Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Passenger forcibly removed from plane due to dog allergy; dogs stay.

  1. #21
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I have evidence to support that she was unlawfully, unethically, and nonsensically and pretty much absolutely refusing to leave the plane AND being an ass about it. Absolute irrefutable evidence, no, but it's a lot more evidence that you have that it was total out of control officials needing a fix of abusing innocent citizens.
    I have that on video. In flagrante delicto.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    You can think whatever you want...but I ALSO* think you are very much in the minority that there is 'almost' never a time for physical removal.
    I'm sure I am. The majority seems to have given up on social evolution.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I have that on video. In flagrante delicto.



    I'm sure I am. The majority seems to have given up on social evolution.
    Evan, I don't understand what's your proposal? I mean, I understand, but how do you think it would work?

    Crew requests her to please deplane.
    Crew insists that she has to deplane.
    Crew commands that she deplanes.
    Crew threatens that if she doesn't deplane they will be forced to call law enforcement.
    Crew calls law enforcement.
    Police tells her to get off the plane.
    Police orders her to get off the plane.
    Police shouts that she gets of the plane now.
    Don't you think that some path similar these steps existed? What do you do next? Ok, here is what it came next, from the video.
    Police starts to push her.
    She shouts.
    Other passengers tell her that she better obey and get off the plane by herself.
    She says " don't touch me, I will get off by myself".
    Police release her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shouts her to get out.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her and pushes her.
    He cries she will get off by herself.
    Police releases her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shouts at her to get off.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her, lifts her, and moves her off the plane.

    Meantime, you had hundreds of paxs waiting in the plane and hundreds of other paxs that wil be waiting for the next flights of this plane.

    By the way, I think that if the police needs to use the force (and I think that in the case there was a need), the right way to do it is this way: Use enough force to totally overpower the person and unharmfully take him/her from A to B as if he/she was an object, avoiding any fight. If it takes 10 cops to take the big guy, 2 from each limb and 2 from the torso, then do it.

    --- 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 ---

  3. #23
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, I don't understand what's your proposal? I mean, I understand, but how do you think it would work?

    Crew requests her to please deplane.
    Crew insists that she has to deplane.
    Crew commands that she deplanes.
    Crew threatens that if she doesn't deplane they will be forced to call law enforcement.
    Crew calls law enforcement.
    Police tells her to get off the plane.
    Police orders her to get off the plane.
    Police shouts that she gets of the plane now.
    Don't you think that some path similar these steps existed? What do you do next? Ok, here is what it came next, from the video.
    Police starts to push her.
    She shouts.
    Other passengers tell her that she better obey and get off the plane by herself.
    She says " don't touch me, I will get off by myself".
    Police release her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shot her to get out.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her and pushes her.
    He cries she will get off by herself.
    Police releases her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shouts at her to get off.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her, lifts her, and moves her off the plane.

    Meantime, you had hundreds of paxs waiting in the plane and hundreds of other paxs that wil be waiting for the next flights of this plane.

    By the way, I think that if the police needs to use the force (and I think that in the case there was a need), the right way to do it is this way: Use enough force to totally overpower the person and unharmfully take him/her from A to B as if he/she was an object, avoiding any fight. If it takes 10 cops to take the big guy, 2 from each limb and 2 from the torso, then do it.
    FIrst of all, I feel pretty confident that the situation wasn't handled very well from the beginning, based on all the other incidents we've witnessed. I already proposed earlier in this thread how that should be done, so that the passenger is made fully aware of the legal and financial consequences of disobeying the pilot in command. My assumption is that the crew just gave her that stonewall policy treatment and demanded that she get off the plane. By now, it's common knowledge that a lot of FA's are nnot well trained for confrontation and may even have personality disorders that antogonize the situation.

    Secondly, If it came down to a standoff (it probably wouldn't if the above was done well enough), then I would first remove all the passengers back into the terminal, then send in the police to arrest her (with restraint but no more than necessary) and remove her from the aircraft. For obvious reasons, I would also try to get her off though the jetway stairs or separate airstairs so as not to have her arrest exploited by social media.

    Costly? Sure. But maybe less costly than this media circus fodder in the long term. And probably covered by insurance and certainly the cost of doing business today in a passenger-stressing business model.

  4. #24
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, I don't understand what's your proposal? I mean, I understand, but how do you think it would work?

