Originally Posted by PhilH
I was just trying to show how incomplete evidence can be presented in such a way to lead viewers to a certain conclusion. For example the only evidence that the No.1 did nothing about the situation is that our undercover crew didn't see them do anything about it. Given the observed chaos during turnaround/boarding, she could easily have missed the No.1 doing something about it, couldn't she? Now you can make assumptions about the likelihood of that, based on subjectivity or preconceived thoughts built up and encouraged earlier in the programme, but that's exactly the kind of stuff that these type of programmes rely on for their effectiveness.
So, to summarise, the crew aren't able to determine if an exit is u/s or not because they haven't had the training.
When they think an exit is u/s and escalate it, the No.1 is too busy to deal with because of the short turn around time. So the reporter, who is crew, doesn't know if it's been escalated, reported to the captain, and / or resolved? And then they take off?
I understand your point about the programme not being very selective about what they show, and what they don't, however they did state that the reporter was unaware if the exit was fixed. CRM (Crew Resource Management) in most airlines would ensure that if an exit was u/s, all crew would know (so they don't direct pax in that direction). Also, if an u/s was fixed, they should also be informed. The programme made it clear, that this was not the case.