I agree with all you say trader4, exept that the airline was at fault for
allowing too much carry-on and for failure to discipline abusive
passenger(s). I hope the incident will get airlines to enforce their
My bag was too much when I got fairly late to the gate and was taken as
"gate-checked" luggage (no charge). When I got out of the plane at
destination, it was waiting for me at the entrance to the jetway.
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.
On Aug 12, 11:33 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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
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.
On Aug 12, 11:33 am, email@example.com wrote:
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.
On Aug 12, 8:49 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Not sure what those 'all indications' were that you read, but they're
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.
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
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.
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
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.
On Aug 13, 10:34 am, email@example.com wrote:
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 -
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
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:
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
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.
That link works for me, but here it is at the source-
[remember Colbert's forte is satire]
You must have some amazingly strong legs from jumping to all of these
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.
On Aug 14, 12:19 am, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
You're trying to censor my censoring? :)
So the flight attendant is a fruitcake babysitting idiots, huh? Do
you ever fly? People are people, and _all_ of them are not perfectly
behaved at all times. This is not a surprise. It does mean that you
should cut people some slack, since you will require some slack of
your own at times.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.