# Southwest removes another passenger-but why are they apologizing for it? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 27, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453 "2017-09-27T18:46:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/41 "2017-09-28T01:48:43Z")
My solution is the same as my solution in the other thread. The airlines can remove anyone they want from their aircraft. Unfortunately, that view didn’t prevail in the other thread, where it was made clear to me that once a passenger is on the aircraft, there has to be a legal reason to remove them. So strong was the opinion that extortion was mentioned as a result of the airline crew threatening to call the police when the passenger didn’t leave. ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/42 "2017-09-28T01:48:53Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Life threatening allergies do certainly exist. I’ve seen them up close, and treated them. One was triggered by shrimp, and the guy became a pulseless non-breather right in front of me (resuscitation was successful) and the other was to peanuts. > > I’ve also seen severe asthma attacks triggered by animal dander. 5000 people die in the US every year from acute asthma attacks. > > Now, I am dubious about the woman’s claim that her condition was that severe. If it was, she’d carry an epi-pen and the appropriate documentation about the severity of such condition. But allergies do kill people every year. I meant in regards to pets. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/43 "2017-09-28T01:58:06Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > In the thread about the guy being forcefully removed from a United flight, the prevailing consensus was they had no right to remove him. This is not what the consensus was. The consensus was that an airline should not be allowed to forcefully remove a passenger who had already boarded with a valid ticket solely for the reason that they wanted to give the seat to an airline employee instead. If you take away all the context, then of course nothing will make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/44 "2017-09-28T02:05:18Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I did read that. And it says “Denied Boarding” But she was already aboard. A point that was repeatedly made in the thread about the United Flight. From all the information I’ve seen, it seems that she did not say anything about her alleged allergies until she was already on the airplane. I think you’re taking the word “board” too strongly; do you think the airline is legally or otherwise prevented from removing her from the plane because she had already boarded? ETA: NM, I saw in a subsequent post where this question was answered. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/45 "2017-09-28T02:19:05Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > This is not what the consensus was. The consensus was that an airline should not be allowed to forcefully remove a passenger who had already boarded with a valid ticket solely for the reason that they wanted to give the seat to an airline employee instead. > > If you take away all the context, then of course nothing will make sense. Sure, that’s okay. What regulation allows them to remove a passenger in this situation? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/46 "2017-09-28T02:20:10Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sure, that’s okay. What regulation allows them to remove a passenger in this situation? What law prevents them? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/47 "2017-09-28T02:23:19Z")
Good answer. But as was made clear in the other thread, there has to be a reason to remove a passenger. They just can’t remove a passenger for no reason because there is no law against it. So again, what law or regulation allows them to remove this passenger? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/48 "2017-09-28T02:28:43Z")
I don’t think the law works that way. Unless there is a law forbidding it, what prevents them? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/49 "2017-09-28T02:33:04Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Good answer. But as was made clear in the other thread, there has to be a reason to remove a passenger. They just can’t remove a passenger for no reason because there is no law against it. So again, what law or regulation allows them to remove this passenger? She claimed that being on the plane was dangerous to her life; it would be negligence to impede her departure in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/50 "2017-09-28T02:34:45Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I don’t think the law works that way. Unless there is a law forbidding it, what prevents them? I thought the same thing. Until it was brought to my attention that Airlines can’t just remove passengers because they want to. I’m not going to argue a position that I don’t hold. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/51 "2017-09-28T02:36:00Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > She claimed that being on the plane was dangerous to her life; it would be negligence to impede her departure in any way. Sure, you say that. But what legal reason did the airline have to remove her? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/52 "2017-09-28T02:39:36Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sure, you say that. But what legal reason did the airline have to remove her? Their legal responsibility for a passenger’s safety. Findlaw states (here [http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-a-common-carrier.html](http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-a-common-carrier.html)), that “common carriers must exercise the utmost care and diligence with respect to their passengers” - so as soon as they learned that a passenger was in danger, removing that passenger from the danger was needed. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/53 "2017-09-28T02:42:50Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Their legal responsibility for a passenger’s safety. That’s cool. Why didn’t they remove the things that were causing her discomfort? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/54 "2017-09-28T02:46:52Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That’s cool. Why didn’t they remove the things that were causing her discomfort? As previously discussed, that’s impossible; any dander the dogs may have shed was already on the plane. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/55 "2017-09-28T02:51:56Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > As previously discussed, that’s impossible; any dander the dogs may have shed was already on the plane. I see. So there is a rule that says “If there is dander in the plane, people who are allergic to said dander can be removed from the plane”? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/56 "2017-09-28T02:57:05Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I see. So there is a rule that says “If there is dander in the plane, people who are allergic to said dander can be removed from the plane”? Not as far as I know - but as I mentioned there is a rule that says an airline must protect its passengers. Here we have a passenger claiming to be in deadly danger from something that can not be removed from the plane; therefore, removing the passenger is the only alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/57 "2017-09-28T02:59:34Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Not as far as I know - but as I mentioned there is a rule that says an airline must protect its passengers. > > Here we have a passenger claiming to be in deadly danger from something that can not be removed from the plane; therefore, removing the passenger is the alternative. Why can’t the the “something” be removed from the plane? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/58 "2017-09-28T03:03:57Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why can’t the the “something” be removed from the plane? Dander spreads around, clinging to clothing and seats, and spreading through the air. it may be possible to remove enough of it to make the plane safe for a person with a deadly allergy, but it would take substantial time - and making the endangered person remain in danger for this time would be negligent. Anyway, though I’ve enjoyed batting this around, I do have to get some sleep, so I probably won’t respond until tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/59 "2017-09-28T03:35:48Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > Seems strange to not bring the necessary medication/documentation when you travel if you really have a life-threatening allergy. Yes. Speaking as someone with serious allergies, I have emergency meds pretty much anytime I go on a trip, frequently even during day-to-day activities, and also keep them next to my bed at night. And mine aren’t even on the life-threatening level for environmental exposure like sitting next to someone holding the allergen. People with a life-threatening allergy to something that might be found in an environment, like animal dander, tend to have things like medic-alert bracelets and epi-pens. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And how do they apologize the next time she pulls this shit-Let her sit up front with the captain? My guess is that she was trying to force them into putting her in first class away from the animals, and they either didn’t take the hint or first class was full. As already noted, this was Southwest. There is no first class. > [@Slash1972](#): > > In the thread about the guy being forcefully removed from a United flight, the prevailing consensus was they had no right to remove him. What right did Southwest have in this instance to remove the woman? Safety. Airlines can get away with a lot of stuff if they can invoke “safety”, and that’s actually not unreasonable. Medical emergencies at 30,000 feet add an extra dimension of excitement and deadliness you just don’t get on the ground. At cruise altitude the airplane is roughly a half an hour from landing anywhere because doing so faster can jeopardize the rest of the passengers and crew. As soon as you say “I have a life-threatening medical condition that may occur during this flight” the airline is going to remove you and probably not want you back until a doctor can certify you can fly with minimal chance of dropping dead or going into an acute crisis at altitude. Airlines don’t want dead passengers, it’s even worse PR than hauling the unwilling off the airplane. > [@Senegoid](#): > > So if she had had all the right paperwork, she could have gotten her injection? Huh? :dubious: > > Do airlines routinely carry those kinds of medicines on-board, with crew qualified to administer them? I am _guessing_ the injection referred to is an epi-pen, which airplanes may well carry as part of an emergency kit. You don’t use them as a preventive, you use them after a life-threatening reaction has started. Use of such a medication to prevent a reaction is inappropriate. They’re very easy to use, and using them for a life-threatening reaction is pretty much in the same category as CPR and ADF’s - if the situation calls for them even the untrained should make an attempt to use them because otherwise the patient will most likely be dead. It’s a nothing-to-lose scenario. You don’t use them unless things are getting that bad. The other downside is that epi-pen injections typically only last about 15 minutes, after which you have to give another one. Serious allergic reactions, though, can easily last 48-72 hours… the epi-pen is NOT really what is needed to treat that, all it does is buy you some time to get the patient to where other medications can be administered to get the reaction under control, as well as any other needed supportive medical care, like an ICU or ventilator. > [@](#): > > It was already questioned up-thread why she didn’t have her meds with her (a remark, BTW, that I didn’t see mentioned in the linked article). But personal meds or no meds, and paperwork or no paperwork, why should the airline have been expected to have or administer any meds? As far as I can see, nobody has asked _that_ obvious question yet. Because if someone is having a life-threatening allergic reaction they might be unconscious and unable to self-inject? Because when someone has a life-threatening emergency on an airplane we all sort of hope _someone_ will try to do _something_ to save a life? Same reason we’d probably expect flight crews to know CPR and some basic first aid? Kits aboard airliners contain things as basic as aspirin and bandaids and as complex and automatic defibrillators and IV equipment. Flight crews are not trained on all aspects of using the more advanced stuff and will ask any medical personnel on board to help in an emergency. All of this is required because, as I said, if you’re in cruise you will _at least_ a half an hour between you and an ambulance on the ground to take the passenger/patient to an ER, and in some circumstances (ocean-traversing flights, for example), _hours_ away from landing no matter what. If you collapse on a flight the crew will try to save your life, but if the airline knows before take-off you might have a life-threatening emergency they will attempt to prevent the potential problems and emergency by simply removing you from the airplane until you can be certified reasonably safe to fly. > [@Slash1972](#): > > I see. So there is a rule that says “If there is dander in the plane, people who are allergic to said dander can be removed from the plane”? No, but there ARE rules stating the flight crew can do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of those aboard. It is impractical to remove animal dander on short notice from an aircraft - just ask anyone how easy it is to remove dog hair from a cloth upholstered sofa. Much easier and faster to remove the person who is a severe medical risk than annoy everyone else on board to to get a different, dander-and-hair-free airplane. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/60 "2017-09-28T03:44:13Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > It is impractical to remove animal dander on short notice from an aircraft - just ask anyone how easy it is to remove dog hair from a cloth upholstered sofa. Much easier and faster to remove the person who is a severe medical risk than annoy everyone else on board to to get a different, dander-and-hair-free airplane. I agree. But can you point to the law or regulation that allows the airline to remove such a passenger? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453.md?page=4)