Yes, it's unfortunate that the flight attendant lied in this situation.
However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it, it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky terrorist and swap SD cards).
In addition, the author made the statement "I am not a terrorist." There's no way for flight crew to know this to be true until the plane lands at its destination and you provably haven't blown it up, killed people on-board, or hijacked and redirected it to another location. There is absolutely zero value in making a declaration like that.
... In fact, I'd say there's negative value in making that statement. In a security conscious environment like an enclosed aircraft, it immediately escalates a situation from "photo-happy tourist or possible bad guy" to "higher probability bad guy or maybe making a political statement ... or just not very smart". It's also a (very small) step in the direction of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater as you've potentially now caused (possibly over-sensitive) people hearing this statement to begin to have concerns about you and their flight. You've turned what should have been an uneventful flight into a situation where tension can only increase before you've even left the ground.
When you add all of this up, especially when a flight is trying to get out of the gate on time, the pilot is going to err on the side of caution and kick you off the plane.
You'll either blow up in a rage of righteous fury (thus proving to all that you should never have been on that plane) or you'll leave quietly, a one-time mistake, and board another flight (hopefully with much less bother to the next crew considering how much time you just wasted).
You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd.
"The terrorists have won if [something silly happens in America]"
Not really.
It is political and military pressure on certain countries with high birth rates and weak economies that radicalizes young men - lift the foot from their neck and see them be as indifferent/slightly dismissive towards our lifestyle/religion like we are to theirs.
Airport/aircraft security seems to be part of a trend of law enforcement in the US: harsh punishments for minor crimes, "tough on crime", zero tolerance etc.
Perhaps it wasn't their aim; but it's certainly a victory: they caused society to start punishing itself in some quixotic overreaction.
The billions of travellers since the attacks are now constantly nervous - not of an attack anymore because the odds of that are so vanishingly small you don't seriously consider it - but of saying or doing something that some over-eager security policy has irrationally branded dangerous. It's like passing a pack of dangerous animals: you never know what's going to set em off, but whatever you do don't draw attention.
So yeah, they have won. It's not hypothetical; it's a fact of everyday travelling life.
The terrorists have won a great victory if acting slightly odd is enough to terrify an airline company into kicking a passenger off a plane.
This isn't about terrorism. It's about a flight attendant taking exception to a passenger, and owing to what he later said and how he behaved, believing that he could develop into a problem on a long-haul flight.
Was it a good call? Probably not, given the author's flight history. It is, however, an understandable one, especially given how little it takes for one person to cause havoc on a flight, especially when it's long-haul.
If flight attendants got everybody that they didn't like kicked off flights, it would seem[1] that there would be barely anyone flying.
If I pay for a service and it isn't delivered there better be a damn good reason. A lie about me doing something that I wasn't or me stating that I am not a terrorist are not good reasons.
If flight attendants got everybody that they didn't like kicked off flights, it would seem[1] that there would be barely anyone flying.
Speak for yourself. But this is neither here nor there, as you well know. The issue is: have you announced your likelihood to become a problem later in the flight? If so, why should you remain?
I think in this case it was a harsh call, but ultimately an understandable one. Heck, who's to say the same flight crew hadn't earlier had to deal with an undeniably genuine problem passenger, and hence were being over-cautious? We're all human.
While my assumptions and biases make me see this differently -- that is, having a bad day is human, but so is being abusive with authority -- I disagree even more with the fact that you got modded down for this, so have an upvote to offset that. None of us know for sure what was going on in that plane and in the heads of the involved people, that's a fact.
You mean the "havoc" of taking pictures onboard? In violation of a policy that should have been criminal to draft in the first place? Such terrible havoc that will annoy... no one. Not even the FA if she just ignores it.
Much dissonance in this discussion originates from equating the blogger's situation with the general traveller's. Making a scene increases his blog's visibility and has a decent chance of resulting in corrective action. For him, this may outweigh being late for Baku.
As Francis Fukuyama notes, "unlike money, which can simply be divided, dignity is something inherently uncompromisable: either you recognize my dignity, or the dignity of that which I hold sacred, or you do not" [1]. Trading immaterial dignity for getting to one's destination on time makes sense for most travellers.
That is, unless you are trying to make a statement. Fukuyama continues: "for democracy to work, however, citizens of democratic states must...develop a certain irrational thymotic pride in their political system and a way of life." If everyone optimised for their personal utility the aggregate situation would degrade.
There is a fine line between a prima donna and an activist. It is largely a function of the popular support for one's statement and the probability of it resulting in corrective behaviour.
Except, as others have pointed out, it wasn't odd at all. It's actually an idiom and an absolutely common response in a photographic context. http://goo.gl/CnV1s
Moreover, it was probably just so incredulous to the blogger that there would be any chance at all that anyone would imagine he'd be a terrorist because he was taking pictures of the little monitor in the seat in front of him that it didn't even cross his mind that it could possibly be taken in that context.
(slight tangent)
Reminds me of this one time I mentioned nirvana in a school essay (not even the band, the actual word itself) and the teacher reported me to a counselor as a possible suicide threat in reference to Kurt Cobain. I didn't even know who Kurt Cobain was. This was in like 9th grade. WTF?
I can't say that I agree with you that it's an idiom (well, because I've certainly never heard of it). It's a flat out socially weird thing to declare that you're not a terrorist. Social customs are hard to pin down, but if a passenger sitting next to me told the flight attendant that he wasn't a terrorist after the attendant told him to stop taking pictures (or to put away his cellphone), I would think of him as very odd.
I disagree - it's not weird at all. It's awkward; but the awkwardness comes from the fact that you're being confronted anti-terrorist rules. By their application they're basically saying: "I'm only doing thing because you might be a terrorist".
That's awkward, and it's entirely natural to want to deny the accusation. And sure that denial will also be awkward... but the problem is the assumption in the first place, not the denial. Everybody knows that the airport is a place of everlasting mistrust, no matter that it's not reasonable - and that you'll be treated unfairly because you're implicitly assumed to be a terrorist threat.
Everybodies thinking it (or trying to avoid thinking it) whenever the security is being particularly annoying, yet nobody is allowed to mention this thoughtcrime.
Wow, so people seriously thing that saying "I am not a terrorist" is reason enough to kick someone out of a plane?
I honestly will never understand how a one-time attack carried out a decade ago could throw the American society off its rocker so much.
In my country (Spain) apart from an Islamic terrorism attack we have had local terrorists (ETA) killing people almost every year from the 60's to 2011, and there just aren't such taboos and irrational fear in our society.
NB: I'm not one of those Europeans who bash on Americans, I admire the American society in many aspects... but this one I just can't understand. Ánd I could expect to see this kind of thought among uneducated people, but in HN? Oh wow.
It has done with a passenger exhibiting odd behaviour leading to the flight attendant believing that he might cause a disturbance during the flight. People causing problems on planes are a nightmare for airline carriers as it can result in early landings, increased risk of life threatening incidents and subsequent scheduling problems.
