Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Delta reinstates pax who refused to comply with FA directives.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

    captains are close to being absolute monarchs during flight but they still work for companies that pay them. not to mention the fact that the very policy of banning was enacted by the company not the flight/cabin crew.
    What’s your point? That it’s ok to disregard them because they might be following procedure?

    Comment


    • #17
      what was your point? that the company by changing its mind on enforcing the rule that IT created is somehow undermining its own employees?

      not only do you want to dictate what and how the government does what it does, but your intolerance and authoritarian tendencies also extend to company operations and decisions.

      how about we just come up with a nice name for your overall philosophy, say, "The World According to Evan?"

      yeah, has a nice truthful ring to it!

      Comment


      • #18
        I see merits for both positions.

        A person is caught smoking weed in a place where it is illegal, a police officer sees that and tells the person to stop doing it, the person instead of stopping keeps doing it and blows smoke in the face of the officer, the officer tries to arrest him and the person resists violently. He is eventually arrested and found guilty of use of a controlled substance and attacking a law enforcement officer. The state then passes a law that says that recreational use of marijuana is legal. Does the person go free? Maybe yes for smoking weed, no for attacking the officer.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          I see merits for both positions.

          A person is caught smoking weed in a place where it is illegal, a police officer sees that and tells the person to stop doing it, the person instead of stopping keeps doing it and blows smoke in the face of the officer, the officer tries to arrest him and the person resists violently. He is eventually arrested and found guilty of use of a controlled substance and attacking a law enforcement officer. The state then passes a law that says that recreational use of marijuana is legal. Does the person go free? Maybe yes for smoking weed, no for attacking the officer.
          The place where it was illegal, but is no longer illegal, says to the person who disrespected the officer (who was just doing his job), "Forget about it, sign this and we're glad to welcome you back!"

          If the officer says, "F*ck this chickensh*t outfit, I quit!", could you blame him?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Evan View Post

            The place where it was illegal, but is no longer illegal, says to the person who disrespected the officer (who was just doing his job), "Forget about it, sign this and we're glad to welcome you back!"

            If the officer says, "F*ck this chickensh*t outfit, I quit!", could you blame him?
            blame? yeah, he doesnt respect the very laws he's been sworn to uphold. cops dont get to make up laws or disregard them when they disagree with them. as long as they want to remain employed as a cop, they do as they are told to do.

            sure, it can be frustrating to them when they arrest someone and the other parts of the justice system fail to convict or punish. doesnt give the cop anymore rights.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TeeVee
              cops dont get to make up laws or disregard them when they disagree with them.
              Who, in this analogy, is doing that? When the mask mandate ended, the FA’s stopped enforcing it. This is about undermining their authority by retroactively removing the
              penalty for non-compliance with a flight crew. That both diminishes morale and emboldens rebellion. It’s a very thoughtless—and potentially dangerous— pandering gesture on the part of a management that has little regard for its own people.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Evan View Post

                Who, in this analogy, is doing that? When the mask mandate ended, the FA’s stopped enforcing it. This is about undermining their authority by retroactively removing the
                penalty for non-compliance with a flight crew. That both diminishes morale and emboldens rebellion. It’s a very thoughtless—and potentially dangerous— pandering gesture on the part of a management that has little regard for its own people.
                ok. let me step through this so we are clear: you, evan, work for me in a marijuana dispensary. i own the dispensary. i tell you on monday, that you have the right to ask anyone that enters the store that appears high to leave and if they dont they will be banned for life. you do your job like a champ and toss 35 customers out in the 1st two days. 20 other customers refuse to leave so they are removed by the po-po for trespass. i, as the owner, opt not to press charges and let the 20 degenerate pot-heads off the hook. i also tell them that they are welcome to come shop at MY dispensary anytime as long as they are not high when they come in.

