4 ms·

Travel Writer Booted Off United Flight for Taking Picture of His Seat

48 points by rosser 14y ago

chrisbennet 14y ago
Even if the travel writer had done something horrible this is going to give United a big black mark. I guess he'll record his future interactions with cabin steward/stewardess'.
- nthj 14y ago
  I'm just curious who already had a good feeling about United. I mean, I fly Delta/United/America when I have to, but I've been pretty annoyed by all 3 for years. I don't really see anything changing from this article.
  - acheron 14y ago
    I'm reasonably happy with United out of the big airlines. They almost always have seats with extra leg room, and they have a hub at the airport that's 10 minutes from my house. I mean, they're still an airline, and I've had problems, but overall they haven't been bad to me.
cup 14y ago
Without any information from the airline hostess, captain or company this paints a very one sided and incomplete picture. The authors account might be accurate however I'm inclined to think that it may have more to do with the fact that he uttered the word 'terrorist' rather than any of his other actions. I mean most seasoned travellers, let alone someone in the industry, should know by now that when you're in an airport you jump through all the hoops regardless of how stupid they may appear simply because airports and airlines hold power over you. For better or worse free speech does not exist in this environment and I wonder whether the author should have just apoligised and swallowed his pride rather than try to make a point or even apologise. Some times you just need to bite your tongue. Edit: I'm curious about why people disagree with me.
randomdrake 14y ago
>"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." (emphasis added) Reacting to a command given by a flight attendant with anything along the lines of "Whoa, sorry. I hope you don't think I'm a terrorist," is a terrible decision. Even if you're not, saying it will immediately make them wonder if you are. Don't think of a pink elephant. How's that mental image of a pink elephant looking? Terrorist. Bomb. Threat. 9/11. These are things you don't go saying on airplanes, these days, unless you're expecting some sort of discomfort from anyone within earshot. This is especially true for someone in charge of ensuring the safety of people aboard the flight. I don't think the traveler would have been removed from the plane if they would have just complied and not mentioned such a charged word.
- zheng 14y ago
  While I agree that it is in your best interest to not say "terrorist", it's absurd that by uttering the word you could be kicked off a flight. People need to use some common sense. What happens if I accidentally use the word "bomb" when talking about how I did on my last test? Am I off the plane too? This has got to stop. Maybe every passenger should walk on the plane saying, "Hello, I'm not a terrorist". Of course if you are, feel free to disclose that fact as well.
  - networked 14y ago
    >"Hello, I'm not a terrorist" I'm afraid that under no circumstances would this be a good idea. It reminds me of the phrase "John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual" from Chip Morningstar's essay How To Deconstruct Almost Anything [1]. To present an example of deconstruction Morningstar deconstructs the phrase thus: "It is not generally claimed that John F. Kennedy was a homosexual. Since it is not an issue, why would anyone choose to explicitly declare that he was not a homosexual unless they wanted to make it an issue? Clearly, the reader is left with a question, a lingering doubt which had not previously been there. If the text had instead simply asked, "Was John F. Kennedy a homosexual?", the reader would simply answer, "No." and forget the matter. If it had simply declared, "John F. Kennedy was a homosexual.", it would have left the reader begging for further justification or argument to support the proposition. Phrasing it as a negative declaration, however, introduces the question in the reader's mind, exploiting society's homophobia to attack the reputation of the fallen President. What's more, the form makes it appear as if there is ongoing debate, further legitimizing the reader's entertainment of the question. Thus the text can be read as questioning the very assertion that it is making." Shift the above text to the present tense and replace "John F. Kennedy" with "the passenger" and "homosexual" with "terrorist" as needed. [1] http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html
ryguytilidie 14y ago
The fact that we got attacked by a few Saudi nationals 12 years ago makes one American lie to another American because shes scared an American passenger on their plane is a terrorist because he said the word terrorist. Is it really debatable whether we did exactly what the terrorists hoped we would do at this point? I don't want to say they won, because its not a game and no one wins, but they certainly accomplished some objectives here if this is the way people are allowed to act.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  Or in this case apparently it turns flying attendants into power tripping liars.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Yes, an 'ally' attacked. Now lets make life miserable for all the well behaved allies and our citizens as well.
codenerdz 14y ago
Same article 16 hours and 200+ comments ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5256051 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5256051
JulianMorrison 14y ago
You poked the bear and, because you're white and rich, you got growled at instead of bitten. Pardon me if I do not feel sympathy for this "elite status" privileged whine.
- Amadou 14y ago
  Social change (without revolution) doesn't come until enough of the already empowered embrace it. So it may seem trivial to those of us that have seen far worse, but the alternative is for the white and rich to never hear about the problems that have affected one of their own. Since most people only recognize a problem when they are personally at risk, this sort of "whine" is a necessary part of the process.
- JulianWasTaken 14y ago
  How pleasantly presumptuous of you.
JulianWasTaken 14y ago
This sounds dubious. It's obviously one sided which is OK, but what exactly is the motivation of a flight attendant to flat out lie about continuing to take pictures. And why wait to do it while continuing to service other passengers.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
plaguuuuuu 14y ago
I give this blog post Autism/10 Flight attendant's perspective was that she is routinely telling passengers to quit with the happy snaps, as required by company policy. Flight attendant is tired and very busy with getting the plane together for takeoff. The photo guy from before is suddenly angrily motioning her over and saying a bunch of crazy shit about not being a terrorist, and trying to make her take/keep his business card. flight attendant freaks out and runs to her boss. Crew boss sees really freaked out flight attendant and assumes the passenger needs to go. Once that decision is made, crazy travel guy probably doesn't have any hope of reversing it. The real issue is that the guy grossly messed up his interaction with the flight attendant and paid the price for it. If you misbehave on a flight you're gonna get kicked off - yes, airlines have a duty to have fair rules for customers to follow. But passengers have a duty to act relatively normally in their standard human interactions with staff. Trying to air one's grievances with an airline's cabin policies with a flight attendant is ridiculous anyway, hence my rating out of 10.

48 points by rosser 14y ago

Even if the travel writer had done something horrible this is going to give United a big black mark. I guess he'll record his future interactions with cabin steward/stewardess'.

nthj 14y ago
I'm just curious who already had a good feeling about United. I mean, I fly Delta/United/America when I have to, but I've been pretty annoyed by all 3 for years. I don't really see anything changing from this article.
- acheron 14y ago
  I'm reasonably happy with United out of the big airlines. They almost always have seats with extra leg room, and they have a hub at the airport that's 10 minutes from my house. I mean, they're still an airline, and I've had problems, but overall they haven't been bad to me.

cup 14y ago

Without any information from the airline hostess, captain or company this paints a very one sided and incomplete picture. The authors account might be accurate however I'm inclined to think that it may have more to do with the fact that he uttered the word 'terrorist' rather than any of his other actions. I mean most seasoned travellers, let alone someone in the industry, should know by now that when you're in an airport you jump through all the hoops regardless of how stupid they may appear simply because airports and airlines hold power over you. For better or worse free speech does not exist in this environment and I wonder whether the author should have just apoligised and swallowed his pride rather than try to make a point or even apologise. Some times you just need to bite your tongue. Edit: I'm curious about why people disagree with me.

randomdrake 14y ago

>"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." (emphasis added) Reacting to a command given by a flight attendant with anything along the lines of "Whoa, sorry. I hope you don't think I'm a terrorist," is a terrible decision. Even if you're not, saying it will immediately make them wonder if you are. Don't think of a pink elephant. How's that mental image of a pink elephant looking? Terrorist. Bomb. Threat. 9/11. These are things you don't go saying on airplanes, these days, unless you're expecting some sort of discomfort from anyone within earshot. This is especially true for someone in charge of ensuring the safety of people aboard the flight. I don't think the traveler would have been removed from the plane if they would have just complied and not mentioned such a charged word.

zheng 14y ago
While I agree that it is in your best interest to not say "terrorist", it's absurd that by uttering the word you could be kicked off a flight. People need to use some common sense. What happens if I accidentally use the word "bomb" when talking about how I did on my last test? Am I off the plane too? This has got to stop. Maybe every passenger should walk on the plane saying, "Hello, I'm not a terrorist". Of course if you are, feel free to disclose that fact as well.
- networked 14y ago
  >"Hello, I'm not a terrorist" I'm afraid that under no circumstances would this be a good idea. It reminds me of the phrase "John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual" from Chip Morningstar's essay How To Deconstruct Almost Anything [1]. To present an example of deconstruction Morningstar deconstructs the phrase thus: "It is not generally claimed that John F. Kennedy was a homosexual. Since it is not an issue, why would anyone choose to explicitly declare that he was not a homosexual unless they wanted to make it an issue? Clearly, the reader is left with a question, a lingering doubt which had not previously been there. If the text had instead simply asked, "Was John F. Kennedy a homosexual?", the reader would simply answer, "No." and forget the matter. If it had simply declared, "John F. Kennedy was a homosexual.", it would have left the reader begging for further justification or argument to support the proposition. Phrasing it as a negative declaration, however, introduces the question in the reader's mind, exploiting society's homophobia to attack the reputation of the fallen President. What's more, the form makes it appear as if there is ongoing debate, further legitimizing the reader's entertainment of the question. Thus the text can be read as questioning the very assertion that it is making." Shift the above text to the present tense and replace "John F. Kennedy" with "the passenger" and "homosexual" with "terrorist" as needed. [1] http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html

ryguytilidie 14y ago

The fact that we got attacked by a few Saudi nationals 12 years ago makes one American lie to another American because shes scared an American passenger on their plane is a terrorist because he said the word terrorist. Is it really debatable whether we did exactly what the terrorists hoped we would do at this point? I don't want to say they won, because its not a game and no one wins, but they certainly accomplished some objectives here if this is the way people are allowed to act.

rdtsc 14y ago
Or in this case apparently it turns flying attendants into power tripping liars.
lostlogin 14y ago
Yes, an 'ally' attacked. Now lets make life miserable for all the well behaved allies and our citizens as well.

codenerdz 14y ago

Same article 16 hours and 200+ comments ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5256051 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5256051

JulianMorrison 14y ago

You poked the bear and, because you're white and rich, you got growled at instead of bitten. Pardon me if I do not feel sympathy for this "elite status" privileged whine.

Amadou 14y ago
Social change (without revolution) doesn't come until enough of the already empowered embrace it. So it may seem trivial to those of us that have seen far worse, but the alternative is for the white and rich to never hear about the problems that have affected one of their own. Since most people only recognize a problem when they are personally at risk, this sort of "whine" is a necessary part of the process.
JulianWasTaken 14y ago
How pleasantly presumptuous of you.

JulianWasTaken 14y ago

This sounds dubious. It's obviously one sided which is OK, but what exactly is the motivation of a flight attendant to flat out lie about continuing to take pictures. And why wait to do it while continuing to service other passengers.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

plaguuuuuu 14y ago

I give this blog post Autism/10 Flight attendant's perspective was that she is routinely telling passengers to quit with the happy snaps, as required by company policy. Flight attendant is tired and very busy with getting the plane together for takeoff. The photo guy from before is suddenly angrily motioning her over and saying a bunch of crazy shit about not being a terrorist, and trying to make her take/keep his business card. flight attendant freaks out and runs to her boss. Crew boss sees really freaked out flight attendant and assumes the passenger needs to go. Once that decision is made, crazy travel guy probably doesn't have any hope of reversing it. The real issue is that the guy grossly messed up his interaction with the flight attendant and paid the price for it. If you misbehave on a flight you're gonna get kicked off - yes, airlines have a duty to have fair rules for customers to follow. But passengers have a duty to act relatively normally in their standard human interactions with staff. Trying to air one's grievances with an airline's cabin policies with a flight attendant is ridiculous anyway, hence my rating out of 10.