James Fallows

I am a Captain with United Airlines. I have been with UA for over 25 years. There is no excuse for the way you [actually Matthew Klint] were treated on your Newark Istanbul flight.

Let me tell you how the incident should have been handled. I had a very similar incident on a Las Vegas-Dulles flight. A flight attendant told me of a disruptive passenger that would not move his underage son out of the exit row. I went out of the cockpit to see what was going on. I went to Customer Service and had them come back to the airplane. I spoke with the man. I wanted to hear his side of the story. He began to tell me how UA had put his special needs son in a different row than him. He had moved the child to the row because the FA had not listened to him, but ordered him to move the boy. While he was telling me his side the FA immediately tried to interrupt. I told her to let the man speak. When he was through I told him not to worry the Customer Service person would re-seat them so that we could get on our way.

I wanted to point out the difference in approach to the situation. The flight attendant had told me what she thought was going on. She told me how they had to move or be thrown off the airplane. As a professional I wanted to get all the facts before just arbitrarily removing someone from the airplane. The situation was defused and we went on our way.

I did not come out of the cockpit with the preconceived notion that I was going to throw someone off the ac. In your situation I would not have overreacted over pictures. I did not know such a rule even existed. I am confused about the picture thing anyway. I would have listened to you before I made a determination whether you had to leave.

You need to know that United was not always so anti passenger in the past. Since continental took over our management they have brought in all kinds of rather strange and illogical rules.

1. You cannot take pictures, I assume because of security, but they are paying to have the secondary barriers that protect the cockpit removed from our aircraft.

2. You cannot pay cash for your food or drinks in coach.

3. You can order special meals such as Hindu, but you will most likely get a burger because management is from Texas and everyone likes beef right? (Didn't work out so well with a group of Indian Hindu engineers in First Class coming from London. You know the sacred cow and all. I apologized to them, but the damage was done.)

We are supposed to speak to our CEO like he is a close friend or something. If you don't call him Jeff he becomes upset. [JF note: This is Jeff Smisek, well known to all United travelers because of the video ads featuring him that precede the safety instructions on each flight.] They call everyone co-workers. They setup a human resource complaint system so that anyone can file formal complaints against their fellow workers for the littlest thing. You can be terminated. We have over 200 complaints being investigated just for the pilots so far.

My point is the new UA management is anti-employee as well as anti-passenger. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on everyone. Some people handle it differently than others. I think your case is a perfect example.

I on behalf of all United Airlines employees would like to apologize to you to your ordeal. Management might think they are too important to apologize, but I think you would find the people that make the airline work don't think that way.

>>As a pilot for United Airline's with more than 2 decades of industry experience, I am saddened by your experiences on United and even more saddened by your public attempt to shame the employees at United.  My defense is three fold.  First, your sample rate is tiny in comparison to the number of workers and daily flights.  Second, the public's insistence on cheap fairs is driving the quality of employee down, and third, you fail to realize that employees react to their management more than they do to the customer.  If there is a failure to be found then why not look at management and it's policies of demoralizing workers at every turn.

[JF note: I am going to step in here. On point (1) I agree about the sample rate, but I have flown enough through the decades to observe a "general corporate culture."  And, for instance, a recent "America's meanest airlines" survey unfortunately gave United the worst rating, a dead-last result that prevails in some other surveys too. On point (2) I agree that the cheap-fare mania is a central factor in the race-toward-sardinehood in modern air travel. More on that below. On point (3), about the responsibility of corporate leaders to set an overall tone, I totally agree. That is why my leitmotif has been to ask: what is it about the current United corporate structure that -- on average, and in my observation -- leaves so many of the employees seeming so unhappy at their jobs? This pilot suggests some answers.]

To begin with, there are over 11,000 pilots at United and 30,000 flight attendants.  I am aware that the number of disgruntled and under performing workers in our industry has increased over the last decade, but to impugn the behaviour of all United workers based on the half dozen examples in your blog is to me shameful.  How about the hundreds of "orchid letters" United receives every day?  How about when I give up my meal so the Purser can create a vegetarian meal that wasn't boarded?  How about the fact that nearly every flight has a disruptive passenger like the one I had yesterday that demanded the pilots use the cockpit fax machine to fax paperwork for him because he'd had that done before?

Most pilots began their career with a decade or more of service to their country fighting in foreign countries or 4 years of college with a B.S. or higher degree, and came to United expecting a bright upper middle class future.  Instead, what we got was a 60% pay cut, thousands of lay offs, lost pensions, and zero career advancement all because our industry is structurally flawed.  The airline industry is structured with few barriers to entry such that it constantly creates new carriers that have younger employees and newer planes with costs far below their Legacy competitors so ultimately the older workers lose their jobs and pensions at the expense of the younger, and so far this has been the case for nearly every carrier, Pan Am, TWA, Eastern, Braniff, and countless others.  Each company employed tens of thousands of employees who lost their jobs and pensions at a point in time they could least afford it and  all because the public demanded a $79 ticket from New York to Florida.  As a result of this history, the education and experience level of new pilots is plummeting.  I challenge you to collect data on JetBlue pilots and compare the number of pilots there who have had a DUI and no college experience versus that average at United, Delta, or American.

The best run corporations in America have managers that inspire their employees to work better and harder.  Even in the face of adversity many corporations have found a way to rally their workers and put the best face forward.  Why is it then that the major airlines seem so utterly incapable of the same?  The answer and root cause of disgruntled airline employee behaviour has more to do with the actions of management than any other single item.  When employees have to fight for water to be boarded on flights or to fight for the right go to their parents funeral without being penalized after they have lost so much else you can imagine how frustrated they become.  United's new management has failed at nearly every level of integration.  Time and again, they have chosen the cheapest option available and the results show.  Whether it's the reservation system, the baggage system, the coffee vendor, the new seat formation, or the training materials for employees, United's new managers have gone with the low cost alternative.  In some cases the cheaper alternative may have been better, but for a corporation that hopes to charge a premium price for a premium product, isn't it possible that a corporate philosophy of lowering costs at the expense of service is not what makes a world class airline.  In short, the employees at United have had to fight tooth and nail for the most basic rights, and the adversarial atmosphere this has created is disastrous for the company.  If United's management were quickly to resolve the outstanding contract negotiations and then just as quickly implement them and treat their employees with a modicum of dignity and respect, you can rest assured that the number of "incidents" like those you have highlighted would all but disappear.  Workers act and react in a manner equal to how they are treated.  Treat them respectfully and show them their value and they will respond in kind.  Treat them as chattel and you can expect them to behave the same.

Finally, a note on the particular instance involving the family traveling to Baltimore.  I am not personally aware of the specifics, but I will say that flight attendants have been given very particular direction on how to communicate disruptive behaviour to the pilots.  If the flight attendant told the pilots that she felt personally threatened by the passenger, then the pilots would be left with absolutely no alternative but to divert.  The rules are very specific and not open to interpretation and are centered on the flight attendants interpretation and explanation of the passenger behaviour.  It is more than likely that the information given to the captain was of a nature such that it precluded any other choice.<<

>>I subscribe to a professional-pilot paysite forum, ProPilotWorld--you have to be commercial-or-ATP-licensed to be allowed to join--and I've been following the Chicago diversion story there.  Surprisingly (since there are so many airline pilots who are members), nothing solid has emerged so far; usually these things get explained in a matter of hours by somebody very close to the situation in question.  Everybody is saying, "There -has- to be another side to this story," but one thing that has emerged, and that I wasn't aware of, is that many situations of this sort are totally controlled by the FAs [Flight Attendants].

For one thing, if an FA reports to the flight deck that he or she feels there is a security threat in the cabin, the flight deck immediately goes into automatic lockdown: NOBODY is allowed in, NOBODY is allowed out, not even if there's a fire in the cabin or a riot in progress.  The pilots can't even come out to take a piss.  ("You done with that coffeecup, Bob?")

At that point, all the captain knows is what he's being told over the phone by the FA, and he or she could well decide to divert because that person is telling him that they're scared of a situation.  This could explain the delay between the turn-off-the-movie discussion and the captain's decision to go to ORD: he has talked it over with the FA, he has called the company, somebody in Denver is trying to make a decision, Denver finally calls back and tells him to go to Chicago...

So before we blame the captain...<<

>>Many times FA's get it in their minds that a passenger is a problem and will stop at nothing until the flight crew believes them.

I can't leave the flight deck to deal with the issue, so I have to rely on what I'm being told. Generally other FA's will not go against the problem FA while airborne.

My choices are limited... If the FA continues to call up and complain, at some point I have to put faith in what she/he is telling me and report it to the company. They're generally the ones (unless it's an obvious threat) that will tell me to divert and where to go.

All it takes is a look sometimes to set off these FA's.<<

>>Thank you, once again, for enabling us to tell our story, which you kindly posted on your blog. As we indicated originally, we prefer to remain anonymous to protect the privacy of our children. We appreciate the fact that you, and many of your readers, accepted our story despite our anonymity. To any doubters, we point out that we did reveal to you our identity, and that of the Chicago Police officers and United officials who can attest to the veracity of our story. Further, United's somewhat empty response confirms our story.

