I don’t see this as a freedom of speech issue. Do the stewardesses have the right to their opinion? Of course. However, at some point common sense has to take over.
Let’s say, for example, that my job is to lead sales seminars all over the U.S. I meet with 150 people at a time to teach them how to be better salespeople. I’m great at it; people are lining up and shoving money at my employer when they learn I’m going to be in their town. I’m bringing the company tons of business.
During each of these sales presentations, I talk briefly about my fervent belief that Osama bin Laden is the greatest man on earth. Just intersperse that tidbit with all the rah-rah sales talk. How long do you think my employer is gonna let me continue to represent the company in public?
It’s okay to hold views that are unpopular. Some of them are idiotic views, but those involved have the right to hold them. It’s not okay to espouse such views to the public you’re serving.
I read through this whole thread and I don’t think I saw this point made, but correct me if I’m wrong. The ‘Bush Knew’ sticker is not, to me, indicating that it’s saying that Bush knew about the attacks before they happened. It’s referring to Bush’s actions between ~8:30 and 10 am on the day of the attacks. Here’s a flash movie that’s about what I think the sticker is probably referring to (note ending graphic). http://www.symbolman.com/911short.html
Don’t know if this changes the issue for anyone, or if there’s still a good debate going on.
Ok, dumb country southern hick here, and yes it has been said that I have the most uninformed opinions ever stated, but could someone answer me as to why anyone would WANT to put a bumper sticker on luggage? Is this normal practice? I’ve only flown a couple of times and I can’t remember seeing this practice before. So it occurs to me that it was a very clear, concise point that these stews were trying to make, especially if it’s not a common practice. I could understand them putting it on their vehicles, but on their luggage??
As far as calling the airlines, I don’t think that names were mentioned as far as who was being reported, only that the stickers were offensive.
And ** I Am Sparticus**, you are a brilliant, well spoken, thoughtful poster. It’s a shame that your mind reading abilities, your ability to see into the future, your profound knowledge of personalities of other Dopers and other super human powers are wasted on this message board. May we invite you to move to another? You have lost credibility here even before you have started. Must be close to a record, 37 posts and already totally disliked by most. Your personal attack on a well-respected person such as Anth has been your undoing. Better luck on your next hit and run.
Every time I fly, while I’m waiting for my luggage I think “I gotta get some bumper stickers or something on my suitcase so I can distinguish it easier from the others.” Especially after that one time where it went around the carousal MANY times before I realized it was mine… Maybe I’ll actually remember to get some before next trip.
I do see quite a lot of stickers on the luggage of flight crews, although they almost always seem to be equipment stickers (“737”, “777”, etc.) or Union-oriented stickers. I’ve never before this last trip seen anything that was really worth notice.
I watched the Flash video depicted in the above link, and I’m not sure exactly what the “Bush Knew” deal is supposed to mean. Is this supposed to a be a “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” kind of deal?
Very bizzare, and Anth, I hope you get to follow up with AA. I agree with you completely.
I agree, Zette…very bizarre. I submitted the link to Snopes and asked if they could verify the timeline that the site claims is true (i.e. Bush reading to elementary school students while he knew the towers had been attacked). Seems sort of tinfoil hat-ish to me.
That’s the impression I got, that it was a “‘Nero fiddled while Rome burned’ kind of deal?”, as you say.
I think that what Raygun99 was trying to say was that the sticker was alluding to this and not that there are people who think he knew months, weeks, or days beforehand …in essence, that the FA’s sticker wasn’t trying to be as controversial as we all saw on the surface.
Please correct me if I misinterpreted you, Raygun99.
While I’m sure there are conspiracy nuts who do think that he knew beforehand, hence the OP’s take on the sticker, the above intrepretation is what I take from it, yes.
A day late (they’re blocking the SDMB at work, now), but hey - I would like a transcript of this conversation. How do we KNOW he asked her very gently? We’re only hearing this side of it, right?
And Anthracite is right. As usual. Everything else has already been said.
The whole story sounds rather odd from AA’s perspective. I have no knowledge of AA’s specific practices, but with several friends in the industry and two exes that work as cabin personnel I can tell you that most airlines are very strict about uniform and extend uniform to luggage. Although luggage are personal belongings, color and type of bag allowed is usually restricted. Many airlines give their employees an annual luggage compensation.
I know for a fact that almost every airline in the world dictates that when in uniform you must act according to company statutes, even if you are not on shift. I can’t tell you how many times my exes were late because of having to rush through half the airport to the personnel area and slip out of uniform when we met at an airport so that we could go have a drink in a bar since drinking alcohol in uniform is an absolute no-no (let’s not even mention kissing or other intimate behavior in public).
All of the limitations thus imposed are in the employment contract, so whatever rights you want to claim for them, they have waived these by entering into said contract. The only way that I can imagine they would get away with this is if the Union has negotiated a special clause granting certain freedom of political expression within AA. I know that some airlines have been forced allow discrete Union stickers, even with a mot-de-guerre in current employment conflicts on them.
