BF2S Forums "What's the safest seat on a plane?" Muslim family kicked off plane

They've got their money back and an apology. Source.

They should still sue, it would annoy Lowing, it would be worth it.

A black moslem President is the next logical step....

The airline is screwed tbh.

I will admit, when I fly now their is that little thought in the back of my mind, but denying them another flight is stupid. They should have found them another seat on a different carrier, now they are going to get a cock meat sandwich with a side of lawsuit.

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

They should sue and then publicly denouce suicide bombings, whilst announcing their intention to run for President in 2012. I think that might actually drive lowing to suicide.

I love how the liberals answer to everything is to instinctively sue the shit outta everyone. A great little retirement plan.

Dude, I hate the sue-happy culture that exists these days, it makes getting anything done far more difficult.

But enough of that, I was busy baiting you.

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

They should sue and then publicly denouce suicide bombings, whilst announcing their intention to run for President in 2012. I think that might actually drive lowing to suicide.

I love how the liberals answer to everything is to instinctively sue the shit outta everyone. A great little retirement plan.

What and to denounce suicide bombing and run for President?


Incidentally, I'm very, very against mass litigation culture - something that has its origins in the US, but has spread frivolously across the world - especially here in the UK.

The fucking court cases they have these days - it's a fucking disgrace! Like all these personal injury vultures - who should all be rounded up and injured.

Bertster7 wrote:

The fucking court cases they have these days - it's a fucking disgrace! Like all these personal injury vultures - who should all be rounded up and personally injured.

Fix'd for my amusement.

no not really.  the airlines dont want to be held responsible and dont want angry passengers.  better to piss off 4 to appease 20.  it sucks, but it is what it is.

i do not agree with it ofc.  but like i said, i need more sides to the story tbh.

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

no not really.  the airlines dont want to be held responsible and dont want angry passengers.  better to piss off 4 to appease 20.  it sucks, but it is what it is.

i do not agree with it ofc.  but like i said, i need more sides to the story tbh.

You really think this bad press will be less bad than a few slightly anxious passengers? I certainly don't. They need staff with a better understanding of PR.

no you are not seeing the big picture.  none of you are tbh.  they had to defuse the situation quickly.  if not, then the plane would have been late.  people and bags miss connections, and more people are pissed off.  thats negative PR also.  not only that, but if they had stayed ont he plane, god knows what the stupid passenger/passengers would have done.  most likely would have caused more problems down range for the airline. cant win them all in lose/lose situations, so you have to go with the best of the worst.

also, its the holidays.  chances are they are at minimum staffing.  also, the PR people are prolly college grads because thats all airlines can afford.

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

no not really.  the airlines dont want to be held responsible and dont want angry passengers.  better to piss off 4 to appease 20.  it sucks, but it is what it is.

i do not agree with it ofc.  but like i said, i need more sides to the story tbh.

You really think this bad press will be less bad than a few slightly anxious passengers? I certainly don't. They need staff with a better understanding of PR.

no you are not seeing the big picture.  none of you are tbh.  they had to defuse the situation quickly.  if not, then the plane would have been late.  people and bags miss connections, and more people are pissed off.  thats negative PR also.  not only that, but if they had stayed ont he plane, god knows what the stupid passenger/passengers would have done.  most likely would have caused more problems down range for the airline. cant win them all in lose/lose situations, so you have to go with the best of the worst.

also, its the holidays.  chances are they are at minimum staffing.  also, the PR people are prolly college grads because thats all airlines can afford.

Ah, but that's all stuff people expect from airlines - also it doesn't explain the fact they wouldn't let them on a slightly later flight - nor does it address why they were removed from the flight in the first place (although I take your point about the potential reactions of the other passengers, even if it does disgust me somewhat - and I don't know enough about the story to say much about that). I'm sure there must be anti-racism laws in place in the US which mean that someone cannot be removed from a flight because of their race (well, not a specific law for that, but you get what I mean), without the airlines being made to face legal reprecussions.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

First off, the government handled the situation well and, according to the accused, was more than accomodating. So whats the beef with America? It was a private corporation that disciminated. Do you know how many places I wasn't allowed in when I was over seas because I was a foreigner? I think the airline company should obviously reimburse them and then compensate them for their troubles and the embarrassment perhaps, but nothing crazy like in the millions.

The beef isn't with America, it's with the airline (and possibly some of the other passengers, but I don't know enough detail of the story to be sure on that).

I agree entirely with everything you just said. The airline has discriminated against them. The airline is in the wrong. They should compensate the passengers that were kicked off. The compensation should not be too excessive.

Let this be a message to all the rest of those savages....GET OFF MY PLANE! (harrison ford anybody?) But seriously, everyone here has theyre panties in a twist, chill out.  It probably woulda been smarter to work out where they wanted to sit before they got on the plane, even the airport. So you know, people wouldn't see them shuffling around a plane saying they wanted the safest seat in the house. I agree with the airline on not letting them on that flight, lest some Dale, Jeb, Cleetus, or Earl wanted him a piece of dem dere forenners, but why in the hell they didnt shove em on the next flight i have not the foggiest. Whatever, I won't lose any sleep.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

An alternative answer is "any seat at all is perfectly safe, as long as you're flying Qantas."

Mind you this statement has taken something of a battering recently.

But yes. The problem is not they got kicked off in the first place, is that they weren't let back on.