Slashdot Mirror
Man Booted From Southwest Flight and Threatened With Arrest After Critical Tweet
CanHasDIY writes The old saying goes, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." A man learned the consequences Sunday, after Tweeting about his experience with a rude Southwest gate attendant: "A Minnesota man and his two sons were asked to leave a Southwest Airlines flight after the man sent a tweet complaining about being treated rudely by a gate agent. Duff Watson said he was flying from Denver to Minneapolis on Sunday and tried to board in a spot for frequent flyer privileges he held and take his sons, ages 6 and 9, with him, even though they had a later spot to board the plane. The agent told him that he would have to wait if he wanted to board with his children. Watson replied that he had boarded early with them before and then sent out a tweet that read 'RUDEST AGENT IN DENVER. KIMBERLY S. GATE C39. NOT HAPPY @SWA.' Watson told TV broadcaster KARE in Minneapolis on Wednesday that after he boarded, an announcement came over the plane asking his family to exit the aircraft. Once at the gate, the agent said that unless the tweet was deleted, police would be called and the family would not be allowed back onboard." He gave into the threat, deleted the Tweet, and was allowed to board a later flight. Southwest, as one could have predicted, offered a boilerplate "apology" and vouchers.
thats harassment.. she should have called the police
Kimberly sure sounds like a cunt.
LOL, "American Freedom"!
So any online criticism of any company has to be a "happy" criticism? The "truth" is no longer welcome? What a screwed up world.
Pulling a family off a flight and threatening to summon the police seems pretty intense. They must have done something very bad. What? One of them tweeted about poor customer service before entering the aircraft? That's it?
Did the SWA agent seriously think that threatening the family with not being able to fly and reporting the man to the police (for what?) unless he deleted the tweet would be the end of it? Did the agent think the whole thing would be erased from everyone's memory and it would be as if nobody complained? That's not the way it works. Now everyone in her management chain knows who she is, and not in a good way. Creating a PR incident like this will not go without notice. It's a variant of the Streisand effect.
It's not important to the story, but at least one airline I've flown has figured out that it's good customer service to allow people who spend a lot of money travelling on their airline have their children treated to the same boarding privilege - especially as it costs the airline nothing to do so.
How did Southwest find out about this tweet?
Do they have a team of people sitting around watching a Twitter feed, so that if anyone mentions Southwest they can pounce?
If so, good job guys! You really saved the day here. SWA stock is going to go up tomorrow for sure! :^)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Boycott SWA! I, for one, will never patronage Southwest again, after giving them my business twice in the past three months.
The passenger is to blame because the airline threatened legal action over something that wasn't illegal?
Passenger is an idiot, SWA was criminal.
WTF? Its standard to allow families with small kids board first (after frequent flyers) in many places. I always hate the ones that dont care. Do you know how unfriendly people are to families with kids, shoving strollers aside etc? Now pair that with the parent being dead tired because they've been traveling 10 hours with the kids already. And the kids got sleep over the atlantic while the parents didnt.
I've had enough people squeeze through between the stroller and the wall to take my space away in the elevator etc. to try and be friendly with everybody. If you show the slightest sign of trying to pull something like that you'll have my elbow in your side.
Asking customers or others to leave a business has put way too much power in the hands of people unable to handle it. Situations like this deserve a court hearing. At times it may even be in opposition to the Americans With Disabilities Act. For example a stroke victim or a person suffering a mental condition may exhibit unpopular behaviors as a direct consequence of their condition just a Turret's syndrome might cause cursing or obscene utterances. Businesses as well as individuals have to suffer the effects just as the person who bears the illness suffers the effects. Depending upon who is doing the looking even drunken or drug induced behaviors may be a disability. We can not have a pretense that the behavior of an ill person is somehow not part of that person as control is often beyond any abilities that they may have to resist the behaviors. As long as they are non violent I can't see any business denying them access.
Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But this immediate rush to blame/defend lets rumors fly around while the truth takes its time.
problem solved
Wouldn't Southwest calling the police be considered wasting police time? and isn't that an offence?
I hold A-List with SWA myself, and I sometimes travel with my young son. He does not have A-List, but from all of my experiences the agents never say a thing because they realize that I fly very often and that I'm going to end up sitting next to my son one way or another, so letting him board with me is the pathway of least resistance. Seriously, this guy had 2 kids with him, that's a group of 3 seats, let's make it easy on everybody and just let the two of them - 6 and 9 - board with the father.
Or not, and play like rules can never be flexed and how wrong it was of this A-List passenger to be pissed that he was being told to board after ALL of the A's when he flies enough to have early boarding.
Personally, I think I would have let them call the police on me. That would have really made this a huge PR problem.
For those not familiar with southwest: There is no assigned seating. People board in three groups, A (frequent flyers, people paying extra for early boarding), B and C (everyone else, numbered by check in order). Long story short, he bought the cheap tickets for his kids and wanted a free upgrade. He then threw a fit when he didn't get his way.
"(He) tried to board in a spot for frequent flyer privileges he held and take his sons, ages 6 and 9, with him, even though they had a later spot to board the plane" =/ "Rape victim".
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Police were going to be called if he didn't delete the tweet? What were they going to do, arrest him on grounds of slander?
story. Don't all of you sheep realize that stories like this are posted in this fashion just to get your panties in a bunch so that you'll post irate comments and then keep coming back for more? You're being manipulated here and you're oh so willing to take it because you just enjoy being outraged/offended.
Here's a quote from that very thin story:
"Our decision was not based solely on a customer's tweet," it said, adding it offered the customer vouchers as a gesture of goodwill.
So do you think perhaps there's more to it than this self-serving outrage-inducing article is letting on?
After all, he committed several unforgivable sins in a police state:
1. Being critical of authority
2. Having an opinion about authority, instead of accepting it as god-like
3. Communicating said opinion
I see sedition, inciting violence and refusing to let proper authority mishandle him. Of course, if he let them call the police, he would probably have been shot.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For those who don't know, boarding order is critical on Southwest. You don't get a seat assignment, its first-come-first-serve, like riding a bus, once you get on the plane.
You get a boarding pass with A 1 thru 60, B 1 thru 60, or C 1 thru 60 and everyone boards in that order. The A people get great seats and C people get crap (center seats, back of the plane, no seats together for people traveling together, etc).
Frequent fliers get to skip ahead board between A and B groups (assuming they didn't have and A anyway) which still has lots of good seats free. Families traveling with children 4 or under also get to board before the B group (so they can get seats together).
This guy probably had high number B or C tickets and wanted to use his "A-list" frequent flier status to board early and get 3 seats together with his kids. But his kids didn't have "A-list" status and where too old to qualify for family boarding so they would have wait for their high boarding number to get on the plane.
this is news worthy for slashdot.org?
SWA is negligent to their stockholders for not keeping up with the times. They should know all about twitter and the effects 1 annoyed passenger can have. It is a matter of training and putting procedures in place. The Gate attendant was in the right, and could have just made the point that she would be annoying the other priority passengers by giving him priority when he was not due it. SWA management completely mishandled it and blew it out of all proportion by stopping the flight and yanking the passengers thereby making a newsworthy story and giving themselves a very expensive case of bad publicity. It could have been handled by just a tweet explaining the policy and why putting him ahead of others would have been bad for other passengers. Then it would not have been a news story.
They must be the whiniest little shits, if they're anything like their dad...
Missing the point.. He expressed his opinion and then all hell broke loose, huge overreaction by SWA here.
Lets hunt down that cunt Kimberley S. andmake her life hell. I fucking hate bitch cunts.
Don't worry, no one here on Slashdot will judge you for being gay.
and instead told him to (give up his frequent flyer perk and) board later with them
oh heaven forbid he give up the "perk" and have to board 2 minutes later! for fuck sake why make an argument out of something so trivial. yes they could have just let him on (which as it turns out they did) or he could have just followed the instructions.
I would have made a 2nd tweet that Southwest threatened police intervention due to the 1st tweet then asked for the city police (not the airport police)
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Not disagreeing, but clarifying
The way I read it, he had a 1st class ticket, but his kids were traveling economy. So he was trying to board them at the same time as first class, even though they were not.
On his other leg, the boarding agent allowed it. But on this portion the boarding agents disagreed.
So, rather than recognizing that the other agent had been extra nice granting him a privilege, he disparaged the one who followed the rules.
I'm sure there is more to the story, but the whole thing won't come out cause SW and the agent won't say anything else.
I also don't doubt that someone went a little excessive, but I suspect both sides overreacted.
I'd have told SWA "Go ahead and call the cops. You'll hear from my lawyer."
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Southwest changed that policy awhile back. Families board after the A group or if they are in A, they just board in that position.
Every time I fly Southwest, their people are energetic and happy. They are probably the best in the business, probably a class unto themselves. This guy however, with what information has been let out, had to be extreme. I'd "luv" to hear what other passengers thought of his behavior!
... isn't that extortion?
my guess is that things were not as one sided as this story leads to believe.
just because a passenger is a customer that should be treated with respect does NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.
given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important. safety shouldn't be shrugged off merely because a passenger whines when he doesn't get out of the ordinary preferential treatment.
airports are reduced rights zones after 9/11
For those not familiar, southwest boards everyone in 3 groups: A, B and C. Business class gets A 1-15 and A-List gets the early A's that are left. Southwest also has Pre-boarding for the handicapped which boards before the A group. They also have Family Boarding which boards between the A and B group. There are plenty of seats left at this time for your family to all sit next to eachother.
to tweet her rudeness after you land.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
ie. their boarding system is utter shit to begin with.
A matter of opinion. It works very well if you pre-print your boarding passes 24 hours before departure time. I have *NEVER* had anything but A or B.
Southwest (who still does not charge for 2 checked bags) has always treated my wife and I well. We have traveled with our grand children many times.
If you know and follow the well established and well know rules for obtaining your boarding pass and boarding the jet, it's a very smooth process.
But on the other hand, if you're an "entitled power flyer", your asshole attitude will get you nowhere.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
So gate-nazi butt-hurt is a security threat now?
story. Don't all of you sheep realize that stories like this are posted in this fashion just to get your panties in a bunch so that you'll post irate comments and then keep coming back for more? You're being manipulated here and you're oh so willing to take it because you just enjoy being outraged/offended..
Yes, you are correct.
:-)
But I point out that you are grazing here too, in the role of "observer too clever to take the bait, who then takes the meta-bait so he can make his observation and feel superior."
I would fall into that category too, except I preemptively offer that I'm no better than you.
please learn the meaning of words before using them, southwest airlines is not a government, nor does all property in the state belong to them
hey look glen beck is fucking rush in the ass
out of many concern (from security to simply have quiet kids) most airline I know simply make either priority boarding of children with the FF, or make sure the children are seatted together with the parents (even in charters).
I guess it gets trumped by corporate rights and power.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Kids aren't frequent flyers dude was being a douche and got less than he deserved
The way I read it, he had a 1st class ticket, but his kids were traveling economy. So he was trying to board them at the same time as first class, even though they were not.
There is only one class on Southwest: Cattle Class. When you check in prior to your flight, you are assigned a boarding group and number. Groups are A, B, and C from 1 through 60. A1 through A15 are reserved for Business Select and other special privileges (including frequent flier miles). Other than getting to board earlier and have a wider selection of seats, they are all the same.
According to Southwest's policy, people travelling together but with different boarding positions have the option to board together, provided the person higher up in line waits with the people further back. How this applies to families, I'm fuzzy on, but I would assume if you have a business select or other pass that allows boarding in the A1 through A15 group, it would make sense to have young children (say, under 10 years old) board with you. It seems like this is what the guy had done on several flights previously.
What the gate agent did was apply the boarding policy in the strictest possible terms, which IMO was an asshole move. But it was still technically according to policy. Did he get lucky, or was this particular agent just being overly strict? Could be either or. Pulling them off the flight for a tweet, however, was completely uncalled for. Threatening to call the police unless he deleted said tweet was harassment, plain and simple. Plus, how in the hell did she figure out who it was so quickly? Was she on twitter while she was supposed to be working, or did some corporate wonk call the gate?
I've been a customer of Southwest for a while, but how they handle this in the long run will determine wether or not I continue to be.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
The internet is not your parents. Shit pisses you off and you cry about it online and then make a stink about it and expect to be treated like an adult? Really? What a shame faggots like this reproduce. They have no balls and what's worse aren't even men in a conscious sense. I feel bad for the little faggots this faggot is raising.
Cry me a river cause you and your brats aren't as special as you thought you were. The airline threatening and trying to revoke his ticket was BS too. Both parties are acting like complete asses. SW should have took the high road and ignored the comment or tweeted about it in an attempt to clarify policy and or satisfy a whining customer.
If his story is true, but given his dimeanor, I highly doubt it.
One rude agent, going to far to play the d-bag. Hope he gets fired.
I guess that's one way to silence your critics.
I (an American) just went on a vacation where I entered Russia, then France, then Russia, then the US on my way home. It went like this:
Russia: "What plane did you get off of?" "OK, [stamp]"
France: "Welcome! [stamp]"
Russia: "Welcome back, Tovarish! [stamp]"
US: "Spread 'em, Cocksucker. What's this in your bag? Get in this line - no, the other line! Papers, please! Is this your family? Who packed your suitcase? Look into the camera. Make your wife look into the camera. Submit to bacterial scanning. Put your bags in the X-Ray machine and leave them there until they start to smoke. OK, Meatwad, we'll let you in, but consider this a warning!"
This place has gotten so xenophobic it's silly.
Its actually written in the rules: if you, the person with the medallion status, are the one booking the flight and are also traveling then everyone in your booking gets the same privileges as you would traveling alone. Early boarding, upgrade eligibility, etc. Its a normal rule with all airlines.
Which is his legally protected right. She's acting with government authority (which she doesn't actually have) in demanding he remove the comment. She doesn't have to authority to remove him from the plane -- once he's allowed past the gate, he's allowed. She can lie to TSA or the pilots and claim he's a threat to get them (who do have the authority) to remove him -- but doing so is a very big no-no (felony.) (not that anyone in their circle would do jack about it. just like the PR hand wave SWA is doing now.)
Nice you got a troll moderation, because you're exactly right.
On top of that, in his tweet he called out an employee by name. I see critical online comments from companies all the time and they rarely respond this harshly; I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet. I have to side with them on this a bit; overall I think the guy was rude and did try to get free service for his kids, but Southwest as an employer does have an obligation to defend it's employees in the course of them carrying out their duties, and that was way over the line.
Intercom: "You are now free to get the fuck off mah plane."
We also would have accepted:
Intercom: "You are not free to tweet about our customer service."
If there was any good chance of a reasoning being on the other end of her call to the police, it would have been worth it to let her call and then have the LEO "explain" to her the (unfortunately rare) consequences of filing a false complaint, then watching HER be arrested for disrupting the flight. As it is, of course, ...
Sadly if the police were called they may have actually tried to find something to charge somebody with to avoid it being booked as a total waste of time, and that somebody is far more likely to be the passenger than the airline employee due to less likely consequences on the police involved.
So do you think perhaps there's more to it than this self-serving outrage-inducing article is letting on?
Yes, and not just because I've had to deal with pricks who threaten to go to the papers when I refuse to give them free upgrades just because they've been loyal customers five years longer than the company has been trading.
I'm sorry if this makes me prejudiced, but when faced by someone who threatens to tell Twitter when they don't get what they demand I'm inclined to treat them like a self-important ass.
by my reading of TFA, the customer in this case is a noisy tool who tried to blackmail the check in woman into breaking company rules for him by trying to line jump his kids, then had a temper tantrum when he was denied and threatend to get the staff member fired. staff member refuses to roll over for the guy acting like an asshole and gets abused on the internet for following the rules and telling him he's not special.
It is also not stated if his children are infants or teenagers.
I'm guessing if the guy was not a complete prick and asked nicely he may have gotten his way. Yelling at the minimum wage checkin person may be satisfying, but there are much easier ways to get the upgrade.
I guess the empolyee can be happy that this guy probably gets his hamburgers spit in every time he goes out for one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
none
she was not rude so ef'em if he can't take it. He wanted special privileges for his two kids and did not want to board with them. Sorry Dick, the world does not revolve around you. Suck it up and STFU.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And once he's been asked to leave, he is trespassing if he does not peacefully comply. Companies can refuse service to anyone for practically any reason they want... presumably,. however, if the reason is not actually a good one, the bad publicity that could easily follow will tend to keep companies from being entirely *too* arbitrary about such reasons.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
He told her he tweeted. He was rubbing it in her face.
She doesn't have to authority to remove him from the plane -- once he's allowed past the gate, he's allowed.
Citation or STFU.
yes, it would have been good for him to have been arrested for thinking he owned some sort of special rights above all the rest getting on his plane. Mr Special is an asshole for making a stink about this because he didn't get his way and have his kids move ahead of everyone else on the plane. Mr Special was told his only option was to board alone and let his kids find a spot or board with his kids. Poor baby wasn't happy with that.
In hindsight, it seems he should have been boarded as a sub 4 year old and then he and his older acting kids could have boarded together and earlier.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It very easily could have been a huge PR problem if they had called the police... but in all likelihood, he still wouldn't be allowed on the plane before they arrived, and by then the plane could have already left. Oh, and his luggage would be flying off without him.
Sounds like a good recipe for a migraine from bowels of hell.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
> I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet.
What's the point of saying so-and-so is rude if it doesn't warn anyone she's rude? He wanted Southwest and everyone else to know who he was talking about.
I think his only mistake was tweeting before he arrived at his destination.
So someone at swa is monitoring @swa mentions in realtime actively looking for disparaging tweets and also with a passenger list AND their twitter handle and when said tweets come in has the authority to hotline a gate to hold a plane based on said tweet alone? i mean how else did this plane not already take off? I just dont get the whole timing - good to know i can ground some random plane in california from my couch in missouri
Who the hell would have seen this tweet other than Southwest Airlines and whatever motley crew actually follows the perp / victim's account? Is there any chance at all this would have impacted SWA if they hadn't decided to take this into meatspace? Like "man criticizes SWA on twitter, picked up by wire services and Daily Show, stock price in freefall (no pun intended)."?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
UAL used to be pretty good, so was Continental. But now that they've merged, and pushed lots of stuff off to regional jet carriers, it has gotten pretty bad.
I think its fair, I mean i wouldnt board a plane where a passenger and a crew member where feuding. What if it escalated rapidly while at 30,000 feet?
From what I understand, the agent effectively offered to let the minors on as unaccompanied minors. This was obviously not ideal for the person accompanying them but he was almost as resistant to boarding at the time that he paid for.
He's a frequent flier and wanted to board his kids as such. Also, his kids were old enough that they didn't qualify as small kids.
Kept waiting for the punch line until I realized there wasn't one. Anyone who abuses their position to pull a stunt like this deserves to be fired.
You have to be a complete moron to believe the story as told.
How much you want to bet that the guy was just an a-hole and made up the entire twitter story.
Southwest Airlines doesn't have first class tickets. They operate a bit differently than the other carriers.
You can pay a small fee and get early boarding and get your pick of seats, but in the case of kids if he had boarded later with them then it would be quite likely they wouldn't be able to sit together.
I'm a frequent business traveller. It's interesting to note how fewer and fewer airline staff wear name tags, or if they do they just say "Flight Attendant."
Compare that with the tags in hotels, where they usually state the name, and often the staffer's home town.
A tweet and (I presume) some heated words and you get them off the airplane and threaten to call the cops? If this were about his behavior, that'd be one thing, but no: he was allowed to board the plane after removing the tweet. This is purely the SWA personnel not wanting to look bad, and doing an absolutely inexcusable thing in the process.
Not an option in the mathematically challenged US of A where explaining "every other", even numbers, odd numbers would take all the allotted time.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I guess they let him know, too. Very interesting. I think it's good to be honest, though, it's not like that was much of a bad post.
The US was still reeling from the Great Depression and people of color were lynched for refusing to ride in the back of the bus.c
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
and by then the plane could have already left
The plane did leave. He was allowed on a later flight, only after he removed the tweet.
his luggage would be flying off without him.
They would have pulled his checked luggage as soon as they pulled him from the plane. TSA rules.
There's no reason this should be informative, Southwest is all coach, there is no first class. They seat in groups, which is an alphabetical order you board in. They do sell Group A boarding for an extra fee, but it's still coach class seating. He had frequent flier status with Southwest that gets him advantages like priority seating and boarding in the earlier groups which is where the problem is. His kids weren't rated so they most likely were farther down the alphabet in boarding the plane.
I have the same type of thing with Alaska Airlines, however as long as I book my family seats along with mine they get the same frequent flier benefits I get. It's nice when you do fly with your family to be able to get them better seats and get on the plane before the majority of coach.
Not really likely, right?
So logically, the agent had to be informed that the passenger was making his angry tweet, which, as you imply, the passenger was actually using the tweet to blackmail the agent into bending the rules for him.
I think it is very key, and very telling that this is not addressed in the story. There is no way for Southwest employees at that gate to have known this guy tweeted anything, without the passenger informing of it, and once we get to that obvious fact, to what end was he doing this? The obvious reason is to intimidate the agent he felt was "rude" - which seems rather petulant.
Now it gets more interesting if you start to wonder if there was a reason why the agent threatened to call the police on this guy... was it an overreaction, or was this passenger just being such an incredibly overbearing, pompous ass in his blackmail attempt, that the agent felt threatened? It might be that they never requested him to remove the tweet, but were instead responding to his petulant tantrum.
I can easily see it playing out that he was informed he needed to calm down and back off or they would call security. We only have his word that they threatened to have him arrested, and that he had to remove the tweet... it seems more reasonable, knowing this passenger intended to intimidate the agents, that he was in a threatening posture, and realizing he was about to get a royal TSA probing, "calmed down" and offered to remove his tweet as a gesture - all the while plotting to tell the story we see presented here, in all of its one-sided glory.
I hate to side either way on this story, but I'm more inclined, given this key missing item of the story, to believe that the "more to this story" involved the passenger being a LOT more in the wrong than the gate agent.
Of course SW's reaction shouldn't have been what it was (full-out spiteful), but the thought of calling someone out by name on the internet makes me cringe. To me--though I concede I might have spent too much time on a certain imageboard--you should only post somebody's full name or any other personal information if you're prepared to see that person burn in digital fire. We shouldn't underestimate how harmful it can be to have something critical said about someone on the internet. While Mr. Duff's complaint was valid and the reaction by the airline was wrong, I don't think he went through the proper channels to file a personal grievance. Employees have supervisors and managers for just this reason. I'm fine with complaining about whole companies online, or but sniping individuals can be incredibly injurious to their careers and lives. It's just not something I'd do, maybe I'm in the wrong.
I agree with you, but there's one possible other circumstance. Apparently Southwest rewards his type of behavior, so long as one of his kids is under four years old. If he's flown with his kids on Southwest a lot, and his youngest kid recently turned five, he could have been trained to expect something that was no longer the case.
Personally, I think Southwest should train their people encountering this request (if there's children who look to have single digit ages) to say "We only do that for families traveling with children under four, however, if you want to swipe your payment plastic right now, we'll charge you the difference and you can go ahead and board together early." Everyone will hate him for slowing down the boarding process, but I don't think they'd hate Southwest for making an allowance for busy parents who forgot.
What first amendment rights were violated? I'm absolutely serious about this; please point to any violation of first amendment rights anywhere in here.
While you do so, remember that the first amendment restricts the actions of the *government* - that is, it prohibits the making of laws that do certain things - and has absolutely nothing to do with the private sector. Here, let me quote it for you (emphasis mine):
So, which law did SWAirlines cause Congress to pass that violated these people's first amendment rights? Go on, point it out please.
Or were you just mouthing off about stuff you don't understand, trying to get people riled up about an issue that doesn't even exist? Because that... well, let's just say it speaks volumes about your intelligence (and that of the person who modded you up). Volumes that I doubt you would ever read, since apparently you can't be bothered to read (or at least, understand) one of the most important *sentences* ever committed to text in the history of this nation...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Entitled jerk-face acts like a whiny bitch and gets tossed from a flight? I'm not sure I see the problem here.
Oh wait, I do. It's that we as a people have become so uppity that if we don't get our way we act like petulant children, and cry and moan and stomp our feet so the whole world can see.
I applaud SWA for being so in tune with Twitter that they could take action so quickly. They should go all the way an ban this crybaby from all future flights.
One thing that was included in the article was that he named the gate agent in the tweet. That pretty much proves your theory that his intent was intimidation. Given how easy it is to convince stupid assholes on the internet to stalk some random stranger with death threats, I'm not all that sure it was an overreaction.
If it was as he described, his best reaction would be to tell them to go ahead and call the cops, which would have proved that the gate agent doesn't have the authority to do so, and determine whether or not their supervisor was an idiot.
First World Problem
This isn't police state stuff, because Southwest Airlines is not a police organization but a private corporation. It was not the TSA that pulled them off the plane either. If the police had been called and arrived I don't think they would have done anything or could have done anything based on the tweets alone.
Breaking with tradition, I've read TFA...
Requiem for the American Dream
I've used South West Airlines for more than 3 decades. Unless the people responsible for kicking off an unhappy passenger are corrected in public, I will no longer include South West Airlines in my travel plans, nor will I authorize use of their services for my employees.
When I have an unhappy customer, I don't demand they delete their rant, I ask them how I can fix it for them. Sometimes it's not what I'd like to do, but it is what I must do to make my customer happy. I never have, and I never will ask a customer to remove a negative comment. I will ask what can I do to make this right, and if there is any way I can meet the expectation, I will.
#Eyes on YOU SWA
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
What gives you the impression he was yelling?
Requiem for the American Dream
Why would any of you even take your children onto flights within the US to be molested by the TSA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars
lol
yeah i was thinking the same, too many spoilt people think they should get better then the rest of us all the time.
IANAL, but from a layman's perspective it looks like a breach of contract. A more sue-happy person might have taken that incident to court.
C - the footgun of programming languages
"Companies can refuse service to anyone for practically any reason they want..."
Really? Why? I'm as ignorant of the relevant law as you seem to be, but it certainly doesn't sound reasonable that an airline should be able to tell a passenger who has paid his fare and boarded the plane with his children that he has to get off. Would they then be allowed on a later plane? If so, why not leave them on the originally booked plane which they had already boarded? If not, isn't the airline breaking a contract and committing something resembling theft?
The other issue is whether the passenger did anything wrong by tweeting. It seems possible that he broke some regulation, but if so what a terrible situation when a citizen is not allowed to express his opinion of someone who has treated him badly. Slander has been mentioned, but that is properly dealt with by bringing a civil lawsuit - not high-handedly refusing a customer service for which payment has been accepted and on which he is counting.
Lastly, reading these comments I can't help sensing a constant underlying ferment of resentment, entitlement, and contention for respect. It's as if, in a society where we are all expected to take it as axiomatic that we are strictly equal, every tiny difference in treatment becomes immensely magnified.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
The reason the agent and airline got upset and took action isn't that he complained, or that he complained on twitter. If he had tweeted "Southwest Airlines is Horrible", things would've gone down differently. It's the fact that he identified the employee by her full name in his angry tweet. We're all slashdotters here, so don't even try to play ignorant about how badly that can turn out. You don't have a right to out a human's real name on twitter and try to draw the ire of the internet down on them just because you're pissed off about boarding policy.
It should be very clear from portions of my post such as "To be frank, none of us here really know enough about the situation" that I was discussing things in general terms.
Did I need it to put in it red bold blinking script to avoid being used as your strawman?
Must agee, this guy's an A-lister alright, as in A-Ahole. Don't make personal criticisms of airline personal who are following the rules. Save the criticism for people who are NOT following the rules.
" I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet".
So can we all agree that it's wrong, dangerous, and ill-advised to criticize anyone by name on the Internet?
Mr Putin will be very relieved.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Airlines can't leave a minor unattended on a flight through upgrades or moving the seating allocations around, but there's nothing requiring them to allow minors with different ticketing groups to their parents to board with the highest ticketing group on flights with non-allocated seating. Boarding priority is all down to the airline, so in this case the airline was correct - the bloke could board with the lower ticketing group because that would be his choice, but he couldn't bump the lower ticketing group members up to his group.
So in other words, the airline already allows for the minors to be attended by their parents, its the parents choice as to whether they accept it or not.
If she were the owner, rather than an employee, I believe she should have every right to refuse service to him for any reason whatsoever, maybe a refund would be in order, but when you're a company owner and the government is already telling you who you need to serve, even if they are completely obnoxious... that's not fair.
1. Jumped the queue - this is a mortal sin in England. He had a higher priority ticket, but his kids did not, yet he thought his kids could jump the queue;
2. Blamed another for failing to satisfy his sense of entitlement - in particular, used "rudest" to describe the person who corrected his bad behaviour, rather than apologising for himself being rude;
3. Let the world know just how much he was projecting his own guilt. Twitter is not a group of friends or even the local chapter of a gun club - it is a worldwide publishing platform. It doesn't matter how easy it is to use - that's still what it is;
4. Using this global publishing platform, directly name the target of your projection - which, for the irrational way he's been behaving so far, could have been you or me;
5. Has an entirely parochial understanding of labour relationships. Any decent employer is highly protective of its employees and will terminate a business relationship if it finds that a customer is mistreating them. Sensible service providers even include specific wording in contracts to this effect. Yet he's surprised when arbitrarily bad-mouthing specific employees by name on a global publishing platform is regarded as grounds to refuse service;
6. Not content with all of the above, he then whines to mainstream media that his "right" to be an ass and spout nonsense in public was called into question.
