Yes! : UAL agent in MSY cancels passenger's flight for videoing conversation

[derg]

GOOOOOOOOOD!


http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_4447a8a6-374b-11e7-a282-1b6c3166a79a.html

United Airlines is investigating an incident in which one of its agents at New Orleans' Louis Armstrong International Airport canceled a passenger's flight home for filming her, the NBC Bay Area affiliate reported Monday.

Navang Oza, 37, a San Francisco resident, began videotaping the United employee around 4 a.m. after he was told his bag would cost $300 to check. Oza said his bag cost $125 to check on the way to New Orleans.

"In trying to get an answer, the lady was being rude," he said.


The agent told Oza he did not have permission to film her and told the agent to her left to cancel Oza's reservation. After commanding the employee to cancel Oza's reservation, the employee began recording Oza with her smartphone and told him he could not board the plane until he erased the recording.

Oza said he had alcohol in his system from the previous night and had not slept much; however, his flight was canceled for filming his exchange.

The United agent called the airport police, who told Oza he could keep the recording.

Some airlines prohibit photography on planes. NBC Bay Area aviation analyst Mike McCarron said the restriction doesn't extend to airports.

"(Oza) doesn't have to have her permission to film," he said. "He's in a public area, and he can film as much as he wants. As long as he's in a public area and so is she."

 

[denverpilot]

Oops. United is going to pay out more money on that one.

 

[pete2800]

Yeah.... as much as I love the sentiment.... there's no expectation of privacy in a public airport. If people want to film stuff, they're going to film stuff.

 

[A Life Aloft]

This comment after the article is the reality of how this incident will actually affect UAL's business:

"I am never flying United again.......... Unless the fare is a great deal, or it is the only schedule that works or whatever reason that makes sense."

 

[Apophis]

This comment after the article is the reality of how this incident will actually affect UAL's business:

"I am never flying United again.......... Unless the fare is a great deal, or it is the only schedule that works or whatever reason that makes sense."

So basically, you'll definitely be flying on United again.

So glad I fly freight.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

This comment after the article is the reality of how this incident will actually affect UAL's business:

"I am never flying United again.......... Unless the fare is a great deal, or it is the only schedule that works or whatever reason that makes sense."

The fact that Walmart is still a thing proves that price is the only motivator for a lot of people.

 

[mshunter]

Yeah.... as much as I love the sentiment.... there's no expectation of privacy in a public airport. If people want to film stuff, they're going to film stuff.

Pete, you and I agree on a lot of things, and you're right, there is no expectation of privacy in public. But there comes a point when acting like a decent human being becomes more important. Stuffing a camera phone in someone's face, especially when you're drunk and making demands, just isn't the right thing to do. Like @Maximillian_Jenius, sometimes you can be right, and still be wrong.

 

[Apophis]

The fact that Spirit Airlines is still a thing proves that price is the only motivator for a lot of people.

 

[Flying Saluki]

The fact that Walmart is still a thing proves that price is the only motivator for a lot of people.

What other motivators are there?

 

[bp]

GOOOOOOOOOD!


http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_4447a8a6-374b-11e7-a282-1b6c3166a79a.html

United Airlines is investigating an incident in which one of its agents at New Orleans' Louis Armstrong International Airport canceled a passenger's flight home for filming her, the NBC Bay Area affiliate reported Monday.

Navang Oza, 37, a San Francisco resident, began videotaping the United employee around 4 a.m. after he was told his bag would cost $300 to check. Oza said his bag cost $125 to check on the way to New Orleans.

"In trying to get an answer, the lady was being rude," he said.


The agent told Oza he did not have permission to film her and told the agent to her left to cancel Oza's reservation. After commanding the employee to cancel Oza's reservation, the employee began recording Oza with her smartphone and told him he could not board the plane until he erased the recording.

Oza said he had alcohol in his system from the previous night and had not slept much; however, his flight was canceled for filming his exchange.

The United agent called the airport police, who told Oza he could keep the recording.

Some airlines prohibit photography on planes. NBC Bay Area aviation analyst Mike McCarron said the restriction doesn't extend to airports.

"(Oza) doesn't have to have her permission to film," he said. "He's in a public area, and he can film as much as he wants. As long as he's in a public area and so is she."

The future, where everyone stands around in public grumbling about how they're the bigger victim, while everyone records each other and uploads it to the NSA cloud with convenient hashtags for data mining.

I want off this train plz

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[FlyingAccountant]

Pete, you and I agree on a lot of things, and you're right, there is no expectation of privacy in public. But there comes a point when acting like a decent human being becomes more important. Stuffing a camera phone in someone's face, especially when you're drunk and making demands, just isn't the right thing to do. Like @Maximillian_Jenius, sometimes you can be right, and still be wrong.

Agreed.

And why is he recording her? Because he's trying to intimidate her into doing what he wants her to do which is to not charge him for the bag. Which is garbage.

