JetBlue removes mom after 3 tweets about flight delays

[toaddy]

JetBlue removes mom after 3 tweets about flight delay | Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/10/09/jetblue_removes_mom_after_3_tweets_about_flight_delay.html)

[maxred]

Confirmation, if all this is true, that the world has well and truly gone mad...

[ChristiaanJ]

Was the pilot North-Korean?

[Hotel Tango]

Not the first psychologically impaired pilot to fly for JetBlue! Never mind sobriety test, I think they should have this captain checked for possible psychological disorders before he loses it completely!

[KBPsen]

There's nothing like a one-sided article full of irrelevant emotive stuff that can get people to jump in feet first with <deleted> comments.

Critical reading, is it really a lost art?

[toaddy]

The plot thickens:

Did tweeting get JetBlue passenger kicked off plane? - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/travel/jetblue-tweet-passenger-kicked-off/index.html)

[jackieofalltrades]

There's nothing like a one-sided article full of irrelevant emotive stuff that can get people to jump in feet first with <deleted> comments.

Sums up the article very well. It is a poor piece of journalism, but so typical of today's poor standards.

Nitpicking, but I despair when I read comments such as "Just after midnight, when the plane was cleared for takeoff, Carter-Knight’s real problems started: The pilot and flight crew informed her that she was denied access to the airline because of her tweets."
Really? So the passengers hadn't even boarded the flight, but it was cleared for take off?! :ugh:

[Heathrow Harry]

"The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly," Young said. "If we feel a customer is not complying with safety instructions, exhibits objectionable behavior or causes conflict at the gate or on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane or will be denied boarding especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of accelerating in the air. "In this instance, the customer received a refund and chose to fly on another carrier.""


so basically she was right - they got the hump because of her tweets and caused her maximum inconvenience - tells you a lot about people at JetBlue

[Capot]

Nitpicking,Yup, you got that right. Puerile nitpicking, too. So you know the real meaning of "Take-off" and the journalist doesn't. Well done, good for you; I bet you don't know any of the jargon that journalists use about print production. Just substitute "departure", which even to aviation professionals has a variety of definitions, and get on with it. You knew exactly what the writer meant, didn't you? You showed us that, which rather defeated your protest.

When you've done that, why not come back and explain exactly why it's a poor piece of journalism, but so typical of today's poor standardsIt seemed a fairly straight-forward, balanced account to me, provided I can get over the dreadful misuse of the term "take-off".

[KBPsen]

tells you a lot about people at JetBlue

Does it say anything that you missed this quote?

"The customer was not kicked off because of her tweets," JetBlue spokeswoman Tamara Young wrote in an email. "There were other customers that also tweeted and boarded the plane. As we shared, it is not our practice to remove a customer for expressing criticism of their experience in any medium. This customer however was denied boarding due to unruly behavior and creating a disturbance by the gate area."

[toaddy]

'Twas the perfect storm of maintenance delays, frustrated passengers and crew, an ill-received alcohol joke, an instigator and technology.

Where's the video? Where's big brother when you need it? LOL

[glendalegoon]

I don't fly for nor do I like jetblue.

However, if one is accused of drinking, one must act right away. The above post properly identifies the problem as not tweeting.

Would love to have the security cam footage to know what the behavior in question was.

Call me a drunk, the show stops , we prove otherwise and I sue you!

[west lakes]

Would love to have the security cam footage to know what the behaviour in question was.True, but if you have noticed, it is very rare for businesses to provide evidence that would humiliate people even in these sort of situations or even say what actually happened.

[jackieofalltrades]

Yup, you got that right. Puerile nitpicking, too. So you know the real meaning of "Take-off" and the journalist doesn't. Well done, good for you; I bet you don't know any of the jargon that journalists use about print production. Just substitute "departure", which even to aviation professionals has a variety of definitions, and get on with it. You knew exactly what the writer meant, didn't you? You showed us that, which rather defeated your protest.

When you've done that, why not come back and explain exactly why it's


Yes, I bow to your know-it-all attitude. Even though you don't know me you feel the need to make assumptions that you can't possibly know. For the record, I worked several years as a copy-editor, so I do have a comprehension on print production.

But why bother getting facts correct and using correct terminology? By your reckoning it's fine to substitute any word the author cares because the reader will "know what he meant." I stand by my opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, I just shan't agree with it.

[Capot]

Yes OK, you're right, it was an unwarranted assumption. You do know print production jargon. But I still believe that castigating journalists just because they misuse technical terms is unwarranted. Anyone who read that story knew what was meant, especially non-aviation people.

And you still haven't explained why

a poor piece of journalism, but so typical of today's poor standardsunless the word "take-off" is all you were talking about, in an otherwise good report.

[ExXB]

C'mon you guys. This is getting tedious. Go open a thread on journalistic quality, or not, on JB. You'll have lots of interest there.

Thank you.