I just pulled the cites/case notes on 91.11 and strangely they say nothing remotely like what you say it means. The latest FAA directives reference laser pointers and assaulting pilots. If the feds wanted to make it unlawful to disobey any crewmembers order or direction, they could've done so. It's a pretty easy thing to say, see I just did it. However, that is not what they said...I'm not saying it, the CFR is saying it.
Well, your hyperbole aside, it is a matter of priority. In that moment, the crewmember is king (or queen). If what is being done to the passenger is a breach of contract, on the plane is not the place for it.
You don't have to like it, now or in that moment. But, federal law says what it says.
In the air, the pilot makes the call. Well, not to deplane you, but to subdue you and divert.
What is a better approach? Allow the passengers to call the shots? Instead of an undercover TSA agent/air marshal, have a traveling ALJ on every flight?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight
- Thread starter SEIndSAM
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You asked for legal justification, and you're parsing it so thinly as to avoid acknowledging it says what it says?
Ok. Do you think the doctor was interfering with the duties of the crewmembers by refusing to deplane? Or, to put it another way, can you concede there is a good faith argument that he was?
ETA:
Resolution of these things must follow administrative law. Check this out:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...0/civil_penalty/CaseFile/view/2013/2013-2.pdf
The airline decided to initiate the contract dispute on the plane, not the doctor sitting in the seat they directed him to. They appear to have learned from that as they have promised not to do it anymore. Ironically, your sigline perfectly addresses both your and Tlex's consequentialist arguments.So does your friendly stewardess need to attend law school before or after flight attendant school? Or is a day of basic contract law, sandwiched in between classes on how to read safety instructions over an intercom and how to push a beverage cart during turbulence enough?
Not everybody is an expert on everything. People make mistakes. I have no idea in this case if the airlines employees made mistakes or they were by the book. I don't care. The passenger compartment of that plane was not the place to litigate the matter.
On an airplane, the flight crew is in charge. They are in a position of authority over the passengers. They might abuse that authority. They might violate a passenger's rights. But their authority is backed up by force. You can stand up to that force on principle and be in the right, but it won't hurt any less.
No, and I don't believe you can argue good faith if you are conceding an unlawful breach. I really don't understand your argument that the airlines contract is irrelevant to what constitutes duties and interference.
Hmmm... ok.
Let's go back to the example (it might've been yours) of the cop at the scene of a domestic. Lady says dude hit her. Dude says he didn't. Emotions are VERY high and the situation is volatile. Does the officer care at that point if there's proof BRD?
I think the answer will be no. The officer is there to solve the immediate problem of separating these individuals. He's not a lawyer.
Like you say, the flight attendant isn't a lawyer either. Her duties are described by company policy (yes, its true, even if you want to minimize it) and federal law. The FAA has basically made the decision to elevate flight attendants to LEOs in narrow situations. What they say goes.
There's a dearth of reported cases on it because it so absolutely obvious as to be hornbook-level accepted.
OK, criminal law matter with specific statute authorizing steps to create separation of individual upon PC including arrest and remand with a mandatory no-bond hold. In fact, criminal statute requires police officer to take certain measures if there is probable cause. Beyond reasonable doubt has absolutely nothing legally to do with it and it has absolutely no analog value to a civil contract dispute. He doesn't need to be a lawyer, he needs to have probable cause and since he falls within the immunity granted to him as an enforcer of the criminal law he gets all sorts of good faith presumptions.
The federal regulation you posted says nothing about making flight attendants law-enforcement officers for purposes of enforcing private contracts. You are stretching those words way beyond anything that can sustain. Once again if the feds wanted to make flight attendants judges and civil enforcement officers for purposes of seating contract disputes, they could do so. It's not hard to say, I just said it....
Your explanation for why there aren't reported cases on it is ridiculous. Is that really the best you can do for why you can't find a citation? I would guess it is because the feds prosecute a very very very small percentage of what comes in front of them and these are civil penalty matters.
Here is a reported cite for you about pilot/crew kings and queens.
Finally, our interpretation is consistent with our cases applying the analogous statute for domestic air travel, 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b), which provides that "an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety." Cordero, our first opinion interpreting section 44902(b)'s predecessor, held that airlines must act reasonably. Highly pertinent to our case, Cordero held that airlines don't have immunity when they bar passengers from boarding on the basis of "unreasonably or irrationally formed" beliefs. 681 F.2d at 671. That interpretation was reaffirmed seventeen years later by Newman, which also held that "the decision to refuse passage cannot be unreasonable or irrational." 176 F.3d at 1131 (citing Cordero, 681 F.2d at 671).
Eid v. Alaska Airline 621 f3d 858
Finally, our interpretation is consistent with our cases applying the analogous statute for domestic air travel, 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b), which provides that "an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety." Cordero, our first opinion interpreting section 44902(b)'s predecessor, held that airlines must act reasonably. Highly pertinent to our case, Cordero held that airlines don't have immunity when they bar passengers from boarding on the basis of "unreasonably or irrationally formed" beliefs. 681 F.2d at 671. That interpretation was reaffirmed seventeen years later by Newman, which also held that "the decision to refuse passage cannot be unreasonable or irrational." 176 F.3d at 1131 (citing Cordero, 681 F.2d at 671).
Eid v. Alaska Airline 621 f3d 858
I don't even know how to do that on a regular keyboard.
If she were yours, you'd be at work all day trying to afford her.
And a bit more from the same case:
We are mindful of the claims of Alaska Airlines and its supporting amici that flight commanders must be given wide latitude in making decisions to preserve safety and orderly conduct aboard an aircraft in flight. But passengers also have a legitimate interest in being treated fairly and with dignity; they are, after all, captives of the airline for the duration of the flight, and may be stranded far from [**44] home if not allowed to continue on the flight they have paid for.
We are mindful of the claims of Alaska Airlines and its supporting amici that flight commanders must be given wide latitude in making decisions to preserve safety and orderly conduct aboard an aircraft in flight. But passengers also have a legitimate interest in being treated fairly and with dignity; they are, after all, captives of the airline for the duration of the flight, and may be stranded far from [**44] home if not allowed to continue on the flight they have paid for.
Me either, although I recall once in law school someone showing me how to do it.
ASCII Codes § (Or cut and paste.)
Back to the legalese.
I edited a prior post with this:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...0/civil_penalty/CaseFile/view/2013/2013-2.pdf
These proceedings generally start out administrative. That's part of the reason there aren't many reported cases on it.
Again, you don't have to like it. The FAA doesn't care.
Next, your Alaska Airlines case is interesting. Particularly where it says flight crews need to act reasonably. I agree. So explain where the flight crew was unreasonable in asking the good doctor to deplane so they could board the flight crew that had priority?
Also, you continue to avoid the policy-level question: what is the alternative? Let every passenger decide for himself? Instead of the crew members, every passenger the king or queen of their chair?
(Or cut and paste.)Back to the legalese.
I edited a prior post with this:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...0/civil_penalty/CaseFile/view/2013/2013-2.pdf
These proceedings generally start out administrative. That's part of the reason there aren't many reported cases on it.
Again, you don't have to like it. The FAA doesn't care.
Next, your Alaska Airlines case is interesting. Particularly where it says flight crews need to act reasonably. I agree. So explain where the flight crew was unreasonable in asking the good doctor to deplane so they could board the flight crew that had priority?
Also, you continue to avoid the policy-level question: what is the alternative? Let every passenger decide for himself? Instead of the crew members, every passenger the king or queen of their chair?
My hypocrisy goes only so far.
Our society puts people in positions of authority. That authority is backed by force, otherwise, it's meaningless.
They are just people. They make mistakes. They sometimes abuse that authority. When that happens, there is a process for righting the wrong.
There is no right to an immediate judicial ruling in your dispute with those in authority. You either persuade them to see things your way or you comply. If you fail to so, you will be met with force.
Running out of battery so trying to be succinct. You don't get ruled to be being reasonable IF your actions are actively unlawfully breaching your contract.ASCII Codes §
Back to the legalese.
I edited a prior post with this:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...0/civil_penalty/CaseFile/view/2013/2013-2.pdf
These proceedings generally start out administrative. That's part of the reason there aren't many reported cases on it.
Again, you don't have to like it. The FAA doesn't care.
Next, your Alaska Airlines case is interesting. Particularly where it says flight crews need to act reasonably. I agree. So explain where the flight crew was unreasonable in asking the good doctor to deplane so they could board the flight crew that had priority?
Also, you continue to avoid the policy-level question: what is the alternative? Let every passenger decide for himself? Instead of the crew members, every passenger the king or queen of their chair?
Site Supporter
Members online
- rem788
- dseefeldt03
- BroodXI
- drillsgt
- gpasp101
- andresjewelry
- LokhXIV
- DoggyDaddy
- Mark-DuCo
- Dlawson28
- JayCo
- KRN123060
- matt4shadow
- OneBadV8
- Timjoebillybob
- Brad69
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- Robert B.
- Godbybe
- Dave2393
- Toole
- HoosierLife
- jlw
- Dan35
- squeals99
- Reapingxranger
- 1nderbeard
- GasTube138
- bking1340
- akethan
- SouthernStar25
- sgtmack
- radar8756
- Trapper Jim
- Nakatomi
- ISP 5353
- X3r0h0uR
- red_zr24x4
- ZachJ03
- bjenkins
- Bennettjh
- crookcountygo
- Jdubbs
- jjlaughner
- Indianajeff
- duboismd
- renauldo
- sadclownwp
- NHT3
- BigMoose