No it isn't. Interfering with flight attendants could cause stress and delays even cause a plane to get diverted, which could cause lost time and money for all. Someone has to be the authority and have the final say while in the air and they're trained for it. If you don't agree with their decision you can dispute it with higher ups once you're off the plane.
These laws have been around a long time. On 11/16/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally think that rule is asinine. > > The rule "don't fuck with the airplanes" was intended to handle > TERRORISM. Not bad behavior or someone demanding extra peanuts. > > Could their actions EVER be misinterpreted as TERRORISM? > > The very fact that so few people care about what I consider a true > loss of freedom, that you all think that giving up basic freedoms in > the name of security is perfectly sensible, does truly scare me. > > We seem to have lost "common sense" in all of this. That is what > frightens me. There is no rationality left in all of this. > > And no, how they get punished is NOT up to their lawyers. With the > very heavy handed rules and laws now in place against TERRORISM, which > we were assured before they passed them would NEVER get used for > things not TERRORIST related, they have very few options. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:220858 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
