"Stop right there! You're arrested for lookin' like fool with your pants on the ground!"
It only took fewer than fourteen hours to use that line.
Ok, sagging is stoopid but demanding he pull 'em up was even dumber. Why did he need to pull his pants up to sit on a plane?
Other businesses can enforce various dress codes, why not an airline? Do you think any of the other passengers wanted to stare at his brown-streaked drawers for the entire flight? (ok I don't know how bad he was sagging or what condition his drawers were in but I've seen lots of guys sagging so bad that the waistline of the pants is around their knees, which is just ridiculous)
Other businesses can enforce various dress codes, why not an airline?
I believe the line is, "We the merchant reserve the right to deny any sale for any reason or lack thereof."
Other businesses can enforce various dress codes, why not an airline? Do you think any of the other passengers wanted to stare at his brown-streaked drawers for the entire flight? (ok I don't know how bad he was sagging or what condition his drawers were in but I've seen lots of guys sagging so bad that the waistline of the pants is around their knees, which is just ridiculous)
They don't have a dress code. He wasn't any kind of a risk. I mean, if his dong was hangin' out or his dirty penny was on the outside of his clothes I could see a reason. If they weren't, what real issues did he pose?
They don't have a dress code.
I think Escef already summed that up. Besides, passengers are required to follow directions from the flight attendants.
He wasn't any kind of a risk. I mean, if his dong was hangin' out or his dirty penny was on the outside of his clothes I could see a reason. If they weren't, what real issues did he pose?
Affrontery to good taste everywhere?
Ok, sagging is stoopid but demanding he pull 'em up was even dumber. Why did he need to pull his pants up to sit on a plane?
Other businesses can enforce various dress codes, why not an airline? Do you think any of the other passengers wanted to stare at his brown-streaked drawers for the entire flight? (ok I don't know how bad he was sagging or what condition his drawers were in but I've seen lots of guys sagging so bad that the waistline of the pants is around their knees, which is just ridiculous)
Actually, there was another article with a quote from a guy on the plane. This one, IMHO, sums it up pretty nicely:
'Jake Tommerup, 57, of Phoenix, who was aboard flight 488, said he had been annoyed by the hour-and-a-half delay. But he also said he was stunned by US Airways' reaction to what, in Tommerup's mind, amounted to little more than a questionable fashion choice.
"When I get on a plane and see a 13-year-old girl with her whale tail" - exposed G-string underwear - "and fat old white guys with plumber's crack sitting down, and middle-aged ladies in halter tops and tons of cleavage - if you're not going to kick those people off the plane or ask them to cover up, then let's admit the hypocrisy."'
If they can impose a dress code (and I really don't mind if they decide to do so), then it needs to be universally enforced.
I think Escef already summed that up. Besides, passengers are required to follow directions from the flight attendants.
Even if the orders are completely stupid? Would you do everything some flight attendant told you to? Say, like removing a heavy metal shirt with satanic imagery on it cuz it offends their religious sensibilities?
The bottom line is that a flight attendant should not be able to use their personal preference as a weapon. The fact that you happen to agree with said preference in this case means little. I mean, unless you'd agree when it happened to you, too.
Affrontery to good taste everywhere?
Bad taste is enough to get kicked off a plane? If I worked in the skies, I'd be sure to bounce every country music fan I could find, then. Seems like the right thing to do.
I think Escef already summed that up. Besides, passengers are required to follow directions from the flight attendants.
Even if the orders are completely stupid?
You're not getting anywhere with that question, Naga's military. Stupid orders are the most common. ;)
You're not getting anywhere with that question, Naga's military. Stupid orders are the most common. ;)
Heh, I forgot.
Even if the orders are completely stupid? Would you do everything some flight attendant told you to? Say, like removing a heavy metal shirt with satanic imagery on it cuz it offends their religious sensibilities?
The bottom line is that a flight attendant should not be able to use their personal preference as a weapon. The fact that you happen to agree with said preference in this case means little. I mean, unless you'd agree when it happened to you, too.
Yes and no. They issue completely stupid orders all the time (which I usually ignore but at least pretend to comply with so as to not create a problem) like turning off your e-reader or cell phone. I agree that they shouldn't use their authority to enforce personal opinion, but much like getting into it with a police officer, sometimes it's better not to make a scene at the moment and take it up with their supervisor (or the courts) later. Pick and choose your battles and whatnot.
Bad taste is enough to get kicked off a plane? If I worked in the skies, I'd be sure to bounce every country music fan I could find, then. Seems like the right thing to do.
Time to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.
Yes and no. They issue completely stupid orders all the time (which I usually ignore but at least pretend to comply with so as to not create a problem) like turning off your e-reader or cell phone. I agree that they shouldn't use their authority to enforce personal opinion, but much like getting into it with a police officer, sometimes it's better not to make a scene at the moment and take it up with their supervisor (or the courts) later. Pick and choose your battles and whatnot.
I agree he should have just shut up about it. Thing is, it never should have come to that. Just like that guy that got bounced for swearing. They're just flight attendants. They should know their damned place.
Time to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.
My what?
EDIT: Chicken/egg situation, I guess. Coulda been his predisposition, too. No matter what, if the Stew never told him to pull his pants up or dropped it when he didn't, none of that woulda happened. Then again, if he never had his pants sagged, the Stew ...
