danj555 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how power-trippy a FA should be allowed to get. They think they are police, or greater... They just aren't. This guy, Dao, and countless other people doing simple human things are thrown disgustingly off a plane. It makes no sense. This is a plane. not a concentration camp where your are the third reich. FAs should have this executive authority, but this authority was created to combat REAL security threats. Not to throw out normal people doing normal things at slightly inconvenient times. The way you chose to use your power is gross, like full blown sub-human. Any FAs on here seriously take note.

So who is supposed to enforce safety regulations on an aircraft if you think the Flight Attendants shouldn't?

Also what do you think a Flight Attendants primary job is? If you say to serve you drinks and food you have no clue.

I've seen this same situation unfold dozens of times on DL flights. What *usually* happens is that the FA calls the pilots and they stop/cease taxiing until the pax is seated. Then the FA's make an announcement to that effect ("We can't move until all pax are seated", etc.). To go back to the gate for the situation described in the article is moronical, *unless* there's more to the story.

Rules are rules. I'm tired of people defending people who can't follow the rules. I see people more and more, trying to bend said rules and then crying about the consequences of such actions. Without ruled, we'd be nothing more than monkeys, hanging in trees, flinging crap at each other. When did we decide that we weren't going to be adults anymore? As time moves forward, I find myself siding with crew more and more. My daughter is slowly learning that rules are rules and is throwing less and less fits. If my daughter can grow the hell up, so can most of you who think rules are unnecessary.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Here is my two cents on this for what it is worth:
I do see if you were actually crossing a active runway or Taxiway not that you are on yes by all means be in your seat however if you are parked and you know up front that you will be parked for upwards of a few minutes the PIC should be given some leeway to make a announcement saying we will be parked or stopped for upwards of 5-10 minutes I have released the seatbelt sign for the sole purpose of going to the bathroom once you hear me come on the air you must return to your seat as soon as possible so we can move up in line or get ready for takeoff. I think that is reasonable do not you . We should lobby the FAA for a regulation change on this in my opinion. There has to be a middle ground on this for all parties.

On my American Eagle flight last week, we were stopped waiting for a gate to open. We were told it'd be 10-15 minutes. The seatbelt sign was left on and no announcement was made giving people the impression that they could get up and move around. It was less than 10 minutes before we got going. Had 3-5 people been up using the lav or getting something out of a carry-on, we would have had to sit until they were all done with what they were doing. Honestly, after seeing how people fail to respond to FA instructions about seatbelts, electronics, moving seatbacks upright, etc., I have zero faith that these people would make a bee line for their seats.

Instead of making a new regulation, why not simply make an announcement a few times before closing the door like parents do with their kids "If you need to go potty before we go, do it now."

Sancho99504 wrote:

Rules are rules. I'm tired of people defending people who can't follow the rules. I see people more and more, trying to bend said rules and then crying about the consequences of such actions. Without ruled, we'd be nothing more than monkeys, hanging in trees, flinging crap at each other. When did we decide that we weren't going to be adults anymore? As time moves forward, I find myself siding with crew more and more. My daughter is slowly learning that rules are rules and is throwing less and less fits. If my daughter can grow the hell up, so can most of you who think rules are unnecessary.

Amen!

RDUDDJI wrote:

I've seen this same situation unfold dozens of times on DL flights. What *usually* happens is that the FA calls the pilots and they stop/cease taxiing until the pax is seated. Then the FA's make an announcement to that effect ("We can't move until all pax are seated", etc.). To go back to the gate for the situation described in the article is moronical, *unless* there's more to the story.

In this case, I don't get the sense that there is more to the story. He got up to go to the bathroom, was told to sit down, so he did. Couldn't wait any longer, got up and went, was probably told as he did that they'd have to get out of line for takeoff, the FA notified the captain, said whatever they said, and it went from there. It might have been the FA spinning it which caused them to return to the gate, it might have been the captain deciding 'not today', or it might have been the passenger using a combative tone or verbiage at the lav that was not displayed on the video.

danj555 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how power-trippy a FA should be allowed to get. They think they are police, or greater... They just aren't. This guy, Dao, and countless other people doing simple human things are thrown disgustingly off a plane. It makes no sense. This is a plane. not a concentration camp where your are the third reich. FAs should have this executive authority, but this authority was created to combat REAL security threats. Not to throw out normal people doing normal things at slightly inconvenient times. The way you chose to use your power is gross, like full blown sub-human. Any FAs on here seriously take note.

