11 ms·

Is Polite Disagreement Becoming Grounds For Removal From A Flight?

104 points by shrikant 14y ago

adamc 14y ago
Can't even see the page...
msluyter 14y ago
This sounds outrageous, but one should remain skeptical. Most people, in retrospect, will describe themselves as being "polite" or "calm." "No, I didn't raise my voice at all!" But these sorts of self-reports are prone to all sorts of subjectivity or bias, and I wouldn't simply take them at face value. My "calm and reasoned" could be another's "aggressive and threatening." Not saying that the stories are necessarily inaccurate, rather, how can we really know for sure without some sort of independent confirmation? I file these under "troubling anecdotes in need of more data."
- laumars 14y ago
  While that's true, you can equally say that the FA saw any objections as acts of aggression and in the cold light of day, the FA's had panicked for no reason. It's certainly quite believable that FA's would behave this way: their lives are at risk and they have the power to be "cautious" (read: chuck their aggressors off the plain). They also work long hours and tiredness doesn't help with anxiety. Plus there might even be a little of the Stanford Prison Experiment at play here (they have absolute control so are psychological motivated to enforce it). But even if you're right and those accounts are hugely biased, one question still remains: just how far are you allowed to push a complaint before you're considered a terrorist? Even in the worst case of scenarios, I couldn't see a father of 2 saying anything along the lines of "I'm going to blow this plane up" in front of his own kids when the whole reason for the disagreement was about wanting to shield them from a violent movie. So even with raised voices, why were they considered a threat.
  - qompiler 14y ago
    > So even with raised voices, why were they considered a threat. They asked to get near the pilot.. and if you think there aren't parents crazy enough to pull that in front of their kids you probably haven't heard of the westboro baptist church
- swampthing 14y ago
  Not sure about the first story, but IIRC, the second story has been corroborated by other passengers on the flight.
- efa 14y ago
  I agree. While I find air travel dehumanizing, I wish people would just convey what happened without all the dramatic language like "...horrific scenes on the movie screens" and "...linger in the terminal for hours with our exhausted and terrified little boys". Going over the top in your description doesn't make the story more believable.
_chrismccreadie 14y ago
This is the first I had heard of this particular story although I am aware similar stories like this exist. This follows on from another story on HN (can't find the HN link) about a UK armed forces member being denied boarding on a Virgin flight because she was wearing her uniform [1]. It seems to me that any form on questioning is now being taken as non-compliance, leaving customers with little choice, - comply or prepare to be inconvenienced when you are denied permission to fly. Of all the flights I have personally been on the only time there has been a real issue of passenger safety is when the drunk who wont sit down or or demands to get off the plane mid-flight and yet they continue to make alcohol available on flights. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290462/What-way-treat-heroine-Royal-Navy-girl-fought-Afghanistan-told-cover-uniform-Virgin-flight-case-offended-passengers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290462/What-way-tre...
- RBerenguel 14y ago
  Doesn't wearing an uniform imply (or could be thought so by other passengers) she was on duty? Being seen as military personnel on duty in a commercial flight doesn't just sound really good, but of course this is mostly due to the general atmosphere of flight fear
  - DanBC 14y ago
    You didn't read the link, did you? I don't blame you. I freaking hate the Daily Mail too. > Armed Forces rules state that a serviceman or woman can wear their uniforms voluntarily from their ‘residence to place of duty, irrespective of whether they travel by public or private transport, or on foot.’ EDIT: The article has a nice blurb about the difference between US and UK views of personnel in uniform.
    - RBerenguel 14y ago
      No, I didn't read the link for that reason :) I'm from Spain, so I didn't know e rules, but was more thinking about the passenger impressions on the aircraft.
DamnYuppie 14y ago
The more "secure" a nation tries to become the more tyrannical it becomes. It seems most people fail to forget that governments are made up of people, who like all their predecessors throughout history, will behave in a very predictable fashion if given power where there is no counter balance to their actions.
- brazzy 14y ago
  It's not just tyrannical. Also violent. The (in my long experience) most common reason given by gun-owning Americans for their need to be gun-owning Americans is that they have to be able to defend themselves against someone breaking into their house and wanting to kill them and their family. Yet somehow, this is not a scenario that most Europeans feel any need to worry about.
  - stephencanon 14y ago
    It's not a scenario that most Americans feel any need to worry about, either. The home defense crazies are crazy, and in no way representative of Americans, or even of gun owners.
tokenadult 14y ago
To answer the question posed by the headline, no. Certainly there is neither a statute nor a regulation that says that polite disagreement is a general ground for removal from a flight. Millions of people are flying each week, and they may have a variety of opinions, but removing passengers is very rare. A few anecdotes here and there do not change the general statistics that plenty of people are flying. It's okay (as here) to ask a question. Maybe you will not be satisfied with the answer, but the flight can go on with you on board.
