727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 8282
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:02 am

After 1st video...there are several videos

JetBlue is disputing family members' characterization of an episode that prompted their removal from a June 21 flight and said it is considering barring the family from flying with the airline

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/family-says-j ... ories.html

Family demands apology


Did he say JET-BOO ?

Was it June 21 or July 2?

JetBlue is thinking about a lifetime ban.

"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
slvfly
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:53 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:44 am

Huge props to the JetBlue flight attendant + police officer. They were patient and did everything they could to de-escalate the situation. Unfortunately, the parents decided to not listen and threw a temper tantrum instead.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:58 am

It's really not clear what happened. However, if your kid is kicking a seat, it isn't cute, and you really need to try to control it. Most people are ok if it's sort of an intermittent thing, but if you are on the ground and it's already irritating and going unchecked, that's on the parents.

It's a bummer that these things can't get worked out by people more calmly on the plane, but some people just have to take it to the next level.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Airstud
Posts: 4593
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:48 am

With the info available at the moment I'm not on jetBlue's side. The family was asking Armando why they were asked to leave the plane, and every single time they asked him this (at least five) his response began with "when you were asked to leave the plane..." Why they were asked to do so in the first place is a perfectly reasonable question so why didn't Armando have an answer for it?

Other news outlets say the plane took off with their luggage & strollers on board anyway. I'll wait to hear jetBlue's side of the story but so far they're looking pretty bad in this.
Pancakes are delicious.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15290
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:02 am

Kudos to the LEO for calmly saying essentially, "Look, we're not here to take sides, and you can pursue whatever recourse you want, but right now they want you off the plane, so you have to get off. It's their plane, and they want you off, so you have to leave."

Armando from B6 was calm, and obviously we didn't see the whole story, but from what I've seen so far he didn't do a reasonable job of explaining why they were being removed.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
N757ST
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:10 am

Those defending the family should read the airlines side, where they were threatening crew members and cursing at them. An airline doesn't consider a lifetime ban if they aren't very confident the people were severely in the wrong
 
77H
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:30 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
It's really not clear what happened. However, if your kid is kicking a seat, it isn't cute, and you really need to try to control it. Most people are ok if it's sort of an intermittent thing, but if you are on the ground and it's already irritating and going unchecked, that's on the parents.

It's a bummer that these things can't get worked out by people more calmly on the plane, but some people just have to take it to the next level.


It's funny to hear you say parents should control their children on an airplane. I have posted about child behavioral problems and lack of parental intervention on airplanes before and was met with sharp criticism. Judging by the photo of the family, it looks like they had quite a handful to deal with. Traveling is stressful enough as is when flying alone. I can imagine having a troop of little ones magnifies the stress 10-fold. Being told you will have to get off the aircraft with the police involved further escalates the stress

We can argue the parents should have "controlled" their child more. We could say the passenger in front could have tried to resolve it more without escalating. Perhaps the FA's or gate agents could have asked the passengers sitting behind the bulkhead if they would switch with the family. That way, the child has nothing in front of them to kick.

It's interesting reading comments on here when a PR incident involves an airline that is well liked on a.net vs ones that are not. Ive always been interested to see how a.net would react if a nearly identical incident happened on 2 different airlines. One that's liked, one that's not. The closest example I can think of is the DL and UA incidents wherein 1 family sends a son ahead on an earlier flight causing his original ticket to be rendered a no show. A few months later UA has an incident wherein a passenger with an infant doesn't scan hi ticket rendering the infants ticket a no show. In both instances both airlines gave the seats away even though the customers in question technically paid for them. DL was largely defended even after they chose to remove the entire family. UA was largely crucified.

77H
 
crownvic
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:07 pm

Airstud wrote:
With the info available at the moment I'm not on jetBlue's side. The family was asking Armando why they were asked to leave the plane, and every single time they asked him this (at least five) his response began with "when you were asked to leave the plane..." Why they were asked to do so in the first place is a perfectly reasonable question so why didn't Armando have an answer for it?

