A Delta Airlines flight from New York’s JFK Airport to Israel was delayed by half an hour after a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men refused to sit next to female passengers. We discussed the same type of disruption on a flight in September by ultra-Orthodox travelers refusing to sit down until people moved around to accommodate their extreme religious views. What is astonishing is that the disruptive travelers faced no reported repercussions for delaying a flight or refusing to comply with the instruction of flight attendants.
Delta Flight 468 was bound for Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport and the men were told repeatedly to sit down and refused. They insisted that women had to be moved to avoid their coming into contact with a member of the outside sex. Two women refused to accommodate what they viewed as discrimination despite the men offering money to the various passengers to comply with their demands. Finally, an American traveling to Israel changed seats to resolve the situation.
What is striking is that people are routinely pulled off planes for the slightest disruptions or failures to obey flight attendants. However, you can defiantly refuse to take your seats until passengers yield to your demands if you can a religious principle against sitting with women.
What is interesting is that when another group of ultra Orthodox men turned an El Al flight into a nightmare, many demanded that the airline adopt a rule to deal with such disruptive passengers. However, the airline has refused to adopt a policy to prevent future such disruptions, leaving passengers to the whim of these ultra orthodox travelers who refuse to let planes take off until women are removed from their rows.
Everyone would have complied because they would be worried that they would get their heads chopped off or they would have been turned into sex slaves.
Haven’t you been reading the news?
What would have happened if a group of bearded muslims had demanded women to be kept away from their beards ?
I had never heard of “Ultra Orthodox” before.
Good answers Pogo!! 🙂
These men should have been removed and put on a flight with seats reserved for men only–preferably Orthodox men only. Oh yeah, and charged for another ticket, since they failed to take care of the matter before boarding the plane..
I will say that it is time for airlines, and other modes of transportation, to consider the beliefs of other religions by asking pertinent questions, e.g. a persons religion, if they they would sit next to a woman, and also food preferences. I’m sure over time more questions would need to be added to the questionnaire.
They are very wealthy. How about buying all the seats in a row?
Also Randy,
In an extreme example of federal vs. state, many years ago we were working with three federal agencies on a fugitive round-up. We were concentrating on gang-bangers and criminal aliens having arrest warrants.
One place we served an arrest warrant at was a trailer one of one of our local bangers who was wanted on a misdemeanor local warrant. ICE wanted him because he was previously convicted of a violent felony and had a deportation order.
We entered and arrested him. I looked onto one of the cabinets next to him and saw a .22 caliber cartridge. Our state does not prohibit felons from possessing ammo but the federal government does. The ATF guy we had with us took the case and hit the suspect with a federal felon in possession charge carrying a five year prison sentence. All for one .22 round. Pretty hardcore, but at least I wouldn’t have to deal with that banger for a few years.
Darren, It is too bad you will have to deal with him again at all. Of course, with the border being wide open in many places, and the amnesty that the parties want to pass, I am sure you are right. A fellow pilot friend of mine was working the Repatriate call sign flights which pick up and fly the illegals back to Central America. He asked one of the BP troops how long it took for the illegals to come back into the US. He said the record so far is 12 hours from being kicked out in Honduras to being caught again entering the US. I don’t think I could get back that fast legally, much less illegally. The consensus was that a guy that talented should have been given an immigration visa for that kind of ingenuity.
14 CFR 121.580 – Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
“No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.”
The last line refers to refusal to obey repeated requests by any flight crew member. The cabin crew is under the control and direction of the Captain. Those laws go back in Common Law to seafaring days.
The refusal to obey the flight crew once aboard the aircraft can be construed as a violation of §121.580. That includes seating. I have seen that rule invoked several times.
Once was when a really overweight guy boarded the commuter plane from Kansas City to Topeka. He insisted he was going to sit in the rearmost seat of the plane. The Captain came back to tell him that he was going to either sit over the wing, or deplane. The guy wanted to argue, because the last seat was very wide and more comfortable for the fat guy. It was obvious to me that it was a weight and balance issue, and the guy’s enormous weight would put the center of gravity of the aircraft too far aft. He finally moved, because it dawned on him that the Captain meant business.
