# 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:** 4
**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, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/61 "2017-09-28T04:02:48Z")
Are you asking if there’s a specific law that says “An airline can remove a passenger allergic to animals if there are animals aboard the flight”? No, nothing that specific. However, there are _numerous_ regulations regarding flight safety that can be invoked for many scenarios. The most extreme regulation is probably the following: \*14 CFR 91.3a: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. 14 CFR 91.3b: In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.\* Now, that explicitly covers emergencies that are presently occurring, however, a good lawyer could probably stretch that to immediately removing a passenger at risk of a life-threatening reaction from the vicinity of what could trigger that reaction. That regulation right there pretty much gives a pilot the option to break any and all rules as required to deal with an emergency. In the past that has been extended to allowing the breaking of laws (trespassing, landing anywhere other than an airport, etc.) during flight emergencies if doing so is done to safe lives and protect safety. There are a bunch of other rules pertaining to safety as well, although I’m not familiar with those that explicitly refer to airline operations. ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/62 "2017-09-28T04:05:51Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I agree. But can you point to the law or regulation that allows the airline to remove such a passenger? Point to the law or regulation that says they cannot. There is nothing preventing them from denying service to a potential passenger they cannot safely serve. An airline would be unbelievably foolish to allow to fly a potential passenger that claims that the conditions of their flight will be life threatening. Airlines won’t even let you fly [too pregnant](http://www.tsatraveltips.us/flying-while-pregnant/) without a written sign off from a doctor. And why not just deboard the pet owners? Well why them? They paid too, and leaving aside the debate over the validity of emotional support animals, at least one of the pet owners was simply taking advantage of the available-to-anyone opportunity to bring a pet carrier on board for additional fee. And as pointed out, even if for some reason the pet owners volunteered to get off, the airline would still probably deboard the allergy complainer since as far as they know, she’s _still_ potentialy subject to a fatal allergy attack because the dogs were on the plane moments earlier and there’s been no deep cleaning. Last but not least, someone with life threatening dog allergies should not get on any plane, ever. The cleaning standards on aircraft don’t even rise to the level of effort I put into cleaning my dorm room in college. No way did they sanitize anything after the last dog passenger on the previous flight. It’s all contaminated. ---
**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, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/63 "2017-09-28T04:15:22Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Are you asking if there’s a specific law that says “An airline can remove a passenger allergic to animals if there are animals aboard the flight”? No, nothing that specific. Then why should they be removed? ---
**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, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/64 "2017-09-28T04:17:02Z")
> [@Pork\_Rind](#): > > Point to the law or regulation that says they cannot. There is nothing preventing them from denying service to a potential passenger they cannot safely serve. An airline would be unbelievably foolish to allow to fly a potential passenger that claims that the conditions of their flight will be life threatening. > > Airlines won’t even let you fly [too pregnant](http://www.tsatraveltips.us/flying-while-pregnant/) without a written sign off from a doctor. > > And why not just deboard the pet owners? Well why them? They paid too, and leaving aside the debate over the validity of emotional support animals, at least one of the pet owners was simply taking advantage of the available-to-anyone opportunity to bring a pet carrier on board for additional fee. And as pointed out, even if for some reason the pet owners volunteered to get off, the airline would still probably deboard the allergy complainer since as far as they know, she’s _still_ potentialy subject to a fatal allergy attack because the dogs were on the plane moments earlier and there’s been no deep cleaning. > > Last but not least, someone with life threatening dog allergies should not get on any plane, ever. The cleaning standards on aircraft don’t even rise to the level of effort I put into cleaning my dorm room in college. No way did they sanitize anything after the last dog passenger on the previous flight. It’s all contaminated. This doesn’t explain why the airline should make a person allergic to dog dander get off the plane and not the people with dogs. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/65 "2017-09-28T04:43:29Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I agree. But can you point to the law or regulation that allows the airline to remove such a passenger? There are several relevant federal regulations relating to whether an air carrier may deny a traveler transportation based upon a medical condition. > [@](#): > > CFR §382.19 May carriers refuse to provide transportation on the basis of disability? > (a) As a carrier, you must not refuse to provide transportation to a passenger with a disability on the basis of his or her disability, except as specifically permitted by this part. > > (b) You must not refuse to provide transportation to a passenger with a disability because the person’s disability results in appearance or involuntary behavior that may offend, annoy, or inconvenience crewmembers or other passengers. > > **(c) You may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger on the basis of safety, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 44902 or 14 CFR 121.533, or to any passenger whose carriage would violate FAA or TSA requirements** or applicable requirements of a foreign government. > … > > CFR §382.23 May carriers require a passenger with a disability to provide a medical certificate? > (a) Except as provided in this section, you must not require a passenger with a disability to have a medical certificate as a condition for being provided transportation. > > (b)(1) You may require a medical certificate for a passenger with a disability— > … > > **(iii) Whose medical condition is such that there is reasonable doubt that the individual can complete the flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight.** 14 CFR 121.533 provides a huge safety loophole > [@](#): > > Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane. In short, CFR §382.19 permits the refusal to transport a passenger on board safety grounds pursuant to the responsibility of the pilot in command to care for the safety of passengers, crew, and the aircraft. And an airline can require a passenger to provide medical certification of fitness to fly if the passenger’s medical condition is such that it may impose an inability to complete the flight “without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight.” **bolding** mine Enough beating the dead horse already. Please. ---
**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, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/66 "2017-09-28T04:54:16Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I agree. But can you point to the law or regulation that allows the airline to remove such a passenger? I can. [Southwest Airlines Contract of Carriage - Passenger](https://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs/corporate-commitments/contract-of-carriage.pdf) 1. Acceptance of Passengers a. Refusal to Transport General. Carrier may, in its sole discretion, refuse to transport, or may remove from an aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below. (8) Comfort and Safety. Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members: (vii) Any person who cannot be transported safely for any reason. > [@Iggy](#): > > Enough beating the dead horse already. Please. FFS, seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/67 "2017-09-28T05:35:12Z")
> [@Rhiannon8404](#): > > Agree. I googled “life threatening dog allergies” and the only thing I found were references to this incident. I’ve know a few people with pet allergies. They take Benedryl, but they still come over to my house with 2 dogs and 2 cats. I’ve never met someone with a truly life-threatening pet allergy. I had dog allergies for a lot of my life - the dog we got about 20 years ago was going to be returned if I couldn’t take it. I seem to have grown out of them. Cats were worse. But none of it was in any way life threatening. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/68 "2017-09-28T05:46:47Z")
I don’t know about her, but if I had a life threatening allergy to dogs I’d ask the airline if there were any dogs on my flight. Plus, she certainly saw dogs in the boarding area, assuming she arrived reasonably on time. Since people line up nicely on Southwest, dogs would have been fairly obvious. There were some on my last flight. BTW the Guide Dogs for the Blind has a mockup of an airline cabin, just a few rows, in its dorm. You’d be surprised at how big a dog can fit under a seat. My daughter took her guide dog puppy, over a year, on flights all the time. He fit very nicely. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/69 "2017-09-28T07:17:01Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That’s cool. Why didn’t they remove the things that were causing her discomfort? > [@Slash1972](#): > > This doesn’t explain why the airline should make a person allergic to dog dander get off the plane and not the people with dogs. So you propose that, since it’s wrong to force one person off the flight, the airline should have forced _two_ people off the flight. Or were the other passengers just supposed to go on without their dogs and hope they could catch standby on a later flight? Maybe they should have just forced _everyone_ off the flight and flown an empty plane to its destination. Problem solved! ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/70 "2017-09-28T07:20:36Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This doesn’t explain why the airline should make a person allergic to dog dander get off the plane and not the people with dogs. Yes, it does; **Pork Rind** essentially reiterated what several people have already told you. But, once more, with feeling (note the bold/underlined/italicized bits, please): > [@Pork\_Rind](#): > > Point to the law or regulation that says they cannot. There is nothing preventing them from denying service to a potential passenger they cannot safely serve. An airline would be unbelievably foolish to allow to fly a potential passenger that claims that the conditions of their flight will be life threatening. > > Airlines won’t even let you fly [too pregnant](http://www.tsatraveltips.us/flying-while-pregnant/) without a written sign off from a doctor. > > And why not just deboard the pet owners? Well why them? They paid too, and leaving aside the debate over the validity of emotional support animals, at least one of the pet owners was simply taking advantage of the available-to-anyone opportunity to bring a pet carrier on board for additional fee. And as pointed out, even if for some reason the pet owners volunteered to get off, the airline would still probably deboard the allergy complainer since as far as they know, \*\*\*she’s still potentialy subject to a fatal allergy attack because the dogs were on the plane moments earlier and there’s been no deep cleaning. > > Last but not least, someone with life threatening dog allergies should not get on any plane, ever. The cleaning standards on aircraft don’t even rise to the level of effort I put into cleaning my dorm room in college. No way did they sanitize anything after the last dog passenger on the previous flight. It’s all contaminated.\*\*\* Do you not get it? The plane is already contaminated with dog dander. It was probably already contaminated with dog dander before the two people on that flight with dogs even boarded, from people with dogs _ **on previous flights** _. For _ **any** _ person with sufficiently sensitive allergies, routine airline cleaning _ **does not** _ remove sufficient pet dander to allow someone claiming to have life-threatening allergies to continue boarding and take that flight. Removing the two dog owners already on that flight does nothing to alleviate the danger to Little-Miss-Lethal-Allergy; the only safe alternative is to remove L-M-L-A for her own safety. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/71 "2017-09-28T07:52:36Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Enough beating the dead horse already. Please. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > FFS, seriously. Thirded. The equine is well and truly deceased. ---
