Diet Coke a Weapon?
Jun 4, 2015, 9:42 am
#301
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
There's also the simple question of where would the person have been sitting to have even been able to see events across such a wide swath of the cabin in the detail described? As you say, something isn't adding up.
Jun 4, 2015, 9:56 am
#302
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: United Mileage Plus 1K
Posts: 16
I did reach out to the media and forwarded my itin onto them to prove that I was on the actual flight. I wish this lady would stop getting media attention for lying about what happened on the flight. Hopefully someone else will come out and tell the truth as well.
Jun 4, 2015, 10:27 am
#303
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,684
I did reach out to the media and forwarded my itin onto them to prove that I was on the actual flight. I wish this lady would stop getting media attention for lying about what happened on the flight. Hopefully someone else will come out and tell the truth as well.
Jun 4, 2015, 10:35 am
#304
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
(1) United conducted an investigation
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
p.s. I might add a personal story. Several years ago, two co-workers of mine were on a plane. An incident happened, passenger complained. Both were contacted by United and asked what happened. They were told right off the bat that someone's job was on the line, and they wanted to make sure that what they did was fair to both the passenger and the employee, and that United would very much like their cooperation. After the interview they both got a think you note. It was all very thorough.
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
p.s. I might add a personal story. Several years ago, two co-workers of mine were on a plane. An incident happened, passenger complained. Both were contacted by United and asked what happened. They were told right off the bat that someone's job was on the line, and they wanted to make sure that what they did was fair to both the passenger and the employee, and that United would very much like their cooperation. After the interview they both got a think you note. It was all very thorough.
Last edited by spin88; Jun 4, 2015 at 10:54 am
Jun 4, 2015, 10:54 am
#305
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,684
(1) United conducted an investigation
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
But as with many corporations, the appearance of wrong doing can be enough to elicit a response. Defending an action goes over in the court of public opinion worse than an apology. We will never know the truth, only what both sides have done after the incident, and PR responses have, to me at least, never been taken as actual guilt or innocence
Jun 4, 2015, 11:06 am
#306
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SJC
Programs: DL PM MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 3,276
(1) United conducted an investigation
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
Jun 4, 2015, 11:09 am
#307
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I don't disagree with you but do conclude this either. Corporations often make "fall guys" to cover PR incidents. We've all seen it. Even if you take the passenger's word as 100% accurate, nothing was said that referenced a protected characteristic. Intent on party a is not always how party b perceives things. It can also be a predisposition on party b to overly generalize things as being a slight, I.e., their own bias.
But as with many corporations, the appearance of wrong doing can be enough to elicit a response. Defending an action goes over in the court of public opinion worse than an apology. We will never know the truth, only what both sides have done after the incident, and PR responses have, to me at least, never been taken as actual guilt or innocence
But as with many corporations, the appearance of wrong doing can be enough to elicit a response. Defending an action goes over in the court of public opinion worse than an apology. We will never know the truth, only what both sides have done after the incident, and PR responses have, to me at least, never been taken as actual guilt or innocence
) - thinking the woman was ridiculous for asking for an unopened can and just tossing out what came to mind to tell her no "it can be used as a weapon"And I might add, I don't blame UA (or SkyWest) for this, nor do I blame some policy about half cans, or whole cans, or cups, nor do I think UA is a bigoted organization. If the allegations are true, its one FA going off script, and [gett'n a little Omni
] probably reflects American society at large to some extent, its certainly not UAs fault. My comments have simply been intended to illustrate that how United addresses issues at this point is broken, which is why these stories (about UA) take on a life of their own.But I do think if no comment had occurred, and nothing was said, the woman just made it up, as has been alleged, no way that UA - in the face of actual witnesses - just fires someone. Its not that its wrong, its that United would likely get sued. I just don't think United would invent a fall guy (or in this case a woman) on an issue where the potential for bite back was very large, particularly when they can get the same credit for doing the right thing w/o admitting fault if there was none.
It is total speculation, but the reports from the passenger as I recall was that the crew and pilot apologized. My further speculation from that is that the comment was a throw away line, and the FA recognized it was not appropriate. Termination would be very harsh (absent intent) and if the FA had an otherwise clean record might result in litigation. So the fix is to shuffle the person off into another path, and retrain them.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 4, 2015 at 2:42 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member -- please use multi-quote
Jun 4, 2015, 3:38 pm
#308
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: United Mileage Plus 1K
Posts: 16
I was seated in the row directly behind this lady. I was supposed to be in 7a (which the screaming guy was seated when I arrived) but took his seat in 8d. That is how I heard and saw everything.
As I said before in a comment that appears to have been deleted (apparently someone took offence to it), the amount of detail related in the post you're referring to seems improbable: people simply don't, as a rule, observe and remember that much detail unless they're trained and primed to do so or are working off video or some such.
There's also the simple question of where would the person have been sitting to have even been able to see events across such a wide swath of the cabin in the detail described? As you say, something isn't adding up.
There's also the simple question of where would the person have been sitting to have even been able to see events across such a wide swath of the cabin in the detail described? As you say, something isn't adding up.
Jun 4, 2015, 3:49 pm
#309
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,487
FWIW.
Jun 4, 2015, 4:36 pm
#310
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
So there was a screaming guy who was screaming at the female Muslim passenger? Did the offending FA (who was worried about hypothetical beverage weapon) confront "screaming guy", and was that done in defense of the female Muslim passenger?
Jun 4, 2015, 7:15 pm
#311
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
(1) United conducted an investigation
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
p.s. I might add a personal story. Several years ago, two co-workers of mine were on a plane. An incident happened, passenger complained. Both were contacted by United and asked what happened. They were told right off the bat that someone's job was on the line, and they wanted to make sure that what they did was fair to both the passenger and the employee, and that United would very much like their cooperation. After the interview they both got a think you note. It was all very thorough.
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
p.s. I might add a personal story. Several years ago, two co-workers of mine were on a plane. An incident happened, passenger complained. Both were contacted by United and asked what happened. They were told right off the bat that someone's job was on the line, and they wanted to make sure that what they did was fair to both the passenger and the employee, and that United would very much like their cooperation. After the interview they both got a think you note. It was all very thorough.
Jun 4, 2015, 7:18 pm
#312
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1
Long time lurker who just wants to chime in.
Thank's for taking your time out of your daily life to post that information ComeFlyWithMe33 and more.
Please excuse the demands other's here have made of you, it would be nice but don't feel obligated to do more then you already have.
If you read ComeFlyWithMe33 account, the FA never stated any worry about a beverage weapon.
I presume the screaming man was the one in ComeFlyWithMe33 account that told the Muslim woman to shut up for making a fuss.
Thank's for taking your time out of your daily life to post that information ComeFlyWithMe33 and more.
Please excuse the demands other's here have made of you, it would be nice but don't feel obligated to do more then you already have.
I presume the screaming man was the one in ComeFlyWithMe33 account that told the Muslim woman to shut up for making a fuss.
Jun 4, 2015, 11:43 pm
#313
Join Date: May 2015
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 165
Possibly because the flight attendant was otherwise distracted by the woman who was questioning her and therefore wasn't thinking about what she was doing until it was pointed out to that that during the distraction her actions were less than perfect? For the same reason that driving while texting causes errors, that distractions lower your performance and leads to errors?
One COULD say that if the flight attendant has ADD, that she got distracted and the woman is actually discriminating on the flight attendant based on the flight attendant's disability. Far fetched? a little, but in the absence of a statement that confirms the reasoning, much like no corresponding statement from the flight attendant such as "Because you Muslim women could use it as a weapon", it is jumping to conclusions as to cause. Infinite possible causes, but without a 2nd action or statement that supports the theory that the only reason is religious intolerance, no other variables have been isolated and eliminated. As another posted, maybe it's a fear of women, or a fear of people sitting in that particular seat. Two different actions for teo different people don't isolate the only variable of religion or ethnicity, there are most likely a zillion plus possible differences between the two drink orders, race, religion, gender, seat assignment, attitude, disposition of customer, level of concentration....
Get a collaborating other confirming action/statement, and you'd have a much stronger case. Or better yet, if once the woman pointed out the unopened beer to the flight attendant, if the flight attendant didn't rectify the situation, but alas, once the error was pointed out, the flight attendant corrected her action with the beer, which undermines the woman's claim that race/religion was the cause.
There are infinite equations that make a single point on a graph, but no pattern can be even reasonable based on a single data point.
People ask me all the time "Why are you gate checking my bah, is it because of XXX?" (XXX being a variable that is not pertinent to the oversized or excess bag.) "Why didn't you check that other person's bag?" (either it appeared to be within regulation or I missed it due to a distraction or focus on something else.)
One COULD say that if the flight attendant has ADD, that she got distracted and the woman is actually discriminating on the flight attendant based on the flight attendant's disability. Far fetched? a little, but in the absence of a statement that confirms the reasoning, much like no corresponding statement from the flight attendant such as "Because you Muslim women could use it as a weapon", it is jumping to conclusions as to cause. Infinite possible causes, but without a 2nd action or statement that supports the theory that the only reason is religious intolerance, no other variables have been isolated and eliminated. As another posted, maybe it's a fear of women, or a fear of people sitting in that particular seat. Two different actions for teo different people don't isolate the only variable of religion or ethnicity, there are most likely a zillion plus possible differences between the two drink orders, race, religion, gender, seat assignment, attitude, disposition of customer, level of concentration....
Get a collaborating other confirming action/statement, and you'd have a much stronger case. Or better yet, if once the woman pointed out the unopened beer to the flight attendant, if the flight attendant didn't rectify the situation, but alas, once the error was pointed out, the flight attendant corrected her action with the beer, which undermines the woman's claim that race/religion was the cause.
There are infinite equations that make a single point on a graph, but no pattern can be even reasonable based on a single data point.
People ask me all the time "Why are you gate checking my bah, is it because of XXX?" (XXX being a variable that is not pertinent to the oversized or excess bag.) "Why didn't you check that other person's bag?" (either it appeared to be within regulation or I missed it due to a distraction or focus on something else.)
