Mike Jacoubowsky

To the extent that a pregnancy might be disabling or causing problems, I'll agree. But automatic deference in all things simply because someone's pregnant?

Extra help & consideration should always be shown those who legitimately need it. They shouldn't have to fit into some pre-determined box. And all this focus on the FA involved and still no mention of the other people in line who must have become aware of the situation through the likely-spirited discussion with the FA? Are we so dependent upon laws and rules that we think everyone's taken care of, no need to step in and help someone who needs help?

lensman

Having worked with actual bigots and womanizers, I would say that the weapons against harassment are barely sufficient and not oversized.

Each business has a choice regarding application of bigotry and harassment to their staff, but I think holding customers to professional standards against bigotry and harassment is a good business practice.

There's no cursing in your example. Even if all you do is add adjectival cursing, I think the statement becomes abusive. Add in some cursing as nouns and I think you've crossed the line where I'm not sure what you're going to turn words into action and start being physically abusive.

I think most folks on the board agree, the question is whether that opinion should be acted on while onboard?

Answer: no

Shareholder

Was on the TLV-EWR flight a week ago. Had ordered some duty free and gave the FA my 1K card for the discount along with my cc. After a while she came back saying something was wrong and they couldn't process my MP account number for the discount. Since I really didn't need the item, I asked her to take it back and murmured "Smisek" under my breath. FA heard my mumble and thought I was swearing at her. "What did you say?" When I repeated "Smisek" and then explained it was what we FTers curse when anything goes wrong on UA these days, she laughed...but for a few seconds I thought she might report me to the pilot and return with plastic restraints!

wethereyet

If an adult can't determine someone being upset and irritated vs a true threat that person should not be working as FA, period. Cultural differences alone wipe out so much of what amounts to you implying you're a universal victim.

Suppose a FA tells me I can't use a lav and I say, "what a bulls__ policy". According to your "victim logic" you could (falsely) try and claim you don't know my intentions and say I am a threat and you, me, and everyone around would not that's not the case.

Many times the problem is HOW the FA says and deals with the situation they ellicits the responses they get from pax. But a blanket statement that "any curse" is a threat is proposterous.

lensman

That's adjectival cursing. "bull____" is used as an adjective to describe the policy. In my taxonomy of cursing, it is non-threatening.

I agree. I said that cursing *at* someone is threatening. By implication, cursing about a policy or situation is not particularly threatening. It is impolite, unprofessional and escalatory, but I wouldn't call it threatening.

It's no surprise to me that FAs overreact. Half the posters here seem to misunderstand the written word and overreact. It's crazy! Thank goodness we have forum rules against personal attacks and threats or I'd be in trouble!

kale73

If OP wants compensation, he should claim that he was suffering from an acute case of coprolalia.

mduell

How is the FA supposed to determine the legitimacy of the bathroom need? They have little medical training.

kale73

Nor have they likely dealt with a classroom full of seventh graders. It's not that hard to tell when someone really has to go.

mgcsinc

Cursing at someone simply isn't threatening. I'm surprised that there are adults who think it is.

mpc7488

I had exactly the same impression, astounded at the blog replies that indicated he deserved it.

ronin308

I didn't see any defending of UA in your quotes, I think we both agree that the poster has left out a few details. I don't see any reason for compensation on the OPs part as their behavior at a minimum contributed to the situation.

Kacee

Nope. If the FA had really been "threatened" OP would have wound up wearing plastic bracelets. But the FA undoubtedly felt disrespected, and to someone on a power trip, that's essentially the same offense

Baze

Well, until the FA comes here and posts how the confrontation felt in their eyes we will never know the whole truth.

Kacee

Not to mention sworn statements from three or four uninvolved witnesses, since OP and the FA might not be entirely objective on the subject

Baze

But does it really matter how the witnesses think it went down? In the end it was how the FA perceived what was said and a witness would never know that.