While I agree that some FA's have become real power trippers, they do have to enforce and follow all Federal Asshole Agency rules & guidelines.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Rules are rules. I'm tired of people defending people who can't follow the rules. I see people more and more, trying to bend said rules and then crying about the consequences of such actions. Without ruled, we'd be nothing more than monkeys, hanging in trees, flinging crap at each other. When did we decide that we weren't going to be adults anymore? As time moves forward, I find myself siding with crew more and more. My daughter is slowly learning that rules are rules and is throwing less and less fits. If my daughter can grow the hell up, so can most of you who think rules are unnecessary.

It appears to be the times were in. Now im all for questioning and in the right venue calling out airlines or whatever whomever but the crying over airlines along with complaining constantly that fares are to low is a bit much. It's amazing how many fans of the airline industry hate it.

Everyone wants to be judge Judy and have there opinion posted on any issue no matter the lack of evidence or whole story. I love and have learned so much about the the Airline industry on boards like these.

FlyUSAir wrote:

Just furthers my point, time to get rid of the FAA. A nuisance to airlines, their crews, and passengers alike.

That being said, rules are rules. Either use the restroom in the terminal, during boarding, or after 10,000 feet.

I've never seen a seat belt sign be turned off at only 10,000 feet. The plane still is climbing.

A bit off topic but....there are huge inconsistencies out there in terms of pilot use of the seatbelt sign, but that's another topic.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Rules are rules. I'm tired of people defending people who can't follow the rules. I see people more and more, trying to bend said rules and then crying about the consequences of such actions. Without ruled, we'd be nothing more than monkeys, hanging in trees, flinging crap at each other. When did we decide that we weren't going to be adults anymore? As time moves forward, I find myself siding with crew more and more. My daughter is slowly learning that rules are rules and is throwing less and less fits. If my daughter can grow the hell up, so can most of you who think rules are unnecessary.

Pretty frequently, rules or laws are imperfect and need amendment or abolition. You could take that to the extreme and point out that apartheid was a fully legalized rule in South Africa. Seeing the world in black and white is a huge logical fallacy. Truth is a shade of gray. Perhaps a little more compassion would help avoid situations like these.

I find myself amused at having to even make the effort to reply to the latest airline reality show. The only comment I will make is that anyone who has an open mind needs to get all the facts from the airline side of it and then make a decision before commenting. But wait, you wouldn't believe what they said anyway. Everyone is supposed to be innocent before proven guilty. But no, not the airlines. Guilty no matter if proven innocent. Guilty! Guilty!

PlanesNTrains wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

I've seen this same situation unfold dozens of times on DL flights. What *usually* happens is that the FA calls the pilots and they stop/cease taxiing until the pax is seated. Then the FA's make an announcement to that effect ("We can't move until all pax are seated", etc.). To go back to the gate for the situation described in the article is moronical, *unless* there's more to the story.

In this case, I don't get the sense that there is more to the story. He got up to go to the bathroom, was told to sit down, so he did. Couldn't wait any longer, got up and went, was probably told as he did that they'd have to get out of line for takeoff, the FA notified the captain, said whatever they said, and it went from there. It might have been the FA spinning it which caused them to return to the gate, it might have been the captain deciding 'not today', or it might have been the passenger using a combative tone or verbiage at the lav that was not displayed on the video.

Seems logical. In many cases, unless the passenger is otherwise belligerent, stopping the plane and making an announcement is probably enough of a "punishment", especially if you mention that the person in the lav is delaying the flight. I do wonder if something else happened though that we didn't see...

PlanesNTrains wrote:

On my American Eagle flight last week, we were stopped waiting for a gate to open. We were told it'd be 10-15 minutes. The seatbelt sign was left on and no announcement was made giving people the impression that they could get up and move around. It was less than 10 minutes before we got going. Had 3-5 people been up using the lav or getting something out of a carry-on, we would have had to sit until they were all done with what they were doing. Honestly, after seeing how people fail to respond to FA instructions about seatbelts, electronics, moving seatbacks upright, etc., I have zero faith that these people would make a bee line for their seats.