When it comes to planes better to be safe than sorry.
It has everything to do with 9/11, and the subsequent 'promotion' of flight attendants to security guards. If you doubt that, then just try to imagine the same scenario happening in year 2000...it would not have happened. This is also related to human psychology, as shown in the now classic Stanford Prison Experiment.
They could easily verify him. He "accrued nearly 950,000 lifetime flight miles with United" and had been upgraded to business class. You normally don't kick customers out because they take pictures of the seats, this is BS, staff could invent lots of ways to ease this situation if they wanted to, but post 9/11 defacto standard for flight personnel is they can do this kind of silly things and get away with it in the name of security.
The only reason people are talking about terroist and airplanes is because the airport continue to remind people of it each and every minute on the speakers.
If someone say "don't think of the red elephant", its not odd for people to say "what red elephant?". That's normal behavior. In same way, if you stop someone at the airport, the first thought people will think is "I am not a terrorist!".
You right however that saying "I am not a terrorist" is a bad strategic thing in a discussion. It anchoring you to something bad in people mind. It would be better to say "I am not the president of the air line, but I am a VIP priority customer for united", thus anchoring "the president of the air line" and "VIP priority customer" to peoples mind.
>When you add all of this up, especially when a flight is trying to get out of the gate on time, the pilot is going to err on the side of caution and kick you off the plane.
That makes no sense to me because they off load the baggage from the hold of passengers who are not actually on the plane. A security measure that actually makes sense.
You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd.
Exactly. It's a long-haul flight, you might have a grudge against the flight attendant, you've already behaved slightly oddly - thinking it appropriate to say "I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist" is odd - and there are so many ways the flight could become a nightmare for all concerned, all thanks to you remaining on the plane.
Maybe the captain could have handled things better. At the same time, the author went off the plane calmly and without making a scene. The author's disappointment aside, it sounds like a success to me.
>The author's disappointment aside, it sounds like a success to me.
I can't imagine any criteria under which the handling of this situation could be considered a "success" and it scares me that individuals, not directly involved, could see it as such.
... a long time, major customer left pissed off. Nope, not seeing how it can be considered a success. With a reasonable flight attendant there's no reason to consider that there might have been a risk of anything but a calm flight in the first place, so having him leave calmly is not success.
I've never had anything but good experiences with United through a couple of hundred thousand miles of flights (London <=> SFO regularly for a few years - still got about 100k unused miles...).
But if this had happened to me, I wouldn't be flying United the next time.
My choice of United instead of British Airways or Virgin for that period was entirely down to Uniteds much better (for me) frequent flier program (LHR <=> SFO gave me upgrades to business around one leg out 3 or 4 or so on average, while BA and Virgin were impossibly stingy, though the quality of their business class was better), but that would not outweigh a risk of not getting on the plane.
United is not exactly in an economic situation where they can afford pissing off their best customers.
... a long time, major customer left pissed off. Nope, not seeing how it can be considered a success.
Not only that, but a customer who writes a travel blog which appears to be fairly widely read (judging just by the number of comments on the original blog post) and who clearly knows how to use social media to get his story out.
This whole thing is a huge black-eye for United from what I can see.
Really? To me at it sounded like he explicitly announced he was someone that United corporate feels the need to monitor. There are a number of valid ways to interpret that. If I walked on a plane and said "Hello! I'm someone the big wigs at United corporate monitors closely!", I'd expect to get tossed.
I'm getting very tired of blogger-entitlement-syndrome. "I'm important on the internet! Respect my authoritah!"
Yeah, saying "I'm not a terrorist" is kind of a line I'd expect to hear to in a tv show or something. Do you tell the cop "Don't worry, I'm not a kidnapper"?
When a flight attendant tells you to not take pictures, its obviously for security/terrorism concerns. I find it truly ridiculous if we can no longer make true statements in an attempt to alleviate such fear ("I am not a terrorist").
When a cop pulls you over because there was a kidnapping a year ago, you do not end up in jail for making the claim "Don't worry, I'm not a kidnapper"
> When a flight attendant tells you to not take pictures, its obviously for security/terrorism concerns.
Not necessarily. A plane is a crowded, cramped environment and other passengers (such as myself) might not want to be photographed.[1] A broad "no photos" rule is an easy way to make sure that those of us who don't want to be photographed don't have to be. Similarly, photo-taking by tourists is often distracting (people spilling into aisles, flash photography in a small reflective space, etc.). People often seem to have no idea how to take photos without being disruptive. I agree that the disruption is the problem, but a "no photos" rule is easier to enforce than "photos, but no flash, except the LED flash on camera phones..."
This interaction should have ended after "thanks, I didn't know there was a policy against taking photos."
[1] See, for example, the evergreen controversy about the photography rules at Burning Man. It's a constant balance between "people want to take pictures so they can remember what happened" and "some people don't want to be photographed in what for them is a very personnel experience."
> When a cop pulls you over because there was a kidnapping a year ago, you do not end up in jail for making the claim "Don't worry, I'm not a kidnapper"
No, but you'll get a more thorough check of your car (trunk and backseat), plus a more in-depth check of your car's plates and your ID - because you just made a seemingly unrelated statement about a horrible thing (kidnapping) when the cop pulled you over for something trivial (not obeying speed rules).
>...you'll get a more thorough check of your car (trunk and backseat), plus a more in-depth check of your car's plates and your ID - because you just made a seemingly unrelated statement about a horrible thing (kidnapping) when the cop pulled you over for something trivial (not obeying speed rules).
not sure if i made my original point correctly. putting away the camera is entirely related to terrorism, which is why its perfectly reasonable to respond with "I am not a terrorist" (taking pictures of the plane for future blowing-up operations)
Next time a cop pulls me over I'll tell him: "I'm not a turtle". Or "I'm not lightbulb". Or this: "I'm not a tea leaf". And hope they are not looking for an escaped turtle, a lost lightbulb or a tea leaf that jumped out of a tea cup.
Except that it's not obviously for security concerns. hey might want to make it difficult for passengers to record broken equipment that makes them look bad. They might just be unhappy about the out-of-fashion decor. Or they might want to make it harder for competitors to build a complete record of their fittings. It might be as simple as not being able to tolerate a flash going off and making a blanket ban that covers all cameras is the simplest way to do that.
There is any number of reasons why they might want to ban photos of plane equipment that just boil down to airline self-interest without playing the "security" card. Not that this invalidates them, but it does put the flight attendant's request in a less all-trumping context.
I love that form. No, I've not committed genocide lately, nor am I entering with the intent of setting myself up as a drug lord... Maybe some light murder and mayhem, though, if I feel bored or the hotel isn't up to scratch.
I agree but perhaps stupid is not the right word. The airline staff, especially low level, are not trusted or trained to think or apply their own reason. They're trained to be on constant high-alert and report anything that smells even remotely fishy.
It's not right that you have to hold your tongue in airport security or on a plane. But whether right or wrong in the moral sense, it's prudent to avoid alarming the staff if you intend to make your flight.
