canadiancow

I don't know what any of this has to do with anything. I was responding to a point about what you are paying for.

J can visit PY and Y. PY can visit Y.

That is the official (and, IMO, sensible) policy. The end.

24left

I thought I'd revisit the posts written by the AC FTers who were onboard this AC 7, and were not amused by the behaviour of these 4 women (or use your own descriptor).

I think these posts are worth a re-read, you know, to come full-circle back to where it began. We can all debate the merits of the class system the airlines created and the apparent class warfare that may ensue, but it doesn't change the negative experience these FTers had, nor does it excuse the behavior of the 4 pax who were causing the disturbance.

I could be wrong, but based on comments in these posts, the women seemed to be employees or at the very least, friends of the cabin crew who were working on AC 7.

CZAMFlyer

hu·mor
ˈ(h)yo͞omər/
noun
noun: humour

1. 1.
   the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech.

Evidently, mine was a poor attempt.

Yawwwn. How udderly dreadful life would be if we submitted to living within the confines of official policy. I'll wager every one of us would accept a perk that lay outside of sensible policy, if so offered.

global happy traveller

I agree with you..... That's why there are policies/rules/principles put in place to maintain 'peace' on board...........
Bad enough to argue with idiots that want to challenge published rules....... so without rules you can barely enforce anything except an all-out confrontation

PS.... Yes GHT Sr used to do this with us...... Mom+Dad in F or J..... and we in Y...... The only time we were allowed up J was 30 mins before landing so we can deplane together.

longtimeflyin

Fair point. While it is an AC issue and the Y passengers certainly benefit by getting things they are not entitled to nor they paid for it, ultimately someone pays. I'd argue that fares may go up for business class passengers as a result of all of this leakage. Perhaps this is why Air Canada clamped down on passengers receiving things from a cabin they didn't pay for, and this goes for both directions.

PointWeasel

I wish we had photo evidence to back up this tale. Just sayin'.

DrunkCargo

Ok, my eyes and ears (arguably all 5 senses, ahem) are recording all the time when I'm conscious, but writing to a mind that is distorted with various biases. If an SD wants to deny a reasonable (and normal) service request, I could either try to a) remember it, b) write it down, c) video it, d) audio record it. Of the four options, a) and d) are discreet unless I intentionally disclose the audio recording like in the example I gave. In this case, I intentionally disclosed the recording in the hopes of service correction rather than defensive entrenchment. Upon subsequent complaint I received compensation without resorting to the audio, however I did review the audio as objectively as possible prior to complaining and made note to AC that the recording was available for their review. With respect to my business, I'd assert my seat is probably the place I have the most business being when onboard.

With respect to this thread, obviously I would not advocate overtly recording the GGW. However a recording that could be done discreetly would bolster credibility without the cost of increased aggravation. It seems the OP did attempt to record discreetly (this resulting thread) but unfortunately his discretion was insufficient, resulting in being discovered by a GGW and increased aggravation and reaction: bumped seat. With the OP, I'd assert he had business being in his seat. The emissions (and physical contact) impinged on his seat, and any expected privacy eroded. This is why you don't have a loud conversation about private matters in a restaurant.

Obviously, I believe it is socially-acceptable to adopt current technology to increase objectivity. The only reason law/policy is brought up is some SD mentioned law. And I posit that society seems to be ok with the benefits of surveillance over the cost of lost privacy. I'm confident social backlash would ensue if UA acted against the pax who recorded Dr. Trespasser, despite their Rhapsody-published policy prohibiting recording video/photos onboard. Sure that pax broke policy, but it sure seems socially-accepted that the video was captured.

So yes, if you behave in a manner that impacts me, I will record you... I choose audio because it's discreet and I don't have to attempt to reason with other parties in the heat of the moment. But if not recording with sensor technology, then with pen/paper/blog/ft/etc... if not, then with my mind. Deal with it. Maybe, in public, behave in a manner that you're ok with others witnessing. I expect the same scrutiny of myself in return.

Help me understand the folly of this...

