|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Trap. Prey. Meal. Remember that from the other night? :D
In this case, I was giving an example ... but I cannot apologize that such situation doesn't fit your needs. ;) Danger of jumping to conclusions. Tainted stories will lead to corrupt conclusions if all the facts are not known. ;) |
Originally Posted by 24th ID
I wouldn't consider that jumping to a conclusion. If that were the case, there would be no need for investigators. There would be no investigations.
Tainted stories will lead to corrupt conclusions if all the facts are not known. ;) Would you really call an agreed-upon factual account of an event (or series of related events) a tainted story? I know that I would not do such in such circumstances. And if I were a non-party, non-witness -- say, like you -- then I would certainly not be comfortable sticking the label of "tainted story" upon a factual account agreed upon even by those who had a chip on their shoulder that time. |
Originally Posted by 24th ID
As I stated before, it is much easier to come to a conclusion when all facts are known. If all the facts are not known, it is possible that the conclusion will be corrupt. You decided to reveal all the facts at a later time which means you initial statement was tainted. (As in leaving out details of the entire event.) If your story would have contained all known facts, then I would not have been debating the issue with you. :o |
Originally Posted by 24th ID
:D
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Flight scheduled to go from A to B became a flight going from A to C to D to B and passengers going from A to B were not informed until after boarding and additional passengers were loaded. Upon finding this out, a passenger simply makes a light-hearted comment and, to that effect, asked the FA something akin to: "if the plane was going to stop at multiple places (where before it was non-stop) then should he expect that they would be stopping at X, Y, and Z too?" [The tone was not even sarcastic as he was smiling and had a light chuckle when he said it.]
A few minutes later, the FA got the pilot who then came out and yelled at the passenger and told him to shut-up and not bother "[his] crew". And at that time the pilot had him moved to the back. Passenger complied and kept quiet. A few minutes later the pilot came back and kicked him off the flight. The passenger wisely kept his mouth shut and complied fully. I hope he wrote a nice little letter to NW and got something for it. ;) |
Originally Posted by DMorris
:D :D :D :D Sure, it went down exactly as GU states it. :D :D :D :D
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I cannot help it if I am more nowledgeable about this matter (and then some) than some others here. ;)
|
Originally Posted by DMorris
Dates, flight #s, origin, destination, etc. would be very helpful. ;)
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
No.
|
If they're Canadian, do they flip oot? :p
|
Interesting discussion.
My sympathies lie with the passengers who have run foul of the authorities because of either a minor indiscretion on the part of the former or a major misunderstanding on the part of the latter. One of the problems that beset customers in any industry these days is that many of the employees they have to deal with don't seem to be able to handle a range of normal customer emotions. Slightly errant comments, legitimate expressions of impatience, dry humor, a raised voice, and even innocent inquiries, may be met with a hostile, defensive, or condescending response. An already stressed or fatigued customer (as many flyers are, almost by definition) won't find it easy to instantly shut his mouth at that point, even if prudence tells him he should. What makes an already uneasy situation worse is the security milieu in which these employees now operate. Some of them, perhaps too eager to imagine their self-esteem under attack, are now apt to play the security card, imputing a security threat where patently there is none. The individual who committed some peccadillo may now find himself the victim of a series of outrageous recriminations, such as have been described earlier in this thread, that have zilch to do with security. What confidence does anyone have that a regime that reacts this way against an obviously innocuous (even if somewhat disagreeable) passenger will actually detect a real threat when it assumes the form of a compliant and courteous passenger who behaves obsequiously towards airline staff, as it likely will? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:29 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.