6 ms·
Edit: seems this doesn't apply because the doors hadn't been closed yet. See below I found this law which, from a layman's perspective and based on my understa
by hsod 10y ago
Edit: seems this doesn't apply because the doors hadn't been closed yet. See below
I found this law which, from a layman's perspective and based on my understanding of the sequence of events, the passenger violated: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504
"An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life."
If a flight attendant asked him to get off the plane and he belligerently refused, that would seem to be a violation of this law.
Note that I'm not arguing that the original request was justified OR that the police response was justified.
- cmurf 10y agoYour reading is flawed. 49 U.S. Code § 46501 - Definitions (1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding— (2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight: And to preempt more of this nonsense, FAR 91.3 and 91.11 don't apply either, those are for operational safety purposes. This is a contract of carriage issue, and what the airline tried to do is not in that contract. The passenger was within his right to peacefully refuse to cooperate, in this instance, as reported.
- hsod 10y agoThanks for the clarification.