“Going after the husband’s company is just wrong. Really, now, get a grip”
Definitely, that is cruel and uncalled for. However, since the husband is working for Daddy’s company, it is unlikely that he would lose his job in any event. But I don’t see that as any different than vindictively trying to make the FA lose her job.
This is probably not a new, young flight attendant. It would have to be someone fairly senior to have the guts to stand up to the other three FA’s (if that was even true). Try getting another flight attendant’s job as an older woman, especially one who has been fired by another company. And even if she would be fortunate enough to get one, the way unions work is that you start at the bottom, zero seniority, and a low salary. Union jobs are all about seniority, and you generally don’t move from one company to the next unless you are furloughed.
The common thinking used to be that FA’s were just working these jobs for fun, for the travel benefits, and all had husbands who really were the ones supporting the family. Those days have changed. Plenty of single moms, supporting the family on their own. People whose families count on the income and definitely the health benefits. Talk about a lack of compassion…trying to get a woman fired from a good job like this, that may be irreplaceable. Perhaps she is a single mother, maybe even supporting a handicapped kid. You just never know.
“And I am glad United wouldn’t comment on whether the FA was disciplined because I’m hoping that means no.”
I am sure that the company will do a thorough investigation, to consider if all the FA’s and pilot’s actions were appropriate. If there was anything that sounded like it was against FAA regulations, it is likely they would investigate also. Much depends upon the supervisors, the union, and the culture. I suspect that if it is true that the other three FA’s were trying to bend the rules, they might get some extra training.
I’m wondering if they did try to discipline her for trying to enforce FAA regs if her union would pitch a fit on her behalf. I guess they could discipline her for being rude in the process rather than for enforcing the rules.
I did. I apologized to the owner. The owner said to me, “I am not a crook”. I love that. When I am dealing for my daughter with government agencies, I have found I have had to say that too.
I gave everybody I yelled at $20. The owner wouldn’t take the $20. The owner was nice . He probably hates me. That’s ok. The owner actually dealt with me so he can judge me.
I had to go back into the store three weeks later. I said to one of the employees, Do you remember me? I am the guy who accused you of switching bikes.".
He smiled. He treated me well.
Jonri and pizzagirl, I am talking about expectations. If I did something for a year… If I did something two weeks ago, there is a logic that it will be ok now.
Doesn’t mean something is ok. There is a logic to this thinking though.
I just got back from the doctor. My bp was 152/80. I said pizzagirl is driving me crazy.
I am guessing that the rule that over age children cannot sit in a parent’s lap regardless of size has not been consistently enforced in the past (wondering even in this case whether every single child of questionable age or size was investigated), but will be in the future, at least on United Airlines.
“I’m wondering if they did try to discipline her for trying to enforce FAA regs if her union would pitch a fit on her behalf. I guess they could discipline her for being rude in the process rather than for enforcing the rules.”
Unless United has the most pathetic, weak union ever, they would stand up for her. For an airline to discipline someone for trying to enforce FAA regulations would be absolutely unacceptable, and there would have to be more than one person saying she was rude. They would get the story from all the FA’s, and I’m going to guess they would not admit to all purposefully ignoring the regulation and trying to support breaking it. That is just one woman’s story, that the other three supported her, and I doubt that story will stand scrutiny.
I remember vividly running through the Dallas airport to make a close connection with a two-year-old under one arm and a car booster seat in the other. The two-year-old was screaming “I want to walk” the whole way. We got to the gate, last ones on the plane, I plopped the booster into her seat and strapped her in, just as I had on the previous 3 flights in the last week, only to have a FA tell me that we could not use that kind of booster. Of course the first thing I said was, “We used it on the plane we just got off of, and on two planes last week,” but he was adamant. I even remember that it had an FAA approved sticker on the bottom, but that memory may be wrong. It didn’t matter. The booster seat went under the seat and I was stuck trying to quiet a now hysterical two. It happens.
alh, I’ve got a list of “mom behaving badly” stories myself. That sleep deprivation + mama bear stuff can be ugly!
