EWR AS F/A yelling evacuate
 

This illustrates the ridiculous of TSA. I thought they were supposed to screen people? If so, how would the men have a gun? Or bomb?

Oh, and since we don't know anything about the men yet, let's see if the gate agent actually knew the most dangerous type of men in America. If these were 2 white men.

The article says the two men were later allowed to board.

I know that speculation is the food for Flyertalk but I will wait until the facts come out prior to having an opinion.

If this situation resulted in a missed connection or some other sort of travel misfortune based on this employee's apparently erroneous suspicion ( the threat boarded after) would Alaska have any liability? Not just on Alaska but any airline?

And the ridiculousness of this paranoid AS employee...over-reacting and inciting panic because she thinks she's an FBI field agent or something. She should have simply called the police if she really thought the two men were suspicious and let them handle it according to procedure. It's a wonder no one got hurt from a trip, slip, or fall accident during the chaos - those were the real dangers.

The mods should probably change the thread title as well since it was a GA that pulled the fire alarm as they were about to board and yelled for pax to evacuate, not an FA.

Does anyone have any idea what really happened? AFAICT, a GA freaked out over two men boarding for some reason and pulled the fire alarm.

Then they evacuated the plane. Is that the correct response for a fire alarm in a terminal?

Then somehow NYPD SWAT showed up? Wouldn’t that response have taken a while? I thought that the Port Authority handled normal policing at airports.

None of this seems like the normal response to a GA freaking out or a fire alarm, so she must have communicated something very specific to the police.

The linked SFGate article actually says that the fire alarm was pulled by an FA, but at the gate.

There are other articles (CBS New York, for example) online that have better detail than the SFGate one posted in this thread. From all accounts, it sounds like the vast majority of people were still in the boarding area, not on the plane. And it's a pax that uses the SWAT word, when the official quoted is Port Authority Police.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/09...es-terminal-a/

An earlier version may have, but it doesn't now.

Probably just a reporting error. The PAPD has jurisdiction and if they need mutual aid, it would likely come from Newark and Elizabeth PD well before calling for help from NY.

The airline employee tried to confront the men and then pulled a fire alarm, which led to the evacuation around 8:30 p.m., the authorities said. It was not immediately clear what had prompted the flight attendant to be suspicious of the men, who were later questioned by the police and then allowed to board.

As already noted upthread, it's a reporting error implicating the action by a FA. FAs don't scan boarding passes at the Gate, only Gate Agents do.

"As alarms rang out inside an empty Terminal A unattended bags lay scattered across the ground. Around 200 frightened passengers left them behind as they fled the airport following verbal instructions from the gate agent."

Still lots of unknowns and different points of views from articles. I'll save final judgement until a full report comes out but as a whole... it's better to be overly cautious these days. I think any final report will show that this was an over-reaction, everyone is on edge all the time these days... but you often hear survivors or witnesses after the fact talking about how something felt wrong, the person(s) were giving off bad vibes, acting oddly, etc... and no one intervened.

Maybe the FA/GA had a really strong sense of that? Plus one article says they tried to flee from the employee?

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?

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...559265201.html

if you say so.... lol

So I guess you "save final judgment" but actually pass a wholly incorrect judgment first. Is your final judgment even more incorrect?

And "see something say something" doesn't work with a psychotic person. Unless you also believe in their delusions. Which, I guess because this is America, isn't uncommon.

glad she didnt have this breakdown while at 35,000 feet

Has it been determined that this was a FA or GA? I have searched everything and the most recent (2 days ago) story started off the article by saying a Gate Agent but finished the article with Flight Attendant. Alaska Airlines has issued an apology for its employee, but does not mention that it was a FA or GA. I have rarely seen FA's leave the plane and walk back up to the gate once they are on the aircraft particularly in large stations like EWR. Does Alaska have their own GAs at EWR or do they contract through AA, I have not been through there in awhile and cannot remember. If they do contract then I guess this would be a FA.

I was obviously being sarcastic. Well, saying that if you drink the TSA kool-aid then you shouldn't be worried.
Obviously that lady was drinking more than the TSA's kool-aid.

But the thing is these 2 men weren't running around waving guns. They "ran away" from questioning. Hmm, doesn't appear like any of the other gunmen we have seen?

Newark in particular failed more than 50% of the undercover tests to get stuff past security so that statement and the whole using your head because your in a sterile area is a mute point. Being oblivious to the fact that something could happen is what causes things to happen again.

Idk maybe it's just because of how close I was to the WTC when it went down but I'm always thinking defensively sterile or not. Of course the details of this portray a much different issue but the fact of the matter the term "sterile area" is meaningless to me.

People in NYC would also call them ESU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...y_Service_Unit

I'd always thought of SWAT as an LAPD originated thing, but it turns out Philly invented this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT

It was a couple of Chinese guys
 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/alaska-airlines-newark-chaos