Um... I'm afraid I actually have to agree with that. The mall where I work does not allow shirts with profanity, bare feet, or roller skates. This is clearly posted, and if you come into the mall with one of those things anyway, you will be asked to leave by security. I've called security to report such things (kids often manage to sneak those godawful roller-sneakers in). If that's the airline's stated policy and they've got it up somewhere, and the woman refused to put a jacket on or change her shirt, then they can make her leave. I doubt it'd be an issue with anyone but her if it weren't for the political commentary involved.
But she *didn't* refuse to put a jacket on. She covered up the shirt. The jacket (may've been a fleece, something like that) came unbuttoned while she was sleeping. I read this article before.
Yeah, I agree with the post, too- she wasn't booted off for a political statement, it was actually because of profanity. Soutwest Airlines have in their terms and conditions a line stating that yes, they do reserve the right to refuse to let someone fly if they are wearing clothing which is lewd or profane. She agreed to that when she purchased her ticket. All she had to do was turn the T-shirt inside out, and she was obliged to do so if she wanted to fly with them.
Because Delta Airlines accepts a lot of insane subsidies from the government. Therefore, the government is paying Delta Airlines to keep people from flying for various reasons, including "we don't like the shirt". And, regardless of what Delta says, we'd have to see proof that most people with 'obscene' shirts were banned from their flights - and not just those whose shirts were against a certain political party. If most people with such shirts are allowed to fly, then we've got some real bias going on - and they've either got to make their policy clearer and more fair, or drop it altogether. We can't just take their word on it that they're being fair.
Additionally, many people are commenting that "passengers had complained". If that were the case, I'd agree more with Delta's position. However, from what I've read, passengers had not, in fact, complained - they just thought it was a dim possibility.
In addition, there seems to be some confusion over the FAA's stand. Delta is claiming that the FAA includes rules about removing people for obscene behaviour or clothing - but the FAA is saying that it's up to the individual airlines. (This is rather like people saying that the health department wants people to wear shoes inside of stores, when the health department in no US state has such a regulation. They could just say they don't want bare feet inside their stores, but they'd rather hide behind mythical health department regulations.)
From Southwest's Conditions of Carriage: "Carrier will refuse to transport, or will remove from an aircraft at any point, any passenger in the following circumstances:...Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;" Whether or not the FAA has a similar rule is a moot point. Selective enforcing of rules is a bad thing, but the rule is an established one and really, she ought to have complied with the conditions that she agreed to on purchasing the ticket. As for passengers not complaining, another condition for denial of carriage is "Any passenger who refuses on request to produce positive identification."- passengers aren't likely to complain over that, or about "Persons who are unable to occupy a seat with the seat belt fastened;", really. It's up to the airline, not the public.
(speaking of going barefoot, another rule listed is that you must be wearing shoes if you are over five years of age- "Persons who are barefoot and over five (5) years of age, unless caused or necessitated by a disability;")
Actually, according to the story linked from the libertarian community, people HAD complained--direct quote, "Heasley, a 32-year-old lumber saleswoman, said passengers began complaining[...]"
Supposedly her sweatshirt came off while she was trying to sleep (that one earns a big "Huh?" from me as well--I mean, are you doing acrobatics in your sleep, that a sweatshirt came OFF?) and she refused to turn the t-shirt inside out.
Um... I'm afraid I actually have to agree with that. The mall where I work does not allow shirts with profanity, bare feet, or roller skates. This is clearly posted, and if you come into the mall with one of those things anyway, you will be asked to leave by security. I've called security to report such things (kids often manage to sneak those godawful roller-sneakers in). If that's the airline's stated policy and they've got it up somewhere, and the woman refused to put a jacket on or change her shirt, then they can make her leave. I doubt it'd be an issue with anyone but her if it weren't for the political commentary involved.
But she *didn't* refuse to put a jacket on. She covered up the shirt. The jacket (may've been a fleece, something like that) came unbuttoned while she was sleeping. I read this article before.
Yeah, I agree with the post, too- she wasn't booted off for a political statement, it was actually because of profanity. Soutwest Airlines have in their terms and conditions a line stating that yes, they do reserve the right to refuse to let someone fly if they are wearing clothing which is lewd or profane. She agreed to that when she purchased her ticket. All she had to do was turn the T-shirt inside out, and she was obliged to do so if she wanted to fly with them.
Because Delta Airlines accepts a lot of insane subsidies from the government. Therefore, the government is paying Delta Airlines to keep people from flying for various reasons, including "we don't like the shirt". And, regardless of what Delta says, we'd have to see proof that most people with 'obscene' shirts were banned from their flights - and not just those whose shirts were against a certain political party. If most people with such shirts are allowed to fly, then we've got some real bias going on - and they've either got to make their policy clearer and more fair, or drop it altogether. We can't just take their word on it that they're being fair.
Additionally, many people are commenting that "passengers had complained". If that were the case, I'd agree more with Delta's position. However, from what I've read, passengers had not, in fact, complained - they just thought it was a dim possibility.
In addition, there seems to be some confusion over the FAA's stand. Delta is claiming that the FAA includes rules about removing people for obscene behaviour or clothing - but the FAA is saying that it's up to the individual airlines. (This is rather like people saying that the health department wants people to wear shoes inside of stores, when the health department in no US state has such a regulation. They could just say they don't want bare feet inside their stores, but they'd rather hide behind mythical health department regulations.)
From Southwest's Conditions of Carriage: "Carrier will refuse to transport, or will remove from an aircraft at any point, any passenger in the following circumstances:...Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;" Whether or not the FAA has a similar rule is a moot point. Selective enforcing of rules is a bad thing, but the rule is an established one and really, she ought to have complied with the conditions that she agreed to on purchasing the ticket. As for passengers not complaining, another condition for denial of carriage is "Any passenger who refuses on request to produce positive identification."- passengers aren't likely to complain over that, or about "Persons who are unable to occupy a seat with the seat belt fastened;", really. It's up to the airline, not the public.
(speaking of going barefoot, another rule listed is that you must be wearing shoes if you are over five years of age- "Persons who are barefoot and over five (5) years of age, unless caused or necessitated by a disability;")
Actually, according to the story linked from the libertarian community, people HAD complained--direct quote, "Heasley, a 32-year-old lumber saleswoman, said passengers began complaining[...]"
Supposedly her sweatshirt came off while she was trying to sleep (that one earns a big "Huh?" from me as well--I mean, are you doing acrobatics in your sleep, that a sweatshirt came OFF?) and she refused to turn the t-shirt inside out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
But the way she sounds like she's being all martyr-y about it makes me rather suspicious.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-10-10 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)Sorry, but I agree with the posts.
no subject
no subject
"Freedom of speech" does not give one the right to be profane on private property when one is asked not to be.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Additionally, many people are commenting that "passengers had complained". If that were the case, I'd agree more with Delta's position. However, from what I've read, passengers had not, in fact, complained - they just thought it was a dim possibility.
In addition, there seems to be some confusion over the FAA's stand. Delta is claiming that the FAA includes rules about removing people for obscene behaviour or clothing - but the FAA is saying that it's up to the individual airlines. (This is rather like people saying that the health department wants people to wear shoes inside of stores, when the health department in no US state has such a regulation. They could just say they don't want bare feet inside their stores, but they'd rather hide behind mythical health department regulations.)
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fortune500/southwest_shirt/?cnn=yes
no subject
"Carrier will refuse to transport, or will remove from an aircraft at any point, any passenger in the following circumstances:...Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive,
threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;"
Whether or not the FAA has a similar rule is a moot point. Selective enforcing of rules is a bad thing, but the rule is an established one and really, she ought to have complied with the conditions that she agreed to on purchasing the ticket. As for passengers not complaining, another condition for denial of carriage is "Any passenger who refuses on request to produce positive identification."- passengers aren't likely to complain over that, or about "Persons who are unable to occupy a seat with the seat belt fastened;", really. It's up to the airline, not the public.
(speaking of going barefoot, another rule listed is that you must be wearing shoes if you are over five years of age- "Persons who are barefoot and over five (5) years of age, unless caused or necessitated
by a disability;")
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
Supposedly her sweatshirt came off while she was trying to sleep (that one earns a big "Huh?" from me as well--I mean, are you doing acrobatics in your sleep, that a sweatshirt came OFF?) and she refused to turn the t-shirt inside out.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
But the way she sounds like she's being all martyr-y about it makes me rather suspicious.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-10-10 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)Sorry, but I agree with the posts.
no subject
no subject
"Freedom of speech" does not give one the right to be profane on private property when one is asked not to be.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Additionally, many people are commenting that "passengers had complained". If that were the case, I'd agree more with Delta's position. However, from what I've read, passengers had not, in fact, complained - they just thought it was a dim possibility.
In addition, there seems to be some confusion over the FAA's stand. Delta is claiming that the FAA includes rules about removing people for obscene behaviour or clothing - but the FAA is saying that it's up to the individual airlines. (This is rather like people saying that the health department wants people to wear shoes inside of stores, when the health department in no US state has such a regulation. They could just say they don't want bare feet inside their stores, but they'd rather hide behind mythical health department regulations.)
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fortune500/southwest_shirt/?cnn=yes
no subject
"Carrier will refuse to transport, or will remove from an aircraft at any point, any passenger in the following circumstances:...Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive,
threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;"
Whether or not the FAA has a similar rule is a moot point. Selective enforcing of rules is a bad thing, but the rule is an established one and really, she ought to have complied with the conditions that she agreed to on purchasing the ticket. As for passengers not complaining, another condition for denial of carriage is "Any passenger who refuses on request to produce positive identification."- passengers aren't likely to complain over that, or about "Persons who are unable to occupy a seat with the seat belt fastened;", really. It's up to the airline, not the public.
(speaking of going barefoot, another rule listed is that you must be wearing shoes if you are over five years of age- "Persons who are barefoot and over five (5) years of age, unless caused or necessitated
by a disability;")
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Supposedly her sweatshirt came off while she was trying to sleep (that one earns a big "Huh?" from me as well--I mean, are you doing acrobatics in your sleep, that a sweatshirt came OFF?) and she refused to turn the t-shirt inside out.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)