>The airline staff, especially low level, are not trusted or trained to think or apply their own reason.
You're right... the fact that they are given arbitrary power without training or trust is more the problem than their judgement as individuals. Or perhaps, because they aren't trusted, their orders are to resort to extreme measures as a default response to certain specific behavioral indicators.
"You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd."
I agree - you can come a long way by just saying "My apologies, I dit not know that", give a short smile and look another way. Inside you might mean something different, and you can silently ponder on what a jerk the opposite person is.. but you need to let the opposite person feel that he/she is in control - especially it it's their job to stay in control.
He oddly took a picture of his seat, as he'd oddly done numerous times before. He oddly got embarrassed by being singled out for oddly not knowing that an oddly common benign act is now regarded as odd. He oddly felt the need to clear the air. When punished for acting oddly human, he oddly pointed out that he oddly felt that he had been maligned.
The risk avoided is ... that the FA feels annoyed while serving this guy who talked back?
It sounds like the captain also made no attempt to evaluate whether the passenger was actually crazy (making eye contact would be a start). Seems like captain is earning points w/ the FA - "you don't like the guy? I'll throw him off".
This is a really terrible attitude. Apparently, airplanes are this magical place where you're not supposed to be treated like a human being. By "acting entitled", you seem to mean "acting like he's entitled to fly on the plane he bought a ticket for". And of course he argued with the captain; he was being kicked off the plane for taking a picture! It's not arrogant to expect to be treated well.
This thing where everyone shouts down someone who stand up for themselves, even when they admit that person is right is really awful. It's like people value obedience of arbitrary impositions of authority as the highest virtue.
Here's where the guy loses me in the article: he blames the FA exclusively, as if it would be reasonable to kick someone off a plane even if he had continued to take a picture after she told him not to (why is she running around demanding that people not take pictures?). In fact, he's crazy to have been loyal to the airline company in the first place and his surprise at the lack of reciprocation is baffling.
That is such a terrible attitude. "I pay - I'm entitled to service".
You are guest on board a plane. They treat you like a guest, but they are busy and concerned people so do not overstay your welcome. That's the social contract around air travel.
And the payment? Treat it as entry fee to a nice party. You have to pay to enter but you have no right to be there if you can't behave.
And getting railed up by someone in power misrepresenting something about you that's unverifiable? Well... OP tells how it turned out. It usually turns out that way.
OP broke the rule (photographed equipment), when gently reminded about the rule, he made no efforts to make up for his violation (he didn't delete photos) and indulged his need to explain why he felt entitled to breaking that rule without clearly stating that he won't do it again but with using word 'terrorist' instead. Then he was asked to leave the plane.
>"It's like people value obedience of arbitrary impositions of authority as the highest virtue." //
That is just about the greatest virtue in the context of being in a confined space with someone in a relatively flimsy metal tube jetting over the ocean (or wherever). One is already trusting the captain + crew with your life to a large extent.
>"he blames the FA exclusively, as if it would be reasonable to kick someone off a plane even if he had continued to take a picture" //
My take is that the FA flagged the subject's behaviour as suspicious [or at least potentially problematic] and the photography was used as the excuse to oust the passenger without troubling the rest of the people onboard with mention of "terrorism" or making potentially slanderous remarks about the general character of the subject.
Maybe if fewer people were "humble" and stopped "swallowing their pride" in this ridiculous climate of fear we've established at airports and on planes, we could make some headway in getting rid of it. Expecting people to be polite is fine (and as far as we know, the author was polite). Expecting them to surrender their dignity is not.
I doubt the bit about being humble means they might let you stay on the plane. The decision process is a one way process, once you cross the line there is no going back; or in the words of De Niro "If there's doubt then there is no doubt".
I can only speak from experience. In the past when I've been caught doing something illegal or improper, I've been let off by being respectful and apologetic.
>However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this
The OP could have added the guy behind him who also took photos into the conversation. But I agree, the pilot was right to take him off the plane without any further information.
Never ever directly accuse someone of lying. Mostly because it's usually a communication problem where they said it unclear and your heard it wrong. Also because you should always give someone a way out without losing too much face.
I would have said something like: Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane.
Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane
-----
feels a bit too servile for me, especially if I felt I didn't do anything wrong in the first place.
Why, if this means, you stay on the plane, you win. But nobody looses his/her face.
So wining, without anyone losing, what is so wrong?
Everything else (and I sadly, really often react that way) is the little child in a sand-pit: "But he started it" kind of argument. Not mature, not civilized, just childish - the way or societies more and more seem to become imho.
There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie. There is nothing civilized about abuse of power. There is nothing civilized in accepting it.
But the real WTF is: how would agreeing to be led off the plane have resulted in him staying on it? His fate was sealed when he explained his picture to the FA and she had a 'nam flashback, or whatever the fuck caused this; but what makes you think crawling on his belly after that would have changed anything?
I think the best you could do under the circumstances would be to apologise for taking pictures and explain that the FA was mistaken. If they want to kick you off at that point you have to put up with it.
But DoubleCluster is right. Accusing the FA of lying just displays a huge lack of social awareness. It's also not factual - the OP doesn't really know whether the FA made a mistake or not.
If you flat-out accuse the flight attendant of lying, you're going to trigger an "us versus them" situation with the flight staff. At that point the captain is definitely going to side with the FA.
The reason his fate was sealed was that the captain had to decide whether his staff were going to be comfortable sharing a flight with this guy. Under the circumstances, I think he made the right decision.
If you flat-out accuse the flight attendant of lying, you're going to trigger an "us versus them" situation with the flight staff.
That was already triggered by the FA's clandestine response to the traveller's openness, and the COMMAND to leave the plane. To blame this on the passenger is very comfortable and very cowardly IMO. "she lied", "that's not true".. those are the same thing when it comes to what this actually was about. He wasn't escorted off the plane for hurting the ego of staff by failing to be intimidated; it was about wether he took pictures after having being asked to stop, at least allegedly.
And yes, the captain has to decide wether his staff is comfortable with passengers, and more importantly, wether that is the fault of said passengers or said staff. If it's the passenger, kick them out, if it's the staff, likewise. In that sense I totally agree, but someone who can't even make eye contact is not up to this; so it's up to the airline weither they feel comfortable having weak staff on board of expensive equipment.
> There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie.
Was it? Or did she misunderstand his need to justify himself as a way of indicating that he did not intend to stop? You assume she lied -- probably because that's what you are most comfortable believing -- but it's not necessarily true. People make false claims all the time that they really, genuinely believe to be the truth. Based on the scant evidence as we have, your accusation toward the flight attendant could even be an example of the same thing she did -- automatically assuming the worst of someone.
> Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.
No, this is not correct. If the speaker doesn't know that a statement is false, the statement is not a lie. Lying requires knowledge that the remark is false and must include an intent to deceive.
