psa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 447 posts, RR: 20 Posted (3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 31764 times:
I just read a blog where the writer got booted off a UA flight for taking a photo of his seat, which apparently violates some lame photo policy UA has in its inflight magazine.
It's an outrage that the FA got all pissy about taking a harmless photo on a plane. Unfortunately the use of the t-word probably ruined the situation, but the FA's initial behaviour was out of line. The guy should try filling out the complaint at http://www.untied.com/
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 31653 times:
Quoting psa188 (Thread starter): It's an outrage that the FA got all pissy about taking a harmless photo on a plane.
In my opinion, he really pushed it using the t-word when attempting to offer his business card and explanation to the FA later. Sometimes you need to know when to drop it, and realize you aren't going to make a bad situation any better.
I haven't been all that impressed with the blogger in question anyway, so I'll leave my comments there. There's a rather long thread on FT about the blog post, too.
FlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1626 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 31567 times:
Sad that people are petty sometimes. Especially over something so menial. I take that particular photo constantly whenever I fly up front. Never had any make an issue of it.
jayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 31293 times:
UA crews do have a little attitude. Ive noticed it too fairly well when I used to work in BOM airport. Its a hit or miss. Sometimes you get extreme good crew, sometimes you get husbands who fought with their wives and have come onboard
Nevertheless, UA owes him a big apology, and I guess UA can be sued for that?
catiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2279 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 30943 times:
The UA policy is contradictory and, thusly, stupid. UA maintains a Facebook, Instagram, and twitter page in which customers are encouraged to share photos of their UA travel experience. Now how does that square with thei posted policy in their magazine, which by the way no,one ever reads. If this were such an important policy, then why aren't any announcements ever made reminding pax about the no photo rule?
OB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2967 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 30789 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2): In my opinion, he really pushed it using the t-word when attempting to offer his business card and explanation to the FA later. Sometimes you need to know when to drop it, and realize you aren't going to make a bad situation any better.
The flight attendant was definitely overreacting (especially considering the negative publicity that this will get for UA), but the passenger ended up digging his own grave by blurting out "terrorist" on a flight to the Middle East area.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 30634 times:
I'm with the blogger. He's an elite status high value customer.
This FA is probably just shitty he called her out on her actions, then embarrassed (obviously by running away,
if she firmly believed she was in the right she wouldn't have felt the need to hide) by her obvious over reaction.
This kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated. This is the exact kind of customer any company wants to retain. A
high value one that is also a high repeat customer. Now after this experience, lets say the guy decides to fly
on a long flight up the front on a carrier like Etihad, Emirates, singapore or even Thai? It ain't rocket science to
know what happens next. United permanently loses the customer where there is a choice. It's staff like this, who have forgotten that these people pay their wages ultimately, that are the dead wood in the system.
ba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8267 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 30462 times:
Now he should not have used the T word, that was a stupid move, that aside, it just shows how Americans have become scared of their own shadow, it's really quite sad this once great nation now views every move by others as something potentially dangerous.
AS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 30454 times:
As soon as you mention the word terrorist and the Captain will probably trust his flight crew more than a frequent flier, he kind of dug his own grave as soon as he mentioned that. A flight attendant on UA responded to his posting and mentioned how pre-flight that the crew is strained due to preparation for departure. It probably would have been best to deal with the incident after arrival in Istanbul. Just my 2 cents.
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6191 posts, RR: 79 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 30377 times:
That ridiculous photo policy - no matter how they may interprete it - and the behavior of these crew members are two reasons why I will not consider flying UA again. What a shame.
Harmonium From Denmark, joined Feb 2012, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 30122 times:
Isn't it ridiculous that you cannot even mention the word 'terrorist' anymore? I certainly think so. Come on, it's not like(according to his statement) he was yelling about terrorism and bombs throughout the aircraft. From what I can read he quietly explained the situation and his reasons for taking photos on board. I don't think I would've even cared about the use of that particular word in that context. Given, we only have his side of the story right now. Would be interesting to hear from fellow passengers or crew - the latter which is highly unlikely.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 30034 times:
Quoting AS739BSI (Reply 9): that the crew is strained due to preparation for departure.
They're strained simply by doing the job that they are trained and paid for? What a pathetic excuse. The FA could simply have said, "I'll come back after take off and we can talk about it then." If the blogger's version of events are correct and the FA did lie, that can not be justified by being a bit flustered because you have to check the overhead lockers are shut and someone's iPhone is off.
And even if he did use the word terrorist, does your average terrorist say, "I am a terrorist: here is my business card."? Simply training crew to react to certain words taken out of context is stupid. Listen to the whole sentence and it becomes clear that a person isn't a threat. No, if the blogger's version is true, this is yet another example of the abuse of power by someone who doesn't like to be questioned.
Someone once remarked that the problem with common sense is that it isn't all that common. The blogger showed a lack of sense in choosing to discuss the matter at that point pre departure. The FA showed it by choosing to escalate rather than defuse.
toobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 673 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 29955 times:
After living in the US for over 20 years I've come to realize and accept that there is a huge book of words one should not use. Ironic being the land of the free and freedom of speech. Far from. This is another example of a senior dinosaur FA using pity power holding techniques.
RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 773 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 29787 times:
Even eliminating the word "terrorist," don't many of us when going through the airport and security and then putting up with half-read edicts by the airlines, feel like we are being terrorised?
fca767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 29645 times:
Quoting toobz (Reply 13):
After living in the US for over 20 years I've come to realize and accept that there is a huge book of words one should not use. Ironic being the land of the free and freedom of speech. Far from. This is another example of a senior dinosaur FA using pity power holding techniques.
FlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1626 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 29587 times:
I thought about it, so what if he used the word terrorist. He didn't make a joke he was explaining himself. I think that he went out of his way to ensure that his actions WOULD'T be misconstrued by pulling her to the side after the initial confrontation.
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4355 posts, RR: 20 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29547 times:
Flight Attendants don't want to dance with you or have conversations with you, they want you to sit down, shut up and do what they tell you to do. It's been like this since 9/11. AA can be just as brutal as UA is in this regard.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29544 times:
Fascinating how many fellow passengers have come forward in the comments' section of his blog, including the other guy who got a dressing down for taking a picture. While I took the report by the guy himself with a pinch of salt, the comments by fellow passengers seem to corroborate the story.
Honestly, FAs who feel that their main task is policing the aircraft by citing non-existing regulation and overinterpreting the company's T&C hidden somemwhere in the small print of the in-flight magazine (how about non-English speaking passengers, by the way?) have missed their job and they should consider working as a deputy with the local sheriff rather than in a customer service function. Yes, they are there for the safety of the plane, but this task should be understood as part of their job as a customer service representative. All too often nowadays rude and unprofessional behavior and the lack of common sense is excused with the "security" / "9/11" mantra. Quite honestly, if FAs are still so traumatized about 9/11 that they kick into full SWAT mode when the t-word is used in a completely inncoent context, they should better do a desk job on the ground.
rwsea From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3017 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29424 times:
Completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter if any "buzzword" was used by the passenger. He was trying to explain himself and establish a rapport with the crew. Busy or not with pre-take off activities, the FAs are first and foremost in a service position and need to conduct themselves with professionalism and honesty.
Personally, my view is that once they knew about the photos and the blog, they just didn't want to deal with the guy anymore. When you know that your lazy and apathetic service is going to be documented for the world to see, wouldn't you want to get rid of the "problem" too?!
fca767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29264 times:
Quoting type-rated (Reply 17): Flight Attendants don't want to dance with you or have conversations with you, they want you to sit down, shut up and do what they tell you to do. It's been like this since 9/11. AA can be just as brutal as UA is in this regard.
Then they lose their customers...i want a dance with f/a's and i'll go to singapore, thai for that
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12338 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28548 times:
I could understand not allowing pictures without permission of anywhere near the cockpit area or of crew members for security reasons (UA lost 2 planes in 9/11) and not taking pictures when electronic items cannot be used during flight. F/A's and other crew may want no pictures for personal security and privacy reasons. UA may also have this ban to prevent the collection of proprietary information for use by competitors in the way they have their planes set up and as to security procedures. Also banning pictures prevents 'evidence' of alleged bad service, annoying other pax with camera flashes and those that want privacy, not wanting their picture taken without their permission.
Yes, it may be a stupid rule and could use some reasonable revision, I am quite sure many take pictures without any hassle or discipline by the F/A's, but some may see the policy as so absolute and their job to be strict as to it to keep their jobs, looking like a hero to their bosses.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 27619 times:
They can make rules as much as they like, these rules have to hold up with common law. There was a similar issue in Traons Magazine a couple of months ago about cops approaching train watchers and trying to forbid them making pictures. They have no legal reason, all it needs is politely (and stay polite) ask the officer "what have I done wrong".
Of course no one can take pictures of other persons but a simple seat? Totally unreasonable even to mention.
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 26, posted (3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28137 times:
The FA was extremely rude and power-tripping. (Probably had a bad attitude too.) I'll agree that saying the word "terrorist" in any context won't go over well, considering how paranoid some people who work in aviation are. Then the FA went to run and hide like a coward, after being rude to a passenger, really? Shameful.
As for the captain. Seriously? I understand taking the word of your crew, but threatening a passenger with "calling the police" and "don't make it worse for yourself" is over the top when he just wanted to explain himself. It's not that the captain cared anyway, he already made his mind up, but still.
This is incredibly bad customer service. I would have left them both with a piece of my mind.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 27, posted (3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28177 times:
Just remember there are three sides to any story. Your side, their side and the truth. Please keep in mind I am defending no one with that statement (for the flame throwers out there )
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 28, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 27443 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24):
Of course no one can take pictures of other persons but a simple seat? Totally unreasonable even to mention.
I would say technically they can as it is their property and you are inside their aircraft, so they are exercising property rights (different story if you are taking pictures from someone else's property while out in the public). But once they did, the guy complied.
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 27): Just remember there are three sides to any story. Your side, their side and the truth.
As I mentioned earlier, in the comment's section of the blog a handful of fellow passengers have come forward who describe how the drama unfolded from their point of view. They all support that guys's story and all but one say the FA's behaviour was way over the top (only of one witnesses - while agreeing with the description of the situation - said the blogger should better have shut up instead of trying to talk to the FA).
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 29, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 27236 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28): I would say technically they can as it is their property and you are inside their aircraft
the difference to a chemical plant for instance is, that they are a common carrier and you have paid for a ticket and are legally on board. Taking a picture is common practise for travellers documenting their journey. We have numerous examples under trip reports on this site.
My example with Trains was the same issue, a platform is the property of the transit authority or the railroad. As long as it is public access they cannot deny you taking pictures. It is a constitutional right in the US.
A330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 8 Reply 30, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 27535 times:
As a current Widebody Captain, I feel compelled to participate in this topic.
1) There is NO SUCH THING as words that are forbidden to be told inside an aircraft. You can say bomb, terrorist whatever, as long as you do not claim to be one or have one with you etc.
2) There is NO SUCH THING as forbidding a normal passenger to make a picture of his seat or the aircraft. it might be mentioned somewhere in a magazine, but I do not care, as Captain I, and I do think nearly ALL of my colleguesmwould never disembark a passenger formtakingma picture.
3) I DO kick people out for being rude or agressive to the crew. No exceptions made.
By the way, please stop using this ridiculousm "t-word" it is terrorist .
avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4092 posts, RR: 18 Reply 31, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 27238 times:
1. Tier 8 law school students and young graduates tend to be socially inept and forever feel the need to "prove" themselves and win every argument.
2. Start off any interaction with statements insinuating that you could harm my career through bad publicity and contacts with my bosses, and it likely won't end well for you.
p201055r From Ireland, joined Sep 2011, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 26956 times:
So here we go again!
The decision was made by the aircraft captain - that's what he's paid to do - but seems to have been made having denied the complainant parity of input into the decision process.
Flight crew, whether "up front" or in the cabin are there for a purpose and as passengers we are obliged to follow their instructions when they impinge on the safety of the aircraft or other passengers, not because they make an unbalanced assessment of the activity of a passenger and then hide under the guise of security/safety/breach of the fine print.
We don't give up our rights as humans when we pay for an airline ticket and board the craft, nor do flight crew assume omnipotent status within that aluminium hull!
DTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 541 posts, RR: 2 Reply 33, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 26904 times:
You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem. And no, I won't show you where it says blah-blah in my manual. Manuals are sensitive documents and are not for consumption by anyone other than an authorized company employee.
IF UA has a "no photography" rule then abide by it. We have had flight attendants murdered, stalked, raped, their families harrassed, cars burned and a mess of other problems so no, we would prefer NOT to be photographed unless my company requests it for their own use. Here's a hint--that name on my chest may or may not be my real name. The airline knows who is working on the flight. If you don't like the rule complain in an adult manner--directly to the company. The flight attendant didn't make the rule but she/he does have to enforce it. Doesn't mean we agree with or like it but we are held responsible if we let it slide.
Many airports around the world will not permit photography even for airline geeks like us who just like airplanes.
Make life easy for yourself and just follow the rules.
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 670 posts, RR: 8 Reply 34, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 26730 times:
If an airline is going to have a policy like this it should be plainly worded and understandable and not conflict with itself (you can photograph a "personal event", whatever that is), and be made clear to all passengers PRIOR to boarding (Not just in back of the on-line magazine, which often is never looked at and is not required reading nor is it part of the safety briefing). And it should be applied professionally and without discrimination. United did none of that here. If this went to a court, they would throw it out as a joke.
To assume that because someone is a frequent flyer they know the policy is ludicrous. And to throw off one person for violating it and not another who is also doing it just makes it worse. Also, the person did comply with the request to stop taking pictures. And they still throw him off.
I do agree about the passenger not using the actual word "terrorist" in this day and age. But still, he used it in a reasonable context in a non-threatening manner .The flight attendant over reacted. To have someone removed from a flight, especially one that is so long and is difficult to reroute for the passenger, it should be for behavior that is distinctly disruptive or threatening to the crew or other passengers. That wasn't the case here.
I personally think he was only guilty of maybe being a bit obnoxious by going back to the flight attendant and trying to tell her who he was, but so what. He was still in compliance with their policy once he was notified to stop taking pictures.
Ignorantia juris non excusat- it is the general rule in the United States and most countries in Europe. Indeed, in this case, this is not a legal issue persay, but a policy dispute, and in a service business a company is more apt to be flexible. But just because you didn't know the policy, law, or regulation, does not always mean it is does not apply to you. That's been the basis of society in most Western countries since Roman times. We would live in chaos if it were not, as claimed ignorance of the policy, law, or regulation would excuse almost any behavior.
Now in regard to this thread, remarkably, almost no one has questioned the validity of this account, at least those who have replied to it. Someone posts an alleged incident on a blog, posts a link on here, and it is taken as the truth of the situation where the said employees are guilty until proven innocent. There are two sides to all stories and we have only been exposed to one side of an alleged incident. With technology today where anyone can post almost anything, it's prudent to really filter what you read and consider the source.
Let's just lastly go through United's photo policy. They do allow photos of "personal events" so if I am on my honeymoon to Bermuda, and ask the FA to take a picture of me and my new wife clinking champagne glasses sitting in First, that's covered. Pictures like this happen all the time. Then the next part, where they say you cannot take pictures of video of other passengers without their consent. Makes perfect sense. It's a privacy issue. Then they ban photos or video of employees, equipment, and procedures. Again, a privacy issue for employees, and a safety issue for the airline. This is not out of the ordinary and most companies do not allow customers to film their employees or procedures without consent. Then the last part, where you can not transmit the photo or video while on the flight. Again, nothing out of the ordinary there.
Bottom line, you can take photos on-board United Airlines flights. The key is to get permission. Next time, I would inform the crew of my intentions, and ask for the Captain's permission to take a photo if it is not of a personal nature.
If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1504 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 26577 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28):
As I mentioned earlier, in the comment's section of the blog a handful of fellow passengers have come forward who describe how the drama unfolded from their point of view. They all support that guys's story and all but one say the FA's behaviour was way over the top (only of one witnesses - while agreeing with the description of the situation - said the blogger should better have shut up instead of trying to talk to the FA).
But you have to be careful with that. All of those commentators seemed to be friends (I don't find it to be a coincidence that all the commentators who were on the flight seemed to be in row 18) and frankly we have no clue if they were actually on the plane, their relationship to the blogger (he said he was upgraded, I wonder if he was originally suppose to be seated in row 18 ) or wanting to seem like they were in the know.
tp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 26380 times:
Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 8): Now he should not have used the T word, that was a stupid move, that aside, it just shows how Americans have become scared of their own shadow, it's really quite sad this once great nation now views every move by others as something potentially dangerous.
cambridgeflyer1 From UK - England, joined Jun 2012, 38 posts, RR: 1 Reply 38, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 26279 times:
Don't AA have some silly policy like this? I was at T3 Heathrow taking photos and an AA staff member came and told me to delete all the photos of AA planes. Whats the point?
You are mixing up things here - "Ignorantia juris non excusat" or "nemo censetur ignorare legem" as a legal principle dealing with the ignorance of the law relates to "leges" or "iuris", not to airline policies or terms & conditions. A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline. All this guy violated was a little note hidden somewhere in the in-flight magazine - and once notified of it, he stopped taking pictures. We could discuss if he was in breach of contract if the T&C of UA have a "no photo" clause somewhere with which he - unknowingly - agreed when booking the ticket, but apparently this is not the case. The "no photo" stuff is in their in-flight magazine no one is required to read. And even if you would read it, the wording is so vague that a court of law would find it difficult to justify action taken by UA based on that. Plus, then there is the legal concept of "non concedit venire contra factum proprium" - UA invites people to share their travel experiences with the public by uploading travel pictures.
As we are just at it: Even it the guy violated a law (again: which he did not), "ignorantia juris non excusat" has been limited by the US Supreme Court in Lambert vs. California. In order to be punished, there must be a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime.
Bottom line for me is: UA is selling a service. The customers are paying the wages of the employees and keep the company afloat. Employees therefore should treat customers respectfully. The guy did nothing. He took a picture of his seat, was told to stop it and complied despite the blatant idiocy of the rule. He tried to explain and got booted off the flight, only to be accommodated by a UA ground agent on the next available connection. The action taken by the flight crew was uncalled for and the treatment of the customer was disrespectful. Nobody denies that the crew had the powers to do what they did. But if they exercise their powers, it does not automatically mean that they are right.
iFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 381 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 26102 times:
Okay, here's my issue with the whole use of the word terrorist. No one that actually is what X organization or Y government considers a terrorist is going to think of them selves as a terrorist, they're going to think of them selves as a person fighting for Z cause. I don't think, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, that any terrorist has ever actually identified themselves as a terrorist. So the fact that that word instantly sets off a red light in the mind of a flight attendant is absurd.
awacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1422 posts, RR: 1 Reply 42, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 26053 times:
I almost got booted off an AA A300 in 2002 at JFK for the same thing...and THEY used the t word towards me...a WHITE, skinny 19-year old college student. It was really pathetic.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 43, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25943 times:
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34): IF UA has a "no photography" rule then abide by it. We have had flight attendants murdered, stalked, raped, their
taking pictures of people, regardless if crew or passengers, can be with their consent only. This here was taking pictures of a seat.
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34): You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem.
I love this #1 No, you have agreed to the conditions of carriage which must be in line with common law. In your words, i would have to follow the instructions of a FA if he or she tells me to bark like a dog.
I love this #2. This is my all time favorite, from the land of the free. We have fought through wars here in Europe to become the free society we are. Some people may be privileged, but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege. You pay for a ticket and you have the right to fly. The carrier must honor your ticket and he must compensate you if he cannot deliver the product, i.,e. your flight is delayed. That is a privilege you enjoy in states ruled by the law and not by company regulations.
Besides that, "privileges" are relics of feudal states, police states or other sorts of dictatorships.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 44, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25801 times:
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34): You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem. And no, I won't show you where it says blah-blah in my manual. Manuals are sensitive documents and are not for consumption by anyone other than an authorized company employee.
Right, so this justifies bad service, and attitude to premium passengers who are the backbone of the company's revenue and ultimately pay your wages. What planet are you on? This sounds like an attitude from the soviet era Aeroflot! And you wonder why regular american travellers abandon US carriers for the likes of Emirates thai BA and Qantas like they are going out of fashion. Come on... its a service job... a service industry. Imagine if say, if a hotel chain like the four seasons took that attitude. If this woman worked for me...and I found out about this, she'd be fired. If I couldn't fire her, she's be reassigned a job cleaning toilets in the terminal. And before you ask, I've been on the front line with the public and I know what they can be like. This is no excuse.
Rising From United States of America, joined May 2010, 237 posts, RR: 1 Reply 45, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25812 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40): A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline.
I would encourage you to read my full post.
Quoting Rising (Reply 36): Indeed, in this case, this is not a legal issue persay, but a policy dispute, and in a service business a company is more apt to be flexible.
In regard to:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40): All this guy violated was a little note hidden somewhere in the in-flight magazine - and once notified of it, he stopped taking pictures.
Respectfully, again, I would encourage you to read my full post.
Quoting Rising (Reply 36): There are two sides to all stories and we have only been exposed to one side of an alleged incident. With technology today where anyone can post almost anything, it's prudent to really filter what you read and consider the source.
If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 46, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25668 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44): I love this #2. This is my all time favorite, from the land of the free. We have fought through wars here in Europe to become the free society we are. Some people may be privileged, but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege. You pay for a ticket and you have the right to fly. The carrier must honor your ticket and he must compensate you if he cannot deliver the product, i.,e. your flight is delayed. That is a privilege you enjoy in states ruled by the law and not by company regulations.
Besides that, "privileges" are relics of feudal states, police states or other sorts of dictatorships.
Spot on! this attitude stinks! it forgets these people are CUSTOMERS and they are PAYING for a product!
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2672 posts, RR: 5 Reply 47, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25610 times:
Guys, you are not in the land of the free on an airplane.
You guys are aviation experts on here...you know what aviation has been through in the last decade.
This isn't 1999 or 1989...it is the world in 2013.
You shouldn't be taking pictures of airplanes while in flight. You are going to arise suspicion. And if you say, "I have a right," that is fine...but if you get the wrong crew and they feel that you are a threat or even a question, they will remove you.
Flight Attendant comes up to me and says they feel someone is:
1. Suspicious
2. Not following instructions
3. Cursing
4. A distraction
5. Drunk
They are off the plane. Period. Discussion is over.
Many of you do not know that rights are waived when you choose to fly. You make that decision with your own free will.
Just an example. A curse word...you have every right to say that with free speech in the USA. On an airplane, it is considered a Level 1 Threat...and you can be escorted off for saying it.
As for photos: no one can take a photo of a crewmember performing his/her duties. That is a regulation. It is also vague enough to cover or not cover many things
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 48, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25461 times:
Quoting Rising (Reply 46): Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40):
A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline.
I would encourage you to read my full post.
I did. Please explain someone who holds a law degree and is licenced to practice law what the legal principle of "ignorantia juris non excusat" has to do with the case. It has nothing - and as you apparently agree, why do you mention it? You are really cracking a nut with a sledgehammer by doing so. The whole story is a customer service issue, not a legal issue. And we should discuss the customer service aspect.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25060 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24): They can make rules as much as they like, these rules have to hold up with common law.
Well they can't make a rule that is flat out illegal but they certainly don't have to allow constitutional rights, or apply rules that specifically relate to the citizen - government relationship (free speech etc) on their property.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 30): As long as it is public access they cannot deny you taking pictures. It is a constitutional right in the US.
No it isn't, as the inside of an aircraft is not a public place. It is not a constitutional right to take pictures inside an aircraft.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44): This here was taking pictures of a seat.
UA can still disallow it.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44): In your words, i would have to follow the instructions of a FA if he or she tells me to bark like a dog.
If those are the rules, and they're not explicitly illegal, then you accept them by flying. End of story.
Does seem like the FA massively overreacted but UA are well within their rights to create this (and any other) rule.
DTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 24986 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40): A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline.
It is a norm in USA nowadays. Corporations are above everyone else. I know you refered a case from 1957, those were different times, if the same case goes in front of USSC ruling will be different. Best example before SOX and electronic media retention laws came into existence forcing companies to keep e-mail, US corporations used to have a policy not to store e-mails for more than few days so that no one could subpoena. It was intentional but perfectly legal.
In this case almost all States in US allow still photography and Video(without audio) with single party consent, there are severe restrictions on audio recordings in several states.
afterburner33 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 24863 times:
My question is, what if all this had happened after the flight had departed? Would they have made a diversionary landing? Somehow I think not. I wonder if the FA might have been a bit less 'excitable' knowing the threat to remove the passenger was no longer an option?
I have to say that I don't fly massively, but in the flights I do make (several a year), I have yet to see anyone ever get in trouble for taking pictures, either of the inside of the cabin or out the window. And I've seen many people doing it. But then I've only ever flown on a US based airline once.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 52, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 24464 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 48): Many of you do not know that rights are waived when you choose to fly. You make that decision with your own free will.
Just an example. A curse word...you have every right to say that with free speech in the USA. On an airplane, it is considered a Level 1 Threat...and you can be escorted off for saying it.
As for photos: no one can take a photo of a crewmember performing his/her duties. That is a regulation. It is also vague enough to cover or not cover many things
Once again the attitude stinks. Nowhere did it say this guy was causing trouble. quite the opposite this guy is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the company, who's lifetime spend will be in the millions. And you might think people's rights are waived but a court would think very differently. Take note of the 'entrapment' cases where people have been stuck on the tarmac for hours in bad weather for example. This attitude, is one more like prison wardens than someone in a customer service role. And you all wonder why people would rather fly Emirates. Ain't it obvious?
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2168 posts, RR: 8 Reply 54, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 24347 times:
Yes, the flight attendant's reaction was probably not in proportion to the infraction committed (if any) or the threat posed. Regardless, most Captains I know will mention something in their briefings about booting problem pax if any of the F/As feel uncomfortable. In these cases, Captains have a great deal of discretion, but by the same token, they are not on board to mediate disputes. My experience is that Captains will defer to the assessment of the cabin crew and won't hesitate to remove passengers under such circumstances. "When in doubt, throw 'em out."
The other thing that a lot of frequent flyers don't realize is that crewmembers (especially at United) often view with great derision those who flaunt elite status as though it entitles them to a higher level of service. Worse still are those who demand it on that basis. I do not think making note of his status helped the situation at all.
Of course, none of the foregoing is meant to be a defense of the airline. It's simply an appraisal of the reality of domestic air travel in 2013. I wasn't there, but I have to imagine that, based on the outcome, the passenger could have handled the situation in a much more savvy manner.
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 7): He's an elite status high value customer.
Elite status and high value are not always synonymous, especially in this particular instance. I hate to sling mud, but I've read his blog before, and it is exceptionally likely that the cost of his benefits far outweighs the revenue he brings to United.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 56, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 24016 times:
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 55): I've read his blog before, and it is exceptionally likely that the cost of his benefits far outweighs the revenue he brings to United.
Maybe it was an elaborate set-up to get rid of him for good then if this guy is costing UA money and exposing them to unwanted publicity in his blog "Great, finally this red-flagged pain in the neck is booked to Istanbul. Let's upgrade this obnoxious bugger so that he cannot resist to take a picture of the new seats for is bl***y blog and then confront him to trigger a reaction so that we can throw him out and he will pester Delta or American in the future"
BC77008 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 231 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 24009 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 18): q
Fascinating how many fellow passengers have come forward in the comments' section of his blog, including the other guy who got a dressing down for taking a picture. While I took the report by the guy himself with a pinch of salt, the comments by fellow passengers seem to corroborate the story.
It seemed very, very odd to me that his fellow passengers found his blog and then left comments corroborating his side of the story. This definitely threw up a red flag for me, as I find it very hard to believe that fellow passengers would have thought enough of this situation to get on the Internet, do a search, find this blog, and then comment. So I'm left with the conclusion that either A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.
"He waited his whole damn life to take that flight. And as the plane crashed down he thought 'Well isn't this nice...'"
pacifique75 From Portugal, joined Oct 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 23884 times:
Personally, as a F/A, I will only ask a passenger to stop taking photos if it is clear obvious will be in the picture or video or if their behaviour is strange filming aircraft equipment. I do not agree with those who are filming other people´s faces in the cabin without their consent but I leave it to those involved to ask them to stop and say no.
The irony is some people post photos of F/A who are not aware of being photographed or filmed, howver they never show their own photo or real name in their trip reports
A330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 8 Reply 59, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 23762 times:
Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession. this is one case it seems where common sense was thrown overboard .
And please kids, call a Terrorist a Terrorist, stop,the T- wording. We are not in kindergarten.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 60, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 23480 times:
Quoting BC77008 (Reply 58): A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.
I would not read too much into this. There is also one fellow traveller who is criticizing the guy for not shutting up. In all fairness, if you keep a cool head in a situation like this, it is the best thing to do to get contacts of some witnesses as otherwise it will later always be you against a dozen or so flight crew with their story.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2168 posts, RR: 8 Reply 61, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 23304 times:
Quoting BC77008 (Reply 58): It seemed very, very odd to me that his fellow passengers found his blog and then left comments corroborating his side of the story. This definitely threw up a red flag for me, as I find it very hard to believe that fellow passengers would have thought enough of this situation to get on the Internet, do a search, find this blog, and then comment. So I'm left with the conclusion that either A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.
These EWR-IST were on sale a few weeks ago in the ~$400 range and may have even been promoted by the blogger at issue, and they attracted a lot of attention in the FF blogosphere elsewhere. Several of the passengers have their own frequent flyer blogs and wrote about the situation on their own pages. Under normal circumstances, the story would be fishy but in this case I am inclined to believe the posts corroborating the situation are legitimate.
Most twentysomething kids (that don't work in the oil industry) probably have other plans on Valentine's day that don't involve an overnight flight to IST en route to Azerbaijan!
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 22860 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44): I love this #2. This is my all time favorite, from the land of the free. We have fought through wars here in Europe to become the free society we are. Some people may be privileged, but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege. You pay for a ticket and you have the right to fly. The carrier must honor your ticket and he must compensate you if he cannot deliver the product, i.,e. your flight is delayed. That is a privilege you enjoy in states ruled by the law and not by company regulations.
Well said. Everytime I hear someone (usually US airline employees) say "flying is a privilege, not a a right", it really irritates me. Do they even know what rights and privileges are? And what rights a paying customer has?
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 48): You shouldn't be taking pictures of airplanes while in flight. You are going to arise suspicion. And if you say, "I have a right," that is fine...but if you get the wrong crew and they feel that you are a threat or even a question, they will remove you.
Wow, and you are a regular on airliners.net, the #1 place in the world for airline photos, inlcuding inflight!
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 54): He lost me when he dropped the t-word. A few things you just don't say on/near/around/about an airplane.....thats one of them.
So where does it end? Can magazine covers have the word "Terrorist" on it? Can inflight movies mention the word? Does common sense about context and situation in which it is said not matter any more?
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 63, posted (3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 22771 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 50): If those are the rules, and they're not explicitly illegal, then you accept them by flying. End of story.
You see, I can't help it, we were taught at school, based on our history, exactly NOT to do that. We were also taught to question rules. I am aware of the situation in the US and if I cannot avoid to fly there on a domestci flight I try not to speak a word, not even good day.
What amazes me all the time is how easily such totalitarian thoughts are accepted. No question, the terrorists have won all the way. and those who sympathize with them must be having a ball every time they travel and look at that agony.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2168 posts, RR: 8 Reply 64, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22576 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64): You see, I can't help it, we were taught at school, based on our history, exactly NOT to do that. We were also taught to question rules. I am aware of the situation in the US and if I cannot avoid to fly there on a domestci flight I try not to speak a word, not even good day.
There is a forum to question the propriety of rules, but it is generally not before a person who is merely attempting to enforce rules (even that is debateable), not make them.