There can be controversy about car seats on planes if they are for infants and are supposed to be facing backwards. In tight spaces (all of coach), that would prevent the seat in front from being able to recline and sometimes FAs will say that they are not allowed or that they should face the other way. The FAA disagrees, but its enough of a problem that parents are wise to bring a printout of their rights along with them.
“Jonri and pizzagirl, I am talking about expectations. If I did something for a year… If I did something two weeks ago, there is a logic that it will be ok now.”
There may be the hope that you can get away with it (for example, if I were to put a full size toothpaste instead of travel toothpaste in my carry-on and hope TSA doesn’t notice), but that’s different from believing you should get away with it if you are noticed.
Dstark, I don’t think I’m being clear on what I’m asking you, so I’ll try one more time.
You were very clear – crystal – upfront that you thought the rules should be bent in this instance.
Is your rationale behind that more clearly expressed by:
A) She did it before (just a few weeks ago) and no one said anything then, so they should let her get away with it now
B) The rule should only apply to “normal” children, not ones with disabilities
C) The rule’s a stupid rule in the first place - what’s the big deal if a child sits on mother’s lap, 99.9% of flights don’t have any turbulence / incidence
D) People with disabled children have rough enough lives, why not cut them some slack
It’s really simple - just pick A, B, C or D. I’m trying to understand the logic behind your thinking that the rules should be bent.
Responding to the comment about complaining on social media. While not usually one to do so, I was skeeved and the way I was treated by my former natural gas provider. Spoke to 2 customer no-service people and when I asked to speak to a supervisor I was told there was no point because they’d say the same thing. I knew I was right and they were wrong, and I was not pleased at how they handled it. So I posted a clear, but polite post on their facebook page.
Within 24 hrs I got a post back asking me to message them the info and my contact info. I did last night,and today got a nice, very apologetic phonecall from their head of social media, who stated he was working with the head of the call center to do some training, as he agreed with all my points, that I was given incorrect information multiple times and treated poorly. All I asked was for them to correct my final bill which I would happily pay, and I would happily post a follow up response on facebook when all was resolved. So my $116 bill for 2 wks of gas service (one week of which we were out of town and the thermostats were on auto-away) has been corrected, and I will be correctly paying $36 and change.
A) I am talking about expectations. The mom’s expectations were reasonable based on past experiences.
B) this depends on the disability and the situation. I also don’t think the 2 year rule makes sense. If this is a safety issue, kids younger than 2 should be in special seats.
C)No
D) Yes… When judging their behavior.
E) the pilot did a great job.
Pizzagirl, you keep talking about getting away with something. You are not starting from a neutral position.
Put yourself in the mother’s shoes and read my answer to A.
If you were in the mother’s shoes, would you be trying to get away with something? If not, why don’t you consider the possibility the mother wasn 't trying to get away with something either.
If a mother was told to have her child sit when she can’t, do you know how offensive that remark is? It is off the charts offensive. Off the charts! Pretend you are the mother and somebody told you the above. You would be beyond angry.
“A) I am talking about expectations. The mom’s expectations were reasonable based on past experiences.”
I understand you are saying - it was reasonable for the mother to expect she could do this without incident, as she had done it before and no one had called her on it. That’s not what I’m asking. I am asking you - do you think the rules should be bent because she had done it before and no one had called her on it?
Pizzagirl, I look at the whole situation and I take that into account.
What are the options? Throwing her off the plane. I don’t like that. Telling the mother the child needs to sit in her own seat? You know I don’t like that. Letting the daughter sit on the mother’s lap? Is there another solution?
You want a black and white answer when the issue is gray.
But the issue is not gray. The previous enforcement has been “gray.”
Again, I can speed or text while driving or jaywalk in the city every day without getting caught–until I do. That doesn’t make the rule or law itself “gray.” The humans enforcing it are the ones with creating inconsistencies.
So kids don’t have to carry IDs. Hmmmmm makes it kind of hard to enforce the rule.
Now I am really p@@@@@. The ages of the kids aren’t checked. Seriously? How do you enforce the rule then? I know what we can do…Let’s go after the parents of the kid who can’t talk, walk, sit on her own, and support her own head.
No IDs… I am sure this rule is enforced in the strictest way possible.
