WN Asks Pax to Stop Recording BWI Ejection
Sep 27, 2017, 7:18 pm
#76
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,500
No discernible norm exists in the industry. Airlines have wildly incongruous policies.
WestJet: With 48 hours notice, passengers allergic to peanuts or pet dander can either be given a five-row buffer zone or switch flights.
Southwest: Passengers with peanut allergies must arrive at the gate an hour early to fill out paperwork. Pre-boarding for the allergy-prone is sometimes available upon request.
Delta: Three-row allergy buffer zones are available upon request. Crews will abstain from serving peanut products if notified of an allergy.
British Airways: No pets are allowed in the cabin, with the exception of guide dogs. While BA doesn't serve peanuts it cannot guarantee that its meals don't contain peanuts.
Air Canada: Passengers with cat allergies can request a buffer zone or even a pet-free flight.
American: Those with pet or fragrance allergies can request a change of seat in-flight. American does not to offer a buffer zone for food and pet allergies.
Southwest: Passengers with peanut allergies must arrive at the gate an hour early to fill out paperwork. Pre-boarding for the allergy-prone is sometimes available upon request.
Delta: Three-row allergy buffer zones are available upon request. Crews will abstain from serving peanut products if notified of an allergy.
British Airways: No pets are allowed in the cabin, with the exception of guide dogs. While BA doesn't serve peanuts it cannot guarantee that its meals don't contain peanuts.
Air Canada: Passengers with cat allergies can request a buffer zone or even a pet-free flight.
American: Those with pet or fragrance allergies can request a change of seat in-flight. American does not to offer a buffer zone for food and pet allergies.
Sep 27, 2017, 8:27 pm
#77
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,323
The most disheartening fact here is that Southwest apologized.
Here is an entitled woman who claims to have a life-threatening allergy to dogs. For her own safety, if this statement were true, she should have immediately deplaned and asked to be re-booked. Nope. They called her bluff, she lost.
Can't wait to hear what documentation she is going to invent, should she sue Southwest . . . because the Southwest Captain had every right to demand she deplane, rather than risk an in-flight medical emergency (should her allegation about life threatening allergy be true). I'm calling BS on her allegation.
Really, though, shame on Southwest for apologizing. Thank goodness criminal charges were immediately filed against this entitled sack.
Oh, and I really am a professor, too, and not ONCE have I ever felt it necessary to use that as an excuse for bad behavior . . .
Here is an entitled woman who claims to have a life-threatening allergy to dogs. For her own safety, if this statement were true, she should have immediately deplaned and asked to be re-booked. Nope. They called her bluff, she lost.
Can't wait to hear what documentation she is going to invent, should she sue Southwest . . . because the Southwest Captain had every right to demand she deplane, rather than risk an in-flight medical emergency (should her allegation about life threatening allergy be true). I'm calling BS on her allegation.
Really, though, shame on Southwest for apologizing. Thank goodness criminal charges were immediately filed against this entitled sack.
Oh, and I really am a professor, too, and not ONCE have I ever felt it necessary to use that as an excuse for bad behavior . . .
Sep 27, 2017, 8:36 pm
#78
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: AA Gold, Enterprise PLT, Marriott Gold
Posts: 604
The reason they are apologizing is typical, they want to avoid people boycotting their airline and not spending their money. They don't want the bad press from this. Same reason that they will be sued by her and probably give her a lot of money to shut up about it.
We live in a world where everyone seems to be against airliners, and even without having 0 understanding of what is actually going on, the uneducated infrequent flyers of the world will be outraged and clench their fists in anger.
What is really poor in all this, is just like UA, when airline employees follow the policy that the airline expects them to enforce, then they turn their backs on the employee when it becomes time to act appalled and sorry for the media.
We live in a world where everyone seems to be against airliners, and even without having 0 understanding of what is actually going on, the uneducated infrequent flyers of the world will be outraged and clench their fists in anger.