                exactly whose authority did, i, as the owner, undermine? yours? shit! i gave you the damn authority to begin with! aside from that, deciding not to enforce the rule that I MADE is MY CHOICE as the owner and rulemaker, not yours as the employee.

                p.s. i have not heard that the government has backtracked on imposing penalties, but even then, they made the rule so they get to decide. america's doors swing both ways. feel free to leave anytime....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

                  exactly whose authority did, i, as the owner, undermine? yours? shit! i gave you the damn authority to begin with! aside from that, deciding not to enforce the rule that I MADE is MY CHOICE as the owner and rulemaker, not yours as the employee.

                  p.s. i have not heard that the government has backtracked on imposing penalties, but even then, they made the rule so they get to decide. america's doors swing both ways. feel free to leave anytime....
                  Bad analogy. No third party. No damages. No crime. No external regulation. Purely local jurisdiction. Regulation was rescinded by its creator, not a judge. No appeal pending. Ownership dynamics are mismatched.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    https://youtu.be/PEy6968xO-I

                    [Gray font and maybe occasional blue]

                    There may be some policy that passengers are not allowed in the galley (except for coach passengers to pee on a 737-Minlav.)

                    So, TeeVee does not comply and puts his rotten mayo in the galley.

                    A passenger is told to don their mask, but instead the passenger charges forward cussing and threatening and is subdued by force.

                    A passenger has an itchy nose and after the third time, the FA declares them non compliant, and puts them on the naughty list with TeeVee, and the dude ready to fight over masks.

                    At some level, all of these people have “failed to comply with the flight crew”.

                    Maybe the airline actually has some extra records on example 2.

                    But if I were in charge, I think I’m forgiving 1 & 3…Because business(TM) (Citation TeeVee).

                    Unfortunately Evan feels the crew has been undermined, and therefore might place my airline on his no-fly list. We better check customer opinion using a decent sample size and a properly-designed survey.*

                    *Footnote: Study designed to give us the answers we want to hear and maximize profit.

                    [/Color]
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      https://youtu.be/PEy6968xO-I

                      [Gray font and maybe occasional blue]

                      There may be some policy that passengers are not allowed in the galley (except for coach passengers to pee on a 737-Minlav.)

                      So, TeeVee does not comply and puts his rotten mayo in the galley.

                      A passenger is told to don their mask, but instead the passenger charges forward cussing and threatening and is subdued by force.

                      A passenger has an itchy nose and after the third time, the FA declares them non compliant, and puts them on the naughty list with TeeVee, and the dude ready to fight over masks.

                      At some level, all of these people have “failed to comply with the flight crew”.

                      Maybe the airline actually has some extra records on example 2.

                      But if I were in charge, I think I’m forgiving 1 & 3…Because business(TM) (Citation TeeVee).

                      Unfortunately Evan feels the crew has been undermined, and therefore might place my airline on his no-fly list. We better check customer opinion using a decent sample size and a properly-designed survey.*

                      *Footnote: Study designed to give us the answers we want to hear and maximize profit.

                      [/Color]
                      That’s pretty black and white of you. Obviously, ‘failure to comply’ has degrees of magnitude and discretion over which violations require a no-fly ban must consider this. And they did. Those who showed blatant disregard, as well as those who used aggression, made the list. And now the airline tells them, that’s ok, just sign this ‘won’t happen again’ form because’ we’d like to have you back again.

                      We should also do this with terrorists, bank robbers, wife-beaters and drunk drivers, doncha think?

                      Or is disrespect for rules something more deeply rooted in certain people?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        And now the airline tells them, that’s ok, just sign this ‘won’t happen again’ form because’ we’d like to have you back again.
                        What is “blatant disregard”?

                        ”I refuse to wear a mask because a mask because masks can harbor pathogens”.

                        Wild-ass guess: 90 to 95% of these incidents were verbal and lacking in naughty words like physical threats…

                        For something that has been determined to have come from improper law making…

                        Yeah, let them fly and we’ll deal with the truly bad people the way we always have. What’s the problem?: There’s no issues violently pulling paid passengers off when you need to reposition a pilot.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                          What is “blatant disregard”?

                          ”I refuse to wear a mask because a mask because masks can harbor pathogens”.

                          Wild-ass guess: 90 to 95% of these incidents were verbal and lacking in naughty words like physical threats…

                          For something that has been determined to have come from improper law making…

                          Yeah, let them fly and we’ll deal with the truly bad people the way we always have. What’s the problem?: There’s no issues violently pulling paid passengers off when you need to reposition a pilot.
                          - Sir, you need to use a mask.
                          - Sorry, I am not willing to do so.
                          - It is a requirement, not optional.
                          - Still, I won't.
                          - In that case, sir, we will have to ask you to leave the plane.
                          - No, thank you.
                          - I am sorry sir but wearing a mask aboard this plane is a federal requirement and our airline's requirement. Your 2 options are: wear a mask, or abandon the plane, voluntarily or otherwise.
                          - Ok, in that case I choose to abandon the plane.
                          - Thank you.

                          I don't think that these type of interactions ended with passengers being blacklisted.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                            - Sir, you need to use a mask.
                            - Sorry, I am not willing to do so.
                            - It is a requirement, not optional.
                            - Still, I won't.
                            - In that case, sir, we will have to ask you to leave the plane.
                            - No, thank you.
                            - I am sorry sir but wearing a mask aboard this plane is a federal requirement and our airline's requirement. Your 2 options are: wear a mask, or abandon the plane, voluntarily or otherwise.
                            - Ok, in that case I choose to abandon the plane.
                            - Thank you.

                            I don't think that these type of interactions ended with passengers being blacklisted.
                            No-fly lists are like dinner party un-invitations. You made an ass of yourself at the table, made everyone uncomfortable and insulted the host. We don't want to have you over anymore. We are a civilized airline. You are an 'undesirable' person and we don't want to deal with your sh*t.

                            Oh, but wait, what's that jangling in your pocket...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                              - Sir, you need to use a mask.
                              - Sorry, I am not willing to do so.
                              - It is a requirement, not optional.
                              - Still, I won't.
                              - In that case, sir, we will have to ask you to leave the plane.
                              - No, thank you.
                              - I am sorry sir but wearing a mask aboard this plane is a federal requirement and our airline's requirement. Your 2 options are: wear a mask, or abandon the plane, voluntarily or otherwise.
                              - Ok, in that case I choose to abandon the plane.
                              - Thank you.

                              I don't think that these type of interactions ended with passengers being blacklisted.
                              You are missing something here...

                              TeeVee's mayonnaise story- there was NOT two sides to it.

                              According to TeeVee (yes, a biased source), there was never, "Do (or don't do) X or you will be placed on the no-fly list"

                              It was- hey, this mayo is rotten, some sort of dismissal from the flight attendant, and then TeeVee said something ugly and took his own tray to the galley (which may have been some sort of violation)...

                              Then, he arrives at the airport, and the airline won't check him in...

                              Not_exactly good procedure that he secretly got black listed because him and the FA got pissy over rotten mayo...

                              And for the umpteenth time- who gives a rat about YOUR idea of the blacklist & "forgiveness". Delta Airlines gets to decide...it's their airplanes, their crews, their stockholders their P & L statement and whether an improperly-enacted law is worth losing customers over...

                              Not like they are letting murder suspects go with no bail...which is happening occasionally in the ole US of A.

                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                3BS-modified Evan post:

                                Originally posted by Evan View Post

                                No-fly lists are like dinner party un-invitations. You made an ass of yourself at the table, made everyone uncomfortable and insulted the host. We don't want to have you over anymore. We are a civilized airline. You are an 'undesirable' person and we don't want to deal with your sh*t.

                                Oh, but wait, what's that jangling in your pocket...
                                Yes.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X