Southwest monitors your tweets!

[cronos]

My perceptionis that the bully didn't have to delete his tweet. My perception is that the bully didn't have the integrity to stand up to the gate agent when she called him on his bullying.

He could have forced the issue. But he backed down.

So you'd rather he made a scene and *completely* ruin his family's travel plan? That makes no sense.

Did the gate agent act inappropriately? Absolutely.

So what.

Well sure, it's inappropriate, and the tweet was the direct consequence of that. Then what did she do? She pulled some string to bully back the original bully, forced him to leave the plane, and had him delete the tweet if he wanted to travel.

No one has a constitutional right to bully someone such as a gate agent.

People are human. People have flaws. He pushed gate agent past her limit.

That was his choice.

He told her he was going to continue to bully her on twitter.

She called him on it.

I'm okay with that.

I'm okay with that too. And I'm also okay with him announcing the whole fiasco to the world afterwards. That is the consequence of her deciding to call him out.

If he wants to go to court to defend his constitutional right to bully 'little people', like the gate agent with impunity, I'm okay with that as well.

Uno

I'm actually not okay with that. I think suing because of this is way overkill. But making the issue viral and make sure the world knows about it. Heck yes.

Now I'm not sure which sides we're arguing for as you ended up being okay with him suing, while I'm not ^_^

 

[Exterous]

to top it of the SW worker should be fired for her conduct.

Yes - guilty until proven innocent. Who needs verified facts anyway? Its the new American way...

 

[shortylickens]

I think if you dodge jury duty you should lose your right to vote and purchase guns until you go and do it.

 

[unokitty]

I don't think he was a bully and i agree with him in allowing the kids to board with him. he asked if it was a new rule because he has done it before. it was a idiotic move on her part...

I understand that you opinion is different than mine. That's okay. Our experiences are different.

My opinion was shaped by watching lots and lots of people bully gate agents at O'Hare. A sense of entitlement that "the rules don't apply to me and if you attempt to make me obey the same rules as everyone else, I'm going on the Internet and tell everyone!" seems not only narcissistic but dated to me...

The fact that there is only one side of this story out and that neither the gate agent nor the airline have addressed the issue is also significant.

I'm just tired of people that think that they are special snowflakes and are entitled to board in front of ordinary people that obey the rules.

And if they don't get their way, these special snowflakes will go on the Internet and tell everyone how mean the world has been to them!

Uno

 

[McLovin]

It is a free speech issue. Southwest is denying a service based on the text a patron put on the Internet. Since a person got a record 23.6 BILLION from a frivolous law suit involving RJ Reynolds I think I would sue SW for violating my free speech rights.

:facepalm:

First off, based on what I read from the article the only reason the GA mentioned the tweet was because the guy said he would do it. I SERIOUSLY doubt someone, somewhere was sitting there just waiting for this tweet to come in so they could immediately jerk this guy and his kids from the plane.

Secondly, SWA, and all other airlines for that matter, give you a chance to Pre-board to assist in getting your kids on the aircraft if you need it. However, it seems he chose not to take advantage of this and waited for the normal boarding process. Being a former GA myself, do I feel like the GA could have just let the guy on anyway? Yes of course. But since I wasn't there and we are only getting one side of the story here from a pissed off passenger, I doubt we are getting 100% accurate info, thus being an armchair quarterback serves no purpose as you don't know what the thought process of the GA was at that given point.

Thirdly, to say this is a free speech issue fucking stupid.

 

[McLovin]

So you'd rather he made a scene and *completely* ruin his family's travel plan? That makes no sense.



Well sure, it's inappropriate, and the tweet was the direct consequence of that. Then what did she do? She pulled some string to bully back the original bully, forced him to leave the plane, and had him delete the tweet if he wanted to travel.



I'm okay with that too. And I'm also okay with him announcing the whole fiasco to the world afterwards. That is the consequence of her deciding to call him out.



I'm actually not okay with that. I think suing because of this is way overkill. But making the issue viral and make sure the world knows about it. Heck yes.

