Isn’t it a federal offense to fail to obey crewmember instructions? They bring it up during every safety briefing. If charged with a federal crime surely you can face at least some imprisonment right? If mom and dad are imprisoned for any period of time the kids would need to go, at least temporarily, to foster care, can’t just have a two year old care for itself. So what part of what they said was a lie?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Most airlines do have a cash & perks reward program for FA’s based on positive customer feedback. And do react to negative feedback as well.
Agree that 9/11 made a big change. We are now acutely aware that on every flight we are defending the airplane against criminals who may be hiding amongst the passengers. Some people can take that change in POV in mind without it altering everything about their approach to their job. Others cannot.
As several folks have said, de-escalation is a hard skill to learn and a hard skill to practice. It also takes a willingness on both sides.
In the Delta car seat incident if* indeed the car seat was not FAA approved then the only FAA-approved legal outcome is the car seat is in the cargo hold and the kid is in a lap. The only question is how civilly and gently everyone gets to that outcome.
In the American stroller incident the only FAA-approved legal outcome is the stroller is in the cargo hold. The only question is how civilly and gently everyone gets to that outcome.
In the United remove passenger for deadheading crew member incident things are more complex. There were several moving parts and many opportunities for the airline to have found another volunteer or to have decided to leave the crewmember behind. So better outcomes were available, at least at first.
But, unfortunately, if* at some point along the process Dr. Dao said in effect “I won’t and you can’t make me”, then the only FAA-approved legal outcome is the airplane doesn’t leave until he’s off it. The fact he got injured is 100% IMO on the backs of the Chicago Police Department. The fact he didn’t get to his destination that day is on him once the “you can’t make me” part came out. if*.
My bottom line, as pointed out in item 2 of my first post above, is that we don’t have the flexibility to let you use your car seat if you ask nice and we’re feeling generous. The law won’t let us. Even though when you go to TGIF for dinner the manager may say “you can’t block the aisle with your stroller/car seat” but he backs down and walks away when you refuse to move it.
This is the critical difference due to our overbearing regulator. You, the customer are equally subject to that same overbearing regulator. Though you mostly don’t know it and mostly don’t believe it. Because it’s utterly unlike almost everything else in your life. You may *have *to back down. Despite being the paying customer.
It sucks to be you in this situation. It sucks to be us too. 3 to 4x per day every workday for 30+ years.
Maybe the fix is to get the FAA out of the cabin except for engineering it. Have FTC or somebody regulate “truth in ticketing / booking” rules then just have a NY subway style free-for-all in the cabin.
========
Yeah, and it’s the same with airline crashes. 99,999 flights land safely, but people kick up a fuss over the one that doesn’t.
What about this horrific abuse perpetrated on a All Nippon Airways flight?
Hell, even if they would follow directions, that particular sort of sociopathic and narcissistic behavior cannot be rewarded.
IMHO, the solution is simple.
Non-refundable tickets for everyone. Miss your flight, too bad. Airlines would not need to overbook.
You could still allow folks to fly standby.
If I bought expensive concert tickets, and missed the concert, I certainly don’t expect a refund.
Ever have to taxi at Newark? And then have the plane stopped/sitting still for another half hour? And KNOW that the seat belt sign will stay on for another 20 minutes after take off?
In case you missed them, here are two threads from shortly after the UAL incident that address overbooking in considerable detail:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823954
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=824067
Suffice it to say here that the cure is probably worse than the disease. And really has nothing to do with cabin crew attitude vs. passenger behavior issues which are the topic of this thread. Despite the fact that when the UAL incident broke many people mistakenly thought that overbooking was the first domino in that unhappy chain.
That’s another example of overbearing regulation.
It’d be stupid risky to take off with somebody in the lav. OTOH, it’s stupid we’ve got restrictions against taxiing with people up and about.
The right answer IMO is the seat belt sign is really the “It’s all on you” sign. For any you, not aimed at enipla. IOW, you’re free to ignore it; but by disobeying it your right to sue for any damages has been waived by operation of statute. And you, not us, are legally liable for any harm that comes to others. So when I stomp on the brakes if you fall down & break your arm that’s tough shit on you. Sign was on; you shoulda been more careful. If you fall down and break somebody else’s arm, that’s all on you, not me. They’re welcome to sue you, not me/us, and you’re strictly liable. etc.
Bottom line: I’ll still run the sign based on my knowledge of risk vs. reward as friendly advice to you. You run your life by taking or ignoring my advice as you prefer. The right comes with the responsibility though; you can’t have it both ways.
I honestly think most frequent air passengers would readily go for this deal. Injuries would go up, but “freedom from overbearing regulation” would also go up. Might be interesting to try it as a, say, 3 year legislative trial with an automatic sunset and then assess the public’s reaction to decide whether to let it lapse or make it permanent.
You’re clearly pretty thoughtful about a lot of stuff related to this issue, and you clearly have a lot of experience as someone who works in the industry.
For that reason, i find it quite stunning that someone who works in the industry would actually make this claim. The likelihood of “criminals…hiding amongst the passengers” is far lower than it was before 9/11, precisely because of all the draconian security measures they have put in place since then.
Passengers are subject to more rigorous surveillance in their daily lives by a state security system that tends to err on the side of caution and often ends up placing the wrong people on no-fly lists. Once you’ve got your ticket, the physical screening procedures at the airport, combined with much stricter (and often asinine) rules about what you can carry with you, mean that even if a criminal does manage to get on the plane, he or she is not likely to be in possession of anything that can do very much damage at all.
And, finally, perhaps the biggest change made by 9/11 is that even if a criminal does manage to get onto a plane and try something, the very nature of the 9/11 attacks changed forever the consequences of an attempt to hijack or otherwise interfere with a plane in flight. In the 1970s, when hijacking was FAR more common than it is today, passengers and crew tended to follow the hijackers’ instructions because the general assumption was that cooperation was the course of action most likely to lead to a safe and peaceful outcome.
Since 9/11, though, that calculation is out the window. Any effort to take over a plane now will be met with massive resistance, because most people will understand—or, at the very least, believe—that they have nothing to lose by taking on the criminals. If anything is going to happen to a plane now, it will be because a passenger manages to sneak something really major like a bomb or a poison or something into his or her checked or carry-on baggage, and if a passenger does manage to do that, you can be sure that they won’t advertise their presence by making unauthorized trips to the bathroom or getting belligerent with the cabin crew.
Quite frankly, about the last thing that i ever think about when i fly these days is the possibility of terrorism; i’m far more likely to be made miserable by airlines that keep decreasing the seat pitch in their airplanes, understaffed TSA security lines, gate staff who refuse to make timely announcements or provide information about late aircraft or schedule changes, cabin crew who act like junior Mussolini, and passengers who can’t figure out the basic etiquette of getting their fucking luggage into the overhead bin and finding their seat within a reasonable amount of time. If the sometimes overbearing and plain assholish behavior of some cabin crew is the result of a fear of criminals on board, then those people need to get a fucking grip.
I have . Which is why I use the restroom before I board, since I know it will be close to an hour minimum before the light goes off.
I know that, and I fly maybe once a year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would guess the differences there would end up making it pretty irrelevant to airlines. One big difference which would show itself several ways is the different social cross section that takes long distance buses as opposed to flying. Flying is significantly cheaper (relative to purchasing power) than it used to be only a few decades ago and it’s less strictly upper middle class method of transport than it was. But by the same token it’s even less likely upper middle class people take the bus now. For example media people don’t usually take the bus and the experiences and perspective of our (in the US at least) pretty non-diverse (in social class and educational background) media shapes its coverage of a lot of issues. Also ‘grassroots’ social media reaction I think is pretty skewed up the socio-econ ladder as well. And bus co employees might also think twice about verbally bullying bus passengers in view of maybe getting clocked. 
Of course that’s not the only difference. But it one way or another tends to run through some of the ‘other’ differences. Like if somebody said the security situation was different, true, but in some respects that comes back to the same issue. The air travel system is more ‘important’ (as a persistent fixation of certain terror groups also) in part because of who uses it.
And all that said, I’m sure there actually are some ugly ‘customer service’ interactions on buses too.
Well, but can she sue the other company if this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpLd-t1tcJU ?
They are paid per flying hour which is off blocks to on blocks, in other words, if the crew are on the plane and it is not at the terminal then they are being paid. If they are hanging around inside the terminal then they are not being paid. If they are on board but haven’t pushed back yet, then they are not being paid subject to the below.
LSLGuy can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe they are guaranteed a certain number of hours per month and will be paid for those hours regardless of whether they are flown or not.
I say “they” because this system is not used worldwide. In my case I get paid a salary, it doesn’t matter whether I fly or not.
Is this a whoosh? What part of this has to do with Japanese police and escalation?
With the Delta car seat incident, Delta wasn’t claiming that it wasn’t FAA approved; the problem only seems to be an issue because the flight was oversold.
This seems to be the American authoritarianism which people from or living in other countries have noted and which seems troubling to me.
If I understand this, then no matter how out of line the airline is, they can order someone off the plane at their own whims. Fortunately, that doesn’t happen often, but there aren’t any checks in place, other than recording it and posting it online.
What prevents abuse here?
I think that this is the type of analsys which is really necessary in order to help decrease the number of problems.
As now someone who has spent over half my life outside of the States, this is what I see. It’s not just the airlines. It’s not just the police. It really is something in the American culture.
Most of the police officers and most of the flight crew are good people. The problem is when there is a culture which encourages badge-heavy responses and there is little accountability, then the handful of bad individuals causes a disproportional amount of the problems. Worse, unchecked then that type of response and infect others within the same organization.
The whole ‘on time’ departure stats is actually an unseen part of the problem here. Why would the airline hustle people onto a plane when they know they have overbooked/staffing issues? Because once you’re in the plane, though it doesn’t move from the gate, it’s considered an ‘on time’ departure. So now, I can drag you off and plunk down my staff and not mess up the stats. If I start the debate in the airport and a scene ensues that delays boarding, well, now it’s NOT an on time departure any more. And THAT is the answer to “Why? Oh, why? Would they do it this way?”
The airlines stridently incentivize the crew to get the plane boarded to meet the ‘on time’ requirements. Under unrealistic constraints the crew is left with a bad deal, like pulling seated customers off planes, to avoid penalties for failing to board ‘on time’. People are blaming the crew, but it’s really the airline that is at fault.
Most of your specifics are false although your bottom line is pretty close.
As I explained upthread, the only on-time stat the DOT cares about is arrival time within 15 minutes of schedule. Airline management *chooses *to care about on-time departures to the minute because getting that right contributes hugely to DOT success. They also care about *starting *the boarding process the appropriate number of minutes before departure because boarding takes a fairly predictable amount of time that’s been pretty well statistically validated. Shit happens on every single boarding; the only question is which specific shit. Most times it’s minor and few. Sometimes it’s major and/or many. In which case we’re probably going to be late.
In no sense is it an on-time departure if some or all the people are aboard but the airplane isn’t moving. “Departure” happens exactly when the airplane moves. Which of course is after any boarding controversy, maintenance issue, ATC delay, etc., has already been resolved.
Sad to say you’re mostly wrong. You’re right that security is greatly better than it was on 9/10/2001.
But the threat has only gotten better as well. The risks are larger on international flights than they are purely domestically in the US. They’re also larger on big airplanes than they are on RJs. Depending on what & where you fly you may be in the very safe, or the somewhat-less-safe part of the security envelope.
9/11 was 16 years ago. Anyone younger than age 28 today was child then and has no meaningful recollection of what happened. For everybody else it’s an increasingly distant and irrelevant memory. I agree that back in 2002 any attempt by a gang to hijack an airliner 9/11 style would have been met by a battle royale of highly motivated passengers of all shapes, sizes, and ages. My bet is not nearly so much today. The last incident in our files was instructive. One passenger helped the crew deal with a crazy man while 10-ish people recorded video on their phones and the other 100-ish were obliviously watching their tablets with their earbuds in.
In a paradoxical sense, the super-secure cockpit door has created a safer, but much more brittle, security situation. It’s great for keeping bad guys out. But once they’re inside the cockpit, it’s just as great for keeping defenders out. So instead of needing a gang of 10+ bad guys to control the passengers for the rest of the flight to prevent a United Airlines Flight 93 - Wikipedia response all they need to do is get one semi-armed guy through the door & get the door closed behind him. Which can be done in the blink of an eye with 99% of the passengers none the wiser. Yet.
We fully expect an attack will include a diversion by ordinary seeming passengers having an ordinary seeming controversy about luggage, arm rests, meals, connecting flights, etc.
It sucks that we’re one of the front lines in an ongoing international war. But we are. We absolutely *could *dispense with all the security “hassle.” As long as the public is OK with losing a few airliners and won’t quit flying or create another recession or demand another trillion dollar DoD adventure when it happens.
I’ve been talking, in this thread, about domestic US air travel, because the recent conversation about airline practices and cabin crew behavior has been focused largely on American carriers. I understand that some international-origin flights are probably subject to less security, although it’s worth noting that plenty of foreign countries have security measures at least as good as the United States.
Your argument is like the classic justifications for excessive or irrational actions: it justifies those actions based on questions of correlation rather than causation. As Lisa Simpson once explained to Homer, “This rock keeps tigers away.” When Homer asked how it works, she said, “It doesn’t, but you don’t see any tigers around here, do you?”
I’m not arguing against security measures. I’m simply saying that, if airline crew (cockpit and cabin) are using their concerns about the (minuscule) possibility of terrorist passengers to justify or explain treating their customers like shit, as you seemed to be doing, then they need to get a grip on reality.
Straw man.
I’ve never suggested doing away with actual security measures. I’ve simply suggested that the belligerence and aggressiveness of some crew members, especially in incidents where it is completely unwarranted, doesn’t do anything to actually enhance security.
I should add, by the way, that in my personal experience the vast majority of airline cockpit and cabin crew are very nice people who behave in a professional and friendly manner towards their paying customers. The main problem is that the few mini Mussolinis who work in the industry have been enabled by rules and regulations that basically allow them to get away with treating people like shit. That has probably also been exacerbated more by the airlines’ ceaseless quest from profit at the expense of customer service, which places extra stresses on passengers, which in turn is sometimes taken out on the employees.
Passengers certainly aren’t without blame in all of this. But if you’re an airline employee, then being on the “front lines in an ongoing international war” (high marks for hyperbole!) is part of the fucking job description, and if they don’t like it, they should get another job.
Agree completely that belligerence has no place in customer service. Guilty until proven innocent is epic fail when the police use it and works even less well when others use the same tactic.
I don’t for a moment intend to excuse or condone crew acting like jerks to the customers. As you say, most are decent folks trying to do a job. The few problem workers make life a lot harder for the many non-problem workers.
This is a busy, complicated, not-very-convenient mass-market product delivered under limited time and space constraints. On a good day. When anyone, customer or worker, brings an attitude into the already stressful environment, everyone suffers. And that’s unacceptable in a customer service business.
What has changed is that cabin crew used to be young women straight out of high school. They did what they were told for a couple of years, then left to get married.
When they got older, and got used to having kids of their own, they toughened up. Plus, labour rights and employee stock ownership changed the power relationship.