Stay classy New Mexico

[Deep Purple]

But I think you are wrong if you are an airline or other regulated carrier. Businesses offering public accommodations including travel do NOT have unfettered discretion to turn customers away.

Nope -- wrong. Flying on an airplane is not a civil right. Short of violating someone's civil rights, airlines absolutely have the discretion to refuse service to anyone they feel is disrupting passenger comfort or discrediting their corporate decorum. Several years ago, British Airways nearly refused to allow me to board a Houston-London flight because I was wearing blue jeans in First Class, which was a major no-no. They weren't old, scruffy, faded jeans either -- brand-new, bright-blue, with a dress shirt, dressy-casual belt, socks, polished loafers, and even a tweed jacket.. Still, they were jeans.

An airline pilot has absolute legal authority to eject any passenger whom he feels violates the safety, comfort, or even decorum of a flight.

IIRC the airline made some public apologies and paid some settlement money to the Arabs. Wouldn't shock me if the same thing happened in this situation.

Some Delta staffers at the Memphis airport apologized to the men for the incident and rebooked them on a later flight. But Delta Airlines issued no apology and made no financial settlement.

 

[Deep Purple]

The airline in question was Air tran and one of the men was walking up and down the isle as he was talking on his cell phone in arabic with voice being a little above normal and was asked to sit down quite a few times. Later it was found they were missing another one of their group and he did not understand english which created the scenario. I can see why passengers were worried but understand his problems also.

Different incident. The one he's referring to was Delta #5452 from Memphis to Charlotte. This occurred just over a month ago on May 6.

 

[Atomic Frawg]

Nope -- wrong. Flying on an airplane is not a civil right. Short of violating someone's civil rights, airlines absolutely have the discretion to refuse service to anyone they feel is disrupting passenger comfort or discrediting their corporate decorum. Several years ago, British Airways nearly refused to allow me to board a Houston-London flight because I was wearing blue jeans in First Class, which was a major no-no. They weren't old, scruffy, faded jeans either -- brand-new, bright-blue, with a dress shirt, dressy-casual belt, socks, polished loafers, and even a tweed jacket.. Still, they were jeans.

You can afford First Class on a BA international flight? You hiring?

 

[frogbyproxy]

Different incident. The one he's referring to was Delta #5452 from Memphis to Charlotte. This occurred just over a month ago on May 6.

My bad! The incident I was speaking of was 01/2010. I was one flight behind them after they finally took off. :tongue: The federal government makes it a practice to tell employees to profile people around them and know your surroundings. Each year you have to take a class on how to make sure you are not targeted by terrorist whether in the USA or overseas. Then you have to sign a document stating you have taken the course and understand what you need to do. If anything guess who creates the biggest problems? The courses is not for our security agencies but everyone across the board including receptionist and janitors. Don't you just love our system! :blush:

 

[froginaustin]

Nope -- wrong. Flying on an airplane is not a civil right. Short of violating someone's civil rights, airlines absolutely have the discretion to refuse service to anyone they feel is disrupting passenger comfort or discrediting their corporate decorum. Several years ago, British Airways nearly refused to allow me to board a Houston-London flight because I was wearing blue jeans in First Class, which was a major no-no. They weren't old, scruffy, faded jeans either -- brand-new, bright-blue, with a dress shirt, dressy-casual belt, socks, polished loafers, and even a tweed jacket.. Still, they were jeans.

An airline pilot has absolute legal authority to eject any passenger whom he feels violates the safety, comfort, or even decorum of a flight.


Some Delta staffers at the Memphis airport apologized to the men for the incident and rebooked them on a later flight. But Delta Airlines issued no apology and made no financial settlement.

Sigh. And in the end B.A. let you fly?

Perhaps a B.A. crew can refuse service to anyone for any reason in the U.K., or elsewhere outside U.S. jurisdiction. And perhaps B.A. can refuse service to someone in the U.S.A. for no reason whatsoever. But a common carrier subject to U.S. jurisdiction (and I have no idea whether a B.A. aircraft on the ground in Houston is subject to U.S. jurisdiction or whether British rules apply) is exposed to liability for refusing service to for a wrong reason.

Using a racial profile to exclude a passenger from an airliner is a problem for an airline subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

 

[Deep Purple]

Sigh. And in the end B.A. let you fly?

