General Discussion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

70. FINALLY!!! Someone jumps to the defense of the lowly worker!!!

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 05:26 PM

Jun 2014

Also, Jet Blue was not fined for this incident, which they would have been had they been out of compliance with timelines for FAA regs. So the FA and the pilot (who has cameras on the pax and two monitors in the cockpit, he or she saw all) were within their purview to enforce the restrictions. Absent any contradicting order from the pilot, the FA HAD to follow those rules, too.

I'm just astounded how many people are ready to heave that WOMAN under the bus--like people enjoy fucking with a three year old for sport. I mean, really...

The pilot (who was probably senior to the aircraft commander in this instance) in the cabin was probably not vacationing--he was probably either going to work (commuting to where he would fly an aircraft) or dead-heading home after finishing a workday. He might have been on vacation, but why fly to Boston when you can usually fly out of NYC to any vacation destination spot?

He couldn't really "fill in" for the FA, legally--and they do have FAA "crew minimums" on that plane. That said, there would have been no need for the FA to escort the kid, and the FA is on duty no matter where she is on the plane--but the mother could have done that IF the plane commander told the FA to disregard the FAA regs--this would mean he or she (the pilot, that is) would sit on the tarmac with the brake on until all were back in their seats and tell the tower they couldn't move until everyone was buckled up.

I often fly jet blue, and if I can't get the destination I want out of Boston, I usually fly TO NY. That's why I think that pilot in the cabin was going to work, deadheading home, and senior to the plane commander....

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

166 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Flight Attendent Forces Child to Urinate In Seat [View all] avebury Jun 2014 OP

When airliners keep passengers waiting on the tarmac, the airliners should be required pnwmom Jun 2014 #1

exactly. There's no way I could hold it for hours Beaverhausen Jun 2014 #9

Actually, they are - LiberalElite Jun 2014 #64

They are required to do that. dixiegrrrrl Jun 2014 #73

I am never flying again. eShirl Jun 2014 #2

Shit I wish that was an option jollyreaper2112 Jun 2014 #4

I see a future for bullet trains in the United States... TeeYiYi Jun 2014 #8

Only after all the oil is gone and the cars WhiteTara Jun 2014 #39

We spent a trillion dollars on the Iraq war instead WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2014 #84

Me neither. I used to fly a lot, nationally and internationally for business. Fortunately, RKP5637 Jun 2014 #53

You and me both. They couldn't pay me to get on a plane these days. Skeeter Barnes Jun 2014 #56

The flight attendant would have been fired if he or she allowed the person to use the bathroom MADem Jun 2014 #3

On time record is based upon when an aircraft avebury Jun 2014 #7

You mean the gate...? MADem Jun 2014 #44

An off-duty pilot two seats in front of the girl took the side of the family pnwmom Jun 2014 #10

Tell it to the F-A-A. That's like blaming the janitor for your bank's lousy mortgage rates. MADem Jun 2014 #12

The off-duty pilot sitting near the girl intervened to keep the girl and mother on the plane. pnwmom Jun 2014 #15

And "he" (or she--not clear) has more "au-thor-i-teh" and is senior in the pecking order to MADem Jun 2014 #20

The FAA regulations require the airline to allow the passengers of a plane delayed on a tarmac pnwmom Jun 2014 #21

There's a time limit, I believe it is a half hour, and I don't think they hit it, otherwise MADem Jun 2014 #65

No, there isn't a time limit. Here is the statement on Jet Blue's own website: pnwmom Jun 2014 #83

The way I read that, the delay notification process starts at the thirty minute mark. MADem Jun 2014 #88

You're reading it incorrectly. What is required a 30 minutes is that they are notified that they can pnwmom Jun 2014 #91

I am not reading it wrong--go look at Jet Blue's Lengthy Delay document, which this MADem Jun 2014 #100

It isnt clear which part of the treatment he disagreed with. It's my impression that he disagreed rhett o rick Jun 2014 #71

There sure are. My hubby takes water pills and they have an effect. He tries to time travel CTyankee Jun 2014 #79

time travel *is* difficult d_r Jun 2014 #82

hard to time your travel to your baldder, if that's what you meant... CTyankee Jun 2014 #94

lmao TeamPooka Jun 2014 #105

heh. wait til you get older...heh...oh, well, you'll see...just wait... CTyankee Jun 2014 #116

I'm sorry d_r Jun 2014 #152

Aw, no problem. In fact, we joke about it. CTyankee Jun 2014 #153

Some people get septic if they don't empty their bladder. McCamy Taylor Jun 2014 #75

They need a catheter, then. Or those adult incontinence drawers and pads. MADem Jun 2014 #80

That is NOT the rule. Jet Blue still may be fined. pnwmom Jun 2014 #98

You're just wrong. By your account, if the plane stops on the taxiway a person has the "right" MADem Jun 2014 #99

There is no information anywhere that they were in line for takeoff. pnwmom Jun 2014 #104

And when DELAY MODE starts, the plane DOOR is opened and a stairway is attached. MADem Jun 2014 #108

You've got this completely backwards. pnwmom Jun 2014 #109

No, I don't. Tarmac delay means DELAY. No one is taking off -- no one has a slot. MADem Jun 2014 #112

The planes don't inch forward on the tarmac. They sit there parked till it is time to move. pnwmom Jun 2014 #117

They frequently go from spot to spot on an active tarmac. MADem Jun 2014 #128

And so they would rather ruin their ontime record taxiing back to the gate. OK. nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2014 #57

Talk to the PILOT about that--he or she is the ultimate authority on that aircraft. nt MADem Jun 2014 #62

I'm sure the flight attendant invented a gross exaggeration to tell to the pilot. nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2014 #86

Since the pilot has cameras on the passengers and monitors where he can observe the cabin, I very MADem Jun 2014 #92

As may be, but I'm sure pilots have other things to attend to while in the flight line. nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2014 #96

They're sitting there (not) smoking and joking. They're listening for the tower to MADem Jun 2014 #101

The FA would have been fined spartan61 Jun 2014 #127

Yup. Agschmid Jun 2014 #130

Jet Blue just released a statement--the plane was on an ACTIVE RUNWAY, not "the tarmac" MADem Jun 2014 #132

Now let's see if anyone here backtracks... Agschmid Jun 2014 #133

What, and have a kind word for a non-union wage slave? MADem Jun 2014 #135

The Flight Attendant Dorian Gray Jun 2014 #150

Delaying take offs and landings because someone is in the can costs $$$... Cannikin Jun 2014 #5

They were in line to take off. They weren't at the gate. They announced they were turning BACK MADem Jun 2014 #13

They had been sitting, unmoving, on the tarmac for 30 minutes. Sometimes planes pnwmom Jun 2014 #18

It doesn't matter--if you are away from the gate, the plane has the capacity to move. MADem Jun 2014 #22

Wrong. The strict tarmac regulations require delayed flights to let passengers use the facilities. pnwmom Jun 2014 #23

That's if they're parked and not moving. They've simply cleared the gate so another plane could MADem Jun 2014 #28

They were parked on the tarmac and had been for a half hour. pnwmom Jun 2014 #31

I think they were on a taxiway. MADem Jun 2014 #34

How do you know the FA wasn't having a bad day? You really have never heard of someone pnwmom Jun 2014 #37

Well, the poor woman has already been flung under the bus...by "The Daily Caller" no less. MADem Jun 2014 #50

At first the pilot only knew what the FA chose to tell him. pnwmom Jun 2014 #54

The pilot has situational awareness of what's happening in the cabin. MADem Jun 2014 #66

You're just speculating here. But the FAA regulations and Jet Blue's passenger plan pnwmom Jun 2014 #87

I am providing as much proof as you are and I'm actually reading the links you are providing, which MADem Jun 2014 #102

Where does it say anywhere that they were enroute to the runway? pnwmom Jun 2014 #103

Because, for the tenth time, if they were in DELAY MODE, the door would be OPEN, and MADem Jun 2014 #110

For the 11th time, you're wrong. These rules apply when the plane is NOT pulled up to the gate pnwmom Jun 2014 #120

Jet Blue also said this when someone asked about the matter: MADem Jun 2014 #122

That is very true. There ARE very strict FAA regulations when a plane is on the tarmac. pnwmom Jun 2014 #124

They were on an active tarmac, not in delay mode. MADem Jun 2014 #125

The plane was stuck on the ground at the time and FAA regulations pnwmom Jun 2014 #16

jet blue has apologized for the incident. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #6

No win situation. The FAA should apologize. The airport should apologize. MADem Jun 2014 #25

Talk about by the book assholes! BootinUp Jun 2014 #11

.... MADem Jun 2014 #14

Why doesn't the FAA change its regs so that when the plane is immobile on the tarmac pnwmom Jun 2014 #17

Because when the plane jerks forward, people fall in the aisles and hit their heads or MADem Jun 2014 #26

They had been stopped on the tarmac for a half hour, and the FAA requires that passengers pnwmom Jun 2014 #27

Sounds to me like they were in line on a taxiway. MADem Jun 2014 #30

Not a word in that quote says that. We know they were on the tarmac. To go back to pnwmom Jun 2014 #33

I don't think you're right, but we'll never know, since neither one of us was on the plane. MADem Jun 2014 #38

It's not absurd to think that an overworked FA was having a bad day pnwmom Jun 2014 #42

I don't think that happened, though. MADem Jun 2014 #46

I already read your other post. BootinUp Jun 2014 #43

The pilot DID turn back. From the article: MADem Jun 2014 #45

And now they all get to undergo sensitivity training BootinUp Jun 2014 #55

Sensitivity training = Break the rules when you feel you must, but we'll still fire you if we feel MADem Jun 2014 #67

I HATE flying. mnhtnbb Jun 2014 #19

WTF?! sakabatou Jun 2014 #24

Flight attendants are generally meaner and nastier than they used to be bluestateguy Jun 2014 #29

I know quite a few FAs. They work hard and get paid shit. MADem Jun 2014 #32

Like the one trolling this thread? alphafemale Jun 2014 #149

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely rock Jun 2014 #35

Power corrupts? They're the lowest paid workers in the pecking order! MADem Jun 2014 #40

I didn't say anything about money rock Jun 2014 #51

Again, they are nothing but an extension of the PILOT and co-pilot. The captain has MADem Jun 2014 #63

Indeed quakerboy Jun 2014 #58

The head MF in charge on that aircraft is the PILOT, not the FAs. MADem Jun 2014 #61

The same applies to Pilots quakerboy Jun 2014 #123

JB pilots finally got a union, I think. The FAs haven't gotten one yet--bet this pushes them to get MADem Jun 2014 #126

I'm glad I can't afford to fly anywhere. There's no way I could hold it in a Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #36

Unfortunate but I don't think it all rests with the flight attendant gollygee Jun 2014 #41

How could they have known there was going to be a 30 minute wait? BuelahWitch Jun 2014 #47

30 minutes isn't that long gollygee Jun 2014 #49

Really? Egnever Jun 2014 #68

Two things gollygee Jun 2014 #154

Right cause when you go to the airport to get on a plane Egnever Jun 2014 #160

Many 3-year-olds are not completely potty trained gollygee Jun 2014 #163

There's a problem with how the family was treated here...but the story was way too harsh to the FA Ken Burch Jun 2014 #48

FINALLY!!! Someone jumps to the defense of the lowly worker!!! MADem Jun 2014 #70

I don't think most people would "enjoy" being mean to a single 3 yr old for sport. However Warren DeMontague Jun 2014 #93

+1 BootinUp Jun 2014 #95

According to this charming account from the DAILY CALLER, anyway. MADem Jun 2014 #106

My alternative is to stay at home, whenever possible. Warren DeMontague Jun 2014 #115

Look I see your point--I truly do. I am no fan of the slog, the mess, the frustration. MADem Jun 2014 #119

Except the rules were misinterpreted by the FA. pnwmom Jun 2014 #107

It could also be that the rules weren't explained properly TO the FA. Ken Burch Jun 2014 #129

The other piece of this is that the off-duty pilot who observed the situation pnwmom Jun 2014 #138

He probably was GOING TO WORK. MADem Jun 2014 #139

More of your speculation, based on nothing. pnwmom Jun 2014 #140

You are a very rude person. I saw it on TELEVISION. MADem Jun 2014 #141

I will believe it when I see it in writing. That's pretty standard around here. pnwmom Jun 2014 #142

And will you retract your statements? MADem Jun 2014 #143

Everything I've said has been based on the information that is out there. pnwmom Jun 2014 #144

Found something similar to what I heard on TV last night. MADem Jun 2014 #156

Obviously, the issue wasn't handled properly. We agree there. Ken Burch Jun 2014 #155

You do realize the Daily Caller wrote this story, right? alp227 Jun 2014 #52

I'm surprised the headline didn't read "Grumpy Bee Word DAME Screws Over Innocent Little KID!!1!" MADem Jun 2014 #72

If the plane was moving, the flight attendant had no choice. Warpy Jun 2014 #59

It was parked on the tarmac. Jet Blue has apologized, pnwmom Jun 2014 #121

It was on an active runway. They gave mom fifty bucks to shut her up, they did not refund the MADem Jun 2014 #137

true story here onethatcares Jun 2014 #60

Gerard Depardieu...zat is obviously NOT you!!!!! MADem Jun 2014 #76

I think she realized onethatcares Jun 2014 #97

Isn't that child abuse? Sounds like a pedophile to me. A sick one. McCamy Taylor Jun 2014 #69

Read the whole thread, and don't believe the DAILY CALLER spin... nt MADem Jun 2014 #74

I would nave been sent to security 2pooped2pop Jun 2014 #77

At the least, this becomes as ADA issue when you have someone with bladder problems. McCamy Taylor Jun 2014 #78

No, it doesn't. No one is denied a bathroom for more than a half hour. MADem Jun 2014 #81

No one is denied a bathroom as long as the plane's just sitting on the tarmac. pnwmom Jun 2014 #85

But if they are taxiing for take-off, even if they are stopping every so often, they are not in MADem Jun 2014 #113

There is no indication in any article that they were taxiing for takeoff. pnwmom Jun 2014 #114

You are correct. FAA regulations require passengers to have access to working restrooms pnwmom Jun 2014 #90

The Little Chieftan syndrome. Rampant on airplanes. Warren DeMontague Jun 2014 #89

THE PLANE WAS ON AN ACTIVE TAXIWAY, PER JET BLUE. MADem Jun 2014 #131

If that's the case, I stand corrected. Warren DeMontague Jun 2014 #147

They were on the runway!!!! MADem Jun 2014 #157

Hmmm. Seems there is some disagreement as to whether this was "tarmac" or "active taxiing" Warren DeMontague Jun 2014 #161

JB statement said "runway." MADem Jun 2014 #166

I don't think the attendant had an discretion to use in this case. RandySF Jun 2014 #111

Damn.. two words.. Cha Jun 2014 #118

Two more, Cha--Pull Ups. MADem Jun 2014 #134

Oh yeah, if the plane was getting ready to take off.. then Common Sense has Cha Jun 2014 #136

No one reading JetBlue's own policy clearly stated on their website pnwmom Jun 2014 #145

The woman wasn't telling the truth. MADem Jun 2014 #146

Uh-huh. Then why did Jet Blue make a public statement of apology and confirm pnwmom Jun 2014 #148

I've posted this elsewhere but I'll put it here in case you missed the other post. MADem Jun 2014 #159

You no longer Dorian Gray Jun 2014 #151

I think you're mistaken. I was on a flight last month and MADem Jun 2014 #158

Maybe it depends on Dorian Gray Jun 2014 #164

Ah yes, jetBlue. KamaAina Jun 2014 #162

Too bad pipi_k Jun 2014 #165