*winces*

[conuly]

Ow, ow, ow, this is just a painful take on the story. And people are agreeing with the silly! MY EYES!

I'm going to go hide now. Excuse me.

Comments

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

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;")

[conuly]

And she did. She covered up her shirt, which was they airline had originally requested. To kick her off after that is reprehensible.

[conuly]

Additionally (I hate that word, y'know), I didn't say that Delta's argument was that passengers had complained. I said that 1. I'd agree with Delta more if this had happened and 2. that the argument people are using in agreeing with Delta is that passengers had complained, which is patently untrue.