[ilissajh]

I was just kicked off the airplane because it took a minute to turn off my blackberry. The flight attendant was extremely rude and had ego issues. I've never been treated like that in my entire life. I travel 50% of the time and NEVER an issue like this. I highly recommend avoiding this airline at all costs.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

If the door was open when your phone finally shut-down you might mention it in any complaint letter. Not that it would make much difference. The airline, and its supporters on this board, will be very quick to tell you your phone should have been powered-off before you set foot into the aircraft. Was the flight attendant being a power freak? Certainly. Unfortunately, the airline is holding all the cards in this case. If, by some chance, the aircraft was moving, and there had been no announcements about people being allowed to use cell phone; and the aircraft had to return to the gate because of your actions--THEN--you did a major "no-no."

[PHXFlyer]

Again, I don't think we're getting the "whole story" here. I've been on flights where people have been asked repeatedly (2 or 3 times and NO, it wasn't me!) to turn off their BlackBerry or cellphone. I don't believe for a second that a flight attendant (but really the decision is up to the captain) turned an entire plane around simply because the OP simply "took a minute to turn off my blackberry."

[jimworcs]

Where does it say anywhere in the post by ilissaj that

a flight attendant turned an entire plane around

Are you making things up to disbelieve?

[PHXFlyer]

jim, if you're going to quote me please do so correctly and COMPLETELY:

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Where does it say anywhere in the post by ilissaj that

"a flight attendant turned an entire plane around "

Are you making things up to disbelieve?

My EXACT words were:

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

... a flight attendant (but really the decision is up to the captain) turned an entire plane around ...

(emphasis mine on OMITTED words)

jim, you're worse than those beloved tabloids of yours over in the UK!

I did, however, make a leap to assume that since having the BlackBerry powered on would only be an issue once the boarding door had been closed and that the aircraft was at least in readiness to push back from the gate. So "technically" the need to re-attach the Jetway and re-open the door to deplane this passenger would require a return to gate. Wether that return to gate was accomplished by moving the aircraft 0 feet or a Km it is still "turning around the aircraft" for a return to the gate in order to de-plane the passenger. They would then have to offload his bags, re-print the manifest, re-calculate fuel loads and weight and balance, etc.

I don't think the decision to put off this passenger was made on a whim. The crew took a delay which in the end would need to be explained to the airline because it cost them extra money. I doubt such a decision was made because the passenger merely "...took a minute to turn off (her) blackberry."

Now there's an example of proper quoting for ya! Cheers!

[jimworcs]

Phx,
I omitted them because they didn't change the meaning or context of the quoted words.. All of your sceanrio is an assumption because ilissajh didn't provide any detail whatsoever.

I am a Guardian reader, so the tabloids are far from beloved by me. In fact, tabloid journalists are less trusted in the UK than lawyers or politicians, which is saying something! Anyway, I think the invention of the scenario to fit your preconceived notion of what happened is a tabloid trick, don't you think?

Lets see if we can encourage ilissajh to give us a bit more detail before we jump to conclusions...afterall, airline employee's drunk on power are not completely unknown are they? For example, chucking infants off the plane for chattering...and that was your beloved Continental.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Phx,
I omitted them because they didn't change the meaning or context of the quoted words.. All of your sceanrio is an assumption because ilissajh didn't provide any detail whatsoever.

But I think it's important to note that ultimately the decision to remove a passenger from a plane, and return to the gate if it is necessary to do so, is the captain's. By quoting me out of contact it was as if I said the flight attendant had that authority.

I am a Guardian reader, so the tabloids are far from beloved by me. In fact, tabloid journalists are less trusted in the UK than lawyers or politicians, which is saying something! Anyway, I think the invention of the scenario to fit your preconceived notion of what happened is a tabloid trick, don't you think?

When I said "yours" I didn't mean yours personally. It just seems to me that the "Tabs" in the UK are quite popular.

As for my pre-conceived notion about what happened, it is perfectly OK to use one's cellphone or PDA whilst the boarding door is open. Once the door is shut and the flight is ready to depart all electronic devices must be shut off. I am going under the assumption here that the OP wasn't told to turn off her Blackberry prior to the closure of the boarding door as it wouldn't be an issue at that point.

Lets see if we can encourage ilissajh to give us a bit more detail before we jump to conclusions...afterall, airline employee's drunk on power are not completely unknown are they? For example, chucking infants off the plane for chattering...and that was your beloved Continental.

