Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what is the "B" word?
Bomb. Also, if your lips are dry and your friend has a moistener, favor the word "chapstick" over "baum".
And don't use acronyms when talking about a Bill of Materials.
Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
111–120 of 243 posts
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#112Not 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.
Yea, it's almost like in the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG23s2ryaWg#t=169s
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#113Not 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.
The instant he said that to the FA, he was off. It's like using the "B" word with the TSA. If you say it, expect to be taken to a room for a nice 20 minute conversation with various security officials. And there is no "room" on an airplane, you're off if you behave like this guy.
>The instant he said that to the FA, he was off. It's like using the "B" word with the TSA
They should be transparent about which words are forbidden and put that in their policy like they put the restrictions on photography.
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#114Yes, 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…
>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. Basically, one has to be mindful not to use words that will cause people too stupid to parse the context in which they were used to be anxious.
I agree but perhaps stupid is not the right word. The airline staff, especially low level, are not trusted or trained to think or apply their own reason. They're trained to be on constant high-alert and report anything that smells even remotely fishy.
It's not right that you have to hold your tongue in airport security or on a plane. But whether right or wrong in the moral sense, it's prudent to avoid alarming the staff if you intend to make your flight.
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#115This 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.
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.
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#116Yes, 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…
"You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd." Not even odd, slightly odd which is now apparently grounds for getting kicked off an airliner. The terrorists have won a great victory if acting slightly odd is enough to terrify an airline company into kicking a passenger off a plane.
The terrorists have won a great victory if acting slightly odd is enough to terrify an airline company into kicking a passenger off a plane.
This isn't about terrorism. It's about a flight attendant taking exception to a passenger, and owing to what he later said and how he behaved, believing that he could develop into a problem on a long-haul flight.
Was it a good call? Probably not, given the author's flight history. It is, however, an understandable one, especially given how little it takes for one person to cause havoc on a flight, especially when it's long-haul.
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#117You can't take pictures on an aeroplane?
The terrorists have won.
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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;…
> There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie. Was it? Or did she misunderstand his need to justify himself as a way of indicating that he did not intend to stop? You assume she lied -- probably because that's what you are most comfortable believing -- but it's not necessarily true. People make false claims all the time that they really, genuinely believe to b…
If she assumes him possibly indicating intent to not stop to be actually taking pictures, then maybe you're right, she didn't lie... because as Chomsky pointed out in a talk I saw recently, the accusation of lying implies the capacity to tell the truth, which requires a level of mental processing out of the reach of the FA... so as you can see, at least for me saying she lied is the kindest one of all available options.
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
> It is a word. Context matters. Context in this case would suggest there was nothing to worry about. Wait. A plane is an appropriate context for the word "terrorist" ? Interesting.
Yes. Words won't hurt you. When they can use words to bring down an aircraft then I care, but until that occurs then, they're just words.
Context matters. A sentence matters more than a word. A group of sentences matters more than just one. A conversation matters more than just a few sentences.
Quit acting irrationally. Think things through.
Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really resent the way you used "victim" and "aggressor" there. Really quite manipulative. As the article its self said, from the captain's perspective he was likely always going to believe a FA over a pax, in particular if the FA claimed the pax wasn't being cooperative. Now if the quotes were accurate I think the captain was quite rude, but we really don't know what the FA said to the captain, maybe he got the imp…
The author contracted carriage in exchange for money, and the captain refused to honor that contract. The author was a victim. The captain was an aggressor. Those are facts, not opinions, and they're not manipulative. It's your prerogative to resent them, but they remain facts. It's interesting that you seem to be claiming the captain wasn't an aggressor, but then believe that giving his name to his actions would be…
And the terms and conditions of said contract would state that the captain has the absolute right to remove anyone from the flight.
Edit: Reference. RULE 21 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT in United's Contract of Carriage [1] outlines UA's right to "remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons". The reasons are, as you would expect, broad and vague, essentially giving UA cover to remove anyone from the flight.
The one I expect they would cite in this instance is:
H4: "Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;"
Other fun conditions that UA have felt the need to enumerate:
21:H5 Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
21:H16 Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition
[1]http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd...