Inappropriate Non-Rev behavior?
Oct 21, 2012, 12:56 pm
#76
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
Why would I care if the customer knows all the facts? I don't need the customer to tell me all the facts, just the facts only the customer knows.
People seem to be getting distracted by the OP not knowing FOR SURE if the passenger was a non-rev or not, or paid for the drinks or not, and then argue that OP shouldn't say anything because they don't KNOW everything they suspect.
That's all irrelevant. The OP does know that the FAs served one passenger at least 4 drinks virtually at-once. That shouldn't happen, period, and the OP should send in a note about it. United can figure out if the passenger was non-rev or not and who the FAs were and ask if there was any possible explanation for serving someone that many drinks at once.
People seem to be getting distracted by the OP not knowing FOR SURE if the passenger was a non-rev or not, or paid for the drinks or not, and then argue that OP shouldn't say anything because they don't KNOW everything they suspect.
That's all irrelevant. The OP does know that the FAs served one passenger at least 4 drinks virtually at-once. That shouldn't happen, period, and the OP should send in a note about it. United can figure out if the passenger was non-rev or not and who the FAs were and ask if there was any possible explanation for serving someone that many drinks at once.
Oct 21, 2012, 4:20 pm
#77
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
Op also says he spent $50 on the flight. But in another he maintains that he doesn't drink. Why is the $50 comment material? I think it's material because it shows inconsistency.
According to him at least two (if not three) flight attendants provided him with 2 minis at different times. If he were concerned for the passenger's well-being on account of a policy violation, he could have let the second flight attendant or even the third know that one of his/her colleagues had just given him two minis.
Did the flight attendants know that one of their colleagues had already provided him 2 minutes soon before? We don't even know that.
He has every right to write a letter to customer care, but it serves little purpose because the carrier has little recourse, particularly with unions in place who safeguard the interests of its members.
A letter can't prove that 2-3 flight attendants colluded to 'over-serve' the passenger. A letter can't prove whether the passenger was rev or non-rev because of seat changes. So if a letter can't affect change, what's its purpose? I think that if the Op was to do anything, he ought to have done it on the plane, certainly not after the fact.
Oct 21, 2012, 8:11 pm
#78
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,154
I did not spend $50 on alcohol.
Oct 21, 2012, 8:41 pm
#79
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
For the second or third time. I did not spend $50 on the flight or on any flight. I was simply making a quip, a joke, that perhaps I would have slept also had I been served 6 drinks free of charge and been able to pass out. I was not and did not buy any. Are you getting that yet? By using the word 'I' I was suggesting any other passenger - sorry it was a joke - maybe not a good one. Please go back and re-read if you think it's inconsistent.
I did not spend $50 on alcohol.
I did not spend $50 on alcohol.
Oct 27, 2012, 7:13 pm
#80
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,265
.
Oct 28, 2012, 6:24 am
#81
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
Japanese drinking laws are almost like the ones in US except the driving age is 20.
Oct 29, 2012, 5:17 pm
#82
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 124
You came to the right place!
If you want to get folks on board with your assessment that it is EVERYONE's duty to run to FT and "Narcl" on UA employee's you certainly came to the right place and conclusion.
However, what is the purpose of snitching on ANY passenger that simply fell asleep.
If however you truly want advise (which you requested) --- Next time
MYOB or BYOB!!!
If you want to get folks on board with your assessment that it is EVERYONE's duty to run to FT and "Narcl" on UA employee's you certainly came to the right place and conclusion.
However, what is the purpose of snitching on ANY passenger that simply fell asleep.
If however you truly want advise (which you requested) --- Next time
MYOB or BYOB!!!
Oct 29, 2012, 5:37 pm
#83
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 124
This is an appropriate question, and it is nice to see that at least one other UA employee sees that.
Really. So is the following "petty"?
I paid for an extra leg room seat on a recent AF TATL. Shortly before takeoff, a passenger asked a FA if he could move to the empty seat next to me without paying for it. FA said sure. I went to the FA back in the galley and asked if I could get a refund for the seat I paid extra for since they were obviously giving them away for free. I was moved up to Premium Voyageur immediately.
I don't care if the guy was a non-rev or not. If he was getting something for free that the FA's weren't passing out to everyone, the OP has a reason to be pissed.
Really. So is the following "petty"?
I paid for an extra leg room seat on a recent AF TATL. Shortly before takeoff, a passenger asked a FA if he could move to the empty seat next to me without paying for it. FA said sure. I went to the FA back in the galley and asked if I could get a refund for the seat I paid extra for since they were obviously giving them away for free. I was moved up to Premium Voyageur immediately.
I don't care if the guy was a non-rev or not. If he was getting something for free that the FA's weren't passing out to everyone, the OP has a reason to be pissed.
Non revs get seats for free. Including BF and E+. Thats why they're called non revs. Good luck articulating an argument for similar treatment.
Employees take care of other employees when they're traveling. That's just how it works. No amount of complaining is going to alter that reality. We look out for one another. If a non rev truly steps out of line, we generally police our own immediately.
It doesn't sound like this pax needed such observation. Sounds like he self medicated and went to sleep. I wish everyone did that. I'd be happy to comp Jeff's liqueur to anyone of age if company policy would allow. Non revs not on company business can drink so long as they're not creating a disturbance. This about as far as this would go I imagine.
Oct 29, 2012, 6:29 pm
#84
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
The disturbance was on the part of OP, not on the drinking potential non-rev.
Oct 29, 2012, 8:23 pm
#85
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 835
If the guy was disruptive or belligerent or otherwise a problem, I'd get it. But it sounds like he smelled of the booze he drank (which would be the case whether he had 1 or 6) and had crappy headphones. Other than that, he slept through the flight. Give me a seat mate like him anytime.
Oct 29, 2012, 11:02 pm
#87
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 290 through FL390
Posts: 1,687
Next time I'm non-reving or deadheading, I'm going to take an informal assessment on how many maybe-non-revvers get free booze, then I'm going to do the same with seeing how many paying passengers leave their electronic devices on when they're supposed to be off.
Today, thanks to H:Sandy, I deadheaded on two legs. I was in a middle seat both times, and of the two people sitting next to me each time, they all not only didn't put their junk into airplane mode, they didn't turn them all the way off. One girl whipped out her Kindle at about 300' after takeoff. One guy was talking on his phone on short final approach. One guy was playing solitaire on his iPad the whole time.
They were all violating federal law, and putting the aircraft into an unknown state, since it's test pilots, the FAA, each airlines' maintenance engineering departments, and the FCC that are the ones that are authorized to conduct tests like that, but certainly not passengers.
I'm being a little facetious here, but isn't it ironic that a bunch of passengers, mostly "elite" but a few "kettles" (I HATE that extremely derogatory term! that believe that the rules on electronic devices are for some imaginary other person or persons, but get all twisted up over an F/A slipping a buddy some hootch.
I try to stay the heck out of my pilot monkey suit when DHing, and keep to myself; the F/As don't offer me anything for free because I'm just a "kettle" to them and to the elites that might see me if they glance back into steerage on occasion. They might if they knew I was a Smallsak co-widget, but it's not important to me.
If I see some ignorant, over-entitled self-appointed FCC deputy overseer blatantly violating federal law with their electronic devices, I tell them to shut them off. I don't ask.
And when I'm going to do a low-visibility approach or a precision RNAV departure, I make a PA to the effect that I want it all off OFF, not in airplane mode.
I don't care how much booze a non-rev scores from a fellow F/A, either. They were going to give it to someone anyway. Of course, I'm not going to be happy if said non-rev co-widget starts acting a fool because of it. But I'm not going to be any more happy if it's a passenger who's acting the fool either. I'd be more worried about the pax than the non-rev, in fact.
My point: Isn't it a little hypocritical to get spun up over a non-rev getting something nice, no harm, no foul, but it's almost universally accepted among airline passengers to leave their buzz-junk cranking in direct violation of federal law, putting themselves and all others in a potentially unsafe situation?
How about instead of trying to prevent a non-rev from getting something for nothing (aren't there numerous threads on how to do just that??), you all do as you're told and shut your junk off when it's supposed to be off, and make sure the people around you do the same?
The flying public would gain more benefit from that than narkin' on some co-widget for getting a free mini bottle.
How's that for a rant? I meant every word, by the way.
Time to wash the United stink offa me; it's been a long day in the air.
FAB
Today, thanks to H:Sandy, I deadheaded on two legs. I was in a middle seat both times, and of the two people sitting next to me each time, they all not only didn't put their junk into airplane mode, they didn't turn them all the way off. One girl whipped out her Kindle at about 300' after takeoff. One guy was talking on his phone on short final approach. One guy was playing solitaire on his iPad the whole time.
They were all violating federal law, and putting the aircraft into an unknown state, since it's test pilots, the FAA, each airlines' maintenance engineering departments, and the FCC that are the ones that are authorized to conduct tests like that, but certainly not passengers.
I'm being a little facetious here, but isn't it ironic that a bunch of passengers, mostly "elite" but a few "kettles" (I HATE that extremely derogatory term! that believe that the rules on electronic devices are for some imaginary other person or persons, but get all twisted up over an F/A slipping a buddy some hootch.
I try to stay the heck out of my pilot monkey suit when DHing, and keep to myself; the F/As don't offer me anything for free because I'm just a "kettle" to them and to the elites that might see me if they glance back into steerage on occasion. They might if they knew I was a Smallsak co-widget, but it's not important to me.
