Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Delta reinstates pax who refused to comply with FA directives.

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

  • TeeVee
    replied
    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...
    NOW you're starting to get it!!!! GLORY~!

    Leave a comment:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    Originally posted by flashcrash View Post

    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 Regulation was rescinded by its creator, not a judge.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.
    call me when you have a better understanding of the law and of corporate dynamics, as in, who makes the rules and who gets to unmake them.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    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]

    Leave a comment:


  • flashcrash
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    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....

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X