**Author:** ![ioioio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ioioio/32/316_2.png) [@ioioio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ioioio)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/72 "2017-09-28T08:31:02Z")
She’s been arrested. [Charges filed against passenger who complained of allergies](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-southwest-airlines-woman-removed-20170927-story.html) > [@](#): > > Anila Daulatzai of Baltimore was taken into custody and charged with disorderly conduct, failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order, disturbing the peace, obstructing and hindering a police officer and resisting arrest, said Lt. Kevin Ayd of the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/73 "2017-09-28T11:59:27Z")
Why are people with truly life threatening allergies getting on any filthy airplane? I mean, they are nasty dirty, truly. At best the average airplane gets a little vacuum while on the ground, and the litter and trash picked up. And these planes are in constant motion around the globe, with very little, if any, down time. It seems like it would be a disaster for anyone with truly life threatening allergies to me. Like, even if there’s no dog on this flight, there could have been a dog on your seat when this plane flew in. And it hasn’t been cleaned, in any way. It just seems odd to me. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/74 "2017-09-28T12:19:19Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > I meant in regards to pets. And as I noted in my post, animal dander can trigger fatal asthma attacks. So yes, allergies to pets _can_ be so severe that they are fatal. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/75 "2017-09-28T12:32:16Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Enough beating the dead horse already. Please. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > FFS, seriously. I take this to mean that we should _not_ stop beating the dead horse, considering the source of the affirmation. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/76 "2017-09-28T12:35:28Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. THIS.^ Is there a name for the apparent law or principle that people who seem to be the least legitimately affected by something, tend to be the most vocal in presenting themselves as victims needing to be accommodated? :rolleyes: If not, allow me to offer the Dinsdale presumption! 🆒 Yeah, an overstatement, likely reflecting anecdote over fact. But most of the most impaired folk I know are the most independent and the least seeking of assistance/accommodation… ---
**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, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/77 "2017-09-28T14:43:26Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Then why should they be removed? In descending order of moral importance: 1. To protect the health, safety, and life of the passenger who is at high risk of a medical emergency, and 2. To protest the other passengers, because deviating from the planned flight for a medical emergency does carry a small additional risk, and 3. Diverting for medical emergencies is inconvenient, can anger passengers, and is always more expensive than a normal, uneventful flight. If you’re going by financial importance the order is 3, 1, and 2. ---
**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, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/78 "2017-09-28T14:45:53Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This doesn’t explain why the airline should make a person allergic to dog dander get off the plane and not the people with dogs. Removing the people with the dogs does not remove dog hair and dander already on the airplane. In order to do that you’d have to remove _everyone_ and have a cleaning crew work over the cabin thoroughly, then re-board the airplane. Removing just the allergic passenger avoids the problem of life-threatening emergency and inconveniences far fewer people. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/79 "2017-09-28T15:07:43Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > Are you asking if there’s a specific law that says “An airline can remove a passenger allergic to animals if there are animals aboard the flight”? No, nothing that specific. > > Then why should they be removed? I don’t believe there’s a specific law forbidding you from murdering me with a spear. But if there’s something that forbids murder _in general,_ that’s enough, right? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453/80 "2017-09-28T18:02:11Z")
> [@Rhiannon8404](#): > > Agree. I googled “life threatening dog allergies” and the only thing I found were references to this incident. I’ve know a few people with pet allergies. They take Benedryl, but they still come over to my house with 2 dogs and 2 cats. I’ve never met someone with a truly life-threatening pet allergy. One of my classmates had a lot of plant allergies, enough that he couldn’t come on the field trip to the botanic garden and his friends all knew what to do if he had a bad allergy attack while out and about. He eventually became allergic to cats; they found out when his father (whose veterinary practice the son had joined after finishing school) had to call an ambulance for him. He’s now an air controller. Much safer. There are no known allergies to computer screens. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southwest-removes-another-passenger-but-why-are-they-apologizing-for-it/797453.md?page=5)