Now I'm not sure which sides we're arguing for as you ended up being okay with him suing, while I'm not ^_^

Honestly, if it was that big of a deal, yes he should have stood his ground. If what he was saying was 100% accurate and could prove that the GA was totally out of line, being that it is SWA, I have the full belief SWA would have more than compensated him for his time than just $50 vouchers.

I'd say this is similar to being arrested. If you are being handcuffed by a police office for something either that you didn't do or the cop is being a complete dick, you do as your told and fight it later (via complaint to the PD or in court if it is serious enough). Arguing and making a huge scene will only lead to an uncomfortable experience.

 

[Phoenix86]

I know what we have to work on but we have no proof that is what was actually said and we all know that no one ever lies or misleads esp when it can get them attention\money.

Completely fair to question the validity of the statement. So why are you buying SW's statement? 'Cause no company ever lied to prevent liability, ever.

This goes both ways, best we can do is wait for more info or go on what we have so far.

Again - all we have word on is his claim that the Southwest employee said he threatened her. Southwest has released a statement that he was removed for more than just the tweet alone:
The Customer was briefly removed from flight #2347 from Denver to Minneapolis/St. Paul to resolve the conversation outside of the aircraft and away from the other Passengers. Our decision was not based solely on a Customer's tweet.

Yet they don't tell us what their decision was based on. Nor do they say why he was allowed back on. The guy says why, and it jives with his story. She was upset about the tweet, taken off plane. Deletes tweet, allowed back on. If SW wants to put their story out there, they can. They chose to hide behind a PR/lawyer laden comment. If they had valid reasons to remove him, I expect we would have heard about it by now.

From the TSA.

But they didn't escalate it to them, probably because at some point someone at SW said this is incredibly stupid, board him and fly the fucking plane.

Until then I view a one sided story with a heavy dose of skepticism.

View both sides with skepticism.

 

[NoTine42]

how does coke violate your right to bear arms?

If you put your gun in the Coke, then the Coke will dissolve the gun. :whiste:

 

[cronos]

Honestly, if it was that big of a deal, yes he should have stood his ground. If what he was saying was 100% accurate and could prove that the GA was totally out of line, being that it is SWA, I have the full belief SWA would have more than compensated him for his time than just $50 vouchers.

I'd say this is similar to being arrested. If you are being handcuffed by a police office for something either that you didn't do or the cop is being a complete dick, you do as your told and fight it later (via complaint to the PD or in court if it is serious enough). Arguing and making a huge scene will only lead to an uncomfortable experience.

So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Your first paragraph seems to mean that you think he should not delete the tweet and stood his ground (and ruin his family travel plan completely, something that for me personally, I would never do unless absolutely necessary). In your second paragraph, your example was to 'do as you told and fight it later'.

So which one is it? I completely agree with your second paragraph, btw. Which is exactly what this guy did. He deleted the tweet when pushed to, he was allowed to go back on the plane and travel, and only after his travel was completed then he started to raise the issue.

Edit: I guess I missed the part when you said 'if it was that big of a deal', which you didn't think this is. So I guess you were agreeing with me

 

[cubby1223]

My opinion was shaped by watching lots and lots of people bully gate agents at O'Hare. A sense of entitlement that "the rules don't apply to me and if you attempt to make me obey the same rules as everyone else, I'm going on the Internet and tell everyone!" seems not only narcissistic but dated to me...

The fact that there is only one side of this story out and that neither the gate agent nor the airline have addressed the issue is also significant.

I'm just tired of people that think that they are special snowflakes and are entitled to board in front of ordinary people that obey the rules.

And if they don't get their way, these special snowflakes will go on the Internet and tell everyone how mean the world has been to them!

Uno

Pretty much my thoughts.

I would say, if a passenger has right to tweet shit about employees (with names involved) and it cannot affect the person's interaction with the business, then employees should be able to tweet shit about passengers without it affecting the employee's job position.

But we all know it doesn't work both ways. Moral of the story is, don't be an entitled ass. Employees are people just like you.

 

[Rakehellion]

Honestly, if it was that big of a deal, yes he should have stood his ground. If what he was saying was 100% accurate and could prove that the GA was totally out of line, being that it is SWA, I have the full belief SWA would have more than compensated him for his time than just $50 vouchers.

I'd say this is similar to being arrested. If you are being handcuffed by a police office for something either that you didn't do or the cop is being a complete dick, you do as your told and fight it later (via complaint to the PD or in court if it is serious enough). Arguing and making a huge scene will only lead to an uncomfortable experience.

Okay, he gave the employee's name and location. In Litigation Land, we have fancy things like "plausible deniability" but on the street that's an obvious threat. Maybe not a death threat, but he wanted her to get fired, receive nasty emails, or just plain get the cold shoulder.

If he wanted to do the right thing, he'd have reported to her manager. It was obvious he wanted some kind of street justice.

 

[Exterous]

Completely fair to question the validity of the statement. So why are you buying SW's statement? 'Cause no company ever lied to prevent liability, ever.

Please point to where I said I am buying Southwest's statement. I'll wait...

If they had valid reasons to remove him, I expect we would have heard about it by now.

From the TSA.

Why the TSA? They are not involved in every passenger removal from a plane. Not even close

View both sides with skepticism.

All I did was point out that Southwest's story contradicts his. That hardly means I am not skeptical of their story

 

[McLovin]

So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Your first paragraph seems to mean that you think he should not delete the tweet and stood his ground (and ruin his family travel plan completely, something that for me personally, I would never do unless absolutely necessary). In your second paragraph, your example was to 'do as you told and fight it later'.

So which one is it? I completely agree with your second paragraph, btw. Which is exactly what this guy did. He deleted the tweet when pushed to, he was allowed to go back on the plane and travel, and only after his travel was completed then he started to raise the issue.

Edit: I guess I missed the part when you said 'if it was that big of a deal', which you didn't think this is. So I guess you were agreeing with me

It made sense in my head and I figured it wouldn't come across right.

I will say that what I feel most likely happened is that the pre-board process ended and the guy wasn't around to take advantage of it and tried to ask the GA to let him on anyway, she said no (whether or not this was the right action to take is debatable however), and he took it personally which is what offended him. Realize you are trying to squeeze hundreds of people into a small metal tube in less than 45 minutes and they try to be as courteous and helpful as possible but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. I can't blame the GA for saying now, you need to wait now.

I agree with you in respect to not having to ruin your families travel plans for this, but if he felt so strongly about the way she acted, then yes he should have stayed and argued with a manager about it. But he chose to be all passive aggressive about it and post it on twitter instead.

I doubt very seriously someone at SWA corporate had someone monitoring that feed every second and they had enough time during the boarding process to call the SWA station at that airport, report it to a manager, who then it turn either went to or called the gate and told the GA "hey that guy you pissed off said something about you on twitter". I bet she took his "threat" about posting the situation seriously and that's why she guessed correctly that he did in fact make the post.

In essence, unless SWA decides to post more detailed info about the situation, I call bullshit on the guy's story and think he's looking for his 15 minutes of fame. I think if the GA handled the situation in the manner that I think she handled it, I would say she needed to not worry about the tweet so much and just inform a manager of whats going on so they can handle it.
Unless she in turn was being straight up nasty with the guy, there was no reason to even make this an issue.

He did what he should of done and just moved on, but he is choosing to make this a bigger deal than it truly needs to be. This does NOT need to be a news story whatsoever.

In my experience, I disagreed with passengers that I felt were wrong and maybe even out of line, but unless they started making a huge spectacle of it and cursed at me, I would be as accommodating as I could and got them on the flight.

 

[Babbles]

I think the guy comes off as a jerk and being that Southwest hasn't really released a statement, the entire situation is completely one-sided. And, of course, he is going to make himself look like the victim. The fact that Southwest gave him a nominal, if not nearly insulting, $50 vouchers seems to imply that Southwest's PR group found more to the story than what the guy is letting on. One would think if Southwest truly believed they were in the wrong via the gate attendant, then at a minimum they would provide compensation so as to cover him and his kids for future flights.

