flavorflav

Judging by Roger Ebert's review in the Chicago Sun-Times and Manohla Dargis's review in The New York Times, if I got "Alex Cross" shut off 90 percent of the passengers would buy me a beer out of gratitude.

clublounger

Seriously?

It's Lisa Ling.

GBadger

And they're not the only ones...

LASUA1K

OK.. You have your thoughts I have mine. If we are now questioning what UA plays, we all agree. UA can't please everyone, and as a Parent, I don't need UA to cater to my kids. My kids, will read a book or watch something that I have chosen for them. This is not the right thread for what UA plays.

Let's be honest, we really don't know the entire story. Are we sure that the Parents didn't demand it be turned off. Are we sure, the Parents didn't get a little rude about the situation? What if the Parents got a bit angry, like I've seen at soccer games? We really don't know the entire story. I don't believe the Captain would divert if the Parents didn't say something or made other passengers a bit uncomfortable.

Do the screens really go up individually? I've seen a few get stuck in the UP position and the crew had to restart the system to bring them all down again. I don't think you can just push it up, but I'm not sure.

I've been on a few diversions, where the passenger was a bit unruly and rude, was it always the right decision? I'll leave that to the pilot and flight crew to decide. You never know what someone who's angry will do. I once had a person slap the FA on a United Express plane and watch everyone stuff there face in a newspaper and not help her. It happens.

Xyzzy

The same could be said about most movies. I can see the same problem on DTV flights. One can't control what the person in the next seat might choose to watch. Where is the line supposed to be here, and who draws it? There is a lot of stuff on broadcast TV that people can and do find objectionable. When out in public there is no telling what one might see. A parent needs to take personal responsibility and deal with the child without interfering with the rest of the passengers. I say that as a parent of two children, by the way.

I see two issues here. The first is the apprpriateness of the film The second is the diversion. While the film itself is nothing I would want to see (I do recall seeing the trailer not too long ago), one needs to simply deal with it by diverting the child's attention, etc.and not expect the world at large to conform to one's own set of values. Given the facts presented (actual events may vary), the diversion seems entirely inappropriate. Had the parent threatened the crew, however, I could see having the police meet the flight at its destination.

Duke787

I'd be curious to hear from some of the great pilots and FA who join us here on FT about their view on the situation, particularly the decision to divert the plane.

For the record I agree that this seems a bit ridiculous. Even when I'm watching a movie / TV show on my own iPad / laptop, I always take care to look around me and make sure that if a child is sitting near me I avoid watching something that contains sexual explicit scenes, it's just courteous. This is even more true when it comes to things being shown on the overhead monitors, there are plenty of PG13 movies that could be shown by United (Lincoln, Argo, etc)

GBadger

I completely agree that we don't have the full story on the diversion, and that there very well could be a lot more to that part of the story. I'm certainly not saying that the diversion was/was not justified. Simply stating that I think UA made a mistake by putting this particular movie up on the drop-down screens.

With DTV flights its the choice of the individual as to what they would like to see (and be ok with watching next to a child). When the airline throws it up on the overheads, that choice is gone.

I think (?) that we can agree that there does need to be a line somewhere, correct? Would we be ok with UA showing "The Devil's Rejects", or "Dead Alive" on the overhead screens? Nope... If I were UA, my common sense would say that I should be conservative with that line, rather than push the limits... UA draws the line for the overhead movies. No question about that...

Zouf

Of course you do realize that is is quite probable most of them stated they did not mind because they wanted to do what most people want to do in the sort of high-density, low-options social setting that an airplane cabin is - they wanted to avoid a fuss. Obviously they failed, because obviously there was a fuss, or at least a perceived fuss - that's the minimum requirement for a diversion...

FlyWorld

^^^

LilAbner

That's almost whats Ma & I do when we take the lil-un's somewhere. Ceptin' that we duct-tape their traps shut just before we stuff em in those lil' compartments over our seats. They can do all the hollarin' they want's to up thar and nobody can hear em. Ifin' all the space is gone for we git em bedded down we pack the left over's under the seat in front of us and hold em down with our feets. No siree Bob, NO grandkids of mine is gonna be allowed ta watch that trailer-trash stuff, no matter what sum hi-fallutin' captain says! Our lil' tykes are very centcitive!

tomj888

First off, IMHO, as a parent, if there is something that I don't want my kids to watch on a plane with overhead video, I come prepared (ipad's, DS games, and even good ol' books) ANY parent traveling with kids today needs to have entertainment for them. Who treats an airplane cabin as a movie theatre these days????
My kids are all at least UA silvers so they have been many places over many years. Like the Boy Scouts motto, "be prepared". I would never think to leave my home w/o appropriate entertainment options for my three kids.
In regards to the "perceived threat". I find it hard to believe that this type of behavior would necessitate aborting the flight plan. It has to have cost a ton of money to divert and disrupt up to 150 passengers flight plans. Its not as if the plane landed, they threw them out on to the tarmac and the plane got right back on run 27L and took off. Huge domino effect when a plane does not continue onto to its original destination.
That said, I remember encountering my own flight nazis attendants. And I remember losing it due to extreme frustration on my part WHICH WAS TOTALLY WRONG ON MY PART. I forgot that you get way more in life being nice and sweet than you doing being an A-HOLE. yet in spite of my terrible efforts, I am my family were allowed to stay on board and get home safely.
Travel today is frustrating. Nothing is set up for success. We are all assumed to be criminals and searched, scanned and patted down well before we hit the boarding gate, so people are stressed and nervous. Not an excuse, just a reality courtesy of 9/11.
Whatever happened to the "golden rule": treat others the way you want to be treated"
I hope we can all learn something from this. I certainly did when I was wrong.

anc-ord772

Ah yes, the real injustice.

LASUA1K

I just spoke to my wife (former UA FA), they cannot lift one screen up only. I let her know the story, and she believes the Pilot was doing what he/she needed to do. She has seen it in the past, where the Flight Crew deals with it from a parent/passenger and they all wished for a diversion. We don't know the full story, but she was proud of the pilot for stepping up instead of the crew taking a beating from this passenger. Again, she doesn't know the entire story but has been in similar situations.

ha, you got me at first...

waxearwings

Suppose the parents were being real a**holes about this. Given that they were not detained long by the authorities upon arrival, nor is there any indication in the story that other passengers were questioned as witnesses, their behavior quite obviously fell far short of any criminal behavior conduct that might be associated with being an a**hole on a plane (e.g. disorderly conduct, terroristic threats, etc...).

So how big of an a**hole could they possibly have been?? What possibly could these parents have done to make the captain legitimately feel like they needed to be booted (and everyone else inconvenienced) if their behavior didn't even warrant a suspicion of criminality?

I ask this as a legitimate question to those saying we didn't get the full story. I agree, but what possible story would be consistent with the facts as we know them, but also justify the captain's actions. I usually give the crew (and it could have been an FA who heavily influenced the Capt's decision, so I don't think he should automatically get the blame) the benefit of the doubt, but I am struggling to come up with reasonable scenarios here, even though my first instinct on reading the complaint was that the parents seem annoying and self-righteous (yeah, I'm sure extra "the carbon footprint" of the flight kept them up at night).

kenn0223

I wonder if the passenger attempted to push up the screen on their own (thus their determination that it "clearly could" be folded up independently). I think a passenger fiddling around with equipment on the aircraft is definitely grounds for a diversion especially if the capitan cannot see exactly what they are doing.