- mistermann 14y ago
  > It's okay (as here) to ask a question. Maybe you will not be satisfied with the answer, but the flight can go on with you on board. The article discusses several incidents where this seems to not be the case. Are you implying these incidents didn't happen? The problem seems to be that no violation of any rule or statute is necessary for removal, it is entirely arbitrary and devoid of common sense at more than one level.
wtvanhest 14y ago
"They asked if the captain might be consulted." Wait, they were in the air, and they want to talk to the captain? The person responsible for everyone's safety? Because they couldn't cover their children's eyes during a few minutes of a PG-13 movie? By all means, ask the flight attendant if they can do anything. But, when they say no, its time to wait until the flight lands and talk to someone. Asking to see a pilot mid flight is very obnoxious and goes way beyond a polite disagreement. Obviously they shouldn't have diverted, but when someone is demanding to see the pilot, they have escalated to the point where a miscomunication between crew members can cause problems. Flight attendant: "Someone back here is demanding to see you". Pilot: "I'm not leaving the cockpit." Pilot to Pilot 2: "Lets divert, this is strange" Obviously he should have clarified whether it was a threat, but when you are overworked, and you have everyone's safety in mind, it makes sense to be extra safe. That is what they are paid for.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  "That is what they are paid for." I have no doubt that he's been given a strong talking to for diverting a plane and costing the airline no small expense on such a ridiculous over-reaction. They're paid to be sensible risk-evaluators and decision-makers, and this one is clearly rubbish at it.
  - tonyarkles 14y ago
    This sounds to me like a case of fundamental attribution bias. We have no idea what was going through his head at the time. We're all human, and we all make mistakes sometimes. It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted (or maybe wasn't given all the data needed to make a good decision)
    - EliRivers 14y ago
      "It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted" Overreaction is incompetent decision making.
crusso 14y ago
I have a close friend who is in the cockpit for a major American airline. Although most of the people he flies with are normal, nice folks - he tells me that there are some really bizarre little Napolean complexes in the Captain's seat for some flights. You're better off not knowing that some of these people are in charge of your life sometimes. This story doesn't so much tell us about all this power they have to kick you off the plane. It should illuminate the craziness of the people to whom that power has been given.
eli 14y ago
Well, when you give pilots the unilateral power to remove someone from a flight and there are 75,000 flights every day there are bound to be some abuses. Not sure this is surprisingly or that it necessarily even indicates that the system isn't working.
- chiph 14y ago
  The pilot is responsible for the safety of everyone on board. The question is, was the behavior of the passengers a credible threat? My guess is that the TSA & the airline (the pilots employer) have told him to put anyone off if there is even a hint of noncompliance. One of my favorite "hidden" quotes from the movie Brazil may be applicable: "Suspicion Breeds Confidence"
eksith 14y ago
There's no such thing as "polite disagreement" as far as airlines are concerned these days. If you disagree, you're taken off. That said, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for removing a passenger, and I'm grateful they do remove unruly ones when they need to. However... This level of power is why people just keep their head down and get through their lousy flight so they to their destination. Since air-travel, by its very nature, is monopolistic (until I get my damn flying car!) the airlines will do whatever they please until we all stop flying (won't happen) or other airlines gets started by entrepreneurs who're also sick and tired of this nonsense (won't say it can't happen, but highly unlikely). At least if there were more choices, it would democratize air-travel. Alas, the recent merging of airlines just go to show, they have us at our weakest and will exercise any level of control they want in the name of safety. After all, nothing shows "Safety" like "Silence".
- jerf 14y ago
  "Since air-travel, by its very nature, is monopolistic" Would you care to name the single entity that has the monopoly in question? (I do not think that word means what you think it means.)
  - benparsons 14y ago
    Per-route monopolies. It is clear what was meant.
  - eksith 14y ago
    Monopolistic in the sense how many of these : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines_of_the_United_... ... carry people (and not just cargo) and how many actually reach the most destinations? It's pretty much the early Hollywood Studio system up in the air. Sure, you can make a movie, but good luck getting known actors in it even if you could afford to pay them.
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    Yeah, airlines have the inverse problem. They are in a perfectly competitive environment which has driven industry profits extremely low which forces them to do everything as cheaply as possible. The airline industry is the furthest you can be from a monopoly. [added] of course there are other industries who are more commodity like real commodities, but air lines are the text book example (literally, not figuratively) for non-monopolistic competition. While the barriers appear high, they really aren't if you have the capital. If the airlines were profitable, almost anyone could get the capital to start one. In fact, upstart airlines appear consistently even though almost none of them make any money.