While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. If I say "lutusp killed JFK" then that is a lie, even though I do not know that it is false. It is a lie exactly because I do not know it to be true. Something can be a lie if it is true! Suppose the FA said "he took more pictures" without having seen him taking more pictures, with the intent to deceive the captain to get this guy off the plane. That is a lie even if he did take more pictures, because the FA does not know it to be true.
Quote: "Lie : noun : a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive <he wanted to deny the accusation, but he couldn't tell a lie>"
Quote: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
Here's how this works. If you have an idea about how a word is defined that conflicts with another's claim, before objecting, look up the word.
EDIT: also, think for a minute about your claim:
> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.
How can a person be said to have an intent to deceive if he isn't aware that his remark is false? How does he form an intent to deceive using a statement he believes to be true?
Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge, he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking.
You are also selectively quoting from the dictionaries. E.g. from the merriam-webster dictionary you only quoted meaning 1 a. The other meanings clearly contradict what you claim.
1 :
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying (see 3 lie)
By this definition, selective quoting qualifies as a lie (meaning 2: something that misleads or deceives). This definition also shows that intent is not even necessary. As written, something that is both true and thought by the speaker to be true and said without intent to mislead can still be a lie if it is misleading the listener. I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but that's what it says.
> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.
Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.
Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be charged with perjury. So knowing the most common definition, which is also the legal definition, would seem to be important.
> > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.
> Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.
Read that sentence again. It does not say what you insinuate it says. Not knowing that a statement is false != knowing that a statement is true.
> Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason
Yea, the reason being that those directly contradict what you said.
It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion...only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.
Okay, I will try again. Explain how a person can intend to deceive if he doesn't know his remarks are false. An "intent to deceive" means the speaker knows his remarks are deceitful -- i.e. other than truthful.
The legal definition of lying, and by far the most common one in the everyday world, is that lying requires an intent to deceive and the utterance of a knowing falsehood.
> It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion.
What? By defining "lying" as it is defined in the law and in most references? How so?
> only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote
When I have quoted you, I have done it by cutting and pasting your exact words, as you typed them, directly from the display. How is that twisting your words?
> for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.
It is not "obviously false," it is not false at all. Lying is knowing, intentional falsehood. To lie, one must know that the statement is false.
Quote: "Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)." [emphasis added]
Quote: "When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.
The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction." [emphasis added]
This definition would seem to make it impossible to be mistaken without lying. If you're wrong, the thing you said isn't true, so it's a lie. That hardly seems like a reasonable definition.
I would bet that you say things all the time that you do not know with 100% certainty but which seem likely enough than you assume them to be true. I have never met someone who does not.
For example, have you ever told somebody that you were meeting somebody else when you were not looking right at them as you prepared to sit down for the meeting? What you actually mean is that you believe you will meet them based on your understanding of a conversation you had. You could have heard the wrong day, they could be right about to cancel, your car could break down — you get the idea.
If she assumes him possibly indicating intent to not stop to be actually taking pictures, then maybe you're right, she didn't lie... because as Chomsky pointed out in a talk I saw recently, the accusation of lying implies the capacity to tell the truth, which requires a level of mental processing out of the reach of the FA... so as you can see, at least for me saying she lied is the kindest one of all available options.
Depends on your definition of "a lie" but in any case, accusations of lying are confrontational. It's far better to at least appear to be assuming the best in others by framing it as a miscommunication.
BTW, you do lose. You lose self respect and dignity, and yet more freedom. Every time each of us has that chipped away, its another win for the terrorist, who must be laughing their nuts off watching scared westerners become more and more borg like.
But hey, you get your flight, and as we know, that is way more important than freedom, self respect and dignity. Short term gain always trumps long term decency. Of course the vast majority are quite happy for that trade off, given how scared we all are of a 1 in 2 million chance terrorist attack in the US. Context: 1 in 900,00 that you'll die in your bath... Or 1 in 19,000 of dying in your car. 15 US citizens died of terrorists in 2010.
Is acting submissive to control someone else really being submissive? (No. It's just another tool in the dealing-with-people toolbox. Save your flames for the Internets!)
Person A has something you want. You do something. Person A gives you the thing you want. You win, because now you have the thing you want instead of Person A.
Person A has the authority to license use of something you want. You do something you do not want (tell an untruth, say "thanks" after being slapped, that sort of thing), but that Person A wants. Person A gives you said license, this time. The next time, you'll have to do the trick again, or no license. Instead of getting closer to issuing the license of use yourself, you actually cement yourself into the skinner box.
What's wrong with acting a bit servile once in a while if makes people around you happy and leads to them doing what you want? Being nice and polite to people isn't a sign of weakness.
Not that it's an excuse for what they did but why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such. Yeah that's helpful to calming strangers in any situation, just suddenly say that without any reason.
why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such.
Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy? And how is lying, claiming he took more pictures, an appropriate response? How can you possibly rationalize this to be the fault of the OP? As a comment to that story points out, that's a big part of how society got to such a low point.
Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy?
Oh please. Imagine you have a guest at your house who asks to use the bathroom. You reply, "Yes, it's the second door on the left, and I haven't installed any recording devices in it." Would you seriously be surprised at your guest's sudden unease while relieving himself?
No one's saying that this is the OP's fault, but telling a flight attendant "I'm not a terrorist" is like saying, "Use my bathroom, I didn't install any cameras in it." Proffering information of that kind is just plain suspicious in itself.
There is a guest at my house, and I have a rule that nobody is allowed to take screwdrivers to the bathroom, because, as all my neighbours know, I am paranoid about people watching me as I take a crap (even though I have telescopes on the roof of my house pointing in all directions, and none of them into the sky; but that's a story for another day). So this guy walks towards the bathroom, and I see he has a screwdriver in his hand; I stop him, ask him to leave the screwdriver, which he does.
I make no further attempts to assure him I know he's not going to install a camera, or to be friendly or a human or something like that; I just bark my orders and waddle off. So after he finished his business, and because he's expecting to be over for a few hours and wants to clear the air, he walks up to me and says "About the screwdriver.. I didn't install a camera or anything, I just like to play drums on my knees while I poop. But I managed fine without it, so we're cool, right?"
I smily emptily, say, it's okay, waddle away... and then call the cops. Then I lie to them and say he took a screwdriver to the bathroom even after asked him not to, and onlookers actually turn my guest reacting to my pre-existing suspicion of them installing a camera in my bathroom into my guest raising that suspicion in the first place. The last part just boggles my mind.
That is not the same. He wants to fend off a personal stigma. Saying: "There isn't a bomb in my bag, if you must know. Here's my coat", that would be more in line with your analogy.
Seriously, he was ejected because of taking photos, not because of the "T word". The fact that he took one photo and ceased activity means that he is NOT in the wrong.
While it is common sense not to use the word "terrorist" on board or in an airport (I certainly wouldn't), this doesn't mean that it is logical or justified. 1000 years ago it was common sense that you could fall off the face of the earth. We seriously need to stop being so precious about this word and take our power back.