    Crew requests her to please deplane.
    Crew insists that she has to deplane.
    Crew commands that she deplanes.
    Crew threatens that if she doesn't deplane they will be forced to call law enforcement.
    Crew calls law enforcement.
    Police tells her to get off the plane.
    Police orders her to get off the plane.
    Police shouts that she gets of the plane now.
    Don't you think that some path similar these steps existed? What do you do next? Ok, here is what it came next, from the video.
    Police starts to push her.
    She shouts.
    Other passengers tell her that she better obey and get off the plane by herself.
    She says " don't touch me, I will get off by myself".
    Police release her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shot her to get out.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her and pushes her.
    He cries she will get off by herself.
    Police releases her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shouts at her to get off.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her, lifts her, and moves her off the plane.

    Meantime, you had hundreds of paxs waiting in the plane and hundreds of other paxs that wil be waiting for the next flights of this plane.

    By the way, I think that if the police needs to use the force (and I think that in the case there was a need), the right way to do it is this way: Use enough force to totally overpower the person and unharmfully take him/her from A to B as if he/she was an object, avoiding any fight. If it takes 10 cops to take the big guy, 2 from each limb and 2 from the torso, then do it.

    I agree 100% with Gabriel on this one!

  5. #25
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,425

    Default

    ^^^ + 1 ^^^
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    FIrst of all, I feel pretty confident that the situation wasn't handled very well from the beginning, based on all the other incidents we've witnessed.
    Seriously? Your basis for judging that these people behaved badly is that different people behaved badly during other incidents?
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  7. #27
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan;653563
    Secondly, If it came down to a standoff (it probably wouldn't if the above was done well enough), then [B
    I would first remove all the passengers back into the terminal[/B], then send in the police to arrest her (with restraint but no more than necessary) and remove her from the aircraft.
    Two questions:

    1. What if none of them want to get off? (after all, none of them did anything wrong, why should they be inconvenienced?)
    2. If you had been one of those passengers "removed back to the terminal", how many pages would you have written on this forum about WN's incompetence?

  8. #28
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Two questions:

    1. What if none of them want to get off? (after all, none of them did anything wrong, why should they be inconvenienced?)
    I would have the cops come in and drag them all off.

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    2. If you had been one of those passengers "removed back to the terminal", how many pages would you have written on this forum about WN's incompetence?
    One page, about the stupidity of having dogs in the cabin.

  9. #29
    Junior Member Not_Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    53

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    (...)She doesn't move.
    Police shot her to get out.
    She doesn't move.(...)
    (...)
    Well, that certainly is Police brutality...



  10. #30
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    One page, about the stupidity of having dogs in the cabin.
    and this is stupid, why exactly? allergies? really? 55% of the US population test positive to one or more allergies. the number of allergens is likely close to a gazillion. so maybe we should just do away with aircraft altogether.

    SWA flies 737's which seat at a minimum 137 pax. one person out of 137 is allergic so everyone should be prohibited from bringing their PAID FOR pet on board? yeah, that makes sense...the good of the one....

  11. #31
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Karl View Post
    Well, that certainly is Police brutality...


    On the contrary, that's sweet police.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CHOSHOT35.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	15.7 KB 
ID:	9518

    --- 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 ---

  12. #32
    Junior Member Not_Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    On the contrary, that's sweet police.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CHOSHOT35.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	15.7 KB 
ID:	9518
    They were trying to trigger an allergic reaction to peanuts and/or chocolate.

  13. #33
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    and this is stupid, why exactly? allergies? really? 55% of the US population test positive to one or more allergies. the number of allergens is likely close to a gazillion. so maybe we should just do away with aircraft altogether.
    Can we do away with the plane altogether. Probably not.

    Can we do away with pets in the cabin? Absolutely.

    That's my logic, counselor.

  14. #34
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    That's my logic, counselor.
    or lack thereof. you DO realize that on this particular flight one of the animals was a service animal, right? following your "logic" they too should be banned so a single passenger with an allergy (the VAST majority of which are not life threatening) can be happy.

    very logical....

  15. #35
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    or lack thereof. you DO realize that on this particular flight one of the animals was a service animal, right? following your "logic" they too should be banned so a single passenger with an allergy (the VAST majority of which are not life threatening) can be happy.

    very logical....
    As I'm sure you know, counselor, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go. As you might surmise, the cabin of a transport category aircraft is not clearly defined as either title II or title III, thus there is no clear legal guidelines to follow. This, of course leads to confusion and confrontational situations such as that which forms the topic of this thread. There are things to consider. An aircraft cabin is a closed environment where allergens can recirculate. It is a bad place for pets. Estimate range up to 15% of the population will experience pet allergies. Up to a third of those with asthma experience complications due to pet dander, and quite a few people suffer from asthma these days. Meanwhile we have a nice alloted space below the cabin where animals typically ride, in an enviable state of sedation.

    The industry neglects to address the issue. The same industry neglects to inform passengers at the time of booking when pets will be present in the cabin. If further neglects to provide a dignified cabin environment, instead creating a stressful and uncomfortable one for the sake of profits.

    Add it up. No clear ruling on the legality of pets in the cabin. No means to warn those with allergies at the time of booking. A declining cabin environment that inspires frustration and stress for both passengers and cabin crew. Now bring a couple dogs into the arena, along with a passenger having a serious dog allergy. And watch the fur fly.

    It's all very predictable and disgraceful and downright disturbing. We need to govern this industry before it devolves into chaos. It's practically there now. Respectable people are getting dragged off planes by uniformed barbarians as a result. It's time we give up this fantasy that deregulation works and restore some sort of order and dignity to the aviation industry. We need something akin to a passengers bill of rights. We need rules that everyone can understand and follow.

  16. #36
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    As I'm sure you know, counselor, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go. As you might surmise, the cabin of a transport category aircraft is not clearly defined as either title II or title III, thus there is no clear legal guidelines to follow. This, of course leads to confusion and confrontational situations such as that which forms the topic of this thread. There are things to consider. An aircraft cabin is a closed environment where allergens can recirculate. It is a bad place for pets. Estimate range up to 15% of the population will experience pet allergies. Up to a third of those with asthma experience complications due to pet dander, and quite a few people suffer from asthma these days. Meanwhile we have a nice alloted space below the cabin where animals typically ride, in an enviable state of sedation.

    The industry neglects to address the issue. The same industry neglects to inform passengers at the time of booking when pets will be present in the cabin. If further neglects to provide a dignified cabin environment, instead creating a stressful and uncomfortable one for the sake of profits.

    Add it up. No clear ruling on the legality of pets in the cabin. No means to warn those with allergies at the time of booking. A declining cabin environment that inspires frustration and stress for both passengers and cabin crew. Now bring a couple dogs into the arena, along with a passenger having a serious dog allergy. And watch the fur fly.

    It's all very predictable and disgraceful and downright disturbing. We need to govern this industry before it devolves into chaos. It's practically there now. Respectable people are getting dragged off planes by uniformed barbarians as a result. It's time we give up this fantasy that deregulation works and restore some sort of order and dignity to the aviation industry. We need something akin to a passengers bill of rights. We need rules that everyone can understand and follow.
    We also need ALL aircraft to have a pressurised hold where the animals go for any legislation to work. I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am but I think I recall that some aircraft, especially smaller aircraft do not have a pressurised hold.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    One page, about the stupidity of having dogs in the cabin.
    I think if you examine the statistics, if you want to enhance safety you'd be much better off banning humans.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  18. #38
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, I don't understand what's your proposal? I mean, I understand, but how do you think it would work?

    Crew requests her to please deplane.
    Crew insists that she has to deplane.
    Crew commands that she deplanes.
    Crew threatens that if she doesn't deplane they will be forced to call law enforcement.
    Crew calls law enforcement.
    Police tells her to get off the plane.
    Police orders her to get off the plane.
    Police shouts that she gets of the plane now.
    Don't you think that some path similar these steps existed? What do you do next? Ok, here is what it came next, from the video.
    Police starts to push her.
    She shouts.
    Other passengers tell her that she better obey and get off the plane by herself.
    She says " don't touch me, I will get off by myself".
    Police release her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shouts her to get out.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her and pushes her.
    He cries she will get off by herself.
    Police releases her.
    She doesn't move.
    Police shouts at her to get off.
    She doesn't move.
    Police grabs her, lifts her, and moves her off the plane.
    Wrong!

    That is the procedure for the 737-300. WN has largely replaced those with more advanced and automated models..
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  19. #39
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    We also need ALL aircraft to have a pressurised hold where the animals go for any legislation to work. I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am but I think I recall that some aircraft, especially smaller aircraft do not have a pressurised hold.
    I sincerely hope not, for the sake of the floor structure. That circular (or ovalar) cross section IS the pressure hull. All pressurized transport category aircraft have cargo holds within the pressure hull and all major airline holds have heated areas as well. There may be some smaller pressurized t-props out there with non-pressurized holds, but nothing significant to this issue.

  20. #40
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I don't like dogs. (The little dot is a period.)
    Fixed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •