[countrynewsman]

Methinks Jetliner should change moniker to "Sherlock". Brilliant thinking!

[jimworcs]

Ditto... I am impressed and can you now solve the mystery of the man who parachuted from the airplane with a ton of ransom money in the 1970s?!!

[Leatherboy2006]

Firstly hopefully PHX is not banned for good I really enjoyed his input and his character. Secondly if we expect airline people (current and former) to identify themselves as such. Out of fairness why not make everyone say what they do. Seems only fair. If it wasnt for the fact that he know about the plane going to the hanger, I would say he does like I do, 1. I goggle a lot 2. I live in an apt. complex with several American and Southwest employees and show them some of these postings to see what they say 3. I deal with airlines air freight departments and have also show them the emails/posting. When dealing with the airline employees I will get told inside terms(and then after, asking what them mean) and being in my late 40's I came from the era of taking notes .
While its going to be a busy next couple of days (scarey when funeral homes say, business is good and busy ). we had 3 come in today and since I am not licensed director I get to type up paperwork and get the rooms ready for the wakes.

[Etihad Representative]

Hello all,

I know i am not a regular poster on this forum, however I do try and help out when I can, but would like to say that I have watched with interest over the last couple of weeks the escalating issues regarding posting. I myself have been on the end of one of PHXflyer's tirades, however I do not agree with banning him forever. If that is the case, then so should Butch! You cannot tell me that they were not antagonising each other, they were.

Both used foul language and both got a little hot under the collar, so why should one stay and one go? Moderator, there as to be consistancy in your actions, as presently the situation is unfair. I enjoy coming onto this site as airline staff, to help people and learn from others, and if a little heated debate happens so be it! But dont ban one when the other has jus cause to be banned also for the same reason.

I now understand that it has been found that PHXflyer alledgedly works for Southwest, Please believe me when I say that I DO NOT agree with his personal comments, however his working knowledge was pretty spot on, he didnt get it wrong often, however his personal opinions overshadowed this alot of the time.

There! I have had my say ... Boy do I feel better

[jimworcs]

I agree Cazzi, even though I rarely agreed with phxflyer. I have had a private communication from him and he still denies being an airline employee. Of course, it is the internet, so you can never be sure, but after his last communication with me, I am inclined to believe that he is not, in fact, an employee of Southwest. He has explained how he was able to find out where the Southwest plane went into the hangar. (Airliners.net and links with others in that forum helped out). I am not sure that the moderators are likely to change their mind, but I would hope they would re-instate phxflyer with a "red card". (For those who are not into football, (or soccer as you call it) you may need to google that reference!).

[Jetliner]

Well, I will stand corrected then as it seems he did do it with option A that I listed.

On another note:

Originally Posted by Cazzi B

so why should one stay and one go

Because one is pro airline, the other anti airline. There is an obvious double standard on the part of the moderator. This is made very clear by the fact that while he has banned HotWalnut and his/her other user names, he has not deleted the posts as he did with other spammers. The other spammers were just putting up links, presumably to ads or the like. HotWalnut has actually said something bad about the airlines, so those have stayed, even though they are vulgar posts and violate the set of rules the moderator put out.

[countrynewsman]

I, too, believe there is a double standard on the part of the moderator. As I have noticed, the vulgar posts by the individual posing as three (or is it four?) different people still remain here. Why?

[Jetliner]

Something just hit me like a ton of bricks. And because of it, PHX, if you are reading this, I sincerely apologize. Why?

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

One of PHX's "lesser offenses" was failing to identify himself as an airline employee. As of last night, on another site, he identified himself as a "flight attendant." Today, that same site has the words "flight attendant" omitted.

As I said before, if PHX was a flght attendant, he still had other experience. What he posted does not come from the knoledge of a FA. I can't believe that I fell for this. Who wants to take bets that Butch made this up?

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

To paraphrase a recent editorial in The New York Post: To those with unfettered motives—If my posts have offended, I am sorry. To those who’s agenda is to silence commentary favoring airline customers—no apology is due.

To the latter, and to anyone else, I direct your attention to the following link:

http://www.airlines.org/

As can be seen, this organization (The Air Transport Association—“ATA”) mirrors the sentiments of those on this board who, while not always defending airlines, tend to defend more often than not. In addition to this website, the ATA has paid lobbyists and publicity staff. There is, at least, one other similar organization representing the interests of smaller US-based airlines. On the other hand, airline customers are left with little more than boards like this to express their concerns. Accordingly, I submit the power of effective communication, and influence, is clearly on the side of the airlines. I fail to see how, to any reasonable person, it can be said the airlines do NOT have a meaningful voice on this site. My posts about the absence of civil rights on airport property, and on-board aircraft, have received strong criticism. Whether some would cite this position as, yet another, reason for my being banned I do not know.

As to my future posts, I may be less than congenial. However I expect all of my posts should conform to any reasonable (and agenda-free) person’s standard of decency. I acknowledge the moderator as the final arbiter of what is appropriate content.

As to PHXFlyer: If he is allowed back on this board it appears he, first, has some explaining to do. Based on his postings, elsewhere on the internet, the phrase “flight attendant,” or “former flight attendant” should appear below his screen name on this board as is the case for other airline staff who post here. For those who do not know, “CharliePhxAZ” is the prefix on PHX’s e-mail address. I suppose someone else could use that as a screen name, but I don’t think the statistical probability favors that. Anyway, here is a link, to an internet posting, where PHX, or “Charlie,” admits to being a flight attendant. For those who have said e-mail address, you will note the screen name matches the e-mail prefix right down to the case variations. As far as I know, PHX does not have the ability to delete his posting as contained in this link.

http://longboardsector.com/longboard...erhead-storage

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Who wants to take bets that Butch made this up?

Just like Alan Keyes will never accept the idea that Barack Obama is a native-born US citizen, there are those on this board who refuse to accept anything negative about PHXFlyer. In anticipation of a comment like this, I took the precaution of printing-out the web page in question--before PHX made alterations to it. I scanned the print-out and could post it on here. However, for those "PHX-defenders" I suspect the answer will simply be that I "photo-shopped" the relevent text. Likewise the link I referenced, in the previous post will, somehow, be denied.

[Jetliner]

How did you even find that? It does not come up on Google but plenty of other sites do. There are not post dates or times there. How do we know you didn't post that yourself?

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Jetliner went into a detailed explanation of why he thought PHXFlyer WAS a flight attendant. The minute he finds-out I'm the one who raised that question he denies everything he said!

[jimworcs]

I think we are getting diverted from the issue. To be honest, if Butch was making that link up, it takes a lot of imagination to have picked such an obscure point of reference, and kudos to his vivid imagination. Phxflyer may have been playing with the skateboarder, may be playing with everyone on this board or Butch might be playing games. It is the internet, so you should always have a healthy amount of scepticism about anything you read on these forums.. in the end, what difference does it make?

Butch, I am not anti you or pro-Phx. I am pro-debate and feel that speech should be protected unless there is an overwhelming reason not too. The obscene and childish postings by Walnut et al needed to be banned because they were nuisance, spamming type posts and contributed nothing.

Both you and phx overstepped the mark when the debate got heated, and I have no quarrel with the moderator exercising control over that. You were wrong to post phx's personal email in the public forum. Phx was wrong to get so overheated that he posted abusive private and public messages to the mods and other posters.

But why is it necessary for people to launch into demands that each get banned from the forum. By all means suspend, issues warnings and if the behaviour doesn't change then as a last resort ban. The internet is one of the few truly free forums for debate, is highly democratic and limiting debate should always be a last resort.

Frankly, whether phx has been an airline employee or not is neither here nor there.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Jetliner went into a detailed explanation of why he thought PHXFlyer WAS a flight attendant. The minute he finds-out I'm the one who raised that question he denies everything he said!

No, more in the line that someone who wouldn't normally be one to stand up for him indicated that I might be wrong. Then it occured to me that the only source of "He's a flight attendant" was you. You are the only one who has such a woodie that he must be an airline employee.

You are also the only one on here griping that anyone is trying to supress anyone's views, yet you are also the only one trying to do so.

[Silent Bob]

Getting back on track, I would agree with the majority as I also believe the mods here are actually looking at those who are pro airline, more so than those who are anti. I do believe there is room for both; this site was made clearly for those who want to vent their fustrations about the airline. However one cannot expect others to site idle by and not say something in defense, especially to those situations where its clearly the passengers fault and not the airline. I've gotten in a few heated discussions, but once was I threatened with being banned because of the language I used. However no sooner after the threatening of banning was issued when others started using foul, even worse language that what I did. I didn't say anything at the time because I believe the mods had to have seen the posts and were gonna do somethin about it, but that wasn't the case. PHXflyer should not be banned for calling out the mods, whethere he was a FA or not, is besides the point. HE had great views and offered excellent opinions and advice, plus he believed things were getting out of hand. And the mod's answer to that was to ban PHX? That's crazy and clearly unfair. This board is getting out of control with posts that attack one another, spammers, and total unfairness. If the mods want to keep some kind of order, and instill such rules as no foul language, then they need to start sweeping up around here, viewing pasts post and banning those who deserve it. You can't ban one and not the other, it shows your one sidedness by stating that those who defend the airlines can be ousted and those who are anti can have a pleasant day.

[Silent Bob]

Actually, this was the message, sent by the mods, that stated I could be banned. Mind you what's in quotation marks was not my writing, but the OPS. to me, once she made that statement, lost all its validity because it became something more personal. Yet I was accused of attacking her. wow!

Dear Silent Bob,

You have received an infraction at AirlineComplaints.org.

Reason: Offensive Response
-------
Dear SilentBob,

You're agenda on this forum is becoming clearer every day.

Instead of providing helpful responses to travelers, you ridicule them or attempt to discredit them.

If this behavior continues, you will be banned from this site. Either provide constructive feedback or keep it to yourself.

Lastly, what is your affiliation with the airline industry that prompts this pattern of behavior in defense of all airlines and against all travelers' complaints?

We expect a prompt response.