Which is why you don't ordinarily let people get out of their seats in those circumstances. You don't want to encourage it, but if someone absolutely positively has to use the bathroom, it's not a big deal. You're not going to have a line of people waiting. And if you do, saying "our gate is open, we can't move toward it until everyone is sat down" will get them seated very quickly. People want to get off the plane.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Instead of making a new regulation, why not simply make an announcement a few times before closing the door like parents do with their kids "If you need to go potty before we go, do it now."

Because it would be very disruptive for boarding. We don't need new regulations, the current ones are fine. If people get up to use the bathroom during taxi, the FAs tell them to sit back down again, if it's an emergency then the plane stops for a minute or two and then keeps going and everyone gets on with their day. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.

Honestly dumb decision on the crews part to return to the gate, but nothing major here.

I find it funny that this hasn't even made national news outlets like CNN. I guess they are just too busy riding out the UA bandwagon. There must be room for only one airline story at a time and currently that spot is being held by the rabbit incident.

77H wrote:

I find it funny that this hasn't even made national news outlets like CNN. I guess they are just too busy riding out the UA bandwagon. There must be room for only one airline story at a time and currently that spot is being held by the rabbit incident.

This is not that newsworthy. Absent the UA thing, I don't think this would have made any news whatsoever.

CriticalPoint wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Here is my two cents on this for what it is worth:
I do see if you were actually crossing a active runway or Taxiway not that you are on yes by all means be in your seat however if you are parked and you know up front that you will be parked for upwards of a few minutes the PIC should be given some leeway to make a announcement saying we will be parked or stopped for upwards of 5-10 minutes I have released the seatbelt sign for the sole purpose of going to the bathroom once you hear me come on the air you must return to your seat as soon as possible so we can move up in line or get ready for takeoff. I think that is reasonable do not you . We should lobby the FAA for a regulation change on this in my opinion. There has to be a middle ground on this for all parties.

We do have that discretion and it is practiced, however in this instance they were moving up the que to take off.

If my delay is greater than 10 minutes in a static spot what you said is the exact announcement I give.

If they were moving then the FA was right to order"suggest" the pax to be seated. Guess I get the cookie for listening and for all but memorizing each and every announcement made on the overhead PA system. Wait was that you I heard on the overhead ...
Wonders what the rule or policy is now for the DCA/IAD flights is it still on those flights the seat belt sign is on for the entire flight or is it within 30 minutes of landing preventing Pax from even getting up for the entire flight?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Here is my two cents on this for what it is worth:
I do see if you were actually crossing a active runway or Taxiway not that you are on yes by all means be in your seat however if you are parked and you know up front that you will be parked for upwards of a few minutes the PIC should be given some leeway to make a announcement saying we will be parked or stopped for upwards of 5-10 minutes I have released the seatbelt sign for the sole purpose of going to the bathroom once you hear me come on the air you must return to your seat as soon as possible so we can move up in line or get ready for takeoff. I think that is reasonable do not you . We should lobby the FAA for a regulation change on this in my opinion. There has to be a middle ground on this for all parties.

On my American Eagle flight last week, we were stopped waiting for a gate to open. We were told it'd be 10-15 minutes. The seatbelt sign was left on and no announcement was made giving people the impression that they could get up and move around. It was less than 10 minutes before we got going. Had 3-5 people been up using the lav or getting something out of a carry-on, we would have had to sit until they were all done with what they were doing. Honestly, after seeing how people fail to respond to FA instructions about seatbelts, electronics, moving seatbacks upright, etc., I have zero faith that these people would make a bee line for their seats.

Instead of making a new regulation, why not simply make an announcement a few times before closing the door like parents do with their kids "If you need to go potty before we go, do it now."

Gotcha . Was actually reversing a regulation not adding one or at least I thought that was the plan anyways ,,,recalculating ....Agreed .

Curiousflyer wrote:

Indy is right, if there is a ground delay, the passengers must be treated better. Thanks to those videos, it will maybe happen.

This is more of an issue to me than a pre-departure dispute about overbooking. Being confined to a seat for hours during delays is far more common and inhumane. For various reasons some people can not wait 2-3 hours to pee, but ridiculous regulations force them to try. What exactly is the danger of people getting up to pee during a ground stop? If there is a weather hold, why must everyone remain seated just in case your aircraft moves a few feet? Sitting during movement isn't a requirement on a bus or a train, even if their movements are erratic.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Deboarding an entire plane because he needed to go to the bathroom NOW was probably not endearing to most passengers. However, I support their right to do what they feel is right based on regs or policies. If that causes people not to fly them, so be it."

