UA captain diverts flight, removes pax because of IFE complaints
Apr 2, 2013, 9:46 am
#46
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
Even if parents have brought an alternate form of entertainment it can be hard to ignore the screen right in your face.
Apr 2, 2013, 9:47 am
#47
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K (MM), DL, AA, AS, HHonors, SPG, Kimpton, Hyatt, IC PC, Marriott Titanium (LT PLT), Hertz PC
Posts: 7,231
I'm not defending Alex Cross in particular (it's a pretty bad movie) but my view is that a parent's job is to deal with situations outside of your control like this.
Of course you may not want your young kid watching violent/sexually suggestive movies at a young age. You can control what they watch in the house, but it's a big world out there and they will be exposed to it.
As a role model, you can either make a huge fuss on the plane demanding that they turn off the movie for the entire plane and get yourself kicked off the plane, or you can do actual parenting and calmly try to help them make sense of it.
happens in the real world. I think catching snippets of a violent movie is hardly the worst thing that can happen to a kid. That said, I'm not going to show my kids hard core R rated movies, but this mentality that they must be protected at all costs is IMHO actually more harmful and makes a worse role model.
Of course you may not want your young kid watching violent/sexually suggestive movies at a young age. You can control what they watch in the house, but it's a big world out there and they will be exposed to it.
As a role model, you can either make a huge fuss on the plane demanding that they turn off the movie for the entire plane and get yourself kicked off the plane, or you can do actual parenting and calmly try to help them make sense of it.
happens in the real world. I think catching snippets of a violent movie is hardly the worst thing that can happen to a kid. That said, I'm not going to show my kids hard core R rated movies, but this mentality that they must be protected at all costs is IMHO actually more harmful and makes a worse role model.
What I'm criticizing is this: I can't think of a good reason for United to play this particular movie over the overhead screens. Doing so intentionally exposes all passengers on the aircraft to this material.
If I get into a situation where my child witnesses something I don't necessarily want them to see, I do my best to minimize the exposure (internally) and talk through what they saw. However, if I'm paying someone to transport me from A to B, I expect that they will not put me in a situation where I feel the need to go through those exercises with my children due to their selection of movie content.
That's not a good reason to show this movie. That's a defense for doing so.
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Apr 2, 2013 at 11:21 am Reason: merge
Apr 2, 2013, 9:58 am
#48
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
This is what's wrong. You can't please everyone, and I'm sure showing Alex Cross pleased more people than insulting. A step below PG-13 is PG. Would you like UA to show cartoons all day? I've seen more violence in CSI than what I've seen in the edited version of Alex Cross.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:03 am
#49
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
Apr 2, 2013, 10:04 am
#50
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SEA, WAS, PEK
Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM
Posts: 2,176
Apr 2, 2013, 10:05 am
#51
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,136
I'm sure UA could have found a better film to show... but they're never going to please everybody. As many times as I was subjected to Mamma Mia! on UA a few years ago, I was ready to start some in-flight violence.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:06 am
#52
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here and there
Programs: General member, former 1P
Posts: 583
Briefly: PG-13 is a fairly low bar. SVU, in the same vein, makes it through Standards & Practices at NBC but is loaded with violence and sexual degradation. Would I want Master Flavorflav (age 5) watching SVU? No. Is it ever on when he is around? No. Does he know about death? Yes. He's learned about it from his parents, not from Stabler and Benson or from a backoffice drone who picks movies for United.
And while I appreciate the "helpful" parenting advice to take a movie depicting the systematic torture and murder of women and use it as a teachable moment because "stuff happens in the real world," a confined space on an airplane isn't the place, and a film based on a novel isn't the curriculum.
And while I appreciate the "helpful" parenting advice to take a movie depicting the systematic torture and murder of women and use it as a teachable moment because "stuff happens in the real world," a confined space on an airplane isn't the place, and a film based on a novel isn't the curriculum.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:23 am
#53
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,508
He clearly contacted the people involved, knew their names and where they lived and researched the UA rosters to find out the pilot's name. He did not simply pass along an anonymous email.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:23 am
#54
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: DEN/OGG
Programs: UA GS
Posts: 1,482
Briefly: PG-13 is a fairly low bar. SVU, in the same vein, makes it through Standards & Practices at NBC but is loaded with violence and sexual degradation. Would I want Master Flavorflav (age 5) watching SVU? No. Is it ever on when he is around? No. Does he know about death? Yes. He's learned about it from his parents, not from Stabler and Benson or from a backoffice drone who picks movies for United.
