Delta's turn

[pryncess527]

I think it's easy to say "he should have held it". IIRC, the first time he tried to go, they were #3 for takeoff. Maybe he thought then he'd be fine. Then there was a 30 minute wait. Now, what was simply uncomfortable did become emergent.

Hindsight is 20/20. He should have gone before boarding. He didn't. He's on the plane and has to go NOW. So you're the passenger sitting next to him. There are two possibilities... he either goes to the lavatory or he tries to hold it and risks urinating in the seat. Remember, you've been on the taxiway for 30 minutes already. What do you want him to do?

I am not faulting Delta for telling him to return to his seat. I think Delta did not need to deplane him and should have gotten him to his destination, not given him a partial refund.

I agree that deplaning him might have been excessive. From the sound of the video though, they just wanted to talk to him off the plane, in private. It's possible they would have allowed him to reboard if he had not resisted, though given recent events I do not blame him at all for his reluctance to leave the plane. I absolutely agree Delta did not compensate him appropriately.

As for what he should have done, he should have asked again. He should have let the FA know he had reached an emergency level. By all accounts I've read, he did not do that -- the first time he agreed he could wait, the 2nd time he just got up and starting moving around the plane without informing anyone. Not okay. If he were claiming that he asked the 2nd time and told them he could not hold it, and was denied at that point, I think we'd have a very different situation. But, I have not read any claims from the passengers that he asked a 2nd time or made any attempt to impress upon the FA that it was an emergency.

 

[Hikergirl]

Of course we will never know how "urgent" his urgency was. But some guy running to the bathroom and the airline removing him really shouldn't be making the news anyway if you think about it. Lol. I mean he can't possibly be the only person this ever happened to.

So true, the media is just trying to incite outrage over this stuff. The airlines are their current targets.
The yahoo headline now is "Man kicked off Delta flight for needing to use the bathroom"

Um, no. He was not kicked off the flight for needing to use the bathroom. Of course most people know that, but there will be those who read that headline and grab their pitchforks and torches.

 

[anniemae]

I had read in another article that they had been on the tarmac for a couple of hours. Not sure if that is true or not. I also read they had every passenger get off the plane, go back into the terminal, then re-board. Why would they do that? I understand they turned around to escort the guy off the plane, but why have everyone get off?

 

[Hikergirl]

I had read in another article that they had been on the tarmac for a couple of hours. Not sure if that is true or not. I also read they had every passenger get off the plane, go back into the terminal, then re-board. Why would they do that? I understand they turned around to escort the guy off the plane, but why have everyone get off?

I wonder if it was a security issue, had to check the bathroom.

 

[sam_gordon]

I had read in another article that they had been on the tarmac for a couple of hours. Not sure if that is true or not. I also read they had every passenger get off the plane, go back into the terminal, then re-board. Why would they do that? I understand they turned around to escort the guy off the plane, but why have everyone get off?

I *THINK* they did that to make sure the guy got off the plane.

IMO, assuming the guy was able to use the restroom, I don't see the point in deplaning him. OK, he didn't "obey the FA", I get that. But is deplaning, cancelling his ticket, and only giving him a partial refund a comparable response? Again my opinion, but it's like killing a fly with a bazooka.

 

[manning]

I wonder what would happen if a patron complied with the orders to remain seated but relieved themselves in the seat (either intentionally or because they could not control the onslaught)?

Let me guess. They would have to go back to the gate.

 

[anniemae]

I *THINK* they did that to make sure the guy got off the plane.

IMO, assuming the guy was able to use the restroom, I don't see the point in deplaning him. OK, he didn't "obey the FA", I get that. But is deplaning, cancelling his ticket, and only giving him a partial refund a comparable response? Again my opinion, but it's like killing a fly with a bazooka.

They escorted him off when they got back to the gate. At that point, why couldn't the plane just leave? Instead, I read they deplaned every passenger, had them wait in the terminal, then re-board.

 

[anniemae]

I wonder if it was a security issue, had to check the bathroom.

Oh that could be. Maybe they wondered if he was up to something.

 

[RedAngie]

Delta pilot hits female passenger while trying to break up a fight.

http://people.com/human-interest/delta-pilot-hits-passenger-fighting-passenger/

 

[Westcoastwild]

Delta pilot hits female passenger while trying to break up a fight.

http://people.com/human-interest/delta-pilot-hits-passenger-fighting-passenger/

You make it sound so awful. A better description would be "pilot accidentally hits woman when trying to break up a fight between her and her equally psycho friend. Neither women press charges, pilot is cleared by delta".

I'm not one of those people who think flight crew can do no wrong but I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to follow directions and not get arrested on a flight.

 

[goofyernmost]

Since so much of this is happening lately, I wonder if the airlines have gotten together and decided that they are done dealing with belligerent , rude, drunken people. That problem will stop as soon as enough people get thrown off flights to make it a real possibility that being a jerk will get you no place.

 

[declansdad]

Delta pilot hits female passenger while trying to break up a fight.

http://people.com/human-interest/delta-pilot-hits-passenger-fighting-passenger/

Your comment is no better than the headline in People.

 

[fly girl]

It really should read,

"Delta Pilot tries to break up fight"

But that's not as exciting of a headline

 

[RedAngie]

Nope, my comment was entirely neutral.

I'm on the airline's side in 99% of cases, including this one, the Delta bathroom, the AA stroller, and the BA diversion incidents.

 

[fly girl]

Nope, my comment was entirely neutral.

I'm on the airline's side in 99% of cases, including this one, the Delta bathroom, the AA stroller, and the BA diversion incidents.

I read it the way you intended. You were merely giving the headline to the link

 

[Kaytie]

These days there are ways to handle this that you can find at any Target

Not when it's a unique, unprecedented situation for the person.

I'm sorry, I think I'll take option a. The guy should have used the bathroom before he got on that plane. I really doubt he went from "don't need to use the bathroom at all" to "medical emergency or wet myself" between pre boarding and take off.

I don't doubt it in the least. The human body is a complicated thing.

 

[bcla]

Here's another one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-jail-after-refusing-to-give-up-toddlers-seat

Granted something about what the parents claim doesn't add up. In my experience a two-year old is required to already have a ticket and a seat. On top of that, if someone is a no-show like their older son, that seat can be made available to someone in case of overbooking or who is flying standby. It sounds to me as if the kid was under 2 (which requires proof of age) and was brought on board as a lap infant.

 

[pryncess527]

From the article

“I bought the seat,” Brian Schear is seen telling the agents in a video of the incident, explaining that he initially purchased the seat for his 18-year-old son but sent the teen home early on another flight so that the toddler would have a seat on the plane.

Yeah, tickets aren't transferrable from one passenger to another (usually), so just because they bought a ticket for their son doesn't mean they can use it for another family member (regardless of age) without alerting the airline, paying a fee, etc.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Here's another one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-jail-after-refusing-to-give-up-toddlers-seat

Granted something about what the parents claim doesn't add up. In my experience a two-year old is required to already have a ticket and a seat. On top of that, if someone is a no-show like their older son, that seat can be made available to someone in case of overbooking or who is flying standby. It sounds to me as if the kid was under 2 (which requires proof of age) and was brought on board as a lap infant.

Must be a slow day in news for that to even have made it to a reporter's desk.

Even if you disregard the whole age limit thing- if they don't consider a lap baby to be safe, then why would they not BUY a seat for the kid to begin with.

 

[MrJT]

Here's another one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-jail-after-refusing-to-give-up-toddlers-seat

Granted something about what the parents claim doesn't add up. In my experience a two-year old is required to already have a ticket and a seat. On top of that, if someone is a no-show like their older son, that seat can be made available to someone in case of overbooking or who is flying standby. It sounds to me as if the kid was under 2 (which requires proof of age) and was brought on board as a lap infant.

Everybody is just trying to cash in on the United situation. If that never happened, I doubt that we'd hear about any of these other Airline issues over the past month.
All that being said, I'm flying both United and Delta at the end of the month...let's see what happens.