4 ms·

"airline's right to remove any passenger at any time for any reason" 1. Absurd. Flight attendant: Sir, you farted, we're going to remove you. Passenger: Umm,

by cmurf 10y ago

"airline's right to remove any passenger at any time for any reason" 1. Absurd. Flight attendant: Sir, you farted, we're going to remove you. Passenger: Umm, we're at 42,000 feet?! Flight attendant: Too bad, we can remove you at any time for any reason. 2. Citation for this "right"? In the airline's contract of carriage I see explicit reasons for being removed from an aircraft, and none of them apply to this case.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
If I understand correctly, odor is in fact one explicitly-stated valid reason for being removed from an aircraft. (Not at 42,000 feet, of course.)
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Usually caused by crappy airline food...
- cmurf 10y ago
  Yes, for United it's contract of carriage rule 21, H, reason 16: malodorous condition. It's funny that this is under the auspices of safety though. I guess the logic is if someone stinks enough it might cause disorderly conduct by other passengers?
  - self-diversity 10y ago
    Imagine being locked next to someone who smells of their last trip to the bathroom after a taco bell binge for five hours. How much vomit might you conjure up for the crew to enjoy?
tylerjd 10y ago
Essentially, the Captains word is law while on the plane. He is responsible for the safety of everyone on board. According to FAA FAR 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. Additionally ICAO code states The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
- cmurf 10y ago
  Nope. Not applicable at all, the aircraft was not in operation. I am a pilot (former CFII) and and there is no possible application of this FAR to this situation. It's not even a stretch.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    I am not convinced that 91.3 and 91.11 CFR 14 are suspended once the airplane is stationary on the ground, could you elaborate? ICAO defines an accident to be "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked" and fulfilling various further criteria. So, according to that definition the airplane was "in operation", insofar as people had boarded it to fly.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Neither FAR applies when you're fully in compliance with safety instructions and regulations, but not complying with non-safety requests ostensibly based strictly on the contract of carriage. FAR 91.3(a) does not give the pilot the power to command you to drop trou and kiss your own ass, or else he'll throw you off the plane. That's not the intent behind that regulation, at all. It's a safety regulation, to give the PIC wide latitude for safety related operation of the plane, and not be countermanded by his company, or the airplane owner, or any passenger, or in particular air traffic control. The primary purpose of 91.3(a) is to permit the pilot to disregard/refuse an ATC clearance the pilot thinks is unsafe. Both FAR can certainly apply to stationary "operation" i.e. immediately prior to pushback, requiring you to be seated with a seatbelt on; or stopped on a taxiway, if you do not comply with a crew member to sit down you can correctly be seen to be interfering with a crewmember as you're an obstruction. And if you are interfering, that is a violation of United's rule 21 of the contract of carriage, and in that case they can have you removed from the plane. Anyway, there is no FAR applicable to this passenger's behavior. He's also not in breach of the contract of carriage. The airline f'd up. And the cops did too.
      - 10y ago

by cmurf 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

If I understand correctly, odor is in fact one explicitly-stated valid reason for being removed from an aircraft. (Not at 42,000 feet, of course.)

jacquesm 10y ago
Usually caused by crappy airline food...
cmurf 10y ago
Yes, for United it's contract of carriage rule 21, H, reason 16: malodorous condition. It's funny that this is under the auspices of safety though. I guess the logic is if someone stinks enough it might cause disorderly conduct by other passengers?
- self-diversity 10y ago
  Imagine being locked next to someone who smells of their last trip to the bathroom after a taco bell binge for five hours. How much vomit might you conjure up for the crew to enjoy?

tylerjd 10y ago

Essentially, the Captains word is law while on the plane. He is responsible for the safety of everyone on board. According to FAA FAR 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. Additionally ICAO code states The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command

cmurf 10y ago
Nope. Not applicable at all, the aircraft was not in operation. I am a pilot (former CFII) and and there is no possible application of this FAR to this situation. It's not even a stretch.
- FabHK 10y ago
  I am not convinced that 91.3 and 91.11 CFR 14 are suspended once the airplane is stationary on the ground, could you elaborate? ICAO defines an accident to be "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked" and fulfilling various further criteria. So, according to that definition the airplane was "in operation", insofar as people had boarded it to fly.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Neither FAR applies when you're fully in compliance with safety instructions and regulations, but not complying with non-safety requests ostensibly based strictly on the contract of carriage. FAR 91.3(a) does not give the pilot the power to command you to drop trou and kiss your own ass, or else he'll throw you off the plane. That's not the intent behind that regulation, at all. It's a safety regulation, to give the PIC wide latitude for safety related operation of the plane, and not be countermanded by his company, or the airplane owner, or any passenger, or in particular air traffic control. The primary purpose of 91.3(a) is to permit the pilot to disregard/refuse an ATC clearance the pilot thinks is unsafe. Both FAR can certainly apply to stationary "operation" i.e. immediately prior to pushback, requiring you to be seated with a seatbelt on; or stopped on a taxiway, if you do not comply with a crew member to sit down you can correctly be seen to be interfering with a crewmember as you're an obstruction. And if you are interfering, that is a violation of United's rule 21 of the contract of carriage, and in that case they can have you removed from the plane. Anyway, there is no FAR applicable to this passenger's behavior. He's also not in breach of the contract of carriage. The airline f'd up. And the cops did too.
    - 10y ago