And not just not endearing to the passengers on this flight, which arrived in MKE 2 hours late. But the passenger's on this plane's subsequent departure from MKE were also delayed, many of whom undoubtedly missed connections including international flights that might have meant a 24 hour delay. They would probably be very interested to know exactly why their travel didn't go as planned. Hopefully they received maximum compensation instead of Delta blaming weather or the airport or FAA as if the delay was out of their control, while scrubbing the late arrival as a "brand perfect" day. But we can pretty much guess what really happened.

masgniw wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Rules are rules. I'm tired of people defending people who can't follow the rules. I see people more and more, trying to bend said rules and then crying about the consequences of such actions. Without ruled, we'd be nothing more than monkeys, hanging in trees, flinging crap at each other. When did we decide that we weren't going to be adults anymore? As time moves forward, I find myself siding with crew more and more. My daughter is slowly learning that rules are rules and is throwing less and less fits. If my daughter can grow the hell up, so can most of you who think rules are unnecessary.

Pretty frequently, rules or laws are imperfect and need amendment or abolition. You could take that to the extreme and point out that apartheid was a fully legalized rule in South Africa. Seeing the world in black and white is a huge logical fallacy. Truth is a shade of gray. Perhaps a little more compassion would help avoid situations like these.

And there are proper channels to fight rules and laws aren't logical and/or downright asinine. I spent a 15 years in the airline industry, spent 10 in trucking and have been back in aviation for almost a year again, all the while spending 25 years active duty and reserve. There are rules and regulations in trucking that are shear lunacy, yet I joined an organization that worked with the policy makers to adjust or repeal some of those regulations. I spent time working with coworkers and leadership to try and make working on the ramp easier for both employee and employer. There are some policies in the Marine Corps and military in gwneral tgat aren't doing anyone any good or are beneficial to fighting wars. Just refusing to obey the rules, especially when they're there to make your trip and everyone else's safer, just shows the lack of respect society in general has.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Just refusing to obey the rules, especially when they're there to make your trip and everyone else's safer, just shows the lack of respect society in general has.

Wrong again. That's a remarkable overgeneralization and a dramatic overstatement. Was he supposed to just pee all over himself and his seat? Would that make you happy?

Refusing to obey rules can very frequently mean it's a poorly designed law or disobeying has negligible consequences. When you're driving, do you come to a 100% complete stop at every stop sign? Do you follow the speed limit all of the time? Have you ever cut off the "do not remove" tag from your mattress or pillows? Used an illegal drug? Had alcohol before you turned the legal drinking age? Jaywalked? I'd bet you've broken a rule or two in your life -- I know I have -- but you'd probably be aghast if I called into question your overall "respect".

We do have that discretion and it is practiced, however in this instance they were moving up the que to take off.

If my delay is greater than 10 minutes in a static spot what you said is the exact announcement I give.

Awesome. I like the way you're suggesting situations like this could be handled. Common sense and basic empathy seem to be traits often lost in today's society.

masgniw wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Just refusing to obey the rules, especially when they're there to make your trip and everyone else's safer, just shows the lack of respect society in general has.

Wrong again. That's a remarkable overgeneralization and a dramatic overstatement. Was he supposed to just pee all over himself and his seat? Would that make you happy?

Refusing to obey rules can very frequently mean it's a poorly designed law or disobeying has negligible consequences. When you're driving, do you come to a 100% complete stop at every stop sign? Do you follow the speed limit all of the time? Have you ever cut off the "do not remove" tag from your mattress or pillows? Used an illegal drug? Had alcohol before you turned the legal drinking age? Jaywalked? I'd bet you've broken a rule or two in your life -- I know I have -- but you'd probably be aghast if I called into question your overall "respect".

The tag on a mattress actually reads "it is unlawful to remove this tag except by the consumer". Nice try.
I'm really not the person to ask many of those questions. I've never touched any alcohol or illegal drugs. Hell, I rarely even use aspirin or ibuprofen.
Murder is illegal, yet thousands are committed all over the world.
Child sex trafficking is illegal, yet happens every single day all over the world.
Human trafficking is illegal, yet happens every day all over the world.
By your logic, these laws are poorly designed and should be changed.
My wife and brothers give me hell all the time because I follow rules and the law.