DrunkCargo

Drowning in booze does the same... even in seat 33B

DrunkCargo

When I wait for the J lav, and I see a pax exit and walk towards Y... this is in actuality, something taken from J. If I see a Y pax use the J lav, I could care less unless I need the lav at that time. J or Y pax have equal probability of missing the toilet and causing the same mess...

wrt to catered goods, is it fair to assume catering is budgeted based on historical consumption? If this consumption is constantly padded with leakage to Y, is the cost of this additional catering not borne by J by ticket rev? Actually, I could say the same about the moisturizer in J lav I suppose... (honestly don't know the diff between J and Y lavs as I really only use J)

Does this cause me personal consternation? Not really... some things feel victimless, but of course we all know this is like CC fraud, insurance fraud, having a conversation at work, hitting refresh repeatedly on a website, and other forms of "theft" which aren't so readily apparent as theft... is it wrong? yes it is. Is it materially worth arguing? meh, I love FT. =P

acysb87

Y pax using J lav causing leakage ??

canadiancow

But then the more people who use it, the dirtier it gets.

That assumes there's a constant amount of "theft" on every flight. But if it's only the rare flight where all the Kit Kats are stolen, then they wouldn't factor that in. And if Y pax stealing Kit Kats causes my J ticket price to increase, that also seems unreasonable.

But I have serious doubts they really track this stuff. Every transcon I'm on runs out of Coke Zero, and every SD I've talked to about it says it's a constant issue. But it's never fixed. So clearly they're not doing anything about it.

seenitall

Maybe this is a strange opinion, but sometimes I fly in J, and sometimes I fly in Y. Sometimes I pay, sometimes my employer pays. But no matter what the situation, I do not appreciate people who are seated either in a distant part of the same cabin, or in a different cabin (of higher or lower class), coming up to a person seated close to me and having an extended chat. Indeed, because personal space is so much less in Y, someone swanning in from J and talking to my neighbor would be even more irritating to me than someone from Y talking to my neighbor in J. Moral of the story -- if you want to chat with someone, reserve seats next to each other -- not in different cabins, or in different areas of the same cabin. And if reserving such seats turns out to be impossible, suck it up and remain separated for the duration of the flight. Don't be an annoying interloper in anyone else's space.

CZAMFlyer

I'm a big proponent of discretion. We are blessed with rather large brains and are able to discern differences in when & how it's acceptable to respond to any manner of social situations. When I mentioned 'record by any means', I was referring to audio/video/camera devices - not our eyes and ears.

There are times in these days of smartphones-in-everybody's-hands when it may be helpful to record an unusual or potentially serious incident (the recent UA doctor-dragging incident, this week's AA tasering, etc). But we're discussing in this thread, the instance of a handful of people gathering around a seat and perhaps being slightly disruptive to surrounding passengers. They weren't deliberately misbehaving per se; it sounds like a simple case of inconsideration.

We're all guilty of various degrees of failing to consider others at some points in our daily routine. No doubt you and I and all people reading this have unconsciously irritated somebody, somewhere recently. The two FT members, the dude in 12G and anybody else in the area could have easily asked the women and/or the cabin crew to tone down the revelry. There is little to be gained by quietly seething and reporting on it after the fact to an anonymous internet forum. But if you decide to be the public arbiter of moral standards, and whip out your phone to photograph, video or otherwise record fellow passengers with the intent to 'file a report', then it crosses the line into frankly douchy behaviour. That's what I meant when I stated the term 'in a place you have no business being'. It wasn't a literal reference to your seat, it referred to being quick to act in the role of Citizen-Cop. Whether done surreptitiously or overtly, being the person who decides to be 'the narc' only increases the likelihood of initiating a nasty reaction, and making the job of the cabin crew that much more difficult.

I'm not saying we should face forward, keep our heads down and ignore all that goes on around us. I'm saying use common sense. Which sadly isn't very common.

YXUhomebase

grov

The only time I've ever officially complained to an airline was to AC about their staff behaviour and it sounds like a very similar case to this. In my case the FAs didn't serve the J folks anything, including drinks, for over two hours while they constantly wined and dined their own folks sitting at the back of J. Lucky I don't travel AC often.