Sincerely,
AirlineComplaints.org
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.AirlineComplaints.org/showthread.php?p=2145

Quote:
(sb)You had me right up until:

(OP)"It appears the only conclusion I can draw from her behavior is that Ms. Oswald was racially discriminating against me because of my dark skin and hair; or because I am a young attractive woman and she is an old ugly bitter witch."

(sb)For all this to have happened something more went down than what was mentioned. But good tryin to come across as miss innocent. Though I don't think too many will buy this tale of woe.

All the best,
AirlineComplaints.org

[jimworcs]

Without doubt there is some inconsistancy, although I would say that this forum is designed to provide an outlet for passengers to vent their complaints against airlines. Although I find the debate and responses of airline employees interesting and sometimes useful, it is not the primary purpose of the site. I have to say SB... I think your point was a bit harsh too!!

[DRHHUB]

I'm not sure about PHXflyer working for Southwest. If you go to the Continental forum he has a posting about meeting with the head of Continental. I know this is the internet, and anyone can claim to be/do anything. But, taking it at face value, I don't see him meeting with the CEO of Continental if he is a regular employee of Southwest.

[AirlineComplaints.org]

Folks, have no doubt about it, this is a Pro-Consumer website. We welcome and encourage members of the airline industry to participate as long as they acknowledge their affiliation and provide constructive feedback.

There were several reasons to ban PHXFlyer. Any lack of consistency in our banning is simply due to the fact that this is an all-volunteer staff, so our time is limited and we cannot be in all places at all times. This is why we need your help in reporting posts that violate the forum rules. With the new Infraction Points system in place, temporary bans will be issued automatically based on these points from now on.

Also, please do not post Private Messages to the public. They are called Private for a reason.

Lastly, we are not naive. We know that there are Airline Employees participating in this forum who do not declare themselves as such, in violation of forum rules. As soon as we discover this, they are permanently banned. No exceptions. PHXFlyer was one example of this (we confirmed it), although he was banned for several reasons, not least of which was threatening to call his attorney over a post that contained his e-mail and had remained unedited. Such threats to the volunteer AirlineComplaints.org staff are grounds for immediate and permanent expulsion.

In summary, use the Report Post feature more often and stay constructive.

[Jetliner]

Question: Along with the spammer posts, is there any reason that the edicated volunteer staff are not catching the obvious BS posts? Right now we have someone posting how bad Spirit was for their recent trip, that they bought tickets on AA instead, but yet they also posted how bad the trip was on Air Tran.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

...is there any reason that the edicated volunteer staff are not catching the obvious BS posts?

Is that what the word "catching" means in this context? Censorship of posts you just don't like? You complained when I expressed the feeling that, at least at one point, there appeared to an effort, by the "airline"/ATA people on this board, to suppress content not supporting their view. If "catching" is not supposed to mean such an effort, what is a reasonable person supposed to believe it does mean?? If a post contains language unsuitable for a minor; abusive mockery; or similiar language then censor the SPECIFIC offending language and, if appropriate, issue a "violation notice," with "points," to the offender. Otherwise deal with it or leave this board. I read the "Air Tran" post. It sounds like the woman hasn't traveled by air a lot. In the case of both posts you, and some other airline/ex-airline people have made several responding posts. So it looks like the position of the ATA has been well aired in both posts. Even if this poster made everything up, and never set foot in an airport, why, in light of all the "airline"/ATA posts, (within the two threads in question) do you feel the airline side has been treated unfairly here?

[Jetliner]

By catching I mean exactly what was posted. That there are some posts that are obviously bogus posts. And I'm not the only one to call these out.

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Even if this poster made everything up, and never set foot in an airport, why, in light of all the "airline"/ATA posts, (within the two threads in question) do you feel the airline side has been treated unfairly here? [/FONT][/COLOR]

So you think it's OK for someone to come on here and just make up some story about an airline and post it if it's false?

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

So you think it's OK for someone to come on here and just make up some story about an airline and post it if it's false?

So, if it's false, you want it censored. Right? And, who is to be the judge of what is false, or "BS," yourself and the other airline people on here??

And I'm not the only one to call these out.

"Calling-out" (subject to the rules of appropriate language) is how one deals with "false" or "BS" posts. Why do you feel "calling-out" is not enough?? I'm sorry Jetliner, but censorship is what people with a less than noble agenda want. The Moderator has told you, this is a board dedicated to airline consumers. There are boards dedicated to airline people.

[AirlineComplaints.org]

Folks, we have decided to give PHXFlyer the benefit of the doubt and have re-instated his account under the following conditions:

• We label him "Airline Sympathizer" (instead of "Airline Employee") so that new users know where he is coming from.
• He publicly apologizes to the AirlineComplaints.org staff for his legal threat.
• He refrains from using sarcasm, personal attacks, and foul language in his posts.
• He sticks to facts and writes constructive and helpful posts (he can still obviously disagree with other users, but his posts have to be constructive, not destructive).
• He does not get into pointless arguments with other users.

He has accepted these conditions so expect to hear from him shortly.

Also, please note that the last 3 points above apply to everyone as well.

[jimworcs]

Despite our differences, I welcome this decision. Robust debate never did anyone any harm..