JetBlue TrueBlue - Jetblue goes all postmodern, busts granny on flight 195

Link (http://consumerist.com/5036981/jetblue-has-grandmother-arrested-for-refusing-to-delete-an-unflattering-video-recording)at The Consumerist. Granny apparently to appear on Good Morning America soon...

The Kingman Daily Miner has a description of the incident:

Approximately 30 minutes after the dispute, Parver said she was approached by the flight crew who were asking passengers questions about the altercation. When Parver told them she had recorded the incident, they requested she accompany them to the back of the plane, Parver said.

There she showed the video to three or four crew members, Parver said.

"After viewing the video, they demanded that I delete it," Parver said. "I asked, 'Why?' The head-stewardess went as far as to tell me that I had broken a law by using an electronic item during the flight."

At that time, another flight attendant accused Parver of wanting to put it up on YouTube, a video-sharing Web site.

"I do not even know how to download a video on the Internet," Parver said.

After refusing and returning to her seat, the crew asked Parver to return to the back of the plane again, she said.

"This time they told me that the captain demanded that I delete the video," Parver added.

Parver requested to speak to the captain by telephone to confirm the demand. She was not granted this request.

"If the captain had nicely asked me to delete the video, I don't think I would have disobeyed a pilot," Parver said.

Parver again refused the flight crew's request. At that point, one attendant told Parver that if she disobeyed the captain, federal agents would be involved and she could face criminal penalties.

"This was all a case of bullying," Parver said.
-----------

The funny thing is that a friend on the flight reported to me that as the flight attendents gathered in the back of the plane argued with the tough granny, another passenger raised the stakes--and the flight attendent's ire--even further by snapping a photo of the squabble on her iPhone. At this point the flight attendent couldn't decide who to argue with, etc.

The postmodern world is truly upon us when we begin arguing about potential interpretations and narratives of the events rather than the details that fostered the events themselves.

Hey! You malcontent! Stop taking a photo of me while I try to determine why this passenger videotaped me while I was trying to figure out why these to passengers were arguing! Wait, did someone just snap a picture of the photographer who snapped a picture of me while I....Surreal

As some will say around these parts, it's all part of the jetBlue experience.

:)

Video cameras are allowed onboard but are part of the 10,000ft rule. Must be off below and can be on above. However the sticky of that is what is the person video taping? At JetBlue we have a policy of absolutely no video taping of the crew or the front of the cabin (cockpit). Crew duties and Cocpit procedures are a security matter and can't be filmed for any reason. I've had people request to video tape themselves while in flight and I told them that was fine as long as the crew or cockpit was not filmed. The moment that is was I would ask that they discontinue filming for the rest of the flight and put the camcorder away. Pretty straight forward and fare in my opinion.

Now this incident sounds like the lady was filming an altercation between passengers. Doesn't sound too bad infact I think it would be good evidence to be used in any court procedings. I think the flight attendants stepped over the line in having her arrested as she obviously posed no threat to the aircraft or other customers. However I was not there and don't have all the facts so I can't fully pass judgement as this is obviously from the customer's side but having her arrested is a bit much I think.

I think the flight attendants stepped over the line in having her arrested as she obviously posed no threat to the aircraft or other customers.


If you are actually an FA for JetBlue, you make a lot more sense than the crew on that flight.

I just read about this in the TS&S forum and must say--the actions of the flight crew and the police appear to be insane. I hope to see the video soon on Good Morning America, along with the roughed-up granny telling her story.

That's certainly a sad performance by an airline. And I think they picked on the wrong granny!

Parver again refused the flight crew's request. At that point, one attendant told Parver that if she disobeyed the captain, federal agents would be involved and she could face criminal penalties.



And the flight crew's request constitutes attempted destruction of evidence and could also result in criminal penalties.

And the flight crew's request constitutes attempted destruction of evidence and could also result in criminal penalties.

Interesting.

And the flight crew's request constitutes attempted destruction of evidence and could also result in criminal penalties.

Whether it was evidence or not it was her private personal property and a jet blue f/a has no more authority to order her to destroy it than to order her or someone else to grant sexual favors. To do either is an abuse of the authority they are given to insure their ability to do their duty.

Anytime someone can threaten you with 25 years in federal prison they are doing so under the color of the authority of the United States. To abuse that authority to deprive an American of their rights (such as right to liberty and property in this case) is a federal offense, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Interesting.


