August 18
Recently a passenger on a jetBlue flight (what’s going on over there these days—they sure are in the news quite a bit!) was escorted off a flight, in hand-cuffs, for refusing to delete footage she had taken of an altercation between passengers and flight crew about a disruptive toddler.
The passenger, a 56-year old grandmother, had videotaped an argument that was taking place a few rows ahead of her between two passengers regarding a crying child, which allegedly belonged to one of the arguers. You can few the 50 second video here:
When asked by the flight crew to delete the footage after she showed it to them, she refused. Soon afterwards, the crew informed her that the Captain was now demanding that the footage be deleted, claiming that she was in violation of Federal Air Regulations, barring passengers from interfering with an inflight crews’ duties and responsibilities. She again refused and was met by police at the arrival gate and taken off the plane in handcuffs.
Later, jetBlue not only apologized, but also verified that she had the right to videotape whatever she wanted. In the past, federal judges have upheld individuals’ rights to film pretty much anything they desire and demands for deleting the footage could be interpreted as a violation of the passenger’s First and Fourth Amendment rights (see “The People of the State of Illinois v. Chris Drew”).
What struck me about this incident is that for years, I have often wondered if there are any protections for flight attendants as they do their job, against seeming opportunists or worse yet, scheming troublemakers with ill intent.
I am reminded of how one of my flying partners was brutally murdered while she was on layover in Boise, Idaho (I was not working with her on that trip) [see http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/10/nyregion/victim-in-idaho-river-appears-to-be-missing-flight-attendant-police-say.html]. This is a rare, but stark reminder to inflight crews, who take their jobs very serious and who have had to remain diligent both on the plane (i.e. 9/11, the Richard Reid “Shoebomber”, among others) and off.
In my mind, unlike policemen or firemen, flight attendants and pilots are NOT public servants, although we are public contact workers. It seems there is a fine line which divides us among those who are employed by local, state and federal workers, and those who are employed by private entities, such as airlines.
What exacerbates the issue is the era in which we live—the high-speed information era. Within seconds, something taking place in New York City can be seen in the far, remote reaches of Bangladesh or Pakistan or China. The term “viral” has been applied to YouTube videos and sound bites in the media because of its swift spreading introduction into laptops, PDAs and televisions only moments later.
The point is that many of us in the airline industry are extremely sensitive to someone filming us, video or otherwise, without permission because it is difficult to know what the intended use of that unauthorized medium will be.
The jetBlue passenger was accused of wanting to post the video on YouTube, and although she told them that she didn’t know how to do it, it still ended up there. To be fair, I didn’t witness anything on that video that could place either of the two cabin crew members in jeopardy (it wasn’t even a very good quality video, as you can see) but to the crew members, with so many others watching, including the companies that we work for, it’s nerve-wracking at best to be worried about what outcome may transpire with a secret and unauthorized tape.
Smile…you’re on Candid Camera!
