fastair

I only looked at it once 2 hours ago while walking, but if my recollection is correct, MOST of the filming was done without passengers on. I also don’t remember seeing passenger’s faces. While the time they filmed when there were passengers on was not representing Skywest/UAX well, and they should have been doing flight attendant work, most of it appeared to be filmed on their down time. Much ado about (almost) nothing.

riphamilton

here's the thing - in today's SM-driven world, having a job that involves travel potentially carries with it extra perks.

i wouldn't be surprised if this FA posts what she portrays as glamorous travels publicly not simply to be popular, but in order to gain followers and become an 'influencer.' these pseudo-celebrities often hawk no-name junk watches with fancy-sounding names, "fit teas", clothing, etc. companies pay per social media post. pay is generally determined by how many followers an account has. most get paid peanuts, but a select few (moonstrucktraveller comes to mind) do relatively well.

here's a perfect example of a UA pilot hawking watches from a 787 flight deck (instagram post should load inline):
if an employee posts his or her travels to a public insta/snap account, good for them! but i think UA/OO should have an issue when the employee (a) is posting on company time - especially when the faces of passengers are shown, and (b) creating paid content for a company other than UA while in a UA uniform.

JVPhoto

Thank you, you summed up a lot of what I was going to say but I was on my phone and didn't feel like typing.
There's a decent amount of pilots (I think LH has one with about 100k) and FAs (some Thai ones with 40k-ish) who post on social media and have a huge following.

I just looked at the video in the original post. Again it seems like most of this was done in the airport, riding as a pax or when the plane is on the ground empty. I don't see what the big deal is with that. The video in flight...again what's the big whoop? How is spending 20 seconds recording a video from the window worse than sitting and doing a crossword puzzle or Candycrush?

State of Trance

I'm assuming OP must also has a problem with the entire Trip Reports forum here, unless he/she specifically is being triggered by the prospect of being captured on Millennial apps. Public photography has always been and will continue to be a thing, especially in the setting of travel.

JVPhoto

Correct. Should anyone like to see what the NY State Supreme Court says about that can also investigate the Philip Lorcia-Dicorcia lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

aquamarinesteph

I do not fly United, but I would be upset if flight attendants were filming me without my consent and posting it online for others to view.

Ber2dca

Whether it's legally required or not in a particular jurisdiction (and it differs), blurring people's faces in photos or videos you take and publish where their faces are clearly visible (as in they aren't purely in the backdrop or part of a crowd) is the ethical thing to do.

jimmc66

The facts in Nussenzweig are hardly even similar.

jimmc66

It's hardly an issue just with United. I've seen in-flight FA videos from most of the US carriers.

DCP2016

As an aside, you do not have the expectation of privacy in public. While private companies might have rules in place to disallow photography/videos, the rule is if you are in public everyone has the right to film/video you. If you don't like it, you can stay at home with the shades drawn.

That being said, this is EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL considering United IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST offenders next to American Airlines of stopping individuals of taking pictures of their seat-back, food, any picture on-board etc. There are countless articles out there of United employees yelling, screaming at, or even kicking off passengers for using their camera.

If they are going to have a policy like this, it should be enforced for employees as well or they shouldn't have a policy like it in the first place. The little paragraph about personal video/photography in the United Magazine is extremely vague and up to interpretation.

JVPhoto

Why? They're surround by hundreds of people...in public.

I get if they were up in your face and you are taking up the entire frame of the photo/video. But, other than personal vanity or self-importance why would anyone care if they are in the background of a photo?

It's been 3 years since we used to go over the case in the photography classes I was teaching but I believe part of the decision was that in the modern age when we step out of our front door we are bombarded with surveillance, cameras, recording and we waive our expectation to privacy when we step out of our front door and into public. Now in 2017 it's even more the case, I can promise walking through an airport you are in the background of probably 4-5 (at the very least) photo/videos.

So yes the facts are different but it's entirely relevant.

aquamarinesteph

There is a difference between surveillance photos in the airport and a flight attendant's social media feed. The airport theoretically has security reasons for filming passengers in the terminal. A flight attendant would have no reason to post a photo of a flight's passengers without their consent unless an incident occurred during the flight. At that point, I'd hope that the flight attendant was busy dealing with said incident and not just filming it to make points on social media.

jimmc66

In the last hour I've been sent Snapchat videos by other Flyertalk members. Videos posted by other FA's.

• One of them shows FA's in secure, non-public areas of O'hare.
• Another shows a passenger in the first row of coach asleep, with the sound of two FA's mocking how she looks sleeping.
• One of them shows a FA shoving liquor bottles into her carry-on in the galley.
• Two have "beauty shots" of FA's that are obviously in-flight, in crew-area seating.

State of Trance

Ethical is subjective and in my opinion it's a far stretch to call it "unethical." It would be a generous courtesy on behalf of the photographer for sure, but at least in the United States street photography is perfectly legal and protected by free speech as JVPhoto has already pointed out.

State of Trance

The only one that I could possibly see as an issue is the second. FAs shouldn't be mocking their passengers while on the job. Otherwise, the rest all seem perfectly reasonable social media posts in 2017. Maybe it's an issue of an age or generation gap here since I'm used to seeing similar snaps or IG posts from most other 20-something year olds regularly.