for this sham.
Disney and Wal-Mart are well-known in the legal world for their vigorous defense of lawsuits. I hope Southwest does not cave in to this scammer.
This thread devolved many, many posts ago with debating the merits (or not) of allowing animals on board. That is not, nor has it EVER been the issue.
Rather, the sole issue is whether the Captain of this flight had the right to remove her from the plane, based on the facts as the crew understood them to be (a factual issue for the court). And, since it will be proven that the Captain DOES have that responsibility and right, then, therefore this "brown woman with a hoodie" disobeyed flight crew instructions. Bye Bye
Oct 5, 2017, 10:29 pm
#320
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,777
I really hope so too. This stuff is getting ridiculous and setting a precedence nowadays where passengers can do whatever they want and then sue. I honestly wish Southwest would go one further and try and do something like foot her with a bill for valuable time wasted by having to get her to leave the aircraft. They won't, especially from a PR standpoint, but I really wish they would. They need to back their employees who by all accounts followed the policy set forth, and stop letting passengers play this game.
I don't believe in lifetime bans (unless you're violent or something like that). Just have her pay the cost of the delay and then she's welcome to buy another ticket. Perhaps next time she will think twice before pulling a stunt like that. Or least just leave the plane like a normal person.
Oct 6, 2017, 1:23 am
#321
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Southwest rarely publicly apologizes after passenger incidents. Of the incidents I can recall; Muslim passengers, other Muslim passengers, Arabic speaking student, gay family, 2nd gay family, lesbian kiss, delete the negative tweet father, crying woman and sister, skimpy skirt woman... there were no apologies.
The last apology I can remember was Kevin Smith.
While an apology doesn't mean an admission of guilt (especially one as carefully wordsmithed as in this incident), it is worth noting that it's a rare occurrence.
Oct 6, 2017, 7:09 am
#322
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,512
SWA:
Information available, collected at the time of the event, indicates that our employees followed proper procedures in response to this customer's actions while onboard the aircraft. Out of respect for the customer's privacy, we will not share specifics about her conduct or travel experience.
We are not in the business of removing passengers from flights without reason, our goal is to get each one of our Customers to their final destination safely. We are responsible for the comfort of all passengers and do not tolerate discrimination of any kind.
We are not in the business of removing passengers from flights without reason, our goal is to get each one of our Customers to their final destination safely. We are responsible for the comfort of all passengers and do not tolerate discrimination of any kind.
A medical note requirement covering allergies does not appear on WNs website.
Oct 6, 2017, 7:21 am
#323
Join Date: Oct 2001
Programs: LTP, PP
Posts: 8,700
In these matters, I don't know why they adopt the "I don't care" attitude that has become prevalent in air travel today given the few choices one has today. People may like to take a holier-than-thou position when these things occasionally erupt but 99.9% are going to still fly whatever is convient and cheapest.
Oct 6, 2017, 9:38 am
#327
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicagoland, IL, USA
Programs: WN CP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,192
Oct 6, 2017, 10:52 am
#329
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
Considering how many "Fitness to fly" notes I've written in my day I do think they are a requirement.
Oct 6, 2017, 11:02 am
#330
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicagoland, IL, USA
Programs: WN CP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,192
4 people testify she said "X" and she says she said "Y." Good luck to her.
Incredible how people think that gigantic public corporations with 11-figure market caps are in business to discriminate against customers and to screw them. You know, just for the hell of it.
Because GK is in the KKK or something. Inane.