WN Asks Pax to Stop Recording BWI Ejection

Old Sep 27, 17, 7:38 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 4,731
WN Asks Pax to Stop Recording BWI Ejection


SWA Statement:

"We are disheartened by the way this situation unfolded and the Customer’s removal by local law enforcement officers. We publicly offer our apologies to this Customer for her experience and we will be contacting her directly to address her concerns. Southwest Airlines was built on Customer Service, and it is always our goal for all Customers to have a positive experience.

Initial reports indicate the Customer in the video stated that she had a life-threatening pet allergy, but she was unable to provide the medical certificate necessary to complete travel. There was one emotional support animal and one pet onboard the aircraft. Our policy states that a Customer (without a medical certificate) may be denied boarding if they report a life-threatening allergic reaction and cannot travel safely with an animal onboard. Our Flight Crew made repeated attempts to explain the situation to the Customer, however, she refused to deplane and law enforcement became involved.”
LegalTender is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 8:50 am
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicagoland, IL, USA
Programs: WN CP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 13,878
Law enforcement takes woman off WN flight at BWI

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/0...er-pulled-off/

Service animal vs. allergy argument apparently.
toomanybooks is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 9:31 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: DTW, but drive to/from YYZ/ORD
Programs: Chase Ultimate Rewards 2MM, Diner Club points
Posts: 16,246
Disgusting . The actual animal should have been removed. No one should put human above animal .

The default is that each tckt pax has a right to board the plane. If someone needs an animal to "accompany" them, then they must ensure that doesn't burden any other tckt pax. Your right to swing a fist (or dog) stops at my face.

Last edited by rufflesinc; Sep 27, 17 at 9:40 am
rufflesinc is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 9:39 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 14
I side with the humans on this. Shame on Southwest!
Boraxo and closecover like this.
mogadishoo is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 9:58 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Programs: WN F9 HA UA AA IHG HH MR
Posts: 2,435
FA: "Ladies and Gentlemen please put your phones away (we don't want viral videos like UA)"
Yoshi212 and howahya like this.
Tanic is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 11:11 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: OKC
Programs: IHG Spire, National Exec, AA Plat
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by rufflesinc View Post
Disgusting . The actual animal should have been removed. No one should put human above animal .

The default is that each tckt pax has a right to board the plane. If someone needs an animal to "accompany" them, then they must ensure that doesn't burden any other tckt pax. Your right to swing a fist (or dog) stops at my face.
If they're too unstable to fly without the animal, should they really be flying in the first place?

Yet another case of ESA bovine fecal matter.
joshua362, Boraxo, PTravel and 2 others like this.
bchandler02 is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 11:31 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: CX, DL, BA Avios, AMEX Plat
Posts: 447
I think the key issue here is if she really said on-board that she has a "life-threatening" dog allergy. Lots of people have dog allergies, less have "life-threatening" allergies and that's a serious issue that needs to be resolved before boarding.

Not saying she should be dragged off the plane but if they require medical clearance for someone saying they have a life-threatening allergy then she needs to provide it - how does she know a dog didn't sit on the floor at the seat she's in on the previous flight??

Southwest website says this:

Animal allergies

If a Customer is severely affected by allergies to an animal and notifies us of his/her allergy at the departure gate, we can ensure that the Customer with the allergy is seated as far away from the animal as possible.
Southwest is required by law to transport assistance and emotional support animals accompanying Customers with disabilities. Southwest requires that pets remain in an animal carrier throughout the duration of a flight. However, we cannot make such a requirement for assistance and emotional support animals. We also cannot require that Customers traveling with service animals provide advance notice of their intent to transport the animal. As such, we’re unable to provide advance notification if any animals will be traveling on a particular flight.
eyeballer is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 11:39 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,157
From the few facts presented, Southwest made a reasonable decision.

While led many support animals are phony, many more provide a real service. The ADA laws on this are outside Southwest’s control, right or wrong. On the other side is a passenger stating an allergy without any medical documentation.

Given these facts, Southwest made the best decision possible under the circumstances.

While note really relevant, if I had a life threatening allergy, I’d be sure to discuss it with the airline when making the reservation. That would have avoided the problem since documentation could be brought and Southwest could have known not to book the pets.
AFAM-DFW is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 11:40 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW, DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime Plat, SWA A-list +
Posts: 993
Article stats One support animal and one pet onboard.

So what about the other passenger that had a pet in a carrier that they paid for? They followed the rules, provided the correct paperwork and paid their fee(s), do they get deplaned?
envgeo is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 11:44 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: DTW and ORD
Posts: 655
Southwest has made a huge blunder here, by defending the decision to remove the customer based on their stated policy. Even if the policy was fine, which can be debated, they failed to recognize that the topic of emotional support animals is a heated one. It's a well-known fact that ESAs are a scam - many people bring their pets as ESAs and airlines under current regulation cannot question it, nor why the customer needs an ESA. There are so many people who abuse this policy.

Also, the dragging off is unnecessary. They clearly have not learned from United's Dr. Dao incident. You never call the cops unless it's a security issue.
Renard and closecover like this.
DetroitFlyer is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 11:50 am
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: DTW, but drive to/from YYZ/ORD
Programs: Chase Ultimate Rewards 2MM, Diner Club points
Posts: 16,246
Originally Posted by envgeo View Post

So what about the other passenger that had a pet in a carrier that they paid for? They followed the rules, provided the correct paperwork and paid their fee(s), do they get deplaned?
Yes, they get a refund of the fees. No animal is worth a human life. To be clear, I don't think someone with allergies should be able to dictate everything as I think nut allergists should not be able to keep others from eating nuts and nutbased snacks they bring.
closecover and canddmeyer like this.
rufflesinc is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 12:00 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer View Post
Also, the dragging off is unnecessary. They clearly have not learned from United's Dr. Dao incident. You never call the cops unless it's a security issue.
Would you elaborate?

Imagine that you are a flight attendant and you instruct, rightly or wrongly, a passenger to deplane. The passenger refuses to follow your instructions. Please describe your actions in such situation.
UA Apologist is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 12:04 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: DTW, but drive to/from YYZ/ORD
Programs: Chase Ultimate Rewards 2MM, Diner Club points
Posts: 16,246
Originally Posted by UA Apologist View Post
Imagine that you are a flight attendant and you instruct, rightly or wrongly, a passenger to deplane. The passenger refuses to follow your instructions. Please describe your actions in such situation.
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 )
rufflesinc is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 12:29 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 14
Remember all those Southwest United memes?

Well, ain't karma a b*tch?


mogadishoo is offline  
Old Sep 27, 17, 12:30 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Programs: WN F9 HA UA AA IHG HH MR
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by UA Apologist View Post
Would you elaborate?
Imagine that you are a flight attendant and you instruct, rightly or wrongly, a passenger to deplane. The passenger refuses to follow your instructions. Please describe your actions in such situation.
Permit me.

The airplane goes nowhere until everyone is deplaned out of the confined metal tube. When everyone is safely in the terminal, trained managers and highly paid executives can make calm and informed decisions. How many news outlets will this video air on today? How much $$ will the ejected pax settle for? How much bad PR for WN?

Bad training provided to the FAs too. "Put your phones away!" looks like they're trying to cover something up.
Tanic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: