10-21-2024, 11:23 PM
Regarding the "end vet suicide" T-shirt:
Within the "contract of carriage" mentioned in that (second) link:
"According to Delta's contract of carriage for U.S. flights, the airline has sole discretion to determine whether or not passengers should be removed from a flight "for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees."
Certain conditions that allow flight attendants to remove passengers from a plane include "disorderly, abusive or violent" conduct or "[when] the passenger's conduct, attire, hygiene or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers."
The key phrases here indicates that it falls to someone's judgement. The dreaded "passive construct," linguistically speaking. The "airline" has sole discretion. The airline is, of course, not a living entity that can "know" or "assert" anything, only it's representatives can. It is their 'judgment' that has final power over any aspect of the 'condition' of flying on their airline.
If, for example, fellow passengers had complained to the staff - there would be explicit cause to engage. If the attendant had been "directed" to engage by airline leadership - there would be explicit cause to engage. However, as it is stated, the attendant can take it upon him or herself to engage at their discretion... a clear mistake... exposing the employee to litigation, where this could very well lead.
Perhaps he, in this case, was triggered by the shirt... or perhaps he felt he was restricting the passenger "on behalf of unspoken others" (maybe sincere, maybe virtue signaling.) Allowing the attendants to be the "sole arbiter" of changing (contract carrier) outcomes in travel is not wise.
Interpersonal commerce demands tangible accountability.
I think any fair lawyer can make a case that this was damaging to his or her theoretical client... they'll settle... But 'settling' isn't a remedy for the pain and stress of the moment... not really.
Either way I think this attendants' career is marred by this encounter... and by proxy... so is the airline's.
Within the "contract of carriage" mentioned in that (second) link:
"According to Delta's contract of carriage for U.S. flights, the airline has sole discretion to determine whether or not passengers should be removed from a flight "for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees."
Certain conditions that allow flight attendants to remove passengers from a plane include "disorderly, abusive or violent" conduct or "[when] the passenger's conduct, attire, hygiene or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers."
The key phrases here indicates that it falls to someone's judgement. The dreaded "passive construct," linguistically speaking. The "airline" has sole discretion. The airline is, of course, not a living entity that can "know" or "assert" anything, only it's representatives can. It is their 'judgment' that has final power over any aspect of the 'condition' of flying on their airline.
If, for example, fellow passengers had complained to the staff - there would be explicit cause to engage. If the attendant had been "directed" to engage by airline leadership - there would be explicit cause to engage. However, as it is stated, the attendant can take it upon him or herself to engage at their discretion... a clear mistake... exposing the employee to litigation, where this could very well lead.
Perhaps he, in this case, was triggered by the shirt... or perhaps he felt he was restricting the passenger "on behalf of unspoken others" (maybe sincere, maybe virtue signaling.) Allowing the attendants to be the "sole arbiter" of changing (contract carrier) outcomes in travel is not wise.
Interpersonal commerce demands tangible accountability.
I think any fair lawyer can make a case that this was damaging to his or her theoretical client... they'll settle... But 'settling' isn't a remedy for the pain and stress of the moment... not really.
Either way I think this attendants' career is marred by this encounter... and by proxy... so is the airline's.