asmithmd1 14y ago
The reason these abuses go un-checked is because only the "little people" have to put up with it. Anyone who is anybody flies in their own chartered jet. In the GA terminal there is no TSA in sight and your pilot also acts as a concierge, booking a car service to take you to a restaurant reservation he also made for you while in flight.
- sopooneo 14y ago
  I don't know where we're drawing the above little people, but didn't Alec Baldwin famously almost get kicked off for playing video games at the wrong time on a public flight?
  - goostavos 14y ago
    Add to that Kevin Smith for being too fat.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Arnold Schwartzenegger just did an AMA from a plane that stopped because the wifi cuts out at 10k feet, which I presume also places him on a commercial flight.
  - zobzu 14y ago
    Depardieu got kicked for pissing all over the carpet in the plane. Yeah, in France it takes a little bit to get kicked out.
- pi18n 14y ago
  Despite what appears to be hyperbole, I still don't know why you were downvoted. It's common throughout many industries to have more abusive policies for poorer people, and they continue to do so because the poorer people have fewer alternatives. EDIT: maybe abusive is the wrong word, but definitely worse in some form.
  - panzagl 14y ago
    I don't know if I would consider commercial airlines and GA/charters the same industry. Malice is being ascribed where incompetence more than adequately explains the differences.
sageikosa 14y ago
The Committee for Public Safety says: Yes.
DanielBMarkham 14y ago
Here's a tip for travelers. Once you go to the airport, you become a prisoner of the system until they "release you" at your final destination. You have no expectation of privacy, security in your person or belongings, and they can and will do ugly things to you if you piss them off. Even if you don't piss them off. That's why I hate commercial air travel. I exaggerate, but for a reason. If you have this attitude, you will not be surprised at the random hassles you have to go through. If, however, you expect some kind of "fair deal", you're guaranteed to be disappointed. So yes, they can remove you from a flight for polite disagreement. They can remove you for just about any reason they choose -- especially once you're in the air.
- pc86 14y ago
  I don't think you're exaggerating at all. If you do anything that anyone employed by an airline, airport, or relevant Federal agency doesn't like, you're gonna have a bad time. They can and will irritate, inconvenience and humiliate you. Flying in a plane or being in an airport is not a right and they can pretty much do whatever they want to whomever they want. This is why if it's less than 12-14 hours, I'll just drive.
  - sneak 14y ago
    Driving is substantially more dangerous to your physical person than the various infringements upon your rights to privacy and such incurred by dealing with the TSA. While abhorrent, they are generally not physically harmful (unless you're sufficiently attractive to warrant sexual assault at the hands of the TSA piglets). Furthermore, this assumes that you can burn a day or two to make a meeting a few states over. I'm not sure if you have that sort of time to spare, but I don't. You could always just remove yourself from the TSA's jurisdiction. They're doing checkpoint stops to search vehicles without probable cause or warrants on the highways now, too. Bonus points for not paying the TSA salaries through contribution to US federal tax income and add-on ticket fees, too.
    - pc86 14y ago
      I was referring to personal travel as I don't travel much for my 9-5 or contract work. I've thought of the later option, although not specifically due to the TSA, just generally. If my income was 100% contract and could survive the time zone shift I might actually test it out for a few months, but there are too many positives in the US that outweigh the negatives.
qompiler 14y ago
United airlines is like a greyhound bus with wings. It attracts all sorts of crazy people who complain if they get kicked out.
rm999 14y ago
Is there actually any evidence that people get removed from flights more nowadays? With 100s of millions of domestic people-flights a year we're bound to see a small number of absurd events, like airline employees in a bad mood (not uncommon) pushed over the edge by virtually nothing. Of course I'm not defending the ridiculous removals, but I'm trying to put it into perspective. I flew a lot as a child in the 80s, and every now and then I'd see someone kicked off a flight. It was usually for drunkedness, but my point is the right to remove a passenger at the airline employee's discretion has existed for decades. I know Seinfeld is fiction, but there's a pretty funny episode from 1995 where the pilot kicks seinfeld off a flight because seinfeld had kicked him out of his comedy show earlier that weekend.
jimmaswell 14y ago
Wasn't right to throw them off the plane, but what were they hoping to accomplish oversheltering their kids like that?
- Avenger42 14y ago
  I'm not a parent yet, but if you take the plane out of the situation, is telling your kid "no, that movie's too violent for you, you're 4 years old" now considered "oversheltering"?
  - jimmaswell 14y ago
    I thought it said 8 and 10 for some reason. Maybe it was inappropriate for the 4 year old.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
Mordor 14y ago
United Airlines are already on my 'no-fly' list ;-)
ctide 14y ago
If Virgin America doesn't fly somewhere, I try not to go there. That's my solution to this problem.
Shenglong 14y ago
There are many ways you can "politely disagree", and depending on how you do so, the results for any human transaction (regardless of whether it's at the airport) will be drastically different. You need to observe the person you're dealing with before making a move, and see what their perception of their own power is, how they balance emotion with logic, and take a guess as to the most effective form of getting your point across. Here's a personal story (and sure, it could be an exception): I love martial-arts-weapons. I'm trained with the rope dart, meteor hammer, chain whip, twin hooks, etc. Anyway, I've been trying to learn the butterfly knife/balisong. Since they're illegal in Canada, I bought a practice balisong, which looks like a real knife, but just has a dull blade with holes in it so it can't be sharpened. I completely forgot I had it in my carry-on bag. Security stopped me, several officers (airport security and police, if I'm not mistaken) gathered around after they closed off the line. I could easily have been polite here, and got myself kicked out or arrested. I could've said, "Sir, I know you're just doing your job, but this is perfectly legal and I have every right to keep it. As you can see, it isn't sharp." I could've gone on to quote my civil liberties, and explain how no one could mistake it for a real knife because it has holes. It'd be hard to argue that this wasn't polite--but really, where would it have gotten me? Instead, I took deep exaggerated sigh, put my hands over my face and said "I'm so sorry--I completely forgot!" I explained exactly what it was for, and added on, "it's for tricks only". After showing them how to open it and proving it was blunt, I asked for it, and showed them a few tricks. Again, I apologized and explained how I never meant to bring it. A few well-placed smiles later, the security offered to mail it to my home address, and let me pass without any issues. So once again, being "polite" isn't the whole story. Playing to the people you're dealing with is the key to getting things done.
- theorique 14y ago
  Yep. In addition to being polite, you have to kiss a little ass.
justin_vanw 14y ago
I don't think it was a coincidence that this is a United flight. I generally avoid United because of the older planes and bad service. However, my flight to Ithaca was delayed and I would have been stranded in Detroit, so I rebooked on the redeye on United last Wednesday. I have never seen such a rude flight crew. It was unreal. Besides just regular rudeness in how they addressed people in order to get them to put their seats forward, put away phones, etc, there was one incident that really takes the cake. After boarding had started, a woman ran to the restroom in the far rear of the plane. She was in there for several minutes, but this shouldn't have been an issue since she boarded early and people were still in the aisles trying to get bags put away. The plane didn't leave for at least 10 minutes after this. So a crewmember knocked on the door to the bathroom, and told the woman that she needed to hurry up. She replied that it would just be a moment, and apologized. The crewmember then yelled that she was delaying the plane from departure (obviously a lie, but she couldn't tell from inside the bathroom). So a few seconds later she finally comes out looking embarassed, and the crewmember asked her, very loudly, "What's the matter? Are you sick or something?". The woman looked like she was going to die of embarrassment. She quietly replied that she was 2 months pregnant, and having morning sickness. Then she pushed her way to her seat trying not to make eye contact with anyone. The other passengers in the rear of the plane with me were looking at each other in amazement. One gentleman said, fairly loudly, "what the fuck". So now not only will I avoid United because they are a shitty airline, I will refuse to fly on their planes because they are incredible assholes. It is worth a few dollars to fly another airline and not reward United's unbelievably abusive behavior.
- m_mueller 14y ago
  My one experience with United were two intercontinental flights and I have to say that, except for the bad food on the return flight from the US, it wasn't terribly different from what I'm used to on European and Japanese flights (and if you know Japanese service standards that means something). It might be just a matter of luck after all - or domestic US flights are another story.
tquai 14y ago
Recently I was offered a free flight for a weekend trip. I declined, citing the myriad displeasures of flying. Now, should we initiate a behavior recall? Take the number of McDonalds-level staff in the air (A), multiply by the probable rate of power tripping (B), multiply by the average loss of tickets sold (C). A times B times C = X. If X is less than the cost of some basic decency training, we won't do any. Which airline do you work for? A major one.
sultezdukes 14y ago
And it should be noted that most frequent flyers have, since 9/11, severely moderated their personalities WHEN ONBOARD THE FLIGHT. I had routinely seen passengers chastising flight attendants and even arguing with them prior to 9/11. After? Pilots and flight attendants have clearly formed a "pact" where the pilots are used (willingly and unwillingly) to "get square" with passengers. As a result passengers have become meek as sheep onboard. And I would anecdotally opine that the ground agents are getting more abuse than before, because of this and other capacity-related issues. Classic fascism at work here. These thugs think they can get away with anything after 9/11.

104 points by shrikant 14y ago

adamc 14y ago

Can't even see the page...

This sounds outrageous, but one should remain skeptical. Most people, in retrospect, will describe themselves as being "polite" or "calm." "No, I didn't raise my voice at all!" But these sorts of self-reports are prone to all sorts of subjectivity or bias, and I wouldn't simply take them at face value. My "calm and reasoned" could be another's "aggressive and threatening." Not saying that the stories are necessarily inaccurate, rather, how can we really know for sure without some sort of independent confirmation? I file these under "troubling anecdotes in need of more data."

laumars 14y ago
While that's true, you can equally say that the FA saw any objections as acts of aggression and in the cold light of day, the FA's had panicked for no reason. It's certainly quite believable that FA's would behave this way: their lives are at risk and they have the power to be "cautious" (read: chuck their aggressors off the plain). They also work long hours and tiredness doesn't help with anxiety. Plus there might even be a little of the Stanford Prison Experiment at play here (they have absolute control so are psychological motivated to enforce it). But even if you're right and those accounts are hugely biased, one question still remains: just how far are you allowed to push a complaint before you're considered a terrorist? Even in the worst case of scenarios, I couldn't see a father of 2 saying anything along the lines of "I'm going to blow this plane up" in front of his own kids when the whole reason for the disagreement was about wanting to shield them from a violent movie. So even with raised voices, why were they considered a threat.
- qompiler 14y ago
  > So even with raised voices, why were they considered a threat. They asked to get near the pilot.. and if you think there aren't parents crazy enough to pull that in front of their kids you probably haven't heard of the westboro baptist church
swampthing 14y ago
Not sure about the first story, but IIRC, the second story has been corroborated by other passengers on the flight.
efa 14y ago
I agree. While I find air travel dehumanizing, I wish people would just convey what happened without all the dramatic language like "...horrific scenes on the movie screens" and "...linger in the terminal for hours with our exhausted and terrified little boys". Going over the top in your description doesn't make the story more believable.

_chrismccreadie 14y ago

This is the first I had heard of this particular story although I am aware similar stories like this exist. This follows on from another story on HN (can't find the HN link) about a UK armed forces member being denied boarding on a Virgin flight because she was wearing her uniform [1]. It seems to me that any form on questioning is now being taken as non-compliance, leaving customers with little choice, - comply or prepare to be inconvenienced when you are denied permission to fly. Of all the flights I have personally been on the only time there has been a real issue of passenger safety is when the drunk who wont sit down or or demands to get off the plane mid-flight and yet they continue to make alcohol available on flights. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290462/What-way-treat-heroine-Royal-Navy-girl-fought-Afghanistan-told-cover-uniform-Virgin-flight-case-offended-passengers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290462/What-way-tre...

RBerenguel 14y ago
Doesn't wearing an uniform imply (or could be thought so by other passengers) she was on duty? Being seen as military personnel on duty in a commercial flight doesn't just sound really good, but of course this is mostly due to the general atmosphere of flight fear
- DanBC 14y ago
  You didn't read the link, did you? I don't blame you. I freaking hate the Daily Mail too. > Armed Forces rules state that a serviceman or woman can wear their uniforms voluntarily from their ‘residence to place of duty, irrespective of whether they travel by public or private transport, or on foot.’ EDIT: The article has a nice blurb about the difference between US and UK views of personnel in uniform.
  - RBerenguel 14y ago
    No, I didn't read the link for that reason :) I'm from Spain, so I didn't know e rules, but was more thinking about the passenger impressions on the aircraft.

DamnYuppie 14y ago

The more "secure" a nation tries to become the more tyrannical it becomes. It seems most people fail to forget that governments are made up of people, who like all their predecessors throughout history, will behave in a very predictable fashion if given power where there is no counter balance to their actions.

brazzy 14y ago
It's not just tyrannical. Also violent. The (in my long experience) most common reason given by gun-owning Americans for their need to be gun-owning Americans is that they have to be able to defend themselves against someone breaking into their house and wanting to kill them and their family. Yet somehow, this is not a scenario that most Europeans feel any need to worry about.
- stephencanon 14y ago
  It's not a scenario that most Americans feel any need to worry about, either. The home defense crazies are crazy, and in no way representative of Americans, or even of gun owners.

tokenadult 14y ago

To answer the question posed by the headline, no. Certainly there is neither a statute nor a regulation that says that polite disagreement is a general ground for removal from a flight. Millions of people are flying each week, and they may have a variety of opinions, but removing passengers is very rare. A few anecdotes here and there do not change the general statistics that plenty of people are flying. It's okay (as here) to ask a question. Maybe you will not be satisfied with the answer, but the flight can go on with you on board.

