Southwest removes another passenger-but why are they apologizing for it?

[Alley_Dweller]

Well, the woman has finally made a public statement, through her attorneys, giving her side of what happened.
Washington Post: Southwest says she was forced off a plane after a dispute over dog allergies. The woman has a very different account.

In a statement released Wednesday, Daulatzai’s attorneys charged that she was “profiled, abused, interrogated, detained, and subjected to false reporting and the trauma of racist, vitriolic public shaming precisely because she is a woman, a person of color, and a Muslim.”… “Her mistreatment was particularly distressing because she is presently pregnant with her first child.”
…

Daulatzai had discussed her non-life-threatening dog allergies with Southwest crew members soon after boarding the aircraft, her attorneys say. But shortly after she had taken a seat at a safe distance from the dogs toward the back of the plane, a Southwest representative approached her, asking her to leave the plane…
Bill Dumas, the passenger who recorded the incident and uploaded it to YouTube, told NBC News that while the police were being “overly aggressive,” Daulatzai was also combative and “wasn’t giving [the officers] much of a choice.”

[Doctor_Jackson]

So it seems that neither the police version nor hers is a full accounting. Whoda thunk?

[Czarcasm]

@Doctor_Jackson

So it seems that neither the police version nor hers is a full accounting. Whoda thunk?

How did you make that determination? Either one could be a full accounting if the other claim is bullshit.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@Czarcasm

How did you make that determination? Either one could be a full accounting if the other claim is bullshit.

Restating to “…neither Southwest’s version nor hers is a full accounting.” The articles present diametrically opposed stories, with the witness account falling in the middle.

[Czarcasm]

@Doctor_Jackson

Restating to “…neither Southwest’s version nor hers is a full accounting.” The articles present diametrically opposed stories, with the witness account falling in the middle.

One side, and its witnesses, could be pretty much on the mark, while the other side and its witnesses could be prejudicial. It is very rare in life where you come across a situation where two sides are equally correct.

[Pippers]

@Slash1972

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.

It isn’t because they “want to”. Geezus, how does that make sense? The airlines policy is posted within this thread so if you look instead of type you’ll get your answer. Here I’ll help - it’s in their policy.

[doreen]

Daulatzai had discussed her non-life-threatening dog allergies with Southwest crew members soon after boarding the aircraft, her attorneys say. But shortly after she had taken a seat at a safe distance from the dogs toward the back of the plane, a Southwest representative approached her, asking her to leave the plane

So if the allergy was not life-threatening, and she believed she would be fine in the seat she chose as it was far enough away from the dogs, why was she discussing the allergy with the crew to begin with? There are only a few reasons I can think of for discussing the allergy with the crew:

1. She was hoping to get the dogs removed
2. She wanted to be upgraded to first class to be away from the dogs
3. She wanted to change her flight without being charged a fee.
4. By the time her number was called, she was unable to get a seat far enough away and needed the flight attendant to move another passenger so she could be far enough away.

According to her statement, it wasn’t number 1. Southwest doesn’t have first class , so it wasn’t number 2. She didn’t voluntarily leave, so it wasn’t number 3. That only leaves number 4, but you would think if that was the case, she would have mentioned it. ( and no matter what her reason was, she would have a better chance of success if she claimed the allergy was life threatening even if it really wasn’t)

[Doctor_Jackson]

@Czarcasm

One side, and its witnesses, could be pretty much on the mark, while the other side and its witnesses could be prejudicial. It is very rare in life where you come across a situation where two sides are equally correct.

Every situation has truth. What is rare is when all (or any) side tells it.

[Czarcasm]

@Doctor_Jackson

Every situation has truth. What is rare is when all (or any) side tells it.

Sorry, but there just isn’t a “Universal Law of Equal Blame”, no matter how much professional fence-sitters wish it to be so.