It is all interesting, but she was NOT arrested for not deleting the video tape.
She was arrested for not leaving when a police officer told her to.

There is different report here, with a little better reporting, though without anyone but the woman's side.
http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1&articleID=16860

The representative with JetBlue requested that she delete the video, Parver added.

"He informed me that if I didn't immediately delete it, I could never fly on JetBlue again," she said. "He said that he would be filing a report that would be shared with other airlines, and I might have a hard time getting any airline to let me fly."Lovely.

Lovely.

Not only lovely but completely improper as well. As if the incident wasn't bad enough that nice litte comment was spoken...

JetBlue has attempted to recast this situation as a passenger “refusing to follow crew member instructions.” But there is no generalized duty of obedience to any and all instructions issued by a flight crew member. If a flight attendant orders a passenger to “Hop on one foot…. Bark like a dog… Shine my shoes… or Give me $10 from your wallet,” there is simply no legal requirement to obey.

The legal issue here derives from Federal Aviation Regulation 121.580 and Section 46504 of Title 49 the United States Code (49 USC VII A(iv)465, § 46504), which prohibits any action which “… interferes with the performance of the duties of the [crew] member or [flight] attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties…” So, for example, because it is part of a flight attendant’s duties to prepare the cabin for landing by requiring passengers to remain seated, no passenger may lessen the flight attendant’s ability to perform that duty by refusing a request to remain seated. But that rule is not a generalized duty of obedience to any and all instructions which might conceivably be given by a flight attendant, as JetBlue might have their passengers believe.

JetBlue has attempted to recast this situation as a passenger “refusing to follow crew member instructions.” But there is no generalized duty of obedience to any and all instructions issued by a flight crew member. If a flight attendant orders a passenger to “Hop on one foot…. Bark like a dog… Shine my shoes… or Give me $10 from your wallet,” there is simply no legal requirement to obey.

The legal issue here derives from Federal Aviation Regulation 121.580 and Section 46504 of Title 49 the United States Code (49 USC VII A(iv)465, § 46504), which prohibits any action which “… interferes with the performance of the duties of the [crew] member or [flight] attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties…” So, for example, because it is part of a flight attendant’s duties to prepare the cabin for landing by requiring passengers to remain seated, no passenger may lessen the flight attendant’s ability to perform that duty by refusing a request to remain seated. But that rule is not a generalized duty of obedience to any and all instructions which might conceivably be given by a flight attendant, as JetBlue might have their passengers believe.


All very true.

One airline states that passengers must follow "reasonable crew requests" which is in keeping with the above statement.

I read this story with some amusement, though I was not surprised. I've never flown B6, so I don't know what their in-flight experience is all about. However, I am a frequent guest at a hotel that is evidently also the hotel for B6 crews in this particular town. Every night there's a different bunch of them in the concierge lounge gabbing about the most asinine and inappropriate stuff. The pilots talk shop, but the FA's talk about who slept with who, who they slept with or will sleep with, and what city they got falling down drunk two days ago. The treat the shared lounge as their own living room and make it a very uncomfortable place for me to be. This sense of arrogance and entitlement may extend to the cabin, from the looks of this story. As I mentioned, though, I do not have a first hand in-flight account of how B6 FA's are in their element.

I am a bit surprised that the F/As were that belligerent towards the woman for video taping. I am even more surprised that crew members have concierge lounge access. For example, I have yet to run into any air crews at the Renaissance LAX during any of my stays, but I see plenty of pilots and F/As at the hotel.

I was surprised, too, to see them in the CL. There are some cargo pilots and charter/corporate ones at this property, too, but the B6 ones are identifiable by the routes they always talk about, particularly LGB and JFK. Yes, other airlines fly to LGB, but I don't think other airlines fly from LGB to this city. Furthermore, charter/corporate/cargo flights aren't likely to have 4 or 5 FA's in tow... I wouldn't think.

To follow up on this story, has video actually been posted anywhere? This generated a lot of comments on Consumerist, but until it's actually on YouTube, I feel that this story of Air Travel 2.0 is incomplete.

As some will say around these parts, it's all part of the jetBlue experience.

:)

Hahaa :D

Furthermore, charter/corporate/cargo flights aren't likely to have 4 or 5 FA's in tow... I wouldn't think.


Those World widebodies and North American and Past ATA widebodies had a gaggle of stews.