Takes on a whole new meaning....
Posted on 05/13/2008 8:53:00 AM PDT by VRWCmember
...and you can use the towel dispenser as your flotation device, should an emergency arise.
I’m not sure it’s worth $2 million but I’d sure give him a considerable sum. The pilot should be fired and the flight attendent should be told if she doesn’t like the seat she’s supposed to sit in she should leave also.
Everyone claiming it should be thrown out of court would be screaming their lungs out if it happened to them.
People that fly non-rev are commonly the first ones to be inconvenienced on any flight. They aren’t paying.
I fly non-rev a lot. It is understood if there aren’t enough meals, drinks, etcetra, I go without. There are a few instances under which I have been bumped from a flight that I would have gladly been assigned to the bathroom.
A little secret...You can actually hang out next to the back galley. You don’t have to sit in the bathroom. The flight attendant can go back to the jump seat when it is time to land.
While in there, I'd be hesitant to take any of my carry-on out, losing the simple pleasure of reading a book or eating a snack, let alone the loss of in-flight entertainment.
I'm not sure, either, about traveling on a "buddy pass." That might be a red herring argument. People cash in reward miles, travel on promotion vouchers, receive airline overbook vouchers, etc. How one accounts for the ticket should have no bearing on access to normal in-flight services.
Besides, the "buddy pass" is an employee benefit, so I'd expect that employees are encouraged to take advantage of benefits because "that's what makes < insert company name > a great place to work!" What's next, fire the person who gave Mr. Mutlu the "buddy pass" because of all the aggravation it caused?
-PJ
It sounds like this guy did not purchase a ticket from Jet Blue but rather flew at no charge. If that’s the case and this actually went to court, would that have any effect on what he is entitled to get from Jet Blue?
He flew on a buddy pass, which on most airlines usually involves paying some kind of nominal service charge fee, but not anywhere near the cost of an airfare. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that it would have ZERO effect on what he is "entitled" to receive from Jet Blue. An analogy would be if you redeemed a free ticket voucher to get tickets to a hockey playoff game, and midway through the first period the head of arena security came up and told you that one of the ushers was going to sit in your seat for the rest of the game; and by the way you can't stand in the aisle, and you can't stand at an entrance, and you can't stand in the special standing room only section because those people paid for standing room only seats, but there is a nice stall in one of the restrooms where you can see the game on a closed-circuit tv monitor mounted in the corner of the rest room. Even though you didn't pay for the hockey ticket, once you were able to redeem your voucher for a ticket for a seat at the hockey game, you have a reasonable expectation of the right to sit in that seat.
The typical definition [of frivolous] in United States law is very different from its colloquial or political meaning. United States courts usually define "frivolous litigation" as a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit.In short, a frivolous lawsuit is one for which there is no supporting legal rationale. Attorneys can be sanctioned for filing such frivolous cases (See e.g. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11).
Takes on a whole new meaning....
bingo. it's a safety issue. imagine if there was extreme turbulence and the guy was knocked unconscious in the loo from slamming around loose in there? vast, i don't know about some implied expectation-of-a-seat-once-you-get-the-buddy-pass angle, but paid or not, the airlines is required to meet the same safety standards whether the passenger is paying full price, discounted fare or flying via buddypass.
Not upon getting the buddy pass, but once you are given a boarding pass with a seat assignment on it you certainly have an expectation of a seat other than the toilet.
yes, they are pains.
yes, they are pains.
I was just speculating that since the pilot (if this story is even true) was going to such extremes - risking his job by putting a passenger in an illegal, unsafe position - that there must be something more to the story as to why he wanted so badly to make that stewardess comfortable.
I work in the industry and VERY firmly believe that the Captain owns that airplane for the flight, but that does not give him the right to violate FAA regulations unless it is a true, serious emergency.
You are right. I read it wrong initially. I thought the flight attendant didn’t have her jump seat which of course she should have for take off and landings. However, just because she was UNCOMFORTABLE in that seat was no reason for the pilot to make a paying passenger sit in the latrine. I see, smell and taste a lawsuit here and I also see, smell and taste a victory for said passenger.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.