It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3 women escorted off flight insist they're victims

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

3 women escorted off flight insist they're victims


www.sfgate.com

According to passengers' accounts to television station WPTV (http://(link tracking not allowed)/sewEuh), the first woman was kicked off the flight after complaining to a flight attendant about how he handled her overhead baggage. The second one said she was removed after asking for help with a broken seat. And the third said she was shown the door after complaining about the removal of the first two.

None was charged with a crime.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
As an ex-Navy man, I've long been an interested observer of what happens when cowardly and incompetent people are invested with authority. And this story is a perfect example.

First one is kicked off for complaining about how a flight attendant handled her overhead baggage.

Second one kicked off for asking for help with a broken seat.

Third one kicked off after complaining about the other two being kicked off.

WTF??!!

And that's according to the reports of other passengers--not some lame excuses made up by the women in question.

Ahem... "None [of the women] was charged with a crime." Well, thank God for that, anyway....

www.sfgate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2


As an ex-Navy man, I've long been an interested observer of what happens when cowardly and incompetent people are invested with authority. And this story is a perfect example.

First one is kicked off for complaining about how a flight attendant handled her overhead baggage.

Second one kicked off for asking for help with a broken seat.

Third one kicked off after complaining about the other two being kicked off.

WTF??!!

And that's according to the reports of other passengers--not some lame excuses made up by the women in question.

Ahem... "None [of the women] was charged with a crime." Well, thank God for that, anyway....

www.sfgate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Never forger ------ Absolute power corrupts absolutely.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
First one is kicked off for complaining about how a flight attendant handled her overhead baggage.

Second one kicked off for asking for help with a broken seat.

Third one kicked off after complaining about the other two being kicked off.


Sure you can probably sum up the events with a few words, but what was the attitude of the passengers?

How exactly was the first person complaining? Did they politely complain? Or did they use curse words while complaining?

How did the other person ask for help with the seat? Did they politely ask? Or did they demand instant help with attitude?

How did the third one complain?

If the passengers gave attitude, used foul language, or made the flight attendants uncomfortable, they have every right to kick them off the plane. There is nothing worse than being trapped inside a small area with people that you don't feel comfortable with or you have made angry.

I don't see the big deal here.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by K1771gnorance
 


I'm inclined to agree with you. If we could go back in time, we would probably see all three throwing a tantrum fit.

It's very unlikely that the attendants would have reacted this way without good reason.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by K1771gnorance
 

Doesn't matter. It's emblematic of a much larger pattern. Too much authority has been given to aircrews, and they've been abusing it for years.

Indeed, that pattern is emblematic of an even much larger pattern--and it includes teachers and school administrators, child protective services, homeowner associations, security guards.... When small people are given big authority, it always turns out bad. Not knowing how and when--specifically not having been *taught* how and when--to exercise authority is the root problem.

Doesn't matter....



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
Doesn't matter.


What doesn't matter? Treating people with disrespect and a bad attitude?

If you go to a restaurant and you treat your waiter with disrespect they have a right to refuse service to you. It is the same in an aircraft. If you treat the flight attendants with disrespect they have a right to refuse service and kick you off the aircraft.


Originally posted by Ex_CT2
It's emblematic of a much larger pattern. Too much authority has been given to aircrews, and they've been abusing it for years.

Indeed, that pattern is emblematic of an even much larger pattern--and it includes teachers and school administrators, child protective services, homeowner associations, security guards.... When small people are given big authority, it always turns out bad. Not knowing how and when--specifically not having been *taught* how and when--to exercise authority is the root problem.


Sounds more like you have a problem with authority.

This isn't about abusing authority. You think flight attendants get some joy for randomly kicking passengers out? Yeah right, get real. These flight attendants are trained and told to remove unruly people because they are locked in a small compartment with them for several hours at a time. They fear things can escalate while in route, and could cause security and other issues. This is standard procedure, and if you don't like it then don't fly, or just act like an adult.

-edit to add-

There is also another type of problem that seems to go unnoticed. There are large amounts of people who think they can treat business likes slaves and with disrespect simply because they paid for their services, and they think they are entitled to whatever they want. Some don't even realize that at any time the business can refuse your service and kick you to the curb along with your money.


edit on 17-12-2011 by K1771gnorance because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by K1771gnorance
 


I'm inclined to agree with you. If we could go back in time, we would probably see all three throwing a tantrum fit.

It's very unlikely that the attendants would have reacted this way without good reason.


Did you and ignorant one even bother to click on the link, much less actually read the article?
Unlikely? Are you kidding me? Unlikely is 3 separate people being thrown off one flight for good reason, 1 maybe. And then SW turning around and immediately putting them back on a flight and paying them for their inconvenience. Forget about no charges being filed against anyone, yeah, that all seems likely.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Its private property, they dont have to be charged with a crime to be removed from the aircraft. They dont have to have a reason to remove a person from an aircraft either.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by K1771gnorance
 


Did you even bother to read the article?? Seriously, not only is your entire argument based on a total assumption (which is beyond foolish), it also does not add up with what is in the article.

First off all, the description for why these women were tossed off the plane does not come from the women but from other passengers who witnessed the event. So do you really think if these women were being completely rude, belligerent and disrespectful that the witnesses would exclude that part from their story?

It makes perfect sense for someone who was thrown out of a plane to leave out key parts that would cast blame onto themselves, but it makes no sense for multiple witnesses to do so. The witnesses have nothing to gain.

Of course the most telling part is at the end of the article which is why I am pretty sure you did not bother to even read it.

A spokeswoman for AirTran parent company Southwest Airlines Co. said Tuesday that the women were booked onto new flights and given compensation as "a gesture of goodwill for their inconvenience."


Can anyone name one single business that compensates it's customers if they are removed for acting like morons? That simply does not happen. No company will eat the cost for a customer that deserved to be thrown out. That whole idea is beyond stupid.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by K1771gnorance
 


I just see some people immediately working the other side to cast doubt on the women, when the other customers would have brought up their surly attitude if they had one.

And also, this is Molloch/Saturn/Demonic NWO stuff. I think that everyone should demand arrests of all the criminals doing this. And with really loud bullhorns 24/7 until its done.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by K1771gnorance

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
Doesn't matter.


What doesn't matter? Treating people with disrespect and a bad attitude?
. . .

Sounds more like you have a problem with authority.


Yes, it does sound like I have a problem with authority. Having a problem with incompetent exercise of authority often sounds like a problem with authority.

I think the actions of the flight attendants pretty much speak for themselves. Those actions are emblematic of people who have little other hope of dealing with a situation than to crush the cause of it under color of authority. People who have a real respect for authority make it a point to learn how to exercise it to defuse problems, and not use it to punish. Tossing 3 different people off a flight for things that could have been more delicately handled seems a bit extreme to me.
edit on 12/17/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Can anyone name one single business that compensates it's customers if they are removed for acting like morons? That simply does not happen. No company will eat the cost for a customer that deserved to be thrown out. That whole idea is beyond stupid.


Lots actually... The key phrase that is used is called theft by deceit or fraud, your choice. When a business engages in behavior that allows them to collect money from a willing buyer, only to change the rules at the last minute in order to deny the product while retaining their money.

If there is enough behavior of that type coming from a business / industry, we can delve into the RICO statutes (racketeering and criminal enterprise).

Hence ther eason they were booked on other flights.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


The term color of law applies to individuals who are agents of the government (Police / Sheriff / FBI / etc). Depending on state, security personell could fall under that.

Private employees of a business do not. A priovate business does not have to have any reason to deny service to any person for any reason.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Buy a ticket to ride in my car. Then complain when I decide exactly how riding in MY car is going to go down for you.


Bootstraps anyone?
Build their own plane.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


The term color of law applies to individuals who are agents of the government (Police / Sheriff / FBI / etc). Depending on state, security personell could fall under that.

Private employees of a business do not. A priovate business does not have to have any reason to deny service to any person for any reason.


Riiiggghhttt. Try owning a bar in Daytona Beach and shutting it down during the week of BCR (black college reunion). You have not a clue of what you're talking about.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
OK. It's clear enough that this level of disagreement will never come to any kind of satisfactory end. I'm packing it in. Good night, everyone....



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


The term color of law applies to individuals who are agents of the government (Police / Sheriff / FBI / etc). Depending on state, security personell could fall under that.

Private employees of a business do not. A priovate business does not have to have any reason to deny service to any person for any reason.


You either have no clue or mispoke. I reserve the right to refuse business to anyone I wish.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by MrWendal
Can anyone name one single business that compensates it's customers if they are removed for acting like morons? That simply does not happen. No company will eat the cost for a customer that deserved to be thrown out. That whole idea is beyond stupid.


Lots actually... The key phrase that is used is called theft by deceit or fraud, your choice. When a business engages in behavior that allows them to collect money from a willing buyer, only to change the rules at the last minute in order to deny the product while retaining their money.

If there is enough behavior of that type coming from a business / industry, we can delve into the RICO statutes (racketeering and criminal enterprise).

Hence ther eason they were booked on other flights.


Wrong.

Let us say you go to a Movie Theater. You pay the price of admission and then you go inside acting loud and disrupting the movie for other customers. Management ask you to stop and you choose not to listen and you continue until you are thrown out.

Does the Movie Theater then give you free tickets to the same movie playing at a later time?

No they do not. What they do is send you on your way or they call the cops to have you removed. What they do not do is refund your money cause you acted like a jerk.

Please note: by saying "you" I mean that as more of a blanket statement, Not "You" as an individual.
edit on 17-12-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by K1771gnorance
 

Doesn't matter. It's emblematic of a much larger pattern. Too much authority has been given to aircrews, and they've been abusing it for years.



Too much authority? they are part of a private company... they can refuse service to whoever they want... if this was the TSA then I'd say ok, but these are people working for a private company... their plane, their rules...

too bad so sad...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join