4 ms·
I think if you refuse to comply with a flight attendant's directive, or the pilot's, you can be charge with interfering with a flight crew, or something. So whe
by nfnaaron 17y ago
I think if you refuse to comply with a flight attendant's directive, or the pilot's, you can be charge with interfering with a flight crew, or something. So whether a regulation is secret or not won't keep you out of jail; the regulation can be secret, but when the attendant tells you to do something you have to do it. My understanding.
IANAL
- jrockway 17y agoI think the wording is something like "reasonable instruction". Is it "reasonable" to say that you have to freeze to death because of a secret rule? (My guess is "yes", because that is how the US federal government works. If there is not extremely strong wording saying something is your right in the Constitution, it's not. Of course, there is explicit wording along the lines of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," but that's a little too broad for lawmakers or the Supreme Court to understand.)
- Retric 17y agoWhat people find Reasonable is extremely subjective. A frequent flyer friend of mine suggested the naked airline. Basically you take nothing on board, get shoved in a box, but you get to avoid the TSA. The funny thing is he thought dealing with the TSA would be the hardest part of getting this off the ground. I often wonder how many other flyers would find this reasonable.
- nfnaaron 17y agoMy guess/assumption is that "reasonable instruction" is intended to give the flight attendant flexibility in deciding what you should or shouldn't be doing, and not to give us a basis for refusing instructions.