Another incident was at Atlanta Hartsfield. Two ladies were asked to switch seats with another two passengers. The two people being asked to move was because it was the escape hatch row, and one of the seats was occupied by a child. Child under fifteen cannot sit on an escape hatch row. The two women in the next row threw a three-wheeled fit at being asked to swap seats with them, waving their tickets in the flight attendant’s face, screaming (literally) that they paid for those seats and they were not going to move. The FA finally went up front to confer with the Captain. She came back and said the two women had exactly thirty seconds to move, or the Captain was calling security to have them removed to be turned over to the FBI. They moved.
@David
You wrote, “This situation is more like finding yourself on an airplane and not sitting next to your spouse but hoping someone would be kind enough to switch seats so you could sit next to your spouse during the long transatlantic flight.”
Please Dave, you are much more intelligent than that. It’s sad that you, with your great intellect must stoop to such weak analogies….cept, that they work upon most readers. I see who you support. Does everyone here SEE also??
What if the religious folks boarding the plane had been conservative Muslims who did not want to sit next to women? How about Rastifari’s who demand that they must be able to smoke the ganja as part of their religious beliefs? How bout that time Donald Sterling refused to sit in between his employees, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin on the LA Clippers flight back from their game with the Denver Nuggets of the NBA…Oh wait, that didn’t happen, they had a private jet.
I once had to sit next to a 6’5″, 290lb pro wrestler, tank top, tan, sunglasses, gold chains n everything on a flight into san jose when we experience a microshear upon descent. It wasn’t pleasant…he almost broke my hand as he gripped his onto mine, which was already clutching the armrest as if my survival depended upon it….and his high pitched 8 y.o. girl like scream pierced my right eardrum…sill can’t hear from it.
In retrospect, I should have listened to my guts which at the time told me, “You shouldn’t sit with this guy….move.”
We shouldn’t let belief systems that would be very comfortable in the 1300’s dictate how our lives run in this century.
There are laws against racism but sexism is still OK.
I looked up the definition of the “Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States”
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/IV/465/46501
From my interpretation of this the loading of passengers in this case would not be within federal jurisdiction for the purpose of the Interfering With a Flight Crew law because the doors to the aircraft were not closed, that is the passengers have not taken their seats to start pushback.
If there is no federal jurisdiction, it would then rely on state or local law. The only thing I can think of would be a disorderly conduct charge for interrupting the operation of a business but that would be a weak case because it could be stated it was a civil matter between these passengers and the airline over a seating contract.
For a state definition of trespass, the flight crew would have to evict the passengers from the aircraft and they refused to leave.
There might be a possible local charge of Public Transit Misconduct by a passenger refusing to take a seat but I don’t know if such a statute exists at this airport.
Anyone else have the same conclusion? Randyjet?
Darren, Once again I am in your debt for finding the law that applies. The definition of flight is similar to that of logging flight time, but it does not apply to the captain for only in flight situations. What you don’t know is that the captain is designated as the ground security representative for the aircraft and its area. In fact, I have to sign a form declaring that I have accomplished the security screening and that all is in order before I close the door. So the law for in flight violations does not apply, but the section on interference with screening personnel DOES apply, and thus any person who interferes with the captain and his/her orders is subject to ten years prison. I am glad you found that law since it corrects my flawed understanding of what section of the law actually applies in such cases. Thus I would have a legal basis for insisting the US attorney take action in such a case, since it is a Federal offense.
Randy,
Interesting how the Security Screening code applies to the aircraft at the gate pre-flight so that the federal law can have jurisdiction. In our state, misbehaving passengers get slapped on the wrist because local laws would apply in the same manner that they would in a vehicle. But with federal laws defendants face serious time for being idiots on aircraft.
Like I said. Seperate but equal.
Those men should be segregated. Back of the plane. Separate rest rooms with signs that say Beanie Head Only. Separate menu for food tray. Separate entrance and exit. Special exit at 30,000 feet. No chute.
Randy, I have aged rapidly, and get it now. Your second to last post did the trick, it explained something that was missing previously.
Good explanation.
Randy, to directly quote you:
“When a black kid refused to follow the instructions of the captain to come to the front so he could talk to him about his disregarding the request of the F/A,(B) …since the kid refused to obey the orders of the captain or the police who had to physically drag him off (C). The incident started with the F/A asking the kid to pull up his pants.” (A)
So, Randy:
A- The F/A requested the black kid pulls his pants up. He refused
B- The captain called the kid to chide him for refusing the F/A’s order to pull his pants up. He refused.
C- The cops hauled him off.
We can put C before B and A, but A is A nonetheless…and comes before B and C
So based on your own telling of the event, it seems to me that the initial issue was about the black kid refusing to pull his pants up.
po, I see that you are too young to understand things. The request of the captain is NOT an option to refuse no matter the reason. Just as I have been stopped by a cop, and it turns out he just gave me a warning, not an arrest or ticket. Running from the cop is a separate offense, NO MATTER the reason for the stop. You do not have the right to run if you think the cop is racially profiling you. The Orthodox Jews had no right to expect that their needs had to be accommodated over the needs of the rest of the passengers. Their refusal to follow the orders of the F/A to take their assigned seats, is interfering with a flight crew member which is a FELONY, and they should have been given the choice of taking their seats or leaving the plane. If they still refused to sit or leave, then it becomes a felony and force can and will be used against them.
If you’re a Christian or a Jew, you can get away with some stuff usually. If a Muslim did this, it probably wouldn’t end as well for him.
DBQ
I have my own blog, but since you and Nick won’t come to visit, I have to go where I can find you.
David, I don’t agree with your analogy. Lorenberg has a point there.
Randy, it’s not a similar situation at all. In one case there was a personal request made of the kid, (whether black or not) who has the right to refuse to comply because his pants being low is not a structural issue as is to refuse to allow the boarding to take place. Additionally, you raise the analogy to that case but stuck to commenting on that case. not on this one.
po, I am sorry that you have a problem understanding simple things. First off the situation with the black kid was not over the pants issue. The Captain told him to come to the front of the plane, without his carry on baggage. That is an order that no passenger can legally or morally refuse, any more than you can refuse a request for you to move to another seat if a F/A asks you. My guess as a former airline captain, is that he simply wanted to tell the kid about the proper conduct on board. As a driver, if a cop car pulls up behind you with its lights flashing, you do not have an option to defy the cop. The kid compounded the crime, by not only refusing that order, but then refused the order to leave, which made it a crime.
So it is directly analogous to this situation since the Jewish passengers refused direct orders of the F/As. That they were not arrested and taken off the plane is coddling criminals in my view, and it shows too much forbearance on the part of the crew. This was probably because of the destination, but it only encourages bad behavior. Once you are aboard the vessel, the rules of the sea apply and you are not in normal civil society. Once again, simple.
Randy, You’re next to last sentence – Once you are aboard the vessel, the rules of the sea apply and you are not in normal civil society – says it all.
randyjet – Southwest threw a bunch of Muslim passengers off who were causing a problem. Although they were right they ended up compensating the passengers in large amounts of cash. Delta could probably see the same thing happening.
po – letting his pants sag is a safety issue for other passengers and crew. I spent several years teaching students who wore their pants like this and they made me nervous every time we had a fire drill. I will say they are easier for the cops to catch though.
I do not think they should have been given special treatment. They should have simply been asked to leave the plane, and then fined for delaying the flight, or whatever the penalty the rest of us would have faced. For the same reason, passengers cannot delay a flight while they pray in the aisle, or refuse to fasten their seatbelt until they’ve said a few decades on the rosary. And the airline should explicitly state this policy on its website.
If their beliefs preclude them from sitting in close proximity to the opposite sex, then airline travel is not going to work for them. They should take a boat, instead, where they will have their very own cabin.
I have known quite a few Amish, since we’re involved with draft horses. They find ways to function in the “English” world. They are not allowed to drive, so they hire an English driver. (They call non-Amish English.) Some communities have phone booths outside their homes to get around the whole no-phones-at-home rule. They don’t expect everyone else to suddenly stop driving, or using a telephone.
Karen S wrote: “They don’t expect everyone else to suddenly stop driving, or using a telephone.”
This situation is nothing like your analogy. They were not asking others to make sure not to sit near someone of the opposite sex. This request is not that hard. This situation is more like finding yourself on an airplane and not sitting next to your spouse but hoping someone would be kind enough to switch seats so you could sit next to your spouse during the long transatlantic flight.
Because of the moral sentiments involved, a more likely hypothetical is boarding the plane and finding out that your 13 year old daughter is 20 rows further back in the plane from you, sitting next to a convicted pedophile male just released from prison. You might feel more comfortable if the male adult stranger sitting next to you would switch seats with your daughter. You might even offer money to people to switch seats with your daughter.
Changing seat assignments is not that big of a deal. I am shocked that some people here think these Orthodox Jews should be arrested because nobody on the flight was kind enough to resolve their problem quickly.
David is forgetting one thing. Not getting an agreement on a seat change request does not grant anyone the right to refuse to be seated, ignore crew instructions and delay a flight inconveniencing the other passengers. If your request is not honored you have to shut up and sit down. This has happened to all of us that travel frequently and while I like to sit next to my wife of over 50 years if we have to be apart for a few hours the world still spins.
lorenberg wrote: “Not getting an agreement on a seat change request does not grant anyone the right to refuse to be seated, ignore crew instructions and delay a flight inconveniencing the other passengers.”
Certainly there are boundaries whereby they cannot hold up the plane. I just don’t think that is what happened here. Who really held up the plane? Was it the flight attendant, the pilot refusing to take off, the women refusing to move, the passengers refusing to exchange seats, or the Orthodox man who cannot sit between two women? One report says that the problem was caused by two women who claimed discrimination and refused to move. So who is at fault, the stubborn women or the Orthodox man who was assigned to sit between them? Or was it the fault of the flight attendants? It kind of depends upon who you like to aim your rifle at. The whole situation resolved when an American offered to change seats. That is a far better solution than arresting someone. I see situations like this exasperated by flight attendants following rules and being insensitive to the moral dilemma. I have seen these situations before, and they could be solved easily by an understanding attendant letting the other passengers know of the need for a seat swap.
From what Paul Schulte said, he would volunteer to sit between the two women, although he did stipulate that they be attractive women. 🙂
Southwest has a solution. Do not assign seats and let people select them when they get on the flight. Then the Orthodox men could gather in their own section as they board the plane. Problem solved.
In any case, having a moral problem with a seat assignment should not be a crime. The problem is solved easily in a kind society, and not so easily in a selfish society.
I came by to rant about the fact that Prof turley is recycling issues. I mean how many such incidences do we have to revisit?
So. Make your own blog then if you don’t like these topics.
Why don’t we just post the comments we all made last time?
LOL.
Randy, what are you talking about? This is about something else, no the that black kid again. WE heard you already, several times, about that issue.
What do you think about this specific topic?
Nick
Trooper can’t do worse that calling me a vile antisemite, perhaps a murderer?
Either way, we can hearken back to a dead era and remain separate “but ” equal, and I won’t drink from your fountain , nor ride in your bus…you can confine me in some ghetto and deny me the right to vote…
po, This is the same issue since both instances involved passengers refusing to follow the orders of the crew. The Jews refused to take their assigned seats, and the kid refused to come to the front of the plane at the request of the captain. Both passengers had no legal or moral right to do that. Simple.
I am surprised by the response of many of these folks. When a black kid refused to follow the instructions of the captain to come to the front so he could talk to him about his disregarding the request of the F/A, most of the people here were outraged that the kid was arrested. The kid then had charges dropped by the local DA, and he sued the airline for kicking him off. The plane had to be evacuated since the kid refused to obey the orders of the captain or the police who had to physically drag him off. The incident started with the F/A asking the kid to pull up his pants. I was blasted by most who thought the kid should have been left alone and should not have been kicked off.
I think the kid got off easy, since this happened in San Francisco, and I would have known that no charges would have been pressed. Had I been that captain, I would have gone to the US attorney and demanded that charges be pressed, and called the union to demand that they also fight to jail the kid.