OJgate: Asking For Orange Juice May Violate Federal Law / AA Investigating FA Helen
Dec 15, 2009, 2:06 pm
#136
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SJC
Programs: AA EXP, BA Silver, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 33,535
Ok, so the guys asked for a refund because he had a bad flight? That doesn't make sense; not in the slightest. He flew the route and got from point A to point B... so a refund for the flight is ridiculous.
Now, a few thousand miles should be in order here. Or some eVIPs. Or something like that.
Now, a few thousand miles should be in order here. Or some eVIPs. Or something like that.
Cheers.
Dec 15, 2009, 2:07 pm
#137
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ORD
Programs: AA PLT(1.8 MM); HH-GLD
Posts: 70
The incident has indeed gotten out of hand. The OJ man was on Fox News yesterday AM (12/14) as the lead story! It is a PR disaster for both AA and the airline industry as a whole. He, as EXP for 10 years, likely depends on flying for his career. If the FAA warning is sustained-his job maybe in the line (speculation) because of possible restrictions or worse banned from airline flights altogether! He has every reason and the right to clear his name. Once the FA wrote him up- the incident was no longer restricted to the plane and escalated to the next level-AA management and FAA.
Likewise, the crew does have means and the right to protect both themselves and the passengers, hence the FAA (and TSA) does give them the power to write up,and/or restrain unruly or disruptive passengers. The FAA uses its power of the law to enforce those rules. Unfortunately, all to often,that power can be lead to its abuse. Actions do have consequences to all parties involved. Writing up a passenger frivolously to "get even" erodes the authority of all cabin crews.
I doubt if this forum will have closure-because the FAA and AA will use passenger/employee confidentiality on their ultimate adjudication of this incident and it not be made public. IMHO.
Likewise, the crew does have means and the right to protect both themselves and the passengers, hence the FAA (and TSA) does give them the power to write up,and/or restrain unruly or disruptive passengers. The FAA uses its power of the law to enforce those rules. Unfortunately, all to often,that power can be lead to its abuse. Actions do have consequences to all parties involved. Writing up a passenger frivolously to "get even" erodes the authority of all cabin crews.
I doubt if this forum will have closure-because the FAA and AA will use passenger/employee confidentiality on their ultimate adjudication of this incident and it not be made public. IMHO.
Dec 15, 2009, 2:22 pm
#138
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hotlanta.
Programs: I've gone underground!
Posts: 4,604
I disagree. IF things happened as reported, or even close, I think a refund of at least that leg is in order for the level to which this may have been taken. Poor service is one thing. Being cited as a security risk and having to be debriefed upon landing is another.
Cheers.
Cheers.
(None of this is to make a statement either way on the merits of HIS refund/compensation... just trying to clarify facts.)
If the FAA warning is sustained-his job maybe in the line (speculation) because of possible restrictions or worse banned from airline flights altogether!...
I doubt if this forum will have closure-because the FAA and AA will use passenger/employee confidentiality on their ultimate adjudication of this incident and it not be made public. IMHO.
I doubt if this forum will have closure-because the FAA and AA will use passenger/employee confidentiality on their ultimate adjudication of this incident and it not be made public. IMHO.
The warning letter was not an FAA warning letter. It was an American Airlines letter saying that continued flight disruption MAY lead to you being labeled a security risk. The fact that he did not get a TSA/police greeting is significant. The fact that he has flown since then is significant. He isn't banned from any airline. He hasn't received the SSSSpecial security. In fact, as far as I can tell, the ones carrying on are the guy who wrote the consumerist.com article and the local media.
Dec 15, 2009, 2:23 pm
#139
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SJC
Programs: AA EXP, BA Silver, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 33,535
Except the guy who is asking for a refund isn't the OJ guy. The guy asking for compensation is the guy who wrote the consumerist.com article. AFAICT, he was not cited as a security risk and did not HAVE to be debriefed. As a good Samaritan, he chose to insert himself into this situation.
(None of this is to make a statement either way on the merits of HIS refund/compensation... just trying to clarify facts.)
(None of this is to make a statement either way on the merits of HIS refund/compensation... just trying to clarify facts.)
Cheers.
Dec 15, 2009, 3:20 pm
#140
Moderator: Alaska Mileage Plan
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,319
I stand by my allusion. It just seems odd to me that such an "experienced" traveler would be concerned about his mileage balance in that situation.
Dec 15, 2009, 3:22 pm
#141
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EUG
Programs: AS MVP, AA MM, HH Diamond, MR Gold
Posts: 8,220
Has the idea ever been entertained of putting surveillance cameras on planes? Lord knows every step we take on land is recorded somewhere. I think it would go a long way as both a deterrent and a resolution for many of these "he said/she said" problems.
Dec 15, 2009, 3:38 pm
#142
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Dec 15, 2009, 5:10 pm
#143
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: DFW, 3.5 MM, AA EXP, LIFETIME PLATINUM, MARRIOTT LIFETIME PLATINUM, STARWOOD AMBASSADOR 223 NIGHTS, AND LIFETIME GOLD, HILTON DIAMOND, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE ELITE
Posts: 5,847
Can't wait to see how this one turns out.
Dec 15, 2009, 5:24 pm
#144
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hotlanta.
Programs: I've gone underground!
Posts: 4,604
The thread? My guess is that it keeps getting bounced from page 2 to 1 every day or two for 2 more weeks then it will randomly be revived after that when someone else decides a new thread in this same issue needs to be started.
Mr OJ? Not much. He'll disappear and continue to fly AA after someone in the exec office writes him a letter of apology regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
Mr Consumerist.com? Nothing. He'll try to drag it out until the media gets sick of the story and goes away.
Helen? Other FAs named Helen will loathe her until the end of time as some snide FTer asks them "are you THAT" Helen? Helen will work until she's 57 and can qualify for a workers comp claim for repetative stress disorder.
Mr OJ? Not much. He'll disappear and continue to fly AA after someone in the exec office writes him a letter of apology regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
Mr Consumerist.com? Nothing. He'll try to drag it out until the media gets sick of the story and goes away.
Helen? Other FAs named Helen will loathe her until the end of time as some snide FTer asks them "are you THAT" Helen? Helen will work until she's 57 and can qualify for a workers comp claim for repetative stress disorder.
Dec 15, 2009, 6:11 pm
#145
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW-In Plano & CDG-In the 11th
Programs: DL Diamond, AA revenue negative, Bonvoy Titanium +, Avis likes me
Posts: 3,209
The thread? My guess is that it keeps getting bounced from page 2 to 1 every day or two for 2 more weeks then it will randomly be revived after that when someone else decides a new thread in this same issue needs to be started.
Mr OJ? Not much. He'll disappear and continue to fly AA after someone in the exec office writes him a letter of apology regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
Mr Consumerist.com? Nothing. He'll try to drag it out until the media gets sick of the story and goes away.
Helen? Other FAs named Helen will loathe her until the end of time as some snide FTer asks them "are you THAT" Helen? Helen will work until she's 57 and can qualify for a workers comp claim for repetative stress disorder.
Mr OJ? Not much. He'll disappear and continue to fly AA after someone in the exec office writes him a letter of apology regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
Mr Consumerist.com? Nothing. He'll try to drag it out until the media gets sick of the story and goes away.
Helen? Other FAs named Helen will loathe her until the end of time as some snide FTer asks them "are you THAT" Helen? Helen will work until she's 57 and can qualify for a workers comp claim for repetative stress disorder.
Dec 15, 2009, 9:24 pm
#146
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SFO
Programs: Grounded
Posts: 669
Except the guy who is asking for a refund isn't the OJ guy. The guy asking for compensation is the guy who wrote the consumerist.com article. AFAICT, he was not cited as a security risk and did not HAVE to be debriefed. As a good Samaritan, he chose to insert himself into this situation.
(None of this is to make a statement either way on the merits of HIS refund/compensation... just trying to clarify facts.)
Your last point is absolutely correct, there will be no true closure because of confidentiality issues.
The warning letter was not an FAA warning letter. It was an American Airlines letter saying that continued flight disruption MAY lead to you being labeled a security risk. The fact that he did not get a TSA/police greeting is significant. The fact that he has flown since then is significant. He isn't banned from any airline. He hasn't received the SSSSpecial security. In fact, as far as I can tell, the ones carrying on are the guy who wrote the consumerist.com article and the local media.
(None of this is to make a statement either way on the merits of HIS refund/compensation... just trying to clarify facts.)
Your last point is absolutely correct, there will be no true closure because of confidentiality issues.
The warning letter was not an FAA warning letter. It was an American Airlines letter saying that continued flight disruption MAY lead to you being labeled a security risk. The fact that he did not get a TSA/police greeting is significant. The fact that he has flown since then is significant. He isn't banned from any airline. He hasn't received the SSSSpecial security. In fact, as far as I can tell, the ones carrying on are the guy who wrote the consumerist.com article and the local media.
Part of the media hype is that the story is so ridiculous on its face, which works out great for them. An FA freaking out over a supposed orange juice request? It's like it's made for local TV news.
Dec 15, 2009, 9:33 pm
#147
Join Date: May 2003
Location: IAH
Programs: formerly UA GS, now lowly MM lifetime gold :(
Posts: 1,204
Dec 15, 2009, 9:50 pm
#148
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: STL
Programs: AA 2MM, AS MVP Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 12,966
Dec 15, 2009, 9:56 pm
#149
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: stl
Programs: AA LT Plat/8.1mm now with 1350 miles left in my account and proud of it.. SPG LT Titanium.
Posts: 3,082
i just took the time to read the links ( slow night in stl ) and it is interesting as it appears from reading the witness statement and the oj guys statement that essentially the entire cabin rallied around the oj guy. there are those out there who insist that the other side be heard and would want to cross examine the witnesses and see a complete investigation of the facts, before they would condemn an aa employee, action or policy but it does seem that poor helen may have snapped. as an aside when i first read this i thought for sure the fa was my sister in law as this is clearly something she could do on a bad day. anyway, the airline is not perfect but in the post 911 world fa's have the power to involve the legal system using only their own judgment with consequences for those they use it on that can be way out of proportion for the actual offense that the fa believe was committed. there are really no checks and balances on the airplane anymore as the pilots can't come out and actually assess the situation and must leave it to the fa to exercise that authority. not really what they are trained for.
Dec 15, 2009, 10:01 pm
#150
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 5,132
I would not have acquiesced to a request for private chat. And I would have been afraid to even go to the bathroom lest I be accosted and "forced" into a private chat.
But I do have a better solution which I will pursue with all vigour - I will not fly AA!