Thread: Flight Attendant Quits. I Mean He Really Quits

I wasn't going to post on this subject for a little while to allow more comments, but I feel now is the time. Every person has the capability to snap. It is a known fact that short-term bouts of psychopathology do exist. I myself have worked in the service industry both as a worker and as management. What I have to say in my experience, both working and in my studies of psychology, the service industry is stressful and people will snap. This person should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent to which he is currently, rather he should be made aware to the dangers he caused to the passengers and flight crew also the cost to the company in the fact that they couldn't continue flights on that craft. What has been stated here and is understated in the media is that the passenger was at least partially at fault. What isn't in every form of the story (it doesn't mean it is or isn't true) is that the flight attendant asked for a simple apology before he made his announcement. I believe that the least that could be asked of the passenger at this point is an apology, but he should be treated no different from the flight attendant in the fact that he also broke the law and continued to endanger the passengers and flight crew as well.
Ok I'll step off of the soap box.

Yea he did what he wanted and now he's a real hero but come the next day he's gonna have to go out and find a new job in this economy. Good luck.

I don't understand the charges. The article says "criminal mischief, reckless endangerment and criminal trespass." It sure sounds like mischief to me, but I don't understand what part of that is endangerment (he went out, he didn't push anyone else out) or trespass (wasn't he technically at work at the time? how is that trespassing?).

Naturally, I don't have all the details and I know nothing about the law, but to me, the writeup (not just the charges, the whole thing) makes no sense.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I don't understand the charges. The article says "criminal mischief, reckless endangerment and criminal trespass." It sure sounds like mischief to me, but I don't understand what part of that is endangerment (he went out, he didn't push anyone else out) or trespass (wasn't he technically at work at the time? how is that trespassing?).

Naturally, I don't have all the details and I know nothing about the law, but to me, the writeup (not just the charges, the whole thing) makes no sense.

From what I've read there is a consistency of him popping out the inflatable escape chute which would include endangerment. I don't get the trespassing either.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I don't understand the charges. The article says "criminal mischief, reckless endangerment and criminal trespass." It sure sounds like mischief to me, but I don't understand what part of that is endangerment (he went out, he didn't push anyone else out) or trespass (wasn't he technically at work at the time? how is that trespassing?).

Naturally, I don't have all the details and I know nothing about the law, but to me, the writeup (not just the charges, the whole thing) makes no sense.

He used emergency equipment in a non-emergency and rendered the plane unable to continue in use for that day. This likely caused at least one flight to be delayed until a replacement plane was made available.

I am a pilot. I choose to fly smaller corporate type aircraft. Less stress, less idiots as well. If we are running behind it is more than 99% likely it was their fault we are running behind and they know it, therefore I do not get to have passengers upset at me for running behind. The rules are the rules and the passengers are aware of them as well as probably the owner of the plane so they do not break them as they do get briefed each time they come aboard.

I do see how the guy snapped as I see those folks all the time.

That being said, I have said it before and sure most of you have been exposed to the problem. But if I ever acted like most folks and especially kids do these days my folks would knock my @@@@@@@ head off and solved the problem permanently.

Originally Posted by Utopian

He used emergency equipment in a non-emergency and rendered the plane unable to continue in use for that day. This likely caused at least one flight to be delayed until a replacement plane was made available.

But does that put anyone in danger? I figured that would fall under vandalism or mischief.

What a pity. He had 28 years in the buisness. He may have been just a couple of years from retirement.

Or maybe 7 years in a cell at a minimum security prison with 3 squares was his retirement plan?

Makes you wonder what he has planned for his golden years......

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

But does that put anyone in danger? I figured that would fall under vandalism or mischief.

Yes.
It was his job to look out for the passengers and he left so he abandoned his responsibility. That endangered the passengers.
He exited the plane and ran across the tarmac, where he was not autohorized to go. That also, very loosely, endangered the passengers.

I hope his prosecutor and judge are frequent flyers and that, at worse, he gets a slap on the wrist. That he managed to tolerate the passengers for over two decades clearly indicates that he is not an explosive whacko. He had a moment's indiscretion, that's all.

Originally Posted by deighaingeal

I wasn't going to post on this subject for a little while to allow more comments, but I feel now is the time. Every person has the capability to snap. It is a known fact that short-term bouts of psychopathology do exist. I myself have worked in the service industry both as a worker and as management. What I have to say in my experience, both working and in my studies of psychology, the service industry is stressful and people will snap. This person should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent to which he is currently, rather he should be made aware to the dangers he caused to the passengers and flight crew also the cost to the company in the fact that they couldn't continue flights on that craft. What has been stated here and is understated in the media is that the passenger was at least partially at fault. What isn't in every form of the story (it doesn't mean it is or isn't true) is that the flight attendant asked for a simple apology before he made his announcement. I believe that the least that could be asked of the passenger at this point is an apology, but he should be treated no different from the flight attendant in the fact that he also broke the law and continued to endanger the passengers and flight crew as well.
Ok I'll step off of the soap box.

Please understand - I did not mean that the flight attendant had a problem, I am saying the same thing you are - you get to the point where you snap. I know I have had lousy flight attendants, but I really try and make their job as easy as possible. I cannot imagine what they go through in a day of flying. I'm not sure I agree with what he did - but I sure as heck understand the snap.