RDUDDJI wrote:

I've seen this same situation unfold dozens of times on DL flights. What *usually* happens is that the FA calls the pilots and they stop/cease taxiing until the pax is seated. Then the FA's make an announcement to that effect ("We can't move until all pax are seated", etc.). To go back to the gate for the situation described in the article is moronical, *unless* there's more to the story.

Sat on the tarmac the other day because Trump was flying into West Palm. Seat belt sign was never turned off, but passengers started getting up. A friendly voice explained the possible impact of losing our take off spot and then asked to only use the bathrooms if the lavatory sign turns green and nobody is in line. Worked like a charm. I was so impressed I actually wrote a commendation.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Child sex trafficking is illegal, yet happens every single day all over the world.
Human trafficking is illegal, yet happens every day all over the world.
By your logic, these laws are poorly designed and should be changed.

Nope. That's not my logic. You've neglected to really put any thought into your response. Did you even read my post before hastily clicking reply? You've really only bolstered my original point that seeing in black and white alone is logically unsound.

Just when the airlines in the US have to treat us passengers like (smoke bomb) and drag us out of the plane for no apparent reason?! If that would happen to Southwest, that would be my last (fire bomb) straw.

Jshank83 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

I think that turning the plane around solely for using the restroom when taxiing is a bit excessive, but at the same time, I don't understand why people don't use the airport bathroom before getting on the plane. Also, I'm not sure if the description of the events here is the entire story...seems it would have taken more than that to get them to go back to the gate. Is there more than that?

FWIW, I am a nervous flyer and my stomach churns from about 10 minutes before boarding until the plane actually takes off. I have used the restroom right before boarding before then had to use it again once I got on the plane. So I can see how that would happen to other people. I have had some times while taxing I have been a little nervous about making it to takeoff. All that said, once we takeoff I am all good. It is kind of weird but it is what it is.

Anyways, that was a long way around saying that even if they use the bathroom before they boarded, they might have needed to use it again.

Yeah, I should have clarified that there certainly are people that, for whatever reason (be it a medical condition or just being nervous when flying), sometimes can't make it from door closure to seat belt sign 'off' (or, in your case, takeoff). I do feel that airlines should be a little understanding of this, but I'm not exactly sure how someone could alert the FAs that it's an emergency and they need to go right that minute without just getting up (which is technically breaking an FAA rule) other than, of course, pushing their call light, which the FAs might or might not answer depending on how close the plane is to takeoff. In this case, the guy said he didn't go before he got on board the flight, so I was talking more about people in his situation. But to be clear, I don't think passengers should be forced to choose between peeing themselves and getting kicked off the plane. Thanks for bringing up a good point.

Ok guys time for a question, especially for those FA that frecuent this forum, but arent flight attendants supposed to lock lavatories as part of the cabin preparation for take off procedures ? I mean would the passenger in question have been able to enter the lavatory or he wouldve gone out of luck and said “Shut not a good day Id better return to my seat ” !! .

masgniw wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Just refusing to obey the rules, especially when they're there to make your trip and everyone else's safer, just shows the lack of respect society in general has.

Wrong again. That's a remarkable overgeneralization and a dramatic overstatement. Was he supposed to just pee all over himself and his seat? Would that make you happy?

Refusing to obey rules can very frequently mean it's a poorly designed law or disobeying has negligible consequences. When you're driving, do you come to a 100% complete stop at every stop sign? Do you follow the speed limit all of the time? Have you ever cut off the "do not remove" tag from your mattress or pillows? Used an illegal drug? Had alcohol before you turned the legal drinking age? Jaywalked? I'd bet you've broken a rule or two in your life -- I know I have -- but you'd probably be aghast if I called into question your overall "respect".

I disobey laws sometimes. I have speeding tickets to prove it. What's your point?

If they let this guy go to the bathroom when the plane is getting ready to take-off then they would have to let everyone do that. I always go to the bathroom before I get on a plane for this very reason. You never know how long the plane will have to wait before it can take-off.

1. Sometimes, you gotta go. I'd rather someone be able to go than pee in their seat.
2. People need to think ahead and go before boarding if they have a tendency to "need to go NOW" to reduce the instances.
3. The FAs should advise them of the policies but, if it's an option, have the captain hold their roll for a minute.
4. Unless there's a ruckus, I can't see the need to return to the terminal.

A. Sometimes people really don't care about the rules.
B. Sometimes employees overreact.
C. I wish everyone would put their stupid cameras away and quit trying these cases over Facebook.
D. I think it takes a lot of will power on the part of an employee not to smack the phone out of their face.

God help us all.

danj555 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how power-trippy a FA should be allowed to get. They think they are police, or greater... They just aren't. This guy, Dao, and countless other people doing simple human things are thrown disgustingly off a plane. It makes no sense. This is a plane. not a concentration camp where your are the third reich. FAs should have this executive authority, but this authority was created to combat REAL security threats. Not to throw out normal people doing normal things at slightly inconvenient times. The way you chose to use your power is gross, like full blown sub-human. Any FAs on here seriously take note.

Captain made the decision to remove the pax when he forced his way to the bathroom past the stap blocking the tailcone on the runway causing an aborted takeoff. Everyone is nice and pleasant when the videos turn on, his seat was 10 rows away form the bathroom, the people sitting next to him didn't see the interaction at the bathroom.

delta747tlv wrote:

danj555 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how power-trippy a FA should be allowed to get. They think they are police, or greater... They just aren't. This guy, Dao, and countless other people doing simple human things are thrown disgustingly off a plane. It makes no sense. This is a plane. not a concentration camp where your are the third reich. FAs should have this executive authority, but this authority was created to combat REAL security threats. Not to throw out normal people doing normal things at slightly inconvenient times. The way you chose to use your power is gross, like full blown sub-human. Any FAs on here seriously take note.

Captain made the decision to remove the pax when he forced his way to the bathroom past the stap blocking the tailcone on the runway causing an aborted takeoff. Everyone is nice and pleasant when the videos turn on, his seat was 10 rows away form the bathroom, the people sitting next to him didn't see the interaction at the bathroom.

Just asking for clarification on the bold/underlined words.

I recently flew on a major, European airline. As we were turning onto the runway, just seconds before starting our take-off roll, a passenger got up and decided he needed to use the lavatory. It took the entire cabin crew to get him to remain in his seat and wait until we were in the air. Think what could have happened if he was walking down the aisle during the take-off roll.

One of the most stupid situations within current regulations. You have full airports with often long waits for the take-off and you have regulations that do not allow for passengers to go to the bathroom. Imho it should be simple, as long as your are not at least No.3 to take-off passengers should be allowed to use the restroom.

seahawk wrote:

One of the most stupid situations within current regulations. You have full airports with often long waits for the take-off and you have regulations that do not allow for passengers to go to the bathroom. Imho it should be simple, as long as your are not at least No.3 to take-off passengers should be allowed to use the restroom.

L I A B I L I T Y

I think being a flight attendant is a miserable job that people think is glamorous, which makes it even worse. Unfortunately, I think all of that contributes to a willingness to overuse the "obey cabin member instructions" as a power trip high amongst the rest of the misery of the job. People work similar jobs without the aid of an overreaching rule like that.

16 years after 911, it's good there's finally some pushback on all these things or it'll just continue to worsen.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

masgniw wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Just refusing to obey the rules, especially when they're there to make your trip and everyone else's safer, just shows the lack of respect society in general has.

Wrong again. That's a remarkable overgeneralization and a dramatic overstatement. Was he supposed to just pee all over himself and his seat? Would that make you happy?

Refusing to obey rules can very frequently mean it's a poorly designed law or disobeying has negligible consequences. When you're driving, do you come to a 100% complete stop at every stop sign? Do you follow the speed limit all of the time? Have you ever cut off the "do not remove" tag from your mattress or pillows? Used an illegal drug? Had alcohol before you turned the legal drinking age? Jaywalked? I'd bet you've broken a rule or two in your life -- I know I have -- but you'd probably be aghast if I called into question your overall "respect".

I disobey laws sometimes. I have speeding tickets to prove it. What's your point?

That morality does not simply equate legality.

