Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bud | Hacker News Reader

I don't see why pilots need to have the power to boot passengers. At all. That's why TSA supposedly exists. Racist objections from passengers should not be able to lead to other passengers getting booted from flights.

View on HN

I am a pilot (not an airline pilot). It is absolutely mandatory for the pilot-in-command to have complete discretion when dealing with passengers on their aircraft. While I may have let this man board my own plane, this pilot-in-command used his own judgement to determine that the passenger presented too large a risk to the safety and comfort of other passengers.

It is completely within his duties to do that. It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later.

> It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later.

Seems like the only reasonable response.

Racism is one possibility, but so is anxiety about the guy's shirt and his attitude. Not very rational, but a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. A snotty disregard for the concerns of others tends to make them unsympathetic to your point of view.

As for why pilots have the power to boot people, it's because they're responsible for the safety and happiness of the passengers during the flight, and the airline is there to make money on slim margins, not to serve as a public utility. Unless an airline engages in systematic discrimination against a protected class of people, then pilots will generally be allowed to appease the majority of paying passengers.

> a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest.

Free Speech (but only when we say so)

Isn't it a privilege to fly? Not a right. It's not like an airplane is some public government arena. It's the property of the airlines, just so happens that you have to be cleared by the government to fly. Don't they have the right to refuse service to a customer, especially if that customer is making employees and other customers uneasy. I'm sure if you went into a McDonald's and were wearing some suspicious clothing or start spouting off ridiculous speeches, they'd ask you kindly to leave and tell you that you were not a welcome customer any longer. In fact, I've seen it happen.

There are places for expression and "Free Speech"... maybe sitting next to the 13 year old or grandmother (or any other paying customer) who's flying for the first time in his/her life wearing some silly t-shirt about bombs and anti-government banter isn't the right place for it.

As air travel has matured into infrastructure that is generally depended upon, flying has become a right. Especially a return trip. Failure to see this is a deficiency with the narrow "base primitive" view of rights.

Should airline travel be available to all, irrespective of their ability to pay? If not, then it can't be a right, since rights can not be denied based on ability to pay.

Okay, kindly perform whatever formalization is necessary to interpret my statement in your alluded-to framework (factor out payment, s/right/unrestriction/, $whatever), then get back to me.

If I don't pay for food, I die. If I don't pay for medicines, I die.

Does this then imply I don't have a right to live, because "rights cannot be denied based on the ability to pay"? That I don't have a right to property, because if I don't pay my debts my belongings can be confiscated and sold at auction?

I have a right to appoint my own counsel, but the government won't pay for the counsel I appoint. In order to use that right I have to be able to afford the lawyer I want.

US citizens have a right to run for elected office, but clearly that's not provided free of charge!

Rights are not irrespective or independent of my ability to pay. And if something is a right does not mean I get it for free.

flying has become a right

I think you need to lay out your argument in greater detail than you have done so far.

Society has evolved to the point where many people are regularly traveling long distances. Flying itself has become an integral part of this travel, to the point that driving or taking the train across the country is seen as adventurous. Flight transport is a commodity provided by many carriers in a mature market. The economics of and reliance on this market may change in the future, but as it stands, this commodity is relied upon by the modern world.

To say that carriers should be able to selectively revoke this abstraction and deny travel to specific individuals is to give them the power to force arbitrary rules on anyone who relies on this infrastructure. This would make all rights subject to the whims of the airlines.

But don't you think it would be a little bit of an overreaction if McDonalds threw you out simply for wearing a "Meat is Murder" t-shirt?

No, but what about a "Bombs in McDonalds are cool." t-shirt? Context. Context. That is all.

Huh? His shirt didn't say anything remotely like "bombs on the airplane are cool"... anymore than his second shirt said "I'm going to poop on this plane's drink cart".

The right to free speech is rule that restricts the power of the government only. It has nothing to do with companies or individuals. Just as I can ask you to leave my home if you insult my mother, a company can refuse you access to their airplane if they don't like your T-shirt. That's their business decision.

Hmm. thanks for the info.

Could McDonald's legally deny me entry to their restaurant if I was wearing a T-Shirt that said "I support Obama"?

Further, can they legally deny me entry for no reason at all?

(I'm not trolling, I genuinely don't know the answers)

Generally speaking, most businesses will have some sort of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" type policy. However, they will often come under fire for (ab)using that policy however they see fit. It is a tricky situation really. It probably comes down to whether or not you fall into a group that is protected. They would be in a media/legal shit storm if they denied you entry because you were in a wheelchair. I don't know if being a Democratic is a protected group.

Edit: I guess specifically if being in that protected group played into why you were denied. Meaning, they can toss you for being drunk even if you're in a wheelchair.

"Congress shall make no law" does not say "UAL shall make no rules"

The idea is that Congress cannot criminalize speech. But the ramifications of your free expression, with respect to those people and institutions that you interact with, is not regulated by congress in so far as a crime is not committed in reaction.

The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private entities such as airlines and not on private property (such as the interior of an aircraft).

He changed his shirt and they still wouldn't let him on.

It's because when the plane pushes back from the gate, the pilot is in charge and is responsible for the safety of everyone aboard. Much like how a captain at sea is responsible for everyone on board his ship (and is held accountable should tragedy strike).

It's not a republic or democracy when you're on his plane. What he says, goes.

That's not a why. That's just you stating the fact, and it's non-responsive to my question.

In this case, the plane had not pushed back from the gate. The pilot kicked this guy off before the flight. I think it's reasonable to ask why a random, unjustified passenger complaint to the pilot should override the TSA's screening process.

Because he says so.

This isn't even about safety. It's the pilot's job (if he wants to keep it) to make the passengers as comfortable as possible also. That's why they dodge turbulence. Except in extreme cases, it has nothing to do with safety.

While agreeing with that, Delta should still be held responsible for getting him to his destination on a reasonable schedule, the costs of his accommodations, and his and his wife's wasted time.

If Delta should be reasonable (getting him accommodations) shouldn't he also be reasonable next time he gets on one of their planes?

How is one to be sure what makes others uncomfortable? In your view, in th years after 9/11, Sikhs (who wear turbans) shouldn't have traveled at all... as they looked too much like the dreaded Bin Laden.

This way leads to fundamentalism.

Logical inference does not work the way you'd like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com