Veteran man kicked off from US Airways Express plane

 
Old Sep 5, 13, 5:05 pm
  #1  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 35,323
Veteran man kicked off from US Airways Express plane

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Veteran...222453611.html

Veteran disabled man got booted off the plane. Because he had a service dog. His service dog sat in the seat, but his dog did not want to sit on the floor. Instead, the pilots wants him to kicked off the plane.
N830MH is offline  
Old Sep 5, 13, 5:38 pm
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
The dog, which weighed 100 pounds, was sitting in the seat and US Air policy is that for safety reasons, large service animals must lie on the floor. This is a reasonable requirement and well within all applicable laws. The pax refused to comply with the policy and both were removed. Perfectly appropriate.
PTravel is offline  
Old Sep 5, 13, 5:41 pm
  #3  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: US CP ; LH FTL ; *G
Posts: 1,630
No, he didn't get booted off the plane because he had a service dog. He was booted because he refused to let the dog lay on the floor and instead insisted that the dog sit in the vacant seat next to him. US was very nice to rebook him on the next day flight and to pay for his hotel.
burlax is offline  
Old Sep 5, 13, 5:49 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: ALB
Programs: AA EXP, HHonors Diamond, Nexus
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Veteran...222453611.html

Veteran disabled man got booted off the plane. Because he had a service dog. His service dog sat in the seat, but his dog did not want to sit on the floor. Instead, the pilots wants him to kicked off the plane.
Yes, let's make this about a vendetta against veterans by the pilot rather than the veteran's refusal to follow regulations and have the dog lie safely on the floor. The rules (clearly published on the US website) say the service animal may sit on your lap (if smaller than an infant) or on the floor in front of you. Not sitting on the seat next to you, or in the aisle, or anywhere else.

At least the article linked bothers to note how the flight crew was calm and polite while the passenger yelled at them, while several other articles take the much more inflammatory approach of noting how US kicked a veteran off a flight for having a dog, without giving any substantial further detail.
gruss is offline  
Old Sep 5, 13, 5:56 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,601
The "veteran" part of the description really is irrelevant to the story. It's just added for sensationalism.
PWMTrav is offline  
Old Sep 5, 13, 7:22 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 3,881
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sdm_QzR9DM#t=282

KTAR.com had a link to the 10 minute long youtube video.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Sep 6, 13, 11:19 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 585
Originally Posted by PWMTrav View Post
The "veteran" part of the description really is irrelevant to the story. It's just added for sensationalism.
I agree. "Upset, cursing, uncooperative passenger" kicked off....would have been a better description.

I watched the video and I feel sorry for the follow passengers as well at the airline employees. The passenger does not seem to be equipped to handle difficult and/or stressful situations.

I wonder if he was drunk? (not that is an excuse) In the video, you can hear mumbling by the pilots and then the man yelling about only having one beer and then ranting about having only one beer all week.
Lovethecabin is offline  
Old Sep 8, 13, 11:15 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Programs: AA MARRIOTT Lifetime Plat Premier ; Marriott Vacation Club
Posts: 1,650
OK, so we live in a voyeuristic world where phone videos are the rage documenting situations where folks make poor choices. Of course the media loves these stories as they hope for a 'viral home run'.

The salient point here is that the man refuses to follow the direct instruction of the flight crew. So either he complies with the instruction ( as per FAA regulations ) or he is promptly removed from the flight so that pax get to their destination on time and (hopefully ) comfortably. It's fundamentally irrelevant that the man is a veteran.

The good news is things were dealt with promptly and according to protocol. The unfortunate thing is that the man was himself unable/unwilling to consider things beyond himself and he and his dog do not reach their destination. Pax get something to talk about when they reach their destination and their own families and the media gets to bounce an unfortunate exchange around the world.

Barry
jerseyfinn is offline  
Old Sep 8, 13, 1:04 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
Originally Posted by PWMTrav View Post
The "veteran" part of the description really is irrelevant to the story. It's just added for sensationalism.
I disagree; the gentleman with the dog raised the issue:

"I'm sorry, folks, but I've earned the right to have this service animal. Because of my service to this country in Vietnam, I'm 100 percent disabled," he explained on the video.
Should reporters cleanse stories of details that the key figure in the story thought important? It's not like the reporters worked feverishly to discover that someone was a Vietnam vet and added that to the story - if that had happened, that would be irrelevant.

Here, the fellow made it the issue, and including that detail helps the reader connect all the dots, as most people understand that far too many Vietnam vets are still afflicted with assorted untreated demons, including demons that cause them to behave in ways that conflict with societal norms. As we see here, those behaviours can even result in them cursing out pilots, having the police called, and being removed from an airplane. I don't see any benefit to him or society by sanitizing the story to remove the fact that he's a Vietnam vet. That detail helps explain why he had to wait a day to get home. That he was a Vietnam vet also helps explain why he was treated with kid gloves by the crew and the responding police and why he was even rebooked on a US flight the next day and why US picked up his hotel that night. Remove all references to his status as a disturbed Vietnam vet and the reader would be left wondering why this happened. Leaving it in helps complete the story. YMMV.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Sep 8, 13, 1:07 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,601
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
I disagree; the gentleman with the dog raised the issue:



Should reporters cleanse stories of details that the key figure in the story thought important? It's not like the reporters worked feverishly to discover that someone was a Vietnam vet and added that to the story - if that had happened, that would be irrelevant.