Indy wrote:

This is getting out of hand. Even if all parties remained calm, kicking someone off of a flight for needing to use a restroom in this situation is completely childish and petty. You didn't take off on time. What do you want to the passenger to do? Wet him or herself? Another case of overzealous airline employees wanting to show they are in charge. This must stop.

Sorry but federal law says that you have to be seated once the plane leaves the gate till its airborne. He was told to return to his seat and then later went anyway. That means he recieved a warning then refused to follow regulations. At that point he would be seen as more likley to not follow othe instructions when needed & could endanger other passengers. If he is up & they move the plane fwd and he looses his balance at 6' 2", some other passenger gets hurt because he cannot follow rules. Also his comment about microagression because he is a 6' 2" black man with dreadlocks is a tacky cheap shot that shows he is gonna go for the money. Otherwise why make the comment & pull the race card.

And before you say it I have been in situations where I had to hold it till I was in pain. So don't try the you don't know comment. Thry being limited after surgery.

flyfresno wrote:

I think that turning the plane around solely for using the restroom when taxiing is a bit excessive, but at the same time, I don't understand why people don't use the airport bathroom before getting on the plane. Also, I'm not sure if the description of the events here is the entire story...seems it would have taken more than that to get them to go back to the gate. Is there more than that?

Most likely when he got up the second time they lost their T-O slot and would have had a long wait again. So they took the time to go back to a gate. It happens if its a busy time at that point it could be more than an hour before they can get another slot. They cannot block the taxiway for an hour while they wait. Atlanta is one hell of a busy airport.

masgniw wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

masgniw wrote:

Wrong again. That's a remarkable overgeneralization and a dramatic overstatement. Was he supposed to just pee all over himself and his seat? Would that make you happy?

Refusing to obey rules can very frequently mean it's a poorly designed law or disobeying has negligible consequences. When you're driving, do you come to a 100% complete stop at every stop sign? Do you follow the speed limit all of the time? Have you ever cut off the "do not remove" tag from your mattress or pillows? Used an illegal drug? Had alcohol before you turned the legal drinking age? Jaywalked? I'd bet you've broken a rule or two in your life -- I know I have -- but you'd probably be aghast if I called into question your overall "respect".

I disobey laws sometimes. I have speeding tickets to prove it. What's your point?

That morality does not simply equate legality.

You listed a bunch of laws. I replied to that list showing that there are still consequences, even if it was a minor law and even if the consequences are not great. If someone doesn't like a law, then they should work to get it changed.

Amiga500 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

So what's the right answer violate the law?

If the aircraft is not moving, it is not taxiing - even if it is on a taxiway. Therefore the law cannot be violated.

You are on an ACTIVE TAXIWAY there is no need to be moving. If they need to hith the thrust to move out of the way of an oncoming plane in trouble you will fly down the isle. Just because your stoped at one point does not mean a few seconds later you wont be moving. So yes the law does not say moving it states once you leave the gate!

rbavfan wrote:

Indy wrote:

This is getting out of hand. Even if all parties remained calm, kicking someone off of a flight for needing to use a restroom in this situation is completely childish and petty. You didn't take off on time. What do you want to the passenger to do? Wet him or herself? Another case of overzealous airline employees wanting to show they are in charge. This must stop.

Sorry but federal law says that you have to be seated once the plane leaves the gate till its airborne. He was told to return to his seat and then later went anyway. That means he recieved a warning then refused to follow regulations. At that point he would be seen as more likley to not follow othe instructions when needed & could endanger other passengers. If he is up & they move the plane fwd and he looses his balance at 6' 2", some other passenger gets hurt because he cannot follow rules. Also his comment about microagression because he is a 6' 2" black man with dreadlocks is a tacky cheap shot that shows he is gonna go for the money. Otherwise why make the comment & pull the race card.

And before you say it I have been in situations where I had to hold it till I was in pain. So don't try the you don't know comment. Thry being limited after surgery.

If you are making people piss themselves vs allowing them to quickly use a restroom while you are still waiting for your turn to take off, and you interpret that as "This guys a potential threat to our authority", I think you have passed the turnoff to Humanity and are heading for Hell's Canyon. You don't have to encourage people to get up and around, but if someone's got to go, they've got to go. Even in elementary school I hated how they'd simply say "No" - I remember watching a girl sitting in her chair peeing all over herself nervously because the teacher refused to let her use the restroom. I get that people need to think ahead, and I get that if they can possibly wait, they should wait. But if an adult says to you "I_have_got_to_go_NOW", then you loudly say "Sir, it is against federal regulations and we will not be able to move until you retake your seat!" and then lean over and quietly say "Make it quick!" with a wink.