We would like to apologize again to our fellow passengers on flight 638 for the hardships they must have incurred after the diversion of the plane. We thank the many passengers who supported us and agreed with our complaint, and we thank Rob Cohen, the director of the Alex Cross, for his personal response. We were told on the plane by the FA that the movie had been edited for language (!), but it seems no amount of editing can ever make a PG-13 movie child-friendly.

The story has now appeared in a large number of national and international media outlets, blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter feeds. Therefore, we feel our goal has been mostly achieved: to foster a discussion on the issues we raised: Exposing children to patently inappropriate content without parental consent, and the capricious and irresponsible behavior of the United pilot, whose anonymity we are also protecting.

Of course, we would have preferred a more comprehensive response from United regarding their handling of this incident, and regarding the outcome of their purported in-flight media policy review. A personal response to our original letter would have been preferable and might have prevented the generation of such bad press for them.<<

>>I had a similar experience on United a few years ago, when my youngest son was about 4 or 5.  I looked up from my book to see my son, who had been coloring, staring at the movie screen.  I don't know what movie it was because I wasn't watching, but onscreen (for several minutes), a man was holding a knife to a woman's throat, speaking with a menacing expression on his face and her backed up against a wall.  When I complained to a flight attendant I was told that she could do nothing about movie content and that business passengers would complain if they only showed "Disney" movies.

Fortunately, I wasn't removed from the flight.  (Even though I may not have been quite as cordial as your correspondent.)  I did complain online to United customer service.  Like your correspondent, no response.

Anyway, I appreciate you putting some light on this problem.  It's tough enough traveling with kids -- this kind of thing makes it far worse!<<

>>I am far, far outside my realm of competence here, and surely this is either (a) unfounded or (b) obvious to you, but the PR statement from United strikes me as rather odd.

First, it does nothing at all beyond confirming facts you have already published. It does assert that "[we] have since conducted a full review of our inflight entertainment." But the incident took place in February, only 60 days before; allowing some time for reporting, how complete could such a review be?  If any aspect of the review could be construed in the airline's favor - participation of senior management, consultation with noted authorities -- why not mention it? And what sort of review could not feature some aspects that a top-shelf PR staff could construe favorably?

Second, if for some reason the statement could not be cast to reflect some credit on the airline, why make it at all?  Yes, it would be good not to annoy an influential journalist. But surely there are ways to placate James Fallows without issuing a statement, and it's not really a statement that's going to delight any writer.  Why not plead an ongoing investigation, threat of litigation, threat of a pending union grievance, or insist that security regulations prevent public discussion?  

Another easy target for the PR person is the question of fact which remains unaddressed so far: could the individual screen in fact have been retracted?  As far as I can see, any  response to this question makes the airline look better. Either the flight attendant was right and nothing could be done, or the flight attendant was regrettably mistaken about the capabilities of this particular aircraft, having extensive experience in another time where this could not be done. Either way, it shifts the discussion away from "lazy, unhelpful flight crew" and toward the hardware.

Finally, diversions are costly. There might have been an investigation into the entertainment, but there must have been an investigation into the diversion. An extra airframe cycle, the lost time, the fuel expenditure, landing and takeoff at ORD -- that's got to add up to many thousands of dollars, doesn't it? The circumstances invite scrutiny: however scary the angry passenger might be, they're flying with their child. If my subordinate spent thousands of dollars over this (and called down the wrath of The Atlantic on my head), I'd want to ask whether they were really a threat to the aircraft? Or to neighboring passengers?  Since such an investigation, formal or casual, involves so many moving parts - the chief pilot, the pilot's union, probably the flight attendants' union as well, conceivably the FAA or Chicago Police -- why wouldn't the PR person try to indicate vaguely that Something Was Done? 

How often are flights diverted due to passenger disturbance, anyway?  My impression was that most of these incidents, since 9/11, still merit a brief mention in major newspapers.<< 

>>I'm 58 years old, a 2 million mile flyer with United, at the 1K level for 10+ years.  Although we live in Australia now, my wife and I are both Chicagoans originally and we still have a condo there.

I've stuck with United thru the bankruptcies, merger with Continental (which actually helped us as CO and now United fly into [the city in Australia] where we live).  What you've described is employee malfeasance - a problem that all the airlines struggle to address.

