In the same way a newspaper should change its subtitle for the photo: "an Alaskan Airlines flight attendant"
I find it more annoying that misspelled words don't get changed in titles, thus making search impossible.

First of all, "See something, say something" doesn't work at all if you then criticize the person for acting. Speaking for myself I would much rather have someone err on the side of safety. Lets just say the GA let these people board and then some unfortunate incident happened in flight. We would all me sitting around criticizing the GA for her inaction. Why don't we wait for facts before we make conclusions.

Because supposedly this is a sterile area. What do you think the men are going to do?
The problem with your logic is that "turning off your brain" is never a good thing.

(to illustrate why, do you just want to follow a toddler around and pretend like the toddler is a police dog, sniffing out all "bad" people? Of course not. Why?)

A New York CBS affiliate is reporting that "Sources told CBS2’s Tony Aiello on Tuesday the flight attendant is bipolar and had an issue with her medication."

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/09...line-employee/

I wonder what type of (anonymous) source would have that information? Further, what type of limitations there are for flight attendants taking medications for mental health conditions?

This whole incident is a hot mess, I wonder just how much of the reality of it any of us will actually hear?

Exactly. Which is why we have had incidents where obvious over-reactions result in innocent people being harrassed, police resources wasted, travelers' time wasted, etc. Just a few examples that I recall:

Remember the incident - also involving an AS flight - with the Orthodox Jewish men saying prayers?
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ticle-1.123877

or the Arabic language student hassled for having Arabic flashcards
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-settles-suit/

or the man who almost wasn't allowed to board because another passenger was "uncomfortable" after hearing the man speaking Arabic:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arabic-...er-complained/

"Better safe than sorry" is fine where the additional step or action carries no real risk or cost in itself. For example triple-checking your door lock before leaving home is overkill but doesn't carry any meaningful risk or potential cost. Whereas the AS employee's actions did create a negative outcome - people were panicked, there was a risk of injury in the rush to "evacuate", a flight was delayed, first responder time and resources were used up, and two passengers were detained & questioned for no good reason.

To be fair, on average humans are inherently poor at assessing risk including probability of outcome without training. Discretion, logical thinking, and proportionality are very important in assessing a situation. But all the more reason to start with the least disruptive means of addressing the perceived risk - such as calling the airport police with a description of the men and what direction they walked towards, for example.

Employees taking medication for a diagnosed mental health issues are better than employees NOT taking medication for an un-diagnosed mental health issues.
If you start limiting what people can do, or penalize them for seeking help... they'll stop seeking help or just not report that they're struggling. That's how you end up with people going postal.

If it's true that it was a medical mishap (new medication, dose, etc) that caused this... that is unfortunate and hopefully the employee gets help and can return to work. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where a person who was struggling with any disease could inform their employer that due to a change in their treatment, they need a little extra time off to adjust/recover... or to serve in a reduced role for a week or two while their body adjusts.

Most companies don't offer that. And even if one did... most people wouldn't feel safe asking for that kind of treatment for a "mental health" issue vs. a physical disease for example.

PAPD has 2,200 officers, which makes them similar in size to SFPD, and considerably larger than Seattle PD (albeit the majority of their officers are not stationed near EWR). They have their own ESU --- basically what people would call SWAT in NYC. But I'm guessing most passengers just classify any officer with a rifle and body armor as "SWAT".

Yeah, she can't pulls the fire alarms. It's very wrong. She should known better! There is no threats or criminal activity. No one pulls the fire alarms. No one! She could be arrested or disciplinary action against her.

She didn't take her medications. She need go to see psychiatrist. She can't have solve her behaviors.

And with the multitude of TSA failures, very much less than zero! Hence why it is often referred to as Security Theatre.

James

You mean thousands of feet in the air?
So, these men will rush the cockpit and crash the airport?