Well yeah, he did do that. But that was after he buried a friend and after he was repeatedly harrassed about his style of dress. It's no excuse but there were events beforehand that may have had some influence, ya know?
EDIT: Chicken/egg situation, I guess. Coulda been his predisposition, too. No matter what, if the Stew never told him to pull his pants up or dropped it when he didn't, none of that woulda happened. Then again, if he never had his pants sagged, the Stew ...
Maybe. In any case, he made both situations worse. Especially getting into a fight with cops. At that point your flight is over.
Yeah, eventually he deserved what he got. It didn't start that way, though.
True, but it's not "how it starts" that matters. It's "how it ends" that matters.
Other businesses can enforce various dress codes, why not an airline?
Let's try... because they'd already accepted his money, gotten him through security, put him through probably a considerable wait, and seated him, and then, and only then, decided to give him flak.
It'd be like if you got into a restaurant, waited an hour for a table, got seated, got your drinks, placed your order, and then the waiter starts making unreasonable demands about your personal fashion choices.
While a buisness can reject someone for attire if they wish, it's unreasonable to wait such a long time to do so, y'know?
That said, guy's an idiot for refusing the directions of a flight attendent. They are unto God on a plane. Don't mess with 'em.
That said, guy's an idiot for refusing the directions of a flight attendent. They are little tin Gods on a plane. Don't mess with 'em.
Fixed. And just because their demands are often stupid and unreasonable does not mean that they can't have those stupid and unreasonable demands enforced.
So where's the beef video?
[edit]
Same song longer article with abit more info, but still no video.
• Video Shows Saggy Pants Dispute Aboard Plane in SF
Let's try... because they'd already accepted his money, gotten him through security, put him through probably a considerable wait, and seated him, and then, and only then, decided to give him flak.
Dress code probably isn't enforced by security. After all, they are federal employees, whereas the stews work for the airline.
It'd be like if you got into a restaurant, waited an hour for a table, got seated, got your drinks, placed your order, and then the waiter starts making unreasonable demands about your personal fashion choices.
More like if you had to pass through a police drunk driver checkpoint on your way to the restaurant, they saw you weren't drunk and let you go on your way, spent twenty minutes finding a parking spot, the attendant in the parking garage didn't say anything, you walked inside and went straight to the bar so you wouldn't have to wait to be seated, and then a waitress saw your outfit and decided to complain.
While a buisness can reject someone for attire if they wish, it's unreasonable to wait such a long time to do so, y'know?
Only if it's that business's fault that they had to wait so long and it was reasonable that they would have caught the issue earlier. I doubt anyone was paying particular attention to him when a crowd of people were all trying to get onto the plane.
That said, guy's an idiot for refusing the directions of a flight attendent. They are unto God on a plane. Don't mess with 'em.
Yeah, pretty much. Right or wrong, just play nice for the moment and deal with it later. Unless they are doing something really outrageous it's just not worth the trouble.
And you say it's unreasonable for them to pay attention to each person as they're boarding? Um... that's their job. To pay attention to each person as they're boarding, that everything is in order so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.
Seeing as he was escorted off the plane, I think the analogy requires that there's some positive/neutral contact with the restaurants staff before he's kicked out. Maitre'd or waiter. But he didn't get that far without being allowed on the plane, and "allowed" is the keyword here.
And you say it's unreasonable for them to pay attention to each person as they're boarding? Um... that's their job. To pay attention to each person as they're boarding, that everything is in order so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.
You may want to re-read the article.
The passenger, Deshon Marman, was arrested and held for trespassing, battery and interfering with the duties of a police officer following an incident that started at the gate, when agents asked Marman to pull up his pants to cover his underwear, said San Francisco Police Sergeant Michael Rodriguez.
Before and during boarding for US Airways Flight 488 to Phoenix, three US Airways employees asked Marman to pull up his pants, Rodriguez said.
In response to the second request, "he said he didn't have to because he had purchased a ticket," Rodriguez said.
That doesn't really help the "the airline was acting reasonably argument". If anything that just reinforces that they were unreasonable, in that they allowed him on knowing they were going to kick him off.
But it does add to the "passenger was acting like a ****" argument.
Not arguing that. Just that the airline was being unreasonable as well.
How where they being unreasonable? They asked him to pull his pants up before he got on the plane.
The employee asked Marman to pull up his pants before he boarded the plane, but he refused, Rodriguez said. Marman allegedly repeated his refusal after taking his seat on the plane."At that point he was asked to leave the plane," Rodriguez said. "It took 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane, and he was arrested for trespassing." Marman allegedly resisted officers as he was being led away.
Read more: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
They asked him to pull his pants up, the guy refuses. He takes his seat (I doubt any of the airline personnel were going to try and physically remove him), they ask him again, and he still refuses. They tell him to leave the plane and it takes 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him off.
They have their rules. You may think that it's no big deal his pants are hanging below his ass, but there are others who may not want to look at that.
...there are others who may not want to look at that.