Other news outlets say the plane took off with their luggage & strollers on board anyway. I'll wait to hear jetBlue's side of the story but so far they're looking pretty bad in this.



I think you had too much syrup on your pancakes...unruly kids with entitled parents on an airplane = bad combination...Good call JetBlue

Did you hear the mother say to the father who was filming to stay quiet, we will let our lawyer handle this? ChaChing
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1453
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:13 pm

Definitely a good call on B6, and Armando deserves a raise. I don't want these people on any of my flights regardless of the airline.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
richierich
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:18 pm

Airstud wrote:
With the info available at the moment I'm not on jetBlue's side. The family was asking Armando why they were asked to leave the plane, and every single time they asked him this (at least five) his response began with "when you were asked to leave the plane..." Why they were asked to do so in the first place is a perfectly reasonable question so why didn't Armando have an answer for it?

Other news outlets say the plane took off with their luggage & strollers on board anyway. I'll wait to hear jetBlue's side of the story but so far they're looking pretty bad in this.


I don't agree. Obviously none of us on this site are entitled to know the full story, as is always the case with these types of events. We usually only get to see the "victim's" point of view...I will say, that unlike the UA 'removal' and the DL 'Hawaii' incidents earlier this year, where a doctor and a family were taken off their respective flights, the video didn't really show the B6 crew doing or saying anything wrong. The ground crew member must have known he was being recorded, and under those circumstances it is reasonable to deflect and avoid putting oneself in a bad position. On the flip of this, make of the family what you will - I'll keep my opinions to myself.
None shall pass!!!!
 
richierich
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:20 pm

N757ST wrote:
Those defending the family should read the airlines side, where they were threatening crew members and cursing at them. An airline doesn't consider a lifetime ban if they aren't very confident the people were severely in the wrong


Anybody who thinks JetBlue kicked off a family because their young child was (allegedly) kicking a seat is crazy. That might have been what started the situation, but that's not the reason for the removal. After all, I'm pretty sure families with children are part of JetBlue's core customer base.
None shall pass!!!!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:33 pm

A one year old child kicking a seat grows to a problem where a family gets thrown of an airplane. Simple, people in the USA are crazy, all of the involved.
 
whisperjet727
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:48 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:38 pm

A lifetime ban? How awful. Couldn't they just fly Delta? Or United? American? Southwest? If flying white an Army of little ones is so stressful how about a road trip?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13773
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:40 pm

richierich wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Those defending the family should read the airlines side, where they were threatening crew members and cursing at them. An airline doesn't consider a lifetime ban if they aren't very confident the people were severely in the wrong


Anybody who thinks JetBlue kicked off a family because their young child was (allegedly) kicking a seat is crazy. That might have been what started the situation, but that's not the reason for the removal. After all, I'm pretty sure families with children are part of JetBlue's core customer base.


I fly a lot with my kids and had one really bad seat kicking flight (we took some steps post-flight to ensure that it did not happen again after the in-flight tactics did not succeed). The passenger being kicked came much closer to being kicked off the flight than we did. 99 percent of passengers and probably an even higher percentage of airline staff cut parents who are being polite and taking steps to address a problem a ton of slack. Unfortunately, we drew a member of the one percent on this flight.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
richierich
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:48 pm

77H wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
It's really not clear what happened. However, if your kid is kicking a seat, it isn't cute, and you really need to try to control it. Most people are ok if it's sort of an intermittent thing, but if you are on the ground and it's already irritating and going unchecked, that's on the parents.

It's a bummer that these things can't get worked out by people more calmly on the plane, but some people just have to take it to the next level.


It's funny to hear you say parents should control their children on an airplane. I have posted about child behavioral problems and lack of parental intervention on airplanes before and was met with sharp criticism. Judging by the photo of the family, it looks like they had quite a handful to deal with. Traveling is stressful enough as is when flying alone. I can imagine having a troop of little ones magnifies the stress 10-fold. Being told you will have to get off the aircraft with the police involved further escalates the stress

We can argue the parents should have "controlled" their child more. We could say the passenger in front could have tried to resolve it more without escalating. Perhaps the FA's or gate agents could have asked the passengers sitting behind the bulkhead if they would switch with the family. That way, the child has nothing in front of them to kick.

It's interesting reading comments on here when a PR incident involves an airline that is well liked on a.net vs ones that are not. Ive always been interested to see how a.net would react if a nearly identical incident happened on 2 different airlines. One that's liked, one that's not. The closest example I can think of is the DL and UA incidents wherein 1 family sends a son ahead on an earlier flight causing his original ticket to be rendered a no show. A few months later UA has an incident wherein a passenger with an infant doesn't scan hi ticket rendering the infants ticket a no show. In both instances both airlines gave the seats away even though the customers in question technically paid for them. DL was largely defended even after they chose to remove the entire family. UA was largely crucified.

77H


With all due respect, each of the examples you just provided are quite different from one another.

First, relevant to this thread, it is not the job of an airline to tell people how to raise their children HOWEVER they must follow laws and policies just like everybody else. We've all been on flights with screaming babies, most of us have probably had a kid kicking us from the seat behind us (or repeatedly dropping the tray table, which can also be annoying, as I have endured more than once.) It's irritating, it's frustrating, and when you pay a lot of money for an airplane ticket, many feel they shouldn't have to put up with that. Fair points, but it is how the situation is handled that makes the difference. Some have suggested banning babies from flights (absurd) and others have suggested partitioning the cabin with kid-friendly zones. That latter may not be practical, although in some cases the cabin crew may be able to move customers around if warranted. What I have noticed is that some of those quickest to judge parenting techniques are typically people have never traveled with kids or may not even have kids. Are there some 'absentee parents' who let their kids run amok for too long? ABSOLUTELY. It's a slippery slope to expect an airline to intervene on every occasion; even mild-mannered kids get bored, occasionally have meltdowns, and commonly can act out when having ear pain when flying. It happens. We were all kids once, so people do need to show some patience when in public. In the JetBlue case, we don't know how bad the kicking was or how long it went on for...there will probably not be any clear answers...but it is quite evident to me that the removal of this family is far less about a child kicking a seat and much more about what happened subsequent to that.

As for the 'liked' airline or the 'not-liked' airline you mentioned in your comment, the two situations were not the same. Although incidents may sound similar, no two are usually exactly alike. I have no preference/favorites toward either UA or DL, but these cases are different enough to expect different responses from people on a.net, not that we are the authority on how to handle these things. In the DL case, I think the airline was actually correct in giving away the customer's seat, but it definitely should have been handled better. In the day of readily available phone cameras, telling a family their kids will be taken away from them and go to DCF? That's was way over the line, the Delta crew member lost my support after that. In the UA infant case - and I admit not knowing the entire story here - it sounded to me like the airline messed up through no apparent fault of the passenger. If that is accurate, they should be held accountable for the situation that resulted.
None shall pass!!!!
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:02 pm

I think it's time to put CCTV in the cabin of airliners. It's the only way to get the facts straight. It shouldn't be a big issue considering it's already normal on buses and some trains.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7069
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:33 pm

The agent couldn't even give a reason for deplaning after passengers left the plane. what a surprise.

I think very soon local PDs will stop providing services to airlines. I can see the embarrassment in LEO's face, defending indefensible He is telling to sue the airline.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:29 pm

77H wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
It's really not clear what happened. However, if your kid is kicking a seat, it isn't cute, and you really need to try to control it. Most people are ok if it's sort of an intermittent thing, but if you are on the ground and it's already irritating and going unchecked, that's on the parents.

It's a bummer that these things can't get worked out by people more calmly on the plane, but some people just have to take it to the next level.


It's funny to hear you say parents should control their children on an airplane. I have posted about child behavioral problems and lack of parental intervention on airplanes before and was met with sharp criticism. Judging by the photo of the family, it looks like they had quite a handful to deal with. Traveling is stressful enough as is when flying alone. I can imagine having a troop of little ones magnifies the stress 10-fold. Being told you will have to get off the aircraft with the police involved further escalates the stress

We can argue the parents should have "controlled" their child more. We could say the passenger in front could have tried to resolve it more without escalating. Perhaps the FA's or gate agents could have asked the passengers sitting behind the bulkhead if they would switch with the family. That way, the child has nothing in front of them to kick. 77H


Unfortunately for me, I was raised by a mother that refused to be embarrassed in public by her kids - you behaved OR ELSE! lol So I've always been anal about making sure our kids aren't impacting someone else unnecessarily (luckily it was never an issue - they were easy), and I was always very conscious if they kicked a seat or bounced in a seat, that sort of thing. I know it happens, and if a kid kicks my seat I'll certainly let it go for awhile. However, if we're on the ground and I've already been kicked 50 times, and I know it's going to continue for the next two hours, and I hear these parents and can tell that they are a hot mess, I'll probably start to feel very agitated and I just might say something in a neutral but not friendly tone. If said family is the confrontational type and/or the type that isn't going to take that from anybody, we're off to the races.

I don't want to be judgmental under the circumstances, but watching them in that video I can just imagine them on the plane. Perhaps it's my aversion to New Yorker's after being stuck on a cruise with a few thousand of them. :-)
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:31 pm

Airstud wrote:
With the info available at the moment I'm not on jetBlue's side. The family was asking Armando why they were asked to leave the plane, and every single time they asked him this (at least five) his response began with "when you were asked to leave the plane..." Why they were asked to do so in the first place is a perfectly reasonable question so why didn't Armando have an answer for it?

Other news outlets say the plane took off with their luggage & strollers on board anyway. I'll wait to hear jetBlue's side of the story but so far they're looking pretty bad in this.


I think Armando is probably envisioning this video going viral and has been coached by Jetblue not to get into it in a situation like this. They are in their rights to kick them off the plane, and the family can follow up later off-camera. It sucks for everyone, but that's what the poor service and cellphone warriors have brought us to.

I do think Jetblue should have removed their items, even if it meant delaying the flight.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:34 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
The agent couldn't even give a reason for deplaning after passengers left the plane. what a surprise.

I think very soon local PDs will stop providing services to airlines. I can see the embarrassment in LEO's face, defending indefensible He is telling to sue the airline.


That's conjecture. Just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't. I think it's easy to think you'd handle it differently, but in the moment? "Say something!" "Let him talk!" "Are you getting this on camera?" "Shut up - let him talk!" "What's the reason?! Huh? What's the reason you kicked us off?!" "Shut up! Let him talk! I want to get this on camera!" "Say something!"

lol I think even the bravest soul would lock up a bit under those circumstances.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:36 pm

Alternative parenting is to blame here. There are acceptable forms of behavior by both children and adults and in the last 15 years it's going in a very bad direction. You hardly ever heard of these issues decades ago, mostly just an occasional drunk. But parents need to start reinstating discipline and spankings and end this era of entitlement.

I flew recently AA MIA-GCM in first and this family had this horrible 3-4 year old. The kid screamed and threw himself on the aisle kicking and screaming, when the dad had him in his lap the child abused the father, punching him in the face and pulling his hair, spit at his mom across the aisle, threw their cocktails at the bulkhead and the parents only reaction was like "come on let's be a good boy". This went on the entire flight. Disgusting. If the aircraft had an eject button for that row there would have been a long line of people to hit the button.
717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 742 748 752 753 762 763 772 773 DC9 MD80/88/90 DC10 319 320 321 332 333 CS100 CRJ200 Q400 E175 E190 ERJ145 EMB120
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7069
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:52 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
That's conjecture. Just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't. I think it's easy to think you'd handle it differently, but in the moment? "Say something!" "Let him talk!" "Are you getting this on camera?" "Shut up - let him talk!" "What's the reason?! Huh? What's the reason you kicked us off?!" "Shut up! Let him talk! I want to get this on camera!" "Say something!"

lol I think even the bravest soul would lock up a bit under those circumstances.


