Man pulled off plane for tweet...

[DisneyJamieCA]

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.

No, but the way you react and engage can make you an entitled, arrogant jerk.

And I disagree with you on the official policy. It doesn't say an adult with ONLY that child. As a matter of fact, every time they've announced it at the gate it's been "families traveling with a child under 5 may board during family boarding which is between groups A & B. If you hold an A boarding card, board with your section". I find it hard to believe that every gate agent, across the country, has the same exact speech if that isn't in fact what is meant by the policy.

 

[sets14]

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.

Again, gate agent wasn't the one monitoring tweets. Someone else caught it, heck maybe he was spouting off on plane about it and flight attendants called into gate. He is a grade A #1 jerk and reaped what he sowed. Period.

 

[maxiesmom]

Whatever the family boarding policy is, it doesn't apply to this anyway. His youngest was 6, so they did not qualify for family boarding.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Whatever the family boarding policy is, it doesn't apply to this anyway. His youngest was 6, so they did not qualify for family boarding.

I understand that. It was a conversation about whether policies are usually enforced and if there is room for interpretation in how it's written, and it was another example of a policy.

 

[luvsJack]

So basically the policy of the airline is now: "We will control all you do while on our planes, boarding our planes, etc. You will not be allowed to tweet, facebook, or use other social media in a negative way about our airline or we will remove you from the plane" I mean they aren't really writing or saying that but basically they are showing it that way.


Wooooowwwww. Makes me glad I don't fly. He made a tweet about a rude employee. He wasn't a "security risk" that's stupid.

He may have been much more of a jerk than he lets on in the article but she is the professional and should have acted as such. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat that pulled him off the flight to get her way.

 

[maxiesmom]

So basically the policy of the airline is now: "We will control all you do while on our planes, boarding our planes, etc. You will not be allowed to tweet, facebook, or use other social media in a negative way about our airline or we will remove you from the plane" I mean they aren't really writing or saying that but basically they are showing it that way.


Wooooowwwww. Makes me glad I don't fly. He made a tweet about a rude employee. He wasn't a "security risk" that's stupid.

He may have been much more of a jerk than he lets on in the article but she is the professional and should have acted as such. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat that pulled him off the flight to get her way.

"She" more than likely was too busy doing her job to read tweets. Someone else must have gotten involved. Also, if he was seen as being uncooperative, they are well within their rights to remove him from the aircraft.

None of us really know as he deleted his tweet, and we only have his word on what he had said. If what he says he posted was true, then no, I don't think he should have been pulled off. But we only have his word on that, and I'm betting if he said something truly horrible, he wouldn't admit it.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

I follow Southwest on Twitter. Passenger tweets go out and are usually answered immediately by a Southwest person. They must have staff that is dedicated to monitoring their twitter account.

Many disappointed tweets go out and SW usually replies with a "sorry, how can we help you to resolve this?"

Which makes me think there was way more to the tweet than "Susie Q was mean to me."

I can see why the airline would want him to remove the tweet. Even without the last name, any wacko in the Denver airport could go over to the gate and harass the gate agent in question. Those tweets go out to a ton of people. SW has 1.69 million people following them, so that tweet went out to any number of wackos. He gave a name and a gate number where the agent was located to 1.69 million people. That would be a risk to the gate agent.

As somebody upthread said, there is always 3 sides to a story and we are only hearing from a very arrogant guy, who you know is going to spin it to make it look like he is an A-List God.

There is no indication that the gate agent was in any danger. It was just a person complaining and a gate agent covering her butt. However, it looks like the problem goes beyond the gate agent. How did she know about the tweet? She must have been notified by whoever monitors twitter for SW that it existed, so someone else at SW was complicit in harassing the customer. I'm sure they have a record of the exact tweet, as they probably have to log them when they come in. Should be easy enough to find in discovery. Probably anybody that follows the flier can vouch for exactly what went out, too. The gate agent obviously went way beyond what was acceptable.

 

[Hrhpd]

So basically the policy of the airline is now: "We will control all you do while on our planes, boarding our planes, etc. You will not be allowed to tweet, facebook, or use other social media in a negative way about our airline or we will remove you from the plane" I mean they aren't really writing or saying that but basically they are showing it that way.