But so what? Just because other people don't want to look at a person doesn't mean that person isn't perfectly within their rights to be there. I don't want to look at people wearing gaudy jewelry or way too much makeup or crocs or flip-flops, but if I see something that I don't want to look at, I just look the other way. It's not like the guy was being obscene or something. He just had a terrible sense of fashion. Throwing him out just for having bad fashion sense sounds pretty unreasonable to me.
They have their rules. You may think that it's no big deal his pants are hanging below his ass, but there are others who may not want to look at that.
1) Where is the airline's dress code publicly stated? If it's not publicly known, there is no reason for him to think it more than the employees' personal preference.
2) If they require a 20-year-old black man to quit showing his boxers, why aren't they EVER asking a teen girl to pull up her pants, a 50-year-old fat white dude, or a 65-year-old spandex-wearing, bra-showing biddy?
They should just make a blanket "No visible underwear" rule on whichever airline feels like enforcing a dress code. Of course, then Muslims wouldn't be able to fly that airline, and wouldn't that be a shame?
...there are others who may not want to look at that.
But so what? Just because other people don't want to look at a person doesn't mean that person isn't perfectly within their rights to be there. I don't want to look at people wearing gaudy jewelry or way too much makeup or crocs or flip-flops, but if I see something that I don't want to look at, I just look the other way. It's not like the guy was being obscene or something. He just had a terrible sense of fashion. Throwing him out just for having bad fashion sense sounds pretty unreasonable to me.
Actually, your right to be on that plane is dictated by the company who owns that plane. You are free to buy your own plane and wear whatever you would like.
Actually, your right to be on that plane is dictated by the company who owns that plane.
Not entirely true. There are some people that the company in question simply does not have the power not to allow on their plane. But either way, just because they can stop somebody from flying with them doesn't mean that doing so isn't unreasonable of them. Might does not make right.
1) Where is the airline's dress code publicly stated? If it's not publicly known, there is no reason for him to think it more than the employees' personal preference.
Probably somewhere on the company website. I'm not sure, I haven't looked it up.
2) If they require a 20-year-old black man to quit showing his boxers, why aren't they EVER asking a teen girl to pull up her pants, a 50-year-old fat white dude, or a 65-year-old spandex-wearing, bra-showing biddy?
Are you really going to play the race card here?
They should just make a blanket "No visible underwear" rule on whichever airline feels like enforcing a dress code. Of course, then Muslims wouldn't be able to fly that airline, and wouldn't that be a shame?
Their plane, their rules.
Pulling his pants up isn't going to cause him discomfort is it? If it does, maybe h should buy pants that fit.
Not entirely true. There are some people that the company in question simply does not have the power not to allow on their plane.
Such as?
But either way, just because they can stop somebody from flying with them doesn't mean that doing so isn't unreasonable of them. Might does not make right.
Was it unreasonable of them to ask him to pull his pants up? Was it unreasonable of them to ask him several times to pull his pants up? He escalated the incident to the point the airline staff asked him to leave. They spent 15 to 20 minutes talking to him before he finally decided to leave. How were they being unreasonable?
Didn't anyone read the last two links I provided that update the story. The video seems to indicate a lack of a refusal to pull his pants up and he was criminally charged rather than just kicked off the plane.
He was charged for injuring a police officer while resisting them.
1) Where is the airline's dress code publicly stated? If it's not publicly known, there is no reason for him to think it more than the employees' personal preference.
Probably somewhere on the company website. I'm not sure, I haven't looked it up.
Nope. No public posting, which means they don't have one.
There were 7 results based on your question “Dress Code”.
- html_removed How can I find an airport code?html_removed
- html_removed How can I search for booking codes when booking a flight on united.com?html_removed
- html_removed Which classes of travel are available on United flights?html_removed
- html_removed How can I view my reservations (my itineraries)?html_removed
- html_removed How do I track flights on united.com?html_removed
- html_removed Can I check departure and arrival information through united.com?html_removed
- html_removed Where can I find a schedule for all available United flights?html_removed
Such as?
I'm pretty sure, for example, that it would be illegal for them to refuse service to a person because of their race or religion.
Was it unreasonable of them to ask him to pull his pants up?
Yes.
Was it unreasonable of them to ask him several times to pull his pants up?
Yes, definitely.
He escalated the incident to the point the airline staff asked him to leave.
You mean the airline staff initiated the incident and then they both escalated the incident the point where they asked him to leave.
How were they being unreasonable?
Because he was doing nothing wrong to begin with. He did not initiate the incident, and he had no desire to worsen the incident. It was the airline staff that initiated the incident and then chose to escalate the incident to that point. Was the guy totally blameless? No, and I won't pretend that he was. But this incident was primarily the fault of the airline staff.
I'm pretty sure, for example, that it would be illegal for them to refuse service to a person because of their race or religion.
True, but any person of any race or religion can be kicked off a plane if there is reason to. So there isn't a specific person that can't be denied by the airline. Anyone can give the airline reason to deny them.
Was it unreasonable of them to ask him to pull his pants up?
Yes.
Why? They have policies regarding dress codes. If you are not following those policies why is it unreasonable for staff to ask you to follow them?
Was it unreasonable of them to ask him several times to pull his pants up?
Yes, definitely.
So if you violate a company policy, it is unreasonable for that company to ask you to follow its policies? Really?
He escalated the incident to the point the airline staff asked him to leave.