Perhaps a B.A. crew can refuse service to anyone for any reason in the U.K., or elsewhere outside U.S. jurisdiction. And perhaps B.A. can refuse service to someone in the U.S.A. for no reason whatsoever. But a common carrier subject to U.S. jurisdiction (and I have no idea whether a B.A. aircraft on the ground in Houston is subject to U.S. jurisdiction or whether British rules apply) is exposed to liability for refusing service to for a wrong reason.

Using a racial profile to exclude a passenger from an airliner is a problem for an airline subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Wrong again. A carrier of any nationality flying in US airspace -- and any US-registered carrier flying in foreign airspace -- is subject to FAA jurisdiction and the regulations of the Federal Code governing US commercial flight operations.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
Part 91: General Operating and Flight Rules
Subpart A: General
Section 91.3

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Translation: The flight captain (generally the chief pilot) has absolute authority over everything pertaining to his aircraft during flight operations, both in the air and on the ground. This includes authority over passengers he is carrying on his aircraft.

Section 91.11

No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

Translation: Passengers who refuse to comply with the flight captain or crewmembers acting on his instructions are interfering with crewmember duties.

Subpart H: Foreign Aircraft Operations and Operations of U.S.-Registered Aircraft Outside of the United States; and Rules Governing Persons On Board Such Aircraft
Section 91.702

Section 91.11 of this part (Prohibitions on interference with crewmembers) applies to each person on board an aircraft.

Translation: The same rules that apply to passengers aboard US aircraft apply to passengers aboard foreign carriers operating in US jurisdiction.

Section 91.711: Special Rules for Foreign Civil Aircraft

(a) General. In addition to the other applicable regulations of this part, each person operating a foreign civil aircraft within the United States shall comply with this section.

Translation: It doesn't matter what your nationality is. If you're in US jurisdiction, you're subject to US law -- and US law says the flight captain has the final authority over any aircraft in fight operations, both in the air and on the ground.

When opining on matters of law, it's always best to check what the law actually says rather than argue on what you think the law should say.

 

[jack the frog]

I know little about operating jurisdiction or airline regulation but it seems to me that airlines, all cloaked around 9-11 security, have become judge and jury in all manner of customer service issues ranging from dress code to civility. It has become their default customer service position for the disagreeable customer.

 

[froginaustin]

I know little about operating jurisdiction or airline regulation but it seems to me that airlines, all cloaked around 9-11 security, have become judge and jury in all manner of customer service issues ranging from dress code to civility. It has become their default customer service position for the disagreeable customer.

True, but even the "final authority" is subject to being second-guessed. As is a trial court judge, a battle field commander, etc.

To think that an airline pilot has Old-Testament-God-like authority over seating or refusing to seat her/his passengers is hopelessly naive, out-of-context reference to regulations notwithstanding.

Lots of stuff trumps administrative regulations (even military regulations), and in U.S. jurisdictions acts of Congress and judicial decisions commonly qualify and or supersede agency policy.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that punishing an airline or a flight crew for misbehavior under color of FAA regs is common or should be. There should be deference given to the flight crew's judgment, but deference is all the get.

Of course no one can put a passenger on a plane if the crew that kicked him off is second guessed because that would happen if at all after the fact. But the airline and crew can be subjected to other unpleasantness, and that's the reason that a settlement payment by the airline is possible in this situation. Maybe significant damages; maybe nuisance value; maybe the kid and his parents go away quietly. Anyone's guess is as good as mine.

 

[Atomic Frawg]

The operative term is "interfere". What does that mean? It sounds like an act of commission, not ommission. Either way, all orders and instructions must be lawful, or they are unenforcible...just like the military.

 

[froginaustin]

The operative term is "interfere". What does that mean? It sounds like an act of commission, not ommission. Either way, all orders and instructions must be lawful, or they are unenforcible...just like the military.

You said in a few words what I hinted at, in many. Good work.

A self-enforcing improper order, such as kicking a passenger off an airliner and leaving the airport without the passenger, exposes the person giving the bad order to problems later.

 

[weklfrog]

The same airline that made the fuss about a black man showing part of his boxer shorts, 6 days earlier allowed without any concern about decorum whatsover in spite of customer complaints, a 40 year old white man to board wearing nothing but stockings, women's panties and bra and a sheer top on a flight from Fort Lauderdale to Phoenix..

A US Airways spokesperson said employees were correct not to ask the man to cover himself because
"We don't have a dress code policy. Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that's not appropriate. ... So if they're not exposing their private parts, they're allowed to fly."

 

[TopFrog]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw0a12geN3Q[/media]