I have to believe that there was something else going on and that the flight crew would not have removed the guy just for a tweet. There had to be other unruly or belligerent actions going on that would have justified his removal.

I fly Southwest when I can (out of LAX) and I've seen a few people here and there try to pull some crap with the gate attendants and in my experience Southwest gate attendants have been stern, but polite.


Finally, for everybody that calls out "Free Speech" stuff here, I interpret that as you saying, "I don't know what I'm talking about."

EDIT: This article mentions that he recalls putting "@SWA" into the tweet, as such it would not be surprising if somebody at Southwest would monitor tweets directed to them.

 

[Phoenix86]

Please point to where I said I am buying Southwest's statement. I'll wait...

You cast doubt on his story, but neglect to cast doubt on SW's story. If you want to throw out that someone could be lying, why not say everyone could be lying? Excluding one, including the other implies you accept it.

I probably shouldn't have said "buy into", but rather include SW in the statement.

Why the TSA? They are not involved in every passenger removal from a plane. Not even close

Maybe not the TSA, but I assume they would have jurisdiction over a threat against an airline employee at an airport.

OK, if this was a credible threat what official agency was involved? SW would not expose themselves to liability by not reporting this to the police/TSA/whoever.

They didn't report it, because it wasn't a credible threat against her. This jives with the statement the guy made about the tweet. It wasn't a threat.

If it was a threat, why was he allowed back on?

Why was he allowed on after deleting the tweet?

Yes, I'm taking things at face value, until there's a reason to believe otherwise.

All I did was point out that Southwest's story contradicts his. That hardly means I am not skeptical of their story

How you pull anything out of that statement is beyond me. It's extremely vague, at every level. The best thing you can pull out of it is "there was more than the tweet". OK, what more?

I have flown quite a bit and run into plenty of gate agents who are dicks, as well as travelers. I suspect both weren't acting very well but it sounds like she went overboard with the "I felt threatened" part.

That's my only issue. If she was really threatened the guy shouldn't have been allowed back on board. If she wasn't, she's blowing this up for no reason.

 

[cheezy321]

Witch hunts happen every single day on the internet. He dun goofed by adding her name into the tweet. It can absolutely be interpreted as threatening. I bet the response would have been incredibly different if he didn't give out personal details and exact location.

The guy is a douche, plain and simple. He wanted something for free (his kids boarding with the A-list) and he tried to throw a tantrum to get it. Parents with children already get special treatment with every single airline. Yet he thinks he should receive even better treatment all while not paying for it.

I think the issue here was his tweet included personal details. I doubt there would be the same response if he just tweeted a more generic complaint towards the SWA twitter account.

 

[Newbian]

I disagree with lots of people that are not morons and don't call them morons - but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

<--- Is a club.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I find it hard to believe anything I read on a website owned and controlled by a moron like Glenn Beck.

You guys are a bunch of suckers.

 

[McLovin]

I find it hard to believe anything I read on a website owned and controlled by a moron like Glenn Beck.

You guys are a bunch of suckers.

Holy christ you should see the post on Facebook from the Tom Leykis show.

The ignorance is strong with those people.

Title of the post is "FUCK YOU SOUTHWEST! NOW YOU ARE GONNA PAY!"

 

[MetalMat]

Witch hunts happen every single day on the internet. He dun goofed by adding her name into the tweet. It can absolutely be interpreted as threatening. I bet the response would have been incredibly different if he didn't give out personal details and exact location.

The guy is a douche, plain and simple. He wanted something for free (his kids boarding with the A-list) and he tried to throw a tantrum to get it. Parents with children already get special treatment with every single airline. Yet he thinks he should receive even better treatment all while not paying for it.

I think the issue here was his tweet included personal details. I doubt there would be the same response if he just tweeted a more generic complaint towards the SWA twitter account.

Exactly, it's not like this guy was new to Southwest airlines. He knew that he would get in the plane right after the A list and in my experience is almost 100% guaranteed to get an empty row.