I think if the captain doesn’t like you, what they say goes & it’s a federal matter.
I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think).
Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accomplished).
What an odd thing to fixate on . . . swap the pronouns around any way you prefer, and my statement remains correct. The captain is in charge of the aircraft and she is to be obeyed if you want to fly on her aircraft. She can refuse to accept any passenger for any reason. If it is a stupid reason, she may have a problem with her employer later, but nobody can overrule her in the moment.
Friendly reminder that not everyone's first language is English, and for a lot of people for whom it isn't, gender-neutral pronouns can be a pretty foreign concept and it's easy to forget about it. We just apply the natural gender that the word has in our language (such as a chair being feminine in both Portugese and French, so a lot of natives of those languages may mistakenly refer to a chair as "her" in English). I wouldn't go so far as assume the person you're replying to is sexist or whatever it is you're thinking just from the fact they referred to an imaginary captain as "he".
Yes. The captain has the authority, by law, to remove anyone (or everyone) for any reason. There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.
> There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.
This is pretty wide of the mark. They have a lot of authority, yes, as it's the flipside of the flight's safety being their responsibility. They still aren't allowed to assault a passenger, say, or commit tax fraud, or needlessly break the air laws.
Also, while the plane is en route? As in, the captain throwing someone out of the plane mid-flight?
Ah yes because I am definitely saying that the captain of an airliner is free to commit tax fraud. That's definitely something someone with a functioning brain could believe I meant, and not a complete straw-man bad faith interpretation.
And yes, the captain's authority is greater while the plane is en route compared to on the ground. En route the captain can divert pretty much anywhere if they think it's the right thing to do. They can dump fuel over the ocean or even over houses if they believe the alternative is worse. When the plane is on the ground realistically all they're going to do for anything is deplane everyone, either at the gate or via an evacuation.
>A few thousand pagers went off, quite a few in the hands of kids.
Citation needed for "quite a few in the hands of kids".
What kind of kids get to hold very specific communication devices that Hezbollah leadership uses?
I smell bullshit.
>Terrorism by definition.
Says the person who's never read the definition.
You can call the op that targets military leadership whatever you want, but the mere fact of military leadership being targeted makes it not terrorism BY DEFINITION.
Doesn’t even necessarily have to be the captain - refusing to follow instructions/direction of any member of the flight crew is a serious problem.
And yeah, if it was ridiculous or violated some other law or something they’d eventually have to deal with the consequences of that, but while in the air, what they say goes.
I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think).
Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accomplished).