We don't even have an indication it actually did freak them out. To me that's just a speculative justification, giving authority the benefit of the doubt.
The instant he said that to the FA, he was off. It's like using the "B" word with the TSA. If you say it, expect to be taken to a room for a nice 20 minute conversation with various security officials. And there is no "room" on an airplane, you're off if you behave like this guy.
or, you know, just have some common sense, perhaps particularly on United and American Airlines flights.
"Don't worry, I'm not going to rape you" is not something you suddenly exclaim for no reason while walking behind someone in a dark alley who's nervously looking back over their shoulder.
I see. Freedom of Speech - not so much. I anyway had my encounters with immigration in Singapore once. They asked me "Are you leaving the country through this airport as well?" and I replied "Well, we thought about visiting Malaysia as well" whereafter she raised her hand and the police brought me into this weird room where I could not use phones/computers etc. What a treatment for a European citizen. I had plenty of money and proper travel plans. They also released me after 30 minutes, but I felt really bad after his experience, basically treated like a criminal. Now I learned just to stfu while talking to officials at airports.
It's an idiomatic English response to an accusation regarding picture taking. I bet if you walked up to 1000 native speakers of English and asked them to stop taking pictures, more than 10% would say exactly this.
Though it wasn't described in the post, I think how the line was delivered would matter - unblinking eye contact with negative body language? probably bad. Half smile with a little incredulity and palms up? better.
Although, if you're trying to allay fears or play down your own 'threat', it probably helps to work your way up to terrorist through a series of denying smaller dangers instead of jumping straight to terrorist.
"Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need
to explain myself."
Why? The only appropriate response to being informed that you are not permitted to take pictures in a non-public space is "I understand" or simply "Okay". No explanation is necessary as it won't change the rule that the flight attendant is likely obligated to enforce. However, the author feels compelled to justify himself rather than just let it be by saying:
"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you
didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card
[offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an
almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even
aware of my blog."
This is quite ambiguous. The flight attendant is probably thinking "Oh great, here's some critic who is going to scrutinize and complain about everything I do and then write about it publicly. If he's so notorious that the guys in Chicago are aware of him, he must be bad news. Is he telling me this to try and con me into letting him take more pictures? Some disgruntled self-important writer is the last thing I need...". Imagine how the response might have been different had he said:
"Sorry about taking that picture. I just want to say that I love
United and everything you guys do. I'm really excited about being
in BusinessFirst class on this new aircraft and wanted to capture
the moment. Thanks for letting me know about the photography
restriction, though. I respect that and won't take another
picture."
But again, that whole exchange should never have happened. Then later, this gem of a sentence:
"Me: That's a lie, captain."
Ouch. Now the only way to get your way is for both the captain and the flight attendant to lose face and admit that, yes, it was a lie. What was he expecting? That the captain brings the flight attendant over and asks her "Did you lie?" where she responds "Yes, Captain, I lied about this passenger taking additional pictures because I was afraid that he might write about a negative experience with me." I could go on with how the conversation with the captain should have gone, using face-saving phrases like "she may have been mistaken" and such, but at that point the battle was long since lost.
None of this excuses the flight attendant's alleged retaliatory action. However, having the situation escalate to that point could easily have been avoided.
If this guy got kicked off a flight for taking a single picture with his iPhone, and he did not cause any other problems, then he deserves to be able to post what he did, and United deserves to be scolded for its ridiculous policies that its pilot and GS dutifully followed. A service mentality is needed.
It reminds me of an experience I had recently at Best Buy. I bought an item and immediately after paying for it, before picking it up off the sales counter, I noticed that the end of the box had been untaped and opened, so I asked if I could exchange it for another. The cashier said, "I'm sorry but you'll have to exchange it at the service desk." I argued and was able to exchange it, but was flabbergasted.
> "Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself." Why?
Because that's a very natural reaction to being accused, explicitly or implicitly, of being a bad person. (Yes, it would have simplified his life to have suppressed his emotions at this point. But I completely understand why he felt like he did.)
I'm having trouble imagining a thought process that decides that if someone may write a bad review about you, the best course of action is to kick them out.
Under every scenario I can imagine, you have now moved from "may" write bad things to "sure as hell" will write bad things.
If that was her motivation, she came up with the dumbest solution possible.
If someone put themselves between you and something you want via a lie, calling them out is actually the last option you have. While speaking of "lesson"... the captain couldn't make eye contact and the FA hid away; let's hope they learned their lessons; actual ones worth talking about.
You can draw attention to the issue without impugning the character of the person in the way. Even saying "that's not true" is better, since it doesn't unambiguously assign a negative motive.
Of course it would have been better to say it differently; that doesn't make what he said instead a justification for what happened, or that it would have changed anything.
Also, by that point his fate had probably been decided, and he might as well make his point and confront them. Perhaps they'll feel guilty; or perhaps others present will remember to push back more a little earlier.
No other comments in this thread make this point, so I'll bring it up. While the passenger should not have been booted off, he was absolutely in the wrong but only based on what he told the crew.
It says photography is strictly prohibited of aircraft equipment, and if not of aircraft equipment, prohibited unless of "personal events".
His explanation:
"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog."
This falls outside of personal use. This is professional use, and therefore absolutely outside of the personal events category. Taking pictures under his business card and related to his blog is strictly prohibited, and his arguing means he was arguing with the rules that were shown to him by the FA before he began arguing.
Aside from being absolutely in violation of the rules, perhaps this had nothing to do with "I am not a terrorist"; perhaps the FA and captain were disinterested in having their entire route evaluated and blogged about.
No idea what United will say in response. And frankly, I am shocked to be siding with United. But in this case, they handed him a printed rule, and he chose to explain himself in a way that put him in violation of it, and took himself out of the regular passenger category.
In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules.
Again, how is that willfully breaking the rules? Am I will breaking the rules here becaus I don't explicitly state that I am following HN guidelines in all my posts?
Because arguing. If, after being shown the rule, he'd STFU, this article wouldn't be here. He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store.
There are now (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story) homeland security guidelines about passengers exhibiting behavior that suggests they don't or won't accept the flight attendant's authority. Flowcharting those rules leads to the captain deciding whether he wants the passenger on the flight. It's clear this guy got himself classified into that flowchart.
He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store.
Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule, thereby meaning (according to
DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
> Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule,
Not breaking "the" rule, future rule breaking. There's a difference.
According to current flight regulations, arguing about breaking a rule is cause to suspect other rules may be broken later.
> thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule?
Not according to Terretta. According to post 911 flight regulations being followed by the FA and pilot. These new security regulations say someone who objects to authority can be denied travel like "pre-crime" suspects on Minority Report.
> Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Yes, which is why I wrote, "wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story" about these regulations.
The situation will remain ridiculous until enough people realize this ridiculousness is now policy and needs undoing.
How could someone who had flown 950,000 miles on United, blogging about it the whole time, be totally unaware of this rule? There are two explanations.
1) He knew about the rule and decided to flaunt it anyway.
2) He did not know about the rule because it is so rarely enforced as to be invisible.
Personally speaking, #2 sounds more likely to me. I take photos onboard most times I fly, and not once have I been asked to stop, even on United flights. I've never heard of any friends or family being asked to stop. I've never even read about this on a blog before, and lots of people blog about flying and travelling.
In short, whether or not he was in technical violation of the rule, it's ridiculous to hold someone strictly to a standard that is never enforced with any regularity.
There's a difference between doing the wrong thing right, and doing the right thing. If people wouldn't forget that rules should be encoded for their own benefit instead of being dictated by some people above as some holy scripture we wouldn't have TSA and all this airport security nonsense to talk about.
Captain: I don't have any, but United will have no trouble finding me. My name is...[removed].
Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? The captain made a wrongheaded decision, and he should at the very least have his name attached to it.
> Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way?
Legal liability. The author could be sued for defamation of character if any of the details are wrong, or in the case that a truthful account emphasizes negatives over positives, something called "false light". Some readers may find this hard to believe, but it's true:
Well, yes, that's also true -- many people don't want to cause unintended hurt by way of poorly considered words. But (in the U.S. at least, and certainly Great Britain) a diplomatic expression that includes an unfair characterization can result in legal action.
"Bob isn't so bad -- after all, it's said that he's stopped beating his wife."
I really resent the way you used "victim" and "aggressor" there. Really quite manipulative.
As the article its self said, from the captain's perspective he was likely always going to believe a FA over a pax, in particular if the FA claimed the pax wasn't being cooperative.
Now if the quotes were accurate I think the captain was quite rude, but we really don't know what the FA said to the captain, maybe he got the impression the guy was being a massive ass.
But regardless, the author was very professional for not releasing the name. It adds nothing to the story. It would just be petty revenge.
The author contracted carriage in exchange for money, and the captain refused to honor that contract. The author was a victim. The captain was an aggressor. Those are facts, not opinions, and they're not manipulative. It's your prerogative to resent them, but they remain facts.
It's interesting that you seem to be claiming the captain wasn't an aggressor, but then believe that giving his name to his actions would be "petty revenge."
And the terms and conditions of said contract would state that the captain has the absolute right to remove anyone from the flight.
Edit: Reference. RULE 21 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT in United's Contract of Carriage [1] outlines UA's right to "remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger
for the following reasons". The reasons are, as you would expect, broad and vague, essentially giving UA cover to remove anyone from the flight.
The one I expect they would cite in this instance is:
H4: "Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;"
Other fun conditions that UA have felt the need to enumerate:
21:H5 Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
21:H16 Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition
I wouldn't say the captain is an "aggressor". He made a bad decision, probably due to incomplete or wrong information he was given. So this is not entirely his fault, he shouldn't take 100% of the blame, and he deserves to have his name hidden.
Because if it did not happen exactly the way the OP wrote it - and he has the ability to prove it, he might get himself in real trouble that way.
I do not know the US law in that case, but in Germany, the captain then could go to court on terms of "wrong accusation" and the OP would have to prove his accusations.
The Captain is always right, that's why. There are no customers on an airplane: only weight. They're not customers again until they're walking up the gangway ..
Flying has become such a hassle these days. I often just keep my mouth shut when going through security just for the sake of getting through quicker. I feel like if I asked for a pat down as opposed to just walking through the body scan, I would position myself into a potentially troublesome situation. In a way, I do feel like I am being suppressed these days.
Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself. I signaled for her to come back and asked her to hang my coat.
What's with the need to exercise control over another human being like that? Hang up your own coat. The fact that he feels entitled to such service says something about him. People that bark orders at flight attendants probably feel that are part of some untouchable/infallible class of citizen. It makes me suspect his retelling of the facts has been greatly marred by his feelings of superiority in the situation.
He was sitting in business class where this type of request is normal. Also, keeping the aisle clear is a top priority of any flight crew (especially pre-takeoff), so they actually prefer you ask them to do things like this as they will be more efficient.
I guess he would know what's appropriate, so I stand corrected on that point.
I guess I'm just too servile. I would have put my iPhone away and read a book and never have been kicked off the plane. (And if my coat needed hung, I would have just sat and been uncomfortabaly warm until I could hang it myself: your failure to prepare should not become the burden of another human being. )
If there's no where to hang it aside from a designated area that as a passenger you don't have access too, you let the crew member do it and remember to be polite. Same as in a restaurant, you don't take your own plates back into the kitchen and clean them off, because the waiting team does that and probably wouldn't like you muscling in.
The coat closet is at the front of the aircraft. You aren't really allowed to just go rummage through it yourself. So you ask the FA to put your coat in there or to retrieve it.
Ok, as a guy that only flies coach I thought "hanging your coat" means putting it on the little peg that pops out on the back of the seat in front of you / putting it in the overhead bin. I was mistaken. I didn't realize coats at the front of the plane were treated so much better than the rest of the coats. :-)
They'll also memorize your name and make sure to use it regularly when addressing you. And you get metal cutlery instead of plastic. And the nuts are heated, and served in a little cup instead of in a plastic bag.
(Never paid for business, but United is ludicrously easy to get upgrades on if you fly trans-atlantic flights with any frequency and pay attention to ordering correctly coded tickets)
As a courtesy to Business/First travelers, the FAs will hang your coat in a shared closet (instead of you having to place it in an overhead bin). I don't think they'd be happy with a passenger accessing the closet themselves.
Though I agree the timing of the request is kind of odd given the circumstances, I can say that I wouldn't be comfortable hanging up my own coat in First/Business, as the coat closet is under the purview of the FAs and not really a place for passengers to be going through.
So the timing is weird, but the request in and of itself is totally normal for that class of service.
That's basically SOP in business class on international flights. The level of personal attention / service is almost jarring at first (this applies 10x to first class).
This is completely unacceptable. You don't take people of a plane for taking pictures - they are no thread to everyone and certainly paid for their ticket. I am flying with United Airlines in March, I hope for a better experience - but after reading this, it might be my last flight with them, ever.
All the "Well he shouldn't have used the T word" when he explained that he was taking the photos as part of his travel review job.
There were no faults in the way he handled it. The airline was completely to blame, severely inconvenienced him, falsely accused him, and cost him money. Outrageous behavior against any passenger. That he is a 950,000 mile traveler on the airline and often writes articles recommending them to others (at a time when United is well known for being among the worst of the carriers) makes it completely idiotic from a business standpoint as well.
No one's taking the airline's side here, but he shouldn't have brought up terrorism. That was a mistake in judgment on his part, as I explained elsewhere.
The irony here is that you're demonstrating the same sort of knee-jerk misinterpretation that arises when people say "terrorism" on an airplane.
I still don't understand why using the word "terrorist" is a no-no. It is a word. Context matters. Context in this case would suggest there was nothing to worry about.
I swear sometimes it is like the whole world is a slightly mentally handicapped child who, upon hearing a bad word, starts repeating it getting more and more upset.
I guess being adults and thinking things through is too much to ask from your average full grown adult?
It's not the word itself. The word could be "terrorist" or "bomb" or "Muslim" or anything, really. It's denying some wrongdoing without having first been accused of it. Humans learn very early on to be suspicious of people who offer denials prior to accusations, and we likewise learn in childhood not to offer such denials ourselves.
When no one has accused you of stealing a cookie from the cookie jar, saying out of the blue, "I didn't steal the cookie from the cookie jar" instantly makes you a suspect. This is Encyclopedia Brown level stuff.
(As an aside, your lack of intuitive understanding of this principle, combined with your righteous indignation and judgment of the world at large, makes me feel very much like you describe while writing this reply.)
Except it wasn't used in that manner at all. As others pointed out, it's a fricken idiom and automatic response in a photographic context. http://goo.gl/CnV1s
It's the same as if he replied 'okay, don't worry, the photos will be dead and gone', and the flight attendant misinterprets that to mean he's going to blow up the plane and kill everyone.
If the story is as he's relayed it, he's absolutely 100% not at fault and the flight attendant is a total fricken idiot.
Yes. Words won't hurt you. When they can use words to bring down an aircraft then I care, but until that occurs then, they're just words.
Context matters. A sentence matters more than a word. A group of sentences matters more than just one. A conversation matters more than just a few sentences.
I don't think it's people defending the airline, I think people just understand the unfortunate way things work now. When travelling by plane it's best to just shut up and do what you're told. The trouble caused by speaking up is obviously not worth it. If the writer had decided to follow the rules and not take anymore photos why did he feel the need to further explain himself? It wasn't going to change anything and at the very least was a waste of his time.
He doesn't mention the other passenger who took photos getting booted from the plane. This suggests it was his reaction rather than the taking of photos that saw him left behind.
It's very disturbing and amazing to see so many people here jump to conclusions when we've only heard one side of this story and OP has only contacted United after posting this article.
Sorry, what I do not get is, that this person describes something, he claims clearly troubled him. He was wronged (by his account) by UA. He even had to buy a new ticket on his own account to have a connection-flight.
So what I do not get is, why is he not holding UA responsible for the lost money, lost time and his trouble. Is he such a big fanboy, that he does not want to cost his big love some (by his account) well deserved money?
Or might it just be, that there are some other aspects to his story, not told in the written blog post? His tone of voice, while talking to the FA? Was he calm, might he come about as being aggressive? What was his body language? Might she have felt threatened.
Maybe he is right in his point of view - but maybe - and just maybe, he acted from a position of blogger-power, taking his blogger-influence for granted and letting this show.
I know, that this is just me speculating, but I haven't been there and did not hear anything from the other side of the story. But reading the comments here and in the blog, UA is guilty until proven innocent, or so it seems.
Why did they throw him off then put him on another flight? I mean either he was a danger (= should be thrown off original flight, but should not be allowed to endanger other flights either), or he wasn't a danger (= could fly on the original flight).
Possibly, the original Flight Attendant said something to the Captain. Pretty much everything that happens on or around an airliner is at the Captains discretion. The decisions can be questioned and challenged by the airline supervisors, the FAA etc. and the Captain can be relieved of duty by the airline, but its Captains prerogative to remove someone off their aircraft.
The other factor involved is CRM, Crew Resource Management. The days were the crew passively follow the Captains decisions are over, and for good reason. Captains are trained to listen to their First Officer and FA, and actively respond to questions.
This means its quite possible that the Captain didn't want his flight delayed, or cause unnecessarily tension on the flight with his FA, and so took the easy (but highly questionable) option to simply remove him from the flight.
Note: This should not be interpreted as taking the airlines side, just explaining my thoughts on the factors involved.
They never used danger as a reason. The captain can kick anyone off the plane for any reason or no reason. He chose to and will accept whatever the consequences are. (But remember: it's a union job, so there aren't going to be consequences.)
I estimate the author will get 50,000 frequent flyer miles and an apology. Seems to be the standard procedure when the central office wants to make up for poor customer service on the line.
Two issues:
1. 'Terrorist' seems to be a keyword that will get you into a lot of trouble if uttered in the vicinity of an airport.
2. Why not provide evidence of the truth there and then? Show your camera photo roll containing the one photo, and then you have a solid case. Otherwise, we have to consider that perhaps more than one photo was taken, it is a "your word" against "their word" scenario.
You know that crappy little country, just off the north coast of mainland Europe, its where I live, its called the UK? Well, that's why we have far too much influence for our size.
We rip on our powerful people something rotten. It helps to keep the powerful on their toes and makes the rest of us feel a little bit better. Its a British tradition. And for us, it works quite well.
There is nothing childish about it. It's dead serious, and failure to do so costs lives. And regarding that second part: Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say infinitely when you mean very; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. -― C.S. Lewis
Something similar happened a couple years ago involving photos being taken of employees.[1][2] What struck me as different this time was that neither the FA nor the GS Rep attempted to take the camera away or have the pictures deleted. If this was a security issue, it makes sense that they wouldn't just let him walk off the plane with the photo(s).
It's possible that his saying "terrorist" was part of it, or maybe UA has a very strict no-photos policy, or maybe there's something else we don't know (and I think this is probably the case,) but this still seems pretty absurd.
Even police officers have no right to confiscate equipment or delete pictures[0], and you're proposing that private parties attempt it? Please, be more aware of your civil rights.
Tips for air travel:
1. Don't bring up terrorism or bombs.
2. If a disagreement with anyone arises and is settled, don't bring it up again.
3. Be polite and humble, particularly whilst on the actual plane.
4. Do not accuse anyone of lying. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify.
5. Don't accuse anyone of threatening you. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify.
Surprised so few people are keying in on point #2. That to me is the key point where the blogger went awry, was entirely within his own control to avoid and if he'd done so, no one gets kicked off the flight.
I understand the "well, it wasn't settled ACCORDING TO ME, so I want to clarify" mentality, but if you can't control that urge, don't be surprised to find that you escalate your way into situations like this.
Hi, upgrd.com is my site. I always wondered what would happen if a story was picked up on HN. Now I know! There's some interesting comments from other passengers, on the same flight, about the behavior of the flight attendant.
Regardless of your view on Matthew's story - has the site been working well for everyone? Is my little FreeBSD VPS (with photos on cloudfront) setup performing well? I can see the stats from my side, just wondering how it loaded for you. Thanks!
Why didn't he simply show the captain the photos that were on his iPhone? That would have verified that he only took one photo, and it violated no one's privacy.
Actually showing the photos would have been a stronger argument than saying "That is a lie." Also, he could have volunteered to delete the one photo that he took.
Someone in the comments suggested that this is a "he said, she said" situation. Not really, because there was a camera involved. The camera is the authority on the subject of whether he took photos that he should not have taken.
