Is Polite Disagreement Becoming Grounds For Removal From A Flight?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2013/04/07/at-united-airlines-is-polite-disagreement-becoming-grounds-for-removal-from-a-flight/

by shrikant • 13 years ago

104 93 13 years ago

forbes.com

_chrismccreadie• 13 years 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-tre...

RBerenguel2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

DamnYuppie• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

adamc• 13 years ago

Can't even see the page...

wtvanhest3• 13 years 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.

EliRivers2• 13 years 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.

tonyarkles2• 13 years 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)

incision2• 13 years ago

You're reading an awful lot into this that the article never claimed.

Nowhere is it claimed that they asked to "talk to the captain" much less that any "demanding to see the pilot" occurred.

From the source [1]:

---

"We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response. A few minutes later we asked for the captain's name (I failed to make note when he welcomed us on the PA system), and was told, by the purser, that we will have to ask him ourselves when we disembark.

Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens."

---

1: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-way-...

wtvanhest3• 13 years ago

Directly from the article:

"In one incident (scroll down to find it) a family traveling from Denver to Baltimore with two sons, aged 4 and 8, asked if a monitor showing “Alex Cross,” which features some violent scenes, could be turned off or retracted, and was told no. They asked if the captain might be consulted. To do that, they were told, they’d have to wait until the plane landed. Then:"

[Added in response to comments below] Critical reading lesson here, if you look at the quote from the article you will notice that it says "they were told, they’d have to wait until the plane landed." That is how you know they were asking to see the captain without it explicitly saying, "They demanded to see the captain."

I think it is pretty obvious that the article is sensational and is lacking the information to fill in the gap on why they diverted and had this guy taken off the plane. His request over the movie is ridiculous but his request to see the captain or have the flight attendant talk to the captain about it is completely ridiculous.

At the very least, he asked the flight attendant to have a conversation with the guy flying the plane about a movie being shown in the back of the plane. On what planet is that a reasonable request???

[also added] I shouldn't have made the critical reading quip, that was rude of me. That being said, we must assume that the author who wrote the article had the facts when he wrote it. If not, we can't rely on any piece of the article at all. At the very least, everyone can agree that the article does not have the full story. I hope we can also agree that it is likely sensationalized. We may not be able to agree that he asked to speak with the captain, but we should be able to agree that he did ask the flight attendant to speak with a pilot at the very least.

Additionally, I hope we can all agree that asking the flight attendant to speak with the captain about a movie playing is an unreasonable request. Even more so, we can agree that diverting the plane for a person not getting up from their seat and not yelling or making threats is probably the wrong decision.

One thing we don't know though, is whether he was up from his seat. If he was standing in the flight bridge asking to speak to the captain, that would make this situation much different than if he were sitting in his seat.

SoftwareMaven• 13 years ago

My neighbor and good friend is a commercial pilot. The best time to ask them anything is while at cruising altitude. That is the point they tend to be quite bored and are playing games or reading books like everybody else.

Even if the FA's had contacted the pilot (which obviously they did, just with a different "issue"), there would have been no danger to the flight. If something is going wrong up front, they won't answer the cabin phone.

Using "they wanted to ask the captian" as a tacit way of approving this behavior is just wrong.

caseysoftware• 13 years ago

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"

You are aware they have phones, right? The flight attendants are regularly in contact with the pilot and copilot without compromising security at any time.

hso9791• 13 years ago

Shouldn't the airline crew be professional about it?

Flight attendant: "Someone back here has some issues they want to run by you"

Pilot: "What is it?"

Flight attendant: "They think the language is too coarse in the movie."

Pilot: "Tell them to suck bollocks."

Flight attendant -> Passenger: "Sorry, Sir. The captain won't do anything about it."

fennecfoxen• 13 years ago

"Because they couldn't cover their children's eyes during a few minutes of a PG-13 movie?"

I'm sorry, this part of your statement is stupid. It is ridiculous and degrading to expect a parent to physically cover their childrens' eyes during the violent parts of _Alex Cross_. These people didn't sign up for a PG13 movie viewing experience, they signed up for a flight.

Rob Cohen, the director, corroborates:

"When I read your piece this morning, I felt extremely sympathetic to the family involved and, in some ways, quite apologetic. I never made the film to cause anyone this kind of discomfort. It seems to me they (the family) were well within their rights to request some control as to what their two young children were exposed. As a father of five year old triplets, I, too, would not want them to absorb some of the images we created for my film.... PG-13 should mean what it does at the box office, at the very least meaning no one under 13 should be exposed to it. If the airlines cannot accommodate a more flexible presentation giving seats the option of viewing or not, they shouldn't show the film unless it meets what we could call "general cabin" suitability."

crusso• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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"

eksith2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Per-route monopolies. It is clear what was meant.

eksith2• 13 years ago

Monopolistic in the sense how many of these : 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.

wtvanhest3• 13 years 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.

Spooky234• 13 years ago

Many city-pairs are monopolistic because of the gate ownership and industry consolidation. Minneapolis was the poster child for this for many years -- you basically had to fly Northwest to go there.

Back in the pre-Reagan era, regulation forced airlines to maintain specific prices and deliver a certain level of service (think Bell System type regulation). Deregulation brought low cost carriers like Southwest, but also allowed the traditional carriers to engage in a price war that ultimately put most of the industry out of business and brought much misery to the flying public.

shrikant• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition

asmithmd12• 13 years 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.

pi18n• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

sopooneo• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Add to that Kevin Smith for being too fat.

tptacek• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

endtime2• 13 years ago

I take it you don't know many "anybodies".

asmithmd12• 13 years ago

There are more of them than you think. This article is from 2006 but illustrates the point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/fashion/06jets.html

Anyone who is worth >$50 million doesn't fly commercially

neurotech1• 13 years ago

Medium sized and major airports have a "executive terminal" that handles business jets. The TSA is not usually present.

That is very different in "feel" than what is intended for GA, which is basically Cessna 172s flown by private pilots. Even small commuter airlines have different policies and procedures than a GA charter flight.

sageikosa• 13 years ago

The Committee for Public Safety says: Yes.

msluyter• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

qompiler2• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Not sure about the first story, but IIRC, the second story has been corroborated by other passengers on the flight.

efa• 13 years 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.

DanielBMarkham• 13 years 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.

pc863• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

pinko2• 13 years ago

That this is true is indisputable. But the implicit idea that it's okay (or at least inevitable) is really disturbing.

JoeAltmaier• 13 years ago

On the other hand, if on 9/11 somebody had acted on their unsettling response to the suicide hijackers, it would have come out differently. The final filter for good security is a person looking at a person and deciding. I recall a post citing this as the best-performing filter.

Unfortunately it ends in profiling. So, profiling, or mass death?

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

They can remove you for just about any reason they choose

All sorts of businesses can freely refuse service, right? Certainly if they do it in grounds of things like race they will get sued, but generally speaking no business is required to serve you. Airlines are businesses.

greenyoda2• 13 years ago

Except in this case, they're refusing you service after they already took your money and your luggage. Plus, calling the cops on somebody goes way beyond refusing them service.

qompiler2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

jimmaswell2• 13 years ago

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

Avenger42• 13 years 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"?

jimmaswell2• 13 years ago

I thought it said 8 and 10 for some reason. Maybe it was inappropriate for the 4 year old.

Mordor• 13 years ago

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

ctide• 13 years ago

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

Shenglong• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Yep.

In addition to being polite, you have to kiss a little ass.

justin_vanw• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

Is Polite Disagreement Becoming Grounds For Removal From A Flight?

Related Stories