Scientifically speaking "Nut Rage " is a FACT. That too few have understanding of this, is well, just awful.
Yes. It very much would be farfetched. Farfetched, fictional, farcical, funny, and far from fact also fill my fetch.
Perhaps if we knew the details of what the specifics of everybodyâs job descriptions and contracts involved. None of this which was available to those running JFK airport where it occurred.
Thereâs a long history with ships, and a shorter(but heavily analogized from ships) history with aircraft, of a sort of localized reconfiguration of the hierarchy of command.
In the context of HR stuff, assigning Pilot X to fly route Y, setting policies regarding whether you get peanuts or pretzels, etc. yeah, certainly, HQ has broad latitude. However, when a ship or aircraft is considered to be âat seaâ or âin flightâ, the crew(in their capacity as ânot getting themselves and all the passengers killed professionalsâ) tends to be accorded substantially greater authority, with the captain at the top of that chain. In the context of operating the aircraft for the duration of the flight, the crew effectively outrank everyone. This power does not extend to non-flight related matters, like awarding themselves new titles and raises; but if it has a reasonable connection to the safety and operation of the aircraft, odds are that it is their call.
The authority is bounded, itâs still his job to fly from point A to point B(unless he deems it necessary to divert to another airport because of mechanical failures, fuel issues, or other emergencies), and it isnât going to go well for him if a review concludes that his conduct as a pilot was reckless, negligent, etc; but merely being higher on the org chart wouldnât let the CEO grab the throttle and start doing barrel rolls.
That is where daddyâs little princess really screwed up. I suspect that she would have had more or less unlimited latitude for tyrannical office politics and general messing-with-peons in the office; but once that aircraft left the terminal, the laws of the air applied, and the relevant authorities take a very, very, dim view of interference with flight crews, whether by random drunken passengers or high level executives.
Had she waited until the flight had landed and everyone had deplaned and then forced him to grovel in public for his job, or something like that, she probably would have been legally clear. On the plane, not so much.
It is quite true that the US courts had nothing to do with this case; but interfering with flight crew is a bad idea in most jurisdictions. Hard to say what actually would have happened; but 14 CFR 121.580 similarly frowns on messing with the flight crew in an American context. She didnât, so we had nothing to do with the matter; but you could probably score a similar sentence here by causing enough of a fuss.
âUh-oh, looks like weâre in for⌠more turbulence!â
#PEANUTS ARENâT NUTSÂ
ahem, readies myself for a terrible joke that no one will laugh at
YOUR NUTS!!
"I can clearly see "
The doctor looked up with surprise. His next patient, a sea captain that had been in many a time before had just walked in. âI⌠Why⌠Ahem. There seems to be a shipâs wheel stuck to your groinâ, he finally managed to say.
" Aye," replied the old salt, âitâs driving me nuts.â
Oh, bravo!
True story: I once told that joke to Jesse Helms. He didnât get it. He was polite about it. But he didnât get it.
When youâre South Korean, in Seoul, youâre not âa foreign businesspersonâ.
Did you have your coffee this AM?
This was my error based upon not reading the entire article. I read what she was charged with, and where it happened. I wasnât aware that she was charged and tried in South Korea.
We do things a bit more chill on the Merkel Party Plane.
Well thatâs not very respectful of the commenting community.
Everyone has opinions. Maybe make sure the ones shared are about the story?
To be so passive about responsibilities, while acting so assertively with rights, it is rather passive aggressive. Itâs the very definition of it. Not castigating your character, just explaining the hostile responses.
I tend to agree. I think there is an element of trial by social media in this.
The relevant trial was in the court, where she was found guilty and sentenced to prison.
Gossip is not âsocial mediaâ. Gossip is what happens when you get sentenced to prison.
Logical consequence, not conspiracy
