That isn't very nice.

True; it's never good to generalize (especially in a negative manner). However, I think many of us have encountered FAs that simply don't like customers. In such cases, the best way to preserve peace is often to zone out.

Joe Sugarman updates his blog:

If you�ve been following this bazaar [sic] tale when United Airlines kicked me off a flight because a flight attendant thought I was a security threat. (see the previous blog for details).

United Airlines contacted me and shed more light on the situation. In their investigation of the incident, they learned that the flight attendant thought I said, �Is there a LEO on board.� LEO is an abbreviation for Law Enforcement Officer. �I actually said, will you be serving a meal on board.� I asked all my friends and family if they knew what a LEO was and the only thing they would come up with is that it is an astrological sign.

Although �meal� and LEO could be mixed up, she further said that she then asked me to clarify my request. She did not. That was an absolute lie. And I�m willing to take a lie detector test to prove that she made her statement about security and then walked away. There was no clarification, no questions�nothing. I had also never heard the term LEO before in my life...


More here...

Instressing.

Just read the original blogpost. Not disputing Sugarman's account but if LEOs did in fact address Sugarman by name when they approached onboard (and Sugarm responded in the affirmative) then I wonder at the necessity for requesting his DL, inquiring where he was born and where he lived in ascertaining why they were summoned. Unless Sugarman was under arrest he had every right to question their questions.

Not that they have a say in the matter but I have to wonder what went through the minds of the LEOs once they heard Sugarman reiterate to the UA rep that his request was about meals onboard rather than police onboard? Something more profane than "fortheloveofmike ... " I'd bet.

News reporting, by its nature, lags behind first-person accounts and now sometimes even behind the more-credible blogs.

Of course it doesn't hold up. Again as usual "who with any intelligence or even a femto-ounce of common sense is going to just get up and go" Not going to happen!.................

Perhaps so. But it does not follow that we should expect to find the same proportion of mentally ill people hired into jobs involving high stress, security, public safety and customer contact. A majority of Americans are overweight but overweight Americans don't get hired as fashion models. The 10 to 15 percent of cabin staff I think are mentally ill also have unchecked power, a flair for arbitrary judgments, and -- too often -- vindictive tendencies toward both customers and employer. They're also natural, blithe liars, as the upthread discussion suggests. Their union deals shield them from accountability or even simple reason. That is why it is wisest to:

At least at first, until you have observed his or her demeanor from a distance. With apologies to the majority of straight-headed, hard-working flight attendants out there. But you all know a certain proportion of your colleagues are out of their minds; their madness makes your jobs harder too. You have to forgive passengers like me for protecting ourselves by avoiding all unnecessary eye / verbal contact. A more congenial environment could be achieved if it were easier to get rid of the difficult minority.

From reports in the press and blogs, it seems that LEOs these days default to beginning virtually any encounter with an ID check and a warrant check on the person. I don't for a minute believe that this should hold up in court, have some doubt it would hold up in court, and would debate strongly that the citizen feels the ID request is "voluntary" or consensual. In fact, citizens who decline such requests tend to end up in escalated/power-trip situations with the LEO, e.g, the FTer who was handcuffed at LAX for refusing to produce his bar association card.

This obsession with ID/warrant checking everyone they encounter is one of several issues that I think the entire LEO community needs a brief stand-down and re-training to address. One of the others being filming/photographing police encounters.

Pretty much the first thing out of any cop's mouth is "See s'mID". I think it's part of that Command Presence cr@p - it's supposed to establish Who's The Boss from the beginning.