Here, the fellow made it the issue, and including that detail helps the reader connect all the dots, as most people understand that far too many Vietnam vets are still afflicted with assorted untreated demons, including demons that cause them to behave in ways that conflict with societal norms. As we see here, those behaviours can even result in them cursing out pilots, having the police called, and being removed from an airplane. I don't see any benefit to him or society by sanitizing the story to remove the fact that he's a Vietnam vet. That detail helps explain why he had to wait a day to get home. YMMV.
I can see where you're coming from, but I still find it irrelevant to the headline. Relevant to the quote, sure, he said it. But it's otherwise immaterial to the headline. To me, even immaterial as part of the story outside of the person trying to make it an issue, but I'll temper that and say immaterial to the headline.
PWMTrav is offline  
Old Sep 9, 13, 10:35 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: CAE,AGS
Programs: AAExP, Hyatt Globalist, HHonors Gold, ICHPlat, MarriottR, SPG Gold
Posts: 3,115
The crew members and the passengers were put into a terribly uncomfortable situation by this passenger's yelling and cursing. If there was an empty seat beside him, there would have been ample room for the dog to stay on the floor. Simple case. Comply with the airline rules and/or requests, or be escorted off the plane.
US Airways treated him very well actually IMO.
miffSC is offline  
Old Sep 9, 13, 11:57 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: US-CP, UA, Marriott Rewards, HHonors, Avis,
Posts: 4,549
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
I disagree; the gentleman with the dog raised the issue:



Should reporters cleanse stories of details that the key figure in the story thought important? It's not like the reporters worked feverishly to discover that someone was a Vietnam vet and added that to the story - if that had happened, that would be irrelevant.

Here, the fellow made it the issue, and including that detail helps the reader connect all the dots, as most people understand that far too many Vietnam vets are still afflicted with assorted untreated demons, including demons that cause them to behave in ways that conflict with societal norms. As we see here, those behaviours can even result in them cursing out pilots, having the police called, and being removed from an airplane. I don't see any benefit to him or society by sanitizing the story to remove the fact that he's a Vietnam vet. That detail helps explain why he had to wait a day to get home. That he was a Vietnam vet also helps explain why he was treated with kid gloves by the crew and the responding police and why he was even rebooked on a US flight the next day and why US picked up his hotel that night. Remove all references to his status as a disturbed Vietnam vet and the reader would be left wondering why this happened. Leaving it in helps complete the story. YMMV.
I disagree, because these details detract from the true cause of the dispute: that the passenger would not or could not get his dog to sit on the floor, in compliance with the regulations on how service animals are to be transported. That the passenger served in the military is irrelevant, and from my understanding, no one ever questioned his right to have the service animal. If he had said "My military service entitles me to have my service dog sitting in a seat instead of on the floor," then it would be relevant (not a valid argument, but at least on point and relevant to the dispute).

It would be like saying "my disability allows me to park in this handicapped space" when you're getting a ticket for parking sideways rather than lengthwise, and blocking three spaces.

The press is supposed to report the facts of a story and it's easier to see those facts if irrelevant details are left out. But "Veteran and service dog kicked off flight" sells way more ad space than "Passenger kicked off flight for not putting dog on floor" I suppose.
dcpatti is offline  
Old Sep 10, 13, 9:01 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MEM
Programs: Delta:PM, US Airways:CP, HH:DM, MR:DM, Avis:First, Hertz: President's Circle
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by PWMTrav View Post
The "veteran" part of the description really is irrelevant to the story. It's just added for sensationalism.
To quote a famous first lady.

Why does it matter....

As usual baiting by the media.
Azzuristar is offline  
Old Sep 10, 13, 10:08 am
  #14  
GAC
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 355
Yet another "Service" dog huh? I guess if its "service" was to calm the guy the pup needs more training.
GAC is offline  
Old Sep 10, 13, 2:05 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte
Programs: Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum Elite, AA Platinum Pro, Hertz Presidents
Posts: 1,213
I'm sorry but, I completely disagree with those that feel the man's service to our country doesn't impact the story It most certainly does. It's that service, which caused his condition which requires a service dog. It's his veteran status that probably makes him a little skittish, and why he wanted his dog with him--next to him. It's his service, that caused the airline to rebook with no penalty, and provide free hotel. Those that say it doesn't matter, want to asuage their own guilt, I'd say ($.10 psychology) over them justifying this man being removed from the flight.
Yes, he didn't obey the rules, and have the dog sit on the floor. I get that. But I choose to believe it's his service that brought about his condition, and the need to have the dog by his side. It's like blaming someone with a broken leg, for having to use crutches.
scottsam66 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: