13 flight attendants fired - messages on a plane
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Seems like a really huge deal over something as childish as graffiti.
If they can determine who scrawled that on the underside of the tail, they should either be fired or docked pay. But in all honesty, I would not have thought the flight was in any danger.
If they can determine who scrawled that on the underside of the tail, they should either be fired or docked pay. But in all honesty, I would not have thought the flight was in any danger.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: Astro14
No one has smuggled firearms in carry-on bags, the smuggling took place with checked luggage going into NYC.
I fly (a lot) and so do others in my organization. I personally know of two instances where two of my colleagues had carry-on bags with ammunition inside (not intentional) and it was not detected by TSA. With the sheer number of passengers screened on a daily basis, I wonder how much of a stretch it would be for a firearm to slip through...
Smuggling is deliberate. A firearm is a whole lot different on X-ray than a loose round or two. The incident which was referred to took place in NYC, it was deliberate placement of firearms in bags after they were screened by TSA. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/23/us/delta-employee-gun-smuggling/. That's smuggling.
TSA was circumvented because the employee smuggled them in. They didn't go through screening. But the TSA does catch guns in folks luggage: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/travel/tsa-seizes-record-2000-guns/index.html Mind you, I am NOT a TSA fan. For all your complaining, I have to go through this circus every day at work. Every day. You may fly, a lot, but it's nowhere near as much as I do. Let's park a TSA checkpoint outside your office for the next 14 years, and then you can experience the joy that I have with TSA. Finally, remember this, whether TSA allows me to keep a bazooka, or takes away my nail clipper, I'm flying the plane.
I am not complaining about having to go through/use TSA or to compare our numbers of times we interact with them--my point was if ammunition passed through the checkpoint (I have seen two incidents with my low number of screenings as you say), how much harder would be for a gun to do the same? It was not a few loose rounds--one was a partial box of 9MM and the other was a full box of .270 rounds and neither of them was detected (different people/flights/cities/years). However, both of these would definitely show up on an x-ray (quite plainly) and they were missed. My colleagues were not smuggling (it was an oversight) and when one of them (with the .270 ammunition) discussed with the TSA in Atlanta (his destination), they told him to talk to TSA in Philadelphia (his point of departure). TSA Philadelphia told him there was nothing they could do--this does not instill a sense of confidence in the system to say the least. Luckily, it was someone who made an honest mistake, I would think a full box of .270 could certainly be used for something nefarious on a plane at 35K.
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: Astro14
No one has smuggled firearms in carry-on bags, the smuggling took place with checked luggage going into NYC.
I fly (a lot) and so do others in my organization. I personally know of two instances where two of my colleagues had carry-on bags with ammunition inside (not intentional) and it was not detected by TSA. With the sheer number of passengers screened on a daily basis, I wonder how much of a stretch it would be for a firearm to slip through...
Smuggling is deliberate. A firearm is a whole lot different on X-ray than a loose round or two. The incident which was referred to took place in NYC, it was deliberate placement of firearms in bags after they were screened by TSA. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/23/us/delta-employee-gun-smuggling/. That's smuggling.
TSA was circumvented because the employee smuggled them in. They didn't go through screening. But the TSA does catch guns in folks luggage: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/travel/tsa-seizes-record-2000-guns/index.html Mind you, I am NOT a TSA fan. For all your complaining, I have to go through this circus every day at work. Every day. You may fly, a lot, but it's nowhere near as much as I do. Let's park a TSA checkpoint outside your office for the next 14 years, and then you can experience the joy that I have with TSA. Finally, remember this, whether TSA allows me to keep a bazooka, or takes away my nail clipper, I'm flying the plane.
I am not complaining about having to go through/use TSA or to compare our numbers of times we interact with them--my point was if ammunition passed through the checkpoint (I have seen two incidents with my low number of screenings as you say), how much harder would be for a gun to do the same? It was not a few loose rounds--one was a partial box of 9MM and the other was a full box of .270 rounds and neither of them was detected (different people/flights/cities/years). However, both of these would definitely show up on an x-ray (quite plainly) and they were missed. My colleagues were not smuggling (it was an oversight) and when one of them (with the .270 ammunition) discussed with the TSA in Atlanta (his destination), they told him to talk to TSA in Philadelphia (his point of departure). TSA Philadelphia told him there was nothing they could do--this does not instill a sense of confidence in the system to say the least. Luckily, it was someone who made an honest mistake, I would think a full box of .270 could certainly be used for something nefarious on a plane at 35K.
Wow...a whole box of rifle ammo missed on X-ray?!?
That's a big oversight...
Clearly, from the CNN link I provided, lots of folks inadvertently bring prohibited items. Generally the TSA catches them. If they, and local LE, determine that it's inadvertant, then that person is allowed to travel.
But I don't have confidence in TSA...most of the folks who work for TSA are good, but some are real power-hungry clowns, and some are downright morons. I've got dozens of TSA stories...examples of the clowns and morons....I'll spare you guys this time...
The real issue with the TSA is their focus: the items on a plane.
Who cares about that?
The real security threat isn't the objects, it's the people. Put a bunch of unarmed SEALS on a plane and they could take it over if they chose to, because of who they are. Fill a 747 full of US Marines on their way to Kuwait, with all their stuff, including knives, pistols and full automatic rifles, and it's the safest plane in the sky, because of who they are.
But the TSA, and the airlines, are prohibited from asking the questions that matter. The intent of the person boarding is how you determine their threat level, not the stuff in their luggage.
That's a big oversight...
Clearly, from the CNN link I provided, lots of folks inadvertently bring prohibited items. Generally the TSA catches them. If they, and local LE, determine that it's inadvertant, then that person is allowed to travel.
But I don't have confidence in TSA...most of the folks who work for TSA are good, but some are real power-hungry clowns, and some are downright morons. I've got dozens of TSA stories...examples of the clowns and morons....I'll spare you guys this time...
The real issue with the TSA is their focus: the items on a plane.
Who cares about that?
The real security threat isn't the objects, it's the people. Put a bunch of unarmed SEALS on a plane and they could take it over if they chose to, because of who they are. Fill a 747 full of US Marines on their way to Kuwait, with all their stuff, including knives, pistols and full automatic rifles, and it's the safest plane in the sky, because of who they are.
But the TSA, and the airlines, are prohibited from asking the questions that matter. The intent of the person boarding is how you determine their threat level, not the stuff in their luggage.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Wow...a whole box of rifle ammo missed on X-ray?!? That's a big oversight...
Right; this was my whole point! Not a perfect system I realize, but come on...
Wow...a whole box of rifle ammo missed on X-ray?!? That's a big oversight...
Right; this was my whole point! Not a perfect system I realize, but come on...
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I'm sure the pilots were aware of the situation, and felt comfortable enough with themselves on board to make the flight. I'm sure there are some undertones to this story we aren't hearing about.
Yup if they're comfortable enough to fly then the rest of the crew needs to man up and show up for work. There are some hairy flying situations... forecast for bad turbulence, hairy landings, whatever-- flight attendants know better than most of us. But if the plane's leaving, they need to be on board, they are part of the safety of the passengers, and they need to put brave faces forward. Nurses can't not show up to work because there are scary looking people in the ER waiting room.
I'm sure the pilots were aware of the situation, and felt comfortable enough with themselves on board to make the flight. I'm sure there are some undertones to this story we aren't hearing about.
Yup if they're comfortable enough to fly then the rest of the crew needs to man up and show up for work. There are some hairy flying situations... forecast for bad turbulence, hairy landings, whatever-- flight attendants know better than most of us. But if the plane's leaving, they need to be on board, they are part of the safety of the passengers, and they need to put brave faces forward. Nurses can't not show up to work because there are scary looking people in the ER waiting room.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I'm sure the pilots were aware of the situation, and felt comfortable enough with themselves on board to make the flight. I'm sure there are some undertones to this story we aren't hearing about.
I think I was pretty clear on the undertones...
Just wash the jet, do a full security sweep, and go fly. Problem solved. In the article, it mentioned that the jet might have flown from Korea to SFO with the graffiti on in....which greatly reduces the chances of it being a terrorist threat.
Think about this in your own life: find a cartoon face in the dust on the back window of your SUV - do you think "Terrorist threat" or do you think "those darn kids down the street"?
I'm sure the pilots were aware of the situation, and felt comfortable enough with themselves on board to make the flight. I'm sure there are some undertones to this story we aren't hearing about.
I think I was pretty clear on the undertones...
Just wash the jet, do a full security sweep, and go fly. Problem solved. In the article, it mentioned that the jet might have flown from Korea to SFO with the graffiti on in....which greatly reduces the chances of it being a terrorist threat.
Think about this in your own life: find a cartoon face in the dust on the back window of your SUV - do you think "Terrorist threat" or do you think "those darn kids down the street"?
Sounds like sour grapes by the F/A's. Their union negotiation FB page has blown up over this. Not to mention, the aircraft in particular is a 747-400. It's not like drawing in the dirt on the back window of a minivan, it takes a heck of a cherry picker to reach that high.
In the book "From First To Worst" - the story of Continental Airlines, Gordon Bethune describes a similar situation when CO was in contract negotiations with the pilots. When the pilots were unhappy with negotiations, the union would release additional "safety checklists" that made preflight inspections significantly longer.
On one flight, he greeted the pilots in the cockpit and saw the union-issued checklist. He said he was sorry to see it, and that he hoped one day the company and the union could work in closer agreement and that it wouldn't be needed. The co-pilot said something along the lines of "Nothing against you, Gordo, we've just been screwed too much by everyone before you" (Gordon was well liked by most of the CO employees). Gordon asked the co-pilot if he'd ever been divorced, which he had. He then asked the F/O if he would be harder on his new wife because of the mistakes of his ex. (paraphrasing). The F/O didn't like Gordon's analogy, and he remarked in the book that the flight took a very significant time to push from the gate that day.
In the book "From First To Worst" - the story of Continental Airlines, Gordon Bethune describes a similar situation when CO was in contract negotiations with the pilots. When the pilots were unhappy with negotiations, the union would release additional "safety checklists" that made preflight inspections significantly longer.
On one flight, he greeted the pilots in the cockpit and saw the union-issued checklist. He said he was sorry to see it, and that he hoped one day the company and the union could work in closer agreement and that it wouldn't be needed. The co-pilot said something along the lines of "Nothing against you, Gordo, we've just been screwed too much by everyone before you" (Gordon was well liked by most of the CO employees). Gordon asked the co-pilot if he'd ever been divorced, which he had. He then asked the F/O if he would be harder on his new wife because of the mistakes of his ex. (paraphrasing). The F/O didn't like Gordon's analogy, and he remarked in the book that the flight took a very significant time to push from the gate that day.
It took a mechanic with a lift platform to reach that point on the tail. It's nearly three stories up. It's also not that big a mark.
If a terrorist really wanted to get attention, it would have been far more visible, more public. This was small, only visible to the pilot doing the preflight inspection. Gate agents, FAs, passengers, none of the, could see it.
This had to be a joke.
If a terrorist really wanted to get attention, it would have been far more visible, more public. This was small, only visible to the pilot doing the preflight inspection. Gate agents, FAs, passengers, none of the, could see it.
This had to be a joke.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
This had to be a joke.
Well, obviously, but in a really bad taste considering everything going on in the world these days.
This had to be a joke.
Well, obviously, but in a really bad taste considering everything going on in the world these days.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Astro14
This had to be a joke.
Well, obviously, but in a really bad taste considering everything going on in the world these days.
I completely agree.
If it came from Korea, it may be a cross-cultural misunderstanding...it may have been intended to be friendly/cute...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
This had to be a joke.
Well, obviously, but in a really bad taste considering everything going on in the world these days.
I completely agree.
If it came from Korea, it may be a cross-cultural misunderstanding...it may have been intended to be friendly/cute...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If it came from Korea, it may be a cross-cultural misunderstanding...it may have been intended to be friendly/cute...
I had the same thought. The "devilish" face may have been intended to represent a South Korean face. We'll probably never know.
If it came from Korea, it may be a cross-cultural misunderstanding...it may have been intended to be friendly/cute...
I had the same thought. The "devilish" face may have been intended to represent a South Korean face. We'll probably never know.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It took a mechanic with a lift platform to reach that point on the tail. It's nearly three stories up. It's also not that big a mark.
If a terrorist really wanted to get attention, it would have been far more visible, more public. This was small, only visible to the pilot doing the preflight inspection. Gate agents, FAs, passengers, none of the, could see it.
This had to be a joke.
This was actually my first thought when the story broke. "How in the world did the f/a's even become aware?" They're generally not permitted on the ramp unless the plane they're working on requires walking to/from the gate to the aircraft, even then, they're under escort because they wouldn't have security permissions to be on the ramp, around the aircraft unsupervised.
Chances are, one of the pilots doing the walkaround saw it, thought it was funny, snapped a cellphone pic, and made the mistake of showing or forwarding it to an F/A.
Apparently the DL F/A's can handle the ramp-agent-scrawled graffiti inside their aircraft baggage compartments with much better humor.
It took a mechanic with a lift platform to reach that point on the tail. It's nearly three stories up. It's also not that big a mark.
If a terrorist really wanted to get attention, it would have been far more visible, more public. This was small, only visible to the pilot doing the preflight inspection. Gate agents, FAs, passengers, none of the, could see it.
This had to be a joke.
This was actually my first thought when the story broke. "How in the world did the f/a's even become aware?" They're generally not permitted on the ramp unless the plane they're working on requires walking to/from the gate to the aircraft, even then, they're under escort because they wouldn't have security permissions to be on the ramp, around the aircraft unsupervised.
Chances are, one of the pilots doing the walkaround saw it, thought it was funny, snapped a cellphone pic, and made the mistake of showing or forwarding it to an F/A.
Apparently the DL F/A's can handle the ramp-agent-scrawled graffiti inside their aircraft baggage compartments with much better humor.
- Status
Similar threads
