OT: NSFW (put on your headphones) - Woman goes off on Airline Personnel and Air Marshals

Submitted by boliver46 on

Recently have seen quite a few well-publicized rants that have gone viral (e.g. Dunkin' Donuts lady - Detroit).

Came across this story where a woman was kicked off a plane for refusing to turn off her cell phone.  Air Marshals soon got involved and the woman was dragged off the plane in front of her son.

Interesting to me is (1) the sense of entitlement people seem to have thinking they can do whatever they want, and (2) the prevalence of social media and public shaming associated with the results of (1) above.

Anyone have any PERSONAL experiences with someone going off like this?

Lots of cursing, hence the NSFW in Title - otherwise it's ok.

Awkward_Amalgamation

June 26th, 2013 at 9:57 AM ^

1. Racism involves the sentiment that one race is inherently superior to another. No such implication was made.

2. It would indeed be awkward for me to be racist against the very race to which i belong. Or are you maintaing the notion that posting a comedic GIF of someone who happens to be black means that i also cannot be black?

Just some food for thought.

Awkward_Amalgamation

June 26th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^

Hey, no worries GoWings2008, 

My response was less intended for you than it was for those down-voting my original GIF. In posting that gif I, myself, was taking an advantage of an oppotunity for comic reflief. I can't then turn around and call you out for the doing the very same.

I should have been more clear, but my response was not a personal reprimand. Keep doing what you do and enjoy!

bluebyyou

June 26th, 2013 at 9:42 AM ^

People not complying with requests to turn off all electronic devices happens with great frequency, including instances when people just put their phones away but don't shut them off. Business folks are always waiting until the last second so they get one more email or call done. The FAA is supposedly going to be doing away or severely cutting back the "please turn off all electronic devices" requirement which would make sense, as I would guess there are a good number of devices on every flight that remain on, intentionally or otherwise.

The woman in the vid seemed like an idiot, assuming the facts to be true. Rgardless, you don't resist arrest in a plane.  You cannot win even if you are correct.  Lots of angry people in the air and on the roads.

We on Mgoblog take out all our agression against our hated sports' opponents and face all of life's challenges with the utmost civility. /s

GoWings2008

June 26th, 2013 at 9:46 AM ^

is definitely nothing to play with.  As a former pilot, its a Federal thing she's messing with even though it looked like county or city cops who were "escorting" her off.  If she didn't calm the fuck down immediately, she's looking a some serious shit coming her way.  Feds don't play around with air travel.

Farnn

June 26th, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^

Rules regarding electronic devices in airports and airplanes are so dumb.  They are made by people who don't understand electromagnetism and serve no purpose except to maybe make people feel safer.  Pilots now use iPads in the cockpit which could cause more interference than 100 iPads back in coach if it caused any issues whatsoever.  And the fact that you need to take a laptop out of your bag at security but not your tablet goes to show how useless that check is.

GoWings2008

June 26th, 2013 at 9:49 AM ^

They exist for a reason.  Now, not withstanding, the FAA is known to be overly conservative, but the rules do exist for a specific reason.  Something at some point in time happened that caused the rules to change.  Technological advances aside, they probably need to be reviewed.  But pilots most likely use any type of wifi connection on the ground only, then its disconnected in the air because the only info they'd need in the air is aircraft tech order or flight information, maps/charts/approach plates or what have you...

Jon06

June 26th, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^

Comparing how pilots are allowed to use iPads in the cockpit to how passengers are disallowed from using them outside of it is actually instructive. But the comparison does not support your point, but cuts the other way. I provided a link to this effect upthread.

GoWings2008

June 26th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^

I was unaware that I'd made any comparison, but I don't completely disagree with your view point.  However, as they say..."dems da rules."  If the FAA says that you can't use electroic devices during take off or landing, then guess what...people shouldn't press their luck.  Its a Federal law.  

Now, I do agree that if the FAA can't support the claim with actual studies, then yes change the law.  But for now, people should obey the law or suffer the consequences.  (Some uniformity to those consequences, please).  

Once side note, the pilot in that picture is using an iPad indeed, but its being used as a checklist to set up before taxi or before engine start.  He's not using it during take offs or landing, I assure you.  The use of it is out of convenience because hauling bags of flight pubs and aircraft manuals is easier served by an electroic means.  The Air Force has been doing it for years, too.  

Like I said before, these rules do exist for a reason and those reasons aren't dumb.  They may need reviewing and updating, but they say that the "notes, warnings and cautions" in flight manuals are written in blood.  Extreme comparison, in this case, but the ideal is still true.  Things happen then the safety folks enforce a change.  That's how it works.

Jon06

June 26th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^

Once side note, the pilot in that picture is using an iPad indeed, but its being used as a checklist to set up before taxi or before engine start. He's not using it during take offs or landing, I assure you.

They're allowed to use them during take offs and landings (and they can certainly leave them on while they're busy with the actual work). So how do you know this?

GoWings2008

June 26th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^

the airplane is not moving.  Second, because I've spent the majority of my adult life as a pilot. When you're flying, which includes taxi time to us, you're not doing stuff like fiddling with an iPad or anything else.  You have your hands on the controls.  You keep the aircraft moving.  And even when there's a copilot, he or she is backing you up on the controls.  You're not using anything during that time.  

GoWings2008

June 26th, 2013 at 5:02 PM ^

I think I'm over this.  I really did try to meet you half way by saying I saw your point, but then tried to clue you in to some of the things happening on the flight deck.  The needs of the iPad don't typically need a connection to the web, internal use mainly.  Does that address all your concerns?  No, probably not.  But I don't feel like the back and forth anymore.  I was a professional pilot, please stop trying to argue with me over this.  Its not worth either of our time.

Jon06

June 26th, 2013 at 5:41 PM ^

Very briefly, it would be useful to know if pilots are required to turn devices off for take-off and landing, and if they actually do. The internet suggests they are not required to turn them off, and your comments haven't addressed it at all as far as I can tell.

I'm not questioning how busy pilots are during take-off and landing or where their hands are during that time--I'll assume for the sake of argument that your posts are 100% accurate about pilots and co-pilots on every flight--but whether there is a specific rule about, or established practice of, not just laying aside but actually turning off devices beforehand.

I can see why you would be frustrated, and the question has changed over time in response to your posts, but I still haven't seen an answer to that question.

pinkfloyd2000

June 26th, 2013 at 9:48 AM ^

Classy, AND she picked such an excellent venue to hold a heated argument in. Yup, lady...that always ends well.

"I'm not goin' anywhere."

More inaccurate words were never spoken.

Magnus

June 26th, 2013 at 9:51 AM ^

This type of stuff happens on a daily basis all over the place (not necessarily on a plane). I have never seen someone arrested on a plane, but stupid people turn silly little things into HUGE things. I don't expect someone to be happy about being removed from a plane, but doing stuff like this is ridiculous. 

I know his name is shamed now, but I went to a Penn State clinic a few years ago, and Joe Paterno said that the biggest difference between athletes now and "in the old days" was that kids used to do what the coaches asked, no matter what. If the coach said so, the kid would do it because that's how he was raised. Now kids will do what the coaches ask, but the coaches have to explain why, or else they'll get resistance.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 26th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^

I don't think seeking reason behind someones demands is a bad thing. Even with my own kids I explain to them why I said "no" to them regarding something. I also explain why I make the decisions I do so that they can understand why I am asking them to do something.

Why would it be a bad thing for people to question? Not that I know anything about the particular case, but it could be that some of the poor young boys who were the victims in the sandusky case were raised just as JoePa stated kids "used" to be raised...don't ask any questions and do what you're told. That isn't really what I want my children to be doing to be honest. 

1464

June 26th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^

I fully agree.  I'll try to stay vague, so as to not get political or religious, but older generations were trained to simply accept a verdict without questioning the approach.  That can lead to a lot of manipulation.  Younger generations have begun to question things more, which is great.  That also leads to the entitlement thing, in an indirect way.  If a kid doesn't like a reason, they're less likely to abide by a decision.

Without getting into it, I think that the internet is a large reason for this new mindset.  It's the biggest separating factor, and it is a resource that can be used to become educated and resistant to nearly any ideology.  That said, it has had mixed effects in terms or positive and negative trends in society.

mobablue

June 26th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^

Agree with Blue in Yarmouth. 'The problem with kids these days is they aren't blindly obedient to authority!'

That sounds like a good thing to me. I'm not saying a coach should be expected to explain every detail of every request right that second. But some accountability would be nice. The fact that the quote comes from a man who led a cult of personality for years along with harboring and perhaps even shielding a pedophile...

saveferris

June 26th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^

Questioning authority and not accepting everything you're told at face value can be a virtue for a young person.  Still in the context of team sports, if a coach was required to stop and explain the reasons behind every order he gave his player(s), you'd never have time to actually practice.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 26th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^

first of all this is a parent that we are talking about here, so it is reasonable (but not definite) to assume that she is a person between 25 and 35. That means that this person was very likely raised at a time when this "spanking" thing you're talking about was used on a pretty regular basis.

Sayiing that the reason society is filled with people like this is because of the way parents are bringing up children today, ignores the fact that the evidence you're using for that is a person who doesn't fall into that category. 

Full disclosure, I was brought up in a family where spanking was used (and the occasional whipping with a belt if I was really bad) and I feel like I turned out pretty good. Having said that, I took a lot of detours along the way to get to this point. What I'm trying to say is all that discipline and spanking didn't have much of an effect at the time.

I don't think that it is a very good idea to raise our children to always do what their elders say and never question the reasoning behind decisions. When we train our children in that fashion they are more likely to fall victim to people like sandusky because they were always taught to do what their elders said and never question authority. 

It's easy as an adult to know that we don't really intend for our children to take that lesson so literally, but as a child that is what you do. So if we continue to hammer that lesson into them, soon they will be wired to simply do whatever people tell them and never question why.

Ron_Lippitt

June 26th, 2013 at 10:14 AM ^

This enrages me.  I travel for my job and see this attitude from passengers constantly (although the only person I've ever seen pulled off a plane was for public drunkenness).  When are people going to freaking learn.  It's a Federal regulation.  When you board the plane, there is an implicit agreement you make to comply with whatever the Government has deemed appropriate.  If you don't like the regs -- don't buy a freaking ticket and save the rest of us the delay you've caused.  You gotta believe they were further delayed with whatever incident paperwork was required as well.  My biggest concern about this example was that this fine young lady decided to also launch into an expletive-filled tirade in front of children -- probably not just her own.  That makes me hate her, and I truly hope she gets the book thrown at her.

 

megalomanick

June 26th, 2013 at 10:13 AM ^

"My little boy! Watch the little boy!"

Your little boy would be just fine if you weren't assaulting an air marshall for doing her job you stupid bitch. Teaching him some great lessons in personal responsibility there, I'm sure he'll grow into a productive and law-abiding member of society with that thing for a parent. Poor kid never had a chance.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 26th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^

Thanks Magnus, I appreciate the information. However, after reading it I am no more clear now as I was before I started as to whether there is a legitimate reason for not using them. They do give reasons, but then they call those reasons into quesiton. 

I will say that if they can't prove they are NOT a problem, I can live with the better safe than sorry idea. 

Magnus

June 26th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^

I think the "better safe than sorry" idea is probably accurate. The article states that some older planes' equipment could be susceptible to electronic communications, while newer ones aren't so much.

The fact is that cell phones and electronic devices aren't necessary, especially if people plan accordingly not to use them on flights. I like my smart phone a decent amount, but I'm not addicted to it. I'm probably pretty average in that respect. But if I'm going on a flight, I plan to read a book or sleep.

bringthewood

June 26th, 2013 at 10:58 AM ^

There were a series of articles in the WSJ that addressed this.  I think you have to be a subscriber to read the articles but this entry has some of the details.

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2013/06/21/expert-panel-to-tell-faa-that-leaving-electronic-devices-on-is-ok/

Sounds like the rules are arcane and most devices don't affect onboard electronics.  Seems like there is still some concern about cellphones.  But no reason to apeshit about it on a plane.  

I wish they had lit her up with a tazer but that would have lead to a lawsuit.