You mean the airline staff initiated the incident and then they both escalated the incident the point where they asked him to leave.
Is that why it took them 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane?
How were they being unreasonable?
Because he was doing nothing wrong to begin with.
He wasn't dressed appropriately. He could have easily remedied this by pulling his pants up.
He did not initiate the incident, and he had no desire to worsen the incident.
He may not have initiated it, but he continued to refuse to pull his pants up.
He may not have wanted to worsen the incident, but he did so anyways.
It was the airline staff that initiated the incident and then chose to escalate the incident to that point.
Actually, his refusal to pull his pants up escalated the situation. My guess, there are probably other policies that the staff has to follow when an incident escalates.
Was the guy totally blameless? No, and I won't pretend that he was. But this incident was primarily the fault of the airline staff.
Someone else mentioned the chicken and egg thing. Would this have happened if the staff hadn't asked him to pull up his pants? No. Would it have escalated to this point if the guy had pulled up his pants the first time he was asked? No. It also wouldn't have happened if he had not had his pants that low even before he got to the gate.
True, but any person of any race or religion can be kicked off a plane if there is reason to. So there isn't a specific person that can't be denied by the airline. Anyone can give the airline reason to deny them.
I'm just saying, you can't legally deny service to somebody for whatever reason you want. There are plenty of limits.
Why? They have policies regarding dress codes. If you are not following those policies why is it unreasonable for staff to ask you to follow them?
If these policies are not made reasonably well known and are not even reasonable themselves to begin with, then yes, enforcing them is unreasonable.
So if you violate a company policy, it is unreasonable for that company to ask you to follow its policies? Really?
That's a misleading oversimplification of the situation.
Is that why it took them 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane?
Yeah, they decided to keep harassing him for 15 to 20 minutes.
He wasn't dressed appropriately. He could have easily remedied this by pulling his pants up.
And the staff could have easily remedied their being unreasonable about his fashion choice by shutting up and going back to doing their jobs.
Actually, his refusal to pull his pants up escalated the situation.
And he was perfectly right to do so.
Someone else mentioned the chicken and egg thing. Would this have happened if the staff hadn't asked him to pull up his pants? No. Would it have escalated to this point if the guy had pulled up his pants the first time he was asked? No. It also wouldn't have happened if he had not had his pants that low even before he got to the gate.
But just like the question of the chicken and the egg, this one has a correct answer. The first person to do something wrong was the staff. The man was not wrong to dress the way that he did, but the staff was wrong to ask him not to dress that way. The man was not wrong to ignore the ridiculous request, but the staff was wrong for continuing to insist. After that? Sure, there's some blame to go around.
I'm just saying, you can't legally deny service to somebody for whatever reason you want. There are plenty of limits.
Yes, there are limits. The limits do not excuse bad behavior. You can't be denied service for being gay, but you can be denied service for having sex with your boyfriend in the middle of the airport.
If these policies are not made reasonably well known and are not even reasonable themselves to begin with, then yes, enforcing them is unreasonable.
Who said the policies were not ell known? Neither the guy who got kicked off, his attorney, nor the guy's mother have said anything about him not knowing the policy.
That's a misleading oversimplification of the situation.
I'm just trying to clarify what you said. I asked if asking someone to follow company policy was unreasonable and you answered yes. That's a misleading oversimplification of the situation.
And the staff could have easily remedied their being unreasonable about his fashion choice by shutting up and going back to doing their jobs.
Enforcing company policies is part of their job.
And he was perfectly right to do so.
And the company has the right, and was well within their right to kick him off its plane.
But just like the question of the chicken and the egg, this one has a correct answer. The first person to do something wrong was the staff. The man was not wrong to dress the way that he did,
Seeing as it was deemed against company policy, yes, he was wrong for dressing in that manner.
but the staff was wrong to ask him not to dress that way.
No, it is their job to enforce company policies as well. They were doing their job. They didn't ask him to dress a certain way. They asked him to pul up his pants. Wouldn't it be more unreasonable for the company to have a policy that requires all passengers to wear three-piece-suits? What is so unreasonable about them asking you not to be showing your underwear?
The man was not wrong to ignore the ridiculous request, but the staff was wrong for continuing to insist. After that? Sure, there's some blame to go around.
What is so ridiculous about the request? Did they ask him to pull his pants over his head? Did they ask him to change his pants? Did they ask him anything that would have required such an amount of effort that it would have created a painful and torturous situation for this guy? There was nothing unreasonable about asking him to pull his pants up.
You keep comparing this to a dresscode but... when one of the student workers comes in wearing inappropriate attire, I tell them from the get-go that it's out of line. If it's bad enough that I won't let them work dressed as such, I don't let them work for twenty minutes then send them home to change, I send them home to change right away. Making like you disapprove but you aren't going to do anything about it then changing your mind after twenty minutes is just being an unreasonable ass.
I'm sorry, but if the airline is not the one that escalated it, then why did they, after starting it, let him continue on his way then restart it?
You keep comparing this to a dresscode but... when one of the student workers comes in wearing inappropriate attire, I tell them from the get-go that it's out of line. If it's bad enough that I won't let them work dressed as such, I don't let them work for twenty minutes then send them home to change, I send them home to change right away. Making like you disapprove but you aren't going to do anything about it then changing your mind after twenty minutes is just being an unreasonable ass.
You are making the assumption that they told him to take a seat, and not that he walked in anyways. I'm assuming he walked in even without them telling him to take his seat. I'm also assuming that there is some company policy that gives them guidelines as to what to do in these situation. The staff member informed the captain, who then came out and spoke with the guy.
Either one of us could be making an incorrect assumption. So it boils dow to did they tell him to board or did he do so without being told. The trespassing charge makes me think that they didn't tell him to board. I could be wrong of course...
Edit: The trespassing charge works just as well with them saying "ok, you're off the plane. If you don't leave the plane now, you're legally trespassing." Sorta like uninviting vampires.
Who said the policies were not ell known? Neither the guy who got kicked off, his attorney, nor the guy's mother have said anything about him not knowing the policy.
See draco's post from like an hour ago.
I asked if asking someone to follow company policy was unreasonable and you answered yes.
No, that's not what you asked, and that's not what I answered to. What you asked was whether it was unreasonable of them to ask him to pull up his pants. That specific instance of somebody asking somebody else to follow company policy was unreasonable.
Enforcing company policies is part of their job.
Which is not a good excuse for needlessly harassing passengers, even if this supposed dress code that I have not seen was part of their company policy.
What is so unreasonable about them asking you not to be showing your underwear?
He wasn't showing his underwear. The way I understand it, he was wearing pajama pants.
What is so ridiculous about the request?
Taking a complete non-issue and blowing it up into something this big sounds pretty unreasonable to me.
... Wait, you really think he went, from the gate, all the way to the plane and into a seat, without permission, and then they went and had a talk with him? I'm sorry, but no. If he went on ahead without permission then he wouldn't have been getting a second talking-to, he would have been getting a tackled-to-the-ground-by-security.
Edit: The trespassing charge works just as well with them saying "ok, you're off the plane. If you don't leave the plane now, you're legally trespassing." Sorta like uninviting vampires.
^ This.
By the way, I like your new avatar, Escher. =)
... Wait, you really think he went, from the gate, all the way to the plane and into a seat, without permission, and then they went and had a talk with him? I'm sorry, but no. If he went on ahead without permission then he wouldn't have been getting a second talking-to, he would have been getting a tackled-to-the-ground-by-security.
Edit: The trespassing charge works just as well with them saying "ok, you're off the plane. If you don't leave the plane now, you're legally trespassing." Sorta like uninviting vampires.
I haven't flown in a while, but is there a security officer at every gate? And how far are the seats from the gate that he couldn't get there walking before security arrived?
By the way, I like your new avatar, Escher. =)
Meh. I don't. The [full-sized piece] isn't bad (though I think the shadowy frame was too much), but when reduced to avatar size the detail is lost, the text unreadable, and you can barely see the color shift. I'll probably drink a few beers and make a new one tonight.
I haven't flown in a while, but is there a security officer at every gate? And how far are the seats from the gate that he couldn't get there walking before security arrived?
No there are not and yeah that is perfectly feasible, especially given the lack of fitness of many of those security officers.
See draco's post from like an hour ago.
You may just want to quote his post. It's quite unreasonable of you to ask me to search through this thread for a single post.
I asked if asking someone to follow company policy was unreasonable and you answered yes.
No, that's not what you asked, and that's not what I answered to. What you asked was whether it was unreasonable of them to ask him to pull up his pants. That specific instance of somebody asking somebody else to follow company policy was unreasonable.
Seeing as this specific instance is a question of company policy, it is not unreasonable.
Which is not a good excuse for needlessly harassing passengers, even if this supposed dress code that I have not seen was part of their company policy.
Stop changing the goal post. You want them to stop harassing this guy and go do their job, just not the part that they were doing.
What is so unreasonable about them asking you not to be showing your underwear?
He wasn't showing his underwear. The way I understand it, he was wearing pajama pants.
How about getting dressed in pants and not going out in your pajamas. Besides, he admitted that he told the staff member that once he sat down the issue would have been resolved. If his pants were not falling down, what issue was he referring to?
What is so ridiculous about the request?
Taking a complete non-issue and blowing it up into something this big sounds pretty unreasonable to me.
Well then either keep your pants at waist level or buy your own plane to fly in. Seriously, how much of an effort is it for you to pull your pants up? Was this guy an armless football player? Were both his arms in casts? He says that he was carrying bags, but seriously, how big was his carry-on? Lately every airline has been making it harder for you to take carry-on. This guy is a football player. Was he carrying 300 lbs bags? As absurd as you may think that asking this kid to pull his pants up is, it is just as absurd to think that he couldn't have taken the half a second it would have taken to pull his pants up.
And if he had forced his way to his eat, don't you think that would have been what his ass was dragged out for?
I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that trying to board a plane without permission is quite a bit higher on the offense scale then having baggy pants. And from what I remember of the San Francisco airport (was there last April) they had the usual two attendants minimum at all gates and security guards were close enough that if there had been any sort of fuss like "no, sir, you can't board dressed like that" would have gotten attention right quick. So frankly I'll have to disagree. If he got to his seat, he was permitted, he did not force his way to his seat.
You honestly think the attendants at the gate would be able to stop a 23 year old college football player? And while there may have been security personnel near by when you are there, I doubt that is always the case.
And if he had forced his way to his eat, don't you think that would have been what his ass was dragged out for?
It's possible. But that is assuming that the two attendant that would have been at the gate had tried to physically stop him. I don't think he had to force his way in. He just walked in.
See draco's post from like an hour ago.
You may just want to quote his post. It's quite unreasonable of you to ask me to search through this thread for a single post.
It was actually for the wrong airline (I think). What I posted earlier was for United. This is the ONLY mention of a dress code for USAir (emphasis added):
"Dress code
We require that all passengers traveling on AD75 dress in casual business attire. US Airways gate agents are instructed to enforce this dress code, and passengers who fail to dress appropriately may be denied boarding."
Note: the ONLY reference on USAir's public website to a dress code refers specifically to those travelling with "agent discounts" (the AD in the code), which are travel agents. Which this 20-year-old college kid obviously wasn't.
Seeing as this specific instance is a question of company policy, it is not unreasonable.
You would be right if all questions of company policy were identical, but they're not, so you're not.
How about getting dressed in pants and not going out in your pajamas.
What's wrong with pajamas? They're not illegal, immoral, obscene, or against any relevant dress code that I'm aware of.
Besides, he admitted that he told the staff member that once he sat down the issue would have been resolved. If his pants were not falling down, what issue was he referring to?
The issue of people seeing his backside who did not want to see his backside. Once he's sitting down, even the people who would unreasonably complain about seeing his backside have nothing to complain about anymore because they can't see it anymore because he's sitting down.
Seriously, how much of an effort is it for you to pull your pants up? As absurd as you may think that asking this kid to pull his pants up is, it is just as absurd to think that he couldn't have taken the half a second it would have taken to pull his pants up.
I don't think anybody thinks that he couldn't have. I just think that he shouldn't have needed to. That's not the same thing. Effort has nothing to do with it. If it did, then it would still take more effort for me to pull up my pants than for you to stop harassing me about it.
You are suggesting, in all seriousness, that he was stopped before boarding, told that he wouldn't be allowed to board with his pants like that. That he then ignored the usual procedure, in which passengers line up and are cleared for boarding one-by-one, and went ahead onto the plane without being cleared. That the attendants responsible for the gate did nothing to stop him, despite it being their job to do something to stop people who do just that. That he went down the ramp, past another attendant at the entrance to the plane who did not receive a warning on their walky-talky from the gate attendants about him, who then permitted him to proceed and didn't tell him he couldn't board, either because he didn't go through the proper procedure at the gate or because of his pants. That he dealt with the usual slow hassle of getting a seat with everyone causing a slow-down with the overhead baggage, and that no TSA agents went to get him for violating procedure and blatantly trespassing. That it wasn't until after he, and all the other passengers, were seated before the gate attendants finally decided to do something about the passneger that boarded without permission, and then finally someone went to harass him again.
Is that what you are suggesting, in all seriousness, happened?
You would be right if all questions of company policy were identical, but they're not, so you're not.
Obviously not. In order for all questions of company policy to be identical, all company policy would have to be identical. So there would only be one policy. Seeing as there are other things that the company needs to take into consideration, you pointing this out is pointless. What are you even trying to get at? That there are company policies, but you don't agree with it, so you shouldn't be bothered to follow them?
How about getting dressed in pants and not going out in your pajamas.
What's wrong with pajamas? They're not illegal, immoral, obscene, or against any relevant dress code that I'm aware of.
Well apparently the airline didn't consider pajama pants hanging low and exposing his boxers to be appropriate. So that would be the problem.
The issue of people seeing his backside who did not want to see his backside.
Well there you. He is admitting that there was a problem and he did not fix it when he was asked.
Once he's sitting down, even the people who would unreasonably complain about seeing his backside have nothing to complain about anymore because they can't see it anymore because he's sitting down.
My guess is that at that point, it went from a simple "his pants are down" to "this guy may not follow other orders while in flight.
From http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6667391
"He was not threatening anybody directly, but being on board an aircraft and being disruptive to the aircraft crew interferes with their duties and that could be a safety factor," Rodriguez told KGO-TV in San Francisco, which is an ABC affiliate.
I don't think anybody thinks that he couldn't have. I just think that he shouldn't have needed to. That's not the same thing. Effort has nothing to do with it. If it did, then it would still take more effort for me to pull up my pants than for you to stop harassing me about it.
So basically you should get to pick and choose what policies you follow? Is that it? Because you paid a few bucks, you get to decide what is and isn't unreasonable company policy for a private company right?
Ok, I seriously want you to consider what you're saying here.
You are suggesting, in all seriousness, that he was stopped before boarding, told that he wouldn't be allowed to board with his pants like that. That he then ignored the usual procedure, in which passengers line up and are cleared for boarding one-by-one, and went ahead onto the plane without being cleared.
Why not? Is that impossible? Is it so hard for you to accept that it could possible happen?
That the attendants responsible for the gate did nothing to stop him, despite it being their job to do something to stop people who do just that.
Yes. For all we know, there could be some policy that prevents them from making physical contact. Wasn't there a thread a while back about an employee who got fired because he fought some guy who was robbing the store? What if the same would have happened here?
That he went down the ramp, past another attendant at the entrance to the plane who did not receive a warning on their walky-talky from the gate attendants about him, who then permitted him to proceed and didn't tell him he couldn't board, either because he didn't go through the proper procedure at the gate or because of his pants.
You're assuming things. The article says that three staff members talked to him. It is unclear which three, but again, there may have been some policy that prevented this attendant from physically stopping him.
That he dealt with the usual slow hassle of getting a seat with everyone causing a slow-down with the overhead baggage, and that no TSA agents went to get him for violating procedure and blatantly trespassing.
Does TSA get involved once the passenger is on a plane? I thought they were limited to the airport. That is why police showed up.
That it wasn't until after he, and all the other passengers, were seated before the gate attendants finally decided to do something about the passneger that boarded without permission, and then finally someone went to harass him again.
They could have still been boarding passengers. Maybe they couldn't leave the gate to go after one guy and leave the gate unattended. They called the police. The video shows a police officer and the pilot talking to this kid.
Is it so hard to believe that a guy who got into a fight with a cop and injured the cop would not have just kept on walking when a few attendants told him to stop?
You seem to be having a lot of fun with this, so I guess that I'll just leave it here for you:
Let me guess, it rang your doorbell and you shot it.
Let me guess, it rang your doorbell and you shot it.
Okay, that was legitimately funny.
But hey. Whatever lifts your luggage.
Yeah, you seem dead set on your implausible version. So I suppose I'll have to leave it at this: your version requires quite a few people to seriously **** up their jobs to happen. The airline's agents at the gate and the entrance to the plane (seriously, you don't have to physically stop someone to call security right away), the security agents who saw a commotion and someone blatantly breaking procedure and the rules and did nothing, the captain and flight attendant on the plane that let him board without having been cleared for boarding, the cops who didn't arrest him right away (because in your version he wasn't supposed to be on the plane at all yet and had already gotten himself into enough trouble that there was no way he was flying that day), the reporter who failed to say anything about him forcing his way onto the plane, and so-on. I find it much more plausible that whatever may have started at the gate, he was permitted to board and seat himself.
But hey. Whatever lifts your luggage.
No... you're right...
Airlines have always been known as paragons of efficiency and effectiveness. Everything works as it should when we are speaking of airlines.
And the airline being so bad at doing it's own job that it tries to kick off an illegal boarder by saying he's dressed inappropriately does what for my argument that the airline was being unreasonable as well?
And the airline being so bad at doing it's own job that it tries to kick off an illegal boarder by saying he's dressed inappropriately does what for my argument that the airline was being unreasonable as well?
Validates the **** out of it?
/shrug
And the airline being so bad at doing it's own job that it tries to kick off an illegal boarder by saying he's dressed inappropriately does what for my argument that the airline was being unreasonable as well?
Both scenarios are possible. If you can't accept that there is the possibility the guy who got into a fight with cops may just have walked right through then hey... nothing I say is going to change your mind. So we can end this discussion here.
And seriously. Your scenario has the airline trying to get an illegal boarder off their plane by complaining about his clothes.
No. Read the article again. It started with a complaint about his clothes. It was escalated to a complaint of him not following orders from the staff. You keep harping on about the clothes, but that wasn't the only reason he was kicked off the plane.
So yeah. It's pretty clear, from the article, that police weren't called in until after he was already on the plane and had repeatedly refused, that it was about the clothes, and not about him forcing his way onto the plane.
So again, your scenario, in which the attendants did not let him sit down, but he forced his way onto the plane, has the crew dealing with an illegal boarder by asking him to pull his pants up and when he refuses that to call in police and the captain.
So, uh... yeah. That's not reasonable behavior. So if you're sticking with that version of events, they're still not behaving reasonably.
From the article: "After repeated refusals from Marman to pull up his pants, the crew alerted the airliner's captain to the disruption and police were called in to assist, Rodriguez said."
So yeah. It's pretty clear, from the article, that police weren't called in until after he was already on the plane and had repeatedly refused, that it was about the clothes, and not about him forcing his way onto the plane.
So again, your scenario, in which the attendants did not let him sit down, but he forced his way onto the plane, has the crew dealing with an illegal boarder by asking him to pull his pants up and when he refuses that to call in police and the captain.
So, uh... yeah. That's not reasonable behavior. So if you're sticking with that version of events, they're still not behaving reasonably.
Actually...
"At that point he was asked to leave the plane," said San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Rodriguez. He said cops got a call on Wednesday that someone was exposing himself at the US Airways gate.
Read more: www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/0...
Different article, but this one has the police Sgt. saying they got a call about someone exposing themselves at the gate. So they were called before he got in and sat down.
In any case, I've never said it was about him forcing his way on to the plane.
Deshon Marman, 20, was flying back to school from San Francisco where he attended a funeral of a close high school friend when an airline employee complained that Marman's pants were so low you could see his underwear.After he refused to pull up his pants, Marman took his seat.
"At that point he was asked to leave the plane," said San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Rodriguez. He said cops got a call on Wednesday that someone was exposing himself at the US Airways gate.
That article makes the order of events even more clear.
Attendant complains, he says no, takes seat, asked to leave plane, then the police get called.
Really not helping your "he forced his way onto the plane" theory.
You are making the assumption that they told him to take a seat, and not that he walked in anyways. I'm assuming he walked in even without them telling him to take his seat.
[...]
Either one of us could be making an incorrect assumption. So it boils dow to did they tell him to board or did he do so without being told. The trespassing charge makes me think that they didn't tell him to board. I could be wrong of course...
And yes, if he boarded without being told, then that is him forcing his way onto the plane.
Full quote, please:Deshon Marman, 20, was flying back to school from San Francisco where he attended a funeral of a close high school friend when an airline employee complained that Marman's pants were so low you could see his underwear.After he refused to pull up his pants, Marman took his seat.
"At that point he was asked to leave the plane," said San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Rodriguez. He said cops got a call on Wednesday that someone was exposing himself at the US Airways gate.
That article makes the order of events even more clear.
Attendant complains, he says no, takes seat, asked to leave plane, then the police get called.
Really not helping your "he forced his way onto the plane" theory.
That is incorrect. The police where called because someone was exposing themselves at the gate. If you look at the video posted earlier in thread, you will notice that a police officer and the plane's captain are talking to him.
You are making the assumption that they told him to take a seat, and not that he walked in anyways. I'm assuming he walked in even without them telling him to take his seat.
[...]
Either one of us could be making an incorrect assumption. So it boils dow to did they tell him to board or did he do so without being told. The trespassing charge makes me think that they didn't tell him to board. I could be wrong of course...
And yes, if he boarded without being told, then that is him forcing his way onto the plane.
What force did he use? He wasn't accused of forcing his way in. He was accused of trespassing. Since when is forcing your way into an area a requirement for trespassing?
But whatever. "Forced", "slipped past", "was just that wily and charmed his way onto the plane when he wasn't permitted to be on it yet". Fact is, he was being complained at on the jetway onto the plane, not about boarding too early, but about his clothes. So once again, for your assumption that he wasn't permitted to seat to be true, the airline employees have to be neurotically focused on his clothes to the exclusion of the much worse things he was doing.
And I don't see how you're quibbling over the order of events. Your article makes it clear that he was seated and then asked to leave. It doesn't specify when the call was placed, and the call saying "gate" doesn't mean much as that's where you would direct the help if you needed help on the plane (they can find the gate. Without knowing the gate, they can't find the plane.) Throw in that the call was about someone exposing themselves and not a trespasser on the plane, and the idea that he wasn't permitted to board looks very shaky to me.
And the fact is, all this is pretty moot. My stance, all along, has been that the airline was unreasonable. Whether they're unreasonable because they're neurotically obsessed with his clothes even after he's blatantly trespassing and boarding a plane he hasn't been cleared to board or if they're unreasonable because they cleared him to board and then started giving him **** doesn't really matter to me.
You know, if you were going to quibble over word choice, the time to do so was probably back in post #59, not now when it's increasingly obvious that he was permitted to board the plane.
It is obvious he boarded the plane. Permitted to board the plain... possibly...
But whatever. "Forced", "slipped past", "was just that wily and charmed his way onto the plane when he wasn't permitted to be on it yet". Fact is, he was being complained at on the jetway onto the plane, not about boarding too early, but about his clothes. So once again, for your assumption that he wasn't permitted to seat to be true, the airline employees have to be neurotically focused on his clothes to the exclusion of the much worse things he was doing.
He was being complained about before, during and after he boarded the plane.
Before and during boarding for US Airways Flight 488 to Phoenix, three US Airways employees asked Marman to pull up his pants, Rodriguez said.
And I don't see how you're quibbling over the order of events. Your article makes it clear that he was seated and then asked to leave.
Obviously. It would be hard to ask him to get off the plane before he is even on it. Besides, it was the plane's captain that asked him to leave. As the attendants had to go get him, I'm assuming that he wasn't hanging out by the front door. He was probably doing whatever pilots do in preparation for a flight. It may have taken him a minute or two to make his way back to where Deshon Marman was seated.
It doesn't specify when the call was placed, and the call saying "gate" doesn't mean much as that's where you would direct the help if you needed help on the plane (they can find the gate. Without knowing the gate, they can't find the plane.) Throw in that the call was about someone exposing themselves and not a trespasser on the plane, and the idea that he wasn't permitted to board looks very shaky to me.
When I worked as a fire rescue dispatcher, I had several calls at the airport. You have to be specific when you are giving directions to both fire and police personnel. If the call is at the gate, you give the gate. If the call is on the plane, you let them know it is inside the plane and what gate the plane is located at. The call was for someone exposing themselves at the gate. It is a fair assumption that Marman had not gotten on the plane when the call was made.
And the fact is, all this is pretty moot. My stance, all along, has been that the airline was unreasonable. Whether they're unreasonable because they're neurotically obsessed with his clothes even after he's blatantly trespassing and boarding a plane he hasn't been cleared to board or if they're unreasonable because they cleared him to board and then started giving him **** doesn't really matter to me.
If you're going to go the route of "all this is moot, and you don't care" then I'll do the same. It's all moot. I don't care. This D-bag should have just put his pants up and stop being so unreasonanle when he was told to do so and none of this would have happened.