Man pulled off plane for tweet...

[sunshinehighway]

Nothing, my response was to the poster who asked about him not being able to board with his kids. My assumption is that his tweet posed a threat to the gate agent, maybe the goal of asking him to get off was so he could delete it.

ETA we are hearing he was told he was a security threat from him, and I' m sure there is more to that he isn't sharing.

Southwest has confirmed that he was removed and then allowed to reboard. That combine with the deleted tweet is a pretty clear indication that Southwest agents did something to make him delete the tweet.
If this guy is the arrogant jerk people are saying he is, there's no way he just deleted it after a nice little chat with the agents.

 

[gwynne]

Southwest has confirmed that he was removed and then allowed to reboard. That combine with the deleted tweet is a pretty clear indication that Southwest agents did something to make him delete the tweet.
If this guy is the arrogant jerk people are saying he is, there's no way he just deleted it after a nice little chat with the agents.

The article says he deleted it.
https://gma.yahoo.com/family-booted...-tweeted-rude-233427897--abc-news-travel.html


I'm reposting the link from the first page. There are lots of answers and details about what happened in the article.

 

[momto2girls]

Here is what I found online:

Do families get to preboard?
An adult traveling with a child four years old or younger may board during Family Boarding, which occurs after the "A" group has boarded and before the "B" group begins boarding. However, those Customers holding an "A" boarding pass should still board with the "A" boarding group.

Can groups assigned to different boarding positions board together?
Yes. However, in order to maintain the integrity of the boarding process, we ask that earlier boarding positions board with the later positions. For example, if a passenger is assigned position A16 and wants to board with a passenger assigned position A45, the passenger holding the A16 boarding pass should board with the A45 passenger.



The guy expected his kids to be able to board with him as an A-lister even thought he kids were not A-listers. Given that his kids were 9 and 6 (not 4 years old or youger), the family boarding did not apply. If he wanted his kids to board with him, he should have purchased whatever would give his hids A group boarding or should have boarded with whatever group his kids were in.

The guy was attempting to violate policy.

Exactly!! When we fly Southwest, we always pay for A-level boarding for ALL of us (DH and our two children). Why wouldn't we? We take up 4 seats, so we should pay for 4 A-level boarding passes. It seems pretty simple to me. He tried to board 3 people using one A-level boarding pass. Nope, that's not the way it works.

I have ZERO sympathy for this guy.

 

[sunshinehighway]

EXACTLY, he knew when he paid extra for his own boarding status but was denied to purchase the same status for his kids that he was going to have to get SW to bend its policy for HIM. When they refused to make an exception, then he whined on Twitter.

I am so sick of being at the mercy of the airlines that I refuse to fly any more. They nickel and dime us - perfect example: we'll let YOU pay extra to board first but NOT your kids.

He says he is usually allowed to have the kids board with him and was unaware of the policy. I don't know if people are being too hard on this guy or not.
I see posts here from people expecting to have their whole families board with family boarding when the policy is only an adult and child under 5. I've watched large groups board when it's obvious only one kid is under 5.
Sometimes you have employees that are willing to bend depending on the circumstance, sometimes the circumstances don't allow it and sometimes you have an employee that is a total rule follower.

 

[DizBelle]

EXACTLY, he knew when he paid extra for his own boarding status but was denied to purchase the same status for his kids that he was going to have to get SW to bend its policy for HIM. When they refused to make an exception, then he whined on Twitter.

I am so sick of being at the mercy of the airlines that I refuse to fly any more. They nickel and dime us - perfect example: we'll let YOU pay extra to board first but NOT your kids.

From what I understand he was an A-lister because of the number of miles he had flown. He didn't purchase it. His kids, however, didn't earn this status. Unless SW limits the number of A-group purchases it allows for a flight, he had the option to purchase A-group for his kids. Barring that, he ALWAYS had the option to board with his kids in the kids boarding group.

SW NEVER said that he can't board with his kids. They only said that they have to board in the "lowest" boarding group that they had.

He is free to move down in boarding status. SW is not obligated to move anyone up in boarding status.

 

[gwynne]

He says he is usually allowed to have the kids board with him and was unaware of the policy. I don't know if people are being too hard on this guy or not.
I see posts here from people expecting to have their whole families board with family boarding when the policy is only an adult and child under 5. I've watched large groups board when it's obvious only one kid is under 5.
Sometimes you have employees that are willing to bend depending on the circumstance, sometimes the circumstances don't allow it and sometimes you have an employee that is a total rule follower.

And sometimes you have a highly entitled person who's more concerned about receiving A-lister perks than being a dad. He could have just boarded with his kids. He chose to demand special treatment.

 

[sunshinehighway]

And sometimes you have a highly entitled person who's more concerned about receiving A-lister perks than being a dad. He could have just boarded with his kids. He chose to demand special treatment.

