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

Zaphod58
reply to post by UndergroundMilitia

 

Fact: 14 CFR 382 does NOT require the airline to give up a seat for free for the service animal.

Seat or enough leg room. This time the airline themselves chose to give a seat. There wasn't enough leg room for a dog of that size.

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.

Now you're just making stuff up. It quite clearly says at the seat of the passenger. If it were in the seat of the passenger there wouldn't be a passenger there in the first place.

Fact: Federal law requires that passengers on aircraft obey all lawful instructions given to them by cabin crew while on the plane.

Lawfull being the keyword.

Who's speculating now?

No need to speculate. The law is clear. The veteran was 100% in the right and the airline should be sued to hell.

PsykoOps

Now you're just making stuff up. It quite clearly says at the seat of the passenger. If it were in the seat of the passenger there wouldn't be a passenger there in the first place.

It clearly says at any seat in which the passenger with the disability sits. Some service animals will fit in your lap, and can sit in the seat with you.

Lawfull being the keyword.

Show me how their instructions weren't lawful. They followed 14 CFR 382 to the letter, as required.

No need to speculate. The law is clear. The veteran was 100% in the right and the airline should be sued to hell.

Wrong again. The airline did everything required to accommodate him. They are NOT required to give up a seat to the dog. Let me remind you, since you conveniently forgot yet again.

14 CFR 382 part 87(f):

(f) You are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased in order to provide an accommodation required by this part.

They are not required to give a seat to the dog, under the CFR. They did nothing to break the law.

Why are you trying to lie? It quite clearly says at the seat. Nevermind that the service animal wouldn't even be in a seat if it were on someones lap.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Exactly, AT the seat, meaning either in their lap, or on the floor. It doesn't mean in the seat next to them. The CFR clearly states that the airline does NOT have to give up an extra seat for one ticket. The airline did nothing wrong.

If it means at their lap it would say it. If the plane doesn't have enough leg room for the dog then they need to give it a seat.

reply to post by PsykoOps


No, they don't. The CFR says NOTHING about giving the dog a seat. It says that they have to give up a bulkhead seat if one is available, and that they have to give the passenger a seat that can accommodate the dog. It says nothing about requiring the airline to give the dog a seat of its own.

The CFR requires them to give a person travelling with the disabled person an adjoining seat if the person is a personal care assistant, an interpreter, or a person that helps see. The only seating requirement for a service animal is that if requested they have to give a bulkhead seat, or a non-bulkhead seat as requested. They do NOT have to give the dog a seat. Nowhere in the CFR does it say that the dog gets a seat of its own.

It says quite clearly that the dog must be allowed at the passengers seat. If it cannot be on the leg room then it only thing remaining is a seat?

reply to post by PsykoOps


It also says that if the dog can't be accommodated at the seat, then he is to be moved to a seat where it can be accommodated. It says nothing anywhere in the CFR that if the animal has no room on the floor it gets a seat. It says the airline must do what it can to accommodate him, but does not require them to give the dog a seat. They did, he became disruptive, and they legally removed him from the flight.

And they decided to give the dog a seat instead of moving him to another place. If there was one even available.

Zaphod58
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Exactly, AT the seat, meaning either in their lap, or on the floor. It doesn't mean in the seat next to them. The CFR clearly states that the airline does NOT have to give up an extra seat for one ticket. The airline did nothing wrong.

Man, talk about splitting hairs....down to the definition of a two letter word. The word "at" is non-descript, in this particular sense it simply means the area of the passenger. Otherwise the word "in" would of be used.... "IN the seat of the passenger" which of course is not possible because the passenger was occupying the seat and the dog was obviously too large to share that seat with him. And btw, the adjacent seat was EMPTY so wth is the problem here??? We've already established that there was not enough room on the floor, we've defined the word "at" and the adjacent seat was empty so what is the obvious and correct conclusion here???

reply to post by UndergroundMilitia


And the obvious conclusion is that the airline is not required to give that seat to the dog under the CFR. They did nothing wrong. But you guys go right ahead and get upset and outraged for him. Instead of seeing if he did anything wrong, you just go right ahead and get outraged. Since he's a disabled veteran he can do no wrong, and the world has to accommodate him, no matter what he wants, or what he does.

