Video: Disabled Veteran kicked off U.S. Airways flight

reply to post by hellobruce



The article is in plain English and don't forget the 2005 merger either, Their sales aren't in good shape.

BristolStew
Funny you say that.

I will refer you to this article


www.huffingtonpost.com...


So before you claim "policies" and force them on others you and your colleague make sure you treat others the way you like them to treat you.

Who is my colleague?
What are you getting at?

BristolStew
Their sales aren't in good shape.

Once again, a little basic research does wonders. For "their sales aren't in good shape" they're doing pretty damn good. They went from a $22 million loss in the first quarter of 2012, to a $55 million profit first quarter of 2013. Second quarter of 2013 they posted a pretax profit of $409 million. Net profit was $324 million.

If that's "not in good shape" how do I get in on that?

reply to post by 1104light


Didn't you read the memo? If you defend the airline, or expect disabled people to follow airline rules, you're obviously an airline spokesperson (like I apparently am).

Wow.. only 37% people in US has the visa to fly, shows alot about people's knowledge about flying.

You follow flight crews instruction or you are automatically kicked out the flight.

This guy think he is special or something.


NO THINGS SHOULD BE ON YOU WHEN TAKING OFF OR LANDING!!


This vet defenders are nothing but emotionally discharged individuals, heck, adding "Vet" to this title is enough of a evidence for me.

It seemed it did the work on the weak minded folks.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I wouldn't worry, some people are just too stubborn to follow the rules, it would not go with their political ideologies.

"what! no one tells me what to do! *tries to open windows on the flight*"

"Rules are there to control me", no moron, its their to protect others from you.

Zaphod58
reply to post by 1104light

 

Didn't you read the memo? If you defend the airline, or expect disabled people to follow airline rules, you're obviously an airline spokesperson (like I apparently am).

LOL! Damn, it must be lost in all my shill paperwork. I am so busy being a government shill, airline shill, Muslim shill, democrat shill, republican shill, satanist shill, christian shill, etc...I get my paperwork all mixed up at times. I had no idea we were colleagues, that is great. See you in the cafeteria!

I do not understand these people. They are the first ones to complain if the government wants to regulate ANY business but then are also the first ones to cry when private businesses are not forced to do whatever they want done.

luciddream
NO THINGS SHOULD BE ON YOU WHEN TAKING OFF OR LANDING!!

Funny how that doesn't apply to children. So yeah there's that.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Children are not things, in fact you could keep the dog on your lap as well. Too bad this guy didn't think ahead.

PsykoOps

luciddream
NO THINGS SHOULD BE ON YOU WHEN TAKING OFF OR LANDING!!

Funny how that doesn't apply to children. So yeah there's that.

It does not apply to dogs either. Do you get what argument you are making here?

luciddream
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Children are not things, in fact you could keep the dog on your lap as well. Too bad this guy didn't think ahead.

In fact you could keep a full sized elephant on your lap. So no problems with that either.

BristolStew
inhumane, illogical company's policies are not rules nor laws and thus unconstitutional and against the human rights, animal rights.

edit on 20-9-2013 by BristolStew because: (no reason given)

Then he has a great lawsuit ready to go, right?
Who decides which policies are inhumane or against human and animal rights?
Nothing about this policy violates anyone's rights.
Furthermore, how many planes do you want to be on with animals running loose? Sound safe to you?

BristolStew
He never said that.

Why are you speaking for other people? Let him argue his point.
If you have one, go for it.
I see no validity in one internet stranger interpreting another internet strangers post, that is why I asked THEM, not everyone bur them. I am sure your caretaker can explain all this to you.

1104light

UndergroundMilitia
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I'd love to split hairs with you but the bottom line is that the airline is responsible by not communicating effectively. If this guy was told that his dog must be on the floor prior to boarding, than that's one thing but we do not have that information. But I'm willing to betcha, by this man's reaction...he was told no such thing.

Based on his reaction? His reaction tells me that he never bothered to check the policy and just expected to get whatever he asked for. Until you start forcing private businesses to just bend to the will of any special group of people you wish, life sucks. The airline had this policy in place already. If this man did not know it, it is not their fault he was not spoon fed info about bringing a full sized dog on a plane.

Seems like Zaphod58 and yourself only want to argue and nitpick, of course, all based on assumption void of all the facts pertaining to this particular event. Than again, this is something that runs rampant on this site.

By my book, people with disabilities are NOT a "special interest group", they're people that NEED a helping hand, some consideration and just maybe an ounce of compassion. And your right, life can certainly suck but that will never change as long as we're so quick to condemn another person on a whim like the two of you have done in this thread.

reply to post by UndergroundMilitia


He was accommodated as required under 14 CFR 382. They are not required to give an extra seat to the dog and if the flight was booked they certainly weren't going to give the seat up.

But you're right I just love to nitpick and argue instead of expecting people to follow the rules.

Damn that airline for following FAA rules! The nerve of them!

Zaphod58
reply to post by UndergroundMilitia

 

He was accommodated as required under 14 CFR 382. They are not required to give an extra seat to the dog and if the flight was booked they certainly weren't going to give the seat up.

But you're right I just love to nitpick and argue instead of expecting people to follow the rules.

Damn that airline for following FAA rules! The nerve of them!

And there ya go assuming again....whether or not the flight was booked is Irrelevant because that is an UNKNOWN facet to this argument. All we know is that an old man and his dog were occupying two adjacent seats. Did you see a would-be passenger standing there waiting for the dog to get out of the seat? NO. All passengers were seated and from what we can tell from the video it appears that the flight crew was holding up the departure by giving this man a hard time.

That being said, stick to the known facts as your degree of senseless and disruptive argument affords you no room for speculation and only serves to impede any constructive discussion.

UndergroundMilitia



Seems like Zaphod58 and yourself only want to argue and nitpick, of course, all based on assumption void of all the facts pertaining to this particular event. Than again, this is something that runs rampant on this site.

Is that what you call being factual and reality based? What exactly am I supposed to be doing here?

By my book, people with disabilities are NOT a "special interest group", they're people that NEED a helping hand, some consideration and just maybe an ounce of compassion.

Go open your own airline and write your book anyway you like. No harm, no foul.

And your right, life can certainly suck but that will never change as long as we're so quick to condemn another person on a whim like the two of you have done in this thread.

Who have I condemned????

UndergroundMilitia


And there ya go assuming again....whether or not the flight was booked is Irrelevant because that is an UNKNOWN facet to this argument. All we know is that an old man and his dog were occupying two adjacent seats. Did you see a would-be passenger standing there waiting for the dog to get out of the seat? NO. All passengers were seated and from what we can tell from the video it appears that the flight crew was holding up the departure by giving this man a hard time.

That being said, stick to the known facts as your degree of senseless and disruptive argument affords you no room for speculation and only serves to impede any constructive discussion.

Fact: It is against policy to give the man's dog a free seat to sit in
Fact: He tried to violate that policy as well as get a free airline seat.
Fact: He was caught and removed.
Fact: Air travel is perilous enough. You do not need people worrying about all the special needs of every person that wants something the airline already stated it does not provide.

Those are the known facts.
What exactly is your argument?

LOL..

They forgot to ask the DOG...

dogs have feelings too.

reply to post by UndergroundMilitia


Fact: 14 CFR 382 requires accommodation of service animals.
Fact: 14 CFR 382 does NOT require the airline to give up a seat for free for the service animal.
Fact: 14 CFR 382 requires that the service animal may sit in the seat of the disabled person if it does not block evacuation routes.
Fact: Federal law requires that passengers on aircraft obey all lawful instructions given to them by cabin crew while on the plane.
Fact: He was accommodated by the airline, and allowed to board with his dog.
Fact: He wanted a free seat for the dog which was not required.
Fact: He became unruly, and was removed from the flight.

You keep insisting that he was removed because of the dog. Who's speculating now?