What is really poor in all this, is just like UA, when airline employees follow the policy that the airline expects them to enforce, then they turn their backs on the employee when it becomes time to act appalled and sorry for the media.
Last edited by SpinOn2; Sep 27, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Sep 27, 2017, 8:43 pm
#79
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 129
I listened to the Gentleman who recorded the incident this afternoon. He was very logical and stated that the WN staff asked the lady to deplane to address the situation. She made the claim that she had a life threatening allergies and wanted to know if the WN staff had Epi Pens for her if needed. She refused to exit the plane and when 2 officers asked her after being called by WN employees. She refused to walk, holding onto seats attempted to climb into rows of passengers sitting in their seats. The lady has issues besides the alleged allergy.
WN cannot assume the risk of this lady's claims of potential death on the flight. Animals are legal to transport so it isn't a human vs animal issue. It is her obligation to make sure her flight will be animal free.
That being said, the SCAM of fake ESA animals to avoid $$$ for transporting their pet is annoying. I think that every animal should have to buy a seat that would curb a lot of the problem.
WN cannot assume the risk of this lady's claims of potential death on the flight. Animals are legal to transport so it isn't a human vs animal issue. It is her obligation to make sure her flight will be animal free.
That being said, the SCAM of fake ESA animals to avoid $$$ for transporting their pet is annoying. I think that every animal should have to buy a seat that would curb a lot of the problem.
Asinine argument and factually incorrect. First, this isn't a matter of valuing animals over humans, this is about accommodating someone making a claim they have a "life threatening" medical condition. Remember, ADA and the like only requires REASONABLE accommodations to passengers with disabilities. I don't think forcing multiple other passengers to deplane, causing loss of revenue for the airline due to re-routing because a single passenger has an allergy is a reasonable accommodation. Not to mention the domino effect with connections and subsequent flights. Second, please point me to the part of the COC where they guarantee their cabin to be pet free. This is public transportation, you can reasonably assume you will encounter any kind of service animal in a public place.
This is far more likely an entitled passenger who (incorrectly) thought they could bully the flight attendant into removing someone else's animal by claiming a "life threatening" medical condition. Well, it backfired. When questioned the passenger's story fell apart and they unwittingly (or knit-whittingly) painted themselves into a corner. Once you tell an FA that you have a "life threatening" medical condition they have to act appropriately. Removing that passenger was the right thing to do here.
This is far more likely an entitled passenger who (incorrectly) thought they could bully the flight attendant into removing someone else's animal by claiming a "life threatening" medical condition. Well, it backfired. When questioned the passenger's story fell apart and they unwittingly (or knit-whittingly) painted themselves into a corner. Once you tell an FA that you have a "life threatening" medical condition they have to act appropriately. Removing that passenger was the right thing to do here.
Sep 27, 2017, 8:50 pm
#80
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,614
I agree. The correct response by Southwest would have been a statement that the airline had only two options here: cancel the flight and tell everyone to leave or ask law enforcement to remove the one person who claimed her life would be in danger if she flew. Southwest's statement should have said that this was a difficult decision to make with no lawyers on speed dial, therefore the company supports the employee's on-the-spot decision.
In the future all airlines will cancel the flight, inconveniencing everyone. This new policy will be the result of this person's poor decision. Actually two people so far. This lady and the United guy (who was in the right until he resisted removal) will have unnecessarily created a new traveler-unfriendly policy just as the shoe bomber did. If only there were an award for theft of millions of dollars' worth of the public's time.
In the future all airlines will cancel the flight, inconveniencing everyone. This new policy will be the result of this person's poor decision. Actually two people so far. This lady and the United guy (who was in the right until he resisted removal) will have unnecessarily created a new traveler-unfriendly policy just as the shoe bomber did. If only there were an award for theft of millions of dollars' worth of the public's time.
Sep 27, 2017, 9:03 pm
#81
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Tokyo
Programs: SPG LT Plat ANA Plat
Posts: 596
I have rentals and no cop would throw out someone with some proof of right to live there. I have to go thru courts for eviction Just sayin!
(of course, if I trick the person to leaving the house and change the locks, then its a civil damages issue for that person to litigate
)
(of course, if I trick the person to leaving the house and change the locks, then its a civil damages issue for that person to litigate
)For me its simple, pax was instructed to leave the plane but refused, this as I understand is against the law, so crew called the police, after that whatever happened is a police issue not SW, and if the pax kept refusung what else could the police do, ?
I do admire they way you avoided the question
Sep 27, 2017, 9:05 pm
#82
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SFO
Programs: OZ Diamond/*G, IHG Diamond Amb, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,239
As long is it's okay for airlines to decide that someone is acting "belligerent" and have them removed from the plane with no refund and no re-accommodation on other flights, people will never side with the airlines on cases where a passenger is removed from the aircraft.
The commonality in both this case and the Dao case is that the passenger removed had an urgency to travel. I think it's not hard to understand how a passenger might behave irrationally if they need to get somewhere urgently and are told "get off, go home, you can't fly". I feel like (but can't guarantee) she would've gotten off if they said something to the effect of "we can't kick these people with pets off by law, but we want to make sure you have a comfortable flight so we're gonna have someone try and find you a pet free flight later today".
The commonality in both this case and the Dao case is that the passenger removed had an urgency to travel. I think it's not hard to understand how a passenger might behave irrationally if they need to get somewhere urgently and are told "get off, go home, you can't fly". I feel like (but can't guarantee) she would've gotten off if they said something to the effect of "we can't kick these people with pets off by law, but we want to make sure you have a comfortable flight so we're gonna have someone try and find you a pet free flight later today".
Sep 27, 2017, 9:08 pm
#84
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sarasota, FL (SRQ)
Programs: WN A-List, AA EXP, Hyatt Top Tier (definitely NOT a Globalist), National Exec Elite
Posts: 490
There seems to be a general understanding both on FT and with the population at large that the ESA rules are ripe for abuse and are abused regularly.
What keeps the ESA rules as they are? Is the support animal lobby so powerful that it can prevent common sense changes?
I am all for reasonable accommodations ADA-style, but there are loopholes here that you can drive a truck through, and it hardly seems difficult to close them with some basic regulation (e.g. cannot self-certify an ESA)
What keeps the ESA rules as they are? Is the support animal lobby so powerful that it can prevent common sense changes?
I am all for reasonable accommodations ADA-style, but there are loopholes here that you can drive a truck through, and it hardly seems difficult to close them with some basic regulation (e.g. cannot self-certify an ESA)
Sep 27, 2017, 9:10 pm
#85
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Tokyo
Programs: SPG LT Plat ANA Plat
Posts: 596
Rather than calling the police, waiting for them to arrive, deal with the pax etc. How about just get everyone off the plane, decide who is going and not going and then board the plane again? At that point, it would be an offense action by the pax if they should decide to get back on the plane and if they dont get off the plane it is just between them and the police.
Sep 27, 2017, 9:56 pm
#86
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,374
The commonality in both this case and the Dao case is that the passenger removed had an urgency to travel. I think it's not hard to understand how a passenger might behave irrationally if they need to get somewhere urgently and are told "get off, go home, you can't fly". I feel like (but can't guarantee) she would've gotten off if they said something to the effect of "we can't kick these people with pets off by law, but we want to make sure you have a comfortable flight so we're gonna have someone try and find you a pet free flight later today".
This thread is exposing hypocrisy left and right.
American culture is all about standing up for yourself. This woman had a clear need to travel. She stood up for herself. Forget about the broader context. We should applaud her resolve and self-confidence.
Another tenet of American culture is that violence is unacceptable except for defense. This woman posed no physical threat to anyone, including the officers, on the plane. Yet the video clearly shows at least one officer using grip and forearm strength to maneuver the woman down the aisle.
If Southwest is defending amateurish verbal yelling (e.g., the angry officer's chants) and use of physical force to remove a nonviolent woman who had a legitimate and pressing need to travel, shame on Southwest.
What would I have done? Kick off the animals. Planes are for people.
Sep 27, 2017, 10:25 pm
#87
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere I've Driven To
Programs: HiltonHonors, IHG Hotels, DL Skymiles
Posts: 2,070
Southwest asking people to put their phones away ? Seriously, they really thought other passengers would just shut their phones off or put them away ? Disgusting on Southwest's part to drag this woman off the flight - then she's being yelled at to "just walk!!" by the airport cop (actually pushing her from behind). She was totally unable to move, let alone walk, as he forcibly is pushing her with both of his arms wrapped around her from back to front in a tight bear hug.
Sep 27, 2017, 10:31 pm
#88
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere I've Driven To
Programs: HiltonHonors, IHG Hotels, DL Skymiles
Posts: 2,070
It absolutely should.
People behave because there are consequences to not behaving. If we establish that the consequence for not getting off the plane is anything other than the cops show up and drag you off the plane, then more people will refuse to get off the plane.
If the airline asks you to get off the plane, get off the plane. If you don't, expect the cops to show up and remove you.
People behave because there are consequences to not behaving. If we establish that the consequence for not getting off the plane is anything other than the cops show up and drag you off the plane, then more people will refuse to get off the plane.
If the airline asks you to get off the plane, get off the plane. If you don't, expect the cops to show up and remove you.
Then why is everyone so upset with United when they had it done ? All of a sudden it's okay for Southwest to do it ?
Sep 27, 2017, 10:38 pm
#89
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NorCal
Posts: 658
The most disheartening fact here is that Southwest apologized.
Here is an entitled woman who claims to have a life-threatening allergy to dogs. For her own safety, if this statement were true, she should have immediately deplaned and asked to be re-booked. Nope. They called her bluff, she lost.
Can't wait to hear what documentation she is going to invent, should she sue Southwest . . . because the Southwest Captain had every right to demand she deplane, rather than risk an in-flight medical emergency (should her allegation about life threatening allergy be true). I'm calling BS on her allegation.
Really, though, shame on Southwest for apologizing. Thank goodness criminal charges were immediately filed against this entitled sack.
Oh, and I really am a professor, too, and not ONCE have I ever felt it necessary to use that as an excuse for bad behavior . . .
Here is an entitled woman who claims to have a life-threatening allergy to dogs. For her own safety, if this statement were true, she should have immediately deplaned and asked to be re-booked. Nope. They called her bluff, she lost.
Can't wait to hear what documentation she is going to invent, should she sue Southwest . . . because the Southwest Captain had every right to demand she deplane, rather than risk an in-flight medical emergency (should her allegation about life threatening allergy be true). I'm calling BS on her allegation.
Really, though, shame on Southwest for apologizing. Thank goodness criminal charges were immediately filed against this entitled sack.
Oh, and I really am a professor, too, and not ONCE have I ever felt it necessary to use that as an excuse for bad behavior . . .
Southwest should not have apologized. I'm not buying her deathly allergic excuse either. Completely smacks of a special snowflake. If anyone is deathly allergic to anything, they're covered with things like Epi Pens, Dr. notes, instructions for medical attention, wearing teal colored items (for food allergies), etc.
She refused to leave. No choice but to call the cops. When she wouldn't leave for the cops, no choice but to drag her off.
It's an enclosed metal tube. It's not even like a bus or ship that also transports passengers. Definitely not a house or apartment. Very different and special set of circumstances. You can't have a perfect solution, so it doesn't surprise or bother me that all the different airlines have different ways of handling it.
Sep 27, 2017, 10:39 pm
#90
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NorCal
Posts: 658
vs
Not Southwest's fault at all. This one is very much self inflicted by the pax that was removed. And not very believable either.
