4 ms·

I really resent the way you used "victim" and "aggressor" there. Really quite manipulative. As the article its self said, from the captain's perspective he was

I really resent the way you used "victim" and "aggressor" there. Really quite manipulative. As the article its self said, from the captain's perspective he was likely always going to believe a FA over a pax, in particular if the FA claimed the pax wasn't being cooperative. Now if the quotes were accurate I think the captain was quite rude, but we really don't know what the FA said to the captain, maybe he got the impression the guy was being a massive ass. But regardless, the author was very professional for not releasing the name. It adds nothing to the story. It would just be petty revenge.

jemfinch 14y ago
The author contracted carriage in exchange for money, and the captain refused to honor that contract. The author was a victim. The captain was an aggressor. Those are facts, not opinions, and they're not manipulative. It's your prerogative to resent them, but they remain facts. It's interesting that you seem to be claiming the captain wasn't an aggressor, but then believe that giving his name to his actions would be "petty revenge."
- mmcnickle 14y ago
  And the terms and conditions of said contract would state that the captain has the absolute right to remove anyone from the flight. Edit: Reference. RULE 21 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT in United's Contract of Carriage [1] outlines UA's right to "remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons". The reasons are, as you would expect, broad and vague, essentially giving UA cover to remove anyone from the flight. The one I expect they would cite in this instance is: H4: "Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;" Other fun conditions that UA have felt the need to enumerate: 21:H5 Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed; 21:H16 Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition [1]http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd...
  - vidarh 14y ago
    I'm sure they would cite it. That doesn't make it right, nor does it make him any less of a victim.

jemfinch 14y ago

The author contracted carriage in exchange for money, and the captain refused to honor that contract. The author was a victim. The captain was an aggressor. Those are facts, not opinions, and they're not manipulative. It's your prerogative to resent them, but they remain facts. It's interesting that you seem to be claiming the captain wasn't an aggressor, but then believe that giving his name to his actions would be "petty revenge."

mmcnickle 14y ago
And the terms and conditions of said contract would state that the captain has the absolute right to remove anyone from the flight. Edit: Reference. RULE 21 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT in United's Contract of Carriage [1] outlines UA's right to "remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons". The reasons are, as you would expect, broad and vague, essentially giving UA cover to remove anyone from the flight. The one I expect they would cite in this instance is: H4: "Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;" Other fun conditions that UA have felt the need to enumerate: 21:H5 Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed; 21:H16 Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition [1]http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd...
- vidarh 14y ago
  I'm sure they would cite it. That doesn't make it right, nor does it make him any less of a victim.