6 ms·

I don't see why pilots need to have the power to boot passengers. At all. That's why TSA supposedly exists. Racist objections from passengers should not be able

by Bud 14y ago

I don't see why pilots need to have the power to boot passengers. At all. That's why TSA supposedly exists. Racist objections from passengers should not be able to lead to other passengers getting booted from flights.

anigbrowl 14y ago
Racism is one possibility, but so is anxiety about the guy's shirt and his attitude. Not very rational, but a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. A snotty disregard for the concerns of others tends to make them unsympathetic to your point of view. As for why pilots have the power to boot people, it's because they're responsible for the safety and happiness of the passengers during the flight, and the airline is there to make money on slim margins, not to serve as a public utility. Unless an airline engages in systematic discrimination against a protected class of people, then pilots will generally be allowed to appease the majority of paying passengers.
- grecy 14y ago
  > a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. Free Speech (but only when we say so)
  - tonycoco 14y ago
    Isn't it a privilege to fly? Not a right. It's not like an airplane is some public government arena. It's the property of the airlines, just so happens that you have to be cleared by the government to fly. Don't they have the right to refuse service to a customer, especially if that customer is making employees and other customers uneasy. I'm sure if you went into a McDonald's and were wearing some suspicious clothing or start spouting off ridiculous speeches, they'd ask you kindly to leave and tell you that you were not a welcome customer any longer. In fact, I've seen it happen. There are places for expression and "Free Speech"... maybe sitting next to the 13 year old or grandmother (or any other paying customer) who's flying for the first time in his/her life wearing some silly t-shirt about bombs and anti-government banter isn't the right place for it.
    - mindslight 14y ago
      As air travel has matured into infrastructure that is generally depended upon, flying has become a right. Especially a return trip. Failure to see this is a deficiency with the narrow "base primitive" view of rights.
      - robotresearcher 14y ago
        Should airline travel be available to all, irrespective of their ability to pay? If not, then it can't be a right, since rights can not be denied based on ability to pay.
        mindslight 14y ago
        Okay, kindly perform whatever formalization is necessary to interpret my statement in your alluded-to framework (factor out payment, s/right/unrestriction/, $whatever), then get back to me.
        ebrenes 14y ago
        If I don't pay for food, I die. If I don't pay for medicines, I die. Does this then imply I don't have a right to live, because "rights cannot be denied based on the ability to pay"? That I don't have a right to property, because if I don't pay my debts my belongings can be confiscated and sold at auction? I have a right to appoint my own counsel, but the government won't pay for the counsel I appoint. In order to use that right I have to be able to afford the lawyer I want. US citizens have a right to run for elected office, but clearly that's not provided free of charge! Rights are not irrespective or independent of my ability to pay. And if something is a right does not mean I get it for free.
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        flying has become a right I think you need to lay out your argument in greater detail than you have done so far.
        mindslight 14y ago
  - robotresearcher 14y ago
    The right to free speech is rule that restricts the power of the government only. It has nothing to do with companies or individuals. Just as I can ask you to leave my home if you insult my mother, a company can refuse you access to their airplane if they don't like your T-shirt. That's their business decision.
    - grecy 14y ago
      Hmm. thanks for the info. Could McDonald's legally deny me entry to their restaurant if I was wearing a T-Shirt that said "I support Obama"? Further, can they legally deny me entry for no reason at all? (I'm not trolling, I genuinely don't know the answers)
      - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        Generally speaking, most businesses will have some sort of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" type policy. However, they will often come under fire for (ab)using that policy however they see fit. It is a tricky situation really. It probably comes down to whether or not you fall into a group that is protected. They would be in a media/legal shit storm if they denied you entry because you were in a wheelchair. I don't know if being a Democratic is a protected group. Edit: I guess specifically if being in that protected group played into why you were denied. Meaning, they can toss you for being drunk even if you're in a wheelchair.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private entities such as airlines and not on private property (such as the interior of an aircraft).
  - vampirechicken 14y ago
    "Congress shall make no law" does not say "UAL shall make no rules" The idea is that Congress cannot criminalize speech. But the ramifications of your free expression, with respect to those people and institutions that you interact with, is not regulated by congress in so far as a crime is not committed in reaction.
- wilzan 14y ago
  He changed his shirt and they still wouldn't let him on.
chiph 14y ago
It's because when the plane pushes back from the gate, the pilot is in charge and is responsible for the safety of everyone aboard. Much like how a captain at sea is responsible for everyone on board his ship (and is held accountable should tragedy strike). It's not a republic or democracy when you're on his plane. What he says, goes.
- dhimes 14y ago
  This isn't even about safety. It's the pilot's job (if he wants to keep it) to make the passengers as comfortable as possible also. That's why they dodge turbulence. Except in extreme cases, it has nothing to do with safety.
- Bud 14y ago
  That's not a why. That's just you stating the fact, and it's non-responsive to my question. In this case, the plane had not pushed back from the gate. The pilot kicked this guy off before the flight. I think it's reasonable to ask why a random, unjustified passenger complaint to the pilot should override the TSA's screening process.
  - chiph 14y ago
    Because he says so.
- mindslight 14y ago
  While agreeing with that, Delta should still be held responsible for getting him to his destination on a reasonable schedule, the costs of his accommodations, and his and his wife's wasted time.
  - tonycoco 14y ago
    If Delta should be reasonable (getting him accommodations) shouldn't he also be reasonable next time he gets on one of their planes?
    - 14y ago
thelucky41 14y ago
I am a pilot (not an airline pilot). It is absolutely mandatory for the pilot-in-command to have complete discretion when dealing with passengers on their aircraft. While I may have let this man board my own plane, this pilot-in-command used his own judgement to determine that the passenger presented too large a risk to the safety and comfort of other passengers. It is completely within his duties to do that. It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later.
- myko 14y ago
  > It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later. Seems like the only reasonable response.

