Taking a sleeping pill may not be a good idea.....

I think it's appropriate for the airline to expect passengers to be alert at takeoff and landing. I can see the need for flight attendants to assess passengers' apparent health before leaving the ground. For once, I'm siding with the airline.

Seems pretty harsh, especially after having him assessed. I know I have often napped during takeoff.

I agree. The crew was 100% right. The passenger was in the wrong. All the whining about "humiliation" and being "so emotionally hurt" is nonsense.

Would you want to be near that passenger if an emergency occurred? Not me. Airline 1, zonked out passenger 0.

Many very well traveled people take an Ambien an hour or so after takeoff, and essentially intend to sleep through the flight. It happens all the time. The pill only lasts for an hour or so, but the sleep lasts longer.

So you are going to determine all this how? Set up an obstacle course before security and if you can't clear it within x seconds you don't even get to go through security?

I know at least a dozen seniors who can run circles around teenage supposedly fit people without even breathing hard.

I see flight attendants on several airlines who can barely fit down the aisle (on my last flight, one actually got stuck!).

I'm all for leaving the infants and other children at home. Or at least require the parents buy them their own seat instead of holding them in a lap.

So you are going to determine all this how?

US airlines are governed by the Title 14 CFR addressing exit seating. But the CFR is performance oriented as to what a person seated in an exit row must be capable of performing. For example, persons prohibited from being seated in an exit row are persons who would be unable to perform one or more of the applicable functions listed :

(1) The person lacks sufficient mobility, strength, or dexterity in
both arms and hands, and both legs:

(i) To reach upward, sideways, and downward to the location of
emergency exit and exit-slide operating mechanisms;

(ii) To grasp and push, pull, turn, or otherwise manipulate those
mechanisms;

(iii) To push, shove, pull, or otherwise open emergency exits;

(iv) To lift out, hold, deposit on nearby seats, or maneuver over the
seatbacks to the next row objects the size and weight of over-wing
window exit doors.... etc etc etc

The CFR explicitly notes:

certificate holder shall make the passenger exit seating
determinations required by this paragraph in a non-discriminatory
manner consistent with the requirements....

For example, the regulation does not explicitly prohibit seating of overweight old people in an exit row. The regulation puts carriers in a difficult position of not offending paying passengers who don't look good for the possible evacuation tasks. I believe that some carriers do not allow passengers requring a seat belt extension to sit in an exit row, but that is not a Federal requiremet.

No one was talking about exit row specifically. Rather anywhere on the plane. An extremely obese person walking down the aisle who makes hard contact with the seats on both side would definitely impede others trying to exit no matter what exit they were trying to get to.

Some airlines (Alaska and American to name two) have mandatory second seat purchases for wide passengers. If you can't fit the standard seat with arm rest down, you need to buy two seats. For other airlines, the second seat seems to be a suggestion. For those airlines, normal width passengers should get aisle seats so that they are not trapped by a wide bodied passenger.

One thing that puzzled me about this incident is that airline personnel had the passenger checked by a Nurse and two Paramedics, all of whom said the passenger was fit to continue with the flight. Why did the flight crew even bother getting him checked if it was always their intention to give him the boot? Why did the flight crew ignore the advice of medical professionals, given the fact the crew isn't as qualified to make medical decisions? I've responded to medical emergencies during flights, and the crew were always very appreciative of the help they received, and willing to follow the recommendations of people with a higher level of training. In this case, that didn't happen.

Seems to me having the opinion of several medical personnel that the person was OK will not play well in court for the airline if this case reaches there.

It appears the crew already decided they just didn't want the passenger on the plane. Maybe we haven't heard the entire story and there were other issues such as attitude of the passenger that annoyed the crew. Or maybe the crew just felt like being jerks.

Airline is in a bad position, Bad PR for booting the sleeping passenger off the plane. Bad RP if the aircraft had an unscheduled landing for a medical emergency.

I was on one flight that had to return to gate because of a passenger in medical distress. After a long que getting to take-off we were one or two to go when we returned. Passenger felt better after the airport paramedics checked her and wanted to continue. Paramedics made her get off saying that she already delayed a full flight of passengers and wasn't going to do it again. We were happy she seemed ok but even happier to finally depart.

Also bad for an impaired passenger in the event of an emergancy evaculation. Take offs and landings are the most hazardous but surivable phase of the flight. A no win for all involved.

Kaeleku,

WOW...I hope you're just being sarcastic.

I would never take a sleeping pill on the plane. Numerous reasons, one is that I don't trust it, but more importantly, totally unnecessary, I don't have to resort to that in order to sleep.

I rather fall asleep after the plane is airborne, but almost half the time when the plane is actually taking off, I'm already asleep.

Since takeoff and landing are statistically the most hazardous part of a flight, perhaps that's why the flight crew wanted an alert passenger?

https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/when-most-fatal-accidents-occur-on-flights