OT JetBlue flight attendant allegedly fled his plane via emergency chute -- beer in hand

[Kurt Ullman]

You fell into the trap. "People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."

-A.J. Liebling

[RicodJour]

Not sure what those 'all indications' were that you read, but they're not so:

And I agree with the summation in that article. Different takes on what's right and wrong, but it sure is a helluva an interesting story.

R

[keith]

[e-mail]:

I thought I was the only one who felt this way. If he didn't like his job babysitting idiots, then get another.

[trader4]

25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

I haven't seen any evidence that the airline allowed on too much carry- on or that was an issue. The plane had arrived at it's destination and the passenger was removing her carry-on and somehow it hit the flight attendant. That could happen without regard to how much carry- on there was. For example, she could just pull it out with one hand, and let it go swinging all over the place.

[trader4]

Thanks for the link. That is different from the stories that I heard on TV and radio where it sounded like the whole incident, including him getting hit with the bag, happened on arrival.

I don't think there is any different take though on deploying an emergency shoot, grabbing two beers, and exiting the plane. That part was clearly wrong, regardless of what might have prompted it. The cost to the airline, which passengers will ultimately pay, taking the plane out of service for repair, the likely resulting flight cancelations, together with potential injury to ground personnel are all real. And the lady who supposedly started it all went unpunished.

If the passenger was indeed unruly and that could be corroborated by other flight attendants and passengers, all he had to do was have security meet the plane. If you believe his behavior from that link, it would sound to me like he could have been high on something.

[RicodJour]

@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

You're posting based on an erroneous time line of events. The guy was clonked in the head at the beginning of the flight, was relieved of his work duties (workmens comp claim, no doubt), and then started drinking. If the guy were a known problem, the other attendants would have stopped him from drinking, and/or had him go talk to the captain. As the guy apparently had never snapped out before, they didn't foresee a problem. Hindsight is 20/20, and everybody likes playing Monday morning QB.

The carry on luggage thing is not the direct cause of the problem, but it is a contributing factor. It's frustrating to have people blocking the aisle, delaying people and the flight, while they're trying to stuff a too big/heavy bag in an overhead bin. Frustrated people do stupid things.

R

[RicodJour]

@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

BTW, your time line is incorrect about when he got conked on the noggin, but there was another person who did get up before the plane had stopped moving and started getting their bag. You have been hit in the head with a bag by some asshole who did that and the plane lurched? Ain't fun.

You know where this is going, right? On board security cameras that are running 24/7. Any altercations would be documented. Anyone, employee or passenger, who creates a sufficiently big problem should be banned from flying that airline. Essentially a flying death penalty, and I'm all for it.

R

[norminn]

Oh, wow! The flight attendant might be able to claim a concussion, the airline failed to treat him properly, sue the passenger and the airline...

[RicodJour]

Nah, he'll make more money from the made-for-TV movie. I would have _loved_ to see one of those chutes deploy in person. I would be sorely tempted to jump out after the guy and go, "Wheeeeeee!" all the way down. But I imagine that there was a baggage handler rush for the locker room to put on new pairs of shorts - would have scared the beejezus out of anybody standing nearby.

R

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

As more information keeps coming out, it seems there isn't anything there that backs up the flight attendants version of events. Among the new things in the last 24 hours:

Law enforcement has located and interviewed dozens of the passengers and none of them back up his version of events.

Passengers said his eyes were blood shot and he was acting rudely when the plane was just starting to board. They said when he made the safety announcement prior to departure, his shirt was unbuttoned and his belly was visible.

A passenger who heard his interaction with the supposedly beligerant woman says it was he who acted rudely and was the first to use profanity.

Other passengers claim they saw the supposed head injury BEFORE the alleged baggage incident. Whatever the "injury" was, it sure isn't obvious a day later when he's appearing before the press.

[keith]

[e-mail]:

Yep. Seems witnesses have suggested that he was intoxicated. He may have bolted, with a beer, to cover a nonzero BAC. This guy should be prosecuted. JetBlue isn't lilly white here either.

[DerbyDad03]

[e-mail]:

Let's dissect this post, shall we?

I'm not backing the FA, but let's just look at the items listed:

How many passengers were on the plane? If there were hundreds, they may not have interviewed the right people. Where were those "dozens" sitting and what were they doing at the time of the incident? We can't tell from just that sentence, so we can't discount the FA's version based on it.

Anybody ever work with someone that looks/acts like that on a daily basis? I have. Some people are naturally rude and naturally sloppy. It doesn't mean alcohol or any other substance is involved. Bloodshot eyes could be casued by any number of things.

Again, you can't tell anything by those reports. If you saw a guy stumbiling down the street and then saw him later with a beer in his hand, wouldn't you assume that he was drunk at the time you first saw him? Could have been MS. We don't know.

That could be credible. Of course, coming late to the party, she may have missed the beginning and only "heard his interaction" once it got loud. But again, it could be completely credible.

This is the most telling paragraph, and the one that prompted my reply. If the other passengers say they saw the injury before the incident, but in reality there was no injury to be seen, how can we say that the nothing backs up the FA's version? In other words, if nothing backs up the *passengers' version* then we can't use their version to discount the FA's version. It's nothing more than "he said

- they said."

- Hide quoted text -

[keith]

[e-mail]:

NONE supported the FA's version of the story.

A naturally rude FA. Now there's a good idea.

MS? An FA with MS. Good idea! Maybe JetBlue should be under criminal investigation.

Have you read any of the stories or are you just pulling stuff out of a dark place?

The FA claims that the injury cause him to "go off". However, according to witnesses, the injury happened before take-off.

[DerbyDad03]

[e-mail]:

Re-read my post. Where did I say the FA had MS?

I gave an example on how *looking back in time* the wrong assumption could be made about *anyone*.

In this case, the FA had beers *after* the incident and witnesses suddenly claim "Now that I think about, I think he was drunk earlier." If they though he was drunk earlier, why didn't they bring it up then? Would you want a drunk FA possibly being in charge of your flight if there was a problem?

re: The FA claims that the injury cause him to "go off". However, according to witnesses, the injury happened before take-off.

And according to the post I responded to, "Whatever the "injury" was, it sure isn't obvious a day later when he's appearing before the press."

I take that to mean that the accounts that there was an injury prior to the incident are just as suspect as the FA saying the injury caused him to "go off."

The whole point of my response was that none of the "recent updates" made the FA's story any less credible. They didn't prove anything either way. You'll note that I started the post by stating: "I'm not backing the FA, but let's just look at the items listed". I don't feel that updates have any impact since they can all be explained away. The FA might very well be a beer guzzling, lying sack of sh*t who was plastered from the get-go and instigated the entire incident. However, none of the updates listed directly implicate him.

re: Have you read any of the stories or are you just pulling stuff out of a dark place?

This is all I need to know:

[keith]

e:

[e-mail]:

eted "person or

You were saying that "someone" acting drunk could have MS, implying that this might have been the FA's excuse.

it wasn't "looking back in time", whatever that is. This was witnesses to the incident reporting the FA acting drunk, and with beverages appearing to be his, in hand.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the passenger getting bumped for suggesting that a pilot smelled of alcohol? He was sober, but the passenger was bumped for being wrong. I wouldn't report an FA, at least until after the fact. Pilot? Sure, if I thought he was sloshed.

It was a small cut on his forehead. He was bleeding after it happend and it was noticed y witnesses.

Caused him to get angry at the passenger who had overloaded the storage bin, yes. Except that the incident happened on the departure. The FA went berserk after the landing.

Nonsense. No one will collaborate his story, rather the opposite. They blame him for at least escalating the problem, if not outright causing it. The fact that his story is contrary to *everyone* else's, certainly does make his story more suspect. The fact that he deployed the emergency chute isn't a good indicator of sanity, either.

[Jim Elbrecht]

-snip-

That link works for me, but here it is at the source-

Colbert's forte is satire]

Jim

[krw]

Google munged it.

If all you need to know is some idiot's premature conclusions, I guess *that* says all I need to know.

[RicodJour]

{massive snip}

You must have some amazingly strong legs from jumping to all of these conclusions. For some people, that's all the exercise they get.

Here's another take on it, but not from someone looking to portray the guy as a hero or a villain. I know - so weird it's un-American!

As in almost everything in life, there's enough blame to go around.

R

[krw]

Nonsense. He's a fruitcake. It was his job to babysit idiots. He didn't do it.

BTW, if you want to carry on a conversation, don't snip everything.

[trader4]

e:

[e-mail]:

eted "person or

Of course they make his story less credible. You have passengers saying he was rude, had blood shot eyes and was behaving oddly from the time the flight began. You have a passenger that overheard his interaction with the women who supposedly set him off saying that the flight attendant started it and was the first to use vulgarity. You have a Jet Blue memo that says they can't find evidence to support his claim. You have another passenger who said the FA told him to put his seat upright for landing. He told him it already was upright. Whereupon, the FA reaches across, pushes the button and slams the back of his seat as hard as he could. The seat didn't move because it was already up. In short, with dozens of the passengers having been interviewed, a lot of information has been obtained that makes his story less credible. And so far, nothing has come out that confirms his story. I've been on plenty of planes and can tell you when a passenger is being obnoxious, the other passengers quickly become aware of it and concerned by it. Yet, no one is saying the woman was out of control, except apparently, this one FA.

Why you'd jump to the defense of a loon who could have killed ground personnel by his reckless action is beyond me. And clearly saying nothing learned from more witnesses does anything to make his story less credible is wrong.

Yeah, OJ's actions were all explained away too. The FA's actions will likely be explained too. He was probably intoxicated before the flight began. If you're just flipped out and jump off a slide, tell me this, why would you grab two beers to take with you? Answer: Likely because you're already half drunk and want the party to continue. His being under the influence of something seems to me a lot more likely than his BS story.

I'd say the report given by the other passenger who overheard the incident and said that the FA started it and was the first to use vulgarity does directly implicate him. And many of the others add to the case that he was behaving oddly.