User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:17:32 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The tire looks a little low." 
It's within limits, get back in the cockpit and fly the damn thing. Thinks the plane would need to be empty to check the tire pressure.
Like we need the plane at basic weight to check the tires. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Passenger Noncompliance. Passenger noncompliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations may result in interference with a crewmember. This is a violation of 14 CFR part 121 and may also be a criminal violation under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) § 46318(a). Air carriers should have procedures in their manuals to ensure that crewmembers know what actions to take if a passenger does not comply with the safety regulations and/or interferes with a crewmember. I know this is going to be rebutted with "well if I'm just sitting and reading a book following the rules they can't tell me to get up!" WRONG. Let's say the right engine has caused some magic light flashing in the cockpit. Captian gives a crewmember instructions to look out of the only window that gives a view of that engine to give a quick inspection. That window is right beside you. You are asked to de-ass your seat, without any reason. Because you know, the word "fire" or "engine trouble" tends to make folks lose their shit. You refuse because you believe in the land of purple sky that you 'deserve' a valid reason. Well you don't, and that just became passenger noncompliance. So now you can either get off or be drug off. Once everyone is off maintenance checks it out, adds a bit of air while everyone in the terminal watches through the windows, and signs it off. Now you may reboard the aircraft. Guess who isn't getting back on. See how simple that is? That's why the argument that "once boarded always boarded" is so simple-mindedly juvenile. I can come up with many reasons off the top of my head, any one of which will lead to deplaning all the passengers. Tires look low. Gear struts look low. I want a security sweep... I can get you and everyone else off that plane real easy. Then we can reorganize the seat map to our hearts content. What laws, regulations, ordinances, royal edicts, international agreements, legal contracts (written or verbal), or interstellar treatise did I violate? None.
It's within limits, get back in the cockpit and fly the damn thing. Thinks the plane would need to be empty to check the tire pressure.
Like we need the plane at basic weight to check the tires. But if you prefer the security screening angle then that's fine. We'll stick with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:20:29 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, I was bored enough. Here is Delta's: Delta may refuse to transport or may remove passengers from its aircraft in any of the following situations: <snip> 4) When the passenger attempts to interfere with any member of the flight crew in the pursuit of his or her duties, or fails to obey the instruction of any member of the flight crew; <snip> Passenger: No Senior FA: Why are you kicking this guy off the airplane? FA: Because he didn't obey my instruction. Senior FA: And what instruction was that? FA: That he needs to get off the airplane, and he refused. Senior FA: Sir, you need to GTFO |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:27:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Such integrity, much professionalism, wow.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/11/airlines-detail-flight-rules-contracts-of-carriage/100331176/ I can quote news articles too. Some Newsweek opinion or law journal doesn't change the fact that if the airline wants you off the plane for any reason, you are getting off. Moreover, you agree to as much in the 69 pages of fine print when you click "I agree". And fuck what the attorneys and the professors of law who write in law journals have to say because you say otherwise. And BTW: people have legal rights in addition to those spelled out in a contract they agreed to, and those legal rights supercede the contract. There are specific circumstances under which a boarded passenger can be removed and "for any reason" isn't among them.
Go ahead. IDGAF. I'll do whatever I need to do but you can bet I'll get my way. I can be as creative as the day is long. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:27:24 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOLOLOL  LOLOL
^^^^Obnoxious, isn't it? You want to argue that these two lawyers are so perfectly competent and qualified to make such a statement, but then scream STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!! like a petulant child because I point out how your argument is actually a logical fallacy? That actually deserves an LOL. Lawyers have nothing to gain by making statements on high profile events like this, right? It's not like they're attention whores or anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So Obama has now entered the discussion and rendered his opinion on the efficacy of the actions of United Airlines and the Chicago Aviation Police? And no; I wouldn't "gobble up his idiotic interpretations of the Constution..." which obviates the law cited by two independent sources in the links I provided. Oh wait.......you've just introduced an obviously irrelevant straw man. LOLOL
^^^^Obnoxious, isn't it? You want to argue that these two lawyers are so perfectly competent and qualified to make such a statement, but then scream STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!! like a petulant child because I point out how your argument is actually a logical fallacy? That actually deserves an LOL. Lawyers have nothing to gain by making statements on high profile events like this, right? It's not like they're attention whores or anything. Dragging straw man Obama into this discussion is the more intelligent, intellectually honest thing to do. Thanks for doubling down on bullshit and dropping another steaming turd here. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:30:44 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's your best retort? After defending the disgraced, felonious, pill-popping, butt-fucking, pseudo Dr, you're going to question my integrity?
Go ahead. IDGAF. I'll do whatever I need to do but you can bet I'll get my way. I can be as creative as the day is long. Deal with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/11/airlines-detail-flight-rules-contracts-of-carriage/100331176/ I can quote news articles too. Some Newsweek opinion or law journal doesn't change the fact that if the airline wants you off the plane for any reason, you are getting off. Moreover, you agree to as much in the 69 pages of fine print when you click "I agree". And fuck what the attorneys and the professors of law who write in law journals have to say because you say otherwise. And BTW: people have legal rights in addition to those spelled out in a contract they agreed to, and those legal rights supercede the contract. There are specific circumstances under which a boarded passenger can be removed and "for any reason" isn't among them.
Go ahead. IDGAF. I'll do whatever I need to do but you can bet I'll get my way. I can be as creative as the day is long. Deal with it. And I'm not defending the customer (the ad hominems have nothing to do with the case). I'm speaking against the airlines' terrible policies. ETA: If you do decide to do something as foolish as deplaning everyone because the plane was out of prop wash I hope there is a good cell phone video of it. That'll make an incredible story at the flight school after you get yourself fired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:32:13 AM EDT
[#6]
the FARs make the pilot and flight crew the arbiters of all things concerning the flight. If they tell you to get off the plane, you are getting off the plane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:33:47 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are wrong that they can boot you off for any reason or for no reason. There are very specific reasons listed and those are the only reasons that the airline can refuse to uphold the contract. It is not like AA717driver said "if a FA doesn't like your face, you're gone". There is a contract and both sides are bound by it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:33:56 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
^^^Truth. Only international flights are required to match bags to passengers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:When a pax who checks his bag and then does not board means a bag dump, this was started after 9/11, every bag comes off till they find the bag whose name matches the pax who missed the flight |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:35:05 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So...contempt of FA. You can beat the rap but you won't beat the ride. That isn't acceptable when it comes from a police officer. It sure isn't acceptable from the person that is supposed to be getting me some ice water. And yet most here just roll over and take it. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:36:00 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the minute you start arguing with them over that, you have become a disruptive passenger and now fall into one of the categories that can be used to remove you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are wrong that they can boot you off for any reason or for no reason. There are very specific reasons listed and those are the only reasons that the airline can refuse to uphold the contract. It is not like AA717driver said "if a FA doesn't like your face, you're gone". There is a contract and both sides are bound by it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:38:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
False. If it isn't a listed term in the contract then it isn't acceptable. you will lose this one. You have the right to pursue the matter in court, but you are getting off the plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:38:35 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NO that is how it has been. That is the way it was when they removed the doctor. If you are obeying the rules and not causing trouble, you can not be forcibly removed. That's why airlines offer money to get people to give up their seats and that is appropriate. People pay their money, the deal is made. AFTER completing an agreement is not the time to rescind your service or product when someone that has purchased your service or product is playing by the rules. Think about this exact same thing in other aspects of life and what would happen. If the grocery store took back the last Thanksgiving turkey you paid for while your loading your car or a theater owner taking you out of your seat for someone else, or...... Airlines have been getting away with shit for a LONG time. It is the captain's airplane, and the flight crew are his delegates. If he or his delegates tell you to get off, you get off. No ifs, ands, or buts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:39:24 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Allow me to answer with a question: What do you suppose happens, if the airline tells the Captain to vacate his seat? Assume a veteran Captain with 25 years of spotless service. Further, assume he really, really does Not want to surrender his seat. Let's say, the flight is going to PHX, where his dieing mother resides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:41:04 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is it may be the correct instruction according to company policy or handbooks, but in the case of the pill doc he was already boarded and it violated the FAR when they removed him |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:42:45 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the derp keeps coming. This thread truly delivers.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:45:38 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For all the people bitching about the airlines.... Since they are so bad......quit fucking flying. You can't or won't follow instructions? Quit fucking flying. Don't like the TSA? Quit fucking flying. Did your mommy tell that you are special? Guess what? You aren't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:46:47 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The FAR's say one thing, the handbooks and company policy say another, they got you right then and there at that instant, you have to follow a "lawful" company reg and flight crewmember's instructions, but in a court of law, since it's interstate will have to be Federal court, the FAR's take precedence. With the FAA, the governing body of aviation, the laws cannot contradict handbooks and company policy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:49:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some "dumbasses " who happen to be law professors, interpretations of applicable law, versus your own august opinion....... Whose assessment of applicable law is more likely to be correct? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? That's a tough choice to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:53:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And then the airline will write you a large check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:57:38 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
except as provided for in the Federal Air Regulations. You can be morally correct, but still run afoul of the FARs. The FARs gives the pilot and the crew authority over the flight. It is a FEDERAL violation to not comply with the instructions of a uniformed crew member. you will lose this one. You have the right to pursue the matter in court, but you are getting off the plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:58:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the same law professors that say the second amendment is about the national guard? Those law professors? Or the ones that claim it is not a individual right? I mean law professors are infallible.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Some "dumbasses " who happen to be law professors, interpretations of applicable law, versus your own august opinion....... Whose assessment of applicable law is more likely to be correct? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? That's a tough choice to make. Reads like the rantings of a sovereign citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:59:12 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
maybe they will, maybe they won't - like I said, you may win it in court, you may win it in the media, but you are getting off the plane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And then the airline will write you a large check. If as a company your plan is to act in an illegal manner then you may want to start working on a plan B. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:00:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
which FAR(s) were violated? I've done a quick look but couldn't see a specific one that I though was violated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem is it may be the correct instruction according to company policy or handbooks, but in the case of the pill doc he was already boarded and it violated the FAR when they removed him |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:01:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uhhh, policy and handbooks can not contradict the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The FAR's say one thing, the handbooks and company policy say another, they got you right then and there at that instant, you have to follow a "lawful" company reg and flight crewmember's instructions, but in a court of law, since it's interstate will have to be Federal court, the FAR's take precedence. With the FAA, the governing body of aviation, the laws cannot contradict handbooks and company policy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:03:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it a flight when it's still at the gate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:05:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah; citing expert sources is for suckers. Dragging straw man Obama into this discussion is the more intelligent, intellectually honest thing to do. Thanks for doubling down on bullshit and dropping another steaming turd here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So Obama has now entered the discussion and rendered his opinion on the efficacy of the actions of United Airlines and the Chicago Aviation Police? And no; I wouldn't "gobble up his idiotic interpretations of the Constution..." which obviates the law cited by two independent sources in the links I provided. Oh wait.......you've just introduced an obviously irrelevant straw man. LOLOL
^^^^Obnoxious, isn't it? You want to argue that these two lawyers are so perfectly competent and qualified to make such a statement, but then scream STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!! like a petulant child because I point out how your argument is actually a logical fallacy? That actually deserves an LOL. Lawyers have nothing to gain by making statements on high profile events like this, right? It's not like they're attention whores or anything. Dragging straw man Obama into this discussion is the more intelligent, intellectually honest thing to do. Thanks for doubling down on bullshit and dropping another steaming turd here. 
Think what you want, but you're the one basing your argument on a logical fallacy.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:23:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It can be. Depends upon the airplane, and what action has to take place to put it completely under the pilot's authority. For some, I think it is a safety lock pin in the landing gear. Once it is removed, it is the captain's bird. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it a flight when it's still at the gate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:23:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
correct but when they do they default to the FAR |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:47:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Damn. I came here because I was a little bit curious myself but this thread is like listening to my sister in laws bicker with each other.
From what I've gathered so far: Airline most likely violated their own COC by asking guy to deplane (assuming he was just sitting there minding his own business and was told to GTFO). We have no idea if FARs were violated? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 1:50:07 PM EDT
[#30]
Here is what it boils down to: if the airline wants you off the plane, you are getting off. The passenger may have "rights", but the flight crews ability to manufacture legal reasons for removing an uncooperative passenger trump those "rights". And you will never know if those legal reasons were legit or made up. I fly airplanes for a living too, and if I wanted to, could choose to not accept an aircraft, or keep an aircraft on the ground anytime I wanted. It is bad business, bad PR, etc., so the airlines want to be as accommodating as possible. But the bottom line is if the airline wants you off, you are getting off. You may win the argument later, and be compensated, but you ain't flying on that plane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 2:19:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know what trumps the FAR when there is a conflict? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
correct but when they do they default to the FAR |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 2:49:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pilot discretion for Safe Operation Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
correct but when they do they default to the FAR |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 2:52:15 PM EDT
[#33]
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane.
They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:29:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the minute you start arguing with them over that, you have become a disruptive passenger and now fall into one of the categories that can be used to remove you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are wrong that they can boot you off for any reason or for no reason. There are very specific reasons listed and those are the only reasons that the airline can refuse to uphold the contract. It is not like AA717driver said "if a FA doesn't like your face, you're gone". There is a contract and both sides are bound by it. "Sir, you look like my ex-boyfriend. I need to you deplane." "That isn't a valid reason under the Contract of Carriage. I'm not going anywhere." "You are being disruptive. Police!!! Security!!!" Please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:31:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
except as provided for in the Federal Air Regulations. You can be morally correct, but still run afoul of the FARs. The FARs gives the pilot and the crew authority over the flight. It is a FEDERAL violation to not comply with the instructions of a uniformed crew member. you will lose this one. You have the right to pursue the matter in court, but you are getting off the plane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
False. If it isn't a listed term in the contract then it isn't acceptable. you will lose this one. You have the right to pursue the matter in court, but you are getting off the plane. The aircrew is not god. Their powers have limits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:35:01 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is what it boils down to: if the airline wants you off the plane, you are getting off. The passenger may have "rights", but the flight crews ability to manufacture legal reasons for removing an uncooperative passenger trump those "rights". And you will never know if those legal reasons were legit or made up. I fly airplanes for a living too, and if I wanted to, could choose to not accept an aircraft, or keep an aircraft on the ground anytime I wanted. It is bad business, bad PR, etc., so the airlines want to be as accommodating as possible. But the bottom line is if the airline wants you off, you are getting off. You may win the argument later, and be compensated, but you ain't flying on that plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:38:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). The point is that if they want you off the plane, it will be justified under the CoC, or some other legal justification. And manufactured or not, there won't be anything you can do about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:39:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:42:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a general rule. You're wrong. We don't enforce contracts via force, we do so with damages. The other side breaches, and it's over. Go to court and try to prove breach and damages. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:48:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To summarize...you are willing to lie to get your way even when you know you are wrong. And no, it is not lying. I can't think of a single flight in my thousands of hours, where there was not some piece of equipment or system written up as broken or inoperative. Most of the time, we fly that plane anyway because it shouldn't be a big deal. But it could be. And I could say no, I'm not flying that plane until it is fixed. 6 hour ETC and no spare? Guess we'll wait. Or, I want more gas on this plane than the mission planners said I need because, reasons. And any of these can be justified as safety issues, or PIC discretion. I'm simply going back to the original point that the airline can boot you if they want to boot you, and if you make it difficult, there are plenty of legal justifications and tools at the airlines disposal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:51:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To clarify, I'm not an airline pilot. And no, it is not lying. I can't think of a single flight in my thousands of hours, where there was not some piece of equipment or system written up as broken or inoperative. Most of the time, we fly that plane anyway because it shouldn't be a big deal. But it could be. And I could say no, I'm not flying that plane until it is fixed. 6 hour ETC and no spare? Guess we'll wait. Or, I want more gas on this plane than the mission planners said I need because, reasons. And any of these can be justified as safety issues, or PIC discretion. I'm simply going back to the original point that the airline can boot you if they want to boot you, and if you make it difficult, there are plenty of legal justifications and tools at the airlines disposal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To summarize...you are willing to lie to get your way even when you know you are wrong. And no, it is not lying. I can't think of a single flight in my thousands of hours, where there was not some piece of equipment or system written up as broken or inoperative. Most of the time, we fly that plane anyway because it shouldn't be a big deal. But it could be. And I could say no, I'm not flying that plane until it is fixed. 6 hour ETC and no spare? Guess we'll wait. Or, I want more gas on this plane than the mission planners said I need because, reasons. And any of these can be justified as safety issues, or PIC discretion. I'm simply going back to the original point that the airline can boot you if they want to boot you, and if you make it difficult, there are plenty of legal justifications and tools at the airlines disposal. It's a bold career move to refuse to fly a jet because the tens digit on the #2 EGT has a segment burnt out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:55:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ops would just let a flight be canceled over a defereable (and properly defered) write up? It's a bold career move to refuse to fly a jet because the tens digit on the #2 EGT has a segment burnt out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:01:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You understood my point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ops would just let a flight be canceled over a defereable (and properly defered) write up? It's a bold career move to refuse to fly a jet because the tens digit on the #2 EGT has a segment burnt out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:14:40 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
So, I thought I had a good handle on aviation law, but from reading all the threads, I may be missing something (which, doesn't surprise me) lol Not interested in arguing either (or any) of the recent cases, go do that in the other threads. Hypothetical: You are a regular, plain jane, citizen. No special rights, protected class, whatever. You buy what I will call a 'regular ticket' on a commercial aircraft (Delta, United, Allegiant) to somewhere. You are seated, belted in. You are sober, paying attention to the flight crews' commands, not even verbally argumentative. What are your rights to remain on that aircraft if the owner of the aircraft wants you off? I see this as a confluence of contract / civil law and criminal (FAR) law. My position is, that is a private conveyance, and they can boot you for any reason, or no reason, just like a cabbie can pitch you out; but I am reading that if you can get to your seat and aren't being resistive or disruptive they can't do anything to you. I recognize that there are special rules for aircraft due to the unique nature of air travel; they can't just pull over if there's a problem. Also - I'm not looking for binding legal advice, just trying to get it straight in my head. I would assume your rights are about the same as they are to remain in my house if I tell you to leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:25:55 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For all the people bitching about the airlines.... Since they are so bad......quit fucking flying. You can't or won't follow instructions? Quit fucking flying. Don't like the TSA? Quit fucking flying. Did your mommy tell that you are special? Guess what? You aren't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:26:39 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would assume your rights are about the same as they are to remain in my house if I tell you to leave. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, I thought I had a good handle on aviation law, but from reading all the threads, I may be missing something (which, doesn't surprise me) lol Not interested in arguing either (or any) of the recent cases, go do that in the other threads. Hypothetical: You are a regular, plain jane, citizen. No special rights, protected class, whatever. You buy what I will call a 'regular ticket' on a commercial aircraft (Delta, United, Allegiant) to somewhere. You are seated, belted in. You are sober, paying attention to the flight crews' commands, not even verbally argumentative. What are your rights to remain on that aircraft if the owner of the aircraft wants you off? I see this as a confluence of contract / civil law and criminal (FAR) law. My position is, that is a private conveyance, and they can boot you for any reason, or no reason, just like a cabbie can pitch you out; but I am reading that if you can get to your seat and aren't being resistive or disruptive they can't do anything to you. I recognize that there are special rules for aircraft due to the unique nature of air travel; they can't just pull over if there's a problem. Also - I'm not looking for binding legal advice, just trying to get it straight in my head. I would assume your rights are about the same as they are to remain in my house if I tell you to leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 5:00:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is the federal definition of this? His authority from a legal/"I am in charge" point of view starts when the "flight" begins. That point is defined as different actions, on different aircraft designs. For flying boats, I think it is when it is untied from the dock. For land planes, it seems to be when the aircraft is rendered physically capable of taxiing and flying, and ends when it is no longer capable of independent taxiing and flying. I do not know where the specific legal definitions of that are kept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 5:01:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know what trumps the FAR when there is a conflict? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 5:07:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ops would just let a flight be canceled over a defereable (and properly defered) write up? It's a bold career move to refuse to fly a jet because the tens digit on the #2 EGT has a segment burnt out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To summarize...you are willing to lie to get your way even when you know you are wrong. And no, it is not lying. I can't think of a single flight in my thousands of hours, where there was not some piece of equipment or system written up as broken or inoperative. Most of the time, we fly that plane anyway because it shouldn't be a big deal. But it could be. And I could say no, I'm not flying that plane until it is fixed. 6 hour ETC and no spare? Guess we'll wait. Or, I want more gas on this plane than the mission planners said I need because, reasons. And any of these can be justified as safety issues, or PIC discretion. I'm simply going back to the original point that the airline can boot you if they want to boot you, and if you make it difficult, there are plenty of legal justifications and tools at the airlines disposal. It's a bold career move to refuse to fly a jet because the tens digit on the #2 EGT has a segment burnt out. In the last month, four times as many flights as usual have been cancelled for maintenance issues resulting from last-minute plane inspections ordered by pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 5:16:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would LOVE for them to try that. LOVE LOVE LOVE "Sir, you look like my ex-boyfriend. I need to you deplane." "That isn't a valid reason under the Contract of Carriage. I'm not going anywhere." "You are being disruptive. Police!!! Security!!!" Please. if they tell you you need to get of the plane and you start yelling at them or in any way acting belligerent, you just made yourself a disruptive passenger. if you respectfully and politely say, I'm sorry, but under the contract you agreed to, I'm not giving up my seat... two different situations and you know it. and still, they will have you off the plane in the end. How it plays out is up to you. The cameras can work against you too. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