by Bud 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

Racism is one possibility, but so is anxiety about the guy's shirt and his attitude. Not very rational, but a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. A snotty disregard for the concerns of others tends to make them unsympathetic to your point of view. As for why pilots have the power to boot people, it's because they're responsible for the safety and happiness of the passengers during the flight, and the airline is there to make money on slim margins, not to serve as a public utility. Unless an airline engages in systematic discrimination against a protected class of people, then pilots will generally be allowed to appease the majority of paying passengers.

grecy 14y ago
> a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. Free Speech (but only when we say so)
- tonycoco 14y ago
  Isn't it a privilege to fly? Not a right. It's not like an airplane is some public government arena. It's the property of the airlines, just so happens that you have to be cleared by the government to fly. Don't they have the right to refuse service to a customer, especially if that customer is making employees and other customers uneasy. I'm sure if you went into a McDonald's and were wearing some suspicious clothing or start spouting off ridiculous speeches, they'd ask you kindly to leave and tell you that you were not a welcome customer any longer. In fact, I've seen it happen. There are places for expression and "Free Speech"... maybe sitting next to the 13 year old or grandmother (or any other paying customer) who's flying for the first time in his/her life wearing some silly t-shirt about bombs and anti-government banter isn't the right place for it.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    As air travel has matured into infrastructure that is generally depended upon, flying has become a right. Especially a return trip. Failure to see this is a deficiency with the narrow "base primitive" view of rights.
    - robotresearcher 14y ago
      Should airline travel be available to all, irrespective of their ability to pay? If not, then it can't be a right, since rights can not be denied based on ability to pay.
      - mindslight 14y ago
        Okay, kindly perform whatever formalization is necessary to interpret my statement in your alluded-to framework (factor out payment, s/right/unrestriction/, $whatever), then get back to me.
      - ebrenes 14y ago
        If I don't pay for food, I die. If I don't pay for medicines, I die. Does this then imply I don't have a right to live, because "rights cannot be denied based on the ability to pay"? That I don't have a right to property, because if I don't pay my debts my belongings can be confiscated and sold at auction? I have a right to appoint my own counsel, but the government won't pay for the counsel I appoint. In order to use that right I have to be able to afford the lawyer I want. US citizens have a right to run for elected office, but clearly that's not provided free of charge! Rights are not irrespective or independent of my ability to pay. And if something is a right does not mean I get it for free.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      flying has become a right I think you need to lay out your argument in greater detail than you have done so far.
      - mindslight 14y ago
- robotresearcher 14y ago
  The right to free speech is rule that restricts the power of the government only. It has nothing to do with companies or individuals. Just as I can ask you to leave my home if you insult my mother, a company can refuse you access to their airplane if they don't like your T-shirt. That's their business decision.
  - grecy 14y ago
    Hmm. thanks for the info. Could McDonald's legally deny me entry to their restaurant if I was wearing a T-Shirt that said "I support Obama"? Further, can they legally deny me entry for no reason at all? (I'm not trolling, I genuinely don't know the answers)
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      Generally speaking, most businesses will have some sort of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" type policy. However, they will often come under fire for (ab)using that policy however they see fit. It is a tricky situation really. It probably comes down to whether or not you fall into a group that is protected. They would be in a media/legal shit storm if they denied you entry because you were in a wheelchair. I don't know if being a Democratic is a protected group. Edit: I guess specifically if being in that protected group played into why you were denied. Meaning, they can toss you for being drunk even if you're in a wheelchair.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private entities such as airlines and not on private property (such as the interior of an aircraft).
- vampirechicken 14y ago
  "Congress shall make no law" does not say "UAL shall make no rules" The idea is that Congress cannot criminalize speech. But the ramifications of your free expression, with respect to those people and institutions that you interact with, is not regulated by congress in so far as a crime is not committed in reaction.
wilzan 14y ago
He changed his shirt and they still wouldn't let him on.

chiph 14y ago

It's because when the plane pushes back from the gate, the pilot is in charge and is responsible for the safety of everyone aboard. Much like how a captain at sea is responsible for everyone on board his ship (and is held accountable should tragedy strike). It's not a republic or democracy when you're on his plane. What he says, goes.

dhimes 14y ago
This isn't even about safety. It's the pilot's job (if he wants to keep it) to make the passengers as comfortable as possible also. That's why they dodge turbulence. Except in extreme cases, it has nothing to do with safety.
Bud 14y ago
That's not a why. That's just you stating the fact, and it's non-responsive to my question. In this case, the plane had not pushed back from the gate. The pilot kicked this guy off before the flight. I think it's reasonable to ask why a random, unjustified passenger complaint to the pilot should override the TSA's screening process.
- chiph 14y ago
  Because he says so.
mindslight 14y ago
While agreeing with that, Delta should still be held responsible for getting him to his destination on a reasonable schedule, the costs of his accommodations, and his and his wife's wasted time.
- tonycoco 14y ago
  If Delta should be reasonable (getting him accommodations) shouldn't he also be reasonable next time he gets on one of their planes?
  - 14y ago

thelucky41 14y ago

I am a pilot (not an airline pilot). It is absolutely mandatory for the pilot-in-command to have complete discretion when dealing with passengers on their aircraft. While I may have let this man board my own plane, this pilot-in-command used his own judgement to determine that the passenger presented too large a risk to the safety and comfort of other passengers. It is completely within his duties to do that. It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later.

myko 14y ago
> It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later. Seems like the only reasonable response.