6 ms·

"They asked if the captain might be consulted." Wait, they were in the air, and they want to talk to the captain? The person responsible for everyone's safety

"They asked if the captain might be consulted." Wait, they were in the air, and they want to talk to the captain? The person responsible for everyone's safety? Because they couldn't cover their children's eyes during a few minutes of a PG-13 movie? By all means, ask the flight attendant if they can do anything. But, when they say no, its time to wait until the flight lands and talk to someone. Asking to see a pilot mid flight is very obnoxious and goes way beyond a polite disagreement. Obviously they shouldn't have diverted, but when someone is demanding to see the pilot, they have escalated to the point where a miscomunication between crew members can cause problems. Flight attendant: "Someone back here is demanding to see you". Pilot: "I'm not leaving the cockpit." Pilot to Pilot 2: "Lets divert, this is strange" Obviously he should have clarified whether it was a threat, but when you are overworked, and you have everyone's safety in mind, it makes sense to be extra safe. That is what they are paid for.

EliRivers 14y ago
"That is what they are paid for." I have no doubt that he's been given a strong talking to for diverting a plane and costing the airline no small expense on such a ridiculous over-reaction. They're paid to be sensible risk-evaluators and decision-makers, and this one is clearly rubbish at it.
- tonyarkles 14y ago
  This sounds to me like a case of fundamental attribution bias. We have no idea what was going through his head at the time. We're all human, and we all make mistakes sometimes. It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted (or maybe wasn't given all the data needed to make a good decision)
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    "It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted" Overreaction is incompetent decision making.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      While I agree, and I think the treatment of the passengers in question was idiotic, keep in mind that he did not talk to the passenger in question directly. He was forwarded the request by a flight attendant or possibly the purser. The purser might have been forwarded part of what he said indirectly as well, from the flight attendant, and both might very well have exaggerated the story in part to explain why they haven't just dealt with it, but are coming to the captain with it. It's perfectly possible that what the pilot hear from the purser was: "Some passengers are getting irate [he got others to speak up in support] because of the movie choice and has been pestering the flight attendants about it and won't give up. He's getting angry, and wanted to talk to you." Might still be an overreaction, but a very different scenario than what the passenger claims (whether or not the passengers description is correct). I'm sure the airline have "had a chat", but I also think they'd rather take the occasional cost of a diversion like this than risk having a captain be too cautious in a situation where there's a genuine risk.
    - tonyarkles 14y ago
      Making a bad decision once doesn't make a person incompetent.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
incision 14y ago
You're reading an awful lot into this that the article never claimed. Nowhere is it claimed that they asked to "talk to the captain" much less that any "demanding to see the pilot" occurred. From the source [1]: --- "We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response. A few minutes later we asked for the captain's name (I failed to make note when he welcomed us on the PA system), and was told, by the purser, that we will have to ask him ourselves when we disembark. Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens." --- 1: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-way-we-live-now-united-airlines-and-disruptive-passengers/274512/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-way-...
- wtvanhest 14y ago
  Directly from the article: "In one incident (scroll down to find it) a family traveling from Denver to Baltimore with two sons, aged 4 and 8, asked if a monitor showing “Alex Cross,” which features some violent scenes, could be turned off or retracted, and was told no. They asked if the captain might be consulted. To do that, they were told, they’d have to wait until the plane landed. Then:" [Added in response to comments below] Critical reading lesson here, if you look at the quote from the article you will notice that it says "they were told, they’d have to wait until the plane landed." That is how you know they were asking to see the captain without it explicitly saying, "They demanded to see the captain." I think it is pretty obvious that the article is sensational and is lacking the information to fill in the gap on why they diverted and had this guy taken off the plane. His request over the movie is ridiculous but his request to see the captain or have the flight attendant talk to the captain about it is completely ridiculous. At the very least, he asked the flight attendant to have a conversation with the guy flying the plane about a movie being shown in the back of the plane. On what planet is that a reasonable request??? [also added] I shouldn't have made the critical reading quip, that was rude of me. That being said, we must assume that the author who wrote the article had the facts when he wrote it. If not, we can't rely on any piece of the article at all. At the very least, everyone can agree that the article does not have the full story. I hope we can also agree that it is likely sensationalized. We may not be able to agree that he asked to speak with the captain, but we should be able to agree that he did ask the flight attendant to speak with a pilot at the very least. Additionally, I hope we can all agree that asking the flight attendant to speak with the captain about a movie playing is an unreasonable request. Even more so, we can agree that diverting the plane for a person not getting up from their seat and not yelling or making threats is probably the wrong decision. One thing we don't know though, is whether he was up from his seat. If he was standing in the flight bridge asking to speak to the captain, that would make this situation much different than if he were sitting in his seat.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
My neighbor and good friend is a commercial pilot. The best time to ask them anything is while at cruising altitude. That is the point they tend to be quite bored and are playing games or reading books like everybody else. Even if the FA's had contacted the pilot (which obviously they did, just with a different "issue"), there would have been no danger to the flight. If something is going wrong up front, they won't answer the cabin phone. Using "they wanted to ask the captian" as a tacit way of approving this behavior is just wrong.
caseysoftware 14y ago
Flight attendant: "Someone back here is demanding to see you". Pilot: "I'm not leaving the cockpit." Pilot to Pilot 2: "Lets divert, this is strange" You are aware they have phones, right? The flight attendants are regularly in contact with the pilot and copilot without compromising security at any time.
hso9791 14y ago
Shouldn't the airline crew be professional about it? Flight attendant: "Someone back here has some issues they want to run by you" Pilot: "What is it?" Flight attendant: "They think the language is too coarse in the movie." Pilot: "Tell them to suck bollocks." Flight attendant -> Passenger: "Sorry, Sir. The captain won't do anything about it."
fennecfoxen 14y ago
"Because they couldn't cover their children's eyes during a few minutes of a PG-13 movie?" I'm sorry, this part of your statement is stupid. It is ridiculous and degrading to expect a parent to physically cover their childrens' eyes during the violent parts of _Alex Cross_. These people didn't sign up for a PG13 movie viewing experience, they signed up for a flight. Rob Cohen, the director, corroborates: "When I read your piece this morning, I felt extremely sympathetic to the family involved and, in some ways, quite apologetic. I never made the film to cause anyone this kind of discomfort. It seems to me they (the family) were well within their rights to request some control as to what their two young children were exposed. As a father of five year old triplets, I, too, would not want them to absorb some of the images we created for my film.... PG-13 should mean what it does at the box office, at the very least meaning no one under 13 should be exposed to it. If the airlines cannot accommodate a more flexible presentation giving seats the option of viewing or not, they shouldn't show the film unless it meets what we could call "general cabin" suitability."

EliRivers 14y ago

"That is what they are paid for." I have no doubt that he's been given a strong talking to for diverting a plane and costing the airline no small expense on such a ridiculous over-reaction. They're paid to be sensible risk-evaluators and decision-makers, and this one is clearly rubbish at it.

tonyarkles 14y ago
This sounds to me like a case of fundamental attribution bias. We have no idea what was going through his head at the time. We're all human, and we all make mistakes sometimes. It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted (or maybe wasn't given all the data needed to make a good decision)
- EliRivers 14y ago
  "It's easy to just assume that the pilot is an incompetent decision maker, but it's way more likely that he or she just overreacted" Overreaction is incompetent decision making.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    While I agree, and I think the treatment of the passengers in question was idiotic, keep in mind that he did not talk to the passenger in question directly. He was forwarded the request by a flight attendant or possibly the purser. The purser might have been forwarded part of what he said indirectly as well, from the flight attendant, and both might very well have exaggerated the story in part to explain why they haven't just dealt with it, but are coming to the captain with it. It's perfectly possible that what the pilot hear from the purser was: "Some passengers are getting irate [he got others to speak up in support] because of the movie choice and has been pestering the flight attendants about it and won't give up. He's getting angry, and wanted to talk to you." Might still be an overreaction, but a very different scenario than what the passenger claims (whether or not the passengers description is correct). I'm sure the airline have "had a chat", but I also think they'd rather take the occasional cost of a diversion like this than risk having a captain be too cautious in a situation where there's a genuine risk.
  - tonyarkles 14y ago
    Making a bad decision once doesn't make a person incompetent.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

incision 14y ago

You're reading an awful lot into this that the article never claimed. Nowhere is it claimed that they asked to "talk to the captain" much less that any "demanding to see the pilot" occurred. From the source [1]: --- "We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response. A few minutes later we asked for the captain's name (I failed to make note when he welcomed us on the PA system), and was told, by the purser, that we will have to ask him ourselves when we disembark. Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens." --- 1: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-way-we-live-now-united-airlines-and-disruptive-passengers/274512/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-way-...

wtvanhest 14y ago
Directly from the article: "In one incident (scroll down to find it) a family traveling from Denver to Baltimore with two sons, aged 4 and 8, asked if a monitor showing “Alex Cross,” which features some violent scenes, could be turned off or retracted, and was told no. They asked if the captain might be consulted. To do that, they were told, they’d have to wait until the plane landed. Then:" [Added in response to comments below] Critical reading lesson here, if you look at the quote from the article you will notice that it says "they were told, they’d have to wait until the plane landed." That is how you know they were asking to see the captain without it explicitly saying, "They demanded to see the captain." I think it is pretty obvious that the article is sensational and is lacking the information to fill in the gap on why they diverted and had this guy taken off the plane. His request over the movie is ridiculous but his request to see the captain or have the flight attendant talk to the captain about it is completely ridiculous. At the very least, he asked the flight attendant to have a conversation with the guy flying the plane about a movie being shown in the back of the plane. On what planet is that a reasonable request??? [also added] I shouldn't have made the critical reading quip, that was rude of me. That being said, we must assume that the author who wrote the article had the facts when he wrote it. If not, we can't rely on any piece of the article at all. At the very least, everyone can agree that the article does not have the full story. I hope we can also agree that it is likely sensationalized. We may not be able to agree that he asked to speak with the captain, but we should be able to agree that he did ask the flight attendant to speak with a pilot at the very least. Additionally, I hope we can all agree that asking the flight attendant to speak with the captain about a movie playing is an unreasonable request. Even more so, we can agree that diverting the plane for a person not getting up from their seat and not yelling or making threats is probably the wrong decision. One thing we don't know though, is whether he was up from his seat. If he was standing in the flight bridge asking to speak to the captain, that would make this situation much different than if he were sitting in his seat.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

My neighbor and good friend is a commercial pilot. The best time to ask them anything is while at cruising altitude. That is the point they tend to be quite bored and are playing games or reading books like everybody else. Even if the FA's had contacted the pilot (which obviously they did, just with a different "issue"), there would have been no danger to the flight. If something is going wrong up front, they won't answer the cabin phone. Using "they wanted to ask the captian" as a tacit way of approving this behavior is just wrong.

caseysoftware 14y ago

Flight attendant: "Someone back here is demanding to see you". Pilot: "I'm not leaving the cockpit." Pilot to Pilot 2: "Lets divert, this is strange" You are aware they have phones, right? The flight attendants are regularly in contact with the pilot and copilot without compromising security at any time.

hso9791 14y ago

Shouldn't the airline crew be professional about it? Flight attendant: "Someone back here has some issues they want to run by you" Pilot: "What is it?" Flight attendant: "They think the language is too coarse in the movie." Pilot: "Tell them to suck bollocks." Flight attendant -> Passenger: "Sorry, Sir. The captain won't do anything about it."

fennecfoxen 14y ago

"Because they couldn't cover their children's eyes during a few minutes of a PG-13 movie?" I'm sorry, this part of your statement is stupid. It is ridiculous and degrading to expect a parent to physically cover their childrens' eyes during the violent parts of _Alex Cross_. These people didn't sign up for a PG13 movie viewing experience, they signed up for a flight. Rob Cohen, the director, corroborates: "When I read your piece this morning, I felt extremely sympathetic to the family involved and, in some ways, quite apologetic. I never made the film to cause anyone this kind of discomfort. It seems to me they (the family) were well within their rights to request some control as to what their two young children were exposed. As a father of five year old triplets, I, too, would not want them to absorb some of the images we created for my film.... PG-13 should mean what it does at the box office, at the very least meaning no one under 13 should be exposed to it. If the airlines cannot accommodate a more flexible presentation giving seats the option of viewing or not, they shouldn't show the film unless it meets what we could call "general cabin" suitability."