In all my flying, I can never remember being seated, waiting for takeoff, that I had to urgently go to the restroom. If this guy was so "full of piss" that he couldn't hold it any longer, then it's really on him, that he (1) drank that much liquid before takeoff, and (2) didn't take a quick piss before getting on the plane.

If a person knows they have bladder issues, then that person, when flying, should already be wearing their Depends.

Clue: You could be too sick or unhealthy to fly commercially. It's not for EVERYONE!!

seahawk wrote:

One of the most stupid situations within current regulations. You have full airports with often long waits for the take-off and you have regulations that do not allow for passengers to go to the bathroom. Imho it should be simple, as long as your are not at least No.3 to take-off passengers should be allowed to use the restroom.

Scenario:

You get up while I'm taxing out to the runway. I miss my turn and break hard and turn tight to make it, I'm human I make mistakes. When I brake you fall backward, trying to catch yourself you smack two passengers in the face, you break 1 woman's nose and chip the tooth of a child. When you land you break your arm when the plane turns hard you smash your face into the metal seat rails and knock yourself unconscious.

Now for the question:

Who's fault is it? Who do you sue? Do you sue me because I was taxing the jet? Do you sue Airline? Do you go to the papers and drag my name through the mud? Do you drag the airlines name through the mud? Who pays your medical bills? Who pays to reconstruct that women's nose? Who fixes that little girls teeth?

I have had to stop quick because an aircraft pulled off the runway in front of me. It just so happened the FA was in the aisle trying to get a passenger to sit down who got up and opened the overhead bin. The passenger sat down and she was in the process of closing the bin when I hit the breaks. She fell backwards and hit her head. She got sever whiplash and was out of work for several months and to this day has backpain and headaches. I feel terrible about it and was all because a passenger was out of his seat.

WALKING AROUND WHILE THE PLANE IS TAXING IS DANGEROUS!!!!!

I will stop and let you use the restroom IF it's an emergency but you need to let the FA know who can let me know then I will let ATC know. Sometimes it may not be feasible or it may take a few minutes and that's just the way it is.

I have question. When passengers are asked to deboard, to then reboard the plane, as was the case with this Delta flight, are the passengers required to take all of the carryon items with them, or are they allowed to leave them on the plane, and this up to the flight crew, or is this a regulation??

cschleic wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

Just furthers my point, time to get rid of the FAA. A nuisance to airlines, their crews, and passengers alike.

That being said, rules are rules. Either use the restroom in the terminal, during boarding, or after 10,000 feet.

I've never seen a seat belt sign be turned off at only 10,000 feet. The plane still is still climbing.

Clearly never flown in Australia. Seatbelt sign off within 5 minutes of wheels up is the norm unless there's significant weather around.

This situation is very much a no win one for anyone. Sometimes people just have to go and can't hold it in any longer. Yeah it sucks and may inconvenience everyone but letting them go is much preferable to wetting themselves or worse. You don't know their personal situation, whilst it may have been poor planing on their behalf it could just as easily be they are unwell and if they don't get to the bathroom asap it's gonna be a bad day for everyone. Personally I've been a situation that was part poor planning, part accidental, where I drank a large amount of soda before getting onto a 70 minute long bus trip with no bathroom. Got on slightly needing to go, but knew I could easily hold it. Yet th soda went straight through me and I had to get the bus to pull up 10 minutes before the destination as I was seconds away from wetting myself. Few minute disruption to the 50 other people on the bus, but better than wetting myself. If I was that close to needing to go again I would be getting up to go to the bathroom no matter what the situation.

It is not about freely walking around when taxiing, it is about giving the crew an solution for such problems and if you are lined up in the queue, I am confident your are skilled enough to taxi softly enough for a passenger to go to the loo.And passengers can be instructed to remain seated on the toilet until told otherwise. Which means you have to cover only the time it takes for him to go to the toilet and return to the seat.

In the end the whole problem arose because the captain did not want to risk loosing his place in the queue, but in the end lost much more than one place when returning to the terminal and de-boarding and re-boarding all passengers.