 

[Roger Roger]

I like how the fact that the pax had been drinking was subtly slipped in as a footnote to the whole episode.

 

[Richman]

The future, where everyone stands around in public grumbling about how they're the bigger victim, while everyone records each other and uploads it to the NSA cloud with convenient hashtags for data mining.

I want off this train plz

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You mean somewhere down the middle of a mountain somewhere, there is some super secret head honcho of some security apparatus with his fingers locked, watching the screens going "yes, yes...play into my plan! Mwhahahahahhahhaha!"

 

[mshunter]

I like how the fact that the pax had been drinking was subtly slipped in as a footnote to the whole episode.

Yup. But if you listen to the video, there isn't anything subtle about how drunk he was. She could have cancelled his reservation for that, and we wouldn't even be talking right now.

 

[SeanD]

I actually think the airlines need to step it up on treating pax like crap. Passengers are only getting worse. Especially the bargain shopping pax.

 

[NovemberEcho]

Passengers are only getting worse.

To be fair, so is leg room and seat width. The only thing expanding on airlines is fees and the price of peanuts.

 

[thevideographer]

But there comes a point when acting like a decent human being becomes more important.

If airlines don't treat people like decent human beings can you ask for them to act like it in return? Now I'm with the gate agent here that you can't let someone who's drunk and getting belligerent on the plane. That's obvious. But customer service sucks at most airlines and as a result people have gotten used to it being "us vs them" as soon as they get to the airport.

 

[Der_Meister]

To be fair, so is leg room and seat width. The only thing expanding on airlines is fees and the price of peanuts.

I don't think the width of the seats has changed, people have just gotten fatter. It's not like the interior width of aircraft has gotten smaller. Though pitch has decreased by 2-3" from years past.

 

[A Life Aloft]

Pete, you and I agree on a lot of things, and you're right, there is no expectation of privacy in public. But there comes a point when acting like a decent human being becomes more important. Stuffing a camera phone in someone's face, especially when you're drunk and making demands, just isn't the right thing to do. Like @Maximillian_Jenius, sometimes you can be right, and still be wrong.

It used to be that people had their disagreements in more civil ways and in private. They actually had control over their emotions and didn't throw tempter tantrums like two year olds. They had some level of reasonable behavior. But now, every single action that they perceive as them being "wronged", gets filmed and posted to social media and to the news feeds.

Whether it be someone took their parking space, flipped them the finger, overcooked their steak, the heel on their shoe broke, the line at Starbucks was took too long for their liking, their food order was wrong, just everything and anything. Some people feel like they are victims 24/7. And when it comes to large, "evil" corporations, they feel like they are at their mercy and they are not going to be treated in a way that they feel is crappy. They are going to film and post it, demand compensation and tell the world.

The real problem is nobody is following their asses around 24/7 to see all the chit they pull on other people, what they get away with and that their own behavior isn't all that perfect and stellar either. How they screw off at work, little crimes they may commit, how badly they drive, what rules and laws they break on a regular basis, how they cheat, how they treat their wife, kids, their dog and strangers isn't filmed. How drunk or stupid they behave is unknown. Now, with social media, everything is tried in the court of public opinion. It's gotten ridiculous.

I'm to the point where I don't even want to click on this crap any more. They aren't filming to benefit others, they are filming because they are little asshats who can't behave like reasonable adults and they want attention and approval for their crap behavior. And now, they also want money and their ten seconds of fame. Good Grief.

BTW, where are all the videos of FA's caring for/comforting pax on flights, trying to save someone's life in an emergency, honor flights, servicemen and women being upgraded, carriers going out of their way to accommodate pax with issues such as needing to get somewhere because of a funeral or medical emergency, taking a blind pax's dog off between connections to have a bathroom break, assisting elderly pax, airlines accommodating handicapped pax, taking care of minors who fly alone, or any of the other actions that they get right?

 

[pete2800]

I don't think the width of the seats has changed, people have just gotten fatter. It's not like the interior width of aircraft has gotten smaller. Though pitch has decreased by 2-3" from years past.

Nailed it. A 737 is still 6 seats across with one aisle in the middle, and the size of the tube hasn't changed...

Pete, you and I agree on a lot of things, and you're right, there is no expectation of privacy in public. But there comes a point when acting like a decent human being becomes more important. Stuffing a camera phone in someone's face, especially when you're drunk and making demands, just isn't the right thing to do. Like @Maximillian_Jenius, sometimes you can be right, and still be wrong.

I completely agree. But it's just that in this case, even though the passenger was "wrong," there's no real way to penalize or correct that behavior. Acting like an ass is perfectly legal. The question becomes "Do we honestly think it's a good idea to allow gate agents to cancel reservations for no reason greater than 'I didn't like that guy, he seemed like an ass.'?"

They should have just denied him boarding for being drunk.