I would love to know what the story of the SW Airlines employees/agents would be. Most people here appear to have judged based on one side of the argument, and ought never to sit on a jury (IAALS, fwiw). The furore was such that SW's best bet would be to cut their losses and fold, as the Angry Fat Middle Age White Family Guy always wins in the court of American public opinion.
WTF is wrong with Americans ?
The TSA trying to turn the whole country into one giant prison, the NSA/CIA etc. snopping in on everything you do, cops shooting people without cause, cops throwing people out of wheelchairs, cops shooting dogs, total and utter corruption of your political process etc. etc.... Now companies coming down all third reich/Stasi style because someone dares criticise them.
The idea of America is dead. It now resembles nothing more than something like the old DDR crossed with Mussolinis Italy but with less style.
What a bunch of po faced, humourless panty waist, bully boy, fascists you have become.
> I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet.
What's the point of saying so-and-so is rude if it doesn't warn anyone she's rude? He wanted Southwest and everyone else to know who he was talking about.
She denied non-frequent fliers frequent fliers perks. This is anything but rude. So publishing a statement that someone is rude (on those grounds) is libel. So there's something here that would justify letting the lawyers from their leash.
On the other hand, this is nothing that couldn't have been handled well AFTER the flight.
bickerdyke
And exactly THAT is why it is not as "harmless" to call out names on the public internet as some posters here claimed it was.
Thank you for the demonstration.
bickerdyke
Who was monitoring twitter and escalated it to the point where they kicked someone off the plane? Knowing most Southwest flights, this all is in a 10-15 minute window. Now that part doesn't make sense... or is kind of creepy.
I rather like the idea of an incompetent ideologically driven gaggle of idiots in government outsourcing the Gestapo to private industry. Has MSNBC blamed Bush yet?
> Southwest, as one could have predicted, offered a boilerplate "apology" and vouchers.
I can see the apology now: "sorry you didn't like our service, here's some more."
> Southwest, as one could have predicted, offered a boilerplate "apology" and vouchers.
I can imagine the apology: "sorry you didn't like our service, here's some more."
Man acts like idiot, person with no power enforces the rules as required. Man rants like a little child attempting to damage airline's reputation when the airline did the right thing to begin with. Airline than acts like idiots by forcing man to retract tweet. I'd call it even. I'm no fan of companies forcing people to retract statements to continue to receive services, but too often people are going off on companies that aren't doing anything wrong. That's what makes online rating services worthless. End user reports simply are not reliable as the ones most likely to report are the most unreliable reporters.
Line jumpers always are. They don't give a shit about anyone else.
He was an SWA A+ member and his early boarding privs extend to passengers flying with him.
That's it folks. Enjoy the way the future unfolds for you. And remember, you asked for it.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Couldn't read all of the comments but minutes after tweeting, somehow SWA found out about it...Is SWA working with NSA to scan for bad remarks about them?
Interesting that it was only minutes after the tweet the family was taken off of the plane due to that tweet. How did SWA find out about it so fast? Heck, if I tried to call SWA, it would probably take a couple minutes of being on hold until I first talked to a live person.
Southwest doesn't have first class. It's an all coach discount airline. But, they board "A-list" members first and then the rest of the passengers in the order in which they checked in. Everybody lines up in numerical order based on a code on their boarding passes. This guy should have known better if he was indeed an "A-list" frequent flier of Southwest. He should have known to check-in right at 24 hours and there would be no issue.
-Ted http://www.freemathhelp.com/
Southwest's Facebook page is filled with people bickering about the incident - one side calling SW bad names and the other defending the agent's actions.
I'm sure that is not the sort of traffic SW wants filling their page. I expect this guy will get some kind of free lifetime perk, the agent will be sent for niceness training, and SW corporate will apologize profusely.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some sleazy lawyers reach out to the guy to go after SW.
My experience of having been on the same flights as unaccompanied minors, is that the unaccompanied minor get boarded before any other passengers. This has been the case with both budget and flag carriers.
Taking a passenger off a plane once they have already boarded is normally an action of last resort, especially if they have checked baggage as this has to be located and removed from the hold before the plane can take off.
For those not familiar with southwest: There is no assigned seating. People board in three groups, A (frequent flyers, people paying extra for early boarding), B and C (everyone else, numbered by check in order). Long story short, he bought the cheap tickets for his kids and wanted a free upgrade. He then threw a fit when he didn't get his way.
No you're wrong. A1-15 are the only spots you can pay extra for. A15-30 are for frequent flyers with certain status. If A15-30 do not fill up by the time you can check in at the gate, those spots come up for sale also. Anyone can get A31-60. It's the people who have nothing better to do but camp out at their phones and check in exactly 24 hours early that get spots A31-60. Believe me, I used to fly Southwest ALL the time (not by choice), and I hate their boarding policy.
The guy has two kids. The odds are good that, even if he wanted to, he was too busy to check in 24 hours in advance to get an A spot. I've checked in 23:30 hours in advance and gotten a B50 spot on busy routes with a lot of business travelers. Cut the poor guy some slack. It's not like he was trying to bring his business partner or coworker with him. They were two young kids that should not be waiting in line alone anyway. They should be sitting together and its much easier for them to do so if they board in the A group. I would be willing to bet that none of the passengers around him would have complained about him bringing the kids on earlier. Not at that age, anyway.
Where are the pictures of Kimberly?
Southwest allows families with children aged 4 or under to board between the 'A' and 'B' groups, or during the 'A' group if the parent is in the 'A' group.
http://www.southwest.com/html/...
SWA shouldn't have reacted the way they did to be sure....reacting to a tweet of any type is a sure way to draw bad attention, and any sane person knws this.
That said, usually the way it works (since I fly SWA round trip once a week for other work), it is that if you have an A boarding group you board in that group, with the proviso that spouse and kids board in either the group on their card, or between A+B during family boarding (1 parent, and xx kids under 5) If the guy/gal was traveling alone with two under twelve kids, the kids obviously need to be with their parent. In this case, all the guy had to do was ask his fellow A travelers as a courtesy to bring his kiddos, and they would have let him to be sure, then if the gate agent got snippy, she would have faced all of them and likely not whined, no tweet needed. This rule is in place because otherwise you go to places like Orlando, and you get shoved out by a family of 5 and grandma, get no place to put your carry on (maybe missing a connection, or a meeting), even though only on in that group had an A. If you are on vacation, you have time to burn, but if traveling for work, you usually don't. Don't get me wrong, I love kiddos, and have given up my seat dozens of times for a parent and kids to sit together. When I am on vacation, my wife and any munchkins along board usually in B or C, I in A and save her and them seats. Acting nice begets nice.
He must have been shocked when he found out that there someone even more of an asshole than himself in existence.
Nowhere in TFA did it say he had a "temper tantrum" nor did it say he yelled at the agent. True it only tells one side of the story, but you're applying your own imagination as to how things really went down.
And the slashdot summary states the children were age 6 and 9.
I happen to be the executive who works at Southwest and made the decision, upon seeing the tweet, to call the gate and have him kicked off. Please allow me to explain my decision.
I work in the PR department, and managing publicity is my job. When I saw the tweet, I realized it was bad publicity. I don't like my company getting bad publicity, and I seek to avoid it, or replace it with good publicity.
So I threw our tweeting customer off, thereby solving the bad publicity problem! See? Now do you get it?
...
(Why is everyone looking at me like I'm a idiot?)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I went to tag this nerdrage story as slashdot's daily 2minutesofhate and couldn't find where to tag it anymore. Is that something they broke for slashdot beta?!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I would sue the shit out of these assholes
A lot of the comments here seem to overlook one simple thing about this guy's tweet: He identified the flight attendant by name.
That's where the trouble came in at. Regardless of what anyone on these comments says, that's how it is. You just don't pull someone into the spotlight and start treating them like shit in front of others.
And then, two use the @SWA? of COURSE they're going to find out... you told them directly!
Bunch of idiots people can be when criticizing online.
Southwest policy appears to restrict entrance in this very specific case to JUST after all A-list passengers and before others. This is because his kids were older than 4 and NOT entitled to A-list boarding. If they were younger than 4, the hostess would be infringing policy. But she was actually enforcing policy strictly, doing her job as she is told to.
The real problem here is a conflict between the freedom of speech right and the defamation civil wrong (for which she can sue actually). I personally don't think there is real libel here, but some might argue that using the hostess's name on the tweet is reason enough for her to sue. What is impressive is the fact the guy had to go to the news after the incident to whine even more, and that gets me thinking he is a little more butthurt than he should for nothing important. He pretty much wanted the hostess fired from her job, which is her source of income. I think everybody gets defensive when their job is at stake. And all this for not indulging him in something he didn't have the right to, despite being "used to" have.
She wanted to avoided having defamation about her and the company wanted to avoid bad publicity. If the tweet was still up, he would have been left on the ground and he could be sued. If they let him fly without deleting the tweet, hostess would have been fired and both hostess and company could sue. This was the best scenario for both... Until he decided to strike back like a little girl. He could have never used the company again for the lack of poise but he just had to make the issue bigger. These are my two cents about it,
Seems they're covered. Publicly calling them out as rude, by specific name and location, seems to meet that criteria as intimidating.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
But are you actually proposing that a carrier of human cargo not be allowed to refuse service?
The idea isn't nearly as absurd as you make it sound. Regulated taxicabs in many cities are not allowed to refuse service - they must pick you up and take you where you want to go.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
They are 6 and 9. It is in the summary and the article.
I looked for it too, and was unable to find it. I was however frightened by the TSA Blog page about kids traveling, where they so gleefully talk about how much fun getting searched, probed and poked is going to be.
How come no one is pointing out that this guy was being a douche- cutting in line and using the fact that he has kids to fuck over everyone else?
No, he did not. The flight agent was being a dick by asking him to leave... if the passenger really doubted that the agent had the authority to do ask that question, then he should have immediately asked to speak to that agent's manager or supervisor instead of complying with the request.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
He could have paid 12.50 per child to upgrade them to his seating status but choose not to.
I think the customer was being a douche and got what he deserved: called out and inconvenienced.
Could have been physically assaulted by one of Minneapolis' many Somalian cab drivers who consider it a religious duty to abuse, threaten and assault all infidels.
Regardless of his 'tool' status or not, he was aboard the plane when these extra actions by the gate agent took place. Removing a paying customer who is no longer even interacting with you, over an online complaint they made is just terrible terrible idea.
If the flight attendants lodged the complaint because he was being disruptive while seated then it would be a clear cut case of the customer being in the wrong but from all accounts it was the gate agent that took action AFTER he was already boarded. That's a pretty clear cut case of a spiteful abuse of power.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
And keep his money for the ticket, I presume? Or would they really offer him a refund for services not rendered?
Go ahead, call the cops! I will show them why you called them, and they they will be hauling miss bitchy gate agent's ass into the crowbar hotel! Oh, and while were there, we will have the lawyer do a little dump all over Southwest *and* miss bitchy gate agent. You can be efficient, you can follow the rules, you don't have to be friendly, but you shouldn't be rude, angry or bitchy. Crapping on customers "because I can" will get you seeing less business in half a heartbeat. I could see online forums where Southwest gets the message "dump-the-bitch-or-no-more-of-my-business.com". A little calculus and suddenly ticket agents get real friendly real fast.
Guy should have been banned from flying SW forever. I hate douches like that who think they're entitled to bend rules just for them. Not to mention, tweeting in all caps clearly shows how pathetic of a loser he is.
There are no "frequent flyer privileges" on Southwest that I know of. You can upgrade to Business Select for $20 or so a flight. Which is what he did for his ticket but not his kids, and then tried to work the system and was called out on it.
airports are reduced rights zones after 9/11
And the airline/pilot/attendant's right to ask you to leave... ?
... and have never had a problem. It's almost as if there is a part of this story missing. The part about the passenger's actions before this occurred. Just like most humans, treat a gate agent politely, be respectful, and don't be a jerk and it is amazing how it can be reciprocated.
Just want to point this out.. but what kind of asshole flies first class and then puts his kids in the back?
He's the true douche in this situation.
No, they would still be obligated to refund his ticket purchase, since the decision would have been theirs to refuse service.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Get a lawyer dude.
This is how we complain and get satisfaction in 2014. SW, can suck it.
As a frequent business traveler with SWA, it sounds like the gate agent was just following policies. If you're traveling with your family and want to board together, you can either pay for business select tickets (giving you A1-15 boarding cards), or you can board with the last member of your party. Holding an A-list boarding card does not mean you get to bring your whole family with you. I can't speak to the behaviors of the man or the gate agent, but as a fellow traveler, it's pretty frustrating when people don't follow the airline's policies. I'm sure this is doubly true for passengers that pay extra for Business Select or Early Bird boarding options, only to get bumped further back by parents insisting on special treatment.
That said, the SWA response sounds a little crazy.
> I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet.
What's the point of saying so-and-so is rude if it doesn't warn anyone she's rude? He wanted Southwest and everyone else to know who he was talking about.
I think his only mistake was tweeting before he arrived at his destination.
Just read the comments section on this article; he tweeted her name and work location. There are plenty of comments like:
"Kimberly S sure sounds like a cunt."
"Where are pictures of Kimberly?"
"Let's hunt down that Kimberly S and make her life hell."
If I was Kimberly S, I'd be really concerned that some idiot is going to walk up and cause me trouble right now, as now all the internet crazies are in a rage over this guy's tweet and they know exactly where she works and can find her via her name badge.
Maybe he put "@SouthwestAir" in his tweet.
The thought police in action
Putin is a public figure, dumbass!
it seems we have only one side of this. are we quite sure he wasn't abusive, threatening, or aggressive? "Our decision was not based solely on a customer's tweet" says the airline.
I think the take-away from this story is this guy had the gaul to try and board ahead of time with his kids who were clearly not allowed to board early and then threw a temper tantrum when he couldn't have his way.
I think the take-away from this story is this guy had the gaul to try and board ahead of time with his kids who were clearly not allowed to board early and then threw a temper tantrum when he couldn't have his way.
The guy was already on the plane and the situation was over. Would you really act out some sort of revenge fantasy because you the guy hurt your feelings?
You're right, I suppose the agent would probably have been willing to let them preboard as unaccompanied minors if he had been willing to pay the extra $50 apiece, slightly more than upgrading their tickets for early boarding would cost.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Anyone heard this one before? What is that from?
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Thats illegal!!! how can Southwest call in the police for that type of Tweet? the Police do not serve companies, they serve THE PEOPLE!
America, you fucking suck....
It's Tourette Syndrome, not turret. http://www.tsa-usa.org/ http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tourette/detail_tourette.htm
Sounds like something from a communist country. This is the USA? What did veterans serve this country for? This makes their service a joke.
$12.50 upgrades are for "Early-Bird Checkin" and aren't available the day of the flight. It's basically a fee to not have to hammer the refresh button starting 24 hours before your flight to keep from getting stuck in a shit boarding group, and pretty much guarantees an A group boarding.
how do companies find out who is tweeting? what sort of people use their real names/identities on twitter!?
"Our decision was not based solely on a customer's tweet,"
So, there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
big a douche bag the guy is, either he's a threat or he's not. There should be no negotiating whether he's a real threat. Anything else is just BS posturing.
I'm thinking it should worry you that SW has the means to monitor passengers communications, and how they're using that info. Regardless of whether
how big an AHat their customers are. It does beg the question as to whether were he a model passenger and tweeted the same remarks, would he be in the same predicament? (pun intended)
We really don't know what "really" happened, and can only surmise. Were I to play that game, I'd expect that either the customer really didn't like the tone in which the policy was delivered, and probably relayed this displeasure. Having two relatives that are flight attendants, I will tell you that the majority of people who cause real issues on a plane start small, and work themselves up to a apoplectic fit of rage which may or may not include violence. SW flight attendants training is to not take their crap, and if they refuse to quietly smolder, get them off the plane.
As crappy as it is to use a plane to get from A to B these days regardless of the airline, flight attendants see this A LOT, and sadly, are usually quite good at spotting trouble. However, how one diffuses the situation, is key. Apparently, this was done horribly wrong. SW recognized this by offering to issue tickets, etc.
It certainly smells like neither party handled this correctly, but the lingering issue remains: Is SW monitoring passenger tweets? Was this data intercepted? If so, what other traffic are they monitoring?
You Sir have just encapsulated the entire purpose of the Internet.
So can we all agree that it's wrong, dangerous, and ill-advised to criticize anyone by name on the Internet?
We might be able to agree that there is criticism, and then there is intimidation and harassment, and without having the exact tweet text we don't know which one happened. If you are seeking agreement that a tweet could never be intimidating or harassing, well, that's not going to happen.
We've got one side of the story. Of course this fellow has no reason to lie about any of the incident, none at all. It's not like it would be good for his own image to leave out important details or anything.
and by then the plane could have already left.
The plane did leave without him. He left on a later flight.
Oh, and his luggage would be flying off without him.
Current flight regulations require the removal of any baggage of a passenger who has left a flight or does not show up. If your bags are delayed then they will be carried on a later flight, but that assumes you did not cause the delay and you were on the original flight. This is to prevent someone from getting a bomb onto a plane in a checked bag and then not being a suicide bomber.
If he was pulled from the flight, so were his bags. He might not get access to them, but they weren't going without him.