I agree they are one agitated couple and the agent is cool as a cucumber.

But if the other passenger suggested to tie down kids legs, any parents will be agitated. I think it is about time to include language in CoC to throw both parties out in the case of any dispute.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:30 pm

kids and planes = bad combination...stay home or drive if its that important....better yet, have grandma and grandpa come visit...

Oh and if you think they will have cherished memories of Mickey Mouse and anything else at 4 yrs and younger your dreaming...
 
cuffy
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:00 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:15 pm

Very frustrating that these people would continually ask the agent "what was the story, what happened" etc and he would begin to talk, then they would immediately interrupt him. Just an impossible situation, and for that reason I side with the agent and B6.
 
User avatar
AAlaxfan
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:08 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:26 pm

Since we have yet another one sided video, it's hard to side with either B6 or the family on the entire issue of whether or not they should've been kicked off the flight. However, based on the video, I agree with B6's decision to ban the family from all future flights. The parent's reaction to, and constant harassment of, Armando was uncalled for. Had they just let him talk, they may have gotten their answer.
Last edited by AAlaxfan on Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Grumpy. Not a dwarf, not an attitude. It's a lifestyle.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 766
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:26 pm

Unfortunately for me, I was raised by a mother that refused to be embarrassed in public by her kids - you behaved OR ELSE!


Same here! We did not screw around on flights. Heck, I even flew alone below the age of ten and it wasn't a problem. I behaved, the airlines didn't ban me, and everyone was happy. The bottom line was that Mom wouldn't allow us to misbehave publicly, end of discussion. This is why I'm admittedly intolerant of parents who tolerate misbehaviors. We all understand that babies will cry, for example, but it's the willful stuff, the intentional acting out that children commit that parents don't gently correct yet firmly that becomes the bane of travelers. I have no real sympathy for this family. Sorry, but there is it.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4135
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:59 pm

This sounds like the kind of family that would toss its own banana peels onto the floor of a supermarket produce section.
 
aeropix
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:08 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:14 pm

https://youtu.be/C9zHirCI1Es

Here's what happens if you let these kind of kids fly!

'Nuff said!
 
RDUDDJI
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:42 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:30 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Alternative parenting is to blame here. There are acceptable forms of behavior by both children and adults and in the last 15 years it's going in a very bad direction. You hardly ever heard of these issues decades ago, mostly just an occasional drunk. But parents need to start reinstating discipline and spankings and end this era of entitlement.


I wouldn't call it alt parenting anymore, it's mainstream (in the US). Everyone coddles their children and leads them to think they're better than anyone else, don't have to work for anything, and they can do no wrong. These kids are the people that will be taking care of us someday. That's a scary thought.
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
 
Judge1310
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:30 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
The agent couldn't even give a reason for deplaning after passengers left the plane. what a surprise.

I think very soon local PDs will stop providing services to airlines. I can see the embarrassment in LEO's face, defending indefensible He is telling to sue the airline.



Your responses, quite often, make no sense.
1) The agent couldn't give a reason because there are reports that need to be filed before "fault" can be placed -- just like when in a car wreck one is not supposed to claim fault until the police officer who arrives makes a report and cause is thereafter determined
2) Local Police Depts can't just "stop" providing law enforcement services at airports and to airlines. Do you realise how nonsensical that sounds, tongue-in-cheek or not.

I don't know if you're an airline employee or not but you clearly have little idea as to how legal procedures work in that field...
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:44 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
That's conjecture. Just because he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't. I think it's easy to think you'd handle it differently, but in the moment? "Say something!" "Let him talk!" "Are you getting this on camera?" "Shut up - let him talk!" "What's the reason?! Huh? What's the reason you kicked us off?!" "Shut up! Let him talk! I want to get this on camera!" "Say something!"

lol I think even the bravest soul would lock up a bit under those circumstances.


I agree they are one agitated couple and the agent is cool as a cucumber.

But if the other passenger suggested to tie down kids legs, any parents will be agitated. I think it is about time to include language in CoC to throw both parties out in the case of any dispute.


Again, that's conjecture. You don't know WHEN that was said (or even IF it was said). Assuming it was, was it after the passenger brought it to their attention and they started going off on her? We don't know. What we DO know is how these people refused to deplane to the point of everyone deplaning, and how they behaved when they had their cellphone whipped out. The rest is left for us to wonder.

And no, I don't want some jerk to get in my face and then us both get thrown out. Had that happen to me before in life (lesser circumstance) and it's just plain wrong.

Aptivaboy wrote:
Unfortunately for me, I was raised by a mother that refused to be embarrassed in public by her kids - you behaved OR ELSE!


Same here! We did not screw around on flights. Heck, I even flew alone below the age of ten and it wasn't a problem. I behaved, the airlines didn't ban me, and everyone was happy. The bottom line was that Mom wouldn't allow us to misbehave publicly, end of discussion. This is why I'm admittedly intolerant of parents who tolerate misbehaviors. We all understand that babies will cry, for example, but it's the willful stuff, the intentional acting out that children commit that parents don't gently correct yet firmly that becomes the bane of travelers. I have no real sympathy for this family. Sorry, but there is it.


We started flying alone when I was 7. I admit to pushing the call button too much and talking their ear off, but that was as bad as it got. :-)
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
mikeyp224
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:52 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:46 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
The agent couldn't even give a reason for deplaning after passengers left the plane. what a surprise.

I think very soon local PDs will stop providing services to airlines. I can see the embarrassment in LEO's face, defending indefensible He is telling to sue the airline.


Of course, here we go with the false sense of entitlement that everyone has these days. The agent did not owe them a reason at all; especially with them constantly talking over him when he would try and say something.

It has gotten to the point where as soon as airline staff approaches people they get their camera out and go on the defensive just trying to have their 15 minutes or make a quick buck. All reasoning goes right out the window.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 766
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:16 pm

We started flying alone when I was 7. I admit to pushing the call button too much and talking their ear off, but that was as bad as it got


I stole airline soap at that age. Yes, I admit it. Get out the cuffs...
 
Judge1310
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:04 am

Aptivaboy wrote:
We started flying alone when I was 7. I admit to pushing the call button too much and talking their ear off, but that was as bad as it got


I stole airline soap at that age. Yes, I admit it. Get out the cuffs...



You naughty naughty UM! It's off the aft galley with you, lol! ;-)
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7069
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:29 am

Judge1310 wrote:

Your responses, quite often, make no sense.
1) The agent couldn't give a reason because there are reports that need to be filed before "fault" can be placed -- just like when in a car wreck one is not supposed to claim fault until the police officer who arrives makes a report and cause is thereafter determined
2) Local Police Depts can't just "stop" providing law enforcement services at airports and to airlines. Do you realise how nonsensical that sounds, tongue-in-cheek or not.

I don't know if you're an airline employee or not but you clearly have little idea as to how legal procedures work in that field...


Not sure why you tried to answer if my post didn't make sense.

To your legal point, are you saying the family was punished even before their guilt/fault was proven?

As I watch the video, the expression on LEO's face is priceless, they might as well be on a domestic dispute call saving some family and have a meaningful day.

I am sure Mayors and PCs are having a conversation to dump this low revenue high liability task of bouncers and mall cops. This has nothing to do aviation security, this is commercial dispute arbitration without any guidance or power. And how many lawsuits PDs can be part of?
 
Judge1310
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:35 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:

Your responses, quite often, make no sense.
1) The agent couldn't give a reason because there are reports that need to be filed before "fault" can be placed -- just like when in a car wreck one is not supposed to claim fault until the police officer who arrives makes a report and cause is thereafter determined
2) Local Police Depts can't just "stop" providing law enforcement services at airports and to airlines. Do you realise how nonsensical that sounds, tongue-in-cheek or not.

I don't know if you're an airline employee or not but you clearly have little idea as to how legal procedures work in that field...


Not sure why you tried to answer if my post didn't make sense.

To your legal point, are you saying the family was punished even before their guilt/fault was proven?

As I watch the video, the expression on LEO's face is priceless, they might as well be on a domestic dispute call saving some family and have a meaningful day.

I am sure Mayors and PCs are having a conversation to dump this low revenue high liability task of bouncers and mall cops. This has nothing to do aviation security, this is commercial dispute arbitration without any guidance or power. And how many lawsuits PDs can be part of?


*Heavy sigh*

One can be booted off of a flight for any reason. Basic point. The resultant consequences are determined after the fact. If the passenger is in the wrong there are a certain set of consequences. If the airline is the in the wrong then there are another set of consequences. Regardless, one does not have a "right" to a seat on a flight, even if paid for.

A simpler analogy: should one be part of a ruckus on public transit and is subsequently booted off, does one receive a refund to the fare paid at that moment? No. Reimbursement is based on fault.

I've worked with LEOs for many years. Great bunch of professionals that, due to the whinging nature of many in Joe Public, just enforce the rules.

And no, city leaders and "PCs" (I'm assuming you meant police chiefs -- one really shouldn't use abbreviations that aren't standard/common) don't really care about airport LEOs (law enforcement officers....see what I did there?) so long as there aren't pending suits of litigation that they'd have to foot the bill for.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:43 am

Judge1310 wrote:
One can be booted off of a flight for any reason. Basic point.


I think this hits the nail on the head. Airline employees would appear to take this as the be all and end all. However the truth is that you CANNOT be booted off a flight for just any reason. You cannot be booted off a flight for being white or for being heterosexual, for example, because that would be illegal.

So, you can be booted off a flight for any LEGAL reason. Which just leaves us to list the LEGAL reasons that are valid for being booted off a flight.

Any time an airline boots someone off a flight for an illegal reason makes it so much harder for them to boot people off for legal reasons.

*Even heavier sigh*
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15290
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:34 am

There has to be more here than just "the one-year old was kicking the seat." First off, a one year old is either being carried as a lap infant, or they're in some sort of car seat/harness. If they're the former, the parent holding the child is allowing them to kick the seat in front. If they're the latter, there's no way they're able to kick the seat in front, nor if they're just sitting in the seat pan itself - their legs won't reach that far.

If I had to guess, either mom or dad was holding the 1 year old on their lap, and any ongoing seat-kicking was due to the parents not holding their child in a manner that prevented that from occurring.

But as was said earlier, odds are B6 didn't just say, "Kicking the seat? Off you go." Some sort of negative encounter took place to get to that point, either with another customer, the crew, or both. But Armando should have explained what led to that point rather than being as non-committal as he was.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Judge1310
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:52 am

Virtual737 wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
One can be booted off of a flight for any reason. Basic point.


I think this hits the nail on the head. Airline employees would appear to take this as the be all and end all. However the truth is that you CANNOT be booted off a flight for just any reason. You cannot be booted off a flight for being white or for being heterosexual, for example, because that would be illegal.

So, you can be booted off a flight for any LEGAL reason. Which just leaves us to list the LEGAL reasons that are valid for being booted off a flight.

Any time an airline boots someone off a flight for an illegal reason makes it so much harder for them to boot people off for legal reasons.

*Even heavier sigh*


*CLEARLY* you ignored the rest of my statement to fit your narrative by, glaringly so, not including the conditions attached to my statement. That, automatically, diminishes whatever point you were attempting to convey.

An establishment may deny service to someone for whatever reason they choose -- HOWEVER....said establishment has to deal with the repercussions of such actions if this establishment has been deemed culpable and at fault with its decision. End point.

Now please be kind and have a seat, thank you. :-)
 
Virtual737
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:43 am

Judge1310 wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
One can be booted off of a flight for any reason. Basic point.


I think this hits the nail on the head. Airline employees would appear to take this as the be all and end all. However the truth is that you CANNOT be booted off a flight for just any reason. You cannot be booted off a flight for being white or for being heterosexual, for example, because that would be illegal.

So, you can be booted off a flight for any LEGAL reason. Which just leaves us to list the LEGAL reasons that are valid for being booted off a flight.

Any time an airline boots someone off a flight for an illegal reason makes it so much harder for them to boot people off for legal reasons.

*Even heavier sigh*


*CLEARLY* you ignored the rest of my statement to fit your narrative by, glaringly so, not including the conditions attached to my statement. That, automatically, diminishes whatever point you were attempting to convey.

An establishment may deny service to someone for whatever reason they choose -- HOWEVER....said establishment has to deal with the repercussions of such actions if this establishment has been deemed culpable and at fault with its decision. End point.

Now please be kind and have a seat, thank you. :-)


Rather condescending (that means to look / talk down to someone) don't you think?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:30 am

EA CO AS wrote:
There has to be more here than just "the one-year old was kicking the seat." First off, a one year old is either being carried as a lap infant, or they're in some sort of car seat/harness. If they're the former, the parent holding the child is allowing them to kick the seat in front. If they're the latter, there's no way they're able to kick the seat in front, nor if they're just sitting in the seat pan itself - their legs won't reach that far.

If I had to guess, either mom or dad was holding the 1 year old on their lap, and any ongoing seat-kicking was due to the parents not holding their child in a manner that prevented that from occurring.

But as was said earlier, odds are B6 didn't just say, "Kicking the seat? Off you go." Some sort of negative encounter took place to get to that point, either with another customer, the crew, or both. But Armando should have explained what led to that point rather than being as non-committal as he was.


Well, again, I just think these cellphone video-gone-viral customer service issues are making employees respond like deer in the headlights. I also wonder what they are being coached on internally. I agree that a better explanation helps in most cases, but these folks would have probably gone ballistic.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7069
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: family & B6 feud over removal

Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:34 am

Judge1310 wrote:

*Heavy sigh*

One can be booted off of a flight for any reason. Basic point. The resultant consequences are determined after the fact. If the passenger is in the wrong there are a certain set of consequences. If the airline is the in the wrong then there are another set of consequences. Regardless, one does not have a "right" to a seat on a flight, even if paid for.

A simpler analogy: should one be part of a ruckus on public transit and is subsequently booted off, does one receive a refund to the fare paid at that moment? No. Reimbursement is based on fault.

I've worked with LEOs for many years. Great bunch of professionals that, due to the whinging nature of many in Joe Public, just enforce the rules.

And no, city leaders and "PCs" (I'm assuming you meant police chiefs -- one really shouldn't use abbreviations that aren't standard/common) don't really care about airport LEOs (law enforcement officers....see what I did there?) so long as there aren't pending suits of litigation that they'd have to foot the bill for.


An airline can boot off anyone for any legal reason under federal regulations, not at their whim.

Airlines right to boot off anyone comes from the claim, the plane is their private property. Someday SCOTUS has to decide whether an equipment used for public transit under license can be claimed a private property.

Cities have limited provisions for lawsuits in their budget, prior to smartphone/selfie/video era, LEOs did whatever Joe/Jill $14.50/hr told them to and got away by "tailored" paper work. Now there are dozens of videos for any given event. These lawsuits are an additional burden on city budgets. So leaders of cities do care about these incidents and don't want to depend on Joe/Jill $14.50/hr comprehension of FARs and CoC.

Post your forum etiquette related suggestions in "Site Related" forum. A 3 month 12 post member, teaching etiquette to others in a condescending way is bit rich unless this is an alternate id of a senior member.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos