I listened to an interview with the airline employees and that is not what they stated happened. According to them, they didn't ask them to leave only in order to make the other passengers comfortable. There was MUCH more to it than that.



>>>>>>Hi Jim.
>>>>>>Isn't it the airline's ultimate discretion to serve who they want? Flying is not a constitutional right... I don't think. So, if you make the majority of the passengers uncomfortable, then I would think it is the right of any company to not serve you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like many restaurants have a sign in the front that states "Notice: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe so. But you have an incorrect condition in your statement - "majority" (of passengers). I, for example, am "uncomfortable" with anyone praying 'in public' outside of a church/mosque/temple/etc but would not be uncomfortable to have them on the same flight as I am on.
>>>>>And, still, why, as the airline, wouldn't I ask the fearful passenger to leave rather than the innocent party?
>>>>
>>>>How do you know they're innocent though!? Too late once you're up there and they pull their obsidian or ceramic weapons out of their underpants!
>>>
>>>Then we absolutely do not need all the security checking that goes on, do we?
>>>And as I already wrote, pulling any stunt while in flight will, I'm sure (as can be) be met with heavy passenger involvement.
>>>This sounds stupid, but I never put my jacket in the overhead since 9/11, wanting it handy if someone should pull a knife.
>>
>>Personally, I'd prefer not to be a dead hero like those of flight 93. Instead, I'd like the airlines to be a bit paranoid and maybe even overprotective.
>
>I think they are already. And that's fine by me.
>But escorting someone off a plane because someone else is uncomfortable after all security has been done is the wrong reaction. Tell the uncomfortable person to take the next flight.