
Is Polite Disagreement Becoming Grounds For Removal From A Flight? - shrikant
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2013/04/07/at-united-airlines-is-polite-disagreement-becoming-grounds-for-removal-from-a-flight/
======
DanielBMarkham
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.

~~~
pc86
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
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.

~~~
Spooky23
The safety assumption isn't exactly a given. The statistics cited represent
passenger miles, not events. The formula is basically (passengers * trip
miles)/deaths

Comparing automobile-related fatalities is challenging.

The standard comparisons given do not distinguish between passenger deaths and
automobile-related deaths. 15-20% of all auto-related deaths are pedestrians
and bicyclists. It also doesn't differentiate between trip types. Is there a
difference between 24 hours driving from NYC to Miami via I-95 and 24 hours of
driving within NYC? The published statistics do not speak to that.

I would conjecture if you were able to compare the relative dangers of inter-
city interstate/freeway driving to a similar flight (including getting to/from
the airport), you'd find that the safety gap was far narrower.

~~~
greenyoda
Also, lots of automobile fatalities are due to intoxicated drivers driving off
the road, so if you don't drink and drive your odds get a whole lot better
than the quoted statistics. And if I remember correctly, a large percentage of
fatalities occur at intersections (especially left turns), so if you drive on
highways you avoid those too.

~~~
Spooky23
The intoxication thing is another real issue with the stats.

Deaths get labeled as "alcohol related" and double counted all of the time. If
I'm walking down the street drunk or riding in a cab drunk, that is tallied as
an "alcohol related" crash.

------
asmithmd1
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.

~~~
sopooneo
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?

~~~
tptacek
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.

------
msluyter
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
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.

~~~
qompiler
> 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

------
wtvanhest
"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.

~~~
EliRivers
"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.

~~~
tonyarkles
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)

~~~
EliRivers
"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"

Overreaction _is_ incompetent decision making.

~~~
vidarh
While I agree, and I think the treatment of the passengers in question was
idiotic, keep in mind that he did not talk to the passenger in question
directly.

He was forwarded the request by a flight attendant or possibly the purser. The
purser might have been forwarded part of what he said indirectly as well, from
the flight attendant, and both might very well have exaggerated the story in
part to explain why they haven't just dealt with it, but are coming to the
captain with it.

It's perfectly possible that what the pilot hear from the purser was: "Some
passengers are getting irate [he got others to speak up in support] because of
the movie choice and has been pestering the flight attendants about it and
won't give up. He's getting angry, and wanted to talk to you."

Might still be an overreaction, but a very different scenario than what the
passenger claims (whether or not the passengers description is correct).

I'm sure the airline have "had a chat", but I also think they'd rather take
the occasional cost of a diversion like this than risk having a captain be too
cautious in a situation where there's a genuine risk.

------
justin_vanw
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
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.

------
eli
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
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"

------
Shenglong
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
Yep.

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

------
crusso
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.

------
_chrismccreadie
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...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290462/What-way-treat-
heroine-Royal-Navy-girl-fought-Afghanistan-told-cover-uniform-Virgin-flight-
case-offended-passengers.html)

~~~
RBerenguel
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
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.

~~~
RBerenguel
No, I didn't read the link for that reason :) I'm from Spain, so I didn't know
e rules, but was more thinking about the passenger impressions on the
aircraft.

------
eksith
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
"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.)

~~~
wtvanhest
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.

~~~
cdjk
My economics is rusty, but I can think of few industries with higher barriers
to entry than airlines.

~~~
vidarh
I like Richard Branson's claim (paraphrased) that the way to become a
millionaire is to become a billionaire and start an airline.

But that's a bit glib.

It's not actually that bad if your ambitions are not massive scale. There are
any number of niche local airlines that have started with a couple of
small/old leased planes even relatively recently. There are well established
leasing mechanisms, and passenger planes have an extremely long expected
lifetime but larger airlines are often under constant pressure to upgrade to
bigger and more cost effective planes, and so there's a lot of supply.

In fact, there are websites where you can enquire about quotes for leasing
full size passenger planes.

~~~
Spooky23
That business model for scheduled service is usually built around Federal
government subsides to service infrequently visited airports. "Cape Air" is an
example such airline that flies to places like Nantucket, MA and Lake Placid,
NY. The airports often coincidentally happen to be where prominent congressmen
live or have summer homes.

The other variant for that niche airline model is charter flights -- get a few
hundred people from a city to go to Jamaica or something.

The delusion that some have that airlines represent "perfect competition" is
amusing. It's an industry held up by direct subsidy, indirect subsidy via the
Postal Service & military, and other bizarre compromises.

------
DamnYuppie
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
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
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.

------
rm999
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.

------
tokenadult
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
> 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.

------
tquai
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.

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

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

------
qompiler
United airlines is like a greyhound bus with wings. It attracts all sorts of
crazy people who complain if they get kicked out.

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

~~~
Avenger42
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"?

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

------
adamc
Can't even see the page...

------
sageikosa
The Committee for Public Safety says: Yes.

------
sultezdukes
_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.

