I think Tim Martin's already has those.


So should he go with "Junior Birdman" now, and then ask the Mods to change it later?

Wow! Lighten up Francis. Did your wife make you sleep on the couch last night or something?

In case you haven't noticed this is an internet message board, not a congressional inquiry. People have many different user names which may or may not reflect reality. Right now I'm thinking yours has a couple of wrong consonants (lose the h, add a t) to reflect your personality accurately.

FWIW - I wouldn't tell you where I work either, given your response!

Now I'm not sure you actually work for an airline. The facts are, in the real world, you can't just say "No Jews on my airplane ... PIC/Captain Authority ... conversation over".

Or "No Negroes on my airplane ... PIC/Captain Authority ... conversation over".

It should be an obvious thing, but as I have said over and over and over, the company decides who rides on their machine and if you exercise "authority" counter to it, you better have a damn good reason.

The skipper is in charge of the boat, but that doesn't grant blanket authority do anything he wants, and just saying "conversation over" doesn't work outside of fantasy-land.

You keep going to extremes to try and prove your point. Obviously in the scenario that you present above, one would have A LOT to answer for. The decision obviously has to be backed by logic and a genuine belief their decision is for good cause, and nowhere did I allude otherwise.

We are clearly not going to agree, but my statements are not based on "fantasy land" beliefs, but real world experience. Regardless, I give up on this conversation.

You are playing the what if game with extreme examples of poor choices. You are basically fueling your own argument with non-sense.

Captains can and will remove passengers who interfere with crew members, appear to be intoxicated, or are causing a commotion. You cannot be a captain without some form of decision making ability making your argument a moot point. If a captain makes poor decisions or is the type to kick a certain ethnicity or religion off of his airplane then he probably wouldn't keep his seat or be employed much longer. That said he could come up with any number of reasons to explain why the passenger needed to be removed (Can You Articulate or Cover Your Ass) irregardless of the passenger actually deserving to be removed. Ex "he stumbled in the boarding area and appeared drunk"

I am not saying their aren't prejudiced people in this profession but I am willing to bet that they wouldn't risk their 6 figure job just so they wouldn't haul a minority across the country. Your examples are far fetched and pointless.

In every single case of a passenger being removed in my experience there has been a very good reason for it.

The contention of this debate was that caps can remove pax for any reason or no reason, based solely on "authority".

Why don't you crawl back into your dispatcher hole and leave the flying to pilots.

Hit a nerve, eh?

Hey, Hey HEY! It's all about the joint responsibility, right? :rolleyes:

Easy to Monday morning QB from the comfort of a swivel chair at zero airspeed.

On your next dispatcher observation ride, you should let one of those Delta Captains know what your feelings on his authority are...

Bingo.......that is IF he really is even a dispatcher for DAL