mistermann 14y ago
> It's okay (as here) to ask a question. Maybe you will not be satisfied with the answer, but the flight can go on with you on board. The article discusses several incidents where this seems to not be the case. Are you implying these incidents didn't happen? The problem seems to be that no violation of any rule or statute is necessary for removal, it is entirely arbitrary and devoid of common sense at more than one level.

wtvanhest 14y ago

"They asked if the captain might be consulted." Wait, they were in the air, and they want to talk to the captain? The person responsible for everyone's safety? Because they couldn't cover their children's eyes during a few minutes of a PG-13 movie? By all means, ask the flight attendant if they can do anything. But, when they say no, its time to wait until the flight lands and talk to someone. Asking to see a pilot mid flight is very obnoxious and goes way beyond a polite disagreement. Obviously they shouldn't have diverted, but when someone is demanding to see the pilot, they have escalated to the point where a miscomunication between crew members can cause problems. Flight attendant: "Someone back here is demanding to see you". Pilot: "I'm not leaving the cockpit." Pilot to Pilot 2: "Lets divert, this is strange" Obviously he should have clarified whether it was a threat, but when you are overworked, and you have everyone's safety in mind, it makes sense to be extra safe. That is what they are paid for.

EliRivers 14y ago
"That is what they are paid for." I have no doubt that he's been given a strong talking to for diverting a plane and costing the airline no small expense on such a ridiculous over-reaction. They're paid to be sensible risk-evaluators and decision-makers, and this one is clearly rubbish at it.
- tonyarkles 14y ago
  This sounds to me like a case of fundamental attribution bias. We have no idea what was going through his head at the time. We're all human, and we all make mistakes sometimes. It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted (or maybe wasn't given all the data needed to make a good decision)
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    "It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted" Overreaction is incompetent decision making.

crusso 14y ago

I have a close friend who is in the cockpit for a major American airline. Although most of the people he flies with are normal, nice folks - he tells me that there are some really bizarre little Napolean complexes in the Captain's seat for some flights. You're better off not knowing that some of these people are in charge of your life sometimes. This story doesn't so much tell us about all this power they have to kick you off the plane. It should illuminate the craziness of the people to whom that power has been given.

eli 14y ago

Well, when you give pilots the unilateral power to remove someone from a flight and there are 75,000 flights every day there are bound to be some abuses. Not sure this is surprisingly or that it necessarily even indicates that the system isn't working.

chiph 14y ago
The pilot is responsible for the safety of everyone on board. The question is, was the behavior of the passengers a credible threat? My guess is that the TSA & the airline (the pilots employer) have told him to put anyone off if there is even a hint of noncompliance. One of my favorite "hidden" quotes from the movie Brazil may be applicable: "Suspicion Breeds Confidence"

eksith 14y ago

There's no such thing as "polite disagreement" as far as airlines are concerned these days. If you disagree, you're taken off. That said, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for removing a passenger, and I'm grateful they do remove unruly ones when they need to. However... This level of power is why people just keep their head down and get through their lousy flight so they to their destination. Since air-travel, by its very nature, is monopolistic (until I get my damn flying car!) the airlines will do whatever they please until we all stop flying (won't happen) or other airlines gets started by entrepreneurs who're also sick and tired of this nonsense (won't say it can't happen, but highly unlikely). At least if there were more choices, it would democratize air-travel. Alas, the recent merging of airlines just go to show, they have us at our weakest and will exercise any level of control they want in the name of safety. After all, nothing shows "Safety" like "Silence".

jerf 14y ago
"Since air-travel, by its very nature, is monopolistic" Would you care to name the single entity that has the monopoly in question? (I do not think that word means what you think it means.)
- benparsons 14y ago
  Per-route monopolies. It is clear what was meant.
- eksith 14y ago
  Monopolistic in the sense how many of these : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines_of_the_United_... ... carry people (and not just cargo) and how many actually reach the most destinations? It's pretty much the early Hollywood Studio system up in the air. Sure, you can make a movie, but good luck getting known actors in it even if you could afford to pay them.
- wtvanhest 14y ago
  Yeah, airlines have the inverse problem. They are in a perfectly competitive environment which has driven industry profits extremely low which forces them to do everything as cheaply as possible. The airline industry is the furthest you can be from a monopoly. [added] of course there are other industries who are more commodity like real commodities, but air lines are the text book example (literally, not figuratively) for non-monopolistic competition. While the barriers appear high, they really aren't if you have the capital. If the airlines were profitable, almost anyone could get the capital to start one. In fact, upstart airlines appear consistently even though almost none of them make any money.

asmithmd1 14y ago

The reason these abuses go un-checked is because only the "little people" have to put up with it. Anyone who is anybody flies in their own chartered jet. In the GA terminal there is no TSA in sight and your pilot also acts as a concierge, booking a car service to take you to a restaurant reservation he also made for you while in flight.

sopooneo 14y ago
I don't know where we're drawing the above little people, but didn't Alec Baldwin famously almost get kicked off for playing video games at the wrong time on a public flight?
- goostavos 14y ago
  Add to that Kevin Smith for being too fat.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Arnold Schwartzenegger just did an AMA from a plane that stopped because the wifi cuts out at 10k feet, which I presume also places him on a commercial flight.
- zobzu 14y ago
  Depardieu got kicked for pissing all over the carpet in the plane. Yeah, in France it takes a little bit to get kicked out.
pi18n 14y ago
Despite what appears to be hyperbole, I still don't know why you were downvoted. It's common throughout many industries to have more abusive policies for poorer people, and they continue to do so because the poorer people have fewer alternatives. EDIT: maybe abusive is the wrong word, but definitely worse in some form.
- panzagl 14y ago
  I don't know if I would consider commercial airlines and GA/charters the same industry. Malice is being ascribed where incompetence more than adequately explains the differences.

sageikosa 14y ago

The Committee for Public Safety says: Yes.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

Here's a tip for travelers. Once you go to the airport, you become a prisoner of the system until they "release you" at your final destination. You have no expectation of privacy, security in your person or belongings, and they can and will do ugly things to you if you piss them off. Even if you don't piss them off. That's why I hate commercial air travel. I exaggerate, but for a reason. If you have this attitude, you will not be surprised at the random hassles you have to go through. If, however, you expect some kind of "fair deal", you're guaranteed to be disappointed. So yes, they can remove you from a flight for polite disagreement. They can remove you for just about any reason they choose -- especially once you're in the air.

pc86 14y ago
I don't think you're exaggerating at all. If you do anything that anyone employed by an airline, airport, or relevant Federal agency doesn't like, you're gonna have a bad time. They can and will irritate, inconvenience and humiliate you. Flying in a plane or being in an airport is not a right and they can pretty much do whatever they want to whomever they want. This is why if it's less than 12-14 hours, I'll just drive.
- sneak 14y ago
  Driving is substantially more dangerous to your physical person than the various infringements upon your rights to privacy and such incurred by dealing with the TSA. While abhorrent, they are generally not physically harmful (unless you're sufficiently attractive to warrant sexual assault at the hands of the TSA piglets). Furthermore, this assumes that you can burn a day or two to make a meeting a few states over. I'm not sure if you have that sort of time to spare, but I don't. You could always just remove yourself from the TSA's jurisdiction. They're doing checkpoint stops to search vehicles without probable cause or warrants on the highways now, too. Bonus points for not paying the TSA salaries through contribution to US federal tax income and add-on ticket fees, too.
  - pc86 14y ago
    I was referring to personal travel as I don't travel much for my 9-5 or contract work. I've thought of the later option, although not specifically due to the TSA, just generally. If my income was 100% contract and could survive the time zone shift I might actually test it out for a few months, but there are too many positives in the US that outweigh the negatives.

qompiler 14y ago

United airlines is like a greyhound bus with wings. It attracts all sorts of crazy people who complain if they get kicked out.

rm999 14y ago

Is there actually any evidence that people get removed from flights more nowadays? With 100s of millions of domestic people-flights a year we're bound to see a small number of absurd events, like airline employees in a bad mood (not uncommon) pushed over the edge by virtually nothing. Of course I'm not defending the ridiculous removals, but I'm trying to put it into perspective. I flew a lot as a child in the 80s, and every now and then I'd see someone kicked off a flight. It was usually for drunkedness, but my point is the right to remove a passenger at the airline employee's discretion has existed for decades. I know Seinfeld is fiction, but there's a pretty funny episode from 1995 where the pilot kicks seinfeld off a flight because seinfeld had kicked him out of his comedy show earlier that weekend.

jimmaswell 14y ago

Wasn't right to throw them off the plane, but what were they hoping to accomplish oversheltering their kids like that?

Avenger42 14y ago
I'm not a parent yet, but if you take the plane out of the situation, is telling your kid "no, that movie's too violent for you, you're 4 years old" now considered "oversheltering"?
- jimmaswell 14y ago
  I thought it said 8 and 10 for some reason. Maybe it was inappropriate for the 4 year old.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

Mordor 14y ago

United Airlines are already on my 'no-fly' list ;-)

ctide 14y ago

If Virgin America doesn't fly somewhere, I try not to go there. That's my solution to this problem.