There is honor in standing up for what you believe in, but you can't have it both ways. Under the circumstances, the airline can simply leave a noncompliant passenger behind, and they'd be fully within their rights to do so... which is exactly what they did.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 65, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22453 times:
This blogger has to be either very naive or very stupid. If he is who he says he is, he would know the policy which is common to all U.S. carriers, you can't take pictures of the crew, equipment, operations or aircraft on the ramp from inside the aircraft. He even quoted as such. He was is so stupid in my opinion. If he in fact does write a blog about UA, he should have known the policy and never taken a picture of anything. You can take pictures of aircraft from a public area, but the inside of an aircraft, is not a public area. I have been involved as a human rights advocate and know that the law is on the side of the airline and can' t condone such breaches of security. The security is there for a reason, although I do agree that the security is much to write home about, it is there and the law is the law. You cannot record any activity from the inside of the aircraft as it is not a public area. The reasons are obvious. You could transmit the information to someone who wants to do harm to the airline or someone and they in turn cause a situation that would endanger the lives of not only the people on board the aircraft but also on the ground and to the reputation of UA or any other airline. Honestly I don't see the reason to record and take pictures from the aircraft if you cannot by law or regulation.
silentbob From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1645 posts, RR: 1 Reply 67, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22264 times:
While you may not like, or agree with, some of the more obscure airline policies and regulations, flight attendants have no choice. They are required to enforce them all, as if they were federal law. Why? Because they can be fined if there is an FAA cabin inspector that feels like pushing the issue. They could also be written up if there is someone from management on board. Once someone gets burned, they tend to be more of a stickler for detail. It doesn't matter how many people take one side or another, the rules are what the rules are. There is nothing to be gained from arguing about them on the airplane. Even if the crew is 100% in the wrong, arguing is not going to resolve the issue in your favor, ever.
hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54 Reply 68, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22215 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 10): That ridiculous photo policy - no matter how they may interprete it - and the behavior of these crew members are two reasons why I will not consider flying UA again. What a shame.
PH
I will go out of my way to avoid United Airlines for all of my future travels.
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15742 posts, RR: 48 Reply 69, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22213 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 56): Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Benjamin Franklin
Every second, of every day, everyone sacrifices liberty in exchange for safety. Life would cease to function if we didn't.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 67): I don't find this story to be outrageous. It seems like normal customer service at United.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1310 posts, RR: 4 Reply 70, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22087 times:
Quoting toobz (Reply 13): After living in the US for over 20 years I've come to realize and accept that there is a huge book of words one should not use. Ironic being the land of the free and freedom of speech. Far from.
And the sad part, most don't even realize it. They think it's perfectly normal.
Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist...there, I said it, now what?
It's simply outrageous what we have settled for this day and age.
I call it "Tyranny with a Smile". I see it every day and it concerns me greatly. Common sense has left us.
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
MIAspotter From Spain, joined Nov 2001, 2274 posts, RR: 26 Reply 72, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22011 times:
Total overreaction by the crew, but as many have pointed, it´s sadly the world we live in today.
I also had a bit of a nasty experience on CO back in August 2009, I had to fly quickly to MIA from BCN because my mother suffered a stroke, CO was absolutely wonderful and understanding in changing the ticket I had for December (at no cost) but when I was in EWR boarding my flight to MIA (after 8 hours in a 757) a couple of girls asked me if I would switch places with them so they could sit together, I agreed and took their place, once boarding was completed, I noticed I had the row to myself so I quickly moved over to the window seat.
A F/A or ground staff member (cause I didn´t see her upon arrival in MIA) was walking up the aisle counting PAX, she stops by my row, looks at me in a puzzled way...
-Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.
And with that she just walked away, I did not wanted to argue because of the paranoia and because I was tired after being on the road for a while, but made a mental note to ask for her name upon arrival into MIA so I could send a letter of complaint, alas I did not see her during the entire flight.
Until today I am still wondering what exactly I ¨Messed up¨....
Certainly the only time I have experienced such rude treatment while flying, nowadays I rarely visit the US and I don´t need to fly US carriers often (if at all) but my first choice if I have to, is, and it will continue to be DL.
Unflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 191 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21963 times:
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34): Make life easy for yourself and just follow the rules.
He fully obeyed the instructions he was given.
Quoting Rising (Reply 36): Next time, I would inform the crew of my intentions, and ask for the Captain's permission to take a photo if it is not of a personal nature.
Unfurtunately talking to the crew and informing them of his intentions is what brought him into trouble...
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 75, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21700 times:
Also, it's pathetic that the journalist that has spent an amazing amount of time on UA was thrown off, but NOT the idiot that was arguing with her and kept taking pics!
Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 21): Quote:
Indeed, the terrorists have won when 11.5 years after the attacks U.S. citizens are scared of a camera onboard an airplane.
I think this is pretty much the moral of this story.
CalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 20994 times:
Quoting BC77008 (Reply 58): It seemed very, very odd to me that his fellow passengers found his blog and then left comments corroborating his side of the story. This definitely threw up a red flag for me, as I find it very hard to believe that fellow passengers would have thought enough of this situation to get on the Internet, do a search, find this blog, and then comment. So I'm left with the conclusion that either A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.
I too found that strange, but we have no idea as to why those customers knew where to go. For all we know this guy is very out going and engaged some of the other passengers in discussions when they were waiting at the gate. The one that said "I'll contact you offline" would indicate to me that he did hand out at least one of his cards to somebody on the flight.
avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4092 posts, RR: 18 Reply 77, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 20938 times:
Matthew Klint has now gone to the press with his story. I hope he (and more importantly, his travel behaviors) will be prepared to undergo the scrutiny that accompanies such actions.
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 78, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 20748 times:
United isn't the only U.S. airline with this policy and had this flight been going to a European or South American destination I pretty sure the FA would not have cared about the picture being taken. But on certain flights to certain destination FA are advised in the preflight briefings to remain vigilant and strictly enforce all of UA's security polices which include taking pictures onboard aircraft obviously IST is one of those destinations where where UA feels FA must not deviate from those strict security policies.
But the policy isn't the issue here, the issue here is the fact that a passenger was taken off the flight after the initial incident was over. As was stated in the blog the passenger felt the need to call the FA back over had the passenger just given the FA his coat or called over a different FA and left the situation alone there would have never been a problem. The first mistake that was made was when the passenger tried to explain himself by using the word terrorist onboard a plane. Once you have uttered that word you just escalated the entire situation it's no different than a passenger saying to a TSA agent why do you need to rescreen my bag its not like I have a bomb in it. No passenger would ever be so stupid as to utter the word bomb at a security check point because the repercussion would be severe. So why should a passenger be allowed to remain onboard a flight after using the word terrorist on board a plane?
Did the FA lie to the pilot and/or the ground security coordinator (when ever there is a security issue onboard an UA plane a UA ground security coordinator is called in to respond not the Global Services rep and he is not even a GS passenger with less than a million miles) we do not know because all we have is one forth of the story. We don't have the FA version of what took place we don't know what other passenger onboard may have heard or witnessed nor do we know what was said to the pilot or the ground security coordinator all we have is this pissed off passengers word to go on. And frankly non of this would have taken place had he just left the situation alone after the initial warning was given.
I know there is no love for United on a.netters but you can not simply blame United for this situation and completely absolve the passenger. The passengers words were the reason why this problem started to begin with.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 79, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 20139 times:
So what's the point of accommodating the off-loaded passenger straight-away for free (including his complimentary upgrade), certainly at a much higher cost for United? Either he is a risk or he is not. If he is, what is the rationale of putting him on another plane? If he committed a crime / was in breach of contract, logic dictates that he should forfeit his ticket rather than be put on the next plane with no expenses spared.
I really do not understand this t-word hairsplitting. The guy was told not to take pictures and he complied. He then, for whatever reason, felt that he should explain the FA and said something to the effect of a) "Just to explain that I did no do anything sinister, I am just an innocent blogger with a rather well-known travel blog. Here is my card to prove it." No wait, actually what he said was more like - b) "Just to explain that I am not a terrorist, I am just an innocent writer of a travel blog people in Chicago are aware of. Here is my card to prove it." So anybody applying common sense in such a situation would feel the need to off-load the guy because of wording b) instead of a) he was using? Come on.
The FA was on an ego trip and went way over the top. All legal nitpicking here whether she had the right to do what she did does not change the fact the she overreacted. What next? You cannot dare to complain about your meal, the broken seat, the non-working IFE because the FA is always right and if you make her feel uncomfortable she will run to the captain and have you thrown off the plane? This sounds more like Con Air than a commercial airline.
Quoting avek00 (Reply 78): Matthew Klint has now gone to the press with his story. I hope he (and more importantly, his travel behaviors) will be prepared to undergo the scrutiny that accompanies such actions.
Hmm, let's wait and see in this unfolds into a "United Broke My Guitar Mk. II" drama (well it won't, it is not half as funny).
And to put and to the legend that he broke any laws / regulations:
Quote: "There are no federal regulations restricting what passengers may photograph on an airplane (during takeoff and landing)", FAA spokesman Les Dorr said
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6365 posts, RR: 34 Reply 80, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 20037 times:
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34): You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem.
Simply untrue. If you instructed a passenger to strip naked in the aisle, do you expect that he/she agreed to comply with that instruction? But then you speak with the voice of one trained in the fine customer service standards of NWA.
Quoting jayunited (Reply 79): We don't have the FA version of what took place we don't know what other passenger onboard may have heard or witnessed nor do we know what was said to the pilot or the ground security coordinator
One would presume that these are all EXACTLY THE SAME THING as they are all "what did the FA say?" But feel free to keep defending the abysmal level of customer service on United. Hopefully the customers will speak and United can make a return trip to Chapter 11.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44): but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege.
I can't believe nobody has referenced the airplane scene from "Meet the Parents" .......
In all seriousness though, flying is a right but there are rules governing that right, whether they be criminal laws, tort laws (the FARs 14CFR), or privately issued rules/policies. By flying on UA, that passenger accepted the contract of carriage of his ticket, which I would be willing to bet states that following any and all policies or rules listed in official company literature (ie the inflight magazine) is required. The fact is he violated a UA policy governing travel on UA property.
For example, life is an unalienable right of citizens in the United States, however I can't go running around zapping people with a cattle prod simply because that is what I have determined my life is.
Had the passenger simply apologized or let the situation go, he would have been fine.
However, he decided to make a scene and become disrupted and disorderly which made himself eligible for ejection. The notion that simply using the word 'terrorist' or 'bomb' upsets people is just ridiculous to me, but the fact of the matter is it does, and it apparently did aggravating the situation further.
I have no sympathy for this traveller, he made a choice and it was the wrong one.
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2471 posts, RR: 31 Reply 82, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19592 times:
Ugh. That story made my blood boil. I would have made sure that I got the names of all of the associated crew and told them that while I will step off the plane as they requested, United will surely be hearing from me, and perhaps from my attorneys.
Completely unacceptable and idiotic behavior. But I suppose the sad sad truth is that, "you can't say bomb on an airplane," as the Ben Stiller movie says. Pathetic.
hrc773 From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2009, 36 posts, RR: 0 Reply 83, posted (3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19568 times:
Quoting A330 (Reply 60): Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession.
I understand you used the word "some" in an attempt to avoid making a generalization on US crews. Your comment is still worthless; there's good crews and bad crews everywhere. This non-American superiority complex is really annoying.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19309 times:
Quoting hrc773 (Reply 83): I understand you used the word "some" in an attempt to avoid making a generalization on US crews. Your comment is still worthless; there's good crews and bad crews everywhere. This non-American superiority complex is really annoying.
Of course there are good crew and bad crews everywhere. But much more of these kinds of incidents occur in the US, and I have no qualms in saying that in all my years of flying, I have come across bad crew more often on US airlines than on others.
I have come across good and great crews too on my US flights, but it does not change the fact that the odds of coming across crew on power trips are much higher on US airlines than anywhere else in the "free" world.
B727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19351 times:
American "prevents" people from taking pictures on board. Now, do pics get taken? Yes, but if they say "no" you gotta stop. It's in their AmericanWay magazine. My folks were flying on them and they wanted to take pics of the seats and getting the pre-departure champagne; the FA pointed it out in the magazine.
My dad said, "Oh how odd, I'm a pilot and our son is an FA and we've never heard of this FAR."
FA: "It's an American policy so it becomes the FAR, sir."
Ok....
Someone is confused...she was right about the essence of the rule (ie, if a regulatory policy is more restrictive than an FAR that becomes the rule [8 vs 12 hrs bottle to throttle]), but not for just any silly a** "policy."
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19272 times:
Quoting hrc773 (Reply 83): Quoting A330 (Reply 60):
Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession.
I understand you used the word "some" in an attempt to avoid making a generalization on US crews. Your comment is still worthless; there's good crews and bad crews everywhere. This non-American superiority complex is really annoying
I think it's concerning just how little common sense the crew displayed on this flight. Maybe some retraining required...
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 87, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19085 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 80): The FA was on an ego trip and went way over the top. All legal nitpicking here whether she had the right to do what she did does not change the fact the she overreacted. What next? You cannot dare to complain about your meal, the broken seat, the non-working IFE because the FA is always right and if you make her feel uncomfortable she will run to the captain and have you thrown off the plane? This sounds more like Con Air than a commercial airline.
AS a passenger you have a right to complain about the service you receive while onboard an aircraft. That is not what happened here. The FA left and continued her duties and the passenger decided to revisit the situation and used a word that he should have not used while onboard a plane.
But for those of you who think that the passenger was right and the United was wrong and FA over reacted I DARE you the next time you board a flight to tell the FA to his/her face "IT'S NOT LIKE I'M A TERRORIST" and see what happens. I can guarantee you that there is not a single person on this website that has the guts to do that because we all know that no matter what airline you are on you will be escorted off that flight.
Don't blame United or the FA for this passengers stupidity and poor choice of words.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 88, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19082 times:
Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 81): which I would be willing to bet states that following any and all policies or rules listed in official company literature (ie the inflight magazine) is required. The fact is he violated a UA policy governing travel on UA property.
Well, in any legal system I am aware of you are only bound by contractual obligations that you have had the chance to become aware of. Hence the need to check the "I agree with the..." box when doing transactions on the internet. If the T&Cs say, as you suggest, that further obligations may be stipulated in the inflight magazine, one partner to the contract does not have a chance to understand her obligations before she has settled in her seat, (hopefully) found the inflight magazine with the relevant page not being ripped out and have read it completely. I am very interested to see a court enforcing such a "no photo"-rule a a contactual obligation. If this is the state of the law in US, in the future I will happily ask the FA when boarding to not close the door before I had the chance to read the entire inflight magazine to understand what further contractual obligations United wants to burden me with while they trap me in their metal tube.
Quoting jayunited (Reply 87): AS a passenger you have a right to complain about the service you receive while onboard an aircraft. That is not what happened here. The FA left and continued her duties and the passenger decided to revisit the situation and used a word that he should have not used while onboard a plane.
What law / regulation says you cannot use the word "terrorist" as in "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist."? Have FAs their brains replaced by a computer chip with speech recognition software that is only able to record word, but unable to understand context?
As someone elso has correctly observed, stories like this create the impression that as a passenger you are not a customer, but someone who is at the mercy of FAs as they can offload you if you annoy them as they always get away when twisting your words.
hrc773 From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2009, 36 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19025 times:
Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 86): I think it's concerning just how little common sense the crew displayed on this flight. Maybe some retraining required...
I completely agree that the crew showed little common sense. But why throw in that they were Americans? Is this something that only an American crew could've done?
1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18765 times:
Quoting hrc773 (Reply 89): Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 86):
I think it's concerning just how little common sense the crew displayed on this flight. Maybe some retraining required...
I completely agree that the crew showed little common sense. But why throw in that they were Americans? Is this something that only an American crew could've done?
To be honest I couldn't see it happening in other countries, most would have probably asked politely for a passenger to stop photographing rather than kick them off.
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5673 posts, RR: 29 Reply 91, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18796 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 3): I take that particular photo constantly whenever I fly up front. Never had any make an issue of it.
I take pictures of stuff like that on DL all the time. I have taken photos all over the aircraft and nobody has said anything. I have even had FAs take a photo of me in the seat, eating, drinking, etc. I use them in my trip reports.
I can probably look at trip reports right now and find photos from UA.
Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 72): -Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.
That is odd. I have switched seats before and nobody said anything about it. Two days ago, on DL STL-DTW, the FA told people they could switch seats if they were uncomfortable, because there were plenty of extra seats.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 69): Every second, of every day, everyone sacrifices liberty in exchange for safety. Life would cease to function if we didn't
Some actually like it too, they think that the government should do everything in its power to protect people from harm, from themselves or others.
Anyone surprised he went to the media? This is clearly a publicity stunt on the part of a 26 year old blogger, that has riled up people on here into a frenzy. Again, after only hearing one side of an ALLEGED incident. It's being treated though like it is gospel truth we all witnessed with our own eyes. It can only grow readership of his blog, now with the media on board. So a somewhat brilliant strategy if you ask me. But the jokes still on us.