And it should be noted that most frequent flyers have, since 9/11, severely moderated their personalities WHEN ONBOARD THE FLIGHT.  I had routinely seen passengers chastising flight attendants and even arguing with them prior to 9/11.  After?  Pilots and flight attendants have clearly formed a "pact" where the pilots are used (willingly and unwillingly) to "get square" with passengers.  As a result passengers have become meek as sheep onboard.  And I would anecdotally opine that the ground agents are getting more abuse than before, because of this and other capacity-related issues.

In October of 2010, I boarded a UA flight from Geneva, Switzerland to Dulles.  I had been upgraded to business class (along with two other colleagues who had been at the same engineering conference).  As is my custom, I changed from my business casual clothing to dark, knee-length shorts and a t-shirt.  This was, for any frequent traveler, a "sleeping" flight.  

Shortly after I had changed my wardrobe (in the lavatory), a pilot came up to me and said "you can't travel dressed that way".  I turned to him with a stunned look and of course asked "why not?".  He said it was inappropriate and walked away.  A flight attendant came up shortly afterward and said "you'd better change back because the pilot isn't going to let you travel that way".  I asked her why that was, and she just rolled her eyes - which told me this pilot might be trouble.  There were what looked like elderly Europeans in business class, dressed for travel like it was 1960.  They may have lodged the complaint, I don't know.  I sat down in my seat, used my blanket to cover my legs, and waited.  

The pilot returned, and was clearly agitated.  During his diatribe he poked me, which I considered assault.  But what does one do about this kind of incident in a foreign country?  Should I stand my ground and likely be ejected from the flight at a port where United had no employees (only contract staff)?  Even my colleagues witnessing this incident were cowed into silence.  I was unsurprised.

I changed back into my boarding clothing.  

I toyed with returning to my shorts after departure, because I thought it would be much harder for the pilot to explain a diversion disrupting 250 passengers.  And I'm a "Type-A" person, who worked on film production as a sound engineer for 20+ years, where my tactlessness was honed to a knife edge.  I'm usually not loathe to speak-out, even on behalf of others.  

When we arrived at Dulles I used my express card to race thru immigration, and found a police officer.  I explained briefly what had happened onboard the plane, and said I wanted the pilot identified and perhaps a report filed for assault.  As the pilot came out of immigration, three police officers stopped him and ID'd him for me.  (His name is XX).  He saw me standing with another officer 20 feet away and shouted "you'll never fly on United again".

I of course notified United Airlines via the "1K Voice" email address, and as I would be staying in Chicago for a week or so I drove out to their headquarters building in Schaumburg.  I eventually told the story to both the customer service rep that I had been in contact with previously, as well as the chief pilot.  United also interviewed my colleagues, so they were clearly satisfied that the story I told was accurate and even more importantly, I DIDN'T CAUSE A RUCKUS. And subsequently I was provided with upgrade and discount certificates. But of course I never was told what happened, if anything, to this pilot or why he had acted so irrationally.

So why are these things happening?  

Let's use as an example Singapore Airlines, who's onboard staff are among the best in the world.  These flight attendants are given one five year contract, and then except for a handful who move up to management, they're out.  They are paid much less than US legacy carrier flight attendants, can be fired easily, and more importantly aren't there to make a career.  

The US legacy carriers in particular are saddled with many long-serving flight attendants.  These (mostly) women were sold on the idea that this job was a career, and a "glamorous" one at that, with long layovers in exotic places, traveling with intelligent, wealthy people.  But this idea flies in the face of what the job actually is.  A job that requires no education, not even any computer skillls, and has little pathway for advancement.  And a job that is protected by still powerful unions.  I've spoken to hundreds of flight attendants over the years, and have a good understanding of their thinking.  A great many are angry - angry at themselves for thinking this was going to be a career, angry at the airline for going bankrupt and stripping them of wages and benefits.  This anger manifests itself exactly as you've described - telling white lies to avoid any further work, reporting passengers as "disruptive" to the pilot, and even more egregious behavior. Many flight attendants refer to vacation-destination flights as "the flying Clampetts".  If they hate their job and their passengers, they should go.  But they can't, or don't.

If you look at what was Continental Micronesia, a separate company owned by Continental prior to the merger, and their labor situation it's like night and day.  This company was based in Guam, which while ostensibly the USA is more akin to the Philippines.  The Continental (and now United) flight attendants based in Guam are largely Chamorro or Filipino, and look at these jobs as a tremendous opportunity given their low educational level.  I've never heard a cross word or seen a scowl from these flight attendants.  They weren't sold a "dream" to be a "flight attendant" and see the world!  They were offered a great job, provided with the skills to do it, and pay that is much above what their fellow Guamians would receive under similar circumstances.

The legacy carriers; United and American especially, have a difficult situation.  They have a large number of angry flight attendants - the worst of which, because of seniority rules, get the longest, most profitable international routes where UA has to compete with happy flight attendants.  For the first time after the merger however I am sensing that UA management is now working to weed out the real troublemakers, something I can't recall them doing at all the last ten years.

This photo, UA 483 on October 23, 2012 from LAX/SFO had a purser who sat in this position the entire 80 minute flight, leaving only one of his colleagues to serve the full business class section.  I reported this incident (with photo) to UA, who for the first time in many years seemed generally concerned about fixing this problem.




As for the inappropriate programming on the video.  I was successful in getting the "survival in the wild" show with Bear Grylls removed from the entertainment system - the bug eating during meal time was I thought a bit over the top.  However I know who to lodge a complaint with.  I'm quite convinced that a complaint to the general email complaint line gets barely a look, and usually a "pat on the ass" response.  This more than anything is something that United should consider fixing.  Jeff Smisek would discover a lot about his employees if they actually read and processed the complaints properly.<<

>>I must have been unclear in my note to you. My wife and I had booked our seats in January, and we were seated together. We checked in two hours before the flight and got our boarding passes, for our seats - together. They split us up as we were walking on the plane. I guess the comments show how far we have come in ceding control of our travel experience that the readers felt that *I* was the one being unreasonable.
 
On our return flight to Houston, the service on the plane reflects the "don't bother me" attitude that I usually see on United.
 
As you know, they pass out small bottles of water in business class, and the seats even had a little indentation to hold them. Both my wife and I were sleeping when these were passed out. After we woke up, my wife asked if the water had been distributed. Yes, she was told, but they "ran out" so we wouldn't get any. Another FA overheard, and said that wasn't the case, walked away and brought us our water.
 
Later in the flight, my wife asked for some sparkling water from the first FA. She said they "ran out" of sparkling water as well.
 
You will not be surprised when we did not believe her.<<

>>Just read your blog about lousy treatment by airline staff and I have to stand up for Alaska Airlines outstanding flight attendants  and staff.

Having flown on many other airlines, no one else I have flown with has such courteous, customer-oriented staff, (with the possible exception of my experience on Air France). Even when there was tension over contract negotiations, attendants never let their frustrations affect their service to passengers. I can grouse about management of Alaska Air, and hate getting stuck on Delta when making connections now that they are partners, but pilots and employees of Alaska Air are The Best and merit not getting lumped together with United or Delta.<<

>>I'd been a lifelong United fan.  Not just a flyer, but a proud shareholder back to the days of three shares bought with teenage summer job earnings (actual paper shares!  was ever there such a thing?).  For me, a Chicagoan, they were the home team, always buying and flying Boeing's latest and greatest.  Delta may have been the grand old dame, but United was the courteous valet.

Then came the bankruptcy.  Not ever a good thing, but there are ways to go about it that are less bad.  To those of us who were paying attention, it had become the most likely outcome a few years prior when the board capitulated to the pilots union.

I was in the Red Carpet Room at DIA the day of the filing.  Went up to the desk for help with changing plans.  There was weather (when isn't there?) making for system-wide complications, so figuring things out took some time.  And talent, which I was lucky enough to have found with the 23-year-service employee I had helping me.  As he keyed, we talked, and I learned about his wife, cabin crew with 28-years under her belt.  51 years of service between the two of them.  The filing came up (how could it not?), and the tears in his eyes told me everything I needed to know:  any modern corporation willing to shred that kind of loyalty on the inside wasn't likely to bat an eye when it got around to "rationalizing" customer relations.

Not long after, made the switch to American.  Not always a good thing, but certainly less bad.<<

>>We trust you will find the following narrative interesting and relevant to your frequent essays on air travel in general, and United in particular.

On February 2, 2013 we travelled with our two young boys (4 and 8 years old) aboard United 638 from Denver to Baltimore's BWI airport. The inflight entertainment was the movie Alex Cross, which United's own inflight magazine rated as 'T', or, "Adult Themes". It includes extreme, graphic violence and sexually explicit content. On our plane, an A320, the movie was projected on drop-down screens above the seats, such that we could not shield our young children from this inappropriate content. Alarmed by the opening scenes, we asked two flight attendants if they could turn off the monitor; both claimed it was not possible.

The first flight attendant also claimed that the screen could not be folded up independently (which it clearly could) and that even if it could, she would still not authorize closing it because of the passengers sitting behind us. At this point, the passengers behind us spoke up and agreed the content was inappropriate for children and announced it would not bother them at all to switch it off. Both flight attendants, and later the purser, claimed that they have no authority or ability to change or turn off the movie. The purser did, however, agree with us, as did many more of the passengers around us, that it is patently inappropriate to expose children to such content.

We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response. A few minutes later we asked for the captain's name (I failed to make note when he welcomed us on the PA system), and was told, by the purser, that we will have to ask him ourselves when we disembark.

Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens.

More than an hour later the captain, [name withheld for now], announced that due to "security concerns", our flight was being diverted to Chicago's ORD. Although this sounded ominous, all passengers, us included, were calm. After landing a Chicago police officer boarded the plane and, to our disbelief, approached us and asked that we collect our belongings, and follow her to disembark. The captain, apparently, felt that our complaint constituted grave danger to the aircraft, crew and the other passengers, and that this danger justified inconveniencing his crew, a few of whom "timed out" during the diversion, and a full plane of your customers, causing dozens of them to miss their connections, wasting time, precious jet fuel, and adding to United's carbon footprint. Not to mention unnecessarily involving several of Chicago's finest, two Border Protection officers and several United and ORD managers, and an FBI agent, who all met us at the gate. After we were interviewed (for less than 5 minutes), our identities and backgrounds checked, we were booked on the next flight to BWI, and had to linger in the terminal for hours with our exhausted and terrified little boys.

Everyone involved: The FBI agent, the police officers, United employees, the passengers around us and (we were told) some of the crew, were incredulous, and explicit in their condemnation of Captain [XX]'s actions. However, even United's Area Supervisor, although cordial and helpful, was powerless to override the Captain's decision that we be removed from the plane.

To us, this incident raises two grave issues. First, the abuse of power by Captain [XX]. We understand that airline captains can and should have complete authority. However, when this authority is used for senseless, vindictive acts, it must be addressed.

Second, and of even greater concern is United's decision to inflict upon minors grossly inappropriate cinematic content, without parents or guardians having the ability to opt out. Had this been in a cinema or a restaurant, we would have simply left if the content were too violent, or too sexual, for a preschooler and a 2nd grader. Cruising at 30,000 feet, leaving was not an option.

To this date, our appeals to United to address these issues remain unanswered. We wrote to their Customer Service, and directly to their CEO, but received no responses.<<

Yesterday I relayed the story of an airline passenger who asked a fellow business-class traveler to switch seats, so that the first passenger could be next to his wife (as he'd originally been booked) on a long international flight. The person he asked declined to move and turned out to be an air marshal. Reactions:

1) Please read these items more carefully! A reader writes, addressing me:

Interesting that  both you and your wife seem to feel entitled to make someone else move to accommodate your needs.

I get your desire to be together, but why should that trump the desire of someone else to sit where he selected?  Would it have been nice?  Sure.  But it was still his choice.  Not one that you are entitled to make for him.

There are all sorts of reasons why people select the seats they do.

In response to this and a slew of other similar messages: I was not reporting my own experience. I was quoting someone else. Here's the line that would have been the giveaway, for those familiar with the realities of modern journalism: "We both had business class seats. Mine, because I paid for them (well, the company did) ..." Just for the record.

2) Why one might "prefer" not to move.  A female reader -- as you'll see, there is a reason I mention her gender -- writes:

May I give you another perspective on the travel seat merry-go-round, having nothing to do with *those* passengers that they just. can't. move.

I am a single traveler. Like you [JF tip: see note #1], I like to get there early to get the seat I want, not only on an airplane, but a tour bus, or sightseeing excursion, or a table or stool at a bar. You'd be surprised at how often I am asked to inconvenience myself and move to a less desirable seat in order to accommodate some guy who wants to sit by his wife or vice versa. Sometimes I don't mind. But a lot of times it is a great inconvenience to have to hoist up all the bags et cetera just to accommodate some guy or his wife who may have come in late and feels entitled to preempt any lower person who is traveling alone. 

Yes, I really got the evil eye that time I got early to the Hell's Canyon Jet Boat tour and scored the front window seat right behind the driver. Some older guy plopped himself down on the aisle seat next to me and asked me to relocate so his wife could sit with him. No, I politely declined. He went and got the tour operator to ask me to move. No, I prefer not to. Evil eye and a lot of harrumphing ensued. He could have, of course, chosen a seat farther back which had an open row if he just HAD to sit by his wife. But he thought he was entitled to claim his seat and then my seat and make me move. 

 Or, how many times have I been shuffled off to the little tiny table right by the kitchen as a woman eating alone. Or be asked to move myself and my drink down to the end of the bar to accommodate some lady who was late meeting the husband when the bar, where I might have been sitting for several drinks, was now full. No. I prefer not to.

What? Are these people joined at the hip that they have to sit right next to the wife everywhere they go? They can't separate themselves for two or three hours sitting on a plane? If so, some advance planning might be in order.

Like I said, a lot of times I don't mind moving to accommodate someone when asked. But yes, sometimes it is an imposition and an inconvenience. Please think about that. What makes me less willing to accommodate people like that is getting called asshole with a lot of evil eye and harrumphing. Which happens a lot, not only by the aggrieved party, but by the staff, who invariably take the aggrieved couple's side.

Please know that you are inconveniencing someone when you ask them to move. Maybe it doesn't happen as much to you as a man when you travel, but women put up with this kind of crap everywhere they go, as though we are lesser human beings.  

3) One more in this vein. Another representative note:

The air marshal issue  -- which was an interesting twist, I admit it didn't occur to me until revealed -- aside, I'm wondering if any other of your readers were as appalled by your correspondent's behavior as I was.  I have certainly asked people to change seats before, and usually they are happy to.  But I always do so understanding that I'm asking a favor, and if they "prefer not to" -- for whatever reason, or for no reason at all -- then to me, that's that.  In my view, no one has any social obligation to trade seats.  It would certainly never remotely occur to me to even ask a second time, much less call them an asshole! Maybe your correspondent has spent so much time in the upper-class sections that he has become just a bit entitled. 

Apropos of your coming blog series of the woes of the United traveller:

I'm in the American camp. After 9/11, it became imperative to have elite status on some US airline if only to save hours of waiting in line. At that moment, I happened to have some status on American, and I've been in their orbit since. (I'm not a huge traveller, alas, but do manage to edge over the lowest elite-status bar each year. If I don't stick to one network, though, I'd lose my status.) 

Now, all the US carrier have fairly poor service reputations, travel is inherently frustrating, and there's not very much an airline can do to make a trip memorably good while all sorts of things can make it memorably terrible. This makes customer-facing jobs in airlines especially tricky. Actually doing special services for passengers disrupts your work ands risks annoying everyone, yet the essence of service is that special, unexpected thing the passenger wants or needs. 

To make it worse: the TSA ensures that most flights start with barrage of tedious annoyances. The airline can't do much about that. (If I were them, I'd be tempted to experiment with strolling entertainers or standup comics -- anything to make it less horrible. But that might not square with security theater.)

You would think that American -- with financial trouble, labor trouble, and trouble digesting the remains of TWA -- would suffer from especially serious service problems in recent years. If you're a customer-facing veteran and you're not sure that the airline will be there next year, or that you'll be there, or that your boss will be your boss, it's tempting to stop caring and to cut corners. And yes, you see this sometimes. 

But I've also seen indications that people care -- that they sometimes care more than they should.  A couple of years ago, my wife and I and boarded in coach and were happy enough. Then -- good news! -- there were seats in business class for us!  So we moved. But then the no-show couple arrived. We prepared to pack up and return to our old seats, but were told to hold on.  The flight attendant and the gate agent discussed, and discussed some more, and eventually got into a real rhubarb over the question of who should get these seats.  It was spectacular. And it was odd, too, because neither had a stake here. Someone would sit in each pair of seats; it wasn't going to make a difference in anyone's work load.  We hadn't made any fuss at all, nor had the other couple, so there was no fear of a disgruntled, angry customer. The plane would be out of the gate agent's hair in seconds, the flight would be over in a couple of hours. It was a pure debate on user experience; is it better to disappoint someone whose expectations you raised, or to deprive someone of an upgrade because they arrived late?

On the whole, I've been impressed with the operation. There's lots that people can do better, but it's not half bad.

My wife and I recently had an interesting experience on a flight from Houston to London on United flight 4.

 

The plane was a 777, (though when I bought the tickets back in January, it was supposed to be a 787) and we both had business class seats. Mine, because I paid for them (well, the company did) and my wife's because we used the SystemWide Upgrades that United provides. (I am a 1K flyer this year, was Global Services last year)

 

I am always like to get to the airport early, a characteristic that drives my wife a little crazy. But we checked in about two hours before the flight, and received our tickets. Two seats in the middle of the plane (I like that because in business the configuration is 2-2-2, and either of us can get up without disturbing the other) as we had booked. We went up to check e-mail one last time before heading to the gate.

 

At the designated boarding time, we walked to the gate and waited just a little. (yes, I confess to being sort of a "gate louse") We were in the first group to load, and when we got to the attendant, my wife's ticket beeped three times and they told her that her seat had been reassigned. Still in business class, but now we were not sitting together.

 

I asked the gate person what was going on, and she said, "Oh, there are some passengers we can't move". I said I would just ask him to swap, and she said OK.

 

We got to our seats, (row 5, I think) and the fellow was sitting in the seat and had gotten spread out as you do for a long flight.

 

I asked him politely if he would move, so my wife and I could sit together.

 

He said, "I would prefer not to"

 

Like Bartleby the Scrivener!

 

I asked again, politely, and he replied again: "I would prefer not to"

 

I got a little hot. I asked him if he was really going to be such an asshole (I am embarrassed by this comment. In all honesty I usually don't talk like that) and he said nothing at all.

 

I went to the flight attendants, and they were all in a state of confusion. They took our tickets, (not his) and went out of the plane, and said they would take care of it.

 

I walked back to where my wife had been moved, so I could try and do a "domino move" with her seatmate. My wife stayed in our original row, glaring at this fellow.

 

A friend happened to be on the same flight, one row in front of us on the starboard side of the plane. He agreed to move, and then I was able to get HIS seat partner (nobody he knew) to move as well.

 

So we were sitting together again.

 

My wife, bless her soul, would not give up. She asked the flight attendant again, how could they give up our seat in a 1 ½ hour time period? She replied, "some passengers, we just can't move"

 

That made no sense, so we asked again, perhaps a little more forcefully. Now she replied (in a very nice tone of voice, by the way) "Listen to me very carefully. Some. Passengers. We. Just. Can't. Move."

 

Then it hit me.

 

Air marshal!

 

I asked and she nodded.

 

You can imagine that I felt like an idiot.

 

I kept my eye on this guy, though. Just to make sure he never fell asleep.

 

Of course, I can't prove that he didn't sleep at all, but at least he was never asleep when I was watching him.

 

Other than that, it was a peaceful flight.

The show provides news for serious viewers, and if you happen to be one, no other daily program will give you a more extensive offering, refusing -- at some risk -- to heighten the glitz quotient that has been so corrosive elsewhere in today's media. The greatest danger for this time-honored newscast is its being taken for granted while the spotlight shines elsewhere on less worthy but more popular programs.

Flammable substances such as vodka will still be banned.

Brademeyer's mother [grandmother of the little girl] had triggered an alarm and was awaiting a pat-down when Isabella ran to her. That's when Transportation Security Administration officers told Brademeyer her mother could have passed something to her daughter during that brief encounter.
"They said (to Isabella), 'You need to sit down right now!' and they told me, 'She made contact!' " Brademeyer said Tuesday afternoon.
In her Facebook note, she wrote, "When they spoke to her, it was devoid of any sort of compassion, kindness or respect. They told her she had to come to them, alone, and spread her arms and legs. She screamed, 'No! I don't want to!' then did what any frightened young child might, she ran in the opposite direction.
"That is when a TSO told me they would shut down the entire airport, cancel all flights, if my daughter was not restrained. It was then they declared my daughter 'a high-security threat,' " she wrote.

‪In your own post on the Khan story, you once again write as if Homeland Security was some sort of independent federal entity like the Federal Reserve or (my personal favorite as a chemist) the Chemical Safety Board -- answerable to no one but themselves. That's not true, is it? DHS and their behavior are somehow connected to the executive branch, right? Why can't President Obama do something about this? ‬

‪I will not hide my political preferences -- I am a conservative, and I have voted for the Republican in the past. But (as I said in my very first e-mail to you on this issue), it was my hope that the Obama Administration would change the TSA's procedures. ‬

‪Perhaps I'm too blinded by my political preferences to understand this issue. But I see it with (wonderful, intelligent, very liberal pop culture critic) Alyssa Rosenberg's complaints about Khan's detention as well. Once again, DHS is apparently some sort of unmoored federal bureaucracy, unanswerable to the White House, randomly stopping innocent people and embarrassing the United States.‬

‪If you guys act like our President can't control these people (DHS/TSA), who will? ‬

‪I cannot state how much this small issue is coloring my perspectives on our federal government and our ability as a nation to have control over it. If I have voted (and I did, indirectly, much to my chagrin) for the creation of a unchangeable, unmanageable federal bureaucracy that can never be corralled or corrected, I should learn my lesson and never support the creation of a federal office again. ‬