halls120

I believe he did, in diverting the flight to Chicago because a passenger complained about IFE.

Mom was off base as well. United publishes their movie schedule in advance. If she didn't want her kids to be exposed to Alex Cross, there are other airlines out there.

Boghopper

Unfortunately the movie ratings are mostly about sexual content. IMO they (the MPAA) are amazingly tolerant of violence, such that there are lots of PG-13 films (such as Alex Cross) that are completely inappropriate.

LASUA1K

You were not there I was not either. They were no security threat at the moment they landed but while they were in the air, they could've caused an inconvenience to people. To request they turn it off and to possibly jam up the tv is enough for me to let them off.

scosprey

Makes me glad we were able to watch "Skyfall"--without a divert-- a few weeks back, on a 75 from IAD to DEN.

FlyWorld

There are two issues in this thread.

1) Was the movie appropriate? Should UA have shown it?

2) Did the pax do anything that justified a diversion?

To me, question 2 is far more interesting than question 1.

I wish we could hear from UA or someone else on the plane to understand the point of view of the Captain for why it was deemed necessary to make a diversion and offload the pax under police custody.

I agree with others who posted that the facts that 1) no arrests were made, and 2) that UA allowed them to fly on another flight collectively suggest that this was a gross overreaction.

If pax had done something to create a genuine security or safety threat, then I'd have expected captain + fa's to have provided evidence of same, and then, that evidence would have been used as the basis for an arrest, and then, UA would have denied boarding on future flights (probably a moot point because they'd be in jail anyway).

The fact that none of this happened makes it hard to imagine how the pax did something that warranted the diversion.

villox

I'm surprised nobody's yet posted the flightaware link for the diversion yet:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...000Z/KDEN/KBWI



I think it just further illustrates that we really don't know the full story. At some point the pilot determined it was better to turn BACK to Chicago than continue onto BWI.

Remember, we'd all be just as perplexed about them being greeted by police at BWI for such an incident, but diverting the entire plane of passengers is on a whole different level.

Looking at the map above is it possible that there is a storm system and the diversion was actually weather related and there was either a miscommunication or a misunderstanding for the diversion??

iquitos

When do you expect we will hear the unvarnished "other" side? This Captain looks like a jerk to me.

Xyzzy

Never

LASUA1K

Do you know the Captain? No need to make comments about him. You have no idea. I'm sure something ticked off the flight crew or passengers. A pilot wouldn't just turn around.

Alpha Golf

+1. Bingo.

iquitos

How would I know him? Still sounds like a jerk to me. Couldn't even be bothered to speak to the passenger himself to assess the situation before taking drastic action with precious little justification. Who knows what the FA told him. A passenger complaint about a movie is not a security threat.

ianmanka

The MPAA rating system is quite arbitrary. May I suggest This Film is Not Rated, an excellent documentary on the subject.

I saw Alex Cross in the theater (in a moment of weakness and extreme boredom, I bought a ticket to see it, and was one of the few people who did), and it's a horrible movie (quality of plot and whatnot, no comment on the violence) that bombed at the box office, so I'm guessing they got it for cheap. Movie rights sold after theatrical release can either be based on percentage of theatrical gross, or for a flat fee. Considering both the quality of the movie and its performance, neither suggests that United probably paid much for it. Or, if United has an agreement with certain studios with agreements to buy a certain slate of movies over a period of time, Alex Cross might have been the only release available for that time period. Movie distribution is a complex beast.

Cost motives aside, parts of the film was shot in/around Cleveland (in fact, you can even see the Cleveland skyline in one of the shots). Perhaps UA was trying to showcase one of their hub cities?

kenn0223

I think it's important to remember that the capitan is the one who makes the diversion call and s/he cannot see the pax or what they are doing. They must rely on the FA's description and likely error on the side of caution. If they get a "there is a lady back here trying to push up the monitor and won't stop when we asked her to" report from the FA I don't see how they can do anything BUT divert. They are faced with a pax who does not listen to the crew and could by trying to harm the aircraft.

It's likely once they were on the ground and everyone could talk face to face it turned out the issue wasn't as severe as it could have been. I expect the LEOs meeting the aircraft explained to the passenger that they must comply with instructions from the flight crew and impressed upon them (as did the diversion) the potential result if they do not. The LEOs likely servered their purpose even without taking out their handcuffs.

It's definitely an inconvenience to the other passengers and a cost to the airline but I also believe it's part of air travel, as are weather delays, medical diversions, and mechanical incidents. As passengers we need to understand that things like this happen and as an airline I am sure UA takes it into account as cost of operating their business. I would only consider it a problem if a pattern develops (either a pilot more often diverts than their peers, a passenger causes an atypical number of diversions, or an air carrier I travel on diverts more than it's competitors).

Xyzzy

In the event of a security threat (and an altercation with the crew is certainly considered one) the wrst thing the pilot could do would be to open the door, enter the cabin and confront the passenger. I'm sure there are company rules and procedures concerning this.

We have no idea what exactly happened. We will never know.

username

I have found the censoring on UA in-flight entertainment very inconsistent. For example: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...bad-words.html

Yet, the images played on the screens - even the choice of the main screen movies / shows - are a lot worse when it comes to violence and adult content.