Woman punches male FA in face on US 2051, PHL-MIA; draws blood
Sep 16, 2013, 1:12 pm
#16
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: AVL
Programs: AA EXP ; Cunard Plat
Posts: 4,211
Generally true, but under 49 U.S.C. section 46501 the definition of "aircraft in flight" is broader to include the moment all aircraft doors are closed following boarding .... relevant section below (emphasis mine)
So, whether it's a federal offense may hinge (pun intended 
) on whether the aircraft doors were open or closed when the assault happened ...
1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding—
(A) through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft; or
(B) until, if a forced landing, competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and individuals and property on the aircraft. ...
(A) through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft; or
(B) until, if a forced landing, competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and individuals and property on the aircraft. ...
) on whether the aircraft doors were open or closed when the assault happened ...
Sep 16, 2013, 1:22 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,256
Thanks buddy. Hope all is well with you.
Sep 16, 2013, 1:27 pm
#18
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PHL
Programs: AA Executive Platinum; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,663
I don't care how upset the passenger was. Hitting a FA is simply wrong. I agree that the passenger should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is not a typo.
Sep 16, 2013, 1:52 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: PHL, NYC
Programs: AA PLT, DL SLV, UA SLV, MR LTT, HH DIA
Posts: 10,073
I'm no lawyer, but I do play one on TV...
The idea behind it being a federal offense when the plane is defined to be "in flight" (i.e. after doors close until they open) is because it's not just assault at that point, but also interfering with the safety of the aircraft, which of course is regulated and falls within the Code of Federal Regulations.
So, assault would still be just one charge, but so would every other FAA violation involved that essentially removes the affected flight attendant from being able to perform their duties. On a plane with the minimum number of F/A's (which is most domestic flights), then the passenger has also created a situation where, in an emergency, there aren't enough flight attendants to deal with it as prescribed by the regs (1 per 50 pax).
The idea behind it being a federal offense when the plane is defined to be "in flight" (i.e. after doors close until they open) is because it's not just assault at that point, but also interfering with the safety of the aircraft, which of course is regulated and falls within the Code of Federal Regulations.
So, assault would still be just one charge, but so would every other FAA violation involved that essentially removes the affected flight attendant from being able to perform their duties. On a plane with the minimum number of F/A's (which is most domestic flights), then the passenger has also created a situation where, in an emergency, there aren't enough flight attendants to deal with it as prescribed by the regs (1 per 50 pax).
Sep 16, 2013, 2:40 pm
#20
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PIT
Posts: 759
I would assume the FA, with that many witnesses, could easily get a high profile Philadelphia law firm to persue a Civil Suit on a contingency.
Sep 16, 2013, 2:43 pm
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: PHL
Programs: Former long-time US GP; now AA dirt
Posts: 4,904
Generally true, but under 49 U.S.C. section 46501 the definition of "aircraft in flight" is broader to include the moment all aircraft doors are closed following boarding .... relevant section below (emphasis mine)
So, whether it's a federal offense may hinge (pun intended) on whether the aircraft doors were open or closed when the assault happened ...
So, whether it's a federal offense may hinge (pun intended
) on whether the aircraft doors were open or closed when the assault happened ...Hmmm. This is interesting because I just asked my friend for more details about the door after reading your post. She writes:
"They had closed it, then they opened it to take her off to talk to her in the jet bridge and someone stupidly let her in to get her stuff because they were taking her off the flight and that's when she attacked the flight attendant right there in the entry area."
So the assailant hit the FA when the door was open, but the original violation (seemingly not a physical assault) happened when the door was closed.
Sep 16, 2013, 4:05 pm
#22
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Philly
Programs: US, CO, Marriott
Posts: 217
Maybe he tried to stop her from using the First Class bathroom?
Sep 16, 2013, 4:08 pm
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: PHL
Programs: Former long-time US GP; now AA dirt
Posts: 4,904
Sep 16, 2013, 5:10 pm
#25
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,338
Some time ago at SYD a passenger (who was refused check in for arriving after the cutoff) TWICE assaulted the male check in agent.
Said pax was arrested and charged... but the magistrate hearing the case essentially let them off... I believe the term of art was "airports are stressful places"
I suspect had the offender not been female the result would have been different...but that's OK...
Just so long as that (female) magistrate reacts the same way when she is assaulted by someone who doesn't like it when she "enforces the rules"....
After all.. "Courtrooms are stressful places"...
After that failure of the court system (my view of it.. YMMV of course) I had REALLY hoped that the airline concerned would back up their staff by publicly blacklisting that person.... AND I hoped that our other airlines would have followed suit.
Nope.
Said pax was arrested and charged... but the magistrate hearing the case essentially let them off... I believe the term of art was "airports are stressful places"
I suspect had the offender not been female the result would have been different...but that's OK...
Just so long as that (female) magistrate reacts the same way when she is assaulted by someone who doesn't like it when she "enforces the rules"....
After all.. "Courtrooms are stressful places"...
After that failure of the court system (my view of it.. YMMV of course) I had REALLY hoped that the airline concerned would back up their staff by publicly blacklisting that person.... AND I hoped that our other airlines would have followed suit.
Nope.
Sep 16, 2013, 5:22 pm
#26
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Jim
Sep 17, 2013, 1:17 am
#27
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: UA, AS
Posts: 2,393
It looks like they are not going to make a Federal case out of it. Too bad, this type of behavior should not be allowed to occur on any aircraft.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/br..._on_plane.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/br..._on_plane.html
A woman was arrested after assaulting a flight attendant Monday morning at Philadelphia International Airport, police said.
Sasha Anderson, 23, of Philadelphia, was on a US Airways plane bound for Miami around 10 a.m. when she threw a mobile phone at the flight attendant and also slapped and scratched his face, police said. She was arrested by Tinicum Township police. Flight 2051 took off about an hour and a half later.
Anderson was charged with simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, harassment, and disorderly conduct. She is free pending a court appearance, which has yet to be scheduled. - Robert Moran
Sasha Anderson, 23, of Philadelphia, was on a US Airways plane bound for Miami around 10 a.m. when she threw a mobile phone at the flight attendant and also slapped and scratched his face, police said. She was arrested by Tinicum Township police. Flight 2051 took off about an hour and a half later.
Anderson was charged with simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, harassment, and disorderly conduct. She is free pending a court appearance, which has yet to be scheduled. - Robert Moran
Sep 17, 2013, 6:30 am
#28
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: UA 1K , SPG Platinum , Hyatt Diamond , Marriot Gold , BW Diamond , Hertz PC
Posts: 63
lol. Instead of worrying about who uses the lavatory they need to focus on increasing quality of service.
BTW do we know what the FA did to piss off the flyer to that extent? Maybe he was a foul mouth who went too far. Not saying that anyone deserves being punched.
BTW do we know what the FA did to piss off the flyer to that extent? Maybe he was a foul mouth who went too far. Not saying that anyone deserves being punched.
Sep 17, 2013, 7:59 am
#29
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 355
Well obviously we are all against punching anybody including a FA. But why the call to throw the book and ban from flying forever? Is it because a FA was hit or that it was done on a plane? Seems to me it being assault and should be treated the same no matter who took the hit.
If I punched somebody in a mall would I be banned from all malls for the rest of my life?
If I punched somebody in a mall would I be banned from all malls for the rest of my life?
Sep 17, 2013, 8:20 am
#30
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Well obviously we are all against punching anybody including a FA. But why the call to throw the book and ban from flying forever? Is it because a FA was hit or that it was done on a plane? Seems to me it being assault and should be treated the same no matter who took the hit.
If I punched somebody in a mall would I be banned from all malls for the rest of my life?
If I punched somebody in a mall would I be banned from all malls for the rest of my life?