Again, that has nothing to do with why he was pulled off the plane. Regardless of how you believe he acted, he was pulled off the plane because of a tweet. He was told he was a security that because of a tweet and allowed to re board when the tweet was deleted. It's wrong. Airport security is very serious ( as it should be) and to have anyone use it to force someone to comply with them is totally wrong and an abuse of power. If he was a threat then he became that as soon as he sent the tweet. Deleting it would do nothing to change that.

 

[gwynne]

Again, that has nothing to do with why he was pulled off the plane. Regardless of how you believe he acted, he was pulled off the plane because of a tweet. He was told he was a security that because of a tweet and allowed to re board when the tweet was deleted. It's wrong. Airport security is very serious ( as it should be) and to have anyone use it to force someone to comply with them is totally wrong and an abuse of power. If he was a threat then he became that as soon as he sent the tweet. Deleting it would do nothing to change that.

I think the term "security" is used pretty loosely. A passenger can probably get into a lot of hot water for arguing or refusing to follow directions, or giving the gate agent a hard time. If you can't listen and behave on the ground, it may be that you can't or won't in the air. I don't know Southwest's position, but I can see where they might not want to put a belligerent passenger in the air.

 

[topolino]

Guy sounds like a Grade A jerk for a variety of reasons, some of which include throwing around his status as an A-list member, thinking the earth should stop orbiting the sun for him simply because he's reproduced and childishly using the gate attendant's name in his tweet.

Good for Southwest.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

He says he is usually allowed to have the kids board with him and was unaware of the policy. I don't know if people are being too hard on this guy or not. I see posts here from people expecting to have their whole families board with family boarding when the policy is only an adult and child under 5. I've watched large groups board when it's obvious only one kid is under 5. Sometimes you have employees that are willing to bend depending on the circumstance, sometimes the circumstances don't allow it and sometimes you have an employee that is a total rule follower.

Are you sure that's the policy? We fly Southwest all the time and currently only one of our children is under the age of 4. EVERY single time they have told us to board as a family between groups A & B. We have never been told it's just one adult and the under 4 child. Maybe every gate agent has bent the rule, but I have only ever seen entire families (not grandparents and the the like) board together during family boarding.

On another note, FWIW, there was a lady asking to do this (A-lister with kids who were not) flying into Vegas last Friday. She asked, the gate agent at the desk went over to confer with the gate agent who would be collecting boarding passes and she agreed she would make an exception this time, but made it very clear this was not standard Southwest policy, so to not expect it in the future. I also got the impression it was at the sole discretion of the gate agent scanning boarding passes.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I think the term "security" is used pretty loosely. A passenger can probably get into a lot of hot water for arguing or refusing to follow directions, or giving the gate agent a hard time. If you can't listen and behave on the ground, it may be that you can't or won't in the air. I don't know Southwest's position, but I can see where they might not want to put a belligerent passenger in the air.

I can understand why they would need to take a belligerent passenger off the plane. In this case he was taken off and then let back on once he deleted the tweet. He wasn't belligerent enough to prevent him from boarding. He was called of the plane. So whatever happened at the gate didn't prevent them from letting him on.
He was then let back on which they would never do with someone who was belligerent or in some way a security threat.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Are you sure that's the policy? We fly Southwest all the time and currently only one of our children is under the age of 4. EVERY single time they have told us to board as a family between groups A & B. We have never been told it's just one adult and the under 4 child. Maybe every gate agent has bent the rule, but I have only ever seen entire families (not grandparents and the the like) board together during family boarding.

On another note, FWIW, there was a lady asking to do this (A-lister with kids who were not) flying into Vegas last Friday. She asked, the gate agent at the desk went over to confer with the gate agent who would be collecting boarding passes and she agreed she would make an exception this time, but made it very clear this was not standard Southwest policy, so to not expect it in the future. I also got the impression it was at the sole discretion of the gate agent scanning boarding passes.

This is the family boarding policy from the Southwest website faqs.


An adult traveling with a child four years old or younger may board during Family Boarding, which occurs after the "A" group has boarded and before the "B" group begins boarding. However, those Customers holding an "A" boarding pass should still board with the "A" boarding group.

 

[DisneyNutMary]

There is obviously more to this story than what the guy is saying. Comments are being made that make it seem that the gate agent was being passive aggressive in pulling his family off the flight, but I doubt she had anything to do with it. She is checking passengers in, taking their boarding passes, answering questions, dealing with other passengers requests, etc...all the while this guy is being the passive aggressive one posting his tweet...probably feeling puffed up that the whole world will see his tweet, and there may be apologetic perks to him, or censure to her, or whatever he thinks he may accomplish by putting her name and work location out there. When, in the course of her job in that short time period, did she have time to see the tweet? It seems unlikely she saw it at all. However, SWA home office saw it, and felt it threatening enough to contact the flight directly and direct that the family be removed, possibly delaying a flight, and inconveniencing all of the other passengers.
I have to agree with posters who said his use of "something like" when he quoted his tweet means he knows that what he wrote was probably not as innocent as he wants people to think. If I were in his situation, and I'm sure the anger he felt was real in being denied his perk, I probably would have said something like can't wait to get home and write southwest about rude gate agents, or never flying southwest again, rude gate agents....naming the agent and her work location could put possibly put her in danger.

 

[gwynne]

I can understand why they would need to take a belligerent passenger off the plane. In this case he was taken off and then let back on once he deleted the tweet. He wasn't belligerent enough to prevent him from boarding. He was called of the plane. So whatever happened at the gate didn't prevent them from letting him on.
He was then let back on which they would never do with someone who was belligerent or in some way a security threat.

Southwest certainly has right to exercise discretion in allowing him on or off the plane, period.

 

[Hoodie]

Guy sounds like a Grade A jerk for a variety of reasons, some of which include throwing around his status as an A-list member, thinking the earth should stop orbiting the sun for him simply because he's reproduced and childishly using the gate attendant's name in his tweet.

Good for Southwest.

Yeah, something tells me Mr. Entitled wasn't exactly calmly asking for customer service while at the gate. If he was belligerent towards the gate agent and then identified her on social media, it could be conceived as a threat.

People need to put down the phones and start keeping some thoughts to themselves.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

This is the family boarding policy from the Southwest website faqs. An adult traveling with a child four years old or younger may board during Family Boarding, which occurs after the "A" group has boarded and before the "B" group begins boarding. However, those Customers holding an "A" boarding pass should still board with the "A" boarding group.

I think that can be read different ways though. I do see it says "an adult", but it doesn't say the rest of the party should board at their original position. Either way, I wouldn't assume it's passengers trying to skirt the rules at all. Like I said, on every flight we've taken with our children (which always had at least one under the age of 4), we've always been told to board together as a family. I would think if that weren't their policy, along the way we would have been told differently at least once.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Southwest certainly has right to exercise discretion in allowing him on or off the plane, period.

No not period. If he wasn't a threat, there was no reason to take him off and it was totally wrong to not only threaten him with the authorities for being a threat. It was also incredibly bad customer service to treat him this way.
If he was a threat then it was totally wrong to allow him back on and risk the safety of all on board.
You can't have it both ways. While Southwest can decide to pull someone of a plane, they also have to stand behind that decision.

 

[Hrhpd]

Again, that has nothing to do with why he was pulled off the plane. Regardless of how you believe he acted, he was pulled off the plane because of a tweet. He was told he was a security that because of a tweet and allowed to re board when the tweet was deleted. It's wrong. Airport security is very serious ( as it should be) and to have anyone use it to force someone to comply with them is totally wrong and an abuse of power. If he was a threat then he became that as soon as he sent the tweet. Deleting it would do nothing to change that.

It was a threat to the gate agent.

He tweeted her name and location to 1.69 Million people, any of whom might have been in the Denver airport that day and could have gone over to the gate to cause trouble or harm her in some way.

By removing the tweet, he removed the risk to the gate agent because her name and location was no longer available to 1,690,000+ people.

And given the attitude of the passenger, one can assume rather well that the tweet was not as innocuous as Susie Q at Gate 39 in Denver was rude to me.

I understand Southwest's position completely.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I think that can be read different ways though. I do see it says "an adult", but it doesn't say the rest of the party should board at their original position. Either way, I wouldn't assume it's passengers trying to skirt the rules at all. Like I said, on every flight we've taken with our children (which always had at least one under the age of 4), we've always been told to board together as a family. I would think if that weren't their policy, along the way we would have been told differently at least once.

I guess my point was that sometimes people are unaware of the policies. They can be written in a way that is open to interpretation or not always followed by the gate agents. It doesn't automatically make someone an entitled, arrogant jerk because are unclear.
You are not an entitled arrogant jerk because your whole family boards during family boarding. They often allow it (although it is official one adult with a child under 5 (. I'm sure many families would be confused if suddenly they were only allowed one adult with the child. They might even question why the change. That wouldn't make them entitled, arrogant jerks either.

 

[NHdisneylover]

It was a threat to the gate agent.

He tweeted her name and location to 1.69 Million people, any of whom might have been in the Denver airport that day and could have gone over to the gate to cause trouble or harm her in some way.

By removing the tweet, he removed the risk to the gate agent because her name and location was no longer available to 1,690,000+ people.

And given the attitude of the passenger, one can assume rather well that the tweet was not as innocuous as Susie Q at Gate 39 in Denver was rude to me.

I understand Southwest's position completely.

This is my take on the situation as well.