9 ms·

Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

203 points by chmars 14y ago

evan_ 14y ago
Shouldn't have used the T-word.
- guruz 14y ago
  Or live in Paranoidistan, aka USA.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    There are 30,000 flights a day in the US with an average of 100 passengers each. This happening to one blogger is not exactly a pattern of paranoia. It was simply two people making a bad customer service decision.
    - guruz 14y ago
      I would agree with you, it could have been that. It's just that for me as an European seemingly all crazy stories like "X tazed by cop for doing nothing at all" or "Y put into jail for having her small children play naked in the garden" come from the US.
      - jrockway 14y ago
        According to [1], there are 500,000,000 English speakers on the Internet. There are 300,000,000 English speakers in the US. It stands to reason that most everything you read about in English on the Internet took place in the US. It's just a really really big country. [1] http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm
        guruz 14y ago
        I also get my information in German from an Offline newspaper or the German websites. Or to back my claims up, let's take some per-capita numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldw... Sorry if this comes across as arrogant.
- jchavannes 14y ago
  Was going to say the same thing. This seems more like the reason, and it would make sense why they would not claim this was the reason as well, since they don't want the word mentioned again among other passengers.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    Using the wrong word is an even more disgusting reason to throw someone off.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - avel 14y ago
      "Hey guys, come on, don't throw me out. It's not like I said that I have a bomb!"
      - Stratoscope 14y ago
        Or for us old-timers: "I got the bomb box on my Mac. Yeah, it crashed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_(symbol)#Mac_OS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_(symbol)#Mac_OS
- LatvjuAvs 14y ago
  What would be reason not to discuss something that whole nation is scared shitless? No talk policy will make everything go away. This is beyond understanding for me, how can a word ban someone from flight. In ol' days when you could smoke and drink and have a nice discussion about shit in world... while in airplane.
- GFischer 14y ago
  A well publicized case here in Uruguay was when someone was asked to throw away a pen, and he said "it's not as if this pen is a bomb", so he was refused entry into the U.S. People still travel to the U.S., but it's very likely costing the country a lot of tourist dollars - not that the U.S. cares, they have enough tourists as is.
PavlovsCat 14y ago
The weaker people in positions of authority are, the less you're allowed to laugh in their faces, and the more you should.
- taligent 14y ago
  This sort of attitude is childish and pathetic. And it will get you absolutely nowhere in life. Nowhere.
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    There is nothing childish about it. It's dead serious, and failure to do so costs lives. And regarding that second part: Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say infinitely when you mean very; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. -― C.S. Lewis
  - alan_cx 14y ago
    Slightly tongue in cheek: You know that crappy little country, just off the north coast of mainland Europe, its where I live, its called the UK? Well, that's why we have far too much influence for our size. We rip on our powerful people something rotten. It helps to keep the powerful on their toes and makes the rest of us feel a little bit better. Its a British tradition. And for us, it works quite well.
ck2 14y ago
Not that it's an excuse for what they did but why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such. Yeah that's helpful to calming strangers in any situation, just suddenly say that without any reason.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such. Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy? And how is lying, claiming he took more pictures, an appropriate response? How can you possibly rationalize this to be the fault of the OP? As a comment to that story points out, that's a big part of how society got to such a low point.
  - trustfundbaby 14y ago
    why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such ---------------- Why would it freak someone out, when no terrorist (to my knowledge) has ever declared "I'm not a terrorist" ... right before hijacking a plane?
    - PavlovsCat 14y ago
      We don't even have an indication it actually did freak them out. To me that's just a speculative justification, giving authority the benefit of the doubt.
  - jemfinch 14y ago
    Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy? Oh please. Imagine you have a guest at your house who asks to use the bathroom. You reply, "Yes, it's the second door on the left, and I haven't installed any recording devices in it." Would you seriously be surprised at your guest's sudden unease while relieving himself? No one's saying that this is the OP's fault, but telling a flight attendant "I'm not a terrorist" is like saying, "Use my bathroom, I didn't install any cameras in it." Proffering information of that kind is just plain suspicious in itself.
dmak 14y ago
Flying has become such a hassle these days. I often just keep my mouth shut when going through security just for the sake of getting through quicker. I feel like if I asked for a pat down as opposed to just walking through the body scan, I would position myself into a potentially troublesome situation. In a way, I do feel like I am being suppressed these days.
adrianmsmith 14y ago
Why did they throw him off then put him on another flight? I mean either he was a danger (= should be thrown off original flight, but should not be allowed to endanger other flights either), or he wasn't a danger (= could fly on the original flight).
- jrockway 14y ago
  They never used danger as a reason. The captain can kick anyone off the plane for any reason or no reason. He chose to and will accept whatever the consequences are. (But remember: it's a union job, so there aren't going to be consequences.) I estimate the author will get 50,000 frequent flyer miles and an apology. Seems to be the standard procedure when the central office wants to make up for poor customer service on the line.
- neurotech1 14y ago
  Possibly, the original Flight Attendant said something to the Captain. Pretty much everything that happens on or around an airliner is at the Captains discretion. The decisions can be questioned and challenged by the airline supervisors, the FAA etc. and the Captain can be relieved of duty by the airline, but its Captains prerogative to remove someone off their aircraft. The other factor involved is CRM, Crew Resource Management. The days were the crew passively follow the Captains decisions are over, and for good reason. Captains are trained to listen to their First Officer and FA, and actively respond to questions. This means its quite possible that the Captain didn't want his flight delayed, or cause unnecessarily tension on the flight with his FA, and so took the easy (but highly questionable) option to simply remove him from the flight. Note: This should not be interpreted as taking the airlines side, just explaining my thoughts on the factors involved.
droithomme 14y ago
It's a bit disturbing and amazing to see so many people here taking the airline's side in this. No wonder things are the way they are - the general public supports it.
- javajosh 14y ago
  Uh, there are like 9 comments right now (12:54am PST) and literally none of them support the airline. What are you talking about?
  - droithomme 14y ago
    All the "Well he shouldn't have used the T word" when he explained that he was taking the photos as part of his travel review job. There were no faults in the way he handled it. The airline was completely to blame, severely inconvenienced him, falsely accused him, and cost him money. Outrageous behavior against any passenger. That he is a 950,000 mile traveler on the airline and often writes articles recommending them to others (at a time when United is well known for being among the worst of the carriers) makes it completely idiotic from a business standpoint as well.
    - jemfinch 14y ago
      No one's taking the airline's side here, but he shouldn't have brought up terrorism. That was a mistake in judgment on his part, as I explained elsewhere. The irony here is that you're demonstrating the same sort of knee-jerk misinterpretation that arises when people say "terrorism" on an airplane.
      - Zealot 14y ago
        > shouldn't have brought up terrorism Word mightier than sword
      - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
        I still don't understand why using the word "terrorist" is a no-no. It is a word. Context matters. Context in this case would suggest there was nothing to worry about. I swear sometimes it is like the whole world is a slightly mentally handicapped child who, upon hearing a bad word, starts repeating it getting more and more upset. I guess being adults and thinking things through is too much to ask from your average full grown adult?
sdoering 14y ago
Sorry, what I do not get is, that this person describes something, he claims clearly troubled him. He was wronged (by his account) by UA. He even had to buy a new ticket on his own account to have a connection-flight. So what I do not get is, why is he not holding UA responsible for the lost money, lost time and his trouble. Is he such a big fanboy, that he does not want to cost his big love some (by his account) well deserved money? Or might it just be, that there are some other aspects to his story, not told in the written blog post? His tone of voice, while talking to the FA? Was he calm, might he come about as being aggressive? What was his body language? Might she have felt threatened. Maybe he is right in his point of view - but maybe - and just maybe, he acted from a position of blogger-power, taking his blogger-influence for granted and letting this show. I know, that this is just me speculating, but I haven't been there and did not hear anything from the other side of the story. But reading the comments here and in the blog, UA is guilty until proven innocent, or so it seems.
10dpd 14y ago
Two issues: 1. 'Terrorist' seems to be a keyword that will get you into a lot of trouble if uttered in the vicinity of an airport. 2. Why not provide evidence of the truth there and then? Show your camera photo roll containing the one photo, and then you have a solid case. Otherwise, we have to consider that perhaps more than one photo was taken, it is a "your word" against "their word" scenario.
- valdiorn 14y ago
  Would a terrorist really use the word terrorist? This society is way too fucking paranoid.
DoubleCluster 14y ago
Never ever directly accuse someone of lying. Mostly because it's usually a communication problem where they said it unclear and your heard it wrong. Also because you should always give someone a way out without losing too much face. I would have said something like: Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane.
- trustfundbaby 14y ago
  Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane ----- feels a bit too servile for me, especially if I felt I didn't do anything wrong in the first place.
  - sdoering 14y ago
    Why, if this means, you stay on the plane, you win. But nobody looses his/her face. So wining, without anyone losing, what is so wrong? Everything else (and I sadly, really often react that way) is the little child in a sand-pit: "But he started it" kind of argument. Not mature, not civilized, just childish - the way or societies more and more seem to become imho.
    - PavlovsCat 14y ago
      There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie. There is nothing civilized about abuse of power. There is nothing civilized in accepting it. But the real WTF is: how would agreeing to be led off the plane have resulted in him staying on it? His fate was sealed when he explained his picture to the FA and she had a 'nam flashback, or whatever the fuck caused this; but what makes you think crawling on his belly after that would have changed anything?
      - chc 14y ago
javajosh 14y ago
It seems likely that, in the not-too-distant future, we will all be eagerly recording everything around us to prevent these kinds of injustices from happening. Imagine if you'd had a mic running, then played it back to the captain. Problem solved - and the FA would have gotten into trouble for creating a liability risk for the airline.
- ghostDancer 14y ago
  The problem is that recordings can be modified or erased and soon will be forbidden, the first problem they have they'll make a new law or rule, so you can not put the authorities against the wall, for your protection of course. I think is now forbidden to record policemen, not sure non US citizen here, in US while they're working.
- lucian1900 14y ago
  It's more likely that you would not be allowed on the plane with anything that appears to be recording.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    Good luck to them with that. The only people it stops even today are people who don't mind being observed taking pictures. There are plenty of cameras that are easy to hide for anyone who cares to. I can buy simple digital video recorders embedded in pens, watches, bluetooth earphones, baseball caps, ties, crucifixes and more from just a casual search of Amazon, for example, and that's hardly the state of the art in covert recording. The more obnoxious anti-photographing policies people experience, the more attractive it will be to make recording devices less obtrusive.
Mithrandir 14y ago
Something similar happened a couple years ago involving photos being taken of employees.[1][2] What struck me as different this time was that neither the FA nor the GS Rep attempted to take the camera away or have the pictures deleted. If this was a security issue, it makes sense that they wouldn't just let him walk off the plane with the photo(s). It's possible that his saying "terrorist" was part of it, or maybe UA has a very strict no-photos policy, or maybe there's something else we don't know (and I think this is probably the case,) but this still seems pretty absurd. 1: http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says-photographing-staff-could-get-you-on-no-fly-list-continental-says-you-deserve-an-apology/ http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says-photographing-... 2: http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of-photography-cause-plane-evacuation-25-hour-delay-on-united-flight/ http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of-photography...
- jemfinch 14y ago
  Even police officers have no right to confiscate equipment or delete pictures[0], and you're proposing that private parties attempt it? Please, be more aware of your civil rights. [0] http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosandmaki.htm http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosa...
  - Mithrandir 14y ago
    No, I'm just saying United has done that before, so it seems odd that it didn't happen this time as well. I certainly don't think that it's right.
jemfinch 14y ago
Captain: I don't have any, but United will have no trouble finding me. My name is...[removed]. Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? The captain made a wrongheaded decision, and he should at the very least have his name attached to it.
- sdoering 14y ago
  Because if it did not happen exactly the way the OP wrote it - and he has the ability to prove it, he might get himself in real trouble that way. I do not know the US law in that case, but in Germany, the captain then could go to court on terms of "wrong accusation" and the OP would have to prove his accusations.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? Legal liability. The author could be sued for defamation of character if any of the details are wrong, or in the case that a truthful account emphasizes negatives over positives, something called "false light". Some readers may find this hard to believe, but it's true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
  - huhtenberg 14y ago
    > Legal liability. Basic human decency rather.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      Well, yes, that's also true -- many people don't want to cause unintended hurt by way of poorly considered words. But (in the U.S. at least, and certainly Great Britain) a diplomatic expression that includes an unfair characterization can result in legal action. "Bob isn't so bad -- after all, it's said that he's stopped beating his wife."
- adorable 14y ago
  I wouldn't say the captain is an "aggressor". He made a bad decision, probably due to incomplete or wrong information he was given. So this is not entirely his fault, he shouldn't take 100% of the blame, and he deserves to have his name hidden.
oellegaard 14y ago
This is completely unacceptable. You don't take people of a plane for taking pictures - they are no thread to everyone and certainly paid for their ticket. I am flying with United Airlines in March, I hope for a better experience - but after reading this, it might be my last flight with them, ever.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  It used to be land of the free, apparently now it's land of the cowards
