No other comments in this thread make this point, so I'll bring it up. While the passenger should not have been booted off, he was absolutely in the wrong but only based on what he told the crew.
It says photography is strictly prohibited of aircraft equipment, and if not of aircraft equipment, prohibited unless of "personal events".
His explanation:
"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog."
This falls outside of personal use. This is professional use, and therefore absolutely outside of the personal events category. Taking pictures under his business card and related to his blog is strictly prohibited, and his arguing means he was arguing with the rules that were shown to him by the FA before he began arguing.
Aside from being absolutely in violation of the rules, perhaps this had nothing to do with "I am not a terrorist"; perhaps the FA and captain were disinterested in having their entire route evaluated and blogged about.
No idea what United will say in response. And frankly, I am shocked to be siding with United. But in this case, they handed him a printed rule, and he chose to explain himself in a way that put him in violation of it, and took himself out of the regular passenger category.
In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules.
Again, how is that willfully breaking the rules? Am I will breaking the rules here becaus I don't explicitly state that I am following HN guidelines in all my posts?
Because arguing. If, after being shown the rule, he'd STFU, this article wouldn't be here. He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store.
There are now (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story) homeland security guidelines about passengers exhibiting behavior that suggests they don't or won't accept the flight attendant's authority. Flowcharting those rules leads to the captain deciding whether he wants the passenger on the flight. It's clear this guy got himself classified into that flowchart.
He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store.
Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule, thereby meaning (according to
DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
> Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule,
Not breaking "the" rule, future rule breaking. There's a difference.
According to current flight regulations, arguing about breaking a rule is cause to suspect other rules may be broken later.
> thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule?
Not according to Terretta. According to post 911 flight regulations being followed by the FA and pilot. These new security regulations say someone who objects to authority can be denied travel like "pre-crime" suspects on Minority Report.
> Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Yes, which is why I wrote, "wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story" about these regulations.
The situation will remain ridiculous until enough people realize this ridiculousness is now policy and needs undoing.
How could someone who had flown 950,000 miles on United, blogging about it the whole time, be totally unaware of this rule? There are two explanations.
1) He knew about the rule and decided to flaunt it anyway.
2) He did not know about the rule because it is so rarely enforced as to be invisible.
Personally speaking, #2 sounds more likely to me. I take photos onboard most times I fly, and not once have I been asked to stop, even on United flights. I've never heard of any friends or family being asked to stop. I've never even read about this on a blog before, and lots of people blog about flying and travelling.
In short, whether or not he was in technical violation of the rule, it's ridiculous to hold someone strictly to a standard that is never enforced with any regularity.
There's a difference between doing the wrong thing right, and doing the right thing. If people wouldn't forget that rules should be encoded for their own benefit instead of being dictated by some people above as some holy scripture we wouldn't have TSA and all this airport security nonsense to talk about.
Here is the photo policy:
http://cdn-img1.upgrd.com/featured/united-photo-limits.png
It says photography is strictly prohibited of aircraft equipment, and if not of aircraft equipment, prohibited unless of "personal events".
His explanation:
"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog."
This falls outside of personal use. This is professional use, and therefore absolutely outside of the personal events category. Taking pictures under his business card and related to his blog is strictly prohibited, and his arguing means he was arguing with the rules that were shown to him by the FA before he began arguing.
Aside from being absolutely in violation of the rules, perhaps this had nothing to do with "I am not a terrorist"; perhaps the FA and captain were disinterested in having their entire route evaluated and blogged about.
No idea what United will say in response. And frankly, I am shocked to be siding with United. But in this case, they handed him a printed rule, and he chose to explain himself in a way that put him in violation of it, and took himself out of the regular passenger category.
In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules.