First you couldn't say "bomb" on an airplane...

[Guest]

Makes me wanna wear a plain white t-shirt on board ... then whip out my big, fat Sharpie once airborn & decorate it.

that would be fine as long as the pen had less than an ounce of free flowing fluid in it.


i find smelly passengers on long flights offensive.

mr. onion man, im sure youre very sweet but if you would just bathe, i wouldnt mind sitting next to you.

 

[S-Des]

Yer right, it's not a freedom of speech thing. It's a customer's right thing. They sold him a product. Then they chose not to deliver the product. Of course, a well written e.u.l.a or t.o.e gives companies the legal right to be dicks. Excersising that right is still no less dickish.

The same problem is found in many private businesses. Some Cubs fans were thrown out of the ballpark for wearing t-shirts that criticized the Tribune. Not only that, but if you're a season ticket holder and ejected from a game (or if you give your tickets to someone else and they're ejected), you forfeit your tickets (with no refund) for the rest of the season. Restaraunts have dress codes. Schools ban t-shirts that say a variety of things. 3113 is right, if this guy had worn a shirt that said something derrogatory about a religion, race, or the opposite sex (not to mention something profane), he would have been told to remove it as well. Trying to turn this into something bigger than it is doesn't make any sense. It's a private company exercising it's right to control the passenger's behavior. Good luck on the guy trying to sue to get his money back (since they offered him the option of changing shirts, which he refused). He can try a different airline next time...they'll probably do the same thing.

BTW, 3113 is right about the people with the toddler as well (we're in agreement twice in one thread...*shakes head in astonishment*). I heard a long discussion about it today including the clips of them being interviewed. They put a 3 year-old on a plane after ear surgery. Does the term rocket scientist mean anything to anyone?

 

[age_matters]

lol in my country if you did something like that you could be jailed under the internal security act...

i got to say the authorities did the right thing...

but that's only my opinion...

if there are no barring for such things all will break loose soon...

 

[Liar]

Restaraunts have dress codes.

Otoh, reasturants don't ask for my money in advance. So if they don't let me in, they don't get my money.

Airlines do ask for my money in advance. So I think it's only fair that they should be *very* clear about under what circumstances they will choose not to deliver the service, *before* the monetary transaction takes place. At the buy. Not at the gate. If I'm turned away at the gate, for reasons I've not been told would be an issue, not even a refund would make me happy. I've lost valueable time.

If asked to change a t-shirt, I think I'd merrily reply "I'll be happy to oblige, if you buy me one. Cause if you think this one is offensive, you should see the rest of them."

 

[S-Des]

Otoh, reasturants don't ask for my money in advance. So if they don't let me in, they don't get my money.

Airlines do ask for my money in advance. So I think it's only fair that they should be *very* clear about under what circumstances they will choose not to deliver the service, *before* the monetary transaction takes place. At the buy. Not at the gate. If I'm turned away at the gate, for reasons I've not been told would be an issue, not even a refund would make me happy. I've lost valueable time.

If asked to change a t-shirt, I think I'd merrily reply "I'll be happy to oblige, if you buy me one. Cause if you think this one is offensive, you should see the rest of them."

I'm guessing it's in the fine print when you buy a ticket (I never bothered to look). They can't actually say each thing that is not permitted (I mean come on, last year a guy took a dump on a serving cart...I'm sure that's not mentioned anywhere specifically either). You might be right and the guy might get his money back, but I doubt it. Freedom of speech is a government right, it's curtailed in all sorts of ways in private businesses (and I'm not really sure what the actual right is in Australia). Personally, I'm all for them using their discretion to ban certain things. Long flights suck enough as it is.

BTW, some restaraunts here take a credit card when you make a reservation. If you cancel, they charge you anyway. In the immortal words of Gallagher, "Anywhere you spring a leak, the world hangs a bucket..."

 

[rgraham666]

lol in my country if you did something like that you could be jailed under the internal security act...

i got to say the authorities did the right thing...

but that's only my opinion...

if there are no barring for such things all will break loose soon...

Suuure.

Most people are too stupid to be trusted after all. No way can they even begin to understand what is required to make a society work.

A firm hand is best. Like children, most people need guidance.

Hurl!

 

[cantdog]

That's what it said? Well no wonder, then. Even I find that offensive.

There's just no way Bush is the World's #1 Terrorist! Terrorism takes planning. You can't claim the title just because your screw-ups result in a lot of fatalities.

There's Shock and Awe, though, and the use of white phosphorus on populations.

 

[jakebarnes06]

"you, your behaviour or clothes frighten, disgust or scandalize those on board"

Quantas' website says a passenger's carriage rights are subject to Quantas' General Conditions of Carriage (GCC) which are available upon request from Quantas. I tried to find Quantas' GCC online but was unsuccessful. I did find the GCCs of an airline called Wizz Air.

http://wizzair.com/useful_information/general_conditions_of_carriage/

I'm guessing these GCCs are mostly standard throughout the industry. Following is the text of the conditions under which Wizz Air can refuse carriage to a passenger. Note the fourth condition, which I offset by spacing. Note also section 13.3 at the bottom of the GCCs relating to Wizz Air's no refund policy.

13.1 We reserve the right to refuse the carriage or further carriage of you and/or your baggage provided that
*we reasonably believe that the refusal of the carriage is necessary for security reasons (i.e. you are intoxicated);
*we reasonably believe that the carriage may endanger the life, health, physical integrity and comfort of you and of those on board;
*we reasonably believe that your age, mental or physical state may endanger you and those on board or the valuables thereof;

*you, your behaviour or clothes frighten, disgust or scandalize those on board;

*you violated the code of conduct on a previous flight and we reasonably believe that you will repeat this behaviour;
*we have previously notified you in writing that we would not at any time carry you on our flights;
*we could have also refused your reservation (see paragraphs 7.1.2, 7.4.3 and 7.4.4);
*you refused to go through immigration formalities (see paragraph 11.1)
*you refused to submit to a security check;
*you have not paid the applicable fare, taxes, fees and charges;
*you owe us any money in respect of a previous flight;
*we reasonably believe that the refusal of the carriage is necessary to comply with the rules and regulations of any of the states affected by the carriage;
*you do not hold valid travel documents (including the destruction of such documents in the course of carriage);
*you do not meet or we reasonably believe that you do not meet the entry requirements of the country of the agreed stopping place or destination;
*you attempt to enter a country through which you may be in transit;
*you refuse to hand over your travel documents to us or to the authorities - against a certificate of receipt - when demanded;
*you cannot prove that you are the person named in the reservation;
*you failed to inform us about your special needs or about your intention to carry a special baggage or items of conditional carriage;
*you need such special support we are unable to provide or would incur disproportionately high expenditure.
13.2 Should your behaviour constitute a misdemeanour or is likely to constitute a reasonable suspicion of crime, or you smoke on board, we shall initiate legal procedure with the proper authorities.

13.3 Should we, in the reasonable exercise of our discretion, refuse your carriage or remove you from the flight en route on the basis of this Article, we will cancel your onward reservation(s) and will not pay you a refund. We will not be liable for any consequential loss or damage incurred due to any such refusal of carriage or removal en route.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

BTW, 3113 is right about the people with the toddler as well (we're in agreement twice in one thread...*shakes head in astonishment*). I heard a long discussion about it today including the clips of them being interviewed. They put a 3 year-old on a plane after ear surgery. Does the term rocket scientist mean anything to anyone?

It is typical to note that in the interview with the parents of the spoiled, rotten little brat, the child was portrayed as a total angel, the parents did absolutly nothing wrong and the airline treated them like shit.

The way they portrayed the incident is more or less like, they got on the plane, the kid squeeled once, the airline threw then off. In fact the incident went on for 20 minutes, while the parents insisted the child should sit on her mother's lap during take off and landing (in violation of both international and FAA regulations) and the child was completely out of control. They held the plane on the ground, making it late and blamed the airline. Dumb bastards.

It seems like there are assholes everywhere.

 

[3113]

They put a 3 year-old on a plane after ear surgery.

You are friggin' kidding me! Now I'm doubly glad the airline kicked them off. Glad for the passangers and glad for the kid. The air pressure pain on a kid's ears as a plane decends is bad enough if there's nothing wrong with the child--unlike an adult, a child that young may not know how to pop their ears with swallows and yawns and such...but after an ear surgery?

Knowing kids and ear surgeries, I'm guessing that the flight was planned first and the ear surgery unplanned and the parents decided that they'd rather risk it then try to change their flight.

I think the passangers of that plane should all take up a collection for the money the airline returned to the parents in thanks for kicking them off the plane. Given the trouble during take off, can you imagine what the kid would have been like during the flight? During the descent?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yer right, it's not a freedom of speech thing. It's a customer's right thing. They sold him a product. Then they chose not to deliver the product. Of course, a well written e.u.l.a or t.o.e gives companies the legal right to be dicks. Excersising that right is still no less dickish.

I didn't say they weren't dicks, just that it's their(Quatas') choice to allow the passenger on the plane. It's the same in any business, just 'cuz you walk in the door of my restuarant doesn't mean I have to seat you or serve you. I may be concidered a dick for that but, IT'S MY CHOICE.

 

[CharleyH]

...now your clothes can't speak either, apparently.

Also: I'm wondering where does one draw the line about clothing with the "potential to offend other travelers"? I'm offended by other people's clothing every day, for crying out loud.

Morons.

(And how many people on a flight between Melbourne and London would be offended by a Bush bashing T-shirt anyway? )

I was wondering when America will wake up? I long for the 60's (even though I am too young to remember them). When did Americans lose their strength to actually stand up for freedom? And then I saw your second post LOL and wondered when did the British suddenly concede and... submit to American interests? Have the Brits been? Invaded? Perhaps, pervaded by too many episodes of"Law and Order?"

 

[shereads]

I didn't say they weren't dicks, just that it's their(Quatas') choice to allow the passenger on the plane. It's the same in any business, just 'cuz you walk in the door of my restuarant doesn't mean I have to seat you or serve you. I may be concidered a dick for that but, IT'S MY CHOICE.

Airlines, unlike restaurants, rely on a government-subsidized service (air traffic control) and are answerable to regulatory bodies like the FAA, because commercial air travel is considered essential to the economy, as railroads once were. A restaurant is a convenient substitute for your own cooking; an airline is a substitute for your Lear Jet, if you are Donald Trump, but it is certainly not convenient.

So it's not a fair comparison. By accepting public subsidies, the airline agrees to cut the public some slack. My restaurant, on the other hand, owes the public nothing but a dish of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese at six times the price of the same meal prepared in your own kitchen. I can have you removed from Chez Velveeta for no better reason than that your valet ties a sloppy cravat. If your kid disrupts the ambiance by throwing a tantrum or throwing food or throwing up, you can bet she'll be tossed out on her ear before you can say, "There's a human fingertip in this chili."

And good riddance. Some of us are childless by choice, and we tolerate more than a fair amount of crap for the sake of other people's spawn. We even subsidize your little darlings' education, in the pathetic hope that we will benefit from a less ignorant society.

We have been damned considerate, considering that all we get in return is a more crowded planet, censorship, and those godawful "child safe" caps on medicine bottles.

Enough, already.

Which is why, having defended the rights of airline ticket-holders to receive the service they've paid for and made plans around, even if the slogans on their t-shirts are inaccurate, I applaud Air Trans for giving The Screamer the heave-ho.

There's a difference between a tantrum after the flight is underway, and one that delays take-off. The former scrapes our nerves raw, but does no lasting harm, or at least none that our attorneys can prove in court. The latter inconveniences hundreds of other people and could contribute to the domino effect that disrupts flight schedules all over the country.

Good going, Air Trans. You still suck, but for one less reason.

 

[CharleyH]

Airlines, unlike restaurants, rely on a government-subsidized service (air traffic control) and are answerable to regulatory bodies like the FAA, because commercial air travel is considered essential to the economy, as railroads once were. A restaurant is a convenient substitute for your own cooking; an airline is a substitute for your Lear Jet, if you are Donald Trump, but it is certainly not convenient.

So it's not a fair comparison. By accepting public subsidies, the airline agrees to cut the public some slack. My restaurant, on the other hand, owes the public nothing but a dish of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese at six times the price of the same meal prepared in your own kitchen. I can have you removed from Chez Velveeta for no better reason than that your valet ties a sloppy cravat. If your kid disrupts the ambiance by throwing a tantrum or throwing food or throwing up, you can bet she'll be tossed out on her ear before you can say, "There's a human fingertip in this chili."

And good riddance. Some of us are childless by choice, and we not tolerate more than a fair amount of crap for the sake of other people's spawn.

Which is why, having defended the rights of airline ticket-holders to receive the service they've paid for and made plans around, even if the slogans on their t-shirts are inaccurate, I applaud Air Trans for giving The Screamer the heave-ho. There's a difference between a tantrum after the flight is underway, and one that delays take-off, inconveniencing hundreds of other people and contributing to the domino effect that can disrupt flight schedules all over the country.

Good going, Air Trans.

LOL- do I ever tell you how beautiful you are?

 

[Liar]

I didn't say they weren't dicks, just that it's their(Quatas') choice to allow the passenger on the plane. It's the same in any business, just 'cuz you walk in the door of my restuarant doesn't mean I have to seat you or serve you. I may be concidered a dick for that but, IT'S MY CHOICE.

All true, and as I've already said, then I don't pay you. That's the difference between your restaurant and Quatas, it seems. Or other airlines and Quatas. The family with the brat kid got their money back, even though they were both a bigger PITA and security hazard than the guy with the t-shirt.

 

[Lisa Denton]

You could also be removed if your child pitches a temper tantrum. I'm not really sure where I fall in this debate.

Quote:
(Airline defends removing family from flight
AirTran Airways backs decision to boot parents, toddler for temper tantrum

ORLANDO, Fla. - AirTran Airways on Tuesday defended its decision to remove a Massachusetts couple from a flight after their crying 3-year-old daughter refused to take her seat before takeoff.

AirTran officials said they followed Federal Aviation Administration rules that children age 2 and above must have their own seat and be wearing a seat belt upon takeoff.

"The flight was already delayed 15 minutes and in fairness to the other 112 passengers on the plane, the crew made an operational decision to remove the family," AirTran spokeswoman Judy Graham-Weaver said.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
click here!

Julie and Gerry Kulesza, who were headed home to Boston on Jan. 14 from Fort Myers, said they just needed a little more time to calm their daughter, Elly.

"We weren't given an opportunity to hold her, console her or anything," Julie Kulesza said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

The Kuleszas said they told a flight attendant they had paid for their daughter's seat, but asked whether she could sit in her mother's lap. The request was denied.

She was removed because "she was climbing under the seat and hitting the parents and wouldn't get in her seat" during boarding, Graham-Weaver said.

The Orlando-based carrier reimbursed the family $595.80, the cost of the three tickets, and the Kuleszas flew home the next day.

They also were offered three roundtrip tickets anywhere the airline flies, Graham-Weaver said.

The father said his family would never fly AirTran again.)

These peoples were idiots, the air crew made a decision, the right decision. It was against thier policy for the child to sit in the mothers lap, and against thier policy for the child to not be wearing a seat belt during takeoff.

Had the little angel/brat been injured during takeoff, the parents would have screamed that the airline was responsible, which would not even be debateable since they violated thier own policy, and the parents would have sued for seventeen googlezillion dollars.

They had 112 peoples waiting on an airplane, no way to ascertain if other flights were being delayed landing/takeoff during this wait, or airport safety at risk. No way to ascertain how many peoples were inconvenienced and put in possible danger.

In this situation the air crew makes a decision, not the airline, the airline will back thier air crew.


In one unreported incident, immediately after landing one gentleman got out of his seat, went to get his suit jacket off the hangar and stand near the door, while the plane was still moving. The flight attendants told him he must return to his seat numerous times but he refused saying he was "in a hurry."

After consulting with the captain on the intercom, the flight attendants took seats away from the gentleman, and the plane came to a halt.

The captain announced "ladies and gentlemen, we will be stopped here until all unsecured baggage is strapped down per company safety regulations, I don't care whether he does it himself, or other passengers do it for him."

The gentleman returned to his seat, and the aircraft began to taxi again.

 

[Liar]

*you, your behaviour or clothes frighten, disgust or scandalize those on board;

Heh. If that's all it takes, there's no end to the people I could get thrown off flights. I'm frequently disgusted by peoples' behaviour.

 

[S-Des]

You are friggin' kidding me! Now I'm doubly glad the airline kicked them off. Glad for the passangers and glad for the kid. The air pressure pain on a kid's ears as a plane decends is bad enough if there's nothing wrong with the child--unlike an adult, a child that young may not know how to pop their ears with swallows and yawns and such...but after an ear surgery?

Knowing kids and ear surgeries, I'm guessing that the flight was planned first and the ear surgery unplanned and the parents decided that they'd rather risk it then try to change their flight.

I think the passangers of that plane should all take up a collection for the money the airline returned to the parents in thanks for kicking them off the plane. Given the trouble during take off, can you imagine what the kid would have been like during the flight? During the descent?

Steve Dahl is a local radio show host who's been around here forever (he was doing it before Howard Stern became famous). He had the funniest damn bit about it (almost made me drive off the road). It seems the kid was good on the flight in, which was after the surgery. There was some problem during the decent (big surprise), then the kid freaked out on the return trip when she knew she'd be sitting in another one of "those" seats. His description of how the poor kid must have felt should be required listening for anyone flying with a child (unfortunately there's no You Tube for radio ).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Heh. If that's all it takes, there's no end to the people I could get thrown off flights. I'm frequently disgusted by peoples' behaviour.

And I by some people in general.

(not you of course my dear friend)

 

[Liar]

And I by some people in general.

(not you of course my dear friend)

Give it some time. You just don't know me yet.

 

[SeaCat]

...now your clothes can't speak either, apparently.



I'm wondering where does one draw the line about clothing with the "potential to offend other travelers"? I'm offended by other people's clothing every day, for crying out loud.

ROTFLMAO

I have read not only the original articles about this but the follow up ones as well. I have even read this entire thread.

I understand both side of the argument, hell even that wasn't hard.

There is an easy cure to this problem, easy and yet unnaceptable to oh so many.

All clothing will be checked at the gate and put into your hold baggage. You will be given a disinfecting shower, (You can use this as part of the security screening.) and given those funny little paper slippers to wear on the plane.

This would cure several problems. Offensive clothing, offensive B.O. and the security risk of someone sneaking a weapon on board in their clothing. (Not to mention you would get free inflight entertainment. )

Yes I am being a wiseass, so what else is new?

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

These peoples were idiots, the air crew made a decision, the right decision. It was against thier policy for the child to sit in the mothers lap, and against thier policy for the child to not be wearing a seat belt during takeoff.

Had the little angel/brat been injured during takeoff, the parents would have screamed that the airline was responsible, which would not even be debateable since they violated thier own policy, and the parents would have sued for seventeen googlezillion dollars.

They had 112 peoples waiting on an airplane, no way to ascertain if other flights were being delayed landing/takeoff during this wait, or airport safety at risk. No way to ascertain how many peoples were inconvenienced and put in possible danger.

In this situation the air crew makes a decision, not the airline, the airline will back thier air crew.


In one unreported incident, immediately after landing one gentleman got out of his seat, went to get his suit jacket off the hangar and stand near the door, while the plane was still moving. The flight attendants told him he must return to his seat numerous times but he refused saying he was "in a hurry."

After consulting with the captain on the intercom, the flight attendants took seats away from the gentleman, and the plane came to a halt.

The captain announced "ladies and gentlemen, we will be stopped here until all unsecured baggage is strapped down per company safety regulations, I don't care whether he does it himself, or other passengers do it for him."

The gentleman returned to his seat, and the aircraft began to taxi again.

Lol

Good on that captain.

I was on a flight from hell a couple of years back. We took of from Boston and landed in West Palm. The entire flight was through rough weather. Too say the passangers were uncomfortable would have been an understatement. By the end of the flight most of them looked like either martians or corpses and all of us had some sort of residue on our clothing.

To say the cabin air was aromatic is being kind, I think they could smell it in the cockpit through the closed door. Hell even mst of the crew was affected.

When we landed we were delayed before reaching the gate. We had to sit on the apron for quite some time and the people on the flight were getting restless and angry. People were in and out of their seats getting their overhead luggage and generally moving around. Finally the Captain come over the P.A. and asked everyone to remain seated while appologising for the wait. This did no good and finally he came back into the cabin himself. He appealed for calm then informed us he understood our discomfort. He also told us that if everyone went back to their seats and stayed there he would personally try to help us. People slowly went back to their seats and settled down.

When everyone was seated and looking at him he told us he was going to break several regulations and open the door to help air the plane out. He also stated that he was ordering all of the flight crew to remain away from the door so if anyone chose to exit the plane before he pulled it up to the etway they could, but he wouldn't recomend it.

Yes he did open the door, which gave everyone a great deal of relief as the fresh air swept through the plane. He only closed when he aproached the Jetway, and that was only to allow the extender to mate with the plane.

I was amazed at how many people thanked him as they exited the plane. I have always wondered if he got in trouble for what he did.

Cat

 

[3113]

Yes I am being a wiseass, so what else is new?

Off the plane with you!

 

[3113]

We even subsidize your little darlings' education, in the pathetic hope that we will benefit from a less ignorant society.

Are you still falling for that line?

We have been damned considerate, considering that all we get in return is a more crowded planet, censorship, and those godawful "child safe" caps on medicine bottles.

They call those caps "child safe" to tick you. They're actually an elaborate intelligence test.

 

[SeaCat]

Off the plane with you!

LOLOLOL

Cat

Hey I'm one of those the Crew comes and talks to after they have been in the air for too many hours. I can keep them smiling even as they contemplate strangling one of the other passengers.