I recently was at the Port Authority, in New York City. I was amazed at how busy it was at rush hour, so I pulled out my iPhone and took some pictures. I did not realize this was forbidden. A policeman approached me immediately and asked me what I was doing. I showed him the photos I had just taken and I explained I wanted to send them to some friends who had never visited New York. He suggested that I delete the photos but he walked away without making me do anything, so I was able to keep the photos.
Not in the same league, but I've been escorted out of a train station of taking a photo of a piece of signage too. The electronic sign in question had condensed a station name to something mildly profane, which I considered amusing enough to take a photo of.
The justification given that I could have been planning a terrorist attack, so it was regarded as suspicious behaviour.
Well, as I see it, the guy wanted to wave the fact that he is a "semi-famous writer on the subject of air travel" for whatever reason. Apparently, the captain didn't like this attitude, which does not excuse him for kicking the guy out, but I can see why he might have done it.
I wish the flight attendants had of asked the guys next to me in Business to stop taking photos. A few of us had been upgraded and these guys next to me were so excited they took about 80 or so photos. Every. Single. One. With. The. Fucking. Flash.
Okay, I was a little annoyed. But the attendants weren't bothered... and the guys did settle after a while.
It wasn't anything to do with photo taking. You _don't_ say on a plane, "I'm not a terrorist". That's kind of dumb.
That said, he was perfectly entitled to take photos for personal use. So the photo taking wasn't really an issue.
There's more to this than the OPs mentioning perhaps.
It seems likely that, in the not-too-distant future, we will all be eagerly recording everything around us to prevent these kinds of injustices from happening. Imagine if you'd had a mic running, then played it back to the captain. Problem solved - and the FA would have gotten into trouble for creating a liability risk for the airline.
The problem is that recordings can be modified or erased and soon will be forbidden, the first problem they have they'll make a new law or rule, so you can not put the authorities against the wall, for your protection of course. I think is now forbidden to record policemen, not sure non US citizen here, in US while they're working.
Good luck to them with that. The only people it stops even today are people who don't mind being observed taking pictures. There are plenty of cameras that are easy to hide for anyone who cares to.
I can buy simple digital video recorders embedded in pens, watches, bluetooth earphones, baseball caps, ties, crucifixes and more from just a casual search of Amazon, for example, and that's hardly the state of the art in covert recording.
The more obnoxious anti-photographing policies people experience, the more attractive it will be to make recording devices less obtrusive.
I take pictures all the time. While the Flight attendant in this situation seemed a little over zealous, it is not a huge deal and it's not why you got thrown off.
There are a few words you can not say on a plane. Never say "bomb", and NEVER say "terrorist" in any context. When you said, "I'm not a terrorist", you were doomed. Sorry. It had nothing to do with you taking pictures, just your naivety about language, perceived threats, and the illusion of security.
Also don't mess with business class. That is their cash crop.
> maybe I should never used the word terrorist in my explanation
That's obviously the problem. When I read he said he wasn't a terrorist I thought "uh-oh, this isn't going to end well".
The US have this very strange custom of having "forbidden words" -- words that can't be said on TV and/or words that can't be said in an ordinary conversation. Those words are alluded-to with their initial: F-word, S-word, N-word, etc.
There are 30,000 flights a day in the US with an average of 100 passengers each. This happening to one blogger is not exactly a pattern of paranoia. It was simply two people making a bad customer service decision.
It's just that for me as an European seemingly all crazy stories like "X tazed by cop for doing nothing at all" or "Y put into jail for having her small children play naked in the garden" come from the US.
According to [1], there are 500,000,000 English speakers on the Internet. There are 300,000,000 English speakers in the US. It stands to reason that most everything you read about in English on the Internet took place in the US. It's just a really really big country.
Was going to say the same thing. This seems more like the reason, and it would make sense why they would not claim this was the reason as well, since they don't want the word mentioned again among other passengers.
A well publicized case here in Uruguay was when someone was asked to throw away a pen, and he said "it's not as if this pen is a bomb", so he was refused entry into the U.S.
People still travel to the U.S., but it's very likely costing the country a lot of tourist dollars - not that the U.S. cares, they have enough tourists as is.
This guy feels so entitled. The airline has clearly a very strict no photography policy and after being told not to take pictures, he then arrogantly explains that because he's a journalist he allows himself to do whatever he wants (take photographs on an airplane). My bet is the FA got pissed off at him and threw him out of the plane to teach him a lesson.
Have you even read the blog post? He took one picture and stopped after the FA complained. And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations.
Meh. Passenger demonstrates willingness to a) revisit the incident later and b) use the word 'terrorist' on the plane.
They don't have to actually think he'll blow up the plane; it only takes one closet nut case to overhear this and cause a ruckus mid flight. In a small confined space at 30k feet that's a very real safety issue. Consider that an irrational fear of flying isn't that uncommon, and this is a route where there isn't much of an alternative.
Finally, they're under no obligation to tell a passenger the real reason for booting him off the plane; if it was the above, doing so could only make it worse for themselves.
Still unacceptable on behalf of United. Using the word "terrorist" was unnecessary and downright unwise, but the fact remains that, regardless of post 9/11 context, it's just a damn word. May it heighten the senses of a potential fear-of-flying person? Perhaps. But by that logic, you would also say that anybody wearing a turban would have to remove it, for fear of triggering one of these people.
And, yes, United are under obligation to tell this passenger the real reason for booting them off. They are a business. He is their a loyal customer with almost 1,000,000 ffms. He conducted himself, according to his entry, calmly and in a very transparent manner. The behavior of the stuff was disgusting, humiliating and unprofessional.
If this seems okay to you; fine. But this is not the world I want to live in.
The actions of "one closet nut case" are always the responsibility of the closet nutcase.
> this is a route where there isn't much of an alternative
You make a case that people shouldn't be allowed to fly while black/muslim/wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it/etc in case some "sensitive soul" kicks up a fuss, and that it is not that sensitive soul's fault. I disagree.
However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it, it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky terrorist and swap SD cards).
In addition, the author made the statement "I am not a terrorist." There's no way for flight crew to know this to be true until the plane lands at its destination and you provably haven't blown it up, killed people on-board, or hijacked and redirected it to another location. There is absolutely zero value in making a declaration like that.
... In fact, I'd say there's negative value in making that statement. In a security conscious environment like an enclosed aircraft, it immediately escalates a situation from "photo-happy tourist or possible bad guy" to "higher probability bad guy or maybe making a political statement ... or just not very smart". It's also a (very small) step in the direction of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater as you've potentially now caused (possibly over-sensitive) people hearing this statement to begin to have concerns about you and their flight. You've turned what should have been an uneventful flight into a situation where tension can only increase before you've even left the ground.
When you add all of this up, especially when a flight is trying to get out of the gate on time, the pilot is going to err on the side of caution and kick you off the plane.
You'll either blow up in a rage of righteous fury (thus proving to all that you should never have been on that plane) or you'll leave quietly, a one-time mistake, and board another flight (hopefully with much less bother to the next crew considering how much time you just wasted).
You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd.