Three Orthodox Jewish passengers were kicked off of the JetBlue New Year’s Eve redeye from Palm Springs to New York JFK after changing seats on board.
One of the men moved to an open seat in order to avoid sitting next to a female passenger (that wasn’t a relative) who had the assignment next to him.
A flight attendant told him he couldn’t do that, so he tried another seat and was scolded again. The Orthodox women traveling with him tried to explain his religious concerns. A man who overheard offered up his seat, and the two switched.
- That’s when the group of passengers was kicked off, because crew were “not comfortable” with them.
- The two women who hadn’t tried to switch seats objected to having to leave, but were removed also.
- A JetBlue employee claimed that “changing seats is a violation when it comes to weight imbalance.”
The pilot can be heard saying “My inflight crew tells me they do not want to have you on their plane,” and that “I have to support them.” One of the passengers interjected that this was “antisemitism.”
According to a passenger on board (whose boyfriend gave up his seat to accommodate the man), everything was peaceful.
Yes and also why isn’t there protocol for this, a circumstance that is not unusual? What *was* unusual here – this was resolved pretty easily (my boyfriend gladly switched seats once he realized what the need was) and everyone was seated & waiting . Then they were kicked off.
— Rachel Sklar (she/her) (@rachelsklar) January 2, 2024
49 USC § 44902 provides broad latitude, within certain bounds laid out by the FAA, for the captain of an aircraft to refuse transportation to a passenger if they feel that passenger might be “inimical to safety.”
A pilot’s decision cannot be arbitrary or capricious – but that’s not the same as saying it has to be reasonable. It’s generally presumed that the actions of the pilot are reasonable, and judged based on facts the pilot was aware of at the time and the time constraints they’re under.
- If they’re given only one side of the story, and it’s incomplete
- And they make a decision based on that information
- And they’re in a rush to get the plane out
- That’s probably going to be fine under the law
So if the captain felt that a passenger could be a safety risk solely because they weren’t listening to a flight attendant, even if it involves an issue where they’re not obligated to follow instructions, they’re probably within their rights to kick you off the plane. It probably wasn’t fair here, but that doesn’t mean the pilot was wrong under 49 USC § 44902.
At the same time, cabin crew probably should have handled things better so that it didn’t get to this point. We don’t know exactly why the flight attendant had an issue with this man changing into an open seat – whether it was how he looked (what he looked like), or how he responded to her. Many miscommunications happen, exacerbated when people are having bad days.
Naturally I want to know ‘what happened before the recording’ but we do have passengers who don’t seem to think the man had done anything improper. And it’s not just that man being kicked off – it’s his Orthodox traveling companions as well.
A year and a half ago Lufthansa engaged in collective punishment against Jews on a flight, refusing connecting transport to anyone believed to be Jewish after some Jewish passengers got in a row over masks (“it’s Jews coming from JFK. …Jewish people who were the mess, who made the problems”).
As for the man concerned with having an unrelated female sitting next to him, the best approach here is to purchase an extra empty seat in the first place.
drrichard, I understand that is the regulation and its interpretation. And I agree that the pilot should have authority over the aircraft’s functional operation. But not over the flight operation. They still need to follow ATC orders and operate the flight accordingly, for example. I would argue that they also don’t, or shouldn’t, have authority over the passengers/cargo unless they affect functional operations and most of these cases of passengers being thrown off are not. With video recording of cabin, it would be easy for someone on the ground who is trained on these matters to make the call.
This could have been easily resolved by the passengers without the intervention of the flight attendant. A JetBlue employee claimed that “changing seats is a violation when it comes to weight imbalance… this is untrue because weight is not calculated when one selects a seat. The flight attendant probably doesn’t like Jews and/or is motivated by the current war in the Middle East. I hope this case ends up in court.
Tim, how do you find time to fly? Aren’t you always commenting on blogs? Oh, free Delta WiFi, that’s right.
this must have been quite awkward for the female passenger who was treated like a leper. People with extreme views of whatever kind, religious or otherwise, that impinge on the normal operations of daily life, need to figure out their own solution – buy an extra seat, drive themselves in their car or whatever. Imagine where this will go otherwise. Fundamentalist Muslims will also refuse to sit next to a woman, or object to being on the same plane with women who are not covered up enough, or object to the person next to them being served an alcoholic drink…it will be chaos. I think the flight attendants did the right thing in drawing a line, though they should not have ejected the two Orthodox women who were making no demands and causing no problem.
Why do these people insist on behaving like idiots on airplanes? Flight Attendants want you to be happy on their airplane. If you want to change seats, just ask an FA. Do not change seats without an FA’s permission. Do not do anything without an FA’s permission. Your weird needs do not come into play on an airplane, so stop trying to be special. This is a simple concept; most of us understand and accept it. FAs run the airplane, if they have a problem with you, the Captain will get rid of you. Nobody cares about your special religion, allergies or color. Remember: Airplanes have rules. You’re not special. Ask the FA first. So now you know, and you’ll never annoy everyone else, nor will you have another unpleasant experience on an airplane. Have a pleasant new year.
@drrichard says:
“Jake-1, I see what you mean, but someone has to be in charge. Federal Aviation Regulations 91.3 lays this out, “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” And that includes everything on board.”
No. FAA Regulations don’t preempt Federal Civil Rights Laws. It is flatly illegal and not within the discretion of any pilot to deprive passengers of equal services based on their religion or national origin. If the Pilot or Cabin Crew treated these passengers differently from the way they would have treated others – and that seems to be the case on the facts stated to the extent that they’re true – that is a violation of Federal law. Particularly given the outbreak of intolerance and overt hatred we’re experiencing in the USA right now, these laws should be enforced zealously.
This is a weird situation. I think the airlines themselves need to begin, at the organization level, examining what constitutes a reasonable accommodation for any number of issues. It is just too hard (and dangerous) to have passenger rights adjudicated by flight attendants that are often unaware of civil rights needs and accommodations.
In this case, I can see the airline taking the position that they cannot sex discriminate among their passengers (through sorting), as a matter of policy. Airlines probably don’t want (and probably don’t have the IT capacity) to automatically sort people based on religious preferences like this. However, the person assigned is probably trying to make due with airline policy in the situation by asking for a seat trade or by using the empty space of the plane. It is pretty hard to argue, once the doors close, that the passenger must violate (or accommodate) their religious conviction by staying seated (rather than moving to an empty seat) based on an airline policy designed mostly for administrative convenience.
I feel bad for the pilots and FAs that have to sort out these issues on the fly. It is hard to delineate reasonable accommodations from the passenger making up a reason to move to a more comfortable area or garner inequitable treatment. They probably should have let this go (I swap seats after the doors close all the time if I see an opportunity), but if you aren’t familiar with a particular religious practice or set of accommodations, then it is probably hard to make a high quality snap judgment.
But booting the entire party, not just the offending person, is too much.
with most flts. at 80% + how ban anyone expect to always be seated next to a male? These pax need to consider the charter of a small plane.
Cases like this often come down to the customer’s attitude. If they’re polite and obliging to the FA (“sorry, I didn’t realize – would it be OK if I move seats after takeoff?”) then the situation is defused; if they’re rude and argumentative then it’s a red flag that they could be difficult in other ways later in the flight. Especially if the passenger announced “I cannot sit next to a woman”, the FA is probably wondering if they are going to be facing a sex discrimination lawsuit by endorsing that kind of attitude.
The reason I think this is antisemitism is because the issue was resolved, and they still wanted to kick them off the plane.
That thing about the weight is arbitrary because they don’t ask you your weight when you buy your tickets.
Everyone shows up there with different amount of luggage and it all goes on the plane. They weigh it but that’s because they’re charging you.
That weight argument is so much dishonest rhetoric.