United's policy does not ban photography outright. It simply sets limitations, which are common not only in aviation, but in the corporate world throughout the US. People take pictures on United all the time with no issue. It's how we have an airliners.net to begin with. But there are limits and clearly there is more to this story and it's unfortunate that it has spiraled into a United bashing thread, with no proof or evidence of any wrongdoing anywhere. Only the word of blogger. I feel like that, sadly, that says more about us, than him.
[Edited 2013-02-21 10:35:36]
If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18601 times:
This thread reminds me of the 2011 incident, also on United, where an aircraft was brought back to the gate and a passenger questioned because he happened to be reading a book on airplanes... WW1 airplanes.
I'd agree with your comments except that the contradictory nature of UA's policy is well noted in reply #5.
You can't tell people not to take photos of installed equipment when it's splashed all over your own website for anyone to see.
B727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18498 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88): in the future I will happily ask the FA when boarding to not close the door before I had the chance to read the entire inflight magazine to understand what further contractual obligations United wants to burden me with while they trap me in their metal tube.
But therein lies the rub: you're not trapped. You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage before you * voluntarily* boarded.
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 96, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18483 times:
Apparently United is already in damage control mode as their comment to NBC was rather defensive and they have reached out to the blogger (he says in his blog that United has suggested to have a telephone conversation later today).
Now I am off to read the story of this Palestinian Academy Award nominee who was not let into the country on his way to the Oscars on the suspicion of being a terrorist - even without uttering the t-word and taking pictures...
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18428 times:
Quoting B727FA (Reply 95): But therein lies the rub: you're not trapped. You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage before you * voluntarily* boarded.
The contract of carriage includes the warning on photography then?
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 98, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18266 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88): What law / regulation says you cannot use the word "terrorist" as in "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist."? Have FAs their brains replaced by a computer chip with speech recognition software that is only able to record word, but unable to understand context?
If you believe that you are right and that there is nothing wrong with using the word "terrorist" onboard a plane while talking to a FA why don't you try it out the next time you fly whatever airline you fly. Put your theory to the test that there is no regulation that says you can not use that word while onboard and see what happens.
I look forward to reading your blog about what happens that is if you have the guts to actually do it.
And for those of you who keep saying the FA over reacted one question What happen to the other passenger that was asked to stop taking pictures? No where was it mentioned that he was kicked off the plane I guess he didn't use the word terrorist while talking to a FA while onboard a plane.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 99, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18205 times:
Quoting B727FA (Reply 95):
But therein lies the rub: you're not trapped. You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage before you * voluntarily* boarded.
Please explain - how can I learn of my legal obligation not to take pictures on board (and, for that matter, all other obligations laid out in the inflight magazine) before I board the plane? Or is the state of law that you can indeed be burdened with obligations as in "well, our t&c you can read by clicking on this link and you are just about to agree with by booking the selected flight are not comprehensive. We have a ton of other obligations we will surprise you with once we are in the midst of performing the contract. Never mind, you will find out when you are buckled up in your seat on the plane and read the entirety of hemispheres (that is if nobody has taken away the copy from your seat or ripped out the relevant pages - if so, just wait and be surprised. See, entering into a contract with us is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you get".
Quoting jayunited (Reply 98): And for those of you who keep saying the FA over reacted one question What happen to the other passenger that was asked to stop taking pictures? No where was it mentioned that he was kicked off the plane I guess he didn't use the word terrorist while talking to a FA while onboard a plane
Well, as I understand it, the other guy did not follow FA instructions by continuing to take pictures. So what is worse - saying the t-word in an innocent context or disobeying FA instructions?
drgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18079 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2): In my opinion, he really pushed it using the t-word when attempting to offer his business card and explanation to the FA later. Sometimes you need to know when to drop it, and realize you aren't going to make a bad situation any better.
This is ridiculous. People were born with brains so that they could evaluate situations with common sense. Would it be acceptable to kick somebody off a plane for having a discussion about the Bill Clinton inauguration photo bomb? Why not? It uses the word "bomb."
Unfortunately the company gets painted by stupid behaviour of a couple of people with no common sense -- the flight attendant and the captain.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 102, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17714 times:
Where do I start...
As for the blogger...he writes with a huge slant, albeit his own, on life and his perception of things (case in point this: http://upgrd.com/matthew/ua1275-ewr-...-united-first-to-united-worst.html ), his description of the family who he believes is Italian. Some people do things for attention: money, notoriety, 15 minutes of fame, freebies, etc. to get what they want. And will do so at all costs. The way he talks about the family on his EWR-LAX flight made me lose all respect for him. It was unnecessary. He chose the low road, he could have easily said they were ill-mannered, loud, whatever, but chose the stereotypes to get his point across.
As for the F/A. She is obviously not an A-netter . DTWpurser bring a very serious point about crew safety off the plane when some people take things too far. That aside, some (not all, but a small amount - some) crew do have a lac of common sense and do the wrong things, for the wrong reason, at the wrong times. You find this everywhere. Any job, it is just more prevalent here as it is an aviation forum. I will acknowledge that there are a few of us (by us I mean all F/As) that need some customer service training and a class or two in common sense. Ok, three.
Quoting A330 (Reply 59): Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession. this is one case it seems where common sense was thrown overboard .
And please kids, call a Terrorist a Terrorist, stop,the T- wording. We are not in kindergarten.
BINGO!!!! (and thank you for that)
I, for one, would have handled this MUCH differently.
Alias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2644 posts, RR: 2 Reply 103, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17510 times:
Let's look at this from the flight attendant's point of view instead of the passenger's. The FA has asked him to stop taking photographs, he appears to be complying, and the FA moves on to other passengers and preflight duties. Later the passenger asks the flight attendant to hang his coat. Ok, no problem there, but when she arrives to take the coat he brings up the previous situation, which she percieves as the passenger trying to argue about the situation. Was he really being argumentative? We don't know. It's he said/ she said, but we only have his side of the story, and we have no clue as to the tone he took while attempting to explain himself. Either way, the FA percieved him as being argumentative, but he then brings up terrorism and makes it much worse for himself. What's an FA going to do in this case? Go to the captain and advise them of the argumentative passenger.
Now let's look at the captain's viewpoint. When a flight attendant comes up to the flight deck and says they are having a problem with a passenger, the first question from the captain is almost always the same, "do you feel they need to be removed, or are you comfortable with them staying?". If the FA wants the passenger removed, that passenger is going to be removed and there's three reasons for that:
1) Better to deal with belligerent passengers on the ground than mid-Atlantic.
2) The captain doesn't have the experience dealing with unruly passengers that flight attendants do, and therefore will almost always defer to their opinion on whether a passenger should be removed or not.
3) The captain is concerned with preserving a good working relationship between all crew members. In an emergency captain's need to know he can count on having good communication and teamwork with the flight attendants, and if he doesn't remove a passenger that flight attendants feel should be removed, the necessary trust between the cabin and flight deck can break down.
Did the captain actually say what the blogger has alleged, or has this been exaggerated? Again, we don't know.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
IrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1731 posts, RR: 5 Reply 104, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17384 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88): What law / regulation says you cannot use the word "terrorist" as in "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist."? Have FAs their brains replaced by a computer chip with speech recognition software that is only able to record word, but unable to understand context?
It is basically a given here in the US. The instant you mention the word "bomb" or "terrorist" on an airplane, at an airport, or basically within earshot of airport/airline personnel and you are about to board a plane, then you can forget it.
As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the guy dug his own grave the second he mentioned the word. It's pretty much a zero tolerance policy and as much as I side with the frustration of the traveler in this case, there is little that can be done here.
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88): As someone elso has correctly observed, stories like this create the impression that as a passenger you are not a customer, but someone who is at the mercy of FAs as they can offload you if you annoy them as they always get away when twisting your words.
You are a customer, but you can also be denied service by the captain. At the end of the day, you are not the one flying the plane from point A to point B: you paid for the services, but if you are deemed unfit to fly, the Captain has the final say in the matter.
I fully agree that the FA who handled this situation was unethical, and quite frankly, lazy. She likely saw it as an opportunity to make her job easier that day by removing a passenger to serve, and her subsequent body language (and secondarily, the captain's) were signals that they probably immediately regretted their actions and knew what they were doing was extreme. The FA should be sacked from her job, or at least barred from serving the premium cabins.
None of this changes the fact that the aviation landscape is not a joking one (unfortunately) and certain behaviors (such as bringing toy handcuffs or fake guns in your carry-on) and specific words will get you into trouble if you're caught.
manny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17181 times:
Its unfortunate that a stupid FA on a power trip ended up ruining this person's journey. Just unacceptable. Such FA's who defy common sense have no job on getting to board an A/C!
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1196 posts, RR: 1 Reply 106, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17114 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 29): Taking a picture is common practise for travellers documenting their journey. We have numerous examples under trip reports on this site.
The stated UAL policy expressly permits the sort of photos we take. I have often been in the position of wondering if I can snap a picture - some FAs are jumpy, others don't care. I've always found that striking up a friendly conversation with the FA and smiling a lot gets me all sorts of things - including photographs on board.
Quoting A330 (Reply 30): By the way, please stop using this ridiculousm "t-word" it is terrorist .
So the to further add to the hypocrisy of an airline that encourages its customers, through its offal social media outlets, to post photos of their travels on board UA, we now have proof of UA telling its FAs to enforce the rules only on certain flights. So which is it: take photos on board or don't? enforce all the rules on all floghts or don't? Seems to me someone at UA needs to sit down and figure out what the hell is going on, because the mixed messages are prolific.
ozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 108, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16929 times:
I have mixed feelings about this one. I have no idea what the personality is of the blogger, but perhaps that combined with a particular personality of the FA in question made this a volatile situation. There is ABSOLUTELY a lot of substance to the comment that since 9/11, UA/AA crews might be a bit more observant of a persons behavior than they were before.
Surely everyone can understand why this is the case.
With that being said, there is so much going on in the boarding process that I probably wouldn't even have noticed him taking a picture. If I did, I would assume he was taking it in an innocent manner, just as the blogger says he was. If the product looks good, heck I don't care if you take a picture of it. I am sure there are multiple pictures taken and multiple videos going on phones all over the plane. It has become enormously difficult and I would say impossible to regulate.
This was, in my opinion, a personality clash, period. I think if she was having questions in her head about this individual, then the word "terrorist" cemented it. But we have no way of knowing his body language, the tone of his voice, etc.
If anyone wants to single out UA/AA then go right ahead. I didn't know any of the crew on either AA flight, but 11 1/2 years later I still think of them and remember how vulnerable and innocent they were. We're a huge company with lots of problems, but that day we all felt personally violated and the job changed forever.
The captain should have definitely looked at the person in the eye. The flight attendant overeacted, perhaps. But in the end, the pilot is the one who ultimately makes the call.
meister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 972 posts, RR: 1 Reply 109, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16558 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 44): Right, so this justifies bad service, and attitude to premium passengers who are the backbone of the company's revenue and ultimately pay your wages. What planet are you on? This sounds like an attitude from the soviet era Aeroflot!
No, it doesn't justify anything. The fact is, you buy a ticket, the company you buy that ticket from has an obligation to honor that ticket and provide the service you paid for. As the passenger, you have an obligation to comply with the rules that company imposes upon it's customers. These obligations (company-customer and customer-company) are detailed in the Contract of Carriage. If, as the customer, you do not care for either the restrictions imposed in the Contract of Carriage or the way that the company imposes those restrictions upon it's customers, you have no obligation to continue doing business with that company.
End of story.
Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 72): -Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.
And with that she just walked away, I did not wanted to argue because of the paranoia and because I was tired after being on the road for a while, but made a mental note to ask for her name upon arrival into MIA so I could send a letter of complaint, alas I did not see her during the entire flight.
Until today I am still wondering what exactly I ¨Messed up¨....
For weight-and-balance purposes, the flight manifest needs to show how much weight is in each zone of the aircraft. Adults are given a different standard weight than children are, so if you switched places with someone who was being counted as a child for weight-and-balance purposes, or if you (1 person) switched seats with a group (not 1 person) and the switch was across enough rows that it was into a different loading zone, then, yes, you did mess 'it' all up. 'It' in this case being the manifest, which would now need to be corrected. If the paperwork had been finalized by the captain, this would mean making a change to the paperwork and re-submitting it. At most companies these days this is done electronically, so the flight cannot depart until the captain has recieved confirmation that the amended paperwork has been recieved electronically. If the manifest was not submitted electronically (perhaps the ACARS system was inoperative or just not installed on that aircraft or aircraft type), then this would mean tracking down all the copies of the manifest and making the change. If the flight had pushed back from the gate, this could obviously mean a return to the gate.
So.. if you want to change seats after the boarding process is complete, PLEASE ring the call button and ask. It could save a lot of headache.
-Meister
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16584 times:
Quoting ozark1 (Reply 108): If anyone wants to single out UA/AA then go right ahead. I didn't know any of the crew on either AA flight, but 11 1/2 years later I still think of them and remember how vulnerable and innocent they were. We're a huge company with lots of problems, but that day we all felt personally violated and the job changed forever.
9/11 was terrible, but I'm sorry to say that if 12 years on one blames that for poor customer handling and power trips today, then I suggest perhaps the trauma was too much for the crew that exhibit this kind of poor judgment and paranoid behaviour, and they should not be flying anymore. They could snap if faced with a real safety or security-related emergency.
planesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4544 posts, RR: 28 Reply 111, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16311 times:
Quoting pacifique75 (Reply 58): The irony is some people post photos of F/A who are not aware of being photographed or filmed, howver they never show their own photo or real name in their trip reports
It seems very rude to do that.
Quoting peanuts (Reply 70): It's simply outrageous what we have settled for this day and age.
I call it "Tyranny with a Smile". I see it every day and it concerns me greatly. Common sense has left us.
We see a lot of things everyday but it's usually a few people that are the bad ones. Most people could take a picture on a plane and have no problem. Most people would handle it better than this guy. On this day, we ran into a few of those bad ones knocking heads apparently.
It doesn't make the rest of us morons, though.
Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 72): -Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.
There's plenty of rude people in the world. You found one of them.
B727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16123 times:
Quoting B727FA (Reply 95): entire inflight magazine to understand what further contractual obligations United wants to burden me with
Quoting sankaps (Reply 97): Quoting B727FA (Reply 95):
But therein lies the rub: you're not trapped. You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage before you * voluntarily* boarded.
The contract of carriage includes the warning on photography then?
Not at all; but sarcastically suggesting a flight should be delayed to see "...what further contractual obligations" can be gleaned from the inflight magazine is to imply that the contract is contained therein...and that there is something "new" to be discovered by reading it. Secondly one can't use the "entrapment" argument when you voluntarily board the aircraft; "secret contractual terms within the inflight magazine" not withstanding.
Quoting catiii (Reply 107): we now have proof of UA telling its FAs to enforce the rules only on certain flights.
We have nothing of the sort. An alleged suggestion, perhaps, but certainly no smoking gun memo.
Quoting meister808 (Reply 109): So.. if you want to change seats after the boarding process is complete, PLEASE ring the call button and ask. It could save a lot of headache.
Interestingly enough, we just received a memo on this 2 days ago. It's not often an issue when we're full, but on light flights the w/b is figured based on the dispatch numbers (fuel, cargo locations, etc) including the SEAT MAP as programmed/populated at boarding. If the computer system "tells" the w/b program there are pax in seats X, X, X, X, and X and once on the a/c there are *actually* pax in seats X, U, G, M, and A it COULD be a problem. Not likely, but possible. Simple solution: "Hi, looks like we're about done boarding. May I move over there?" Within a zone it's not too big a deal...just ask!
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4355 posts, RR: 20 Reply 114, posted (3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16065 times:
If an airline doesn't want people taking photos, then put it in the contract of carriage. Don't hide it in some magazine that someone may never look at.
All this "flying isn't a right, it's a privilege" thing makes me crazy. An airline is a common carrier. If you want to go somewhere you contract with the airline to take you there. There are terms and conditions for both parties to follow in that contract. As a passenger you have the right to choose which carrier's terms and conditions fit your needs. So now that we know UA or AA won't allow photos then take another carrier that does. Simple as that.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 117, posted (3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15782 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 99): Please explain - how can I learn of my legal obligation not to take pictures on board (and, for that matter, all other obligations laid out in the inflight magazine) before I board the plane? Or is the state of law that you can indeed be burdened with obligations as in "well, our t&c you can read by clicking on this link and you are just about to agree with by booking the selected flight are not comprehensive. We have a ton of other obligations we will surprise you with once we are in the midst of performing the contract. Never mind, you will find out when you are buckled up in your seat on the plane and read the entirety of hemispheres (that is if nobody has taken away the copy from your seat or ripped out the relevant pages - if so, just wait and be surprised. See, entering into a contract with us is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you get".
The Contract of Carriage is available in its entirety on United.com just like it is for all airlines. It is your responsibility to read this before you decide to by your ticket. United cannot force you you read this document however once onboard a United flight United does have the right to enforce the contract of carriage that you agreed to when you voluntarily bought your ticket.
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 99): Well, as I understand it, the other guy did not follow FA instructions by continuing to take pictures. So what is worse - saying the t-word in an innocent context or disobeying FA instructions?
Obviously saying the T-word was worse it got him kicked off the plane.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 118, posted (3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15678 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 117): Obviously saying the T-word was worse it got him kicked off the plane.
So saying "I am not a terrorist" is worse than disobeying crew instructions? Because clearly that's what actual terrorists do, call FAs over and tell them they are non terrorists.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1837 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15423 times:
I believe there is a video rights issue when photographing a video screen. It is akin to recording in a theater. Obviously the image was only the start screen but the FA did not necessarily know what was being displayed. The real problem however is probably the "follow crewmember instructions" rule.
Taking photos on the aircraft otherwise is not that much of an issue. A FA even took one of me and my son for us.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 120, posted (3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15309 times:
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 119): I believe there is a video rights issue when photographing a video screen. It is akin to recording in a theater. Obviously the image was only the start screen but the FA did not necessarily know what was being displayed. The real problem however is probably the "follow crewmember instructions" rule.
He followed the crewmember's instructions anddid not take any more photos. Therefore as per your logic above, he should not have been booted off the aircraft, the other guy who continued taking photos should have been.
But exactly the opposite happened, because apparently saying "I am not a terrorist" is worse than not following crewmember instructions.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4024 posts, RR: 6 Reply 122, posted (3 months 3 days ago) and read 14540 times:
Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 8): Now he should not have used the T word, that was a stupid move, that aside, it just shows how Americans have become scared of their own shadow, it's really quite sad this once great nation now views every move by others as something potentially dangerous.
I could not live like that.
If you live in the UK, you do live like that. Maybe not as much as we do across the pond though.
Back to topic
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 53): He lost me when he dropped the t-word. A few things you just don't say on/near/around/about an airplane.....thats one of them.
The guy used the word "terrorist". Of course, common sense says avoid it. But legally speaking, can you not utter this word on a plane? He didnt say "I am a terrorist" or "I'll seek revenge by becoming a terrorist." So what the hell was the big deal? Is there a list of words that you cannot speak on an airplane printed anywhere?
All I think about when I hear stuff like this is the movie Meet The Parents and "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb! You gonna arrest me?" Common sense has left the building. Apparently we are all too stupid to be allowed to use the power of discretion. While I don't care for slanted blogs, for the FA to make a big deal out of taking a harmless photo is ridiculous. This FA clearly doesn't know which side the company's bread is buttered on either.
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4355 posts, RR: 20 Reply 123, posted (3 months 3 days ago) and read 14471 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 116): Quoting type-rated (Reply 114):
put it in the contract of carriage. Don't hide it in some magazine that someone may never look at.
Did you intend to make this statement as ridiculous as it sounds?
It's not ridiculous. How many people do YOU know that read UA's inflight magazine cover to cover each time they fly?
If they won't put it in the contract of carriage placard the cabin with signs indicating the no photos policy or add it to the evacuation announcement. Something like "...at this time we would like to remind you of United's No Photos policy, please refrain from taking photos within the aircraft.Thank you."
Just once I would love to have a Book of FAR's with me and if a FA tells me I can't do something because of "FAA Regulations" I'd love to shove the book in her face and say "Ok, honey show me".
Traveling by air....the fun is all gone now.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
n92r03 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 251 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (3 months 3 days ago) and read 14402 times:
Honestly, the author sounds like a little bitch. If he is a 1k member how come he has never flown in the biz/first seat? Dropping the terrorist reference did him in. Good for UA. What does he think should have happened, UA delay the flight of 300 or so people so he can plead his case. Sorry about his luck.
motif1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 125, posted (3 months 3 days ago) and read 13906 times:
The FA should not have escalated the issue!
I think that the author thought it would put the FA at ease by explaining himself. I blame the whole thing entirely on the FA, United and the captain. I would usually side with the stressed and busy airline workers but this case is just ridiculous!
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 126, posted (3 months 3 days ago) and read 13621 times:
Quoting motif1 (Reply 125): I think that the author thought it would put the FA at ease by explaining himself.
By telling the FA that he regularly blogs about United and that the folks in Chicago are aware of him? What was she to think? That the episode would end up somewhere on the internet, complete with photographic evidence, wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility ... which is exactly what happened in the end.
The blogger has flown enough to know not to start up with the crew while the door is still open. The follow-up conversation "to put the FA at ease" was simply unnecessary.
Quoting tp1040 (Reply 121): They haven't even pushed back and this guy is not going to "let go" of being told what to do by the F/A.
He just had to keep ARGUING with the F/A to JUSTIFY what he was doing.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 127, posted (3 months 3 days ago) and read 13538 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 117): The Contract of Carriage is available in its entirety on United.com just like it is for all airlines. It is your responsibility to read this before you decide to by your ticket. United cannot force you you read this document however once onboard a United flight United does have the right to enforce the contract of carriage that you agreed to when you voluntarily bought your ticket.
OK, I will put it differently:
Please show me the section in the contract of carriage that makes it my contractual obligation not to take pictures (so that I am in breach of contract if I do).
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 128, posted (3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13115 times:
Do you think that there is more to the story than just his side from his blog? Although I can say that I am surprised it was UA that had the crappy service and rude crew. I have experienced rudeness on some of my flights but it seems to be most prevalent on UA.
So does the contract of carriage for UA go into prohibitions on photography in the cabin and prohibitions on usage of certain words, and also stipulate that by entering into such contract you waive your right to use cameras or other recording devices and waive your right to use those words?
flyfree727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 572 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12350 times:
Quoting rwsea (Reply 19): Busy or not with pre-take off activities, the FAs are first and foremost in a service position and need to conduct themselves with professionalism and honesty.
I am sure UA would disagree with you.. FA's, are FIRST and foremost in a SAFETY position. If asked at ANY interview with any major carrier what your primary responsibility is, and a candidate answered 'service" they would quickly be reminded first and FOREMOST their responsibility is SAFETY. I am not siding with the FA or the passenger. I am simply correcting this statement.
TheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1700 posts, RR: 4 Reply 132, posted (3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11866 times:
Quoting RIXrat (Reply 14): Even eliminating the word "terrorist," don't many of us when going through the airport and security and then putting up with half-read edicts by the airlines, feel like we are being terrorised?
Since 2001 the real terrorists have won. The REAL ones wont use the T word...good grief!!!
I used to laugh about the iron curtain in the 70´s thay the confiscated everything, you could not take pictures, could not "have a friendly talk" with any police KGB or stassi ...... we complained and mocked the russians and all their satellite republic in the cold war.... now its the other way around, the USA government promoting fear 24/7, and having all kind of prohibitions based on "freedom"... the irony is killing me....
the Captain and the cabin crew are there to enforce Policy, either you follow the policy or you fly someone ELSE! If the policy is in PLACE? it's there because of some previous Tombstone OR perceived safety hazard. Passengers don't HAVE to agree with it. You cannot get on A public conveyance as do as you please. I cannot as an airline Maintenance Rep do as I please because I don't Like the policy. Your ticket allows you the right to get WHERE you're going safely and in a timely manner. I does NOT give you rights beyond THAT. I COMPLETELY agree with the captain and the flight attendant. I'd have had the person brought up on Charges in the same place.
hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54 Reply 134, posted (3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11732 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 133): the Captain and the cabin crew are there to enforce Policy, either you follow the policy or you fly someone ELSE! If the policy is in PLACE? it's there because of some previous Tombstone OR perceived safety hazard. Passengers don't HAVE to agree with it. You cannot get on A public conveyance as do as you please. I cannot as an airline Maintenance Rep do as I please because I don't Like the policy. Your ticket allows you the right to get WHERE you're going safely and in a timely manner. I does NOT give you rights beyond THAT. I COMPLETELY agree with the captain and the flight attendant. I'd have had the person brought up on Charges in the same place.
For the umpteenth time, he did comply with the flight attendants' instructions.
The guy who didn't was allowed to stay on the plane.
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
lychemsa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 905 posts, RR: 3 Reply 135, posted (3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11690 times:
You are young. When you get to my age you learn that it's better to stop the discussion.
1. You should not have started again the discussion with her.
2. You should have flown Turkish Airlines. Much better service than our dear US carriers. Sad to say.
cosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 202 posts, RR: 0 Reply 136, posted (3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11577 times:
On my recent trip back from London, I was excited to be on ship 001 Gordon M Bethune, and the FA's encouraged me to take pictures of the plaque, them and the plane, then they took pictures of me with the plaque and suggested I get my wife so they could take pictures of both of us. I have on other occasions been asked not to take pictures while boarding the plane, and once of the view out the window, but never threatened.
All airlines, not just United need to agree on a policy and stick to it. And I hope that policy is a sensible one of allowing pictures (if they don't bother other passengers) and if there is suspicious behavior, investigate.
I work in a bank and when we see something suspicious, we are supposed to head the situation off with good customer service. Welcome them to the bank, ask how their day is, etc. Someone who is notice won't want to be remembered, and won't rob the bank. Also, we learn if they are nervous, etc and can learn more about the situation than accusing.
She started the discussion with him when she decided she wanted to play Air Marshal over him taking a photo of the AVOD screen. Age has nothing to do with it. If you want to be 70 and treated like a prisoner, that's your prerogative.
KAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1955 posts, RR: 37 Reply 138, posted (3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9975 times:
Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 130): I am sure UA would disagree with you.. FA's, are FIRST and foremost in a SAFETY position. If asked at ANY interview with any major carrier what your primary responsibility is, and a candidate answered 'service" they would quickly be reminded first and FOREMOST their responsibility is SAFETY. I am not siding with the FA or the passenger. I am simply correcting this statement.
This is the problem with many US carriers today, especially, UA/AA/US. F/A's get the idea in their head that they're ONLY there for "safety" and totally disregard the customer service aspect of their job. They view passengers as an annoying inconvenience rather than the reason they have their jobs in the first place. It's sad & disgusting.
Flying even run of the mill, average middle eastern and asian carriers puts US F/A service in the disgraceful light that it deserves. Hong Kong Airlines, JAL, Emirates, even African carriers like Kenyan make the customer service on UA look pititful.
The captain probably made a mistake in this case by trusting his flight attendant. I've learned over the years to be extremely skeptical when an F/A claims to have an issue with some passenger and wants them removed. It's usually some kind of petty disagreement that causes the F/A to go on a power trip over, then throw a hissy fit if she doesn't get her way. What we're experiencing is a nasty convergence of feminism, unionism, entitlement, paranoia, and bitterness.
Maybe we can get "planemaker" to replace F/A's with vending machines someday soon.
Unfortunately the Captain really can't override the cabin crew at many airlines without risking many months of political vitriol. He probably didn't want to kick this guy off but was faced with either making this customer angry or making the entire inflight department take revenge on him for who knows how long (and these people are handling his food/beverage). It's a really unfortunate situation.
And those of you who say this is a cultural problem in the US, you're right. We're moving closer and closer to the western European nanny-state model and it's an absolute disgrace. Many of us are fighting this trend though. The government is out of control and corporations are taking cues from the government by severely restricting the behaviors of their customers and employees.
The good thing is we have a choice of air carriers. Why anyone would fly AA/UA/US when they have a choice baffles me.
motif1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9292 times:
She could have just said that she didn't need more explanation and that as long as the passenger was complying with instructions everything was fine. Instead she went and messed it up for everyone involved. Over what?
Sad story!
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
BN747dfwhnl From United States of America, joined May 2005, 32 posts, RR: 0 Reply 140, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9160 times:
Quoting catiii (Reply 5): The UA policy is contradictory and, thusly, stupid. UA maintains a Facebook, Instagram, and twitter page in which customers are encouraged to share photos of their UA travel experience. Now how does that square with thei posted policy in their magazine, which by the way no,one ever reads. If this were such an important policy, then why aren't any announcements ever made reminding pax about the no photo rule?
Furthering this view:
If taking a photo on board the aircraft is such an important issue, then why is it not addressed directly during pre-boarding announcements as well as during pre-flight announcements? We're told in no uncertain terms that our electronic devices have to be turned off and stowed, that our carry-on bags have to fit in certain places, that smoking is prohibited in the lavatories. If the airline is going to reclassify the normal, everyday occurrence of taking a photo as an egregious violation of flight rules, punishable by forfeiture of travel, then it would only seem appropriate to address the important issue directly instead of burying it in obscurity in the inflight magazine. At the very least, the preboarding and preflight announcements should say, "No photographs may be taken on board the aircraft of anything pertaining to the aircraft or the flight crew. For more information, please see page (x) in the Hemispheres inflight magazine."
AA87 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 141, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9033 times:
all comes down to personality of the crew. Some hate their jobs and/or people, and instead of being a "customer service rep" with 50-300 strangers each flight, much easier to act like a prison guard. Recently took my family to FL down on SW back on Spirit. On SW 20 min after take off I approached front galley to ask for water for my 4 year old son. I was told "we'll be starting cabin service shortly" as in 'wait your turn'. I was crystal clear the request was for my 4 year old but the nasty FAs gave me a look that clearly said sit down and shut up. No worries, I sent a very polite em to SW just relating the facts and got a huge apology and sizeable voucher. I feared flying Spirit for the first time bc they have a rep of being brutal and charging for oxygen. But that crew could not have been nicer.
US pax have voted w their pocketbooks. We value price more than anything except safety. Me included. Real price is that we have to accept -- always in coach, often in business even in First (and this has little to do w 9/11, I had this experience on both AA and UA First pre-9/11) -- that if we get a bitter,nasty,resentful, or plain mean cabin crew, and we say or do the wrong thing, we have zero rights and recourse except 50-50 chance at a voucher if we complain after the fact. My 1970s childhood memories of falling in love w flying bc UA took me to the red carpet room and up front to meet the flight crew, and AA FAs fawned all over me bc I asked questions about their jobs, etc., are as distant a memory as Pan Am Clippers at LGA. Flying today on any US carrier means you have virtually a 100% chance of arriving safely, and a 50-50 chance of paying less than your ticket actually costs the carrier. Everything else about the experience is either negative or a crap shoot.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 142, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8832 times:
Quoting B727FA (Reply 95): You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage
Here is the relevent document (updated as at February 7, 2013) http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf
Can you show me where it says that you may not take photographs? The only reference to cameras, photos or photographic equipment is where it says UA will not be liable to any loss or damage to them and that you may carry a camera on-board as part of your allowance.
The contract does say
Quote: Transportation of Passengers and Baggage provided by United Air Lines, Inc. and Carriers doing business as United Express, are subject to the following terms and conditions, in addition to any terms and conditions printed on or in any ticket, ticket jacket or eticket receipt. By purchasing a ticket or accepting transportation, the passenger agrees to be bound thereby.
(Emphasis added.) No reference to needing to read the in-flight magazine or it carrying any additional requirements that must be observed in addition to the CoC.
However, that doesn't really appear to have been the issue. The other passenger who took photos was not booted off, if the blogger's report is correct. The issue is challenging authority. He argued back, preventing the FA from carrying out her other pre-flight duties. This might be seen as "disruptive" or "disorderly" but he didn't fail to comply with orders. Obviously whatever reason the FA gave, his action could not have been a major concern as if it had UA would have been under no obligation to carry him. But as we have seen, UA did ensure that he was accommodated on a later flight.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3255 posts, RR: 14 Reply 143, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8533 times:
Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 130): I am sure UA would disagree with you.. FA's, are FIRST and foremost in a SAFETY position.
