Self-deleted by member

And give both of those men one million sky miles a piece, with no blackouts or any other restrictions.

I don't give a shit if they had fake bombs strapped to them, shut you damn mouth and fly the plane.

....but as that was not the case here, then yeah, major dick move on the part of the pilot.

Apparently the flight was subcontracted to Atlanta Southeast Airlines (yeah, me neither), so they're the ones that should fire him.

$35,000.00 per year,not that salary has anything to do with this incident.

His or her word is the final one when it comes down to it.

And I'm ok with that.

I don't know about this situation, but the captain does have final say. Period.

Like I said shut you mouth and do your job with does not involve who the airline sells a ticket to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Might I suggest reading the on the web site;

Delta will not refuse transport based on a passenger's:

Disability, except on the basis of safety or where transporting the passenger would violate the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry.

Just stating a fact.

The captain can remove anyone from an aircraft. She or he may face discipline for it later, but the captain still can do so.

I fly a lot and I am ok with pilot discretion...sad about the poster who had to make a comment on how much the crew makes annually. Wow.

Because it is all about how much we all make in salary every year that determines our worth, right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I said the captain could be disciplined for the wrong decision.

But captains have final say. Go check it out somewhere.

No idea why you have such a mad-on against me lol.

Don't work at a 7-11, nor do I have any kind of law degree.

I have worked in aviation for years.

well who can argue with that as a source?

:eyes:

A captain can return to the gate for any reason if he or she feels the flight is at risk.

Look it up.

Go read my last post to Creekdog.

I am only stating a fact. The captain is in charge of the ship and has final authority. Period.

This captain may be a bigoted idiot, who knows? But I am only stating the fact that the captain has that authority.

He or she may be disciplined for the wrong decision, but STILL have final authority at that time of the flight.

Just the way it is and the way it should stay.

pilots. Airline pilot is a highly-skilled profession, requiring lots of training and responsibility. Pay of $35K is absofuckinglutely pitiful for such a job.

Both can be, and are, true.

I sure trust TSA.

LMAO.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just stating a fact.

But if you want to call me names, you go right ahead darlin'.:)

So it's up to that company to let him know that such actions aren't acceptable. He also holds his position by virtue of holding a FEDERAL license, so US laws also apply here

You are correct.

As I said, she or he may be disciplined...but the captain can still make that decision.

Then accept the consequences.

the vessel, passengers, crew, or cargo (in that order). But he will be obliged to justify his actions to the company afterward. That should set a proper "cautionary" example.

:hi:

your post reminds me of the people who said that restaurants could discriminate against black people if they had signs saying they can refuse to serve anyone they choose.

which is false.

but people, like you, think it. :shrug:

Seriously. The captain DOES have final say on a flight. PERIOD.

Yes, she or he may be disciplined for a decision, but they CAN kick ANYONE off that they want. They don't do it lightly and I think there is more to this story.

You cannot compare the owner of a restaurant to the pilot of an airplane in this day and age. But I understand where you are coming from, I think.

Like what? You think the passengers were doing something which justified the pilot's decision?

Any law, except some laws of nature.

We are not free to break federal law with impunity. Then again, that's what the poster's said.

People in restaurants can discriminate against black people. It's not like the law can stop them from doing it. However, it can come along and punish them for it.

Or a Jewish woman, you wouldn't have a problem with that either , I suppose?

Completely.

This is why I no longer spend much time at DU.

Nothing about race is involved in what I am saying. What I am saying is a FACT. Captains can return a flight to the gate for any reason they deem a safety risk.

Go read my posts. Nowhere did I say this captain made a CORRECT decision; I just said the captain was within his/her rights as a captain of an aircraft.

Yes, as PIC he has the ultimate go no-go authority.

Why even mention it in the context of this thread because, as you point out, he will face discipline for his discrimination. So in the context of his employer or any resulting lawsuits, he DOESN'T get to return the flight to the gate for "any" reason - not if he wants to keep his job, his license and possibly his own money (if he is personally named in the suit).

Now. He might have had a leg to stand on if he removed the original complaining PAX based on THEIR level of agitation. But I think that ship sailed when he refused to work with the TSA and accept the "Muslim" PAX.

In this case, there was nothing to suggest the Muslim men were even remotely a threat. The pilot simply has a prejudice against Muslims, and won't fly with them on the plane.

How would this be different from a pilot refusing to fly with African-Americans on the plane? Or what if the pilot saw two gay men holding hands, and demanding they be removed? Would you be okay with that as well?

Or is it simply because this involves Muslims, and it's okay to discriminate against them?

:hide:

I think I'll be sending a letter.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes::eyes::eyes:

Fire his ass.

They went through security, which as we know from countless DU posts, is very invasive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is that perhaps black and white is not the most accurate way to take a snapshot of the world.

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

In his black-and-white world, all Muslims are evil. Which makes him a stupid bigot, like all people who think likewise.

if they have hand grenades in their carry-on bags?

Yeah, probably right.

Oh, wait, no, they had their bags checked like everyone else, oops, no hand grenades.

But when one Moslem throws a hand grenade, all Moslems through a hand grenade; perhaps something to do with quantum theory, spooky action at a distance, something like that....

I'm sure he is a hero there right now

Okay, I just made that up...

;)

Nashville to Charlotte is about 7 hours.
By the time you get to Nash airport,park you car ,Have to be there 2 hrs early for check in,1.5 hr flight,1 hr waiting on bags(unless they were carry on)
Go through the hassle of getting a rental car.

Think I'd rather drive even w/gas @over $4.00

And you don't have to be body scanned!

:wow:

Just wondering if there was a reason behind that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and her son?

The private investigator my firm often employs? My own physician?

With your bigotry

And that anyone who sees an identifiable Moslem should feel in the imminent presence of murderous and suicidal danger?

But for some reason, the Captain of this ship thought there was a threat to all souls on that aircraft.

Actually, of course, the reason given was "the pilot was refusing to accept them because some other passengers could be uncomfortable."

Good Night!

nerves.

You made no statement as to whether you considered this a legitimate act or not.

It is really very simple, and why you will not give a straight answer interests me strangely....

The pilot said some passengers might feel uncomfortable. that's not a threat.

Nice and subtle. but is it subtle enough?

really. why waste the virtual ink?

:wtf:

I absolutely will not fly under 750 miles, and up to 1250 or so depends on route, weather etc, but that's my choice and irrelevant to their ability to expect a purchased ticket to be honored when they have passed all security checks.

If the pilots have concerns about security procedures, they should take it up with the airports and the TSA. Refusing to do their job because two guys have "scary" clothing on is ridiculous and as you said likely illegal. What's next? When flying, people should wear only "western" clothes and avoid wearing "ethnic" clothes because people are too ignorant of other cultures?

The pilot should be fired.

that's a classic case where a lawsuit is completely appropriate.

totally illegal.

The pilot has the right to return to the gate for a safety reason. WHATEVER he or she determines to be one.

IF this captain is determined to have made a baseless decison, the captain will be fired or disciplined.

However, the captain of an aircraft (or a ship for that matter) has final say as to what happens on board. They can end that flight before takeoff and they WILL face consequences if they have made a decison because of bigotry or whathaveyou.

I am ok with the captain being in charge. This is the person looking out for the safety of the aircraft/ship or whatever. They have the final decision and any airline will tell you that is the case.

I read this whole thread and have no idea why you keep pressing that point :shrug:

is that the captain has that right.

With rights come responsibilities and if the wrong decision was made, the captain will face the consequences.

So it's pointless to press it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to figure out it's wrong to kick people off planes for being Muslim. Hyuck hyuck, that's funny stuff right there. Yeehaw!

Your outrage will still never take the right of a captain to end a flight at his/her discretion.

Never.

I know we big brained political correct elites make the world seem scary. Repeating those things to yourself can be soothing. Maybe the pilot won't get in trouble. Maybe he'll escape the jaws of unjust politcally correct justice from the big brained baddies.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

questions and repeating the same sorry argument ad infinitum?

I'll give you a hint--it isn't Pithlet.

The point is, you seem awfully focused on the fact he has that power. The point isn't that he has that power. The point is he abused it.

No, you haven't outright said in no uncertain terms you agreed with the pilot's decisions. But you don't have to. Someone who disagreed with it wouldn't harp on the point the way you have. Yeah, the pilot can refuse to fly. Who cares? The fact that you've run around this thread screeching that he has this power when it isn't even the point, and then agreed heartily with someone who said they should have driven instead, and won't directly answer if you think the pilot made the right decision? All those speak volumes.

If you are going to be nitpicky about punctuation, well--yeah.

God.

When I never claimed to have one. That was her hang up :rofl:

since I am not privy to the actual circumstances of the flight. If there was no grounds for what happened, there should be disciplinary action taken, without a doubt.

I am still blown away by the DUer who judged the captain on the amount of his/her paycheck.

"They were told the pilot was refusing to accept them because some other passengers could be uncomfortable."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What you are being asked to do is make a forthright statement....

My forthright statement has been...and still is: A captain has a right to terminate a flight at any time if he/she feels risk to the flight.

Nothing you can do to change that, though you can all have a good old DU pile-on to feel better that you are wrong if you don't think that is the case.

I never said the captain's decison was right, just that he/she HAD the right to end the flight And they do. That will never change and I am glad.

Comparing an aircraft or a ship at sea to a restaurant is nonsense and AS I SAID, if the captain was found to have made the decision through bigotry...they should and will be disciplined.

That is what you fight shy, so conspicuously, of commenting on....

information, a statement of fact, about the authority pilots have over their plane. However he or she is being attacked for not condemning the action, with the inference that he or she is a bigot. To demand people to express outrage and 'prove' their liberal credentials as it were is preposterous.

Everyone should be able to state a fact without being attacked for not sharing a personal opinion. I find this if-your-not-for-us-your-against-us mentality 'Bushian' if not Orwellian.

Who cares that the pilot can refuse to fly? It doesn't matter. She stated her fact. No one cared. No one said "Oh! Well, that changes things!" They still think pilot is wrong. So does she move along? No. She keeps pressing the point. And agrees with the person who thinks they should have driven! I'm sorry. But pileon well deserved.

would need permission to abort a flight unless it was technical malfunction or a glaring safety issue like someone waving a gun. You and others are ones who won't let go. You all are demanding she express outrage and making the not so subtle inferences she is a bigot and supports the action because she isn't complying to your demands.

Why should she answer to your demands?

But it is also correct that it doesn't matter that the pilot can choose to refuse to fly in the context of whether or not the pilot was right to do so. The fact that you find it interesting is also immaterial in that context. And she is the one who chose to interject that fact in that context.

that a pilot has the authority to act unilaterally is pertinent. That he will have to justify his actions is also pertinent. However you won't let that go. In your mind the only pertinent issue is having the poster comply to your demand to condemn the pilot's action and as she hasn't complied you are inferring she is a bigot.

And the fact he'll only face the consequences after the fact matters how? No one cared at the time she was pressing it. You jumping to her defense now is nice and all. But no, the fact that you find her defense interesting doesn't make me suddenly sorry I called her on it and refused to back down.

ETA it's such a ridiculous argument, to boot. It's not even really true. If he can get in trouble for it, he really doesn't truly have that power. It's like saying "Hey, I have the power to flip off my boss. Because technically I can only get in trouble for it after it happens!" Duuurrrrr....

serious concerns and that he acted within his bounds.If he hadn't that authority, he'd be fired on the spot. And where do you get the notion that someone doesn't have power when there is a possibilty they might get in trouble if they abuse it? Are you willing to argue presidents don't have power because they too might get into trouble if they abuse it. Does Nixon ring any bells?

And where do get the notion I found her 'defense' interesting? What I stated was interesting is the fact that pilots can act unilaterally to abort a flight. Furthermore defense doesn't even enter into it because her stating a fact about pilots wasn't a defense, it was her initial point.

In face of your attacks she merely re-iterated that fact.

Are you kidding me? No. Airlines will not stand for their pilots doing that. That's why she got piled on. That's why you're defending her, because you don't realize that, do you?

Where do I get the notion? because I live in reality. Yeah. I can get up right now, grab a can of spray paint and run out into the streets, dancing and singing "la la la la la!" and paint daisies all over and make the world pretty pretty pretty! There's nothing that's actually physically stopping me right now from doing so. It would certainly shock and amuse the neighbors before they come to their senses and call 911. That doesn't mean I have the power to do so. I'm not allowed to, you see. There's a difference between the ability to do something, and the power, or authority, to do so. Wild example, but my point is, no. If you don't have the authority, then no. You don't have the power, even if you technically can physically do something. Yes, he can physically refuse to fly the plane. He's the pilot. Plane doesn't go without him. Duh. But airlines aren't going to tolerate discrimination, so he doesn't have the authority to do it. So her little fact is actually wrong.

Airline stands behind captains preogative. ( probably not in this case )

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2989761&page=1

But the airline wasn't kidding around and a spokesman Wednesday stuck by the captain's preogative to remove the girl, calling that authority the industry standard.

It's been the standard for thousands of years. Her little fact is, in fact, correct. ( though it doesn't make it right in this case )

Were they being kicked off because of their race or religion? I don't think so!

You said a captain cannot do it. I gave a reason they can. it is a fact. There is no underlying current of "is this right or wrong". It is simply a fact.

I said they can't just kick people off because of their race or religion. The companies they work for will not like the bad publicity that reigns on them every time they pull it. LIke the recent Southwest Airlines case where they kicked off the Muslim woman. The bad press they recieved? That's nastiness they can do without. It is not a fact that airlines will simply let their pilots get away with that. No way.

if this is your post:

"But airlines aren't going to tolerate discrimination, so he doesn't have the authority to do it. So her little fact is actually wrong."

A pilot has the authority to kick anyone off a flight they want. If he specifically did because they are Muslim, there will be hell to pay. If he just didn't like their face, it's his prerogative.

Then he doesn't have the authority, now does he? THat's what stopped me from flipping off my boss (one of my previous examples)

It's just when review times comes, he better have a damn good case for why he did it.

One has authority, one also has to justify the use of that authority.

I dont' think airlines say "it's okay to kick off the Muslims if you want, as long as you can convince us it's okay"

:shrug:

:*

Superb. :thumbsup:

The point was "can a captain do this." He can. They have been able to for thousands of years. If the captain didn't like your face he could boot your off his craft.

There is no underlying current of "is this right or wrong" it is simply a fact he can.

They'll look at the nasty public image fall out, and then some pilot blubbering about ancient pilot code, and they'll go hmmm... bottom line wins!

:thumbsup:

-1 extra for pretending it's not.

Pilots have the authority to abort a flight but they will be required to justify their action. Why is that difficult so to understand? People who have power are constantly over-reaching their authority and if they get caught abusing that power they, unlike those who don't have power, will have an opportunity to defend themselves. A perk of having power is that one doesn't get dismissed summarily, consider the hundreds of doctors who never loose their licenses despite egregious acts.

The airline may have wanted to fire his ass as soon as this happened but they haven't because they have rules to follow.


You clearly don't understand power. You would get arrested for painting daisies because you have no power whereas as Bush and his cohorts aren't arrested for countless illegal acts that are far worse than painting daisies because they have power. Those who vandalize property may feel powerful but that sort of power is an illusion, an illusion that is shattered once they confront the system which has real power, the power to arrest and incarcerate.

THe people who keep insisting this pilot had authority to do this. I don't have to do the putting. You guys keep saying it. It doesn't matter if an authority figure will smack down before during or after the fact. If the underling will have to attempt to justify the act. Whatever, whenever. If the act is wrong. If the act is unethical. And, least of all, if it will get punished by the bossperson. Then it wasn't authorized. It isn't that hard, really. But most important, and what has been said from the beginning. It doesn't matter. It was wrong. Period.

to abort a flights and they do so at their own discretion however that doesn't mean that they don't have to justify their actions at a later date. Pilots need to justify why a flight was aborted, if they fail to do so they have to face the consequences for abusing their power. This pilot will try to justify his actions but it is highly unlikely that he will be successful.

"discretion" doesn't mean carte blanche. If they need to justify it, that doesn't mean full discretion now, does it? The fact remains. He does not get to say "Hmmmm. Muslim. Off you go!" IF he has to have evidence that they actually were a threat, then he doesn't have the right to kick them off. Period. That's it. No amount of "Pilots can do that!" changes that. Because it isn't true. They can't do that. If he had no evidence, he should have shut up and flown the plane.

discretion who boards the plane,but AT A LATER DATE, they will be required to justify their actions. Being required to to justify ones action does not lessen one's discretion. Whether he used his discretion wisely or justly is a separate issue and he will have to answer to that.

You may not like the fact that pilots have so much discretion but it is a fact. If a pilot is rational and values his job he'll not abuse his power but clearly not all people are rational.

have you been here before? Some people like their 2 minute hate, and you don't interrupt that with anything like "facts" or "information" if you don't want to get bit.

and attempt to make it look like the discriminator had a right to do it, they're going to get bit. Pilots cannot simply kick certain people off because they feel like, to calm people's fears. No facts back that up.

nothing more. people are piling on. It's happened to me on more then one occasion. She said nothing else about it. You automatically assume she is defending something. I only "assume" that if they actually defend it.

Giving a "fact" is not sugar coating. It's a really sad state of affairs if you think giving facts about something is defending it. Speaks volumes.

It isn't fun. But it's a fact of life on DU. And when people are defending bigotry I don't feel sorry for them. Sorry, but I don't. ETA her "fact" isn't entirely factual, at any rate. PIlots can't do whatever the hell they want.

can and cannot do is not "defending" it. It is merely giving a fact.

Fucking shit sounds like a McCarthy trial.

It couldn't possibly be an attempt to legitimize the act. I'm sorry, but what other reason could there be? No one knew that pilots can refuse to fly a plane? Come on.

Before I hang the label on them. I guess you just do it without proof? or "proof" you assume is there?

They give little hints and clues. You don't have to come to the same conclusion I do. That's your prerogative. But clearly I wasn't the only one.

But asshats almost, to a person, are.

they justified kicking these guys off because of the Twin Towers, Pentagon and Flight 93

i think your standard of them buying a billboard and having "i'm an asshat" in big bold letters is a bit beyond what's necessary.

when the article clearly states the pilot made his choice because he thought the other passengers "might be uncomfortable".

to me, an undefensible position is doubly-insidious when it's backed up with a lie.

any more than you can announce that you aren't paying for an item at the store and then walk out.

yes you are able to do that.

no, it is not permissable.

;)

At least you've made it quite clear who the brains are in this thread; thank you for recognizing them.

to have made an error.........

cheapass airline that only pays pilots $35K a year - an absofuckinlutely pathetic salary for a position that requires so much training, skill, and responsibility.

and it's sad that people can sink this low when it comes to intolerance. It'd be a bit funnier for pilots to ask parents who can't control their loud little kids or annoying teenagers to get off the plane before takeoff.

Sorry, but there is no excuse for this kind of blatant bigotry. If there were passengers who were uncomfortable flying with these men aboard, that is their problem, and the pilot should not bow down to their bigoted views.

They're bigot magnets. E-flypaper, if you will.

:thumbsup:

they've really come out of the woodwork in this one.

whose posts are thankfully now gone. Disgusting.

:rofl: