![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
go grandma go!
I'm fed up with the whole airline world behaving like a bunch of bullies... from security all the way to the attendants. ridiculous.
go grandma go!
I'm fed up with the whole airline world behaving like a bunch of bullies... from security all the way to the attendants. ridiculous.
Well, this story being in the media is certainly more unflattering than whatever was recorded on that video.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116400-100x100.png\")
What's up with big business bullying grandmothers today? First Target, now Jet Blue...
Awesome. Seriously, you can't use terrorism or whatever crap you want to justify your gestapo tactics against innocent people. I hope they get sued.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-465667-100x100.png\")
Wonder what she used to make the video with, I would think if a Gma can make a recording she probably knows how to put it on YouTube.
Should have sent the message to \"tips@consumerist.com\" or your e-mail. Then you could have deleted it w/ease.
Jet Blue used to have a good reputation. So sad they have fallen off so much.
I'm guessing something on the video didn't jive w/the stories the crew told or had recorded already. It's easier to modify someones testimony by asking the correct questions than to have the un-impeachable video.
The pilot should have just ordered her out the emergency door, right there in mid-air. He's allowed to summarily execute anyone he chooses, right? HE'S THE CAPTAIN DO NOT INTERFERE WITH HIS JUSTICE!
What a bunch of dimwit jerks. I imagine they were trying to save face, and recording that is a dick thing to do, but shocking abuse of authority
you can delete it then retrive it right back w/ software downloaded free from the internet. No big deal as long as you have the memory card.
I guess \"jetting\" involves persecuting grandmothers for petty rule violations.
The real irony here is that she offered that recording to the crew to help them resolve the dispute.
\"After viewing the video, they demanded that I delete it,\" Parver said. \"I asked, 'Why?' The head-stewardess went as far as to tell me that I had broken a law by using an electronic item during the flight.\"
Uhhh, hello flight attendant, maybe you need to go back to flight attendant classes. Cameras are approved electronic devices allowed to be used during a flight the last time I checked, along with portable DVD players, certain game systems, CD and MP3 players and laptops. You just can't use cell phones or have anything with wifi enabled, I think.
It would be one thing if she was standing in the aisle with it on a tripod or something, but just sitting in her seat filming should be fine. I know the pre flight blahdy blah says you must obey all crew instructions by federal law, but that is just absurd, and i wouldn't obey absurd instructions like that either.
Jetblue is my favorite carrier, but this is just appalling. I could understand them not wanting the video out and about it maybe, it showed a flight attendant doing something highly inappropriate, but they have no right to demand you not film passengers as far as I know. I myself and my boyfriend have used cameras before on flights to take photos out of the plane windows and whatnot.
Still, I think we need a little more info from both sides to make a clear judgment.
@Git Em SteveDave displays attention-grabbing vanity:
They probably were not worried about a court case and more worried about the video being on youtube. Either way this looks really bad for Jet Blue.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-5372-100x100.png\")
Kudos to Ms. Parver for not taking any crap from \"authority\" (yes, those are ironic quotes). I wish more people took a stand on such matters. And shame on JetBlue for running a typical corporate culture of hostility against its customers.
Since that night, Parver has written formal complaints to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Aviation Consumer Protection Agency, the TSA and JetBlue. Parver said FedEx has confirmed delivering her complaints to the Aviation Consumer Protection Agency and so on. Parver has left a complaint with TSA on their Web site, which they keep sending back to her telling her to contact other agencies. \"They weren't doing anything on it but passing the buck to other people,\" Parver said.
And this pisses me off royally -- it's the same exact experience I've ever had contacting government consumer protection agencies. They're all scumbags. Time to not only get rid of incumbents in Congress but to fire all the consumer protection heads and clean house.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-298209-100x100.png\")
Hmm...and why exactly did the Las Vegas Metro Police decide to incarcerate her without an arrest citation or any other documentation? Sounds like the Gulag, where you go in and no one knows what happened to you...
Yes, here it is on their website:
Electronic Devices Permitted in Carryon Bags
Camcorders
Cameras and Camera Equipment: the checked baggage screening equipment will
damage undeveloped film. We recommend that you put undeveloped film and
cameras containing undeveloped film in your carryon baggage, or take your
checked baggage containing the undeveloped film to the checkpoint and ask the
screener to conduct a hand inspection.
Laptop Computers
Mobile Phones
Pagers
Personal Data Assistants (PDAs)
and if they allow you to carry it on with you, then logically a reasonable person would expect to be able to use it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-113401-100x100.png\")
The golden rule is don't fuck with a Grandma.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-443783-100x100.png\")
I know this isn't going to be popular, but I think I would have just deleted the video. Why was she video taping 2 passengers arguing over a child? Are the people she was taping mad? I would be. Is this all worth the bruhaha?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-425602-100x100.png\")
Oh airlines, when will you learn? Harassing a passenger who's already upset because of your own stupidity just makes them more determined to destroy you.
I wonder if this would still go in if airlines couldn't count on federal bail-outs regardless of how or why they've stopped being profitable.
all this coverage everywhere and not a single posting of the video? if this happened to me, i'd post it everywhere. I would have had no intention to post it but after they treated her like that, it should be on digg, youtube, consumerist, abc, etc etc etc.
This is getting really out of hand. Flight attendants should not have the power to do this type of a thing.
Remember the good ol' days when stewardesses were hot and no self respecting man would be a steward? More people need to remind them they are nothing more than flying waitresses, so drop the attitude.
Do the stewardesses not go through some sort of training like \"this is the stuff you can legally tell a customer to and they have to comply with, and this other stuff you can't tell them to do because they can thumb their noses at you and post it on Consumerist?\"
Because frankly, this seems like a case of the latter. These people were stupid enough to think they could get away with ordering a passenger to delete a video for no legitimate reason. Should we really put them in charge of the safety of hundreds of people in an emergency?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-285261-100x100.png\")
Ah Jet Blue. I remember a long time ago I was flying with them as an unaccompanied minor (16) and I fell asleep on the plane. A stewardess apparently thought I was dead or something and started freaking out about a medical emergency until some body poked me and woke me up. I thought it was hilarious.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@: What you're not supposed to check is very different from what you're allowed to use in-flight--you certainly can't use a mobile phone aloft, for instance.
I do think that taking pictures of other people on the flight without their permission might be considered disruptive, but it doesn't sound like that's what JetBlue was claiming. Instead, it sounds like the classic \"We really don't want you to do this, and we'll throw whatever prohibitions we've got at you whether they apply or not.\"
It amazes me that some people can accept the actions of \"Authority\" without complaint. The state of individual rights is constantly eroded by those that want to take the easy way out.
\"Delete the video\" why, they have no right to ask.
\"Can I see your receipt\", ditto.
People are much like sheep, just follow blindly. Good way to get to a police state!
@: Ummm yeah... love the attitude there. But I will remind you that flight attendees are trained for emergency situations including how to calm or restrain passengers and facilitating a speedy evacuation. If you think that they are merely trained to get you your Jack and coke, then you clearly have no idea what modern aviation training is like.
Their behavior here in unacceptable, but their lack of hotness has nothing to do with it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
Surely you don't have to do ANYTHING a flight crew tells you to do. I mean, I assume they can only order you to do something that is necessary for the safety of the aircraft and legal.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158781-100x100.png\")
@bravo369: Seriously, where is this video? That's what's going to get JetBlue talking.
Someone get granny on the horn and teach her how to use YouTube to administer justice.
Additionally, is it really illegal to run the camera inside the plane? I mean, we've got fricken laptops with WiFi flying around. Why not a video camera?
I don't buy it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-126486-100x100.png\")
2 weeks ago, on my Northwest flight from Memphis to Pittsburgh, a flight attendant flipped out on a young-ish (20 something) couple who were taking pictures of each other with their digital camera in the last row of the plane. The couple asked what they were doing wrong and the FA said the camera could interfere with the sensitive flight equipment.
If true, they should try making flight equipment a little bit more robust than to be sabotaged by a piece of equipment running on a couple of AA batteries. Basically, if a FA doesn't like what you are doing (maybe she was having a bad hair day and was afraid she'd be in the pictures) they can bully you around and hide behind the 'sensitive equipment' or 'pilot said so' bullshit.
@linus: I highly doubt it's illegal to record video on a plane. I know I've done it before on my digital camera, and that was considered perfectly fine. And if it's not illegal, I can't see how they can legally order you to comply and punish you if you refuse.
Here's the lesson:
Business needs to think through the ramifications of their behavior.
If the JetBlue attendants had just remembered the Rule of 7 (that you'll tell seven people about a bad experience) no one would have ever heard about this.
The video might have ended up on YouTube. It probably would have gotten five hits if it did.
Now it's going to end up on Good Morning America and get 5 million viewers.
What did JetBlue save by being difficult? In the other story, what did Target save? $30? JetBlue might get sued, and they should be sued, for false imprisonment. All over a tape that was taken legally, and would have never become some sensation?
JetBlue gave it all the credibility it needed by their behavior. Is there one person on this blog who wouldn't follow a YouTube link right now *just* to see what she recorded that got her arrested?
Think through the ramifications, big business. Sometimes letting things go or spending $30 saves you big time in bad publicity.
In a sense, she is violating the rights of that kid and the passengers by taking that video.
It appears that everything one does now can be recorded without your permission and even put on YouTube.
She has to think of the rights of the others too. If it was a minor argument - it is certainly nothing that drastic to take a video of
@backbroken: Well the problem isn't the camera per-say, it's that there's no way of knowing if a camera or any other electrical device will interfere with the electronics of the plan.
Mythbusters had an episode dedicated to this. While most electrical stuff doesn't interfere with the plane, it would be prohibitabily expensive to keep upgrading a plane's electronics to simply allow someone to use a iphone or something along those lines.
As freqently as technology changes, I completely understand this. But at some point in the flight, when using your MP3 player and other stuff is okay, why not other items?
@johnva: I wouldn't think so either but it may fall into one of those \"terrorist\" or \"private property\" loop holes.
@backbroken: Well, as I just said, I've taken digital pictures on planes numerous times. On at least one occasion that I did this I was sitting near the flight attendant and they saw me do this with no objection. As long as you don't have it on during the takeoff/landing, I don't believe it's true that a camera with no radio transmitter could cause interference.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-10572-100x100.png\")
Wow. Now I want to see what's on that tape. I'm guessing that it's possible there's something on it where a JetBlue employee perhaps said or did something they shouldn't have or thought it was possible someone would perceive it as such. Eeeeenteresting.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-136125-100x100.png\")
From the FAA website: [faa.custhelp.com]
In general, you may not use any electronic device on any aircraft that is being operated under instrument flight rules (IFR), or on any commercial flight. However, the following are permitted:
* Portable voice recorders
* Hearing aids
* Heart pacemakers
* Electronic shavers
Radios and other portable electronic devices, such as computers and headphones (regular or noise cancelling), may be permitted if the operator of the aircraft determines they will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system. Please check with the crew if your device (i.e., handheld GPS unit) is not covered in the passenger briefing. Note that each airline and pilot-in-command has final authority on the operation of electronic devices onboard any aircraft at any time.
@ceejeemcbeegee: Deleting a video and turning off a video recording device are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
@ceejeemcbeegee: Well, it's not surprising that they can ask you to stop. I'm just saying that I don't believe there is any physical reason that a camera would cause interference. And even if they can ask you to stop using it, I highly doubt they can order you to delete some electronic data. Could a flight attendant order me to delete a file on my laptop computer and then have me arrested if I refused?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-486597-100x100.png\")
It's called a Contract of Carriage. All airlines have one. Read it sometime because you will be surprised how they justify removing unruly passengers from a flight. Plus, I wouldn't want someone videotaping me without permission. Especially if I was arguing with someone. It is possible one of those passengers involved in the altercation asked a flight attendant to make the request and the attendant was obligated to conceal the identity of who made the request.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-391434-100x100.png\")
\"After viewing the video, they demanded that I delete it,\" Parver said. \"I asked, 'Why?' The head-stewardess went as far as to tell me that I had broken a law by using an electronic item during the flight.\"
But in this case, she didn't do anything illegal in the first place, so there should be no reason for her to cover her tracks. Even if it were illegal, erasing it wouldn't have made if any less illegal.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-446416-100x100.png\")
@Erwos:
I'm with you, Erwos. As far as I'm concerned pilots and their crew have every right to practice Admiralty Law while flying the friendly skies.
Uppity about paying for the water that the TSA no longer allows you to bring from home? 50 lashes.
Unruly passenger refusing to obey arbitrary and ridiculous requests? Air keelhauling.
@Advertising Guru: I don't know. Isn't it that you lose the expectation of privacy when you are out in public? I'm assuming that being on a plane is \"being out in public.\" Hence you can't keep someone from taking your picture or filming you.
I guess the FAA is going to have to revise their code soon as I heard the other day that Delta (?) or one of the other airlines will be selling WIFI access on their planes for use above 10,000 feet. So WIFI access won't interfere with the instruments and flying of the plane but the use of a video recording device will?
@triggerh: Flight attendant-customer confidentiality? If such a thing existed, why did we hear so many stories about stewardesses embarrassing women they thought weren't wearing enough clothing? Wouldn't that be verboten?
(Unrelated note...when I clicked the \"@\" button to reply, it didn't put the name in the hyperlink area, I had to add it myself. Strange.)
@ceejeemcbeegee: If they have final say on the operation, that would limit it to operating the device at all, not what you do with it. They could make you turn off and stow the camera, but they can't use that rule as justification to make you delete the photo (which would just be MORE operation of the device and potential interference)
Oh Noes! My wifi camera sent the delete signal to the cabin and now we have no GPS maps!
/snark
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462821-100x100.png\")
@ceejeemcbeegee: Lets assume the divice is not-allowed. Now if they demand her to delete the video under these pretenses, doesnt she have to contunue using it to do so.
That's like telling someone to travel back over the quicksand because they shouldnt have done it in the first place.
/really needs to work on his metaphors
\"At that point, one attendant told Parver that if she disobeyed the captain, federal agents would be involved and she could face criminal penalties.\"
So if the pilot had told her to commit suicide, and she refused, it would have been a federal offense to do otherwise? Can't yell \"fire\" in a crowded theater, and not cooperating with flight crews being against the law has its limitations as well. The laws they are using to charge people are not meant for these purposes. Footage of people arguing is not sensitive material that the terrorists might use to down a plane. Refusing to delete the video did not endanger the lives of anyone.
@: I wouldn't necessarily like being videotaped either, but I don't believe the airline can do anything about that other than order the person to stop (which they could do for legitimate safety reasons, since it could worsen the confrontation). They can't just make you delete data arbitrarily. A flight attendant does not have unlimited authority to tell me what to do.
@: Video recording devices do not cause interference. That's just a lie being used to push people around.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93244-100x100.png\")
The flight attendants didn't give a rat's ass about jetblue's reputation - they just wanted to cover their own asses. In other words - video evidence or not - these aren't the kind of stewardesses you want hanging around anyway.
Here is my take on this:
1. Even if a camcorder is not allowed to be used, the fight crew can make you turn it off, but making you delete video would not be ok.
2. Airlines do not have the power to put someone on the Do-not-Fly list.
3. Refusing to delete a video is not interfering with a flight crew and any charges would be quickly dropped.
4. Courts have recently ruled that a person or business can call law enforcement with out any liability. The best she can do is sue the police for false arrest.
@synergy: \"I don't know. Isn't it that you lose the expectation of privacy when you are out in public? I'm assuming that being on a plane is \"being out in public.\" Hence you can't keep someone from taking your picture or filming you.\"
My take is that it's NOT public property: it's PRIVATE property. The airline owns the plane you're in and so they can set rules regarding camera use much as they might in future ask you to take your shoes off when in the airplane (just a made-up example, don't get all concerned). There might be something in the company's fineprint about this but it's doubtless buried deep where you can't find it anyway, so a warning should always be issues unless the transgressor is well-known.
@linus: Certainly there is no way to know if any piece of electronic device will interfere with another. However, the FA completely ignored the portable DVD player I was using to occupy my 3 year old in the seat adjacent to the couple! Frankly, I was stunned the couple didn't point it out. There IS a reason the FA targetted the digital camera but it was certainly not the reason she gave to the couple.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-122843-100x100.png\")
@: Re: #4, \"Courts have ruled that a person or business can call law enforcement without any liability.\"
I've never thought about it, but obviously this must be true... however, it surely does not take into account 'bearing false witness.' If a flight crew calls the authorities in to arrest a passenger for false reasons, that can't be legal. The police have to err on the side of caution, and I'm sure they get daily peptalks from the TSA Commissar / Political Officer about how they are part of a grand movement to keep the skies safe.
Regardless, awesome how 9/11 has caused this country to do far more damage to itself. Neighbor against neighbor, keeping lists of citizens... Wonderful.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-273942-100x100.png\")
@FoxBearDog: You know, I can make videos on my cell phone. Pushing buttons on my cell phone, and using the internet are two totally different things.
I've taken tons of videos with my phone, and most of them get deleted.
I'm surprised that nobody has questioned why this nosy grandma was videotaping a situation that had nothing to do with her. I doubt the FAs whipped out batons and started beating the pasengers that were the subject of the altercation. If it was a minor altercation over a screaming kid, then it was none of her business, and she should have just sat and enjoyed the $5.00 snack she just paid for. Unless the FAs were physical with the unruly passengers in question (which isn't stated in the story), then I imagine the reason that JetBlue wanted her to delete it was because of any possible negative plublicity that really had nothing to do with JetBlue - just a screaming, out of control kid. Unfortunately, they caused the situation they were trying to avoid. They should have told the Grandma to either obtain written waivers from the unruly ones that were videotaped or delete the video. An airline has a right to protect its passengers from being videotaped by other passengers.
If no one has posted it yet - here's the \"photographers rights\" page
Yes it IS private property - and they have every right to request you not take pictures. They CAN'T get all uppity and FORCE you to delete them. However they CAN ask you to stop - as yes, a jetBlue plane is private property.
At the gate owned by the city? Hmm that's public. I ran into the same thing at a Safeway store. I CAN take photos from the sidewalk. I CAN take photos on their property - however it they ASK me to stop I have to oblige.
@jamesdenver: That's what I thought. They can tell you to stop, but can't have you arrested for refusing to delete data. A similar deal would be if I were say, typing down travel times between landmarks on the ground in my laptop. If they didn't like that for some reason, they could tell me I couldn't use my laptop anymore, but they couldn't go through my files and make me delete the spreadsheet I was typing it into.
Is the same grandma that beat up a comcast office?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-178471-100x100.png\")
@FoxBearDog : I disagree. My bf's grandmother knows her way around her digital camera easily, but can't for the life of her figure out how to upload the images/videos to her computer. She asks us over all the time to do it for her.
What's up with the reply function today? It isn't working correctly for me. Works ok on Jez.
That post was just FYI folks.
I can't understand why the grandmother showed the video in the first place. There wasn't any indication why she did this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-270939-100x100.png\")
Smart thinking by not deleting the video, which was the only thing she had to prove she did nothing wrong.
Ok, no one stated the obvious....
Maybe the people she recorded, (without their permission) didn't want to be recorded. They probably saw her recording them and told the flight attendent that it was against their wishes.
With that said... any chance of this vid hitting youtube yet?
Look out for us 56-year-old grandmothers. Heh heh heh.
This'll be good if Good Morning America decides to air the footage. Can't wait to hear Jet Blue's take on this one...
Destruction of evidence is also a crime.
If someone records you doing something unsavory in a public place and you don't like it, tough luck, buddy. If the plane is private property, that may be different, but it is not the property of the people having the argument-the most they can do is complain to JetBlue, the arguing party has no legal right to have the video deleted. I don't know if the FAs do either, probably not.
I thought you only needed consent if you intend to profit from the video ie: girls gone wild, candid camera shows, etc.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63807-100x100.png\")
Why does it matter that she's a grandmother? Obviously, JetBlue should have treated the 56-year-old differently because they knew that her kids had kids.
I'm tired of grandmothers pulling out the g-card whenever they get mistreated (because I have no respect for my elders, or course).
@linus: RTFA
Approximately 30 minutes after the dispute, Parver said she was approached by the flight crew who were asking passengers questions about the altercation. When Parver told them she had recorded the incident, they requested she accompany them to the back of the plane, Parver said.
There she showed the video to three or four crew members, Parver said.
@ceejeemcbeegee: Right, I'm just saying she really didn't have to show them anything on her camera. But, we can't rewrite history.
hm - if the video doesn't have anything with the flight crew doing anything wrong, then I wonder if they were freaking out over the idea that, if this woman (or any of her family members) posted the video to youtube, and the passengers in the altercation were visible, the passengers could potentially come after jetblue for not trying to stop her. I'm not saying they'd have a good case (well, maybe in California), but they could try. (They'd also have to sue the woman, but there's no money there. It would just be to join jetblue.)
that said, flight attendants get lots of training on how to serve drinks, and lots of emergency training - and nothing in between on how to communicate in a civil and non-threatening manner with a passenger. And they apparently hand-select people who managed to get through life without learning that, either.
All that said, not stopping me from flying Jet Blue - my experiences in domestic flight still tend to be about 150x better with them than with US Airways or American (my other two most-flown), or Virgin America (jet blue's sort-of counterpart, which for me was a round trip through hell).
yeah my reply isn't working :(
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-479704-100x100.png\")
@: And that makes it legal how? The police could have asked for the Rodney King tape to be deleted, but they would have had no legal right to do so. And these are flight attendants! I know after 9/11 we're supposed to act like they're just as brave as a soldier on the front lines, but they're basically the same as the waitress at your local Chili's or Ruby Tuesdays!
@AdvocatesDevil: Worse. At least the waitress at Chili's smiles at you and doesn't threaten to have you arrested if you get up to use the bathroom. Today's flight attendants are like a surly, dried up hag working the overnight shift at a truck stop diner.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-302597-100x100.png\")
I betting that since it's a non-union airline, the crew have more \"vested\" interest in the image of their company (profit) than being professional to a customer (grandma) and suggesting to her that the video could cause liability against the airline, the crew, the individuals on the video and the grandmother (camera operator). As the pilot/captain, I would have asked if she could either turn over the video as future evidence or please delete it. In return, I would have moved her to first class and/or given her a free flight in the future.
Poor JetBlue and JD Power. No 5th repeat nor money for you!
(On June 17, 2008, JetBlue ranked 'Highest in Customer Satisfaction Among Low Cost Carriers in North America' by J.D. Power and Associates. A Customer Satisfaction Recognition Received for the Fourth Year in a Row.)
Maybe she should have just showed her receipt.
/sarcasm
FYI, I just tried to youtube this by using only the word \"jetblue.\" If they don't want video of their cabins, they are already too late. Grandma's video isn't up, but there are many, many complaint videos for anyone to see.
One home video is of a jetblue in-flight movie -- a movie about a huge, mid-air plane wreck. Hilarious!
I hate how uppity the sky waitresses have become in the post-911 world.
Once, flying a few days after Christmas, a guy across the aisle from me was playing with his new Christmas present a video camera. He was filming everything - zooming in, zooming out - just playing with it and testing it out. He happened to be zoomed in on the cockpit door when the sky waitress happened upon him and totally panicked and over-reacted. I feel pretty confident that if he hadn't been black and wearing a dashiki the waitress would have been a little more reasonable in her response. He put it away and joked a little with his friend about his terrorist camera but that was the end of it...I thought. As I was getting off the plane instead of the usual disingenuous buh-bye, she was looking for affirmation asking \"wasn't that guy weird with his camera?\" I let her know that he wasn't weird for doing what most people do with their presents but that her overreaction lowered my opinion of her and her employer.
@snclfe: I've noticed that society in general and authority figures in particular have been getting really paranoid about totally benign use of cameras lately. That's a \"police state warning sign\" for me, frankly. I wonder if this is a side effect of all the fear-based rhetoric the media constantly spews about how we're supposed to be so afraid of terrorists.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-196743-100x100.png\")
@ knyghtryda: If they do air the footage, no doubt that they will blur the faces of those visible on camera. Maybe even distort the audio and run subtitles over it so the voices are not recognizable.
ABC/Disney would not want to be hit with a lawsuit for violating these people's expectation of privacy in a non-public location (i.e. the plane in the air). Disney has deep pockets, and everybody knows that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-413611-100x100.png\")
I had one b*tch at me for refusing to give up my crutches until I got to my seat (my leg was doctors orders (shown at check-in) strictly no weight-bearing) when the flight attendant said she'd label me an unruly passenger and have me kicked off the flight. I asked her how much her job was worth because if I fell and broke my collarbone again they likely couldn't fix it (they used the biggest plate to get it fixed the first time) the lawsuit would cost her personally as I wouldn't just sue the airline but also her.
She shut the f*ck up then. She was going to say something but somebody from the gate crew pulled her aside. Her revenge was making sure my crutches weren't pulled for me to get off until they \"looked for them.\" Personally I didn't care, I just pulled out my iPod again and got ready to take a nap.
I think her seeing me not care was the best revenge overall, but hey, I was on Oxy, Vicodin, and a bunch of other meds. I didn't care about much except not getting hurt.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-60062-100x100.png\")
Wait, I don't understand; how would having an undeleted file on her camera cause the plane to crash?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159466-100x100.png\")
This is simply a case of abuse of power and should be treated as such. What happens if a flight attendant asks you to do something you're either not comfortable doing or that is illegal? You would probably still get arrested, because America has given flight attendants and pilots more power than police officers. The only problem with that is that they're there mainly for customer service. I'm sorry, but those that argue that flight attendant duties go far beyond customer service are smoking something. When a plane crashes, everyone basically dies or crawls out from burning wreckage themselves. If a plane is in an emergency situation, again, people are in it for themselves, hence the idea that people seated at the emergency exit row must perform certain duties. If this wasn't the case, then these things would be automatically deployed. There is essentially no other reason for them to be there except to serve drinks. Chances are they may even get in the way of people that are perfectly capable of performing the task of... opening a door.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-382241-100x100.png\")
They could have asked her to turn it off and put it away if it was against flight policy. Asking her to delete the video is bullying and completely over the line. FAIL.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-285595-100x100.png\")
Hmmm, Why do I see Cartman as a FA???
Screw you guys. You are FA's, not a holy being in the sky.
You can only REQUEST / DEMAND that the recording device be turned OFF, not to have information on it deleted.
Next time I am on my laptop working on editing my videos on the flight, do you think you can tell me to delete items from my system?
NOT!
@Advertising Guru: If you're in a public location and they're not making any money off of it? Yep. If YouTube is making ad dollars from broadcasting it, they can contact YT about it.
@mariospants: While it may be private property, by law it is also a public accommodation. Ergo, just because you are on the premises of a private business they can't arbitrarily constrain otherwise legal conduct.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-153849-100x100.png\")
\"If the captain had nicely asked me to delete the video, I don't think I would have disobeyed a pilot,\" Parver said.
WTF? Ooh, if the studly pilot instead of the mean air waitresses had asked.... When did pilots become gods? (Answer: when those Northwest pilots managed to land the plane that barrel rolled 2 times over Michigan. But of course, they made the illegal maneuver that caused the roll, so .... aw, screw it.)
The mistake granny made was in admitting she'd filmed it. Never admit you've taken a picture in or near an airplane. It's just more trouble than it's worth. Just do it, get your kids to post it on youtube, and be done with it.
@Inglix_the_Mad:
See, had the flight attendant done that to me, I would have motioned to set my crutches aside, smiled blithely at the woman and asked in my nicest tone,
\"Certainly, I would be happy to give up my crutches now for the flight, which one of you is going to carry me down the aisle to my seat?\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160786-100x100.png\")
Streisand Effect FTW!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
What rights, exactly, was she violating? Was she violating their expectation of privacy in a public place? It was a violation of their privacy to record a display that they were so kind as to perform in front of dozens of people?
Oh, I get it, it was a copyright violation.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-154038-100x100.png\")
Jet Blue. Formerly known as ValuJet, weren't they? Blew up their own plane with oxygen generators, if I remember correctly. I don't care what you change the name to, I would never fly an airline that, through laziness and careless behavior killed 105 passengers and 5 crew members.
wow totally ridiculous. i keep my cell phone on in every flight and just turn on Airplane Mode. as far as i know that isnt illegal. talk about bullshiting to get your way. i wanna see the video, it was written like it had nothing to do with the flight staff but they continued to overreact
@Advertising Guru: You really have no clue about peoples' \"rights.\" When you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy \"rights.\" With regards to it being a minor incident, it only takes a half a second to become a major one. She did the right thing by video taping it.
JetBlue needs their asses sued for having her illegally detained. She committed no crime and they had to of falsified reports to have her detained. Either that or the cops are complete morons that need to be fired and demoted to working security at Best Buy... oh, wait... a parking structure... :)
@ Inglix_the_Mad: sure comes down to what the individual purser's mood on a flight is. I flew 4 long-haul segments on crutches, blown-out knee etc. Wheelchair assist to/from the gate and so on.
Three of the segments, they pre-boarded me. One of those, I had a linen-wrapped bundle of ice in hand before the plane had completed boarding. The fourth flight, however, was a nightmare ... nasty, narrow single-aisle aircraft, 3+3 seating where they grudgingly moved me out of the window seat to my previously assigned aisle seat.
The worst? They let me have one of my crutches for the \"walk\" down the aisle but took them for the flight. When I asked how I was supposed to get to the bathroom (no weight on that one leg)? \"You're young, just hop, honey, and balance on the seatbacks.\" No understanding of how painful the jarring of the hopping would be ... or was.
@trujunglist: Sheesh, if I were in an emergency exit row, you can bet your grandmother's house I wouldn't *comply*, I'd pop open the door and slide away. Prosecute/sue me? Trauma, stress, etc. Bite me.
@TechnoDestructo: Exactly, if you're brazen enough to behave like a jackass in a public space, where do you get off complaining?
@: I'm an almost 59 yr old grandma and I can record a video, but I do not know how to upload anything anywhere. I can post a comment - but that's as far as my computer/internet knowledge extends! I don't think it's at all uncommon for people my age not to be able to do these things. That is why those of us at my age who do not work in computer connected areas fall behind in the technology evolution.
@linus: Haven't read all 113 comments yet - but the video is supposedly of 2 passengers and a kid - not the flight crew and stewards. So probably posting it on YouTube isn't a good idea. I don't understand the interest the crew has in this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-422876-100x100.png\")
If this is the Marilyn Parver I'm thinking it is, she is a former makeup artist and Mrs. Georgia who posed for Playboy in the 1980s.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-441571-100x100.png\")
probably same reason hospitals don't let you photograph/video births anymore... if they fudge up, they'd rather it not be recorded for posterity and all the flippen world to see.
of course, after reviewing it and seeing there was nothing on there incriminating against the flight staff, and they admitted you couldn't see the people being recorded... why they made such a stink is beyond me. some people obviously have too much free time to think of ways to be dicks.
The law is very clear on this. If you go onto someone's private property and take pictures, the pictures you've taken exist separate of any trespass you've committed. No one has any legal power to force you to review your photos or make you delete them. A cop can't do it. A security guard can't do it. A flight attendant or pilot can't do it. If there is a \"no photography\" sign and you take photographs, you don't have to delete them. You may have to answer for trespass, however.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-121022-100x100.png\")
My advice: Go ahead, delete the (video, file, whatever)!
Most camera or video flash drives use a FAT32 filesystem. What this means is, it's possible to recover (yes, undelete) files off of these filesystems.
My personal favorite is a Linux based data recovery utility named photorec(1) DRU by Grenier (the software is free!).
Cheers
I see JetBlue's obnoxious ads all the time: \"Jetting thinks you deserve a snack,\" \"Jetting loves you,\" and \"Jetting thanks you for not flying.\"
Maybe they should add, \"Jetting wants you on the no-fly list,\" \"Jetting hates cameras\" and \"Jetting thinks your too nosy.\"
Feh.
Oops...\"Jetting thinks you're too nosy.\"
Feh on me. XD
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-451722-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-318831-100x100.png\")
Would a camera with no electronics be ok? Say, an old super-8 type camera with a crank instead of an electric motor? I can just picture being arrested for refusing to \"delete\" the footage...
Would somebody *please* give that Grandma a hammer!?!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17044-100x100.png\")
@ceejeemcbeegee: The dispute was the deletion of the video, the use of the video recorder was trivial.
I'm on the Grandma's side on this one. But, she's not just a \"grandma\" She's a professional photographer who knows just a little bit about the PR industry (her husband owned a very influential PR agency in Atlanta). She's also a former Mrs. Georgia who was featured in Playboy years ago (much, much prettier than almost any centerfold). My guess is that she saw an opportunity - and ran with it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-466466-100x100.png\")
I have no idea how my husband and I are ever going to visit Europe when we both refuse to fly. Every time we read another out-of-control-airline story it just confirms that flying is totally ridiculous and getting worse by the minute. Airlines are totally free to get away with bullying people, with the help of our own government under the BS terrorist cover. Why weren't the airlines on top of security for the guys who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers? No, those guys they let through. People it's time to protest big time.
Isn't the plane property of JetBlue thus making it private property? I record a lot of videos too so I feel for gramma but she has to realize that her age and whether or not she said she planned to use it for personal reasons do not matter.
If they don't want people filming on/in their property and any altercations that occur therein then they have every right to tell her that and stop her from filming. Same with restaurants, shopping malls and museums - they usually have a \"no film\" policy and it doesn't matter if you're 56 or 16 - they will enforce it. Not to sound like a total jerk but how many would be saying \"Oh the poor thing!\" if this tale were about a 16 year old boy?
Yeah, it was a bit terse the way they handled it and they could have been a little nicer overall, there was no need of the accusations and attitude, but still - its their right.
We pay for the privilege of the service, using their machine for personal transport, we do not have an inherent right to fly and to disregard the rules of public vs. private property.
@Mollyg: I think suing for false arrest is pretty serious. I read one of the accompanying articles where she describes being pushed down a flight of stairs, accused of being drunk, and being told she had no right to speak. Sickening. Absolutely sickening.
@AdvocatesDevil: You're right that they are not cops and don't have the right to demand things of us like that... but they are more than glorified waitresses. They do get trained in emergency management, and I respect that. But this has nothing to do with emergency management, just the ol' CYA trick.
@Michael Belisle: Because grandmother is shorthand for describing an older and presumably more frail person. We all have had grandmothers, biologically at least, so that should be easier to relate to than saying, \"55 year old arrested\" -- for all we know, the 55 year old could be Hulk Hogan.
Anyway, I disagree that the wording by the report is the most important thing here: the fact that they bullied and threatened her, and illegally threw her off a plane and that a male cop bullied a woman who was older, smaller and weaker than him is what counts.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-157039-100x100.png\")
People get bitter and downright uncivilized if you catch them on film when they're not their best.
This actually reminds me of a squabble I had with my university's student housing staff after I started recording kids who repeatedly vandalized my dorm room door. Campus police were more than happy to have evidence to work with, but the housing staff told me the students' parents threatened to sue because they were afraid that the footage would wind up on Youtube.
In the end I was getting bullied by both the students /and/ the staff. I'm glad to have it behind me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-328254-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-485447-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
I thought one wasn't allowed to take photos or videos of airplanes or public transportation, because the \"Terrorists might get the information.\"
But obstruction? That's bullcrap.