Shenglong 14y ago

There are many ways you can "politely disagree", and depending on how you do so, the results for any human transaction (regardless of whether it's at the airport) will be drastically different. You need to observe the person you're dealing with before making a move, and see what their perception of their own power is, how they balance emotion with logic, and take a guess as to the most effective form of getting your point across. Here's a personal story (and sure, it could be an exception): I love martial-arts-weapons. I'm trained with the rope dart, meteor hammer, chain whip, twin hooks, etc. Anyway, I've been trying to learn the butterfly knife/balisong. Since they're illegal in Canada, I bought a practice balisong, which looks like a real knife, but just has a dull blade with holes in it so it can't be sharpened. I completely forgot I had it in my carry-on bag. Security stopped me, several officers (airport security and police, if I'm not mistaken) gathered around after they closed off the line. I could easily have been polite here, and got myself kicked out or arrested. I could've said, "Sir, I know you're just doing your job, but this is perfectly legal and I have every right to keep it. As you can see, it isn't sharp." I could've gone on to quote my civil liberties, and explain how no one could mistake it for a real knife because it has holes. It'd be hard to argue that this wasn't polite--but really, where would it have gotten me? Instead, I took deep exaggerated sigh, put my hands over my face and said "I'm so sorry--I completely forgot!" I explained exactly what it was for, and added on, "it's for tricks only". After showing them how to open it and proving it was blunt, I asked for it, and showed them a few tricks. Again, I apologized and explained how I never meant to bring it. A few well-placed smiles later, the security offered to mail it to my home address, and let me pass without any issues. So once again, being "polite" isn't the whole story. Playing to the people you're dealing with is the key to getting things done.

theorique 14y ago
Yep. In addition to being polite, you have to kiss a little ass.

justin_vanw 14y ago

I don't think it was a coincidence that this is a United flight. I generally avoid United because of the older planes and bad service. However, my flight to Ithaca was delayed and I would have been stranded in Detroit, so I rebooked on the redeye on United last Wednesday. I have never seen such a rude flight crew. It was unreal. Besides just regular rudeness in how they addressed people in order to get them to put their seats forward, put away phones, etc, there was one incident that really takes the cake. After boarding had started, a woman ran to the restroom in the far rear of the plane. She was in there for several minutes, but this shouldn't have been an issue since she boarded early and people were still in the aisles trying to get bags put away. The plane didn't leave for at least 10 minutes after this. So a crewmember knocked on the door to the bathroom, and told the woman that she needed to hurry up. She replied that it would just be a moment, and apologized. The crewmember then yelled that she was delaying the plane from departure (obviously a lie, but she couldn't tell from inside the bathroom). So a few seconds later she finally comes out looking embarassed, and the crewmember asked her, very loudly, "What's the matter? Are you sick or something?". The woman looked like she was going to die of embarrassment. She quietly replied that she was 2 months pregnant, and having morning sickness. Then she pushed her way to her seat trying not to make eye contact with anyone. The other passengers in the rear of the plane with me were looking at each other in amazement. One gentleman said, fairly loudly, "what the fuck". So now not only will I avoid United because they are a shitty airline, I will refuse to fly on their planes because they are incredible assholes. It is worth a few dollars to fly another airline and not reward United's unbelievably abusive behavior.

m_mueller 14y ago
My one experience with United were two intercontinental flights and I have to say that, except for the bad food on the return flight from the US, it wasn't terribly different from what I'm used to on European and Japanese flights (and if you know Japanese service standards that means something). It might be just a matter of luck after all - or domestic US flights are another story.

tquai 14y ago

Recently I was offered a free flight for a weekend trip. I declined, citing the myriad displeasures of flying. Now, should we initiate a behavior recall? Take the number of McDonalds-level staff in the air (A), multiply by the probable rate of power tripping (B), multiply by the average loss of tickets sold (C). A times B times C = X. If X is less than the cost of some basic decency training, we won't do any. Which airline do you work for? A major one.

sultezdukes 14y ago

And it should be noted that most frequent flyers have, since 9/11, severely moderated their personalities WHEN ONBOARD THE FLIGHT. I had routinely seen passengers chastising flight attendants and even arguing with them prior to 9/11. After? Pilots and flight attendants have clearly formed a "pact" where the pilots are used (willingly and unwillingly) to "get square" with passengers. As a result passengers have become meek as sheep onboard. And I would anecdotally opine that the ground agents are getting more abuse than before, because of this and other capacity-related issues. Classic fascism at work here. These thugs think they can get away with anything after 9/11.