Wooooowwwww. Makes me glad I don't fly. He made a tweet about a rude employee. He wasn't a "security risk" that's stupid.

He may have been much more of a jerk than he lets on in the article but she is the professional and should have acted as such. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat that pulled him off the flight to get her way.

Do you follow SW on twitter?

I do.

I am always seeing a tweet or two from a dissatisfied passenger. SW doesn't censor their passengers at all. In fact, the people monitoring the twitter feed usually respond pretty quickly on how to resolve the problem or that they sent someone to resolve the problem.

We haven't seen the tweet, so we have no idea how threatening to the gate agent it was. But just the way he posted it, posting her name and her gate location for that day, it already WAS threatening to the gate agent. So, rest assured, the tweet was way more threatening than Mr. A-List is saying he posted for SW to pull him off and make him delete the tweet, based on all the tweets they do allow on the feed.

Personally, I am glad to see a company risk losing a customer to protect the safety of their employee.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

So basically the policy of the airline is now: "We will control all you do while on our planes, boarding our planes, etc. You will not be allowed to tweet, facebook, or use other social media in a negative way about our airline or we will remove you from the plane" I mean they aren't really writing or saying that but basically they are showing it that way.


Wooooowwwww. Makes me glad I don't fly. He made a tweet about a rude employee. He wasn't a "security risk" that's stupid.

He may have been much more of a jerk than he lets on in the article but she is the professional and should have acted as such. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat that pulled him off the flight to get her way.

Good post. Pretty much sums it up.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Again, gate agent wasn't the one monitoring tweets. Someone else caught it, heck maybe he was spouting off on plane about it and flight attendants called into gate. He is a grade A #1 jerk and reaped what he sowed. Period.

Expect according to him it was the gate agent. She's the one that told him she felt threatened by the tweet and he couldn't reboard unless he deleted it. She then watched him delete it. She sounds very childish.

 

[msjprincess]

No I don't think he should have been pulled from the flight.

But the guy seems like a d-bag so I don't feel bad for him.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

Again, gate agent wasn't the one monitoring tweets. Someone else caught it, heck maybe he was spouting off on plane about it and flight attendants called into gate. He is a grade A #1 jerk and reaped what he sowed. Period.

See, I don't think he was being that much of a jerk. Alot of airline policies have changed over the years, and they're probably enforced differently. My husband's been a frequent flyer forever. It used to be that when we flew together, we would both be upgraded to first class and could priority board. I could also go through the priority line for bag check and security with him.

It could be that on another leg of their trip the rules were different. That would bug me, too. On the other hand, it wasn't really that big of a deal. He probably just wanted to make sure he sat with his kids. They are only six and nine, and you don't want little girls sitting next to strange men on long flights. You just don't. Plus, maybe they were scared because of the recent plane crashes.

 

[bcla]

Yes, SouthWest really screwed up, but demanding someone's last name when they are very easily exposed to the public is not right. How does she know he might not stalk her?

California law says that all uniformed peace officers must have their name (first initial plus last name and/or badge number visible). This is required such that they can be identified to lodge a complaint. There was a case around here where one officer claimed he was concerned for his family and covered his name. His lieutenant on the scene told him to remove the tape covering his name, but didn't file a report. In the end the officer was suspended and the lieutenant demoted to sergeant.

I'm not sure if airline employees are subject to the same deal, but in the end it should be possible to identify an employee in order to lodge a complaint.

 

[Hrhpd]

There is no indication that the gate agent was in any danger. It was just a person complaining and a gate agent covering her butt. However, it looks like the problem goes beyond the gate agent. How did she know about the tweet? She must have been notified by whoever monitors twitter for SW that it existed, so someone else at SW was complicit in harassing the customer. I'm sure they have a record of the exact tweet, as they probably have to log them when they come in. Should be easy enough to find in discovery. Probably anybody that follows the flier can vouch for exactly what went out, too. The gate agent obviously went way beyond what was acceptable.

The Gate Agent said she felt threatened by the tweet. Obviously the SW twitter feed monitors also found it unusual enough to alert the gate and the agent.

As an employee, I would also feel threatened if somebody tweeted my name and location to 1.69 million people, badmouthing me. There could be any number of wackos in the area reading those tweets.

Until we see the actual tweet, we won't know how innocent the tweet really was.

But since SW regularly allows disgruntled tweets and responds to them, this one must have been above and beyond threatening to catch the attention of the Twitter monitors and cause them to notify the gate agent.

 

[EMode]

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.

I said I believed some of his story but if you don't think there is more to it then i 'm not going to try to convince you, believe what you want. I most certainly think he'd delete the tweet if it meant he could get back on the plane, being an arrogant jerk doesn't equate to being stupid.

 

[Hrhpd]

See, I don't think he was being that much of a jerk. Alot of airline policies have changed over the years, and they're probably enforced differently. My husband's been a frequent flyer forever. It used to be that when we flew together, we would both be upgraded to first class and could priority board. I could also go through the priority line for bag check and security with him.

It could be that on another leg of their trip the rules were different. That would bug me, too. On the other hand, it wasn't really that big of a deal. He probably just wanted to make sure he sat with his kids. They are only six and nine, and you don't want little girls sitting next to strange men on long flights. You just don't. Plus, maybe they were scared because of the recent plane crashes.

He said he was an A-List preferred customer. That means he would have had to fly 50 one way flights in a calender year.

Somebody who flies that often knows the rules. He knows the rules of how he qualified to get the A-List designation.

This wasn't some innocent passenger that was flying for the second time who didn't quite understand how family boarding went.

Until we see the whole text exactly how it was tweeted, I will refrain from judging which party was wrong. I am guessing it was a combination of both who escalated the problem to an extreme.

But I cannot believe the passenger did not understand that as an A-Lister, which is earned through the number of flights you fly, was ignorant of the way you earn the designation and who is covered by it.

I get enough e-mails from Southwest that explain my lowly Rapids Reward benefits that it is hard to believe that he never received clarification on his A-List benefits.

 

[gwynne]

See, I don't think he was being that much of a jerk. Alot of airline policies have changed over the years, and they're probably enforced differently. My husband's been a frequent flyer forever. It used to be that when we flew together, we would both be upgraded to first class and could priority board. I could also go through the priority line for bag check and security with him.

It could be that on another leg of their trip the rules were different. That would bug me, too. On the other hand, it wasn't really that big of a deal. He probably just wanted to make sure he sat with his kids. They are only six and nine, and you don't want little girls sitting next to strange men on long flights. You just don't. Plus, maybe they were scared because of the recent plane crashes.

BBM-If he was the least bit interested in the kids safety, he would have just boarded with them, at their numbers. Instead he was busy making sure he got his A-lister perks.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

If he had written anything threatening, he wouldn't have gone on GMA.

 

[Jkpark]

I can relate to a lot of this. DH travels SWA for work and always gets A16 or something close. When we fly as a family - we don't. I usually still pay for early bird for me and our 2 kids. But sometimes that has been high A or even low B. We have aged out of family boarding but kids are 6 & 8. We board with highest number as that is the policy we were told. Sometimes DH boards and heads towards back and we all sit together when we get on. Allows us to be sure to get overhead space. We have seen families attempt what this man did. Sometimes the gate agent just let's them on. Sometimes with a conversation. Sometimes they are told no. I have also watched family boarding where they limit family boarding to a # of people. And sometimes when they were lax in the age and people with their 10 year olds used family boarding. Southwest has policies that they don't routinely enforce - which leads to upset people when they are finally told no.

I watched a woman almost get removed as a security threat. We were on the plane. Her and boyfriend were late to board and there were no seats together. She became very upset and was yelling at flight attendant to make someone move. Flight attendant discussed with pilot to determine if she was a security threat - would she get aggressive once up in the air. They went back to ask her to get off but someone had ended up moving seats so they decided no longer a threat and we finally took off.

There is definitely more to this story

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

BBM-If he was the least bit interested in the kids safety, he would have just boarded with them, at their numbers. Instead he was busy making sure he got his A-lister perks.

I don't think SW has seat assignments, so the further back you are in line, the less likely you are to sit together.