We'll see if we get any more details but, as is the case with many posts here, this may be a "1 Post Wonder!"

As for my "beloved Continental" I must say this in their defense. The incident you speak of was on a Continental Express flight operated by ExpressJet. Even though it operates with a Continental flight number and the aircraft is painted in a Continental-like livery, the flight attendant in question was an employee of ExpressJet and was trained by ExpressJet. Of course as a contractor for Continental certain standards are expected and the level of customer service should be consistent with that of the mainline carrier but that is not always the case.

I fly Delta quite a bit as well and besides knowing I'm on a smaller aircraft there is a marked difference in the level of customer service from the employees of their regional carriers Atlantic Southeast Airlines and Comair.

[jimworcs]

If Continental want to protect their brand, they need to be sure that the standards on their franchisees or contractors are the same, including customer interface roles. Most McDonald's are franchises, but they have built their empire on providing a predicatable level of service and product no matter where you go.

Of course, this pre-supposes that the "brand" of many US airlines is actually worth anything these days. Most seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying their reputations by themselves, without any extra help from their regional carriers.

It is certainly possible to maintain the standards even when you have different companies operating the same brand. BA, before they abandoned Bob Ayling's virtual airline concept, had many franchise and partner carriers and the service standards were definitely indistinguishable.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

the decision to remove a passenger from a plane, and return to the gate if it is necessary to do so, is the captain's. By quoting me out of contact it was as if I said the flight attendant had that authority.

As a practical matter, isn't the REAL authority based with the flight attendant?? How many times do you think the Captain actually over-rules the recommendation of the flight attendant to remove a passenger? Perhaps if the Captain happened to see the incident in question he might overrule. Otherwise, if a flight attendant says I was feeding a dinosaur; and wants me kicked-off (I had an animal outside its kennel!), will she be overruled? OK, perhaps the Captain, in this example, will over-look that dinosaur. Seriously, in the majority of cases, where a passenger is removed, does not the Captain essentially function as little more than a rubber stamp for the flight attendant’s determination? As to my dinosaur—has anyone seen that commercial with the 800 pound gorilla in first class?

They would then have to offload his bags, re-print the manifest, re-calculate fuel loads and weight and balance, etc.

Excellent quoting of the regulations. On the other hand, how many times is the door simply closed behind the exiting passenger, then the aircraft leaves with the ejected passenger's baggage still on-board. As another poster noted--this is a flaw a terrorist could exploit. I realize such a violation is less likely in the case of an overseas flight.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

If Continental want to protect their brand, they need to be sure that the standards on their franchisees or contractors are the same, including customer interface roles. Most McDonald's are franchises, but they have built their empire on providing a predicatable level of service and product no matter where you go.

Of course, this pre-supposes that the "brand" of many US airlines is actually worth anything these days.

For what it's worth I think most US-based airlines have policies to try to ensure "consistency" between mainline service and commuter. In practice I don't think such policies have been observed since deregulation (circa 1975). The incident where a mother, and her 6-year old son, (who wouldn't stop saying "bye-bye plane") were kicked-off a Continental flight in Houston occured on a Continental Express flight operated by Express Jet Airlines. Whether the same thing could have happened on a mainline flight? Who knows?

In another example, the check-in staff at a United code-share carrier, south of my home, consists entirely of high school kids working the early morning flight before school starts. They're polite. But they don't seem that efficient, and they don't inspire confidence.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

If Continental want to protect their brand, they need to be sure that the standards on their franchisees or contractors are the same, including customer interface roles. Most McDonald's are franchises, but they have built their empire on providing a predicatable level of service and product no matter where you go.

Of course, this pre-supposes that the "brand" of many US airlines is actually worth anything these days.

For what it's worth I think most US-based airlines have policies to try to ensure "consistency" between mainline service and commuter. In practice I don't think such policies have been observed since deregulation (circa 1975). The incident where a mother, and her 6-year old son, (who wouldn't stop saying "bye-bye plane") were kicked-off a Continental flight in Houston occured on a Continental Express flight operated by Express Jet Airlines. Whether the same thing could have happened on a mainline flight? Who knows?

In another example, the check-in staff at a United code-share carrier, south of my home, consists entirely of high school kids working the early morning flight before school starts. They're polite. But they don't seem that efficient, and they don't inspire confidence.

The child was 19 months old at the time. Big difference.

[jimworcs]

Yeah there is a big difference. You could potentially argue that a mother should be able to exercise some control over a 6 year old boy, but a 19 month old!! He simply hasn't got the cognitive development... that makes the actions of the flight attendant even worse.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Yeah there is a big difference. You could potentially argue that a mother should be able to exercise some control over a 6 year old boy, but a 19 month old!! He simply hasn't got the cognitive development... that makes the actions of the flight attendant even worse.

And the child is Autistic as well. Lawsuits are pending.

[jimworcs]

Was he Austistic?... or are you mixing him up with another case where an AA Flight Nazi kicked off a mother and her child who was distressed, flying out of Raleigh/Durham?

Does anyone know the outcome of the "bye bye plane" kid incident, by the way? Was it "bye bye flight attendant" or did Expressjet let their flight nazi get away with it?

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Was he Austistic?... or are you mixing him up with another case where an AA Flight Nazi kicked off a mother and her child who was distressed, flying out of Raleigh/Durham?

Does anyone know the outcome of the "bye bye plane" kid incident, by the way? Was it "bye bye flight attendant" or did Expressjet let their flight nazi get away with it?

Yes, the child is autistic, even though mildly so. Just Google "bye bye plane" and follow links to ABC.com and the Good Morning America interview with Diane Sawyer and the mother who brought the child with her. He obviously has attention span issues but is really a sweet kid. He says "thank you" to her co=host when he sits next to him and starts playing ball with the kid. It was genuine, too, not a prompted "thank you" from mom. From the heart. Makes you wonder had the flight attendant handled it a different way if the kid would have said "thank you" to her in that sweet angelic voice and melted her heart. I know it melted mine.

OK jim - open season on this one! HAHAHA! PHX has gone soft 'n slobbery!

[PHXFlyer]

Here's the link to the GMA video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3374063

[jimworcs]

Thanks for the link... although still no mention of autism. The kid is 19 months old... at this age the cognitive controls which are managed by the frontal lobes are not yet developed (hence the "terrible twos"). His rambunctious behaviour both in the interview and perhaps on the plane are entirely normal for a child of his age. I could see no sign of autism spectrum. He engaged emotionally, made eye contact and showed social behaviours such as the "thank you" to the co-presenter. This even melted phx's heart, which until now had been permafrost.

I am still very curious as to what action was taken against the FA. There were a number of witnesses who contradicted her account. I think it comes close to an offence to lie to the captain and interfere with the normal operation of an aircraft..

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

I think it comes close to an offence to lie to the captain and interfere with the normal operation of an aircraft..

Based on the fact that customers have been charged with this offense, it obviously is. If it was possible to document, with the testimony/deposition of witnesses, cases where nothing happened to a crew member who behaved like that Express Jet (Continental Express) flight attendant a customer, who was charged with a similiar offense, could use the argument of selective prosecution as a basis to overturn the charges. Indeed, a major attitude change, on the part of crew, would probably take place if someone prevailed on that argument. Unfortunately, since it's a near impossibility to obtain the needed witnesses and documentation, such an event is highly unlikely. At the present time the only things a crew member can expect consequences for are: setting a fire in-flight; stealing drink receipts; or being drunk.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

I think it comes close to an offence to lie to the captain and interfere with the normal operation of an aircraft..

Based on the fact that customers have been charged with this offense, it obviously is. If it was possible to document, with the testimony/deposition of witnesses, cases where nothing happened to a crew member who behaved like that Express Jet (Continental Express) flight attendant a customer, who was charged with a similiar offense, could use the argument of selective prosecution as a basis to overturn the charges. Indeed, a major attitude change, on the part of crew, would probably take place if someone prevailed on that argument. Unfortunately, since it's a near impossibility to obtain the needed witnesses and documentation, such an event is highly unlikely. At the present time the only things a crew member can expect consequences for are: setting a fire in-flight; stealing drink receipts; or being drunk.

I would think if there were a lawsuit, which in the case we're discussing there is pending litigation, the passenger manifest of th eflight in question could be subpoenaed. Certainly if a passenger was called as a witness for the airline the manifest would then be open as a part of discovery.

And to add to my previous post the fact that the child has been diagnosed with mild autism came out only when the mother filed her lawsuit. The case is still pending. I hope she wins a big cunk of cash and puts it in a trust fund for her son!