And while I appreciate the "helpful" parenting advice to take a movie depicting the systematic torture and murder of women and use it as a teachable moment because "stuff happens in the real world," a confined space on an airplane isn't the place, and a film based on a novel isn't the curriculum.
And while I appreciate the "helpful" parenting advice to take a movie depicting the systematic torture and murder of women and use it as a teachable moment because "stuff happens in the real world," a confined space on an airplane isn't the place, and a film based on a novel isn't the curriculum.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:24 am
#55
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ICT
Programs: AA EXP, UA Plat, DL G, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,330
Wow... this thread...
Isn't the real issue the fact that the family, who it seems was not a danger to the flight, was removed from the plane? Shouldn't this happen ONLY when a pax represents a danger to the plane and other pax?
Seems to me several pax were inconvenienced for something that was a no-issue?
Isn't the real issue the fact that the family, who it seems was not a danger to the flight, was removed from the plane? Shouldn't this happen ONLY when a pax represents a danger to the plane and other pax?
Seems to me several pax were inconvenienced for something that was a no-issue?
Apr 2, 2013, 10:25 am
#56
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: One hour from major airport
Programs: United silver, American Platinum, Marriott platinum, Starwood Gold, Hertz gold, Avis First
Posts: 72
From my perspective, it's not necessarily about the choice of movie, it's about the diversion.
Passenger has an issue with the movie being shown and asks for it to be turned off. FA says can't disenfranchise pax around the family. Pax speak up and say we're good with turning it off. At this point, we have a customer service opportunity - work with the pax, provide options, discuss solutions, or stomp down on them.
Family doesn't get the response they want, so they attempt to escalate. PERHAPS they make a big issue about it, rant, rave, etc. Or perhaps not.
From the captain's perspective, what would justify a security diversion based on a family complaining about the movie? If the family was rude and insensitive to the flight attendant, deal with the family. If the family charged the cockpit, restrain the family. NOTE: since there wasn't any action by LEOs, I doubt it was that serious.
I'm a dad, and my kids are in elementary and middle school. From that perspective, I'm not worried about making the world safe for my precious little snowflakes, but if there's something easy someone can do, or if I think there's something easy, I ask. If I'm told no, I look for the why behind it so I can understand better what I'm asking. I try to solve a problem and work with the folks to solve the problem.
In no way would I expect that I'd be considered a security threat because I'm trying to solve a problem - even if they end up trying to convince by volume rather than logic. And I do security for a living. This captain generated a pretty big false positive, and wasted significant amounts of LEO dollars for something that clearly wasn't a threat.
Passenger has an issue with the movie being shown and asks for it to be turned off. FA says can't disenfranchise pax around the family. Pax speak up and say we're good with turning it off. At this point, we have a customer service opportunity - work with the pax, provide options, discuss solutions, or stomp down on them.
Family doesn't get the response they want, so they attempt to escalate. PERHAPS they make a big issue about it, rant, rave, etc. Or perhaps not.
From the captain's perspective, what would justify a security diversion based on a family complaining about the movie? If the family was rude and insensitive to the flight attendant, deal with the family. If the family charged the cockpit, restrain the family. NOTE: since there wasn't any action by LEOs, I doubt it was that serious.
I'm a dad, and my kids are in elementary and middle school. From that perspective, I'm not worried about making the world safe for my precious little snowflakes, but if there's something easy someone can do, or if I think there's something easy, I ask. If I'm told no, I look for the why behind it so I can understand better what I'm asking. I try to solve a problem and work with the folks to solve the problem.
In no way would I expect that I'd be considered a security threat because I'm trying to solve a problem - even if they end up trying to convince by volume rather than logic. And I do security for a living. This captain generated a pretty big false positive, and wasted significant amounts of LEO dollars for something that clearly wasn't a threat.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:25 am
#57
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here and there
Programs: General member, former 1P
Posts: 583
"Common sense" is an often-overlooked tool that works better than "an objective standard to please everyone." If I am inviting 150 random strangers (little kids, old ladies, Jewish, Christian, Republican, Democrat, etc.) to my house to show them a movie, I would consciously select a movie that avoided themes of sex and violence because those themes often upset people. That doesn't mean I show "Shrek." "Moonrise Kingdom" and "Man on a Ledge" are two 2012 movies that come to mind as substantial films that avoid sex and violence as themes but still are movies for adults - not cartoons for kids.
And if someone complained afterwards that I was showing inoffensive pap ("Bill Murray hasn't been any good since 'Caddyshack!'") then I would still sleep soundly.
There is a happy medium between "Toy Story 2" and "Seven." "Alex Cross" ain't it.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:25 am
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
I'd like to hear the story from the FA and Captain.
Apr 2, 2013, 10:25 am
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
If none of the other passengers that were viewing on that screen minded why didn't they just tape a pice of paper over the screen when it was deemed unable to be turned off/raised infdividually.
Last edited by Baze; Apr 2, 2013 at 10:32 am Reason: fixed typo
Apr 2, 2013, 10:26 am
#60
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K (MM), DL, AA, AS, HHonors, SPG, Kimpton, Hyatt, IC PC, Marriott Titanium (LT PLT), Hertz PC
Posts: 7,231
This is what's wrong. You can't please everyone, and I'm sure showing Alex Cross pleased more people than insulting. A step below PG-13 is PG. Would you like UA to show cartoons all day? I've seen more violence in CSI than what I've seen in the edited version of Alex Cross.
For the record:
- I don't want UA to show cartoons all day
- I don't object to UA showing PG-13 movies (Iron Man, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter, Avatar, Titanic, Spider Man, Twister, Sherlock Holmes, Mission Impossible, Lincoln -- even the Bourne movies -- all examples of PG-13 movies that I have no problems with UA showing publicly on an airplane...)
- There are even R rated movies that I wouldn't have any problem with UA showing to the plane (Argo, the King's Speech come to mind, but there are certainly others).
- I don't watch TV, so I can't say much about whether "regular TV" is more violent or not
It's not about the rating -- the fact of the matter is that there are some movies that are substantially more violent than others (PG, PG-13, R or otherwise) -- this is one of those movies.
This is my last post before I go pop the popcorn - this is going to be a long day. But surely UA, knowing they are serving a plane full of people with a wide variety of ages, tastes and social mores, has their own internal "objective standards" above and beyond merely looking at the MPAA rating.
"Common sense" is an often-overlooked tool that works better than "an objective standard to please everyone." If I am inviting 150 random strangers (little kids, old ladies, Jewish, Christian, Republican, Democrat, etc.) to my house to show them a movie, I would consciously select a movie that avoided themes of sex and violence because those themes often upset people. That doesn't mean I show "Shrek." "Moonrise Kingdom" and "Man on a Ledge" are two 2012 movies that come to mind as substantial films that avoid sex and violence as themes but still are movies for adults - not cartoons for kids.
And if someone complained afterwards that I was showing inoffensive pap ("Bill Murray hasn't been any good since 'Caddyshack!'") then I would still sleep soundly.
There is a happy medium between "Toy Story 2" and "Seven." "Alex Cross" ain't it.
"Common sense" is an often-overlooked tool that works better than "an objective standard to please everyone." If I am inviting 150 random strangers (little kids, old ladies, Jewish, Christian, Republican, Democrat, etc.) to my house to show them a movie, I would consciously select a movie that avoided themes of sex and violence because those themes often upset people. That doesn't mean I show "Shrek." "Moonrise Kingdom" and "Man on a Ledge" are two 2012 movies that come to mind as substantial films that avoid sex and violence as themes but still are movies for adults - not cartoons for kids.
And if someone complained afterwards that I was showing inoffensive pap ("Bill Murray hasn't been any good since 'Caddyshack!'") then I would still sleep soundly.
There is a happy medium between "Toy Story 2" and "Seven." "Alex Cross" ain't it.
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Apr 2, 2013 at 11:19 am Reason: merge