Code on Manifest Question
 

On a flight from JFK to SFo the other day, I noticed a code next to a passenger name.
It said: "ADV POSS NO MEAL"

Any clue?

Probably a typo and was meant to be ADV PASS No meal. Which would mean, Advise Passenger no meal. They may have ordered a special meal or they may have gone standby and there weren't enough meals boarded.

"Passenger" is always referred to as "PAX".

"POSS" is the accepted abbreviation for "possible" or "possibly"

I hate to sound like a broken record, but y'all aren't supposed to be looking at the manifest. It was that way pre 9/11 and it's still the same rule. (B-747, come on in and yell at me,lol). I'll ASSuME that you happened to notice it on accident in passing. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Advise possible no meal. There were not enough meals so this person was chosen to "possibly" not receive a meal and should have been advised. Some reasons, they are an SA, they came from another flight, from another airline, etc. Basically they were not part of the original meal count. Normally we would have enough refusals that this doesn't matter.

Unless you fly BD full-fare club from Paris and they have 4 hours to advise CDG catering!

This is irrelevant but ....

On a NRT-BKK flight last year, I didn't ask for it but a manifest was wide open in front of my eyes .... (I won't elaborate why.)

It showed all the passenger in F but one were NF (which suggested that some were op-upg and designated NF). The remaining one was me. I was XF. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

United, in the somewhat distant past, used to print out the manifest and give every First pax a copy to encourage cabin social interaction. "Your Fellow Passengers..."

Luftansa, to this day in First, hangs the passenger manifest right on the bulkhead wall for all to see.

Chiangi, sounds like the gate agent loaded the DM list along with the manifest (which sometimes happens by mistake). The manifest usually does not include any indication of NF, XF, etc. Just your status (or in the case of UA employess or retirees, their hire date).



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

In addition, when a passenger is travelling in paid C or F, the manifest often includes the designation full fare as well as the MP status of the passenger. So its actually fairly easy for the FAs to discern between such passengers should they have a reason to do so.

". . . distant past . . ." indeed. Golly, PremEx, you don't look that old. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I have never seen a "full fare" designation on a manifest (even when traveling with known full fare pax) and was told by a United VP once that this was done on purpose so as not to inadvertantly encourage FA's to treat upgraded passengers any less that full fares in terms of service.

The DM and gate management lists do indicte this, but the on-board manifest does not, as far as I have ever known.

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

I just love all this secrecy over the manifest. As long as it doesn't reflect who is armed or a sky marshall, and it doesn't, who really cares?

The only thing I want to see is how many other 1Ks there are. If I didn't get an upgrade, I'd be curious to see how many NRSAs are in the forward cabin...

Could that be the reason UA doesn't want us looking at it? Oh, yeah, I'm sure the real reason is the privacy rights of the other passengers. Hmm, they're in a public place, on a common carrier, with a gate agent and flight attendant (sometimes) calling them by name...where's the privacy issue?

With the limited info that is on a manifest, what is the big deal?

... you can get more information from a phone book!

------------------
"What do you mean you didn't get miles for that?!"

Actually, the manifest DOES list armed pax! They are known as PCFA ("passenger carrying fire arm"), and it may be that you haven't noticed this simply as they are (thankfully!) rare.

Starman: my recent experience contradicts your statement. I SAW the gun strapped to the sky marshall's lower leg out of DCA, and there was nothing special noted on the manifest...perhaps things have changed post 9/11????

Federal Air Marshals are not classified as PCFA and are not required to complete the PCFA paperwork formalities. Hence, they may not be designated as such on the manifest. PCFA does however extend to any other LEOs (Federal, State or Local) transporting loaded firearms in the passenger cabin.

The somewhat big debacle over the Secret Service Agent who was denied boarding due to a variety of said reasons, that was flying to meet President Bush. That passenger would be a PCFA if he carried a firearm, right?

------------------
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.

- Leonardo da Vinci

Well, since Always Flyin brought up the issue of secrecy, one note did say "NYPD"
The manifest in coach was available for viewing since the FA's were seated doing their bids for an hour or two after the service on a Transcon. The load was light and they had plenty of seats. They put out ice, soft drinks and cups so you could help yourself and read the manifest.

During each of my full fare "premium" transcons flights between SFO and JFK over the last year, I have seen this designation on the onboard manifests nearly every time I have looked. This is a rhetorical question, but is it possible that for some reason they were consistently loading the DM manifests on these flights?

Now that I think about it, I do not recall ever seeing this designation on any other flight. But I have seen some other anomalies over the years, On a flight between PDX and IAD last year, nearly every passenger occupying the front cabin was listed as *Gold, accompanied by no other differentiating MP criteria. Incidentally, the FA on that flight interpreted *Gold to be synonymous with 1K.

I do agree with the stated intention of the United VP, i.e. that the on board manifests really should not contain any information that would enable the FA to distinguish between full fare passengers and upgrades.

I will certainly remember to tell my crew to keep the manifest out of view after reading through this thread.....

When I flew JFK-SFO on a XC award, I remember seeing a XC designation next to my name. FYI the galley FA in C handed me the manifest to look at.

I can't remember a flight on UA where the manifest WASN'T in plain view -- taped up in the F/C galley.

Way to go, mpclaw! Now you did it. Besides Marty, we know you would never purposely look, right?

Whatever the other codes may be (and I've never been able to look at a manifest long enough to make much sense beyond the *G and 100K designations), I would like to see the designation "VSIP" for a few of my fellow passengers: "Very Self-Important Person."

The rest of us need the warning! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I was trying to point out in a nice way that there IS some info on there that is not for the public. Who is carrying is one of them. The Capt. and f/a's are to be the only people who know.

I'm sure you know I'm not trying to be a B-i-t-c-h about this, but it's just that not all pax are as nice as you all are (or seem to be).

Come on, guys. I find "manifest peeking" a highly entertaining, entirely harmless sport.

With the seemingly endless service cuts (is it me or is the meal duration close to 1/3 shorter now? Must be the cheesecake-near-the-salami effect), and "Planets of the Apes" in its 6th month of service, we've got to find something to do.

Just let it hang right where it is. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

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

Manifest not for PAX to see? I think not. On my Dec. flight back from AMS, it was POSTED in the Galley. I stood there and read the whole thing while the FAs were either sleeping or standing around in another galley complaining to each other.

Liz is right. She's too shy too say it, so I will: "Mind your own business".

You know, this whole thread reminds me of a person who gossips about a conversation they overheard that they were never MEANT to be part of.

Professionally, I work in an industry where people pay tens of thousands of dollars for seemingly meaningless information, like who's flying where and when.

Personally, It amazes me that others scumb to level of peeking at the manifest, classless.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

How's that for a diatribe?

Duplo, you are right, I'm trying to be very nice. What a good f/a, lol. When I worked in an office sometimes you would see things out on the boss' desk that looked interesting. You might want to read it just because it is "there". It's not your business, never was, but you just want a peek. Just because it's sitting out doesn't make it right, and the f/a's shouldn't be allowing it either. They might not be thinking about it though.

Yes, I guess I was "snooping" since the Manifest was in the galley and I was waiting for the Lav. The bigger point of my post was that there were no FAs around, like I said, they were either in the back galley complaining to each other or asleep! Great service UAL! I had to get more ice water by myself. Let's face it, the service is zero!

"Personally, It amazes me that others scumb to level of peeking at the manifest, classless."

Then I am classless. Also, I often ask to see it just to be sure they added the appropriate comments after my name. And no, the comments don't read "Classless a$%".

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.