American Airlines' Preaching Pilot

In article , "BTC/TAK on ACK"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is
properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence
has been presented to prove it in court, to argue that there was no
emotional distress shows that you share a problem that many lawyers
have. You don't understand English.

Considering this is a legal discussion, revolving around the validity
of the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious
that *you* are the one who is missing the point.

Actually, this did not start as "a legal discussion,

I didn't say it started as one. I said it *is* one.

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

[snip]

And the pilots and the other flight personnel. "Their" plane or
not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say the
word "bomb" either, for instance.

Sure they can. I've discussed such things with the flight crew on
airlines myself.

You are lucky. Others have been arrested.

It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for
discussing security precautions.

I did not know that you were a security person involved in the
airlines.

I'm not.

In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws
and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights
under U.S. jurisdiction? You should have a better knowledge of
this than the rest of us.

Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The
laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics
of discussion.

For good reason, since such a law would be unconstitutional.

Common carriers
have significantly different rules. In addition this is an
airplane in a time of quasi-war, very different rules again.

If you think all these "rules" people in this thread keep vaguely
referencing prohibit a flight crew from mentioning religion, then
please, quote those rules.

Did I say that? You play a game that I see too often. He did not
simply mention religion,

But others in this thread have mentioned pilots who said a prayer before
take off or somesuch. It isn't just about this one incident. The entire
discussion has been about the mention of religion and how "offensive"
that is.

If it is offensive to someone it is offensive. Whether or not an
offensive act rises to the level of tort or crime is not simple
and quite detail dependent.

Actually, it is a rather simple analysis.

It is reasonable for someone to suspect a hijacking and attempt to
separate the passengers by religion. If a passenger were to stand
up and ask for Christians (or Jews or Moslems) to raise their
hands I strongly suspect he would be stopped, and potentially
arrested. The pilot has *more* responsibility, not more freedom
of actions.

Which is fine. If the TSA decides his actions constituted a legtimate
threat to the safety of the flight, he will be dealt with.

But that wasn't the original contention when this all started. It was "I
don't like having to sit on a plane and listen to religious
proselytizing so I would sue". And my only contention was that the law
would not support such a lawsuit.

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ...
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of their
employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their
customers. If the customer had a reasonable expectation based on published
policy and the airline did not meet that expectation, the customer has
every right to sue.

The customer has to be able to show harm. A surprise is not harm.

What if every airplane you'd ever been on had green carpeting, and one day
you board one and discover it has red carpet? Surely you could have
reasonably expected green carpeting. Can you therefore sue?

No, that's not a reasonable assumption. If I had firsthand knowledge
that the airline had a policy against green carpeting, and if green
carpeting were known to be inherently offensive to passengers, and if
green carpeting were known to cause panic, then I might be willing to
discuss your analogy. If, instead of a history of religious zealots
taking over cockpits, launching into religious diatribes, and crashing
their planes, we instead had a history of people installing green
carpeting and then crashing planes, I might also be willing to discuss
your analogy.

The analogy is a response to your claim that the person had a grounds for
suit based on the fact that "the customer had a reasonable expectation based
on published policy and the airline did not meet that expectation." The
analogy is easily tuned in response to your only salient point by adding a
corporate policy on carpet color.

No that would not be sufficient because it does not represent a
situation that would reasonably be expected to cause discomfort among
passengers. A company would not have a policy against green carpeting
for reasons similar to the policy in question unless it was
problematic for similar reasons. You insist that your situation is
analagous when it's merely off the wall. It cannot be analogous to
compare a harmless event to a harmful one.

Tangents about religious zealots and plane crashes are irrelevant to your
claim as stated, so if you want to add them now, you should retract your
earlier statement and start again from the top.

They are not irrelevant for the reasons I stated. You did not come up
with an analogous situation. If you want to argue that a situation in
which people panicked, tried to call the police, called relatives in
fear, and triggered all the other things that this event did is
analogous to a change in carpet color, then by all means, do so.

If on the other hand, the only reason for your bad analogy was to show
that there is no basis to sue, you still need to establish that there
was a rule that was violated and that there was a reasonable
expectation that it would not be violated. Yes, I could sue for breach
of contract, but you are presenting a case where I could not present a
basis for showing any tangible harm. It's nonsense to compare a case
that would never be in a rulebook with one that would be since one
causes damage and the other did not.

Also, your claim that you are limiting the scope to my statement and
I'm expanding the scope is not a valid one. Implicit in my argument
is that the rules present were reasonable. I was also discussing
rules that pertained to employee conduct. An unreasonable restriction
such as not allowing the employee to discuss carpeting with passengers
who asked would not be upheld in a court. So you are effectively
saying that since an unreasonable rule that's unrelated to employee
conduct would not be actionable, your argument is correct. That's
true only for implausable scenarios and has nothing to do with one
that is plausible and actual. So by rejecting the basic concept that
implied premises exist, and in this case it was clear to all involved
that we are discussing items that one could reasonably expect to be in
an employee handbook, you are leaving out a part of my argument. I
will concede that nonsense lawsuits are not actionable, but you still
have to show that this one fits into that category.

BTR1701 wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is
properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence
has been presented to prove it in court, to argue that there was no
emotional distress shows that you share a problem that many lawyers
have. You don't understand English.

Considering this is a legal discussion, revolving around the validity of
the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious
that *you* are the one who is missing the point.

No, I essentially said that there was emotional distress and did so
while steering it away from your legal tangent. No descent lawyer
could make that sort of determination in such a short period anyway.
You simply have no basis to say whether there was emotional stress
that can be proven from a legal standpoint, but I do have a sufficient
basis to show that people were emotionally distressed.

Had you said that the people may have been emotionally distressed, but
proving it is another issue and we're not there yet, I would have
agreed from the beginning. But to say that there was no emotional
distress when you have not seen any legal filings, depositions, or
anything related to any case that might exist at any time in the
future is something you simply cannot do as a lawyer.
You can't say that it wasn't there or that it can't be proven because
you simply don't know.

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The
laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics
of discussion.
????
"Say that again and I'm going to slap you." is clearly a threat, but is not
necessarily a criminal offense, at least not in the state of California.

BTR1701 wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

BTR1701 wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

BTR1701 wrote in message
...
In article , devil
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 +0000, BTR1701 wrote:

You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it.
American Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of
their airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to
do.

Methinks you got mixed up. That's Alaska, not AA.

The point is the same either way.

Perhaps you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? SEC.
703. (a) makes it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on religion in that
circumstance. They cannot hire pilots based on religion, nor can
they "otherwise ... discriminate against, any individual because of his
...
religion." If they are telling a pilot what religious views to hold,
they are breaking the law.

Who said they have told anyone, let alone a pilot, what religious views
they can hold?


I suppose that you could make the argument that telling you in writing
what religious views to hold by taping the writings in front of your
face isn't telling you what views to hold. You could make the
argument, but it would be a stupid argument.

Putting up a sign with a bible verse on it (which is what I assume you
are talking about) isn't telling someone what religious view they must
hold. People have brains. They are free to accept or reject anything
they like.

A private company has every right to decorate their facilities with
religious iconography if they like. People can express their pleasure or
disgust with their wallets.


That would depend on the degree. If you are my employer and you stick
a sign in front of my face that says, "Jesus is your Lord," I think I
can make a compelling argument that you are telling me what beliefs I
should hold.

We were not talking about the AA situation or even the Alaska one, but
a hypothetical case where an airline plasters the airplane cabins with
bible verses. In that case, I'd say that it's proselytizing, and it
goes well beyond what established cases (Venters v. City of Delphi,
123 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 1997),Wilson v U.S. West Communications, 58
F.3d 1337 (8th Cir. 1995).) have found to violate the rights of the
employer. Employees have no choice but to be in the cabin and would be
exposed to the messages constantly.

But even more subtle religious verses can be problematic potentially.
In California, there is a burger chain called In-n-out Burger. They
print Christian verses on cups and napkins and other supplies. If
they had a Muslim or other employee who did not want to hand cups to
customers, because giving a fellow Muslim a message that "Jesus is
Lord" is in direct violation of her religious beliefs, the question
would be whether the company could make reasonable accomodations.
Since there is no compelling business reason for the messages, it
would be hard for them to say no, and convince a California court of
it.

Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of
their employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their
customers. If the customer had a reasonable expectation based on
published policy and the airline did not meet that expectation, the
customer has every right to sue.

The analogy is a response to your claim that the person had a grounds for
suit based on the fact that "the customer had a reasonable expectation
based on published policy and the airline did not meet that expectation."
The analogy is easily tuned in response to your only salient point by
adding a corporate policy on carpet color.

No that would not be sufficient because it does not represent a situation
that would reasonably be expected to cause discomfort among passengers. A
company would not have a policy against green carpeting for reasons
similar to the policy in question unless it was problematic for similar
reasons. You insist that your situation is analagous when it's merely off
the wall. It cannot be analogous to compare a harmless event to a harmful
one.

I don't particular disagree with where you're going, but it's not what you
said. That's all.

Tangents about religious zealots and plane crashes are irrelevant to your
claim as stated, so if you want to add them now, you should retract your
earlier statement and start again from the top.

They are not irrelevant for the reasons I stated. You did not come up
with an analogous situation.

That wasn't my job. You said "If the customer had a reasonable expectation
based on published policy and the airline did not meet that expectation, the
customer has every right to sue." I was addressing that point. I was not
addressing the question of whether he was a good pilot, or whether it would
be better or worse for him to have done this as a Zoroastrian, or whether
the airline can fire him. There's no point trying to hit a moving target.
Thankfully we have your quote at the top to refer to.

If on the other hand, the only reason for your bad analogy was to show
that there is no basis to sue, you still need to establish that there was
a rule that was violated and that there was a reasonable expectation that
it would not be violated.

This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the
contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having your
reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a
lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to have
been codified in your contract.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

In article , "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article , "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message

But none of that was really your contention here, was it,
counselor? I
believe it was a question of not having experience..... Nice change
of subject.... subtle. I like it.

And I'll say it again -- if you believe that frivolous filings are so
numerous as to constitute a significant problem, then you haven't
much experience of the legal system, your bar membership notwithstanding.

And yet here's one in the news just today. Didn't have to look long or
hard.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/ja....ap/index.html

Yep, there's one. How many suits do you think get filed, nationwide,
every day?

Not sure how the total number of suits is relevant.

Your claim was that frivilous suits are so rare that you can count them
on one hand. Well, I managed to find a current one without even spending
3 minutes searching.

I guess you're going to have to start using your other hand to keep
track of them now.

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article , "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article , "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message

But none of that was really your contention here, was it,
counselor? I
believe it was a question of not having experience..... Nice
change
of subject.... subtle. I like it.

And I'll say it again -- if you believe that frivolous filings are
so
numerous as to constitute a significant problem, then you haven't
much experience of the legal system, your bar membership
notwithstanding.

And yet here's one in the news just today. Didn't have to look long or
hard.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/ja....ap/index.html

Yep, there's one. How many suits do you think get filed, nationwide,
every day?

Not sure how the total number of suits is relevant.

Of course its relevant. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of suits are
filed daily. One or two frivolous suits per ten thousand is very, very few
frivolous suits.


Your claim was that frivilous suits are so rare that you can count them
on one hand.

Nope, not my claim at all. I said in 12 years of practice, I can count the
number of frivolous suits that I've encountered on two fingers of one hand,
i.e. two.

Well, I managed to find a current one without even spending
3 minutes searching.

Good for you. Finding one suit is meaningless.


I guess you're going to have to start using your other hand to keep
track of them now.

You really, really need to read things more carefully.

BTR1701 wrote:
"PTRAVEL" wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/ja....ap/index.html

Yep, there's one. How many suits do you think get filed, nationwide,
every day?

Not sure how the total number of suits is relevant.

Your claim was that frivilous suits are so rare that you can count them
on one hand. Well, I managed to find a current one without even spending
3 minutes searching.

To be fair, that doesn't say too much. You had the advantage of a powerful
search engine.

Inhabited planets are, so far as I know, so rare that I can count them on
one hand, and yet I bet it wouldn't take you long to find one.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/