Captain: I don't have any, but United will have no trouble finding me. My name is...[removed].
Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? The captain made a wrongheaded decision, and he should at the very least have his name attached to it.
> Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way?
Legal liability. The author could be sued for defamation of character if any of the details are wrong, or in the case that a truthful account emphasizes negatives over positives, something called "false light". Some readers may find this hard to believe, but it's true:
Well, yes, that's also true -- many people don't want to cause unintended hurt by way of poorly considered words. But (in the U.S. at least, and certainly Great Britain) a diplomatic expression that includes an unfair characterization can result in legal action.
"Bob isn't so bad -- after all, it's said that he's stopped beating his wife."
I really resent the way you used "victim" and "aggressor" there. Really quite manipulative.
As the article its self said, from the captain's perspective he was likely always going to believe a FA over a pax, in particular if the FA claimed the pax wasn't being cooperative.
Now if the quotes were accurate I think the captain was quite rude, but we really don't know what the FA said to the captain, maybe he got the impression the guy was being a massive ass.
But regardless, the author was very professional for not releasing the name. It adds nothing to the story. It would just be petty revenge.
The author contracted carriage in exchange for money, and the captain refused to honor that contract. The author was a victim. The captain was an aggressor. Those are facts, not opinions, and they're not manipulative. It's your prerogative to resent them, but they remain facts.
It's interesting that you seem to be claiming the captain wasn't an aggressor, but then believe that giving his name to his actions would be "petty revenge."
And the terms and conditions of said contract would state that the captain has the absolute right to remove anyone from the flight.
Edit: Reference. RULE 21 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT in United's Contract of Carriage [1] outlines UA's right to "remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger
for the following reasons". The reasons are, as you would expect, broad and vague, essentially giving UA cover to remove anyone from the flight.
The one I expect they would cite in this instance is:
H4: "Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;"
Other fun conditions that UA have felt the need to enumerate:
21:H5 Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
21:H16 Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition
I wouldn't say the captain is an "aggressor". He made a bad decision, probably due to incomplete or wrong information he was given. So this is not entirely his fault, he shouldn't take 100% of the blame, and he deserves to have his name hidden.
Because if it did not happen exactly the way the OP wrote it - and he has the ability to prove it, he might get himself in real trouble that way.
I do not know the US law in that case, but in Germany, the captain then could go to court on terms of "wrong accusation" and the OP would have to prove his accusations.
The Captain is always right, that's why. There are no customers on an airplane: only weight. They're not customers again until they're walking up the gangway ..
Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? The captain made a wrongheaded decision, and he should at the very least have his name attached to it.