
Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures - chmars
http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for-taking-pictures.html
======
pudquick
Yes, it's unfortunate that the flight attendant lied in this situation.

However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if
the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it,
it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used
the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky
terrorist and swap SD cards).

In addition, the author made the statement "I am not a terrorist." There's no
way for flight crew to know this to be true until the plane lands at its
destination and you provably haven't blown it up, killed people on-board, or
hijacked and redirected it to another location. There is absolutely zero value
in making a declaration like that.

... In fact, I'd say there's negative value in making that statement. In a
security conscious environment like an enclosed aircraft, it immediately
escalates a situation from "photo-happy tourist or possible bad guy" to
"higher probability bad guy or maybe making a political statement ... or just
not very smart". It's also a (very small) step in the direction of yelling
"Fire!" in a crowded theater as you've potentially now caused (possibly over-
sensitive) people hearing this statement to begin to have concerns about you
and their flight. You've turned what should have been an uneventful flight
into a situation where tension can only increase before you've even left the
ground.

When you add all of this up, especially when a flight is trying to get out of
the gate on time, the pilot is going to err on the side of caution and kick
you off the plane.

You'll either blow up in a rage of righteous fury (thus proving to all that
you should never have been on that plane) or you'll leave quietly, a one-time
mistake, and board another flight (hopefully with much less bother to the next
crew considering how much time you just wasted).

You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting
odd.

~~~
andrewfelix
Absolutely agree. The guy acted arrogant and entitled and attempted to argue
with the Captain.

There was a very simple solution to this situation; Suck it up, swallow your
pride and apologise, whether you were in the wrong or not.

If he had been humble about it, he very likely would have been able to stay on
the flight.

~~~
icambron
This is a really terrible attitude. Apparently, airplanes are this magical
place where you're not supposed to be treated like a human being. By "acting
entitled", you seem to mean "acting like he's entitled to fly on the plane he
bought a ticket for". And of course he argued with the captain; he was being
kicked off the plane for taking a picture! It's not arrogant to expect to be
treated well.

This thing where everyone shouts down someone who stand up for themselves,
_even when they admit that person is right_ is really awful. It's like people
value obedience of arbitrary impositions of authority as the highest virtue.

Here's where the guy loses me in the article: he blames the FA exclusively, as
if it would be reasonable to kick someone off a plane even if he had continued
to take a picture after she told him not to (why is she running around
demanding that people not take pictures?). In fact, he's crazy to have been
loyal to the airline company in the first place and his surprise at the lack
of reciprocation is baffling.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>"It's like people value obedience of arbitrary impositions of authority as
the highest virtue." //

That is just about the greatest virtue in the context of being in a confined
space with someone in a relatively flimsy metal tube jetting over the ocean
(or wherever). One is already trusting the captain + crew with your life to a
large extent.

>"he blames the FA exclusively, as if it would be reasonable to kick someone
off a plane even if he had continued to take a picture" //

My take is that the FA flagged the subject's behaviour as suspicious [or at
least potentially problematic] and the photography was used as the excuse to
oust the passenger without troubling the rest of the people onboard with
mention of "terrorism" or making potentially slanderous remarks about the
general character of the subject.

~~~
dpcx
Suspicious is one thing. Seemingly terrified by hiding is another.

------
DoubleCluster
Never ever directly accuse someone of lying. Mostly because it's usually a
communication problem where they said it unclear and your heard it wrong. Also
because you should always give someone a way out without losing too much face.

I would have said something like: Sorry if I gave the impression of not
cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more
pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane.

~~~
trustfundbaby
Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did
not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me
if I could stay on the plane

\-----

feels a bit too servile for me, especially if I felt I didn't do anything
wrong in the first place.

~~~
sdoering
Why, if this means, you stay on the plane, you win. But nobody looses his/her
face.

So wining, without anyone losing, what is so wrong?

Everything else (and I sadly, really often react that way) is the little child
in a sand-pit: "But he started it" kind of argument. Not mature, not
civilized, just childish - the way or societies more and more seem to become
imho.

~~~
PavlovsCat
There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took
more pictures" is a lie. There is nothing civilized about abuse of power.
There is nothing civilized in accepting it.

But the real WTF is: how would agreeing to be led off the plane have resulted
in him staying on it? His fate was sealed when he explained his picture to the
FA and she had a 'nam flashback, or _whatever the fuck_ caused this; but what
makes you think crawling on his belly after that would have changed anything?

~~~
chc
> _There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he
> took more pictures" is a lie._

Was it? Or did she misunderstand his need to justify himself as a way of
indicating that he did not intend to stop? You _assume_ she lied -- probably
because that's what you are most comfortable believing -- but it's not
necessarily true. People make false claims all the time that they really,
genuinely believe to be the truth. Based on the scant evidence as we have,
your accusation toward the flight attendant could even be an example of the
same thing she did -- automatically assuming the worst of someone.

~~~
lusr
Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't
know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.

~~~
lutusp
> Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't
> know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.

No, this is not correct. If the speaker doesn't know that a statement is
false, the statement is not a lie. Lying requires _knowledge that the remark
is false and must include an intent to deceive_.

\----------------------------------------

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie>

Quote: "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the
speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally."

<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lie>

Quote: "1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
falsehood.

2\. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

\----------------------------------------

See the role of knowledge and intent?

~~~
jules
While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement
is false. If I say "lutusp killed JFK" then that is a lie, even though I do
not know that it is false. It is a lie exactly because I do not know it to be
true. Something can be a lie if it is true! Suppose the FA said "he took more
pictures" without having seen him taking more pictures, with the intent to
deceive the captain to get this guy off the plane. That is a lie _even if he
did take more pictures_ , because the FA does not know it to be true.

~~~
lutusp
> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the
> statement is false.

Yes, it requires both -- _both_ knowledge that the statement is false, _and_
an intent to deceive.

Source: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie>

Quote: "Lie : noun : 1 : a : an assertion of something known or believed by
the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive"

Source: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/lie[noun]>

Quote: "Lie : noun : a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in
order to deceive <he wanted to deny the accusation, but he couldn't tell a
lie>"

Source: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie>

Quote: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
intentional untruth; a falsehood."

Here's how this works. If you have an idea about how a word is defined that
conflicts with another's claim, before objecting, _look up the word_.

EDIT: also, think for a minute about your claim:

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the
> statement is false.

How can a person be said to have an intent to deceive if he isn't aware that
his remark is false? How does he form an intent to deceive using a statement
he believes to be true?

~~~
jules
Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge,
he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you
didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the
flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even
though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking.

You are also selectively quoting from the dictionaries. E.g. from the merriam-
webster dictionary you only quoted meaning 1 a. The other meanings clearly
contradict what you claim.

1 :

a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue
with intent to deceive

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by
the speaker

2 : something that misleads or deceives

3 : a charge of lying (see 3 lie)

By this definition, selective quoting qualifies as a lie (meaning 2: something
that misleads or deceives). This definition also shows that intent is not even
necessary. As written, something that is both true and thought by the speaker
to be true and said without intent to mislead can still be a lie if it is
misleading the listener. I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but
that's what it says.

~~~
lutusp
Here's what you said:

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the
> statement is false.

Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he
believes is the truth.

Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one
recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but
without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be charged with perjury. So
knowing the most common definition, which is also the legal definition, would
seem to be important.

~~~
jules
> > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the
> statement is false.

> Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he
> believes is the truth.

Read that sentence again. It does not say what you insinuate it says. Not
knowing that a statement is false != knowing that a statement is true.

> Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason

Yea, the reason being that those directly contradict what you said.

It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion...only in
misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote for the sake of
defending a claim you made that is obviously false.

~~~
lutusp
Okay, I will try again. Explain how a person can intend to deceive if he
doesn't know his remarks are false. An "intent to deceive" means the speaker
knows his remarks are _deceitful_ \-- i.e. other than truthful.

The legal definition of lying, and by far the most common one in the everyday
world, is that lying requires an intent to deceive and the utterance of a
knowing falsehood.

> It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion.

What? By defining "lying" as it is defined in the law and in most references?
How so?

> only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote

When I have quoted you, I have done it by cutting and pasting your exact
words, as you typed them, directly from the display. How is that twisting your
words?

> for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.

It is not "obviously false," it is not false at all. Lying is _knowing,
intentional falsehood_. To lie, _one must know that the statement is false_.

Source: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie>

Quote: "1 : a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
intentional untruth; a falsehood."

How is that in any way confusing to you?

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury>

Quote: "Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury
because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest
mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but
mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate,
or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the
truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of
perjury _one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to
have actually committed the act (actus reus)_." [emphasis added]

Source:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html)

Quote: "When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges
against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law
to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.

The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime
to _knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal
jurisdiction_." [emphasis added]

Still confused?

------
ck2
Not that it's an excuse for what they did but why the hell would you suddenly
spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such. Yeah that's
helpful to calming strangers in any situation, just suddenly say that without
any reason.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has
even implied as such._

Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy? And
how is lying, claiming he took more pictures, an appropriate response? How can
you possibly rationalize this to be the fault of the OP? As a comment to that
story points out, that's a big part of how society got to such a low point.

~~~
jemfinch
_Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy?_

Oh please. Imagine you have a guest at your house who asks to use the
bathroom. You reply, "Yes, it's the second door on the left, and I haven't
installed any recording devices in it." Would you seriously be surprised at
your guest's sudden unease while relieving himself?

No one's saying that this is the OP's fault, but telling a flight attendant
"I'm not a terrorist" is like saying, "Use my bathroom, I didn't install any
cameras in it." Proffering information of that kind is just plain suspicious
in itself.

~~~
PavlovsCat
How is that an analogy? Try this one.

There is a guest at my house, and I have a rule that nobody is allowed to take
screwdrivers to the bathroom, because, as all my neighbours know, I am
paranoid about people watching me as I take a crap (even though I have
telescopes on the roof of my house pointing in all directions, and none of
them into the sky; but that's a story for another day). So this guy walks
towards the bathroom, and I see he has a screwdriver in his hand; I stop him,
ask him to leave the screwdriver, which he does.

I make no further attempts to assure him I know he's not going to install a
camera, or to be friendly or a human or something like that; I just bark my
orders and waddle off. So after he finished his business, and because he's
expecting to be over for a few hours and wants to clear the air, he walks up
to me and says "About the screwdriver.. I didn't install a camera or anything,
I just like to play drums on my knees while I poop. But I managed fine without
it, so we're cool, right?"

I smily emptily, say, it's okay, waddle away... and then call the cops. Then I
lie to them and say he took a screwdriver to the bathroom even after asked him
not to, and _onlookers actually turn my guest reacting to my pre-existing
suspicion of them installing a camera in my bathroom into my guest raising
that suspicion in the first place._ The last part just boggles my mind.

------
biot
My take on this:

    
    
      "Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need
       to explain myself."
    

Why? The only appropriate response to being informed that you are not
permitted to take pictures in a non-public space is "I understand" or simply
"Okay". No explanation is necessary as it won't change the rule that the
flight attendant is likely obligated to enforce. However, the author feels
compelled to justify himself rather than just let it be by saying:

    
    
      "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you
       didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card
       [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an
       almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even
       aware of my blog."
    

This is quite ambiguous. The flight attendant is probably thinking "Oh great,
here's some critic who is going to scrutinize and complain about everything I
do and then write about it publicly. If he's so notorious that the guys in
Chicago are aware of him, he must be bad news. Is he telling me this to try
and con me into letting him take more pictures? Some disgruntled self-
important writer is the last thing I need...". Imagine how the response might
have been different had he said:

    
    
      "Sorry about taking that picture. I just want to say that I love
       United and everything you guys do. I'm really excited about being
       in BusinessFirst class on this new aircraft and wanted to capture
       the moment. Thanks for letting me know about the photography
       restriction, though. I respect that and won't take another
       picture."
    

But again, that whole exchange should never have happened. Then later, this
gem of a sentence:

    
    
      "Me: That's a lie, captain."
    

Ouch. Now the only way to get your way is for both the captain and the flight
attendant to lose face and admit that, yes, it was a lie. What was he
expecting? That the captain brings the flight attendant over and asks her "Did
you lie?" where she responds "Yes, Captain, I lied about this passenger taking
additional pictures because I was afraid that he might write about a negative
experience with me." I could go on with how the conversation with the captain
should have gone, using face-saving phrases like "she may have been mistaken"
and such, but at that point the battle was long since lost.

None of this excuses the flight attendant's alleged retaliatory action.
However, having the situation escalate to that point could easily have been
avoided.

~~~
vacri
It's a good lesson for him to learn - when someone is between you and what you
want, it's probably not going to help if you call them a liar.

~~~
PavlovsCat
If someone put themselves between you and something you want via a lie,
calling them out is actually the last option you have. While speaking of
"lesson"... the captain couldn't make eye contact and the FA hid away; let's
hope they learned their lessons; actual ones worth talking about.

~~~
vacri
You can draw attention to the issue without impugning the character of the
person in the way. Even saying "that's not true" is better, since it doesn't
unambiguously assign a negative motive.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Of course it would have been better to say it differently; that doesn't make
what he said instead a justification for what happened, or that it would have
changed anything.

~~~
emn13
Also, by that point his fate had probably been decided, and he might as well
make his point and confront them. Perhaps they'll feel guilty; or perhaps
others present will remember to push back more a little earlier.

------
Terretta
No other comments in this thread make this point, so I'll bring it up. While
the passenger should not have been booted off, he was _absolutely in the
wrong_ but only based on _what he told the crew_.

Here is the photo policy:

<http://cdn-img1.upgrd.com/featured/united-photo-limits.png>

It says photography is strictly prohibited of aircraft equipment, and if not
of aircraft equipment, prohibited unless of "personal events".

His explanation:

"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I
was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about
United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago
are even aware of my blog."

This falls outside of personal use. This is professional use, and therefore
absolutely outside of the personal events category. Taking pictures under his
business card and related to his blog is strictly prohibited, and his arguing
means he was arguing with the rules that were shown to him by the FA before he
began arguing.

Aside from being absolutely in violation of the rules, perhaps this had
nothing to do with "I am not a terrorist"; perhaps the FA and captain were
disinterested in having their entire route evaluated and blogged about.

No idea what United will say in response. And frankly, I am shocked to be
siding with United. But in this case, they handed him a printed rule, and he
chose to explain himself in a way that put him in violation of it, and took
himself out of the regular passenger category.

In their shoes, I'd point out that _by his own explanation_ , he was wilfully
breaking the rules.

~~~
Anechoic
_In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully
breaking the rules._

He took _one_ picture when he was unaware of the rule. Once informed of the
rule, he immediately stopped. How is that "willfuly breaking the rules"?

~~~
DanBC
He didn't say anything to indicate that he would stop taking photos.

He then went on to say that he always took photos on United flights and never
had a problem.

~~~
Anechoic
Again, how is that willfully breaking the rules? Am I will breaking the rules
here becaus I don't explicitly state that I am following HN guidelines in all
my posts?

~~~
Terretta
Because arguing. If, after being shown the rule, he'd STFU, this article
wouldn't be here. He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected,
implying future rule breaking was in store.

There are now (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story) homeland
security guidelines about passengers exhibiting behavior that suggests they
don't or won't accept the flight attendant's authority. Flowcharting those
rules leads to the captain deciding whether he wants the passenger on the
flight. It's clear this guy got himself classified into that flowchart.

~~~
Anechoic
_He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future
rule breaking was in store._

Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the
rule, thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

~~~
Terretta
> _Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the
> rule,_

Not breaking "the" rule, future rule breaking. There's a difference.

According to current flight regulations, arguing about breaking a rule is
cause to suspect other rules may be broken later.

> _thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule?_

Not according to Terretta. According to post 911 flight regulations being
followed by the FA and pilot. These new security regulations say someone who
objects to authority can be denied travel like "pre-crime" suspects on
Minority Report.

> _Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?_

Yes, which is why I wrote, "wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story"
about these regulations.

The situation will remain ridiculous until enough people realize this
ridiculousness is now policy and needs undoing.

------
jemfinch
_Captain: I don't have any, but United will have no trouble finding me. My
name is...[removed]._

Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? The captain made a
wrongheaded decision, and he should at the very least have his name attached
to it.

~~~
lutusp
> Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way?

Legal liability. The author could be sued for defamation of character if any
of the details are wrong, or in the case that a truthful account emphasizes
negatives over positives, something called "false light". Some readers may
find this hard to believe, but it's true:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light>

~~~
huhtenberg
> _Legal liability._

Basic human decency rather.

~~~
lutusp
Well, yes, that's also true -- many people don't want to cause unintended hurt
by way of poorly considered words. But (in the U.S. at least, and certainly
Great Britain) a diplomatic expression that includes an unfair
characterization can result in legal action.

"Bob isn't so bad -- after all, it's said that he's stopped beating his wife."

------
dmak
Flying has become such a hassle these days. I often just keep my mouth shut
when going through security just for the sake of getting through quicker. I
feel like if I asked for a pat down as opposed to just walking through the
body scan, I would position myself into a potentially troublesome situation.
In a way, I do feel like I am being suppressed these days.

------
hermannj314
_Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain
myself. I signaled for her to come back and asked her to hang my coat._

What's with the need to exercise control over another human being like that?
Hang up your own coat. The fact that he feels entitled to such service says
something about him. People that bark orders at flight attendants probably
feel that are part of some untouchable/infallible class of citizen. It makes
me suspect his retelling of the facts has been greatly marred by his feelings
of superiority in the situation.

~~~
cwilson
He was sitting in business class where this type of request is normal. Also,
keeping the aisle clear is a top priority of any flight crew (especially pre-
takeoff), so they actually prefer you ask them to do things like this as they
will be more efficient.

~~~
hermannj314
I guess he would know what's appropriate, so I stand corrected on that point.

I guess I'm just too servile. I would have put my iPhone away and read a book
and never have been kicked off the plane. (And if my coat needed hung, I would
have just sat and been uncomfortabaly warm until I could hang it myself: your
failure to prepare should not become the burden of another human being. )

~~~
nicholassmith
If there's no where to hang it aside from a designated area that as a
passenger you don't have access too, you let the crew member do it and
remember to be polite. Same as in a restaurant, you don't take your own plates
back into the kitchen and clean them off, because the waiting team does that
and probably wouldn't like you muscling in.

------
oellegaard
This is completely unacceptable. You don't take people of a plane for taking
pictures - they are no thread to everyone and certainly paid for their ticket.
I am flying with United Airlines in March, I hope for a better experience -
but after reading this, it might be my last flight with them, ever.

~~~
raverbashing
It used to be land of the free, apparently now it's land of the cowards

------
droithomme
It's a bit disturbing and amazing to see so many people here taking the
airline's side in this.

No wonder things are the way they are - the general public supports it.

~~~
javajosh
Uh, there are like 9 comments right now (12:54am PST) and literally none of
them support the airline. What are you talking about?

~~~
droithomme
All the "Well he shouldn't have used the T word" when he explained that he was
taking the photos as part of his travel review job.

There were no faults in the way he handled it. The airline was completely to
blame, severely inconvenienced him, falsely accused him, and cost him money.
Outrageous behavior against any passenger. That he is a 950,000 mile traveler
on the airline and often writes articles recommending them to others (at a
time when United is well known for being among the worst of the carriers)
makes it completely idiotic from a business standpoint as well.

~~~
jemfinch
No one's taking the airline's side here, but he shouldn't have brought up
terrorism. That was a mistake in judgment on his part, as I explained
elsewhere.

The irony here is that you're demonstrating the same sort of knee-jerk
misinterpretation that arises when people say "terrorism" on an airplane.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
I still don't understand why using the word "terrorist" is a no-no. It is a
word. Context matters. Context in this case would suggest there was nothing to
worry about.

I swear sometimes it is like the whole world is a slightly mentally
handicapped child who, upon hearing a bad word, starts repeating it getting
more and more upset.

I guess being adults and thinking things through is too much to ask from your
average full grown adult?

~~~
jemfinch
It's not the word itself. The word could be "terrorist" or "bomb" or "Muslim"
or anything, really. It's _denying some wrongdoing without having first been
accused of it_. Humans learn very early on to be suspicious of people who
offer denials prior to accusations, and we likewise learn in childhood not to
offer such denials ourselves.

When no one has accused you of stealing a cookie from the cookie jar, saying
out of the blue, "I didn't steal the cookie from the cookie jar" instantly
makes you a suspect. This is Encyclopedia Brown level stuff.

(As an aside, your lack of intuitive understanding of this principle, combined
with your righteous indignation and judgment of the world at large, makes me
feel very much like you describe while writing this reply.)

~~~
intenex
Except it wasn't used in that manner _at all_. As others pointed out, it's a
fricken idiom and automatic response in a photographic context.
<http://goo.gl/CnV1s>

It's the same as if he replied 'okay, don't worry, the photos will be dead and
gone', and the flight attendant misinterprets that to mean he's going to blow
up the plane and kill everyone.

If the story is as he's relayed it, he's absolutely 100% not at fault and the
flight attendant is a total fricken idiot.

~~~
DanBC
> it's a fricken idiom and automatic response in a photographic context.
> <http://goo.gl/CnV1s>

It's _part_ of an idiom, and that'a among a small niche community, mostly in
London.

Even if the guy was aware of the idiom I doubt the staff were too.

------
sdoering
Sorry, what I do not get is, that this person describes something, he claims
clearly troubled him. He was wronged (by his account) by UA. He even had to
buy a new ticket on his own account to have a connection-flight.

So what I do not get is, why is he not holding UA responsible for the lost
money, lost time and his trouble. Is he such a big fanboy, that he does not
want to cost his big love some (by his account) well deserved money?

Or might it just be, that there are some other aspects to his story, not told
in the written blog post? His tone of voice, while talking to the FA? Was he
calm, might he come about as being aggressive? What was his body language?
Might she have felt threatened.

Maybe he is right in his point of view - but maybe - and just maybe, he acted
from a position of blogger-power, taking his blogger-influence for granted and
letting this show.

I know, that this is just me speculating, but I haven't been there and did not
hear anything from the other side of the story. But reading the comments here
and in the blog, UA is guilty until proven innocent, or so it seems.

------
adrianmsmith
Why did they throw him off then put him on another flight? I mean either he
was a danger (= should be thrown off original flight, but should not be
allowed to endanger other flights either), or he wasn't a danger (= could fly
on the original flight).

~~~
neurotech1
Possibly, the original Flight Attendant said something to the Captain. Pretty
much everything that happens on or around an airliner is at the Captains
discretion. The decisions can be questioned and challenged by the airline
supervisors, the FAA etc. and the Captain can be relieved of duty by the
airline, but its Captains prerogative to remove someone off their aircraft.

The other factor involved is CRM, Crew Resource Management. The days were the
crew passively follow the Captains decisions are over, and for good reason.
Captains are trained to listen to their First Officer and FA, and actively
respond to questions.

This means its quite possible that the Captain didn't want his flight delayed,
or cause unnecessarily tension on the flight with his FA, and so took the easy
(but highly questionable) option to simply remove him from the flight.

Note: This should not be interpreted as taking the airlines side, just
explaining my thoughts on the factors involved.

------
10dpd
Two issues: 1\. 'Terrorist' seems to be a keyword that will get you into a lot
of trouble if uttered in the vicinity of an airport. 2\. Why not provide
evidence of the truth there and then? Show your camera photo roll containing
the one photo, and then you have a solid case. Otherwise, we have to consider
that perhaps more than one photo was taken, it is a "your word" against "their
word" scenario.

~~~
valdiorn
Would a terrorist really use the word terrorist?

This society is way too fucking paranoid.

------
PavlovsCat
The weaker people in positions of authority are, the less you're allowed to
laugh in their faces, and the more you should.

~~~
taligent
This sort of attitude is childish and pathetic.

And it will get you absolutely nowhere in life. Nowhere.

~~~
alan_cx
Slightly tongue in cheek:

You know that crappy little country, just off the north coast of mainland
Europe, its where I live, its called the UK? Well, that's why we have far too
much influence for our size.

We rip on our powerful people something rotten. It helps to keep the powerful
on their toes and makes the rest of us feel a little bit better. Its a British
tradition. And for us, it works quite well.

------
Mithrandir
Something similar happened a couple years ago involving photos being taken of
employees.[1][2] What struck me as different this time was that neither the FA
nor the GS Rep attempted to take the camera away or have the pictures deleted.
If this was a security issue, it makes sense that they wouldn't just let him
walk off the plane with the photo(s).

It's possible that his saying "terrorist" was part of it, or maybe UA has a
very strict no-photos policy, or maybe there's something else we don't know
(and I think this is probably the case,) but this still seems pretty absurd.

1: [http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says-
photographing-...](http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says-
photographing-staff-could-get-you-on-no-fly-list-continental-says-you-deserve-
an-apology/)

2: [http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of-
photography...](http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of-photography-
cause-plane-evacuation-25-hour-delay-on-united-flight/)

~~~
jemfinch
Even police officers have no right to confiscate equipment or delete
pictures[0], and you're proposing that private parties attempt it? Please, be
more aware of your civil rights.

[0]
[http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosa...](http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosandmaki.htm)

~~~
Mithrandir
No, I'm just saying United has done that before, so it seems odd that it
didn't happen this time as well. I certainly don't think that it's right.

------
jfoster
Tips for air travel: 1\. Don't bring up terrorism or bombs. 2\. If a
disagreement with anyone arises and is settled, don't bring it up again. 3\.
Be polite and humble, particularly whilst on the actual plane. 4\. Do not
accuse anyone of lying. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead
assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify. 5\. Don't accuse anyone of
threatening you. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume
miscommunication, apologize & clarify.

~~~
sokoloff
Surprised so few people are keying in on point #2. That to me is the key point
where the blogger went awry, was entirely within his own control to avoid and
if he'd done so, no one gets kicked off the flight.

I understand the "well, it wasn't settled ACCORDING TO ME, so I want to
clarify" mentality, but if you can't control that urge, don't be surprised to
find that you escalate your way into situations like this.

------
mcargian
Hi, upgrd.com is my site. I always wondered what would happen if a story was
picked up on HN. Now I know! There's some interesting comments from other
passengers, on the same flight, about the behavior of the flight attendant.

Regardless of your view on Matthew's story - has the site been working well
for everyone? Is my little FreeBSD VPS (with photos on cloudfront) setup
performing well? I can see the stats from my side, just wondering how it
loaded for you. Thanks!

------
lkrubner
Why didn't he simply show the captain the photos that were on his iPhone? That
would have verified that he only took one photo, and it violated no one's
privacy.

Actually showing the photos would have been a stronger argument than saying
"That is a lie." Also, he could have volunteered to delete the one photo that
he took.

Someone in the comments suggested that this is a "he said, she said"
situation. Not really, because there was a camera involved. The camera is the
authority on the subject of whether he took photos that he should not have
taken.

I recently was at the Port Authority, in New York City. I was amazed at how
busy it was at rush hour, so I pulled out my iPhone and took some pictures. I
did not realize this was forbidden. A policeman approached me immediately and
asked me what I was doing. I showed him the photos I had just taken and I
explained I wanted to send them to some friends who had never visited New
York. He suggested that I delete the photos but he walked away without making
me do anything, so I was able to keep the photos.

------
nwh
Not in the same league, but I've been escorted out of a train station of
taking a photo of a piece of signage too. The electronic sign in question had
condensed a station name to something mildly profane, which I considered
amusing enough to take a photo of.

The justification given that I could have been planning a terrorist attack, so
it was regarded as suspicious behaviour.

~~~
acro
Isn't taking photos in public place like a train station completely legal?

~~~
nwh
I've no idea. This was in Australia, but I don't think we have any specific
laws against it either.

------
znowi
Well, as I see it, the guy wanted to wave the fact that he is a "semi-famous
writer on the subject of air travel" for whatever reason. Apparently, the
captain didn't like this attitude, which does not excuse him for kicking the
guy out, but I can see why he might have done it.

------
digitalengineer
Sounds like he stepped in to a plane in Little Britain's 'Come fly with Me'
and met 'Penny' the steward: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlDUTpCIOE>

------
davewasthere
I wish the flight attendants had of asked the guys next to me in Business to
stop taking photos. A few of us had been upgraded and these guys next to me
were so excited they took about 80 or so photos. Every. Single. One. With.
The. Fucking. Flash.

Okay, I was a little annoyed. But the attendants weren't bothered... and the
guys did settle after a while.

It wasn't anything to do with photo taking. You _don't_ say on a plane, "I'm
not a terrorist". That's kind of dumb.

That said, he was perfectly entitled to take photos for personal use. So the
photo taking wasn't really an issue.

There's more to this than the OPs mentioning perhaps.

------
javajosh
It seems likely that, in the not-too-distant future, we will all be eagerly
recording everything around us to prevent these kinds of injustices from
happening. Imagine if you'd had a mic running, then played it back to the
captain. Problem solved - and the FA would have gotten into trouble for
creating a liability risk for the airline.

~~~
lucian1900
It's more likely that you would not be allowed on the plane with anything that
appears to be recording.

~~~
vidarh
Good luck to them with that. The only people it stops even today are people
who don't _mind_ being observed taking pictures. There are plenty of cameras
that are easy to hide for anyone who cares to.

I can buy simple digital video recorders embedded in pens, watches, bluetooth
earphones, baseball caps, ties, crucifixes and more from just a casual search
of Amazon, for example, and that's hardly the state of the art in covert
recording.

The more obnoxious anti-photographing policies people experience, the more
attractive it will be to make recording devices less obtrusive.

------
binxbolling
Forget this story: I was more bothered by the blog post on this site that
unapologetically mocks people with service dogs.

[http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my-
emotional-s...](http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my-emotional-
support-dog.html)

~~~
jrockway
Yes, that does sound pretty ignorant:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal>

------
shocks
You can't take pictures on an aeroplane?

The terrorists have won.

------
headShrinker
I take pictures all the time. While the Flight attendant in this situation
seemed a little over zealous, it is not a huge deal and it's not why you got
thrown off.

There are a few words you can not say on a plane. Never say "bomb", and NEVER
say "terrorist" in any context. When you said, "I'm not a terrorist", you were
doomed. Sorry. It had nothing to do with you taking pictures, just your
naivety about language, perceived threats, and the illusion of security.

Also don't mess with business class. That is their cash crop.

------
bambax
> _maybe I should never used the word terrorist in my explanation_

That's obviously the problem. When I read he said he wasn't a terrorist I
thought "uh-oh, this isn't going to end well".

The US have this very strange custom of having "forbidden words" -- words that
can't be said on TV and/or words that can't be said in an ordinary
conversation. Those words are alluded-to with their initial: F-word, S-word,
N-word, etc.

The T-word needs to be added to that list.

~~~
Zealot
Pretty soon we will be able to make a song out of that list.

Now I know my ABCs,

Next time won't you sing with me.

------
evan_
Shouldn't have used the T-word.

~~~
guruz
Or live in Paranoidistan, aka USA.

~~~
jrockway
There are 30,000 flights a day in the US with an average of 100 passengers
each. This happening to one blogger is not exactly a pattern of paranoia. It
was simply two people making a bad customer service decision.

~~~
guruz
I would agree with you, it could have been that.

It's just that for me as an European seemingly all crazy stories like "X tazed
by cop for doing nothing at all" or "Y put into jail for having her small
children play naked in the garden" come from the US.

~~~
jrockway
According to [1], there are 500,000,000 English speakers on the Internet.
There are 300,000,000 English speakers in the US. It stands to reason that
most everything you read about in English on the Internet took place in the
US. It's just a really really big country.

[1] <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm>

~~~
guruz
I also get my information in German from an Offline newspaper or the German
websites.

Or to back my claims up, let's take some per-capita numbers:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldw...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif)

Sorry if this comes across as arrogant.

------
69_years_and
Jezz - Google Glass is going to open a can of worms.

------
mmaldacker
This guy feels so entitled. The airline has clearly a very strict no
photography policy and after being told not to take pictures, he then
arrogantly explains that because he's a journalist he allows himself to do
whatever he wants (take photographs on an airplane). My bet is the FA got
pissed off at him and threw him out of the plane to teach him a lesson.

~~~
TheShihan
Have you even read the blog post? He took one picture and stopped after the FA
complained. And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations.

~~~
scotty79
> And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations.

How so? It's explicitly said that you cannot photograph aircraft equipment.

------
redmondbarry
Meh. Passenger demonstrates willingness to a) revisit the incident later and
b) use the word 'terrorist' on the plane.

They don't have to actually think he'll blow up the plane; it only takes one
closet nut case to overhear this and cause a ruckus mid flight. In a small
confined space at 30k feet that's a very real safety issue. Consider that an
irrational fear of flying isn't that uncommon, and this is a route where there
isn't much of an alternative.

Finally, they're under no obligation to tell a passenger the real reason for
booting him off the plane; if it was the above, doing so could only make it
worse for themselves.

~~~
l33tbro
Still unacceptable on behalf of United. Using the word "terrorist" was
unnecessary and downright unwise, but the fact remains that, regardless of
post 9/11 context, it's just a damn word. May it heighten the senses of a
potential fear-of-flying person? Perhaps. But by that logic, you would also
say that anybody wearing a turban would have to remove it, for fear of
triggering one of these people.

And, yes, United are under obligation to tell this passenger the real reason
for booting them off. They are a business. He is their a loyal customer with
almost 1,000,000 ffms. He conducted himself, according to his entry, calmly
and in a very transparent manner. The behavior of the stuff was disgusting,
humiliating and unprofessional.

If this seems okay to you; fine. But this is not the world I want to live in.

------
lignuist
It's interesting to see, what impact Google Glass and others will have on the
practice of such no-photo-policies.

