Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Delta reinstates pax who refused to comply with FA directives.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Delta reinstates pax who refused to comply with FA directives.

    Apparently, disregarding flight attendant directives is no longer a threat to safety when flying on Delta, despite what the FAA might think about that. From now on, I suppose we can consider them “suggestions”?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/u...?smid=url-copy

  • #2
    Something makes me think this is a gray area…

    Do the words reasonable or lawful have any bearing?

    Do optics come in to play?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Something makes me think this is a gray area…
      Precedents often are.

      Should we reinstate pilots who were intoxicated on the job if they sign a form stating that they realize it is wrong to do so?

      Or is recklessness and behavorial problems and disregard for authority something more deeply ingrained in certain people?

      Comment


      • #4
        Deflection.

        I know what you THINK, but these are not incidents directly affecting flight safety.

        Direct is the key word, and TeeVee will tear you a new one in the courtroom.

        But go ahead and have a tantrum about spewing pathogens, and don’t leave your bubble or ride a bicycle.

        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          hahahahahahaha.

          or perhaps is just a business decision

          Comment


          • #6
            Another one behind a paywall (or at least a "create account" wall)

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #7
              Looks like more complicated legal issue to me. If the federal judge considers the federal mask mandate as illegal, the airlines lost the solid legal background for placing pax who refused to comply with this mandate on a no-fly list. Sure, the pax did not follow FAs order, but it seems that the order was illegal as well... In other words - if the pax sues the airline for being black-listed due to unlawful reasons, there is a chance that he will win in the court. Most likely airlines do not want to get involved in number of trials, if they are uncertain if they will win in the court.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tomasz View Post
                Looks like more complicated legal issue to me. If the federal judge considers the federal mask mandate as illegal, the airlines lost the solid legal background for placing pax who refused to comply with this mandate on a no-fly list. Sure, the pax did not follow FAs order, but it seems that the order was illegal as well... In other words - if the pax sues the airline for being black-listed due to unlawful reasons, there is a chance that he will win in the court. Most likely airlines do not want to get involved in number of trials, if they are uncertain if they will win in the court.
                AFAIK the ruling only struck down the recent CDC mask extension and did not rule that prior mask mandates were illegal. When these people disobeyed a flight attendant during a flight, that was interfering with a flight crew which IS a crime and the mask requirement was the policy of the airline itself.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  ***When these people disobeyed a flight attendant during a flight, that was interfering with a flight crew which IS a crime and the mask requirement was the policy of the airline itself.***
                  If you take a black and white approach, yes.

                  However, your best bet is to send Delta a strongly worded letter, and put them on your no-fly list.

                  Maybe write the FAA, too.

                  Please update this post if there’s progress.

                  https://youtu.be/xt0V0_1MS0Q

                  Footnote: Ha, this song contains lyrics similar to a Three Dog Night favorite!


                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post

                    AFAIK the ruling only struck down the recent CDC mask extension and did not rule that prior mask mandates were illegal.
                    Incorrect. Read the decision.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      Another one behind a paywall (or at least a "create account" wall)
                      In cases of mask non-compliance, Delta is reinstating those “criminals” to the “ok-to-fly” list.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        i'm not an expert on this but i'm pretty sure airlines, as private entities, can blacklist anyone they see fit (unfit). as long as they are not discriminating against some protected class.

                        i was once denied check-in by AA and the agent said i was on a no-fly list. called my brother (a cop) who called his friend at homeland, who called me and said i was not even listed in their system as a potential no-fly. after 30 minutes on the phone with a bunch of different folks at AA, i was permitted to check-in and fly.

                        while no one ever gave me a real reason, my friend who was at the time an AA f/a, said it was likely because i had a run-in the prior week with a super-sassy (read: asshole) f/a on a flight back from MEX. my meal included a packet of mayo that was literally green and stunk up the biz class cabin. i simply asked him if he could remove the tray as i had lost my appetite. he gave me a fairly nasty look and walked away. so i carried the tray to the galley and placed it on the counter. this upset him even more but our interaction ended.

                        anyway, i dont do criminal law, but i read that in some states they talked about releasing people with minor marijuana convictions and wiping clean their records after weed was made legal. not sure if it happened or if that itself is legal. if ya think about it, it was illegal at the time of the arrest and conviction so.....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It is often said that an airplane (or ship) is not a democracy. It is a autocracy. The non-elected captain has full authority and acts of civil disobedience are a federal offense. All for good reason.

                          When Delta management panders to customers by saying, “that’s all right, you can come back and fly with us anytime”, they are not only setting a dangerous precedent, they are betraying their own people by diminishing their authority. FA’s can now expect more passenger non-compliance, more democracy on board, more civil disobedience. Because Freedoms (TM).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            It is often said that an airplane (or ship) is not a democracy. It is a autocracy. The non-elected captain has full authority and acts of civil disobedience are a federal offense. All for good reason.

                            When Delta management panders to customers by saying, “that’s all right, you can come back and fly with us anytime”, they are not only setting a dangerous precedent, they are betraying their own people by diminishing their authority. FA’s can now expect more passenger non-compliance, more democracy on board, more civil disobedience. Because Freedoms (TM).
                            Three Dog Night.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              It is often said that an airplane (or ship) is not a democracy. It is a autocracy. The non-elected captain has full authority and acts of civil disobedience are a federal offense. All for good reason.

                              When Delta management panders to customers by saying, “that’s all right, you can come back and fly with us anytime”, they are not only setting a dangerous precedent, they are betraying their own people by diminishing their authority. FA’s can now expect more passenger non-compliance, more democracy on board, more civil disobedience. Because Freedoms (TM).
                              captains are close to being absolute monarchs during flight but they still work for companies that pay them. not to mention the fact that the very policy of banning was enacted by the company not the flight/cabin crew.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X