Two points:
1) This is the problem with US airlines. If FA's are first and foremost there for safety reasons, then they are highly overpaid because their services are rarely needed. Lots of beaches have volunteer lifeguards to rescue any swimmers who might be drowning, and my town has volunteer firefighters - they aren't paid anything. Should we do the same with FA's? Being an FA is a service position in the entire rest of the world outside of the US, as it should be here as well (and was, before 9/11). They're not getting paid on each flight to sit there just in case something bad happens. They're being paid to provide service to the passengers. That's their real job. Sorry if you don't see it that way.
2) Taking photos for a blog has nothing to do with the safety of the flight, which is perhaps the most important point here. Even if the FA's job was primarily safety-related, she didn't perform it properly in this case. Nothing she did improved the safety of the flight; all she did was get a high-value customer kicked off the plane and ensured some bad PR for the airline. She really should be fired for lying about a customer's actions.
Again, even if your position is that FA's are there for safety, this FA did not perform that function properly in this case. She lied about a guy taking a photo for a blog. There's no justification for this under any rationale.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
gasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 733 posts, RR: 0 Reply 145, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8402 times:
Quoting AA87 (Reply 142): Flying today on any US carrier means you have virtually a 100% chance of arriving safely, and a 50-50 chance of paying less than your ticket actually costs the carrier. Everything else about the experience is either negative or a crap shoot.
Very well put.
I fly internally in the US about once or twice a year, and on overseas legacy carriers about 8 times a year. In my experience, this arrogant, surly and occasionally downright aggressive behavior from flight attendants is the almost exclusive domain of US legacy carriers. The rest of the world wouldn't - and don't - put up with it.
This is always intrigued me, because this the nation that turned litigation into an art form. These same people who would send back a steak for being medium-rare as opposed to rare while firmly berating the waiter and chef; will consider any flight where open hostility is not experienced as great service. It's a form of bullying by the FAs really. They know once inside the metal tube, the hapless PAX has no immediate rights whatsoever.
And this is not - at least not entirely - a post 9/11 concept. Perhaps that dreadful day made things worse; but surly behavior was becoming the norm well through the 1990's.
One exception in my experience is Southwest Airlines. In 20 or so flights with them, I've never had one where the service and interaction was anything but excellent.
hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54 Reply 146, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8384 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 144): Wow I can't even fathom how to respond to that as a fellow flight attendant (albeit not for an American carrier). What a way to approach a job. You speak as if it is the passengers' privilege to be flying with you, and that while on the aircraft, you are god, and seem to relish in this power you possess over the masses for intermittent periods of time. I'm sorry, I don't tend to ever really say things like that to others in the forum much less a fellow cabin crew but I just had to be honest and express how off putting I found that post.
Safety of my passengers and my fellow crew is my number one priority but I do not expect passengers to keep their head down and live in fear of me or one of my colleagues threatening them the moment they have the audacity to say something more to me beyond "yes, ma'am/sir".
x1000
Bravo. Brilliant post.
People keep forgetting that the passenger in question did stop taking photographs after being asked to do so. It appears that the passenger tried to approach the flight attendant in a reconciliatory manner (albeit in an awkward way), and the flight attendant responded in a very heavy handed way that contravenes any notion of common sense.
Now I understand why airlines such as Asiana or Cathay can get away with charging hundreds of dollars more for the same flight. The U.S. based carriers can only compete on price.
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 148, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8378 times:
Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 138): F/A's get the idea in their head that they're ONLY there for "safety" and totally disregard the customer service aspect of their job. They view passengers as an annoying inconvenience rather than the reason they have their jobs in the first place. It's sad & disgusting.
enginebird From United States of America, joined May 2007, 339 posts, RR: 0 Reply 149, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8161 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 47):
Flight Attendant comes up to me and says they feel someone is:
1. Suspicious
2. Not following instructions
3. Cursing
4. A distraction
5. Drunk
They are off the plane. Period. Discussion is over.
This has "power trip", paranoia and lack of common sense written all over it.
It is also why many people, including myself, avoid US-based airlines like the proverbial plague...
Unfortunately, occassionally there is no other choice and I have to put up with attitudes like yours.
Alias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2644 posts, RR: 2 Reply 151, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7661 times:
Quoting hoons90 (Reply 150): It appears that the passenger tried to approach the flight attendant in a reconciliatory manner (albeit in an awkward way), and the flight attendant responded in a very heavy handed way that contravenes any notion of common sense.
That's the thing, we don't really know in what way the flight attendant percieved his manner when he approached her. He may have been trying to be reconciliatory, but what if he instead came across as agressive or argumentative. We know what he says he said. We don't know if that's what he actually said or not. We don't know the volume of his voice, intonation of his voice, or body language.
Simply put, none of us have enough information to be able to truly say whether the FA was in the wrong or not.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
Capt.Fantastic From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 650 posts, RR: 0 Reply 153, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7267 times:
It seems many here are assuming what this guy wrote is completely accurate.
You're only seeing one side which I highly doubt is unbiased.
For all we know, he could've been stand-offish, smelled of alcohol, maybe other passengers complained, or who knows what.
One thing I find very peculiar is that he did not leave the issue alone: Think about it: Why would anyone readdress a FA about something he was asked to stop doing? Given the circumstances, I find it probable he had a bone to pick. If that were the case, than he got exactly what he deserved. But again, we just don't know what happened.
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 33)
Quote: Just relax, say "yes, ma'am/sir" and do as you are asked. It is the path of least resistance.
Saying "Yes ma'am / yes Sir" to a flight attendant is absurd and I find it disturbing that you, as a flight attendant, actually expect that kind of obedience from passengers. I believe all passengers should comply with crew member instructions and to do so politely; however, no one should allow themselves to be mistreated or disrespected.
hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54 Reply 154, posted (3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7224 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Capt.Fantastic (Reply 159): One thing I find very peculiar is that he did not leave the issue alone: Think about it: Why would anyone readdress a FA about something he was asked to stop doing? Given the circumstances, I find it probable he had a bone to pick. If that were the case, than he got exactly what he deserved. But again, we just don't know what happened.
Perhaps he thought he got off on the wrong foot and wanted to make amends and build some rapport with the cabin crew on what is a long flight in the J cabin. If I believe that I made someone angry as a result of some sort of misunderstanding, I'd probably want to resolve it proactively.
If I was looking for trouble, the very last thing I would do is give out a business card that may have my name, employer and other information on it, such as contact information.
[Edited 2013-02-21 21:12:57]
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
BLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 194 posts, RR: 14 Reply 155, posted (3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7074 times:
I left this comment on the site.
Quote: This story brings forth the ease with which a crew can just boot a paying passenger of a flight, unjustified or otherwise, and without any consequence to them or their employer.
Have we Americans become so accepting of someone trampling our civil rights, and the basic tenet of ethical business dealing. I travel globally, and with the exception of US and British carriers, other world airline crews know who pays their salary.
I am not advocating crews should accept threats lying down. But there has to be a requirement of explanation.
If a crew wants me off the plane, fine. But then ethical and fair business practice is that it the airline's responsibility to get me to my final destination and make good any losses suffered as a consequence of my denied travel.
Only when airlines start getting hit in their wallets will they start questioning their crew, and only then will the crew
And @Matthew, my hats off to your understanding and patience, for giving that crew even the slightest modicum of doubt. If United employees, even one, do not value you as a customer, it is time to move on. Get your million mile card, cut it and send it to the CEO of United. Believe me, they care.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 7 Reply 156, posted (3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7042 times:
Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 10): That ridiculous photo policy - no matter how they may interprete it - and the behavior of these crew members are two reasons why I will not consider flying UA again. What a shame.
They lost me years ago with the shitty service and ratty old F/A's
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 33): Make life easy for yourself and just follow the rules.
How was he to know it was in the "magazine" ?
I very rarely even bother reading that generally rehashed crap.
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4355 posts, RR: 20 Reply 157, posted (3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6891 times:
When I had an incident on an AA 777 a few years ago I had an incident with a few FA's because I wanted to walk around the 777 and have a look during the boarding process. This was my first time on a 777. I was intercepted by two fa's who told me I can't look around inside the aircraft. It's "against FAA regulations". I was told to stay in my seat the remainder of the flight. I handed one of them my business card and said to deliever it to the Captain.
About an hour after take off one of the F/A's came up to me and asked me what I would like to drink. So I ordered two Bacardi & Cokes. The F/A went and got them and explained "They are on the Captain". After she put the drinks down she handed my my business card back. On the back it was handwritten "Thank You For Flying American Airlines, signed Captain XXX".
And a week later I got on a 777 for my trip home and had the same exact crew! At the door the purser said "Oh no, not you again!". I smiled and said "Yes, me again. But I won't look around this time." We all laughed at that one.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 158, posted (3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6658 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 165): Sounds almost like you would prefer a flight full of prisoners in chains and restraints. What happened to customer service and common human decency?
That was my thinking as well. I suggest that the last super merger should take place in the US and the emerging airline called either Ameriflot or , much better, Conair.
Passengers get a choice between plastic restraints or metal handcuffs and shackles. Passengers have to assemble at the boarding gate in an orderly fashion. If the guard whistles once marching onb board starts, 2 whistles mean immediate stop and so on.
What DTWPurserboy writes is stand-up comedy at its best, really. Unbelievable.
Shut up and be quiet and don't disturb the prison guards. Don't say NO at any time whilst on board.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 996 posts, RR: 2 Reply 159, posted (3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6430 times:
Sheesh, I had a really lucky escape... I flew on a UA 787 late last year and I took pictures of the cabin, the IFE, the BF seats, the electronic window blinds... Heck, I was even shown to the Flightdeck at the end of the flight and was offered the opportunity to take a picture in there. Many other passengers did the same. Now I realise how close I must have come to being kicked off the flight. Or is it that some crews take a more sensible and balanced view of passengers who take photographs?
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 502 posts, RR: 3 Reply 160, posted (3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6057 times:
Would like to hear your opinion on a scenario situation:
What would have happened if the blogger would have informed gate agents / Police/ UA ground staff after deboarding, claiming that he considers the FA making false accusations as a security risk and ask the ground people to investigate and take action, make protocol?
Not beeing asked to gt on the flight again, but in a sense: you better take action.
Just curious about this, before I may ever shut my mouth in case such a thing would happen to me.
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3036 posts, RR: 3 Reply 161, posted (3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5872 times:
There's no excuse for the way the FA acted, but as someone commented on the blog, he should have chose his battles more carefully. The second exchange between him and the FA was wholly unnecessary and probably came off as a bit vindictive and condescending from her point of view. To me, it seems like he wanted the last word.
DTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 541 posts, RR: 2 Reply 162, posted (3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5846 times:
Common civility is gone from US air travel. People do not even say "please", "thank you" or even acknowledge you when you say "hi, welcome aboard." They just brush past you. Ask "would you care for a beverage" or "have you made your selection for dinner"and they won't even take off their headsets so they can hear the question, much less give the response. I always grin when someone says "Thank you for a great flight" and am truly puzzled when then very next passengers says "This was the worst flight ever." It's all about perception, I guess. I don't take it personally--in a few minutes I am walking off the big tube and never have to look at that person again.
I was raised to say "yes, ma'am" and "no, sir" from childhood as a matter of simple courtesy and to keep my feet off the furniture and walls. Trust me when I tell you that you will receive stellar inflight service from a crew when you treat them like fellow human beings and not like a service animal. Smile, use some eye contact, make a little small talk--we enjoy the interaction--in short, use the manners your mothers taught you, just like mine did.
I have never had a passenger complaint lodged against me in nearly 40 years, I have literally hundreds of commendations, crews really like to work with me because I have their backs and I get on the airplane in a great mood, ready to have a good time.
Being over 60 has allowed me to watch the younger generation develop a certain attitude. It's all about "ME!" There are many exceptions to that general statement. I simply cannot believe that another adult would say you don't have to say"yes, ma'am" as a matter of common decency in a public place or treat a lady with disrespect because you do not perceive her as your equal.
DTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 163, posted (3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5754 times:
A Travel Blogger with almost Million miles who walked in with an expectation celebrity treatment met his match of a FA who got up wrong side of the bed.
When the US Airline industry is in a continous cycle of Chapter 11s and Mergers for last 10-20 years, it obviosly takes toll on employees performance. That is the reason we see many outbursts by FA in USA, who are supposed to be customer friendly. Not an excuse but at least those who deal with Corporate America can relate.
Every blogger shouldn't think he/she is Paula Brodwell, its possible this guy wants to advance his career with a newsworthy blog. He is a not a prominent news anchor every would know to make such joke aboard an aircraft.
CalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0 Reply 164, posted (3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5642 times:
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 174): Being over 60 has allowed me to watch the younger generation develop a certain attitude.
I hate to break it to you, but every generation says that about the generation that follows them, not realizing they that generation was in fact raised by the very people making the comment in the first place.
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 502 posts, RR: 3 Reply 165, posted (3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5479 times:
Again, Would like to hear peoples opinion on a scenario situation:
What would have happened if the blogger would have informed gate agents / Police/ UA ground staff after deboarding, claiming that he considers the FA making false accusations as a security risk and ask the ground people to investigate and take action, make protocol?
Not beeing asked to gt on the flight again, but in a sense: you better take action.
Just curious about this, before I may ever shut my mouth in case such a thing would happen to me.
motif1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5250 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 179): So far, there is no evidence of him complaining to UA or any statement by UA..
Or did I miss it?.
I read somewhere that United is aware of the blog and they are in contact with him.
Just checked Matthew's blog. He updated it today:
"United has reached out and I had a 25-minute telephone conversation with a representative in the PR department yesterday. We reached no settlement, but did have time to discuss the issue in depth and I am comfortable saying this—United is taking this issue seriously and has launched an extensive internal investigation."
There is more which I am not going to paste here. He put some corroborating stories from fellow passengers at the top of the page as well.
[Edited 2013-02-22 08:48:04]
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 168, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5195 times:
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 172): I certainly hope that his employer has a more sophisticated system to monitor ON-JOB performance of its employees than to spy on them and punish them as a result of what they wrote in their private time on various forums. He may (quite obviously) hate his job and his customers and vent his frustration through posts on a.net but at the same time he might be a professional while on board and to suggest a disciplinary action should be taken because of what he wrote on a.net is simply wrong and just as Orwellian as the power of a flight attendant to kick you off the plane because of one word being said, no ifs or buts.
I quite agree, L410. Obviously any disciplinary action would follow an investigation of on-job performance, and one cannot be fired for anonymously blogging, though clearly implicitly Delta will be getting some of the bad rap as this person appears to be a DTW-based purser. He could have used a more neutral handle if he really wanted to keep his thoughts separate from being associated with his likely employer.
I find it hard to believe however that, regardless of what he claims, an individual with an attitude like this will be delivering good customer service, which an investigation would show pretty clearly, one would assume.
psa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 447 posts, RR: 20 Reply 171, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5135 times:
I hope this story goes viral like that “United breaks guitars” thing a while ago. UA deserves all the bad publicity for allowing something like this to happen. It’s an outrage that the FA got a bug up her ass about taking a harmless photo on a plane. Unfortunately the use of the word "terrorist" probably ruined the situation, but the FA’s initial behavior was out of line. And simply saying that you’re NOT a terrorist should not trigger a negative response since that is not like making a false threat.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 172, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5110 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 179): So far, there is no evidence of him complaining to UA
Of course not, that's the new way to get attention. He admits as much at the end of his blog post, "United has not been contacted yet, but I will send them a copy of this story."
Rather than address the issue with the "folks" in Chicago he knows, the GS agent who handled his rebooking at the airport, or going through the normal channels all of the rest of us would, United gets blasted in public first and is left battling uphill on two fronts, the customer, and the general public at large.
psa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 447 posts, RR: 20 Reply 173, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5095 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 185): Quoting bennett123 (Reply 179):
So far, there is no evidence of him complaining to UA
Of course not, that's the new way to get attention. He admits as much at the end of his blog post, "United has not been contacted yet, but I will send them a copy of this story."
The updates that I linked to above indicate that UA is aware of the issue and they have been in contact.
hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54 Reply 174, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5059 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 185): Rather than address the issue with the "folks" in Chicago he knows, the GS agent who handled his rebooking at the airport, or going through the normal channels all of the rest of us would, United gets blasted in public first and is left battling uphill on two fronts, the customer, and the general public at large.
What happened to him was beyond outrageous, and I don't blame him for putting it up on the blogosphere. Who says you only have to write about good experiences?
United only have themselves to blame over this PR nightmare.
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
psa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 447 posts, RR: 20 Reply 175, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5043 times:
Quoting hoons90 (Reply 187): United only have themselves to blame over this PR nightmare.
Thank you. This cuts through all the bull. UA needs to admit that their crew overreacted in this case. They also need to get rid of that gawdawful photo "policy" in the inflight magazine that nobody reads.
Hopefully, the message will sink in that photography is not a crime, and photography had nothing to do with the atrocity of 9/11.
ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4658 posts, RR: 1 Reply 176, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5016 times:
Most policies I've read say no taking pictures of the flight crew, as well as other passengers without their permission. But the rest of UA' policy seems vague and contradictory.
Technically, if you took a picture out the window of another UA plane parked at the next gate, that would be photographing UA equipment. How is that any different than photographing from the gate, from the plane of another airline, or from the parking garage?
I'm sure that there are parts of the cabin operations that UA doesn't want photographed, either for security purposes or for trade secret purposes. But, the policy seems very broad, compared to what the intended goals are.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 177, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5008 times:
Quoting hoons90 (Reply 187): Who says you only have to write about good experiences?
He admitted to waiting for 3 days before going to press about his experience. In that timeframe, he could have reached out to his contacts at UA, or simply initiated a complaint the normal way any of us would.
I have no problem blogging about bad experiences—sandbagging I do have a problem with, however.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 178, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4940 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 190): He admitted to waiting for 3 days before going to press about his experience. In that timeframe, he could have reached out to his contacts at UA, or simply initiated a complaint the normal way any of us would.
I have no problem blogging about bad experiences—sandbagging I do have a problem with, however.
I don't think there is any set rule in a supposedly free country, not even in the inflight magazine, outlining how long one must wait before blogging about a personal experience as a customer, whether one must complain through "regular channels" first before blogging, etc.
And what exactly do you meant by sandbagging here? How is he sandbagging?
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 179, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4920 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 191): I don't think there is any set rule in a supposedly free country, not even in the inflight magazine, outlining how long one must wait before blogging about a personal experience as a customer
Have you ever read an article in the normal press where the author will write something like "so-and-so was contacted for their response" yadda, yadda, yadda? It's courteous to report the whole story, or at least give the other party the opportunity to be aware of the situation before causing a media storm about it. It's called having manners and respect for the other party.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 191): And what exactly do you meant by sandbagging here?
It's used in the manner of using something to one's advantage (a blog, in the case), that the other party doesn't have access to. (And wouldn't have access to, since comments from UA weren't solicited before going to press.)
catiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2279 posts, RR: 3 Reply 180, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4865 times:
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 174): Common civility is gone from US air travel. People do not even say "please", "thank you" or even acknowledge you when you say "hi, welcome aboard." They just brush past you.
Funny, sounds like the demeanor of some of the flight attendants on any number of my recent flights.
This little soliloquy of yours sounds like a feeble attempt at CYA. All one needs to do is go look at ANY number of your posts to see how you really feel about your passengers and your demeanor to them.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 181, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4897 times:
I have read more about this and saddened by the way things were handled. It could have been dealt with so much better than this. Too bad that the old adage paraphrased, a few bad apples ruin the bunch, applies here.
It is far easier to speak of bad people than of the good ones. There would never be a thread this long or talked about so much if it was about good or great customer service. There would never be people here saying I am switching to XX airlines because of the way someone here received exemplary service, much as people here have said they are no longer flying UA because of what this man endured. The blogger, himself, still wants to fly UA and let us gain his trust and loyalty back, per his blog. Far different than the reaction of some here.
I am a professional, much as a majority of us at UA are and at every other airline. We are there for customer service. Safety is a given. As much as there is training, there is common sense. All of us get the first, most of us have the latter. That combination with experience helps in providing good customer service. Again, the majority of us feel that way.
As for comments about the state of affairs with human nature and not being polite, I look at it this way: kill them with kindness. I get to walk away at the of the day, head held high knowing I did the right thing. I cannot ever change human nature or the way people behave nor will I be passive-aggressive trying to change others. If you are not polite to me...whatever, you will still get good customer service from me. You are the one who has to live your life the way you do. Not me and good luck with it, too.
As for the picture taking..I am an aviation nut. When people get their cameras out, I always wonder if they are A-netters. I take pictures, too and am truly blessed to work in an area in which I love.
All I can say say is that UA is a great airline, we have great employees. Please, don't let the actions of a very few speak for the rest of us. In the same breath, don't knee-jerk react.
I look forward to flying with and serving you. Truly...welcome on board.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 182, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4873 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 192): Have you ever read an article in the normal press where the author will write something like "so-and-so was contacted for their response" yadda, yadda, yadda? It's courteous to report the whole story
It's a personal blog this guy writes for, not the Wahington Post. And he is not after the Pulitzer price either. He is telling a personal experience, and IIRC correctly, he did not go to the press in the first place, but only posted the stuff in his blog. From there it went viral. One reader of the blog even send an email to Jeff Smisek about it, so it is more like a snowball effect than this guy elaborately instrumentalizing the press.
The more press attention this gets, the better. Because the incident exemplifies what issues need to be addressed in an industry that first and foremost is a service industry.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 183, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4841 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 192): Have you ever read an article in the normal press where the author will write something like "so-and-so was contacted for their response" yadda, yadda, yadda? It's courteous to report the whole story, or at least give the other party the opportunity to be aware of the situation before causing a media storm about it. It's called having manners and respect for the other party.
A blog is not the normal press. It is a platform for expressing personal views and experiences. Such as one's experience when travelling. And as for having manners and respect for the other party, I think getting marched off a plane on flimsy grounds will make most people go far more ballistic than this blogger got.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 192): It's used in the manner of using something to one's advantage (a blog, in the case), that the other party doesn't have access to. (And wouldn't have access to, since comments from UA weren't solicited before going to press.)
That is not what sandbagging means. Sandbagging means not revealing one's cards fully so as to make the other party feel they have seen the full hand, and then later revealing a trump card. In other words, it means the blogger has more damning info relating to the experience that could really embarrass United.
hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54 Reply 184, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4842 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 194): I have read more about this and saddened by the way things were handled. It could have been dealt with so much better than this. Too bad that the old adage paraphrased, a few bad apples ruin the bunch, applies here.
It is far easier to speak of bad people than of the good ones. There would never be a thread this long or talked about so much if it was about good or great customer service. There would never be people here saying I am switching to XX airlines because of the way someone here received exemplary service, much as people here have said they are no longer flying UA because of what this man endured. The blogger, himself, still wants to fly UA and let us gain his trust and loyalty back, per his blog. Far different than the reaction of some here.
I am a professional, much as a majority of us at UA are and at every other airline. We are there for customer service. Safety is a given. As much as there is training, there is common sense. All of us get the first, most of us have the latter. That combination with experience helps in providing good customer service. Again, the majority of us feel that way.
As for comments about the state of affairs with human nature and not being polite, I look at it this way: kill them with kindness. I get to walk away at the of the day, head held high knowing I did the right thing. I cannot ever change human nature or the way people behave nor will I be passive-aggressive trying to change others. If you are not polite to me...whatever, you will still get good customer service from me. You are the one who has to live your life the way you do. Not me and good luck with it, too.
As for the picture taking..I am an aviation nut. When people get their cameras out, I always wonder if they are A-netters. I take pictures, too and am truly blessed to work in an area in which I love.
All I can say say is that UA is a great airline, we have great employees. Please, don't let the actions of a very few speak for the rest of us. In the same breath, don't knee-jerk react.
I look forward to flying with and serving you. Truly...welcome on board.
I applaud you for your brilliant post and would feel honored to be on one of your flights. You're right, there are good and bad apples everywhere. Perhaps I was exaggerating when I said that I would actively avoid UA.
The industry needs more people like you!
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 185, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4820 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 195): It's a personal blog this guy writes for, not the Wahington Post.
LOL, a what? A personal blog? No, it's not a personal blog, like you or I would type up in our spare time. We're talking about a commercial venture here, and a certain level of responsibility comes with it. I'd poke around that blog a bit more if I were you.
While you're there, look at the links to his award ticket booking service, or how many places you can find where he'll profit by hooking you up with one of his credit card partners.
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2471 posts, RR: 31 Reply 186, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4803 times:
Its amazing to me how many people here are so complacent and fearful. People actually believe this F/A was in the right when she and the captain were so clearly out of line?
To those who harp on this guy for "not following instructions," uh, that makes no sense because he listened to the F/A when she told him not to take more photos. The same principle holds true, if for instance, she asked him to turn off the phone for takeoff...and he proceeds to turn it off. Then she comes back and kicks him off the plane for non-compliance??? It makes no sense.
The crux of this situation is unnecessary fear, lack of common sense and airline crew believing they are the FBI. Passengers are not prisoners. Passengers have rights. I mean at this point the way the airlines operate is tyrannical. You can't take a photo??? Its insane! I mean literally, INSANE. This is the age of the internet. Terrorists can access tons of 'sensitive' information just using Google. We a.net people routinely post diagrams of airplanes 'insides,' there are photos of all planes interiors, exteriors, in the air, parked, APU close ups, rudders... by these standards, we should be closing A.net right now. What on earth is he going to do with a photo? GET REAL. These policies are absolutely crap. And 99.999% of the time, they aren't even enforced! I routinely take pictures on the plane. No one says anything to me. So why now? Why this person?
This guy is not a "bitch," as so many have called him... he stood up for himself when he SHOULD have. He should sue them just on the principle. I know if I were an attorney and it cost me nothing but time, I would be so far up United's a** just out of principle.
The folks at the majors need a reality check. It's been 12 years. It's time to use the knowledge we have to make necessary safety measures... ones that make sense. After that, its an UNHEALTHY level of paranoia that makes everyone's life miserable. A real terrorist is not going to do or say anything out of the ordinary. They wouldn't want to draw any attention. Common sense!!!
hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54 Reply 187, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4776 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 198): LOL, a what? A personal blog? No, it's not a personal blog, like you or I would type up in our spare time. We're talking about a commercial venture here, and a certain level of responsibility comes with it. I'd poke around that blog a bit more if I were you.
I don't think it really matters, because whatever happened, happened. United's response to the situation won't really change what had already transpired. Hopefully, the author will follow up with the airline's response and give recognition to the airline's efforts to make things right.
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 188, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4782 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 198): LOL, a what? A personal blog? No, it's not a personal blog, like you or I would type up in our spare time. We're talking about a commercial venture here, and a certain level of responsibility comes with it. I'd poke around that blog a bit more if I were you.
It does not matter. A blog is a blog, it is for people to post their personal views. Just like you are posting your views here. On a site that also has all kinds of commercial ads. Does not matter who placed the ads.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 189, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4847 times:
Quoting hoons90 (Reply 197): The industry needs more people like you!
Thank you, very much!
This industry already does have many people like me. We are there every day, every flight. We just don't get blogged about, or talked about ad nauseum like the bad ones do. We are silent, but we are many.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 190, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4777 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 196): That is not what sandbagging means. Sandbagging means not revealing one's cards fully so as to make the other party feel they have seen the full hand, and then later revealing a trump card. In other words, it means the blogger has more damning info relating to the experience that could really embarrass United.
You and I are simply going to have to view the definition of sandbagging, and how Matthew used his trump card, differently. He had three days and a GS agent to begin initiating a complaint via before going postal on United in the blogosphere. The GS agent, who is capable of opening a lot of doors at UA, was certainly one of the victims of being sandbagged here. Did Matthew warn the GS agent that he would use his blog to his advantage while complaining to the GS agent at the time? No, there's no record of that at all.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 201): It does not matter. A blog is a blog, it is for people to post their personal views. Just like you are posting your views here. On a site that also has all kinds of commercial ads.
We're going to have to disagree here too. "Live and Let's Fly" has all of the hallmarks of a commercial venture.
Now, let's return to the story at hand, rather than getting the thread locked by diverging into tangential points.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, RR: 40 Reply 191, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4792 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 166): I suggest that the last super merger should take place in the US and the emerging airline called either Ameriflot or , much better, Conair.
Passengers get a choice between plastic restraints or metal handcuffs and shackles. Passengers have to assemble at the boarding gate in an orderly fashion. If the guard whistles once marching onb board starts, 2 whistles mean immediate stop and so on.
What DTWPurserboy writes is stand-up comedy at its best, really. Unbelievable.
Shut up and be quiet and don't disturb the prison guards. Don't say NO at any time whilst on board.
My answer to this whole story is BOYCOTT.
I am a former pre-merger United Million Miler and many years 1K the only thing I can say is I have lost interest.
There is a choice of airlines so I have waved the new Conited goodbye, I jumped ship and I fly whatever other airline that suits my needs. I believe many other former United Elites have done the same.
Sick of their scene. Our MM status is diluted anyway with the coming of the new airline so I feel I am not losing much by no longer stepping foot on their aircraft.
This story is insane. It will lose them more passengers other than tour groups and the el cheapos.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 192, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4750 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 62): Well said. Everytime I hear someone (usually US airline employees) say "flying is a privilege, not a a right", it really irritates me. Do they even know what rights and privileges are? And what rights a paying customer has?
But they are right.
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 53): He lost me when he dropped the t-word. A few things you just don't say on/near/around/about an airplane.....thats one of them.
I agree with you completely.
Quoting hoons90 (Reply 150): Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 144):
Wow I can't even fathom how to respond to that as a fellow flight attendant (albeit not for an American carrier). What a way to approach a job. You speak as if it is the passengers' privilege to be flying with you, and that while on the aircraft, you are god, and seem to relish in this power you possess over the masses for intermittent periods of time. I'm sorry, I don't tend to ever really say things like that to others in the forum much less a fellow cabin crew but I just had to be honest and express how off putting I found that post.
Safety of my passengers and my fellow crew is my number one priority but I do not expect passengers to keep their head down and live in fear of me or one of my colleagues threatening them the moment they have the audacity to say something more to me beyond "yes, ma'am/sir".
x1000
Bravo. Brilliant post.
People keep forgetting that the passenger in question did stop taking photographs after being asked to do so. It appears that the passenger tried to approach the flight attendant in a reconciliatory manner (albeit in an awkward way), and the flight attendant responded in a very heavy handed way that contravenes any notion of common sense.
Now I understand why airlines such as Asiana or Cathay can get away with charging hundreds of dollars more for the same flight. The U.S. based carriers can only compete on price.
I only hope that the F/A's on US based carriers would experience what real customer service is all about.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 193, posted (3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4719 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 203): You and I are simply going to have to view the definition of sandbagging, and how Matthew used his trump card, differently
Unfortunately there is only one correct, accepted definition of sandbagging, and it is not the one you are using. But as you say, we digress.
Excellent post..and simply affirming what's been known for the last 15-20 years, US carriers adopted 'a must make a profit above all else' attitude back then and has done nothing but ratchet it up since then... we've all seen the nickle and diming reach unprecedented levels. It's now created a condition where the term 'service' hangs by a thread basically means very limited contact with passengers. A near built resentment has taken over, the FA's are just a smidge nicer than the TSA people who just nearly strip-searched you. And who's fault is that?
Airline Mgmt...
..these mergers, acquisitions and downsizings done in name of 'pursuit of profit' has produced an atmosphere of completely instability for the airline workers - that has a mental toll on those who were once quite proud and happy to be employed by said carrier. They must feel quite powerless in such a volatile industry.. this incident underscores that point in terms of frustration immediately canceling out common sense. Sorry to say, I see no end insight. The new Big AA (US merger) will certainly not be a better airline, it's light years from being as good as it was in the 1990s or before... now merged with another iffy carrier assures more contentious AA staff keeping their distance from US staff as they 'try' to work together and the passengers suffer in the process. I can't think of a single merger that produced a 'greater airline' than before. A prolonged job for some..? Sure. But better airline..not a chance.
The guys at the top are too busy looking down the road for themselves (not the carrier) than to seriously worry about meager flight attendant power trips... which sadly, will continue and fester as US carriers (Virgin America exempt) race to the bottom (for the trophy or title of being known as the worst large carrier ever).
BN747
[Edited 2013-02-22 12:16:43]
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
jreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 414 posts, RR: 0 Reply 195, posted (3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4463 times:
Ladies and gentlemen. We have 2 exhibits for you.
A. EWRCabincrew
B. DTWPurserBoy
In this thread. There are also opposite examples in the comments section of the blog. There are some airline employees who felt this could have been handled in a much better way, even though the blogger wasn't perfect, either. Then there are those who responded who were glad the FA reacted the way he did and the snotty business card blogger got what he deserved.
Be as nice as you can, even when an issue comes up, and you are likely to get a better reaction back. I would much rather be on a flight with someone like EWRCabincrew.
vegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 289 posts, RR: 0 Reply 196, posted (3 months 2 days ago) and read 4363 times:
Quoting A330 (Reply 30): As a current Widebody Captain, I feel compelled to participate in this topic.
1) There is NO SUCH THING as words that are forbidden to be told inside an aircraft. You can say bomb, terrorist whatever, as long as you do not claim to be one or have one with you etc.
2) There is NO SUCH THING as forbidding a normal passenger to make a picture of his seat or the aircraft. it might be mentioned somewhere in a magazine, but I do not care, as Captain I, and I do think nearly ALL of my colleguesmwould never disembark a passenger formtakingma picture.
3) I DO kick people out for being rude or agressive to the crew. No exceptions made.
By the way, please stop using this ridiculousm "t-word" it is terrorist .
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 197, posted (3 months 2 days ago) and read 4225 times:
If you are asked to do something just do it. What is the big deal here? I can see not having a camera out for take off and landing, during turbulence and generally when the fasten seat belt light is on. I in fact hate it when there is someone in front of me making a video of their walk up the airbridge and all the way to their seat. Really duh. Just keep moving and stow your baggage and then get out of the way of other people trying to get by you. It would really speed up the boarding process.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 198, posted (3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 211): If you are asked to do something just do it. What is the big deal here?
So did you even read the original blog or this thread? The pax did what he was asked to do. He stopped taking photos. Please at least have some grasp of the facts before posting such platitudes.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3595 posts, RR: 5 Reply 199, posted (3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3900 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 167): Quoting Quokkas (Reply 143):
He argued back, preventing the FA from carrying out her other pre-flight duties. This might be seen as "disruptive" or "disorderly" but he didn't fail to comply with orders.
That's the problem - if you happen to encounter a hysterical FA and argue about, say, your dinner, she tells you to shut up and you insist, this may be seen as "preventing the FA from carrying out her duties" as well - and it may, in this paranoid system air travel has become, be interpreted as being "disruptive". And off you go, getting frogmarched off the plane.
I am quoting myself as I have just become aware of this really interesting post by an UA customer who indeed confirms my concerns - check it out:
PanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 200, posted (3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3871 times:
Quoting hoons90 (Reply 197): I applaud you for your brilliant post and would feel honored to be on one of your flights. You're right, there are good and bad apples everywhere. Perhaps I was exaggerating when I said that I would actively avoid UA.
The industry needs more people like you!
I would like to second the motion. In contrast to some of the more bizarre statements made by cabin crew here, the post you referenced just makes sense.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 201, posted (3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3806 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 213): this really interesting post by an UA customer who indeed confirms my concerns
Did you also read comment #18, where the writer suggests he gets an authorization to take photos in flight "as part of your blogging duties (member of the press, which is what this is.)"
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 195): It's a personal blog this guy writes for, not the Wahington Post.
flyfree727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 572 posts, RR: 0 Reply 202, posted (3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3798 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 212): So did you even read the original blog or this thread? The pax did what he was asked to do. He stopped taking photos. Please at least have some grasp of the facts before posting such platitudes.
Well, according to the PAX he did what he was asked to do. You believe him.. the fa said he didn't. Some belive her. Why is everyone so quick to believe his (or His) word as gospel and so quick to discredit the FA?. Because he's an avaition enthusists and she's a lowly sky waitress?. Because you yourself don't like having to, or being told to, follow the rules? How many times have you,, on any given flight, saw a fellow passenger hide, then continue to use their cell phone after repeated announcements AND verbal requests from fa.s And then, finally, on the 3rd or so time the passengers responds "im shutting it down.." i see it all the time.. whether working or riding as a passenger. .. Ok.. so other passengers come to his defense.. how many times have MANY MANY posters on a.net stated that passengers frequently get the facts wrong, or make statements without any facts. I usually read about this on here when there is any report of an a/c incident or accident. the arm chairs on here are quick to state that media and passengers storys usually dont add up to the facts. yes, we have bitchy snarley FA's. yes, we have power trippers that have no business in a safety/service industry. but please, take note the next time that you are on a flight. Take note of those that blatently ignore instructions and look and treat crew members as if they're some "bother" to the passenger because they bought a ticket and won't be asked or told to do anything they don't choose to.
NOTE: My questions are not to anyone specific, rather to everyone in general.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 203, posted (3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3701 times:
Quoting psa188 (Reply 186): The updates that I linked to above indicate that UA is aware of the issue and they have been in contact.
If the blogger's version is correct then their PR department have contacted him, not someone from Customer Relations or in any position to provide redress. The aim is to minimise any bad publicity, use placatory language and hope the issue dies down. UA has not offered an apology and has not offered compensation.
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 213): I have just become aware of this really interesting post by an UA customer who indeed confirms my concerns - check it out:
Sadly this tends to confirm the view that some crew just do not brook any criticism or complaints.
#29 - the one above your link to the response to a complaint about the meal - gives an interesting response about the balance of security and customer service, arguing that one does not cancel out the other in a normal flight situation.
Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 216): Why is everyone so quick to believe his (or His) word as gospel and so quick to discredit the FA?.
Of course it is his version of events that we are discussing as his is the only version made public. It is for this reason that all my comments have include phrases like "If the blogger's version is correct ".
I quite agree that there are some passengers who are real pains in the aspidistras. But in any situation there are two ways of dealing with it - defuse or escalate. In the version of events that we have before us it would seem that the FA chose the latter course. That may have appeared to offer her an immediate solution but if she did lie, that is inexcusable.
Quote: I state them in my post--I want to ensure that what happened to me never happens again. United most certainly owes me an apology, but for the reasons I stated, I cannot demand or even expect one. Because we know how these things work and I'll never get one. It's politics and I accept that. And while an official apology would vindicate my story once and for all, the key is to look forward now.
aklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 693 posts, RR: 0 Reply 205, posted (3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3577 times:
After reading 218 posts on this topic, I just had to jump in.
Maybe we all (and I include UA) need to think about why photos would not be permitted on the aircraft. It's hard to believe it is a security measure since there are thousands of in-flight photos around a.net, and millions floating around in the wider world. I suspect the reason is privacy. That is even suggested in the United rules for photography. I don't think you have a right to take pictures of your fellow passengers, or even the crew, if they don't want their picture taken.
If I am right, then UA should make it clear to their crews why the rule exists so they don't panic just because a picture of an inanimate object was taken while aboard. This is not the first time I have seen mindless obedience to a rule without any regard as to why the rule exists.
The rule about not congregating near the forward lav is clearly a security rule. Violating that one should lead to serious consequences. Most stores and restaurants also have rules banning photography. Those rules are for both privacy and for commercial reasons, but no one is going to arrest you for violating them.
If the FA is going to panic over every little thing, that FA will probably be useless in an emergency and should seek other employment. Too many people today are scared of their own shadows and need to chill.
If you have a problem of any kind on a flight, including interpretation of rules, you should be able to calmly discuss it with the crew without fear of causing a diversion, being thrown off the plane, and possibly banned from flying.
I am United Premier Platinum, but if a foreign carrier like SQ, NZ, or LH were ever allowed to fly domestic US routes I'd give up UA in an instant.
Rising From United States of America, joined May 2010, 237 posts, RR: 1 Reply 206, posted (3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 216): Why is everyone so quick to believe his (or His) word as gospel and so quick to discredit the FA?. Because he's an avaition enthusists and she's a lowly sky waitress?
This has to be on of the most frustrating topics discussed on here in a long time as it, while popular and certainly stirred interest, has hurt the reputation of a company and several unnamed crew members, got media involvement, and has created a frenzy of, at times, irrational discourse, without any objectivity. We have only heard one bloggers account of an alleged incident, which is clearly a publicity stunt, and almost no one has questioned it.
It's quite unfortunate that it has turned into a bashing of airline Flight Attendants, American air carriers in general, and a photo policy, which actually does allow photography on board as long as it does not violate the privacy of others, or film the employees, equipment and procedures of the carrier without permission. A very commonsense policy.
Totally ridiculous.
[Edited 2013-02-22 18:57:12]
If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
billreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 849 posts, RR: 0 Reply 207, posted (3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3284 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 47): Guys, you are not in the land of the free on an airplane.
You guys are aviation experts on here...you know what aviation has been through in the last decade.
This isn't 1999 or 1989...it is the world in 2013.
You shouldn't be taking pictures of airplanes while in flight. You are going to arise suspicion. And if you say, "I have a right," that is fine...but if you get the wrong crew and they feel that you are a threat or even a question, they will remove you.
Flight Attendant comes up to me and says they feel someone is:
1. Suspicious
2. Not following instructions
3. Cursing
4. A distraction
5. Drunk
They are off the plane. Period. Discussion is over.
Many of you do not know that rights are waived when you choose to fly. You make that decision with your own free will.
Just an example. A curse word...you have every right to say that with free speech in the USA. On an airplane, it is considered a Level 1 Threat...and you can be escorted off for saying it.
As for photos: no one can take a photo of a crewmember performing his/her duties. That is a regulation. It is also vague enough to cover or not cover many things
This whole argument sickens me. It defines the absolute destruction of America. It is sick, ill, insanity.
America sells fear.
Where is fiduciary responsibility? You are paid to perform a function, so just do it. This is a clear case of STUPID EGOTISM! Isn't it time to drop the attitude that I am always right?
Everyone in America is always right at this point in time. Even when they are wrong they are right!
Americans have lost the ability to communicate. The Pilot and FA need to be terminated with cause. They fail to see one critical point, they are paid by the passengers. If they are not willing to discuss with the pax then they have failed in their function.
Throwing safety as an excuse is the Patriot act idiocy. Lets hold that as a wild card to cover us when we are wrong!
Remoce him because I think he had a drink last year .... Safety.
Get her off the plane, She owns a camera..... Safety.
Frisk that two year old ...... Safety.
Frisk that 103 year old ...... Safety.
All stupidity. Keep it up. Cause that is why people won't fly you and that will cost your job and your pension, then who's laughing?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
Unflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 191 posts, RR: 0 Reply 208, posted (3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3268 times:
Quoting Rising (Reply 220): This has to be on of the most frustrating topics discussed on here in a long time as it, while popular and certainly stirred interest, has hurt the reputation of a company and several unnamed crew members, got media involvement, and has created a frenzy of, at times, irrational discourse, without any objectivity. We have only heard one bloggers account of an alleged incident, which is clearly a publicity stunt, and almost no one has questioned it.
Several other passengers have given their side of the story, and they all supported the bloggers view.
Is it the bloggers fault that UA does not offer their side of the story? I don't think so. UA PR could post on his blog, if they had anything to say that would help them. Problem is, probably they don't have anything to say that would help them in this case.
We have no way to verify that these "other passengers" are neutral observers and were party to the entire conversation with all parties involved. So again, it's all speculation. The "well I read it on a webpage so it must be true" mentality does not typically lead to the truth. The blogger claims that NBC News has independently verified his story. How many other passengers "corroborated" his story? Two, three? How did they get their contact information? Kine himself? The "reporter" on the story is not a reporter at all, but a contributor and travel blogger too who runs the blog, "Stuck at the Airport" and contributes to the NBC travel page from time to time. It's not like Bob Woodward is looking into this.
And the airline is not going to post on his blog and get involved in this in a public manner. It only fuels the story. This for sure got some publicity for him though and his blog. I would note that his last few blog posts before this had zero to 10 comments. This one, is at over 600 and counting.
Just hoping his 15min. is about up.
[Edited 2013-02-22 21:41:11]
If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
Unflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 191 posts, RR: 0 Reply 210, posted (3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3087 times:
Quoting Rising (Reply 224): And the airline is not going to post on his blog and get involved in this in a public manner. It only fuels the story. This for sure got some publicity for him though and his blog. I would note that his last few blog posts before this had zero to 10 comments. This one, is at over 600 and counting.
You can't blame the blogger for the airline (as most corporations) not having a clue how to deal with changing realities. The world has changed. Today we have blogs giving individuals a reach no one would have imagined 20 year ago.
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3644 posts, RR: 38 Reply 212, posted (3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 185): Rather than address the issue with the "folks" in Chicago he knows, the GS agent who handled his rebooking at the airport, or going through the normal channels all of the rest of us would, United gets blasted in public first and is left battling uphill on two fronts, the customer, and the general public at large.
Shameful.
What about the guy who had his guitar destroyed by United? He went through all the normal channels and got absolutely nowhere. If was only after his little song on youtube went viral, that United did what they should have done in the first place. Maybe this recent blogger decided it would be a waste of time to go through the normal channels and wrote a blog about the incident. Well, it obviously worked because it seemed to have gotten United's attention.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18901 posts, RR: 64 Reply 213, posted (3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2992 times:
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 228): What about the guy who had his guitar destroyed by United? He went through all the normal channels and got absolutely nowhere.
What about him? I really don't see the comparison you're trying to make here.
Matthew (the blogger) admits to having insider contacts at United. But instead of using them, he goes postal on the company first. Perhaps he values the 15 minutes of fame and vastly increased amount of hits he got for his blog over the value of the network of contacts he claims within the airline. I don't know, I certainly would have handled it much differently.
RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 773 posts, RR: 0 Reply 215, posted (3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2872 times:
I don't think that the blogger had a dog in the fight. Reading some of his previous blogs, he seems pretty friendly toward UA and it would seem rather unlikely for him to falsely take on UA in order to get a better readership count. Since he blogs about airlines, and this embarrassing situation happened, it would only be natural for him to post the events in an article.
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3644 posts, RR: 38 Reply 216, posted (3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2834 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 229): What about him? I really don't see the comparison you're trying to make here.
Did he blog about it so his site would get more hits? Or did he blog about it because he didn't want to see the same thing happen to someone else? (or both?) I think it was probably both. But going through the normal channels wouldn't necessarily have prevented this from happening to someone else. United - or any airline, for that matter - never seems to react unless they get bad publicity.
This is one reason that I don't like it when someone has a complaint and files a lawsuit and then settles out of court. That's what the airline wants you to do. By settling out of court, there's no trial, no public record (like a court transcript) and no judgement made. The airline just pays off someone to sweep it under the rug and the airline is never found guilty of anything (since there's no actual trial) and the airline can turn around and do the same thing to someone else. And most of the time, the complaining party can't even publicly say what the settlement amount was.
If I read the blogger's account right, the flight was already running late.
From the blogger's account:
Quote: Captain: Look, I don't care. You are not flying on this flight. You can make this easy or make this difficult. We'll call the police if we have to.
Me: Why are you threatening me? Your FA is lying—I did not disobey any crewmember instruction.
Captain: Look, we're already late. I'd advise you to get off this plane now. Make it easy on yourself. Don't make us bring the police in. Goodbye.
By exiting the plane, the blogger made it easier on himself and the captain.
I would not have used the word terrorist in this incident. But If I were ever in a situation where I really really felt like I was in the right and the crew was in the wrong and the captain gave me a choice of leaving on my own or having the police come, I'd choose the police option. I would have calmly said "I'd prefer that you call the police and have me escorted off, so that there will be documentation of this incident." (As in a police report) That would have delayed the flight even further and maybe have caused more paperwork for the captain. And that's not the same as refusing to get off. That's just requesting a police presence before you do get off.
I realize that 99.9% of airline employees are reasonable, responsible adults, but when you come across the .1% that are on a power trip, I think you should stand up for yourself (or your fellow passenger, like what happened in the AA orange juice incident,) because if you don't, this crap will just continue.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 447 posts, 
From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, 
From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8267 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6191 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Feb 2012, 81 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 673 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3017 posts, 
)
From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2011, 14 posts, 
) or wanting to seem like they were in the know.
From UK - England, joined Jun 2012, 38 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Aug 2012, 22 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Oct 2006, 139 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1645 posts, 
From Spain, joined Nov 2001, 2274 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2009, 36 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2233 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1700 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 289 posts, 