sluggoaafa

I can most certainly tell you that it is NOT a pattern for AA. AA is the leader in GLBT issues in the aviation industry. They wouldn't be allowed to be Human Rights Campaign sponsors if they didn't support the GLBT community

AA.COM/RAINBOW

rrgg

Well, we are talking about the New Yorker.

Since there's a little speculation, here's another guess. The two boys maybe know the reporter and saw her in the Hamptons or NY club or fabulous restaurant or fill_in_the_blank. As usual they exaggerated the story for dramatic effect. The reporter, in true New Yorker style, printed the their full version, being careful not to remove anything that would deflate the sensationalism or the anti-gay slant. OK, so I have no idea if that happened. But is it so hard to believe the 2 are understating their behavior and that the FA would have taken the same action regardless of gay/straight? In my experience FA are pretty gay-friendly.

Side note: Why is this titled "Queer Eye for the AA guy?" When I saw the title I thought AA was getting a makeover- new interiors, Ralph Lauren seatcovers, and so on.

TR35R

HTTP 403.9 - Access Forbidden(PG-18)

LACouple

^ That's priceless, thank you for that needed humor on this sad, disheartening thread!


Cheers


LACouple

Jakebeth

But back to civility -

Sluggo, seriously - do you really think it's so preposterous that an FA would do this?

Why wouldn't you expect to find at least as many homophobic FAs in your ranks as we do in broad society?

themicah

(deleted--duplicate post)

srallen

I have never had a problem with crew while traveling with my same-sex partner and doing things like holding hands, head on shoulder, peck on the cheek, etc. More than that I think is inappropriate regardless of genders involved. I can't imagine though that in an industry that is as gay-visible as the flight attendant industry, such ignorance and behavior on the part of the FA could happen.

If I were in their shoes I probably would have sat down and either called a lawyer or sat down and kissed my partner. Depends on how political I felt at the moment. Oh, and I probably would have made fun of the FA with 1960s Texas hair....

themicah

Kissing = MIXING LIQUIDS the passengers brought on board with them!

Isn't that exactly what the terrorist threat is supposed to be?!!

Of COURSE they should have diverted the plane!

LACouple

A sincere thank you for the link, it is nice to see that level of support from the corporate office, however that does not always filter down to the front lines when people have been raised in a culture of intolerance and even hatred. Still, it does show that one would not expect this type of rubbish to be happening on AA as much as it may be.



Cheers


LACouple

FWAAA

Agreed.

If it happened the way the author says it did, sounds like a pilot was itchin' to divert his airplane. Since I doubt that was the case - pilots don't really want to divert - the threat makes the pilot look somewhat juvenile, and that's not what the guys with the stripes who call themselves professionals should be doing.

sluggoaafa

any time LACouple, and I will agree it's not always present with individuals.

To respond to Jakebeth, I'm sure, like any other job out there, there are individuals that are homophobic. Yes, it is sad that in todays society there are people that question what is not the norm.

If the couple were just trying to sleep and were just 'pecking' each other, then by all means, the FAs involved should be dealt with per AA policy.

But again, just like any type of media source out there, how much should you trust what is printed in a periodical?

justageek

I think this observation is key. Nobody is alleging that there was any security risk, which is the only legitimate reason to divert (other than the plane malfunctioning or someone becoming critically ill). The inappropriate threats/power trip are much more disturbing to me than any potential underlying bigotry.

WRCSolberg

According to the article, the two pax "backing up" the two men were seated directly behind them. I highly doubt they saw any of the actual act(s). They just seem to be corraborating what the men claim the FAs said.

And you're assuming an article written second hand, from one side's viewpoint, is 100% accurate?

justageek

I think the implication is that the FA who started this spat was Dallas-based. I don't think the location of the headquarters is as much an issue as the fact that headquarters location -> large hub -> large FA base -> large percentage of FAs from Texas -> larger chance of finding a bigoted FA.

It doesn't seem like a huge stretch to think that there are more bigots (as a % of total population) in Dallas than there is in, say, San Francisco -- if for no other reason than a bigot would go completely crazy living in San Francisco and would move away.

Who is generalizing about gays? The FA didn't generalize about gays. She saw a very specific activity and escalated it up the chain of command all the way to the pilot. The question is whether the pax response to the FA's escalation truly necessitated threats of a diversion (and the implication that there would be police action upon arrival). There was no generalizing on the FAs' part. According to the article, they simply saw behavior that they considered unacceptable. Most on this board seem to be arguing that it was the FAs' action, not the pax's behavior, that was unacceptable.

divemaster

I wasn't going to report it. Mrs Divemaster and I just thought it was an inappropriate "display of public affection". I just felt bad for her two kids sitting across the aisle [my guess is that they were about 10 and 12] who were also witnessesing mom and new dad with their hands all over each other. It was far from a reportable offense. It was just one of those displays that are best done in private if they go on for an extended period of time. I don't care what the sex, sexes, color, weight [or other PC term] of the participants may be.

Now, if the back of my seat was being kicked during the entire flight, that would be a different issue.