Passenger removed for using phone

Old May 21, 19, 8:07 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by fumje View Post
When was this? Until last year, it was not allowed to use phones at all on board. That was a rule from Chinese authorities.
Yeah it was two years back. I didn't know about that rule so was kinda taken aback.
funkydory is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 8:07 am
  #62  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: UA GS ,QF Plat
Posts: 683
Originally Posted by Often1 View Post
The problem is that when people start deciding when to obey and when to disregard, the problems multiply. It's not just electronics, but then it's seat belts. and something else.

It is highly unlikely that the Captain ordered the passenger removed unless the Captain was satisfied that the passenger had disobeyed a lawful crewmember instruction.

We don't need to debate the merits of the law, rules, or UA's policies here. Those are in place. If they are wrong, they should be changed, but the solution is not in violating them.

We have a situation where the Captain has made a determination that the passenger violated at least a UA policy and possibly more and accordingly he was removed.

Good on UA, the Captain, and the FA. Problem easily solved by obeying the crewmember instruction or pointing out that the phone is off/ in airplane mode. Me, if it was on, I would have shut it down. If it was in airplane mode, I would have shut it down. Not worth arguing.

The way to deal with an incorrect FA would have been to complain afterwards. The way to deal with a correct FA is to obey the lawful crewmember order.
I don't disagree with the point , but as big an issue is how frequently and consistently rules are administered , that could be phones, bag size , number of bags etc. they are ignored most of the time and enforced some of it,
It is the equivalence of letting your kid do something 5 times and clipping them for doing it the 6th
wanderingkev is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 8:13 am
  #63  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 92,205
Originally Posted by JimInOhio View Post
You don't have to be a dog to be obedient.

If you are married... during the ceremony did you just make up answers in response to the officiant or did you do what you were told?
IME in USA church weddings, the tradition was that he promises to love honor and cherish while she promises to love honor and obey. Obedience in marriage was one sided, although many modern couples insist that the obey part be deleted from the ceremony. (My own parents even did this ages ago, but I understand that it was an unusual request then.)
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 8:41 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
IME in USA church weddings, the tradition was that he promises to love honor and cherish while she promises to love honor and obey. Obedience in marriage was one sided, although many modern couples insist that the obey part be deleted from the ceremony. (My own parents even did this ages ago, but I understand that it was an unusual request then.)
I've been to many wedding ceremonies and I can't recall once hearing "obey" as part of the bride's vows. In fact, I did a quick search online for sample scripts for traditional Christian weddings and "obey" is not part of them.
chavala and mikesyr18 like this.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 8:54 am
  #65  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, UA Gold, WN, Global Entry; +others wherever miles/points are found
Posts: 11,347
Originally Posted by JimInOhio View Post
I've been to many wedding ceremonies and I can't recall once hearing "obey" as part of the bride's vows. In fact, I did a quick search online for sample scripts for traditional Christian weddings and "obey" is not part of them.
It was formerly widely used in the US and much of the English-speaking world, but has become uncommon in the modern era due to the perceived inequity. The "traditional" vows (at least as I know them - "to have and to hold" etc.) are from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and included "obey" as the only form of the vow from original publication in 1549 until an alternate option without it was introduced in 1980 [1]. (The Episcopal Church removed it in 1922, but I also recall it being controversial that my parents excluded it from their vows.)

I think I've lost track of the topic here, though...
findark is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 8:59 am
  #66  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 92,205
Originally Posted by findark View Post
It was formerly widely used in the US and much of the English-speaking world, but has become uncommon in the modern era due to the perceived inequity. The "traditional" vows (at least as I know them - "to have and to hold" etc.) are from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and included "obey" as the only form of the vow from original publication in 1549 until an alternate option without it was introduced in 1980 [1]. (The Episcopal Church removed it in 1922, but I also recall it being controversial that my parents excluded it from their vows.)

I think I've lost track of the topic here, though...
Doesn't to have and to hold lead to til death do us part? The obey (or not) is a different part of the wedding vows as I remember them.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 9:00 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by fumje View Post
When was this? Until last year, it was not allowed to use phones at all on board. That was a rule from Chinese authorities.
WHAT???? omg that is great news. so we can use phones now in China???? I am so sick of having to keep my phone off during flight whether music or downloaded movies or whatever. I left China about a year ago and I am so excited. I'll move back there now.
flyerbaby19 is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 9:02 am
  #68  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, UA Gold, WN, Global Entry; +others wherever miles/points are found
Posts: 11,347
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
Doesn't to have and to hold lead to til death do us part? The obey (or not) is a different part of the wedding vows as I remember them.
In this century I have seen weddings with any number of widely disparate vows, but the traditional ones which I was citing are the ones that begin with "to have and to hold..." and indeed end with "...til death do us part" (with a little more if actually a church wedding). The full 1662 text which is what I know as the traditional vow for the bride is (although the part after "death us do [or do us] part" is less common).

I N. take thee M. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.
findark is offline  
Old May 21, 19, 9:09 am
  #69  
Moderator: United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past. (IAH, DEN, YKF)
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 8,963
Thread closed pending moderator review.
kale73 likes this.
J.Edward is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: