If it entertains you to see things such as status, well I have no problem with that. And I agree that for the majority on this board it is harmless.

I do have problems with you seeing names, not to mention other comments on the manifest that have been discussed above.

The whole thread about the Manifest, etc is pretty lame if you think about it. I keep trying to get to the root of the problem about UAL inflight service. Again, I can't fault the inflight service, although it's REAL bad. I firmly believe though that management has done the worst job, cuts, cuts, cuts. That is what leads to the bad attitude in the cabin. Moral is gone totally south. If moral were high, they might protect the Manifest and it would be private. I don't let my client list get out to the general public. Does any one else on here?

I am finding it hard to understand the attitude of some folks on this thread. Two of our most helpful FA's on FT tell us -- how much plainer could they say it? -- that pax are not to be viewing the manifest:

So, even assuming that some on this thread didn't know that they weren't supposed to be reading it before, they do now. If the FA lets you look at it, that is entirely different and the responsibility has been transferred to them. But I think they've made it pretty clear that it is not intended to be public document (and, I suspect, they could in fact be in trouble if a pax made a complaint that the manifest was being allowed to be looked at.) They've asked us nicely not to initiate looking at the manifest; end of story for me.

There's lot of stuff in my life and I assume yours that are in "plain view" that I don't help myself to; I assume that you (and most of the folks on this thread) also refrain from lots of things that you could probably get away with that are in fact wrong. It seems to me that the effect of your argument is that we should take personal advantage of a working practice that makes the FA's jobs easier. The outcome of taking such advantage could be that different practices are subsequently mandated by their employer that makes their jobs harder. I don't care to contribute to that outcome, do you?

I am puzzled by this, especially given your continuing concern over what you perceive as the violation of FlyerTalk rules by folks offering to trade UA SWU's (which you have posted in several threads now). Your argument in those threads seems to be that that practice is against FT policy and should be curtailed. If you are right about that (and you make a very good case in those threads), I find your observation here inconsistent. I could just as easily respond that I find the trading of SWU's to be an "entirely harmless sport." But you and I have now been asked not to view the manifest, even if the opportunity presents itself. That's the rule enunciated by two of our most respected FT FA's. To assert that it's "harmless sport" (implying that you will continue to do it?) in the face of such requests seems disengenuous or at least inconsistent.

(edited for coding errors)

[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 01-25-2002).]

Not sure what flights you've been on lately, but mine have been wonderful. And as far as the "moral" that you're experiencing in the cabin. . .

I've found that the "morale" has been better than ever in most instances http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif At least in-flight.

cblaisd:
I always enjoy your good-natured whacks at me. If it is against UA rules to let passengers see the manifest, then what is it doing there for everyone to see? I do not see how anyone can legislate peripheral vision. My peripheral vision is my domain. I mean, I am also very curious about the big fat binders the FAs carry, but I'd never dream of snooping around in someone's bag. That would be wrong. If a couple of pages were posted in the galley, then sure, I might look at them.

On my last flight, the pilot has posted fabulous-looking color weather maps of the north Atlantic in the galley. I spent quite some time studying them. They were right next to the manifest. Should I do UA's job and self-censure ? If it's not for public knowledge, don't leave it out for the public to see. Frankly, I don't care if these things are posted or not. But if they are, sure I'll look at them. Classless act? Give me a break. I'm going to look at everything left for me to look at.

Re. the SWU issue ( if I may digress in this thread), it's the same thing (funny how we reach different conclusions). It's a matter of consistency. If it's against the rules, enforce the rules. If it's allowed in spite of being against the rules, then changes the rules.

Same with the manifest http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

One last note to further clarify, while I think of it: I would not look at information a friend or colleague would leave out out in plain view on their desk, I would not dream of it. United Airlines and I are most definitely not friends, they are a business entity and I am a customer. I'll look at what they post.

Incidentally, I don't think we'll ever hear from Randy on the SWU issue.


[This message has been edited by Droneklax (edited 01-26-2002).]

Another thing, for the sake of argument:

Somehow, I do not think that some of the information posted by our good friends Liz and basenji on this board is necessarily approved by UA either.

