SWA Pilots Accused of Placing Camera in Airplane Lav.
Oct 28, 2019, 8:18 pm
#76
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Just based on what isn't in dispute, I'm of the opinion that Southwest likely mishandled the situation. I suspect they'll suck it up and try and remedy that now with money, which means we'll probably never know much more about what really happened.
Oct 28, 2019, 9:26 pm
#77
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,160
Re the whole flashing point, the balance of probabilities is that captain what’s-his-name was in the toilet passing urine; being a male, the balance of probabilities is that he most likely stood up and faced the toilet to achieve this
i don’t think it’s beyond the wit of man to imagine a camera angle capturing essentially an image of a fully clothed posterior surface of a male, with or without the sound of a liquid being discharged into the toilet bowl
therefore I’m not seeing this idea that there was exposure, flashing, a sex offence or sexual harassment.
Of course we’ll never know but the principle of innocent until proven guilty is generally considered a good one
i don’t think it’s beyond the wit of man to imagine a camera angle capturing essentially an image of a fully clothed posterior surface of a male, with or without the sound of a liquid being discharged into the toilet bowl
therefore I’m not seeing this idea that there was exposure, flashing, a sex offence or sexual harassment.
Of course we’ll never know but the principle of innocent until proven guilty is generally considered a good one
Oct 29, 2019, 9:53 am
#78
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 439
there is always another side to every story.....
This appears to be a variation of one of the old lavatory privacy pranks that pilots would play on flight attendants. Years ago on the 727 a gullible stewardess would be called to the cockpit. After some conversation the captain would have the FE 'check' to see if the forward lav was unoccupied so he could go back. The FE would open some panel (was it fuel dump?) on the aft cockpit bulkhead and pretend to look into the lav to verify that it was available. 'Not many people know about this' etc. and the word would quickly spread among the cabin crew.
In this iPad version of the lav prank one of the pilots records a clip of himself/herself in the lav and later plays it when they go back for the flight attendant in the cockpit to see.
This appears to be a variation of one of the old lavatory privacy pranks that pilots would play on flight attendants. Years ago on the 727 a gullible stewardess would be called to the cockpit. After some conversation the captain would have the FE 'check' to see if the forward lav was unoccupied so he could go back. The FE would open some panel (was it fuel dump?) on the aft cockpit bulkhead and pretend to look into the lav to verify that it was available. 'Not many people know about this' etc. and the word would quickly spread among the cabin crew.
In this iPad version of the lav prank one of the pilots records a clip of himself/herself in the lav and later plays it when they go back for the flight attendant in the cockpit to see.
Oct 29, 2019, 10:26 am
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nashville -Past DL Plat, FO, WN-CP, various hotel programs
Programs: DL-MM, AA, SW w/companion,HiltonDiamond, Hyatt PLat, IHF Plat, Miles and Points Seeker
Posts: 11,074
That's not how this works. First of all this violates the very barest minimum of professional conduct and second of all it's pervy and gross and defending these guys makes you much the same. Had they thought the airline would not have acted they probably would have called the cops.
As terrible as the possible explanation is, one must agree it is way less terrible than if a real camera was in the lav fulltime - yes? No?
Oct 29, 2019, 11:44 am
#81
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,514
SWA now calls it "a false video reference made to the in-flight crew." They can say the prank involved others beside Steinaker and maintain the same defense. Probably doesn't change much. "In-flight crew" could be singular, but the change in language had to clear a lot of vetting.
This will be in the rear view mirror soon. She's done her sit-down interview with ABC. To re-re-rerun the story requires new video or someone else talking. Neither is likely with no federal court cameras.
This will be in the rear view mirror soon. She's done her sit-down interview with ABC. To re-re-rerun the story requires new video or someone else talking. Neither is likely with no federal court cameras.
Oct 29, 2019, 12:40 pm
#82
Join Date: Oct 2001
Programs: LTP, PP
Posts: 8,700
I also worked and traveled for years with small teams of "professional" colleges that were always changing in and out. Nothing as customer critical as aviation at 30,000' but long, odd hours of relatively same mundane work bound by a common goal. Good nature ribbing, teasing and jokes and comradery was the norm under these "forced" conditions with a mix of backgrounds and ages. Vast majority got along and played along but there was always one that did not. Pure speculation on my part that this is the latter who took offense. Definitely a "dangerous", loaded prank to play when one involves a restroom however...
Oct 29, 2019, 12:47 pm
#83
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
SWA now calls it "a false video reference made to the in-flight crew." They can say the prank involved others beside Steinaker and maintain the same defense. Probably doesn't change much. "In-flight crew" could be singular, but the change in language had to clear a lot of vetting.
This will be in the rear view mirror soon. She's done her sit-down interview with ABC. To re-re-rerun the story requires new video or someone else talking. Neither is likely with no federal court cameras.
This will be in the rear view mirror soon. She's done her sit-down interview with ABC. To re-re-rerun the story requires new video or someone else talking. Neither is likely with no federal court cameras.
I found two links in this thread to NBC news and I've heard some coverage on Headline news yesterday, but I can't find the ABC interview.
Oct 29, 2019, 1:13 pm
#84
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,514
Oct 29, 2019, 2:12 pm
#85
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 439
Just because some explained a POSSIBLE explanation of what happened does not make that person pervy or gross. And the fact that you discussed it does not make you pervy or gross either.
As terrible as the possible explanation is, one must agree it is way less terrible than if a real camera was in the lav fulltime - yes? No?
As terrible as the possible explanation is, one must agree it is way less terrible than if a real camera was in the lav fulltime - yes? No?
Any serious adult: Wow this is awful and in most workplaces this doesn't count as a prank, this is both harassment and criminal.
NoStress and his bro Kenny: Hijinks! Flashing your privates at people you work with is normal.
Oct 29, 2019, 3:23 pm
#87
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nashville -Past DL Plat, FO, WN-CP, various hotel programs
Programs: DL-MM, AA, SW w/companion,HiltonDiamond, Hyatt PLat, IHF Plat, Miles and Points Seeker
Posts: 11,074
You and kenny have a lot of excuses, denial, obfuscation and projection, it seems to suggest you're OK with this conduct. Not surprising, birds of a feather and all. Hopefully you're not working pilots.
Any serious adult: Wow this is awful and in most workplaces this doesn't count as a prank, this is both harassment and criminal.
NoStress and his bro Kenny: Hijinks! Flashing your privates at people you work with is normal.
Any serious adult: Wow this is awful and in most workplaces this doesn't count as a prank, this is both harassment and criminal.
NoStress and his bro Kenny: Hijinks! Flashing your privates at people you work with is normal.
I do NOT think this is okay and nowhere did I say it was okay. Flashing privates anywhere is wrong. Even if it is a prank, it is still wrong. At this point we do not even know if any "privates" were revealed. That of course is wrong, even if a prank.
I do think there is a different level of "wrong" if they were actually filming everyone in the bathroom - much more so than the possible prank.
Your earlier post said I was defending these guys (I am not) and that my posting about the possible scenario somehow makes me (and others) pervy as well. I would never do such a think and should not be called a perf. My wife and daughters would not agree with you.
And,
Oct 30, 2019, 11:26 am
#88
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
The behavior alleged if it happened as claimed is at the least a tasteless joke or possibly much worse.
It is interesting that has as far as I can tell no one has alleged knowledge that anyone's "privacy" was violated, anyone's privates exposed and filmed without their permission or that any passengers were observed in the toilet.
It is possible for example by taking Southwest's "admission" that others were involved in the incident that someone placed a camera. possibly a cell phone set to record a video in the lavatory, a pilot then entered the lavatory and pretended to urinate, flushed the toilet and left. The pilot or an accomplice immediately removed the camera and retrieved the video.
I don't know if that is what happened or not. But if it did then as far as I can tell no law was broken since the pilot in question consented to taking the video. and likely showing the video did not constitute "sexual harassment" since legally sexual harassment generally requires "frequent or severe thereby creating a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision" and does not generally include "simple teasing, offhand comments, or minor isolated incidents".
Lets look at the "evidence" we have one account of an FA claiming to have witnessed something and obviously becoming very upset by it. Filing a report and insisting the pilots being taken off their scheduled flight. She later files a lawsuit.
Southwest denies at least some of the basic claims made in the suit.
We do not know what other evidence anyone has. There is an alleged picture of a video and there is a report filed by the 4 flight attendants on the plane. We do not know what the picture shows nor what is in the report, it may simply be a confirmation by the other flight attendant that they were told about the incident and they did not witness anything themselves.
People have offered various alternate possibilities, some more likely than others.
Having been involved in a number of lawsuit I can safely say that the claims made in the complaint are likely exaggerated, or even possibly fabricated. We cannot know until more evidence is made public.
I also find it unlikely that Southwest would let it get this far if there was substance to the allegations, unless they could not settle or the settlement demands were too extreme. Corporations are far more likely to settle these kinds of claims even if they are false or overblown than risk a public spectacle. I have also had experience with this as well.
Oct 30, 2019, 1:58 pm
#89
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,514
"The pilot took a selfie video from the chest up, fully clothed, in the lavatory of a completely different airplane months before Flight 1088 and then replayed the exact same selfie video on his iPad when Ms. Steinaker came into the cockpit.”
"All crewmembers, including the flight attendants, were debriefed on and informed of such by Southwest Airlines after a thorough investigation was conducted by Southwest Airlines that revealed no corroboration of the flight attendant’s allegations. This was information made available to the flight attendants before litigation was filed and before the President of TWU 556, which represents the flight attendants of Southwest Airlines, tweeted about the lawsuit on Saturday, October 26. Additionally, the pilots deny violating any federal regulations."
Oct 30, 2019, 2:01 pm
#90
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 439
I do NOT think this is okay and nowhere did I say it was okay. Flashing privates anywhere is wrong. Even if it is a prank, it is still wrong. At this point we do not even know if any "privates" were revealed. That of course is wrong, even if a prank.
I do think there is a different level of "wrong" if they were actually filming everyone in the bathroom - much more so than the possible prank.
Your earlier post said I was defending these guys (I am not) and that my posting about the possible scenario somehow makes me (and others) pervy as well. I would never do such a think and should not be called a perf. My wife and daughters would not agree with you.
And,
I do think there is a different level of "wrong" if they were actually filming everyone in the bathroom - much more so than the possible prank.
Your earlier post said I was defending these guys (I am not) and that my posting about the possible scenario somehow makes me (and others) pervy as well. I would never do such a think and should not be called a perf. My wife and daughters would not agree with you.
And,
You're inserting so much doubting Thomas in all your comments you might as well just call the FA and the other staff liars and be done with it. WN is at fault for not securing the scene after it was reported to them. Having dealt with sex offenders I have zero interest in debating the "ho ho, this is super funny" commenters and excuses that come with it.
If you need to reference "wife and daughters" you've sort of shown yourself out here.