If I see some ignorant, over-entitled self-appointed FCC deputy overseer blatantly violating federal law with their electronic devices, I tell them to shut them off. I don't ask.
And when I'm going to do a low-visibility approach or a precision RNAV departure, I make a PA to the effect that I want it all off OFF, not in airplane mode.
I don't care how much booze a non-rev scores from a fellow F/A, either. They were going to give it to someone anyway. Of course, I'm not going to be happy if said non-rev co-widget starts acting a fool because of it. But I'm not going to be any more happy if it's a passenger who's acting the fool either. I'd be more worried about the pax than the non-rev, in fact.
My point: Isn't it a little hypocritical to get spun up over a non-rev getting something nice, no harm, no foul, but it's almost universally accepted among airline passengers to leave their buzz-junk cranking in direct violation of federal law, putting themselves and all others in a potentially unsafe situation?
How about instead of trying to prevent a non-rev from getting something for nothing (aren't there numerous threads on how to do just that??), you all do as you're told and shut your junk off when it's supposed to be off, and make sure the people around you do the same?
The flying public would gain more benefit from that than narkin' on some co-widget for getting a free mini bottle.
How's that for a rant? I meant every word, by the way.
Time to wash the United stink offa me; it's been a long day in the air.
FAB
Last edited by freshairborne; Oct 29, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Oct 29, 2012, 11:19 pm
#88
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: DEN, BOS, HKG, SYD, SFO
Programs: UA 1K, SPG Plat
Posts: 215
Whether he was drunk or not when he was served 4 drinks or not is irrelevant.
Giving a passenger 4 drinks at once is allowing the passenger to serve themselves. That's a failure.
Because when the FA serves passengers one drink at a time, it slows the pace of consumption and gives the FA the chance to evaluate the condition of the passenger before serving each drink. That's part of the federal requirements for serving alcohol on the plane - before a drink is served the FA should ascertain whether the passenger is too intoxicated to be served an alcoholic beverage. When the FA gives a passenger 4 drinks at once, they're failing to do so.
I'm sorry, did someone suggest somewhere any such thing?
It's not inconsequential. Intoxicated passengers can cause significant problems on a plane. That's why there's rules about not serving intoxicated passengers. The FA is compromising safety for convenience when handing out drinks 4 at a time and that's something that should be passed up the food chain.
It's a plane, not a college-town bar, and handing out 4 shots at a time is not appropriate.
Giving a passenger 4 drinks at once is allowing the passenger to serve themselves. That's a failure.
Because when the FA serves passengers one drink at a time, it slows the pace of consumption and gives the FA the chance to evaluate the condition of the passenger before serving each drink. That's part of the federal requirements for serving alcohol on the plane - before a drink is served the FA should ascertain whether the passenger is too intoxicated to be served an alcoholic beverage. When the FA gives a passenger 4 drinks at once, they're failing to do so.
I'm sorry, did someone suggest somewhere any such thing?
It's not inconsequential. Intoxicated passengers can cause significant problems on a plane. That's why there's rules about not serving intoxicated passengers. The FA is compromising safety for convenience when handing out drinks 4 at a time and that's something that should be passed up the food chain.
It's a plane, not a college-town bar, and handing out 4 shots at a time is not appropriate.
The joke was on me about 6 hours later
but hey ...Also, when I was on UA863 I got handed about a dozen scotches (in Y!) because the FAs knew we'd be sitting back on the ground for a while in SFO due to mechanical.
Fun times, but "not exactly" appropriate.
Cheers,
Adam
Oct 29, 2012, 11:30 pm
#89
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CLE-LGA-ORD Triangle
Programs: UA 0P, Marriott Plat
Posts: 8
The airline industry is a rare example of a business in which employees in uniform are permitted to sit with paying customers. This highlights how much service has degraded; it's basically public transportation.
Non-revs should have to sit in the back/middle seats that do not recline. They should not be served anything at all, not to mention upgraded. Every iota of effort made in making the flight for a non-rev more enjoyable is detracting from effort which could be expended on paying passengers. Let's be serious, cash is king; if you don't have it, get to the back. I'm not sure where people get this perception that air travel is some sort of egalitarian thing.... Get real!
Non-revs should have to sit in the back/middle seats that do not recline. They should not be served anything at all, not to mention upgraded. Every iota of effort made in making the flight for a non-rev more enjoyable is detracting from effort which could be expended on paying passengers. Let's be serious, cash is king; if you don't have it, get to the back. I'm not sure where people get this perception that air travel is some sort of egalitarian thing.... Get real!
Oct 30, 2012, 12:41 am
#90
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,976
On that note...
iluv2fly
Moderator, UA
iluv2fly
Moderator, UA