Yet, I do not think that many of us twist our head away from the screen, back of the palm on the forehead, uttering an offended ' Hide this information that I shall not dare look at because UA never intended me to see it"...
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Thanks Liz and basenji for your contributions to the board. I always enjoy your posts.

Nail in the coffin? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

No flight # for obvious reasons but I was cheerfully GIVEN by purser a manifest, signed by the same purser in the last few weeks. Was at end of flight but seemed there was no harm in it? Did not ask or even hint for it, but it is a neat souvenier. Very few 1Ks on a very full plane was my first observation.

Correct. Every airline has a set of paperwork that needs to be filled out by the LEO before permitting them to carry firearms aboard an aircraft. In the case of AA the paperwork is form E2, in the case of DL it is form MDLEO and I assume that UA has a similar one, although I have never had to use it. State and local agencies must present original orders to be permitted to carry, but there is a list of Federal agencies who are assumed to be on-duty at all times and are accordingly REQUIRED to carry firearms when traveling. The USSS is one of these agencies. The only requirement for them is to complete the requisite forms and present their credentials to the agent and/or the flight crew. It appears that the SS agent in the AA incident was unable to complete form E2 correctly on 3 seperate occasions, leading to the AA captain denying him PCFA priviledges aboard his aircraft.

B747-437B,

I expected better than that from you! Both of us have followed this story carefully enough to know that the first form was amended by the American gate agent (who crossed out one flight number and substituted another). The Secret Service agent had nothing to do with it.

From that point forward, the American captain was DETERMINED to find flaws in the paperwork -- or any other good excuse -- to keep this Arab-American off "his" plane.

Admittedly, I'm taking the side of the Secret Service agent, but mainly to counterbalance your apparently taking the side of American (which surprises me, frankly).

Bruce

And why would that be? Just curious, as the subject of SWUs and their use/misuse seems to go straight to the issue of treatment of the elites.

MrMillion, I agree wholeheartedly, and I clearly labelled the issue as an "Elite benefit" issue in the thread.
But I think asking Randy to express an opinion is also asking him to draw a line in the sand. Blairvanhorn and I talked about this in a smoky café on the Right Bank in Paris a couple of days a go [ that was such fun!]. I thought about it afterwards, and I do believe there is only one answer. Once the line in the sand is drawn, action has to be taken in Coupon Connection. But I don't think FT has the means to police what's going on.

Therefore, turning a blind eye is the only way until a moderator is in place, I am afraid. Randy might prove me wrong.

I'm not sure if someone else posted this already, but I suspect that most of us who have seen a dot matrix printout hanging on the wall of a galley hare not actually looking at the manifest. Most people have snuck a peek at the printout with the boxes that FAs use for meal service. I don't know what it's called, but that's what they hang up, for reference. The manifest is the one line per seat listing that is usually found folded up by the jumpseat, thrown about wherever, since it seems like the crew don't use it once they get underway. I have seen it from afar but would never go so far as to pick it up or look at it... but you would hope that the crew would put it more carefully away.

Hmmm, is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just happy not to have dealt with the IAD 1K room?

But Sean, you were moved to a middle seat on CO for "security" reasons, and you complained about it on FlyerTalk (valid complaint IMHO). At least you weren't kicked off the flight. Why do you believe AA in the Secret Service incident?

As someone who has worked in Law Enforcement, it is drilled into our heads to ensure that paperwork is completed CORRECTLY. I too would be suspicious of someone claiming to be a LEO and exercise PCFA priviledges if they were unable to complete the relevant paperwork on THREE seperate occasions. Granted, the first set of papers can be attributed to the gate agent, but the subsequent ones raised enough probable cause for the captain's suspicion to be aroused. At that point, he exercised his authority to deny PCFA priviledges to the passenger. The passenger was still welcome to travel without his firearm, which of course he could not do because of Secret Service regulations.

My situation with the Continental pilot was different because I was NOT trying to carry a firearm aboard, I was NOT questioned but simply instructed to move to a middle seat and Continental's excuse about the entire incident was not an explanation but rather a denial that it ever took place.