UA captain diverts flight, removes pax because of IFE complaints
Apr 9, 2013, 5:02 pm
#751
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA Platinum
Posts: 252
I did a search for arrests in NY on the date in question, and the drunk was never booked. The NY Post was just inexact with their language confusing detention with arrest.
Arrest records are publicly available for free. Now it's your turn. Show me a link to his arrest.
P.S. His name is Karl Arthorsson if you didn't know.
Arrest records are publicly available for free. Now it's your turn. Show me a link to his arrest.
P.S. His name is Karl Arthorsson if you didn't know.
Hahah. I believe you! I was just curious where you found that info. Cudos to you.
Apr 9, 2013, 5:15 pm
#752
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: One hour from major airport
Programs: United silver, American Platinum, Marriott platinum, Starwood Gold, Hertz gold, Avis First
Posts: 72
The passenger was interfering with the duties of the flight crew and tampering with private property, not to mention, disturbing the other passengers.That is a sure fire way to get your butt thrown off of an airplane. Sorry, but Im 100% for the crews decision here. Regardless if the FA exaggerated, it doesn't change what occurred. I hope UA sues these folks for the cost of the diversion.
I'm also of the opinion that there is plenty of blame to go around. Bad on the family for messing with the monitor. Bad on the FA for not having decent conflict management skills. Bad on United for a clear training/validation program that addresses conflict management skills and customer service maturity. And another bad on the FA for treating a disagreement as a threat to her authority - it's only a threat if you make it so.
As was said in The Great Gatsby, "It takes two to make an accident."
Apr 9, 2013, 6:13 pm
#753
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
I'm not going to get into all the details, but there's a lot more to the story then what the family told the media/what's reported in the blog. One of the FAs working the flight reported that the mother of the 2 children forced the video screen into the ceiling which she had not right to do, not to mention potentially damaging parts of an aircraft.
Apr 9, 2013, 7:02 pm
#754
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,413
There are some substantial adult theme issues with some of the text, though.
Apr 9, 2013, 7:04 pm
#755
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,125
These people should have been on my flight yesterday IB MAD-JFK. The overhead showed the Hobbit (violent) and a travel documentary on a mostly naked Indian tribe in Brazil breastfeeding and all.
I did complain when standing in line for immigration at JFK with my small kids at JFK and CNN airport TV had much violent content - including an item on a 6 yr old that was abducted and killed. CNN and JFK T4 did take that complaint seriously.
I did complain when standing in line for immigration at JFK with my small kids at JFK and CNN airport TV had much violent content - including an item on a 6 yr old that was abducted and killed. CNN and JFK T4 did take that complaint seriously.
Apr 9, 2013, 7:07 pm
#756
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,413
That makes perfect sense to me, especially as presented by Loren.
FlyingNut, by the way, I am a woman. I don't know if that changes your opinion on my outlook towards nudity, but as men are sometimes seen as being more interested in nudity (or what some time 'porn') I just wanted to point that out.
(Admittedly, I've never seen it although my understanding is that the photographic policy is basically the same although obviously a man's bits are always outside and visible. I'm also under the impression the primary audience is actually gay men.)
There is one quite likely scenario that was briefly mentioned above and passed over.
I believe it is quite likely that the captain asked for a LE
to meet the flight when it arrived at BWI. With BWI being so near to DC, however, he was probably told that with a security issue on the flight (no matter how mundane) he was not to get anywhere near DC with the offending passengers on-board and to divert. In other words, the diversion may not have been within the pilot's discretion.
I believe it is quite likely that the captain asked for a LE
to meet the flight when it arrived at BWI. With BWI being so near to DC, however, he was probably told that with a security issue on the flight (no matter how mundane) he was not to get anywhere near DC with the offending passengers on-board and to divert. In other words, the diversion may not have been within the pilot's discretion.Last edited by iluv2fly; Apr 9, 2013 at 8:05 pm Reason: merge
Apr 9, 2013, 7:33 pm
#757
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
How many overhead screens would be "within reach" of any given seat? Absolutely, she should not have tried to handle even one of them, but I'm just not seeing how she would be able to have multiple overhead monitors "within reach" of her seat that she could try to close.
Apr 9, 2013, 8:05 pm
#758
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL DM, Marriott TE, and Reformed AMEX Cent
Posts: 332
If I were on that flight I would be upset. At NO TIME would my safety have been at risk. Not for one second.
A childish FA and a childish mother get in an argument. Neither one has the proper life skills to handle the situation and the FA abuses her power (arguably lies to the captain) and the next thing you know you're landing at the wrong airport.
The FA should be fired.
UA should tell us if they are going to make any changes to their policy (now that their review is complete).
A childish FA and a childish mother get in an argument. Neither one has the proper life skills to handle the situation and the FA abuses her power (arguably lies to the captain) and the next thing you know you're landing at the wrong airport.
The FA should be fired.
UA should tell us if they are going to make any changes to their policy (now that their review is complete).
Apr 9, 2013, 8:12 pm
#759
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LAX
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA EXP, BA Silver, Marriott Plat., Hertz Pres. Circle, Avis First
Posts: 917
Not really. The same account of the incident in the same post says "The most troubling part was after the family was escorted off, the stewardess was asked by someone sitting next to me what transpired (we couldn't hear everything). She said that she'd been threatened by the mother. A teenager sitting next to the father turned around and said, "That's a lie." Wow, the airlines have alot of power...!"
Apr 9, 2013, 8:18 pm
#760
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LAX
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA EXP, BA Silver, Marriott Plat., Hertz Pres. Circle, Avis First
Posts: 917
If I were on that flight I would be upset. At NO TIME would my safety have been at risk. Not for one second.
A childish FA and a childish mother get in an argument. Neither one has the proper life skills to handle the situation and the FA abuses her power (arguably lies to the captain) and the next thing you know you're landing at the wrong airport.
The FA should be fired.
UA should tell us if they are going to make any changes to their policy (now that their review is complete).
A childish FA and a childish mother get in an argument. Neither one has the proper life skills to handle the situation and the FA abuses her power (arguably lies to the captain) and the next thing you know you're landing at the wrong airport.
The FA should be fired.
UA should tell us if they are going to make any changes to their policy (now that their review is complete).
Apr 9, 2013, 8:23 pm
#761
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: iad/dca
Programs: UA Million Mile Gold, Club, AA, Delta, Marriott, Hertz G, A/Club
Posts: 1,106
+1. Even now that we have another account of the incident (which I will presume to be true for the purposes of this post, although we have no means of verification), The decision to divert and haul them off the plane is still very suspect. This still looks to me like yet another abuse of power by the petty tyrants in the travel industry. I am tired of being cowed into submission by every Petit Napoleon having a bad day...
Apr 9, 2013, 10:12 pm
#762
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EWR
Programs: UA Gold, UA MM, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,329
I'm not going to get into all the details, but there's a lot more to the story then what the family told the media/what's reported in the blog. One of the FAs working the flight reported that the mother of the 2 children forced the video screen into the ceiling which she had not right to do, not to mention potentially damaging parts of an aircraft.
This is the part that baffles me, not so much the lack of arrest but the apparent ease of which they were accommodated and the lack of UA defending their actions.
Apr 9, 2013, 11:04 pm
#763
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA - 1K 1MM; Hyatt - Explorist; Marriott - Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,586
How many overhead screens would be "within reach" of any given seat? Absolutely, she should not have tried to handle even one of them, but I'm just not seeing how she would be able to have multiple overhead monitors "within reach" of her seat that she could try to close.
Apr 9, 2013, 11:20 pm
#764
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: QFF Gold, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 5,366
I was being a little sarcastic, however if I'm at an angle that's comfortable to view my iPad and little four year old Reign-Beau or his three year old sister are staring at whatever is on the screen and their parents don't like it, then it's not my problem. I won't be looking at anything that I would feel is inappropriate for a reasonable adult to see, and I won't be aiming the screen at the child. I believe that I am being a polite person and doing my fair share in this situation.
Apr 9, 2013, 11:34 pm
#765
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL DM, Marriott TE, and Reformed AMEX Cent
Posts: 332
I was being a little sarcastic, however if I'm at an angle that's comfortable to view my iPad and little four year old Reign-Beau or his three year old sister are staring at whatever is on the screen and their parents don't like it, then it's not my problem. I won't be looking at anything that I would feel is inappropriate for a reasonable adult to see, and I won't be aiming the screen at the child. I believe that I am being a polite person and doing my fair share in this situation.
Watching a movie you think is appropriate for a "reasonable adult to see" next to a child will certainly cost you your membership in polite society.