Maybe it's because before I became a SAHM, I worked in customer service for 20+ years and that in my professional experiences, discrepancies in levels of service tended to be the result of human error and/or the general or even sometime irregular disposition of the employee - and had little to do with the customer themselves despite it impacting them.
Reading the posts from other forum members, there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus on UA handing opened or unopened drinks to passengers regardless of class of travel or any other variable (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and even beverage of choice).
However, typically they do not serve whole cans of soda or other complementary beverages served in coach (either open or unopened) to a passenger and instead serve it in a tiny cocktail glass as a way to minimize cost. Where as, someone buying a specific beverage , purchased the entire can, it's not something that is married between fellow passengers.
I've also seen posts here and other places, that as a best practice customers should be served carbonated beverages pre-opened because they are unstable and they don't want it spraying everywhere.
So in my mind, what would be the more likely explanation?
A) A FA absently or lazy minded handed an unopened and therefore full purchased beverage to a paying customer; but when was specifically asked by another customer for a full and unopened complimentary beverage they became more conscientious of the act and was therefore were reluctant to do so.
Or
B) This customer was the victim of systematic discrimination and prejudice by the FA and/or the airline...despite the FA, the pilot and the airline apologizing for what was an error in service.
Second, I question- did the FA actually tell the customer that an unopened can could be used as a weapon? Or perhaps they used a more innocuous term like 'It's a safety issue'. To a person who admittedly has an agenda in regards to "Islamphobia" and probably has been met with at minimum, distrust by some other Americans, I can see how they might internalize the mention of safety on an aircraft- as an implied terrorist threat. But in actuality, it could have meant nothing more than..."It could spray everywhere- and in this litigious society someone could claim it hurt them" .
Personally, when stories like this come out where someone is claiming discrimination, intolerance, ect...and the person making the claims is a known 'advocate' in that arena, it makes me more suspect of their motives rather than sympathetic to their plight.
Last edited by Martina70; Jun 5, 2015 at 12:42 am Reason: grammar errors
Jun 4, 2015, 11:56 pm
#314
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,578
So in my mind, what would be the more likely explanation?
A) A FA absently or lazy minded handed an unopened and therefore full purchased beverage to a paying customer; but when was specifically asked by another customer for a full and unopened complimentary beverage by another customer became more consensus of the act and was therefore reluctant to do so.
Or
B) This customer was the victim of systematic discrimination and prejudice by the FA and/or the airline...despite the FA, the pilot and the airline apologizing for what was an error in service.
A) A FA absently or lazy minded handed an unopened and therefore full purchased beverage to a paying customer; but when was specifically asked by another customer for a full and unopened complimentary beverage by another customer became more consensus of the act and was therefore reluctant to do so.
Or
B) This customer was the victim of systematic discrimination and prejudice by the FA and/or the airline...despite the FA, the pilot and the airline apologizing for what was an error in service.
Second, I question- did the FA actually tell the customer that an unopened can could be used as a weapon? Or perhaps they used a more innocuous term like 'It's a safety issue'. To a person who admittedly has an agenda in regards to "Islamphobia" and probably has been met with at minimum, distrust by some other Americans, I can see how they might internalize the mention of safety on an aircraft- as an implied terrorist threat. But in actuality, it could have meant nothing more than..."It could spray everywhere- and in this litigious society someone could claim it hurt them" .
This type of thing happens more often than you realize. Sometimes it takes a seasoned advocate to speak up. A random Muslim passenger in this situation would probably have just moved on.
Jun 5, 2015, 12:40 am
#315
Join Date: May 2015
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 165
A) is clearly the more likely explanation, however, it really is no excuse. She made a very insensitive comment to a member of a minority group and appeared to be treating her differently from other passengers. Being absent-minded or lazy is no excuse, and in fact that explanation calls into question her competence if there were to be an emergency or safety-related issue during the flight.
The exact wording she used has been widely reported in the media. Journalists usually don't do that without verifying sources. If it had been inaccurate, the FA or someone else would have said something to the press by now.
This type of thing happens more often than you realize. Sometimes it takes a seasoned advocate to speak up. A random Muslim passenger in this situation would probably have just moved on.
The exact wording she used has been widely reported in the media. Journalists usually don't do that without verifying sources. If it had been inaccurate, the FA or someone else would have said something to the press by now.
This type of thing happens more often than you realize. Sometimes it takes a seasoned advocate to speak up. A random Muslim passenger in this situation would probably have just moved on.
It may not be an excuse as to poor service in general, but this passenger didn't accuse the FA just of bad service but took it to another level with saying it was purposely discriminatory. IMO, I feel that accusations like that should require a higher burden of proof rather than just a suspected feeling.
The only person who is claiming the word weapon was used is her. In her mind, an item being listed 'a safety concern' and 'weapon' might be interchangeable.
Bad service is unfortunately not uncommon. Having said that, sometimes folks also like to internalize things and think that their negative experience is somehow unique and specific to them; and was based on someone else's bias against xyz...when it's just as reasonable to conclude that perhaps their interpretation of events is based on biases of their own.
