"Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures"

ElPaso Pilot

ElPaso Pilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
2,453
Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
This pic:

picture-of-my-seat-ua-763-new-business-two-cabin.jpg


+ a "legacy" flight attendant

And this blogger

post-header-matthew.png


= da' boot.

http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for-taking-pictures.html
 
He took a photograph for a commercial purpose without the permission of the airline. Their rules are in black and white. If he wants to be a professional travel writer, he should act like a professional.
 
I had no idea that United Airlines had a "no video or picture taking" rule. And no idea they buried such contractual obligations in a magazine that may or may not always be in the seat pocket. (And when it is, half the time the crossword puzzle has already been attempted and their stories are lame, so I end up putting it back without looking much further.)

How hard is it for flight attendants to say that something is against company rules rather than invent bogus claims about it being a federal offense?
 
What I don't understand is that he claims he took 1 picture. If so, why did he not offer up his iPhone to have them view what pictures he took? If she was lying as he claims, it was easy to prove.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Jim Logajan said:
How hard is it for flight attendants to say that something is against company rules rather than invent bogus claims about it being a federal offense?
Click to expand...

Because failure to follow crew-member instructions is a federal offense.
 
Airlines have lots of employees, and sometimes one of them messes up.

This guy says he has the highest frequent-flier status on United, so if he flies that often, eventually he was going to encounter a mess-up.

So he was delayed and had to take another flight.

What's the big deal?
 
JeffDG said:
Because failure to follow crew-member instructions is a federal offense.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any statute that makes that a federal offense. Please help me out by providing the appropriate statute. The only statute I'm aware of is "49 USC § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants" - and it does not mention anything about following crew-member instructions.
 
What kind of idiot uses the t-word with an FA trying to get him to comply with her instruction? He broke the rule, she corrected him, and walked away. Then he wants to waste her time during the boarding process to explain that he is NOT a terrorist. And this guy is a pro?
 
My preference for the way I travel.

Bonanza, charter, car/boat, walk/swim, casket, airlines

in that order.

After my last fiasco with the airlines (which was with United ) , they win, I'm done.

But, the guy's obviously an idiot if he's that loyal to Untied.
 
Don't know about any U.S. federal offense, but the Brits have a rule that requires obeying directions from flight crews:

Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any direction given to him under any provision of this Order or any regulations made thereunder shall be deemed for the purposes of this Order to have contravened that provision.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3468/article/132/made

"contravening a provision" means that one is guilty of an offense and subject to fine, according to another paragraph in that law.
 
bartmc said:
My preference for the way I travel.

Bonanza, charter, car/boat, walk/swim, casket, airlines

in that order.

After my last fiasco with the airlines (which was with United ) , they win, I'm done.

But, the guy's obviously an idiot if he's that loyal to Untied.
Click to expand...

What happened?
 
alfadog said:
What kind of idiot uses the t-word with an FA trying to get him to comply with her instruction? He broke the rule, she corrected him, and walked away. Then he wants to waste her time during the boarding process to explain that he is NOT a terrorist. And this guy is a pro?
Click to expand...

The "this guy is a pro?" rhetoric is OK so long as it isn't applied selectively. But that is what you did. Why did you decide not to apply your rhetorical question "this guy is a pro?" to the FA and render a verdict? As far as she knew, he was just a normal passenger oblivious to the rules. You have to engage in considerable special pleading to demand passengers act professional (though they are really customers) while allowing crew members to act petty or without a lick of common sense.
 
Something doesn't add up. He gets kicked off of one airplane but they immediately find him another flight. I wonder if it was also on United.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The "this guy is a pro?" rhetoric is OK so long as it isn't applied selectively. But that is what you did. Why did you decide not to apply your rhetorical question "this guy is a pro?" to the FA and render a verdict? As far as she knew, he was just a normal passenger oblivious to the rules. You have to engage in considerable special pleading to demand passengers act professional (though they are really customers) while allowing crew members to act petty or without a lick of common sense.
Click to expand...

There is reason to be selective here. We have only his side of the story so I am loathe to talk much about the FA. I have no reason to believe (or disbelieve) that he is presenting her side sympathetically (though I doubt he is) but we can certainly expect him to be trying to put the best face on his side. And even with that best face on it, there is plenty to criticize. Including his being upset that the captain will not take time from trying to get the airplane in the air to conduct some sort of jetway trial on the veracity of the FA.
 
DavidWhite said:
What happened?
Click to expand...

United Employees demanded cash payment (To their pockets, not to the company)to get me out of Dulles Airport after United cancelled 5 flights, all mysteriously due to unrelated maintenance issues. It wasn't just one, it was all of them and they were accepting bids. It was blatant and they didn't care. After a follow up with United Customer Service, they appeared aware of the issues at Dulles and couldn't have cared less.

The flight before that they cancelled my flight to Austin and couldn't get me on another flight there for the next 2 days, so i had to fly to houston, rent a car and drive to Austin which took longer and was more expensive than had I just left my house and drove myself to Austin. The flight before that they overbooked my connection flight and I got to stay in Denver for the night. The flight before that they overbooked my flight to Denver and claimed I was late and offered no solution ( I wasn't, and It took 4 employees to find an honest one to tell me it was overbooked and get me on another flight). The flight before that, we were delayed for 8 hours. I probably have a 10% success rate of flying United in the past 3 years, if success is measured by showing up at my destination within 2 hours of my planned arrival.
 
NoHeat said:
Don't know about any U.S. federal offense, but the Brits have a rule that requires obeying directions from flight crews:

Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any direction given to him under any provision of this Order or any regulations made thereunder shall be deemed for the purposes of this Order to have contravened that provision.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3468/article/132/made

"contravening a provision" means that one is guilty of an offense and subject to fine, according to another paragraph in that law.
Click to expand...

The "given to him under any provision of this Order or any regulations made thereunder" clause is very important - I believe it limits the validity of the rule only to directions that the flight crew is itself obligated by law to follow or apply. But airline created rules that were not written in order to comply with any law would presumably be excluded by that clause. So if a passenger fails to comply to an order given under such a rule, then that would make failure to comply a contractual matter between the customer and the airline. Not an offense against UK regs.

An example would be an airline rule against, say, bringing your own food on board. Or any other rule the airline dreams up. It seems unlikely the law could be interpreted to make their violation a criminal one.
 
He was told not to take pictures. He was told why. He chose to argue. He teed off the FA, and she decided to reek havoc for him by messing up his day. What further explanation is needed. If he kept his mouth shut, he would have remained on the flight. I would bet the conversation the GS had with the pilot was something to the effect of how are the kids and wife doing.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
He took a photograph for a commercial purpose without the permission of the airline. Their rules are in black and white.
Click to expand...

If you read it carefully, it looks to me like portions of United's prohibition are not limited to photographs that are for commercial purposes.

If he wants to be a professional travel writer, he should act like a professional.
Click to expand...

He was doing that when he gave them his business card and explained what the picture was for. If he hadn't done that, it sounds like he might not have been thrown off the plane.

Given that he took no more pictures after he was instructed not to, I would say that airline personnel behaved unprofessionally.
 
NoHeat said:
Don't know about any U.S. federal offense, but the Brits have a rule that requires obeying directions from flight crews:

Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any direction given to him under any provision of this Order or any regulations made thereunder shall be deemed for the purposes of this Order to have contravened that provision.
Click to expand...

But one would presume that doesn't apply if you actually comply with the direction. As I read it, she told him to stop taking pictures and he stopped. Even if this were a rule in the United States, he was following it.

The FA messed up. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. Yet another way unions cost the company money...

douglas393 said:
He was told not to take pictures. He was told why. He chose to argue. He teed off the FA, and she decided to reek havoc for him by messing up his day.
Click to expand...



He says he stopped, she didn't want to hear his explanation after he stopped. But either way, what a nice lady!
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
he gave them his business card and explained what the picture was for. If he hadn't done that, it sounds like he might not have been thrown off the plane.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Part of the guy's problem is his attitude of self-importance. He has to announce himself and why he thinks he's important, and thereby challenge the crew. If he just complied and kept quiet, instead of challenging authority, he'd have had no problem.

Sometimes it's worthwhile to challenge authority. Not here, though. This time it was pointless and it backfired.
 
What is the point of debating this incident based on British rules? :confused:
 
NoHeat said:
Yep.

Part of the guy's problem is his attitude of self-importance. He has to announce himself and why he thinks he's important, and thereby challenge the crew. If he just complied and kept quiet, instead of challenging authority, he'd have had no problem.

Sometimes it's worthwhile to challenge authority. Not here, though. This time it was pointless and it backfired.
Click to expand...

Maybe the airline personnel interpreted his explanation as challenging their authority, but we don't have enough information to determine whether he actually challenged their authority or not.
 
NoHeat said:
Yep.

Part of the guy's problem is his attitude of self-importance. He has to announce himself and why he thinks he's important, and thereby challenge the crew. If he just complied and kept quiet, instead of challenging authority, he'd have had no problem.

Sometimes it's worthwhile to challenge authority. Not here, though. This time it was pointless and it backfired.
Click to expand...

That is right. As a "pro" he should realize that the flight crew is extremely busy at that time (boarding and take-off). He should have simply and graciously said "thank you" and read his magazine. If he were a pro, that is.
 
bflynn said:
He says he stopped, she didn't want to hear his explanation after he stopped. But either way, what a nice lady!
Click to expand...
Which means he started, which is probably what got her panties in wad. I agree with others if he did not say anything he would have continued to fly. She rightly or wrongly told him he could not take pictures, he admits she told him why, and instead of saying okay and being demure, he decided to push it further albiet later. What purpose other than ****ing her off could that serve. She pointed out that it was not her decision but company policy. She was not going to relent. I would not be surprised if some of her interaction with the other passenger also set the situation rolling, but he chose to play with a lighted stick of dynamite, and now complains that it is unfair that it blew his arm off.
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe the airline personnel interpreted his explanation as challenging their authority, but we don't have enough information to determine whether he actually challenged their authority or not.
Click to expand...
Or maybe she interpreted his explanation as him being a difficult passenger, and she just did not want to deal with his ****ing and moaning for the next 8 hours.
 
bartmc said:
United Employees demanded cash payment (To their pockets, not to the company)to get me out of Dulles Airport after United cancelled 5 flights, all mysteriously due to unrelated maintenance issues. It wasn't just one, it was all of them and they were accepting bids. It was blatant and they didn't care. After a follow up with United Customer Service, they appeared aware of the issues at Dulles and couldn't have cared less.

The flight before that they cancelled my flight to Austin and couldn't get me on another flight there for the next 2 days, so i had to fly to houston, rent a car and drive to Austin which took longer and was more expensive than had I just left my house and drove myself to Austin. The flight before that they overbooked my connection flight and I got to stay in Denver for the night. The flight before that they overbooked my flight to Denver and claimed I was late and offered no solution ( I wasn't, and It took 4 employees to find an honest one to tell me it was overbooked and get me on another flight). The flight before that, we were delayed for 8 hours. I probably have a 10% success rate of flying United in the past 3 years, if success is measured by showing up at my destination within 2 hours of my planned arrival.
Click to expand...

And then you look at me. Granted I don't fly a whole lot, but I'm close to Dulles so it's usually on United. I've never once had a bad experience with them. Everyone's been friendly and helpful, including when I had to take my French Horn on a little CRJ. Never a problem. The reality of it is that people will have good and bad experiences on all airlines.
 
alfadog said:
That is right. As a "pro" he should realize that the flight crew is extremely busy at that time (boarding and take-off). He should have simply and graciously said "thank you" and read his magazine. If he were a pro, that is.
Click to expand...
I agree but do you really need to be a "pro" to realized that. I fly commercially about once every few years, and I even know that the only thing that can possibly happen with arguing with a FA is something that can not be described as pleasurable. Same reason, when I get stopped by a police officer, I do not argue, and agree with everything he says.

Personally in reading his blog I think he is a self important dung beetle. Though I may be insulting the dung beetles of the world.
 
I think the FA over-reacted, but the guy should have kept his mouth shut. Nothing good could have come out of pressing the issue further.
 
Palmpilot said:
What is the point of debating this incident based on British rules? :confused:
Click to expand...

What is the point of debating an incident with no corroborating witness or opposing rebuttal other than to say you believe his report or you don't?
 
bartmc said:
Isn't that what FAs are hired to do?
Click to expand...
I do not know, but it seems to me that in this day and age upsetting an FA is becoming a more and more common reason for people getting thrown off planes. Personally, if I was an FA, and someone was giving me a unnecessary hard time and it was in my power to boot them off the plane, I would show them the exit sign. There is enough drama in life, if I can do something to decrease it, I will.
 
The business card is saying, "Don't you know who I am!" Or at least that's how I interpret it. :dunno:
 
Well, here is the extremely simple fact. . . . the flight attendant apparently lied. She used the lie to invoke the authority of the Captain under the terrorism rules - so - in effect - she made a false claim. That false claim is actionable. She could lose her job. The Captain is held harmless because she was his responsibility.

If I could prove she lied, I would sue United for false imprisonment -they kept him in NYC despite his not intentionally violating the rules. Next - the UA contract of carriage is DEVOID of this rule. It is not part of their contract. They might be enforcing the rule just because - and who is to say he did not take the photo for his personal use? He did. Regardless, it is not a violation of their contract and their employees cannot make up rules in order to deal with people they don't like.

So - UA has no defense here except to throw the FA under the bus. Unless they want to pay him to fly them for the next several years. Really - and if he knows anyone in law enforcement who is looking to make an example of a FA - its a pretty simple case. Yes, the govt needs the cooperation of flight crews but its lives at risk, bringing them down a notch or three will do nothing to affect the safety of a flight and may actually be a good thing.

Does he have the entitlement mentality? Absolutely - but so do 47% of the people in this country. What he did was not against their contract of carriage - they cannot simply add new rules as they go along. . . .
 
Silvaire said:
What is the point of debating an incident with no corroborating witness or opposing rebuttal other than to say you believe his report or you don't?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, there's that too. I suppose we could treat it as a hypothetical, as in "If X happened, then Y would be the proper response to it." :)
 
He was probably thrown off because he used the word terrorist. I think they over reacted. It's been 12yrs, we need to move on!
 
us AAirways said:
He was probably thrown off because he used the word terrorist. I think they over reacted. It's been 12yrs, we need to move on!
Click to expand...
Yeah and if the guy sitting next to is Jill's boyfriend make sure you do not say Hi to him using his first name.:redface:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top