digitalengineer 14y ago
Sounds like he stepped in to a plane in Little Britain's 'Come fly with Me' and met 'Penny' the steward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlDUTpCIOE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlDUTpCIOE
nwh 14y ago
Not in the same league, but I've been escorted out of a train station of taking a photo of a piece of signage too. The electronic sign in question had condensed a station name to something mildly profane, which I considered amusing enough to take a photo of. The justification given that I could have been planning a terrorist attack, so it was regarded as suspicious behaviour.
- acro 14y ago
  Isn't taking photos in public place like a train station completely legal?
  - nwh 14y ago
    I've no idea. This was in Australia, but I don't think we have any specific laws against it either.
hermannj314 14y ago
Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself. I signaled for her to come back and asked her to hang my coat. What's with the need to exercise control over another human being like that? Hang up your own coat. The fact that he feels entitled to such service says something about him. People that bark orders at flight attendants probably feel that are part of some untouchable/infallible class of citizen. It makes me suspect his retelling of the facts has been greatly marred by his feelings of superiority in the situation.
- cwilson 14y ago
  He was sitting in business class where this type of request is normal. Also, keeping the aisle clear is a top priority of any flight crew (especially pre-takeoff), so they actually prefer you ask them to do things like this as they will be more efficient.
  - lancewiggs 14y ago
    And you can't actually hang your own coat.
  - hermannj314 14y ago
    I guess he would know what's appropriate, so I stand corrected on that point. I guess I'm just too servile. I would have put my iPhone away and read a book and never have been kicked off the plane. (And if my coat needed hung, I would have just sat and been uncomfortabaly warm until I could hang it myself: your failure to prepare should not become the burden of another human being. )
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      If there's no where to hang it aside from a designated area that as a passenger you don't have access too, you let the crew member do it and remember to be polite. Same as in a restaurant, you don't take your own plates back into the kitchen and clean them off, because the waiting team does that and probably wouldn't like you muscling in.
pudquick 14y ago
Yes, it's unfortunate that the flight attendant lied in this situation. However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it, it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky terrorist and swap SD cards). In addition, the author made the statement "I am not a terrorist." There's no way for flight crew to know this to be true until the plane lands at its destination and you provably haven't blown it up, killed people on-board, or hijacked and redirected it to another location. There is absolutely zero value in making a declaration like that. ... In fact, I'd say there's negative value in making that statement. In a security conscious environment like an enclosed aircraft, it immediately escalates a situation from "photo-happy tourist or possible bad guy" to "higher probability bad guy or maybe making a political statement ... or just not very smart". It's also a (very small) step in the direction of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater as you've potentially now caused (possibly over-sensitive) people hearing this statement to begin to have concerns about you and their flight. You've turned what should have been an uneventful flight into a situation where tension can only increase before you've even left the ground. When you add all of this up, especially when a flight is trying to get out of the gate on time, the pilot is going to err on the side of caution and kick you off the plane. You'll either blow up in a rage of righteous fury (thus proving to all that you should never have been on that plane) or you'll leave quietly, a one-time mistake, and board another flight (hopefully with much less bother to the next crew considering how much time you just wasted). You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd.
- batgaijin 14y ago
  Yeah, saying "I'm not a terrorist" is kind of a line I'd expect to hear to in a tv show or something. Do you tell the cop "Don't worry, I'm not a kidnapper"?
  - shuzchen 14y ago
    Obviously they didn't believe he was a terrorist or they would not have booked him on another flight.
mmaldacker 14y ago
This guy feels so entitled. The airline has clearly a very strict no photography policy and after being told not to take pictures, he then arrogantly explains that because he's a journalist he allows himself to do whatever he wants (take photographs on an airplane). My bet is the FA got pissed off at him and threw him out of the plane to teach him a lesson.
- TheShihan 14y ago
  Have you even read the blog post? He took one picture and stopped after the FA complained. And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations.
  - scotty79 14y ago
    > And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations. How so? It's explicitly said that you cannot photograph aircraft equipment.
lignuist 14y ago
It's interesting to see, what impact Google Glass and others will have on the practice of such no-photo-policies.
shocks 14y ago
You can't take pictures on an aeroplane? The terrorists have won.
69_years_and 14y ago
Jezz - Google Glass is going to open a can of worms.
redmondbarry 14y ago
Meh. Passenger demonstrates willingness to a) revisit the incident later and b) use the word 'terrorist' on the plane. They don't have to actually think he'll blow up the plane; it only takes one closet nut case to overhear this and cause a ruckus mid flight. In a small confined space at 30k feet that's a very real safety issue. Consider that an irrational fear of flying isn't that uncommon, and this is a route where there isn't much of an alternative. Finally, they're under no obligation to tell a passenger the real reason for booting him off the plane; if it was the above, doing so could only make it worse for themselves.
- l33tbro 14y ago
  Still unacceptable on behalf of United. Using the word "terrorist" was unnecessary and downright unwise, but the fact remains that, regardless of post 9/11 context, it's just a damn word. May it heighten the senses of a potential fear-of-flying person? Perhaps. But by that logic, you would also say that anybody wearing a turban would have to remove it, for fear of triggering one of these people. And, yes, United are under obligation to tell this passenger the real reason for booting them off. They are a business. He is their a loyal customer with almost 1,000,000 ffms. He conducted himself, according to his entry, calmly and in a very transparent manner. The behavior of the stuff was disgusting, humiliating and unprofessional. If this seems okay to you; fine. But this is not the world I want to live in.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  The actions of "one closet nut case" are always the responsibility of the closet nutcase. > this is a route where there isn't much of an alternative You make a case that people shouldn't be allowed to fly while black/muslim/wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it/etc in case some "sensitive soul" kicks up a fuss, and that it is not that sensitive soul's fault. I disagree.
davewasthere 14y ago
I wish the flight attendants had of asked the guys next to me in Business to stop taking photos. A few of us had been upgraded and these guys next to me were so excited they took about 80 or so photos. Every. Single. One. With. The. Fucking. Flash. Okay, I was a little annoyed. But the attendants weren't bothered... and the guys did settle after a while. It wasn't anything to do with photo taking. You _don't_ say on a plane, "I'm not a terrorist". That's kind of dumb. That said, he was perfectly entitled to take photos for personal use. So the photo taking wasn't really an issue. There's more to this than the OPs mentioning perhaps.
biot 14y ago
My take on this: "Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself." Why? The only appropriate response to being informed that you are not permitted to take pictures in a non-public space is "I understand" or simply "Okay". No explanation is necessary as it won't change the rule that the flight attendant is likely obligated to enforce. However, the author feels compelled to justify himself rather than just let it be by saying: "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog." This is quite ambiguous. The flight attendant is probably thinking "Oh great, here's some critic who is going to scrutinize and complain about everything I do and then write about it publicly. If he's so notorious that the guys in Chicago are aware of him, he must be bad news. Is he telling me this to try and con me into letting him take more pictures? Some disgruntled self-important writer is the last thing I need...". Imagine how the response might have been different had he said: "Sorry about taking that picture. I just want to say that I love United and everything you guys do. I'm really excited about being in BusinessFirst class on this new aircraft and wanted to capture the moment. Thanks for letting me know about the photography restriction, though. I respect that and won't take another picture." But again, that whole exchange should never have happened. Then later, this gem of a sentence: "Me: That's a lie, captain." Ouch. Now the only way to get your way is for both the captain and the flight attendant to lose face and admit that, yes, it was a lie. What was he expecting? That the captain brings the flight attendant over and asks her "Did you lie?" where she responds "Yes, Captain, I lied about this passenger taking additional pictures because I was afraid that he might write about a negative experience with me." I could go on with how the conversation with the captain should have gone, using face-saving phrases like "she may have been mistaken" and such, but at that point the battle was long since lost. None of this excuses the flight attendant's alleged retaliatory action. However, having the situation escalate to that point could easily have been avoided.
- hakaaaaak 14y ago
  If this guy got kicked off a flight for taking a single picture with his iPhone, and he did not cause any other problems, then he deserves to be able to post what he did, and United deserves to be scolded for its ridiculous policies that its pilot and GS dutifully followed. A service mentality is needed. It reminds me of an experience I had recently at Best Buy. I bought an item and immediately after paying for it, before picking it up off the sales counter, I noticed that the end of the box had been untaped and opened, so I asked if I could exchange it for another. The cashier said, "I'm sorry but you'll have to exchange it at the service desk." I argued and was able to exchange it, but was flabbergasted.
Terretta 14y ago
No other comments in this thread make this point, so I'll bring it up. While the passenger should not have been booted off, he was absolutely in the wrong but only based on what he told the crew. Here is the photo policy: http://cdn-img1.upgrd.com/featured/united-photo-limits.png http://cdn-img1.upgrd.com/featured/united-photo-limits.png It says photography is strictly prohibited of aircraft equipment, and if not of aircraft equipment, prohibited unless of "personal events". His explanation: "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog." This falls outside of personal use. This is professional use, and therefore absolutely outside of the personal events category. Taking pictures under his business card and related to his blog is strictly prohibited, and his arguing means he was arguing with the rules that were shown to him by the FA before he began arguing. Aside from being absolutely in violation of the rules, perhaps this had nothing to do with "I am not a terrorist"; perhaps the FA and captain were disinterested in having their entire route evaluated and blogged about. No idea what United will say in response. And frankly, I am shocked to be siding with United. But in this case, they handed him a printed rule, and he chose to explain himself in a way that put him in violation of it, and took himself out of the regular passenger category. In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules.
- swah 14y ago
  They should have made that clear, that his job was exactly the problem.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules. He took one picture when he was unaware of the rule. Once informed of the rule, he immediately stopped. How is that "willfuly breaking the rules"?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    He didn't say anything to indicate that he would stop taking photos. He then went on to say that he always took photos on United flights and never had a problem.
bambax 14y ago
> maybe I should never used the word terrorist in my explanation That's obviously the problem. When I read he said he wasn't a terrorist I thought "uh-oh, this isn't going to end well". The US have this very strange custom of having "forbidden words" -- words that can't be said on TV and/or words that can't be said in an ordinary conversation. Those words are alluded-to with their initial: F-word, S-word, N-word, etc. The T-word needs to be added to that list.
- Zealot 14y ago
  Pretty soon we will be able to make a song out of that list. Now I know my ABCs, Next time won't you sing with me.
jfoster 14y ago
Tips for air travel: 1. Don't bring up terrorism or bombs. 2. If a disagreement with anyone arises and is settled, don't bring it up again. 3. Be polite and humble, particularly whilst on the actual plane. 4. Do not accuse anyone of lying. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify. 5. Don't accuse anyone of threatening you. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify.
- sokoloff 14y ago
  Surprised so few people are keying in on point #2. That to me is the key point where the blogger went awry, was entirely within his own control to avoid and if he'd done so, no one gets kicked off the flight. I understand the "well, it wasn't settled ACCORDING TO ME, so I want to clarify" mentality, but if you can't control that urge, don't be surprised to find that you escalate your way into situations like this.
- 4ad 14y ago
  So basically forget all about your civil rights or basic human decency, and accept the fact that you are only a peon that other people can abuse. With such a mentality it's no wonder TSA still exists.
znowi 14y ago
Well, as I see it, the guy wanted to wave the fact that he is a "semi-famous writer on the subject of air travel" for whatever reason. Apparently, the captain didn't like this attitude, which does not excuse him for kicking the guy out, but I can see why he might have done it.
mcargian 14y ago
Hi, upgrd.com is my site. I always wondered what would happen if a story was picked up on HN. Now I know! There's some interesting comments from other passengers, on the same flight, about the behavior of the flight attendant. Regardless of your view on Matthew's story - has the site been working well for everyone? Is my little FreeBSD VPS (with photos on cloudfront) setup performing well? I can see the stats from my side, just wondering how it loaded for you. Thanks!
lkrubner 14y ago
Why didn't he simply show the captain the photos that were on his iPhone? That would have verified that he only took one photo, and it violated no one's privacy. Actually showing the photos would have been a stronger argument than saying "That is a lie." Also, he could have volunteered to delete the one photo that he took. Someone in the comments suggested that this is a "he said, she said" situation. Not really, because there was a camera involved. The camera is the authority on the subject of whether he took photos that he should not have taken. I recently was at the Port Authority, in New York City. I was amazed at how busy it was at rush hour, so I pulled out my iPhone and took some pictures. I did not realize this was forbidden. A policeman approached me immediately and asked me what I was doing. I showed him the photos I had just taken and I explained I wanted to send them to some friends who had never visited New York. He suggested that I delete the photos but he walked away without making me do anything, so I was able to keep the photos.
binxbolling 14y ago
Forget this story: I was more bothered by the blog post on this site that unapologetically mocks people with service dogs. http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my-emotional-support-dog.html http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my-emotional-s...
- jrockway 14y ago
  Yes, that does sound pretty ignorant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal
headShrinker 14y ago
I take pictures all the time. While the Flight attendant in this situation seemed a little over zealous, it is not a huge deal and it's not why you got thrown off. There are a few words you can not say on a plane. Never say "bomb", and NEVER say "terrorist" in any context. When you said, "I'm not a terrorist", you were doomed. Sorry. It had nothing to do with you taking pictures, just your naivety about language, perceived threats, and the illusion of security. Also don't mess with business class. That is their cash crop.

203 points by chmars 14y ago

evan_ 14y ago

Shouldn't have used the T-word.

guruz 14y ago
Or live in Paranoidistan, aka USA.
- jrockway 14y ago
  There are 30,000 flights a day in the US with an average of 100 passengers each. This happening to one blogger is not exactly a pattern of paranoia. It was simply two people making a bad customer service decision.
  - guruz 14y ago
    I would agree with you, it could have been that. It's just that for me as an European seemingly all crazy stories like "X tazed by cop for doing nothing at all" or "Y put into jail for having her small children play naked in the garden" come from the US.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      According to [1], there are 500,000,000 English speakers on the Internet. There are 300,000,000 English speakers in the US. It stands to reason that most everything you read about in English on the Internet took place in the US. It's just a really really big country. [1] http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm
      - guruz 14y ago
        I also get my information in German from an Offline newspaper or the German websites. Or to back my claims up, let's take some per-capita numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldw... Sorry if this comes across as arrogant.
jchavannes 14y ago
Was going to say the same thing. This seems more like the reason, and it would make sense why they would not claim this was the reason as well, since they don't want the word mentioned again among other passengers.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  Using the wrong word is an even more disgusting reason to throw someone off.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - avel 14y ago
    "Hey guys, come on, don't throw me out. It's not like I said that I have a bomb!"
    - Stratoscope 14y ago
      Or for us old-timers: "I got the bomb box on my Mac. Yeah, it crashed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_(symbol)#Mac_OS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_(symbol)#Mac_OS
LatvjuAvs 14y ago
What would be reason not to discuss something that whole nation is scared shitless? No talk policy will make everything go away. This is beyond understanding for me, how can a word ban someone from flight. In ol' days when you could smoke and drink and have a nice discussion about shit in world... while in airplane.
GFischer 14y ago
A well publicized case here in Uruguay was when someone was asked to throw away a pen, and he said "it's not as if this pen is a bomb", so he was refused entry into the U.S. People still travel to the U.S., but it's very likely costing the country a lot of tourist dollars - not that the U.S. cares, they have enough tourists as is.

PavlovsCat 14y ago

The weaker people in positions of authority are, the less you're allowed to laugh in their faces, and the more you should.

taligent 14y ago
This sort of attitude is childish and pathetic. And it will get you absolutely nowhere in life. Nowhere.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  There is nothing childish about it. It's dead serious, and failure to do so costs lives. And regarding that second part: Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say infinitely when you mean very; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. -― C.S. Lewis
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Slightly tongue in cheek: You know that crappy little country, just off the north coast of mainland Europe, its where I live, its called the UK? Well, that's why we have far too much influence for our size. We rip on our powerful people something rotten. It helps to keep the powerful on their toes and makes the rest of us feel a little bit better. Its a British tradition. And for us, it works quite well.

ck2 14y ago

Not that it's an excuse for what they did but why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such. Yeah that's helpful to calming strangers in any situation, just suddenly say that without any reason.

PavlovsCat 14y ago
why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such. Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy? And how is lying, claiming he took more pictures, an appropriate response? How can you possibly rationalize this to be the fault of the OP? As a comment to that story points out, that's a big part of how society got to such a low point.
- trustfundbaby 14y ago
  why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such ---------------- Why would it freak someone out, when no terrorist (to my knowledge) has ever declared "I'm not a terrorist" ... right before hijacking a plane?
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    We don't even have an indication it actually did freak them out. To me that's just a speculative justification, giving authority the benefit of the doubt.
- jemfinch 14y ago
  Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy? Oh please. Imagine you have a guest at your house who asks to use the bathroom. You reply, "Yes, it's the second door on the left, and I haven't installed any recording devices in it." Would you seriously be surprised at your guest's sudden unease while relieving himself? No one's saying that this is the OP's fault, but telling a flight attendant "I'm not a terrorist" is like saying, "Use my bathroom, I didn't install any cameras in it." Proffering information of that kind is just plain suspicious in itself.

dmak 14y ago

Flying has become such a hassle these days. I often just keep my mouth shut when going through security just for the sake of getting through quicker. I feel like if I asked for a pat down as opposed to just walking through the body scan, I would position myself into a potentially troublesome situation. In a way, I do feel like I am being suppressed these days.

adrianmsmith 14y ago

Why did they throw him off then put him on another flight? I mean either he was a danger (= should be thrown off original flight, but should not be allowed to endanger other flights either), or he wasn't a danger (= could fly on the original flight).

jrockway 14y ago
They never used danger as a reason. The captain can kick anyone off the plane for any reason or no reason. He chose to and will accept whatever the consequences are. (But remember: it's a union job, so there aren't going to be consequences.) I estimate the author will get 50,000 frequent flyer miles and an apology. Seems to be the standard procedure when the central office wants to make up for poor customer service on the line.
neurotech1 14y ago
Possibly, the original Flight Attendant said something to the Captain. Pretty much everything that happens on or around an airliner is at the Captains discretion. The decisions can be questioned and challenged by the airline supervisors, the FAA etc. and the Captain can be relieved of duty by the airline, but its Captains prerogative to remove someone off their aircraft. The other factor involved is CRM, Crew Resource Management. The days were the crew passively follow the Captains decisions are over, and for good reason. Captains are trained to listen to their First Officer and FA, and actively respond to questions. This means its quite possible that the Captain didn't want his flight delayed, or cause unnecessarily tension on the flight with his FA, and so took the easy (but highly questionable) option to simply remove him from the flight. Note: This should not be interpreted as taking the airlines side, just explaining my thoughts on the factors involved.

droithomme 14y ago

It's a bit disturbing and amazing to see so many people here taking the airline's side in this. No wonder things are the way they are - the general public supports it.

javajosh 14y ago
Uh, there are like 9 comments right now (12:54am PST) and literally none of them support the airline. What are you talking about?
- droithomme 14y ago
  All the "Well he shouldn't have used the T word" when he explained that he was taking the photos as part of his travel review job. There were no faults in the way he handled it. The airline was completely to blame, severely inconvenienced him, falsely accused him, and cost him money. Outrageous behavior against any passenger. That he is a 950,000 mile traveler on the airline and often writes articles recommending them to others (at a time when United is well known for being among the worst of the carriers) makes it completely idiotic from a business standpoint as well.
  - jemfinch 14y ago
    No one's taking the airline's side here, but he shouldn't have brought up terrorism. That was a mistake in judgment on his part, as I explained elsewhere. The irony here is that you're demonstrating the same sort of knee-jerk misinterpretation that arises when people say "terrorism" on an airplane.
    - Zealot 14y ago
      > shouldn't have brought up terrorism Word mightier than sword
    - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
      I still don't understand why using the word "terrorist" is a no-no. It is a word. Context matters. Context in this case would suggest there was nothing to worry about. I swear sometimes it is like the whole world is a slightly mentally handicapped child who, upon hearing a bad word, starts repeating it getting more and more upset. I guess being adults and thinking things through is too much to ask from your average full grown adult?

sdoering 14y ago

Sorry, what I do not get is, that this person describes something, he claims clearly troubled him. He was wronged (by his account) by UA. He even had to buy a new ticket on his own account to have a connection-flight. So what I do not get is, why is he not holding UA responsible for the lost money, lost time and his trouble. Is he such a big fanboy, that he does not want to cost his big love some (by his account) well deserved money? Or might it just be, that there are some other aspects to his story, not told in the written blog post? His tone of voice, while talking to the FA? Was he calm, might he come about as being aggressive? What was his body language? Might she have felt threatened. Maybe he is right in his point of view - but maybe - and just maybe, he acted from a position of blogger-power, taking his blogger-influence for granted and letting this show. I know, that this is just me speculating, but I haven't been there and did not hear anything from the other side of the story. But reading the comments here and in the blog, UA is guilty until proven innocent, or so it seems.

10dpd 14y ago

Two issues: 1. 'Terrorist' seems to be a keyword that will get you into a lot of trouble if uttered in the vicinity of an airport. 2. Why not provide evidence of the truth there and then? Show your camera photo roll containing the one photo, and then you have a solid case. Otherwise, we have to consider that perhaps more than one photo was taken, it is a "your word" against "their word" scenario.

valdiorn 14y ago
Would a terrorist really use the word terrorist? This society is way too fucking paranoid.

DoubleCluster 14y ago

Never ever directly accuse someone of lying. Mostly because it's usually a communication problem where they said it unclear and your heard it wrong. Also because you should always give someone a way out without losing too much face. I would have said something like: Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane.

trustfundbaby 14y ago
Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane ----- feels a bit too servile for me, especially if I felt I didn't do anything wrong in the first place.
- sdoering 14y ago
  Why, if this means, you stay on the plane, you win. But nobody looses his/her face. So wining, without anyone losing, what is so wrong? Everything else (and I sadly, really often react that way) is the little child in a sand-pit: "But he started it" kind of argument. Not mature, not civilized, just childish - the way or societies more and more seem to become imho.
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie. There is nothing civilized about abuse of power. There is nothing civilized in accepting it. But the real WTF is: how would agreeing to be led off the plane have resulted in him staying on it? His fate was sealed when he explained his picture to the FA and she had a 'nam flashback, or whatever the fuck caused this; but what makes you think crawling on his belly after that would have changed anything?
    - chc 14y ago

javajosh 14y ago

It seems likely that, in the not-too-distant future, we will all be eagerly recording everything around us to prevent these kinds of injustices from happening. Imagine if you'd had a mic running, then played it back to the captain. Problem solved - and the FA would have gotten into trouble for creating a liability risk for the airline.

ghostDancer 14y ago
The problem is that recordings can be modified or erased and soon will be forbidden, the first problem they have they'll make a new law or rule, so you can not put the authorities against the wall, for your protection of course. I think is now forbidden to record policemen, not sure non US citizen here, in US while they're working.
lucian1900 14y ago
It's more likely that you would not be allowed on the plane with anything that appears to be recording.
- vidarh 14y ago
  Good luck to them with that. The only people it stops even today are people who don't mind being observed taking pictures. There are plenty of cameras that are easy to hide for anyone who cares to. I can buy simple digital video recorders embedded in pens, watches, bluetooth earphones, baseball caps, ties, crucifixes and more from just a casual search of Amazon, for example, and that's hardly the state of the art in covert recording. The more obnoxious anti-photographing policies people experience, the more attractive it will be to make recording devices less obtrusive.

Mithrandir 14y ago

Something similar happened a couple years ago involving photos being taken of employees.[1][2] What struck me as different this time was that neither the FA nor the GS Rep attempted to take the camera away or have the pictures deleted. If this was a security issue, it makes sense that they wouldn't just let him walk off the plane with the photo(s). It's possible that his saying "terrorist" was part of it, or maybe UA has a very strict no-photos policy, or maybe there's something else we don't know (and I think this is probably the case,) but this still seems pretty absurd. 1: http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says-photographing-staff-could-get-you-on-no-fly-list-continental-says-you-deserve-an-apology/ http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says-photographing-... 2: http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of-photography-cause-plane-evacuation-25-hour-delay-on-united-flight/ http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of-photography...

jemfinch 14y ago
Even police officers have no right to confiscate equipment or delete pictures[0], and you're proposing that private parties attempt it? Please, be more aware of your civil rights. [0] http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosandmaki.htm http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosa...
- Mithrandir 14y ago
  No, I'm just saying United has done that before, so it seems odd that it didn't happen this time as well. I certainly don't think that it's right.

jemfinch 14y ago

Captain: I don't have any, but United will have no trouble finding me. My name is...[removed]. Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? The captain made a wrongheaded decision, and he should at the very least have his name attached to it.

sdoering 14y ago
Because if it did not happen exactly the way the OP wrote it - and he has the ability to prove it, he might get himself in real trouble that way. I do not know the US law in that case, but in Germany, the captain then could go to court on terms of "wrong accusation" and the OP would have to prove his accusations.
lutusp 14y ago
> Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? Legal liability. The author could be sued for defamation of character if any of the details are wrong, or in the case that a truthful account emphasizes negatives over positives, something called "false light". Some readers may find this hard to believe, but it's true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  > Legal liability. Basic human decency rather.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    Well, yes, that's also true -- many people don't want to cause unintended hurt by way of poorly considered words. But (in the U.S. at least, and certainly Great Britain) a diplomatic expression that includes an unfair characterization can result in legal action. "Bob isn't so bad -- after all, it's said that he's stopped beating his wife."
adorable 14y ago
I wouldn't say the captain is an "aggressor". He made a bad decision, probably due to incomplete or wrong information he was given. So this is not entirely his fault, he shouldn't take 100% of the blame, and he deserves to have his name hidden.

oellegaard 14y ago

This is completely unacceptable. You don't take people of a plane for taking pictures - they are no thread to everyone and certainly paid for their ticket. I am flying with United Airlines in March, I hope for a better experience - but after reading this, it might be my last flight with them, ever.

raverbashing 14y ago
It used to be land of the free, apparently now it's land of the cowards

digitalengineer 14y ago

Sounds like he stepped in to a plane in Little Britain's 'Come fly with Me' and met 'Penny' the steward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlDUTpCIOE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlDUTpCIOE

nwh 14y ago

Not in the same league, but I've been escorted out of a train station of taking a photo of a piece of signage too. The electronic sign in question had condensed a station name to something mildly profane, which I considered amusing enough to take a photo of. The justification given that I could have been planning a terrorist attack, so it was regarded as suspicious behaviour.

acro 14y ago
Isn't taking photos in public place like a train station completely legal?
- nwh 14y ago
  I've no idea. This was in Australia, but I don't think we have any specific laws against it either.

hermannj314 14y ago

Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself. I signaled for her to come back and asked her to hang my coat. What's with the need to exercise control over another human being like that? Hang up your own coat. The fact that he feels entitled to such service says something about him. People that bark orders at flight attendants probably feel that are part of some untouchable/infallible class of citizen. It makes me suspect his retelling of the facts has been greatly marred by his feelings of superiority in the situation.

cwilson 14y ago
He was sitting in business class where this type of request is normal. Also, keeping the aisle clear is a top priority of any flight crew (especially pre-takeoff), so they actually prefer you ask them to do things like this as they will be more efficient.
- lancewiggs 14y ago
  And you can't actually hang your own coat.
- hermannj314 14y ago
  I guess he would know what's appropriate, so I stand corrected on that point. I guess I'm just too servile. I would have put my iPhone away and read a book and never have been kicked off the plane. (And if my coat needed hung, I would have just sat and been uncomfortabaly warm until I could hang it myself: your failure to prepare should not become the burden of another human being. )
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    If there's no where to hang it aside from a designated area that as a passenger you don't have access too, you let the crew member do it and remember to be polite. Same as in a restaurant, you don't take your own plates back into the kitchen and clean them off, because the waiting team does that and probably wouldn't like you muscling in.

pudquick 14y ago

Yes, it's unfortunate that the flight attendant lied in this situation. However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it, it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky terrorist and swap SD cards). In addition, the author made the statement "I am not a terrorist." There's no way for flight crew to know this to be true until the plane lands at its destination and you provably haven't blown it up, killed people on-board, or hijacked and redirected it to another location. There is absolutely zero value in making a declaration like that. ... In fact, I'd say there's negative value in making that statement. In a security conscious environment like an enclosed aircraft, it immediately escalates a situation from "photo-happy tourist or possible bad guy" to "higher probability bad guy or maybe making a political statement ... or just not very smart". It's also a (very small) step in the direction of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater as you've potentially now caused (possibly over-sensitive) people hearing this statement to begin to have concerns about you and their flight. You've turned what should have been an uneventful flight into a situation where tension can only increase before you've even left the ground. When you add all of this up, especially when a flight is trying to get out of the gate on time, the pilot is going to err on the side of caution and kick you off the plane. You'll either blow up in a rage of righteous fury (thus proving to all that you should never have been on that plane) or you'll leave quietly, a one-time mistake, and board another flight (hopefully with much less bother to the next crew considering how much time you just wasted). You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd.

batgaijin 14y ago
Yeah, saying "I'm not a terrorist" is kind of a line I'd expect to hear to in a tv show or something. Do you tell the cop "Don't worry, I'm not a kidnapper"?
- shuzchen 14y ago
  Obviously they didn't believe he was a terrorist or they would not have booked him on another flight.

mmaldacker 14y ago

This guy feels so entitled. The airline has clearly a very strict no photography policy and after being told not to take pictures, he then arrogantly explains that because he's a journalist he allows himself to do whatever he wants (take photographs on an airplane). My bet is the FA got pissed off at him and threw him out of the plane to teach him a lesson.

TheShihan 14y ago
Have you even read the blog post? He took one picture and stopped after the FA complained. And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations.
- scotty79 14y ago
  > And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations. How so? It's explicitly said that you cannot photograph aircraft equipment.

lignuist 14y ago

It's interesting to see, what impact Google Glass and others will have on the practice of such no-photo-policies.

shocks 14y ago

You can't take pictures on an aeroplane? The terrorists have won.

69_years_and 14y ago

Jezz - Google Glass is going to open a can of worms.

redmondbarry 14y ago

Meh. Passenger demonstrates willingness to a) revisit the incident later and b) use the word 'terrorist' on the plane. They don't have to actually think he'll blow up the plane; it only takes one closet nut case to overhear this and cause a ruckus mid flight. In a small confined space at 30k feet that's a very real safety issue. Consider that an irrational fear of flying isn't that uncommon, and this is a route where there isn't much of an alternative. Finally, they're under no obligation to tell a passenger the real reason for booting him off the plane; if it was the above, doing so could only make it worse for themselves.

l33tbro 14y ago
Still unacceptable on behalf of United. Using the word "terrorist" was unnecessary and downright unwise, but the fact remains that, regardless of post 9/11 context, it's just a damn word. May it heighten the senses of a potential fear-of-flying person? Perhaps. But by that logic, you would also say that anybody wearing a turban would have to remove it, for fear of triggering one of these people. And, yes, United are under obligation to tell this passenger the real reason for booting them off. They are a business. He is their a loyal customer with almost 1,000,000 ffms. He conducted himself, according to his entry, calmly and in a very transparent manner. The behavior of the stuff was disgusting, humiliating and unprofessional. If this seems okay to you; fine. But this is not the world I want to live in.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
The actions of "one closet nut case" are always the responsibility of the closet nutcase. > this is a route where there isn't much of an alternative You make a case that people shouldn't be allowed to fly while black/muslim/wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it/etc in case some "sensitive soul" kicks up a fuss, and that it is not that sensitive soul's fault. I disagree.

davewasthere 14y ago

I wish the flight attendants had of asked the guys next to me in Business to stop taking photos. A few of us had been upgraded and these guys next to me were so excited they took about 80 or so photos. Every. Single. One. With. The. Fucking. Flash. Okay, I was a little annoyed. But the attendants weren't bothered... and the guys did settle after a while. It wasn't anything to do with photo taking. You _don't_ say on a plane, "I'm not a terrorist". That's kind of dumb. That said, he was perfectly entitled to take photos for personal use. So the photo taking wasn't really an issue. There's more to this than the OPs mentioning perhaps.

biot 14y ago

My take on this: "Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself." Why? The only appropriate response to being informed that you are not permitted to take pictures in a non-public space is "I understand" or simply "Okay". No explanation is necessary as it won't change the rule that the flight attendant is likely obligated to enforce. However, the author feels compelled to justify himself rather than just let it be by saying: "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog." This is quite ambiguous. The flight attendant is probably thinking "Oh great, here's some critic who is going to scrutinize and complain about everything I do and then write about it publicly. If he's so notorious that the guys in Chicago are aware of him, he must be bad news. Is he telling me this to try and con me into letting him take more pictures? Some disgruntled self-important writer is the last thing I need...". Imagine how the response might have been different had he said: "Sorry about taking that picture. I just want to say that I love United and everything you guys do. I'm really excited about being in BusinessFirst class on this new aircraft and wanted to capture the moment. Thanks for letting me know about the photography restriction, though. I respect that and won't take another picture." But again, that whole exchange should never have happened. Then later, this gem of a sentence: "Me: That's a lie, captain." Ouch. Now the only way to get your way is for both the captain and the flight attendant to lose face and admit that, yes, it was a lie. What was he expecting? That the captain brings the flight attendant over and asks her "Did you lie?" where she responds "Yes, Captain, I lied about this passenger taking additional pictures because I was afraid that he might write about a negative experience with me." I could go on with how the conversation with the captain should have gone, using face-saving phrases like "she may have been mistaken" and such, but at that point the battle was long since lost. None of this excuses the flight attendant's alleged retaliatory action. However, having the situation escalate to that point could easily have been avoided.

hakaaaaak 14y ago
If this guy got kicked off a flight for taking a single picture with his iPhone, and he did not cause any other problems, then he deserves to be able to post what he did, and United deserves to be scolded for its ridiculous policies that its pilot and GS dutifully followed. A service mentality is needed. It reminds me of an experience I had recently at Best Buy. I bought an item and immediately after paying for it, before picking it up off the sales counter, I noticed that the end of the box had been untaped and opened, so I asked if I could exchange it for another. The cashier said, "I'm sorry but you'll have to exchange it at the service desk." I argued and was able to exchange it, but was flabbergasted.

Terretta 14y ago

No other comments in this thread make this point, so I'll bring it up. While the passenger should not have been booted off, he was absolutely in the wrong but only based on what he told the crew. Here is the photo policy: http://cdn-img1.upgrd.com/featured/united-photo-limits.png http://cdn-img1.upgrd.com/featured/united-photo-limits.png It says photography is strictly prohibited of aircraft equipment, and if not of aircraft equipment, prohibited unless of "personal events". His explanation: "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog." This falls outside of personal use. This is professional use, and therefore absolutely outside of the personal events category. Taking pictures under his business card and related to his blog is strictly prohibited, and his arguing means he was arguing with the rules that were shown to him by the FA before he began arguing. Aside from being absolutely in violation of the rules, perhaps this had nothing to do with "I am not a terrorist"; perhaps the FA and captain were disinterested in having their entire route evaluated and blogged about. No idea what United will say in response. And frankly, I am shocked to be siding with United. But in this case, they handed him a printed rule, and he chose to explain himself in a way that put him in violation of it, and took himself out of the regular passenger category. In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules.

swah 14y ago
They should have made that clear, that his job was exactly the problem.
Anechoic 14y ago
In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules. He took one picture when he was unaware of the rule. Once informed of the rule, he immediately stopped. How is that "willfuly breaking the rules"?
- DanBC 14y ago
  He didn't say anything to indicate that he would stop taking photos. He then went on to say that he always took photos on United flights and never had a problem.

bambax 14y ago

> maybe I should never used the word terrorist in my explanation That's obviously the problem. When I read he said he wasn't a terrorist I thought "uh-oh, this isn't going to end well". The US have this very strange custom of having "forbidden words" -- words that can't be said on TV and/or words that can't be said in an ordinary conversation. Those words are alluded-to with their initial: F-word, S-word, N-word, etc. The T-word needs to be added to that list.

Zealot 14y ago
Pretty soon we will be able to make a song out of that list. Now I know my ABCs, Next time won't you sing with me.

jfoster 14y ago

Tips for air travel: 1. Don't bring up terrorism or bombs. 2. If a disagreement with anyone arises and is settled, don't bring it up again. 3. Be polite and humble, particularly whilst on the actual plane. 4. Do not accuse anyone of lying. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify. 5. Don't accuse anyone of threatening you. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify.

sokoloff 14y ago
Surprised so few people are keying in on point #2. That to me is the key point where the blogger went awry, was entirely within his own control to avoid and if he'd done so, no one gets kicked off the flight. I understand the "well, it wasn't settled ACCORDING TO ME, so I want to clarify" mentality, but if you can't control that urge, don't be surprised to find that you escalate your way into situations like this.
4ad 14y ago
So basically forget all about your civil rights or basic human decency, and accept the fact that you are only a peon that other people can abuse. With such a mentality it's no wonder TSA still exists.

znowi 14y ago

Well, as I see it, the guy wanted to wave the fact that he is a "semi-famous writer on the subject of air travel" for whatever reason. Apparently, the captain didn't like this attitude, which does not excuse him for kicking the guy out, but I can see why he might have done it.

mcargian 14y ago

Hi, upgrd.com is my site. I always wondered what would happen if a story was picked up on HN. Now I know! There's some interesting comments from other passengers, on the same flight, about the behavior of the flight attendant. Regardless of your view on Matthew's story - has the site been working well for everyone? Is my little FreeBSD VPS (with photos on cloudfront) setup performing well? I can see the stats from my side, just wondering how it loaded for you. Thanks!

lkrubner 14y ago

Why didn't he simply show the captain the photos that were on his iPhone? That would have verified that he only took one photo, and it violated no one's privacy. Actually showing the photos would have been a stronger argument than saying "That is a lie." Also, he could have volunteered to delete the one photo that he took. Someone in the comments suggested that this is a "he said, she said" situation. Not really, because there was a camera involved. The camera is the authority on the subject of whether he took photos that he should not have taken. I recently was at the Port Authority, in New York City. I was amazed at how busy it was at rush hour, so I pulled out my iPhone and took some pictures. I did not realize this was forbidden. A policeman approached me immediately and asked me what I was doing. I showed him the photos I had just taken and I explained I wanted to send them to some friends who had never visited New York. He suggested that I delete the photos but he walked away without making me do anything, so I was able to keep the photos.

binxbolling 14y ago

Forget this story: I was more bothered by the blog post on this site that unapologetically mocks people with service dogs. http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my-emotional-support-dog.html http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my-emotional-s...

jrockway 14y ago
Yes, that does sound pretty ignorant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal

headShrinker 14y ago

I take pictures all the time. While the Flight attendant in this situation seemed a little over zealous, it is not a huge deal and it's not why you got thrown off. There are a few words you can not say on a plane. Never say "bomb", and NEVER say "terrorist" in any context. When you said, "I'm not a terrorist", you were doomed. Sorry. It had nothing to do with you taking pictures, just your naivety about language, perceived threats, and the illusion of security. Also don't mess with business class. That is their cash crop.