EmailKid

Well, there's a reason why some shops have a sign that says:

" you must NOT be talking on the phone while making an order "

With heavy handed interaction and overreaching FAs, I still tend to side with her.

After all, " we're here for your safety "

cbn42

I'm not making a determination of fault. I'm saying that I find the passengers' determination of fault to be credible. As I explained earlier, it would be almost impossible for a passenger to say or do something that would justify being removed from the plane without other passengers noticing.

To me, not at all. Neither being on your phone nor using snark is a valid reason to remove someone from the plane. Failure to follow crewmember instructions has to be willful in order for it to merit a penalty. With regards to responding "in a snarky fashion", that is a completely subjective judgment and anyone can make the argument that a comment was snarky.

DiscHandler

totally disagree, as I noted earlier, many passengers tend to be engaged in their games and phone conversations when they're seated and pretty oblivious (as evidenced by this woman).

As for willful intent, is that the how the regulations are written or is this merely a statement of your feelings on the matter?

cbn42

The regulations state that it is illegal to "interfere" with a crewmember's duties. The willful intent is my opinion. There are many reasons a passenger might fail to follow crewmember instructions, such as having headphones on, not understanding the language, or just being too tired to think. To me, none of them justify removal from the aircraft. Only if the passenger understands the instruction and fails to comply should a penalty be imposed.

PVDtoDEL

+1 I think it's entirely plausible that a rude interaction could go by unnoticed by the other passengers nearby - everybody else is focused on other things during the boarding process.

HoyaSFOIAD

Welp, after gathering all the info I can, I can only conclude that I really have no clue what actually transpired, who was to blame, or who deserved (or didn't deserve) what.

What I do know, after gathering all the info I can, is that this story just furthers my annoyance with people talking away on their cell phones at times when they need to focus.

Drives me batty.

Gotta get a kick out of ubiquitous cameras and social media as Drama Delivery Devices. Drug-like really. I'm not above relishing the next hit as much as I hate to admit that.

Anyway, that's all I've got.

lrgphd

I very recently witnessed similar behavior on a US Airways flight. What might actually help would be for AA to publish the criteria under which an flight attendant is permitted to threaten to remove a passenger, or to actually remove a passenger. Offering a passenger a $250 voucher for having her entire travel plans disrupted is not adequate, nor is it appropriate to create a climate in which other passengers don't know the rules or are simply subject to intimidation if a flight attendant doesn't like them. Passengers pay good money for their seats and their time is as important as anyone's. The criteria under which a flight attendant is empowered to confiscate a customer's time and potentially money should be public, and should consist of more than the vague "obey all crew member instructions." Wouldn't everyone be safer if this were the case? I imagine that personnel regulations prevent the airline from announcing whether disciplinary action is taken against the flight attendant but they need to do more than just offer a voucher. Clear rules need to be published that both the public and flight attendants can count on. I thought that the extreme sanction of removing someone from a flight was intended to address serious threats to the operation or safety of a flight, not the making of snarky comments or talking on one's cell phone. Stress in both passengers and flight attendants may be an inevitable result of policy decisions being made by several airlines that have made flying more difficult and less pleasant. Flight attendants have an important role in protecting safety and need authority to do that, but with power comes responsibility. Clarity as to the rules would protect both sides. Even if the more flight-attendant-friendly version of this story is accurate, it still seems capricious and a considerable overreaction. Flight attendants may be feeling powerless over developments in their industry and be taking out their frustrations on people with even less power, the customers - but that's an explanation, not an excuse. Clear, transparent rules are needed.

UKtravelbear

from the washington post

cmcc

Does anyone have some insight into this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...-off-a-flight/

I'm guessing she bought a Priceline type ticket and when a full fare passenger showed up an IDB was the result.

tom911

See:
Speculation: US 408 FA removes pax at PHX, people boo 12 Oct 2015

cmcc

Thanks!

Kate2015

I'm a little surprised that all those passengers saying they'd never fly AA again couldn't tell the difference between a US Airways cabin crew and an AA one.

FWAAA

The plot thickens . . .

Interesting quote from the Washington Post article:

Sounds like an out-of-control flight attendant. This passenger encountered a male "Helen" in Phoenix.

I'd say you nailed it. Not only did AA rebook, but they apologized and put the blame on the "team members" who screwed up.

EmailKid

Considering how much larger AA is than US, it is possible that many/most purchased tickets on AA.com. And they may be aware that US is going away for good (well in this case ... ) VERY soon.

Kate2015

Sure, but the crews will remain.

Oh, just me that avoids US flights like the plague? Ok.