TalkBoard Member/Moderator: Southwest and JetBlue forums
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, CO Lifetime Presidents Club
Posts: 9,244
I would like to think that the short skirt first became an issue on board when a fellow passenger noticed an exposed backside, e.g., due to thong underwear or the top of the skirt losing altitude. But it would have been soooo much better if Southwest had addressed this issue with her prior to boarding.
I saw a similar error in timing a couple weeks ago. A Customer of Size, and not a borderline case either, was nearly the last passenger to board a flight booked to 136. As FTers here know, Customers of Size are supposed to pay for a second ticket and pre-board so that they can have two seats. Perhaps this person arrived at the gate very late, but otherwise Southwest should have spotted her in the gate area and got her into the pre-boarding line one way or another.
The FAs managed to get some people to switch seats and the CoS was accommodated. But not before she was asked to leave the plane and visit with the Ops Agent for a few minutes. That part of the situation was entirely avoidable, IMHO. I was happy to see that the passenger did not appear overly upset, as many people in that situation would have been. The crying babies scattered all around the cabin were another matter entirely...
NBC mentions in passing that the flight in question occurred more than 2 months ago. This young lady waited that long before launching her PR blitz, which is working splendidly for her.
This delay further cements my opinion that the PR blitz, though probably not the in-flight incident itself, is primarily motivated by a desire for notoriety. Notoriety plus the cash that FHM and the like can pay her to show the world what little she has not already shown.
The 2-month delay indicates to me that she didn't plan to cause an incident on the flight, as some appear to believe. Rather this could be one of many cases in which an individual sees a chance for notoriety and seizes it. In such cases the individual often deludes himself that he is only seeking vindication, but that doesn't fool everyone else.
Did you also read the part that said it took 6 weeks for SW to reply.. she received her unsatisfactory letter two weeks ago.... seems rather patient to me.
__________________
ACORN: Nuts like us, aren't from a Bush.
Last edited by underpressure; Sep 7, 07 at 7:47 pm.
Location: Toronto, ON but someday (hopefully) OGG or ACK
Programs: DL, AA, US, AC, Hilton HHonors Diamond
Posts: 176
First, she is considering a lawsuit against Southwest. The amount of publicity she is getting is not only invaluable it is immeasurable. She was able to travel on her originally scheduled flight and was able to make her Doctor's appointment (by the way according to her Today show interview, Ms. Ebbert did not buy jeans in Phoenix because she had only two hours from the time she landed to visit her doctor and to catch the return flight to San Diego. Even if the incident cause her flight to be delayed, who would schedule a Doctor's appointment in another city in another state and leave so little time to accomplish the purpose of her trip. Shouldn't she have accounted for outbound flight delays, traffic in Phoenix, too many patients in the waiting room, etc? A savvy traveler should not schedule an itinerary so that the timing is tight, leaving little if any room for unexpected disappointments).
Second, if what she was wearing was appropriate for her, then it should be appropriate for who are not as blessed as she is in terms of physical appearance. I was disappointed to read quite a few people state that what she was wearing was appropriate because she was so good looking, all that matters is that ugly people should not be dressed so provocatively. Even if virtual tongue was planted in virtual cheek when some or all of these posts were written (not just on Flyertalk but on other websites), it still reveals an uncomfortable willingness to judge people by their appearance (I know that this paragraph will initiate that most sacred of Festivus traditions - the airing of grievances).
Third, one of the posters commented upon how old Ms. Ebbert looked. If you look at some of the pictures contained in the links on this thread, it seems that Ms. Ebbert spends alot of time either in the sun or in a tanning salon. That can age a person pretty darn fast.
Fourth, the Today show interview lasted approximately 6 minutes. Hopefully, this means that Ms. ebbert has only 9 minutes of fame left.
__________________
"I'm rich! I'm a happy miser!" - D. Duck
Last edited by closecover; Sep 7, 07 at 11:02 pm.
Reason: Grammar
Mods, feel free to move this to the Security, Women Travelers, Newsstand, etc if deemed the wrong forum.
We'll probably never know the rest of the story.... but I'm guessing there was a whole lot more (or less!) to it. I'm no prude but I've seen a whole lot of gals dressed this way who don't seem to remember to put on anything underneath....
__________________
Not all who wander are lost ~ J.R.R. Tolkien
Lend a hand up with Kiva; far more than a hand out.
I would like to think that the short skirt first became an issue on board when a fellow passenger noticed an exposed backside, e.g., due to thong underwear or the top of the skirt losing altitude. But it would have been soooo much better if Southwest had addressed this issue with her prior to boarding...
When I saw the "Today" show clip, I saw that she had white panties covering her intimate areas. It was never asked what sort of undergarments she was wearing on the WN flight.
I thought this was a good point made by somebody on the Today Show blog. I've also personally seen worse from the weekend hookers on flights to LAS on Friday nights:
<snipped quote from blog>
My favorite quote from the blogs comes from the responses on Southwest's blog:
Quote:
I disagree, this is crazy fudie thinking. Southwest just lost my business, about $2K a year we spend on their flights out of Nashville which from now on will go to Continental airlines.
Ooooh, Southwest will surely be quaking at the loss of your $2000, Mr. Big Spender .
TalkBoard Member/Moderator: Southwest and JetBlue forums
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, CO Lifetime Presidents Club
Posts: 9,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by curbcrusher
The blog post has certainly brought out a sizable population of nuts.
Those people you call nuts have only heard one side of the story. Southwest has not brought out the facts that readers of this thread know. Just listing Hefner as the top person you'd like to meet gives an idea of what might motivate this young lady to go on every TV show that she could. Once one is on TV, it's only natural to give a self-serving account of events.
If you swallow her account as gospel truth without evaluating anything else, naturally you would blame Southwest. That doesn't make you a nut, only naive. Or someone predisposed to dislike Southwest and predisposed to believe anything and everything negative said about Southwest.
This is why IMHO Southwest has erred by failing to promptly throw serious doubt on her story using both publicly available information and the observations of its employees. In a case like this, winning the PR battle quickly is more important than winning in court many months later. Southwest has everything it needs to win that battle right here in this thread.
The media will not debunk her story because they are the business of sensationalism. They don't want to perform even the most rudimentary investigation (such as typing a few words into Google) for fear of having to kill a great story. So it's up to Southwest to set the record straight.
I'll bet anyone here that this lady will gross more than $10,000 from skin magazines and other publicity deals. It frosts me that she's getting there by unfairly maligning a fine company and costing it probably 100 times that much. If she indeed was not wearing underwear Southwest should come forward with that information and sue her for those losses.
Likewise, if her story is correct, Southwest should promptly apologize. The fact that this has not happened is to me the best evidence that her story is inconsistent with employee accounts.
Location: San Antonio, TX; CO Platinum; DL Gold; UA Premier Executive
Posts: 9,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsx
This is why IMHO Southwest has erred by failing to promptly throw serious doubt on her story using both publicly available information and the observations of its employees. In a case like this, winning the PR battle quickly is more important than winning in court many months later. Southwest has everything it needs to win that battle right here in this thread.
Why does WN need to win any PR battle? They say that any publicity is good publicity, and in this case, I don't see how WN is going to come out the loser. What, is it going to jeopardize its standing with the client base that is scantily clad exhibitionists?
Mark my word: there will be no lasting repercussions from this incident. Kyla Ebbert has got her moment in the sun, and soon she can retreat to a life of serving up inedible hot wings to leering men. Or move onto bigger and better pursuits such as . . . cough, cough . . . porn.
People will keep on flying WN. Maybe not while wearing nothing but a Wicked Weasel ensemble, but otherwise life will go on. And the notion of a lawsuit is a non-starter as it was from the day it was first conceived.
Last edited by nsx; Sep 8, 07 at 1:02 am.
Reason: too-racy link removed
If you swallow her account as gospel truth without evaluating anything else, naturally you would blame Southwest. That doesn't make you a nut, only naive.
I disagree. Someone who considers Keith's efforts to stop Ebbert from turning a 737 into a DHC-2 the equivalent of the actions of Nazis or the Taliban is not simply naive. They're unhinged.
IfThe media will not debunk her story because they are the business of sensationalism. They don't want to perform even the most rudimentary investigation (such as typing a few words into Google) for fear of having to kill a great story. So it's up to Southwest to set the record straight.
I think the media did an excellent job of making WN's point.
After all, they blocked out the crouch image.
.
