fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Does the contract of carriage include a clause that says the airline will evac someone who was restrained due to asshattery though?
Does the contract of carriage include a clause that says the airline will evac someone who was restrained due to asshattery though?
By the book, you’re not supposed to tie down someone to an airplane structure itself.
But in this case, that guy had it coming.
MikeD has a good point, if something went wrong during landing and he didn’t evacuate and died, F9 would be in trouble, maybe even the FAs.
These bleeding heart liberals always worried about the rights of criminals
Moreso curious the liability issues that would be involved.
OK, I should have tagged my post as sarcastic.
You see, Cherokee comes across as heavily conservative, thus, when I sarcastically call him out as a liberal, it's a veiled insult like a backhanded backhand.
It's not as funny when i have to explain it.
Thanks for killing the joke. /s
(see, that last part is tagged now for clarity)
OK, I should have tagged my post as sarcastic.
You see, Cherokee comes across as heavily conservative, thus, when I sarcastically call him out as a liberal, it's a veiled insult like a backhanded backhand.
It's not as funny when i have to explain it.
Thanks for killing the joke. /s
(see, that last part is tagged now for clarity)
Moreso curious the liability issues that would be involved.
It's a trade off. You can be guaranteed if he was left free and caused harm to additional passengers or crew when there were known means to restrain him those civil suits would be filed. The back office is likely to decide the odds of him suffering harm in the unlikely event of an evacuation where said restraints were inhibiting his ability to egress doesn't outweigh the liability of leaving him free to roam the cabin after assaulting crew members.Moreso curious the liability issues that would be involved.
I believe most, probably all, airlines have a policy that you do nut cuff or tie passengers to the seat. Specifically for evacuation purposes.That’s a good question.
Yes absolutely so. And I’m not faulting the crew for what they did. It’s a good learning experience to analyze this.I just figured it was an interesting thought experiment, especially in todays litigious society. Ultimately, the guy’s own actions in making himself an immediate and unpredictable safety threat to the cabin crew and by extension, other passengers, necessitated some means of detention and control.
It's a trade off. You can be guaranteed if he was left free and caused harm to additional passengers or crew when there were known means to restrain him those civil suits would be filed. The back office is likely to decide the odds of him suffering harm in the unlikely event of an evacuation where said restraints were inhibiting his ability to egress doesn't outweigh the liability of leaving him free to roam the cabin after assaulting crew members.
Khakis because after he‘s strapped down you can pour water in the crouch area of his pants. Pictures on the evening news make it double humiliating.Oh jeez, they make the disruptive passenger weary khakis and a polo?!
The guys in the row behind him are priceless.Nothing new, just a bunch of people not all stowed-up for landing.
Millionaires didn't get to be millionaires by wasting money on.....uh.....STRETCH seating (available in the first three rows).NO OFFENSE TO OUR F9 FRIENDS!
but…
If daddy is worth $2 million, why the hell is he flying Frontier?
Weird flex, bro.