I couldn’t get that site to work, so I don’t know what it is claiming. My memory of the incident is that Bush was engaged in a photo-op, reading to small kids, when the cameras caught his aid walking over to him, interrupting the reading, and whispering news of the attack in his ear.
Whether that was the news of the first WTC plane (possible accident) or the second WTC plane (clearly deliberate) I do not know.
The news clip was played repeatedly during the late morning and early afternoon on 9/11, but it did not show Bush shrugging off the news and pretending nothing had happened. If Bush did conclude that particular story, I would not consider that worthy of criticism. The stories are short; Bush did not have all the information, yet; he was in no position to take immediate action. (A tape of Bush shrugging off news of a Russian first strike nuclear launch would have had some significance; finishing a 3-minute story for kindergartners when only sketchy information had come in on an event to which he could not respond hardly seems meaningful.)
Even the conspiracy crackpots seem to concede this. His delay to interrupt the story telling post this and information on the first crash - supposedly the smoking gun showing that “Bush knew” - plays differently in my memory. My impression was that he was in the hands of his aids and just waiting for a clearance to break off. His eyes kept on wandering to things off camera and the whole story telling thing was staccato and snipped. He afterwards said they didn’t want to alarm the kids and that he was being informed as much as possible any way. If you ask me I think no one at that point (9:05 AM) including GWB could fathom that there could still be two planes in the air.
While I’m sure there are conspiracy nuts who do think that he knew beforehand, hence the OP’s take on the sticker, the above intrepretation is what I take from it, yes.
Raygun99
You’ll be rather taken aback then by the news breaking in the last week or two that demonstrates appalling failures (‘warning fatigue’ seems to be a common phrase) in the intelligence systems. Yes the CIA were aware of potential attacks and yes, the FBI had intelligence linking Al-Quieda to the use of aircraft as weapons. Investigations into some of those taking flying lessons were ongoing.
Whether this means that Bush himself knew is unknown - but certainly the USA (in the widest terms) were conscious of the potential for an attack (although I doubt anybody would have anticipated the horrendous scale).
To me, the point is whether an airline employee should espouse a political view that encroaches on their vocation is. In my opinion, FWIW, they should not. Equally though, I would disapprove of the behaviour to myself rather than expect the company to take action on my behalf. If the company disapproves, they will soon stop it themselves.
I think Anth herself explains why she was so upset - and no one can judge whether that’s appropriate or not, the fact is she was. The OP though, seems to mix up the two issues and claim that action should be taken because of the views that the aircrew exhibited rather than whether it is true or not.
I doubt this will help, but I’m having trouble following the trains of thought here.
My thoughts go out to all, around the world, affected by the tragic events of a year ago.
I got through about the first 3 “slides” of the flash presentation and apparently the kook is outraged because he has “proof” that Bush knew about the crashes about 15 minutes before he’s officially supposed to have been told.
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything, but in any case the “Bush Knew” stickers do not have to do with one web-crackpot’s 15 minute theory. The phrase “Bush Knew” means (in common parlance) that Bush “knew” days or weeks in advance that A) About a terrorist attack weeks in advance, B) planes would be hijacked, C) Planes would be flown into buildings
Do a Google search on “Bush knew” and you’ll see (except for the first two links which are both to the crackpot’s site) that just about every other link dealing with 9/11 talk about weeks or months of pre-knowledge.
I mean, c’mon folks. “Bush Knew” has a meaning (albiet a psychotic one). If I was wearing a black baseball cap with a sort of flattened, very serifed white X on the front, I’d be sending a message and it’s not “I like the X-Men comic book”. If I burn a cross on someone’s front yard, I’m not saying “Jeepers, it’s dark out here!”
You gotta be careful about how you make a statement, and how you phrase it. The fewer words you use, the more likely the statement can be taken wrong.
When I was 21, I was living in the Oakland district of Pittsburgh. The local rape-crisis center was doing what I guess you’d call an ad campaign, or a public-service-announcement campaign, stenciling on the sidewalk messages such as “Stop Raping” and “No Means No”. One day, I saw a stencil that said “Dead Men Don’t Rape.”
“Oh, my god,” I thought. “Is this about Final Solution? Do they want to round up all the men and put them in concentration camps, on the off chance that they might commit rape? Honestly…not all men are rapists! Brrr…”
So I went into the rape-crisis center and politely said, “Um…I saw your message, “Dead Men Don’t Rape”…what exactly do you mean by that?”
“We’re in favor of the death penalty for convicted rapists.”
“OHHHHHHHH! Okay, I can get behind THAT! Oh, absolutely!”
So I jumped to a conclusion. Maybe because I was young. Or maybe because the statement was ambiguous. I mean, was my conclusion that much of a leap? The stencil only mentioned “men”; it didn’t exclude men who have never even thought about committing rape. Likewise, “Bush Knew” doesn’t elaborate on exactly what he knew, and when.
