Passenger removed for using phone
May 21, 2019, 8:07 am
#62
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: UA GS ,QF Plat
Posts: 686
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.
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.
It is the equivalence of letting your kid do something 5 times and clipping them for doing it the 6th
May 21, 2019, 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: 100,409
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.)
May 21, 2019, 8:41 am
#64
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,125
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.)
May 21, 2019, 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: 14,413
I think I've lost track of the topic here, though...
May 21, 2019, 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: 100,409
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...
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.
May 21, 2019, 9:00 am
#67
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 575
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.
May 21, 2019, 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: 14,413
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.
May 21, 2019, 9:09 am
#69
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
Thread closed pending moderator review.