I'm done with this. I've proven my case, you just want an argument.

PsykoOps

Why are you trying to lie? It quite clearly says at the seat.

As has been pointed out to you before, it states

The service animal may occupy any seat in which the disabled person occupies

So it states at HIS seat, not another seat, HIS seat - he can nurse it or it can lie on the floor

It appears you are the one trying to lie here....

UndergroundMilitia
We've already established that there was not enough room on the floor,

Actually, you have not....

Zaphod58
reply to post by UndergroundMilitia

 

And the obvious conclusion is that the airline is not required to give that seat to the dog under the CFR. They did nothing wrong. But you guys go right ahead and get upset and outraged for him. Instead of seeing if he did anything wrong, you just go right ahead and get outraged. Since he's a disabled veteran he can do no wrong, and the world has to accommodate him, no matter what he wants, or what he does.

I'm done with this. I've proven my case, you just want an argument.

LOL, I'm GLAD you're done with this...go find a new thread to disrupt. And you haven't proven squat besides that you like to split hairs and side with the airline even though you have only a fraction of the facts. That video was the end result and we have absolutely NO idea of what had transpired beforehand. But I guess none of that matters because the people that represent this airline just couldn't be wrong, could they?

Who's outraged? I'm not. I just don't like to see someone get needlessly screwed with and DAMN straight I give this man credit for being a disabled Vet because I'm one as well.

hellobruce

UndergroundMilitia
We've already established that there was not enough room on the floor,

Actually, you have not....

Well, why don't you go take some measurements and get back to us...

reply to post by UndergroundMilitia


What is so hard to understand? He was accommodated on the flight. The dog was on the flight. What, you think that the ticket counter, the TSA, the boarding agent, and the cabin crew failed to notice that there was a Golden Retriever with him? He was allowed to board as required. But you and others just want to see a disabled veteran not have to follow the rules. USAir policy is large animals must lie on the floor. CFR policy is that they don't have to give up an extra seat for the dog. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? Oh, wait, I forgot, the rules don't apply to him, just everyone else.

Oh yes, I've NEVER said the airlines could be wrong. Not once. I worship the airlines. Give me a break.

Yes, the airline screwed him by paying for a hotel room, and putting him on a flight the next day free of charge. Oh yeah, he got screwed.

Fact:

The unidentified man refused to obey an order from the pilot, who asked the crew to have the man put his service dog on the floor.

The veteran refused, saying his 100-pound golden retriever would not fit on the floor. He insisted the dog sit on the vacant seat next to him.

Airline officials say for safety reasons, large service dogs are required to lie on the floor since there is no way to strap them in.

After watching the video, Joyce Weber, who runs Happy Trails Service Dog Training in Phoenix, said the veteran should have listened to the pilot's orders.

"Golden retrievers are taught to go between the seat and into small spaces. It's unfortunate to see how this happened, but it doesn't look like this guy was right," she said of the veteran.

"If he thought the space wasn't big enough, they could've moved him to the bulkhead up front," she added.

www.azfamily.com...

Even people that train service dogs say he was in the wrong! But of course you'll just keep saying he got screwed since he's a disabled veteran.

And since when is discussing something, and trying to show that the original story wasn't entirely true disrupting? Or is it just because I don't agree with you, and think that even disabled people have to follow the rules?

reply to post by hellobruce


That's screenshot from the law. Are you saying the source lies? It quite clearly says "at the seat in which the passenger".

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes, because golden retrievers are trained to use their magical power to shrink in size to fit into tight spaces.

reply to post by PsykoOps


And if the seat next to him WAS empty, then it could have laid on the floor in front of that seat, not in violation of any airline policy, or CFR rules, and he would have flown home on that flight instead of the next day. But if you want to argue that point, argue it with the person that said it, who trains retrievers as service animals and would know that sort of thing.

I'm not sure what to think of this paricular incident. Not gonna make assumptions either way cause I don't have all the facts.

I will say this however: What does this man being a vet have to do with this? A lot of non-vets that are disabled have service animals. Him being a vet has absolutely nothing to do with it. Its about a disabled person getting kicked off a plane.

All saying he is a disabled vet is supposed to accomplish is to gain more sympathy for him. He choose his career knowing full well the dangers, just like everyone else. So why should he get special treatment.