Waitresses as Air Marshals
A man was convicted last week of the federal crime of “interfering with flight crew” after he and his girlfriend were seen “embracing, kissing and acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable.”
Although it usually covers serious criminal activity, the Patriot Act can apply to minor infractions on flights.
“You can’t make any threatening gesture to an attendant because it does violate the Patriot Act,” explained [Charles] Slepian [an aviation security expert at the Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center]. “They don’t want you getting out of your seat except to go the lavatory. The whole idea is to keep control. If you react to the attendant, you’re going to get locked up.”
Flight attendants, with their increased power, definitely seem to be getting more sensitive to all types of behavior. Emily Gillette claims that she was kicked off a plane last month for nursing her baby on a flight between Burlington, Vt., and New York City. A spokesman for Freedom Airlines, which was operating the Delta commuter flight, says that Gillette was ejected because she declined an attendant’s offer of a blanket.
One passenger on a Delta flight from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City was arrested for leaving his seat to go to the lavatory less than 30 minutes before landing (due to the incident, air marshals ordered all passengers to put their hands on their heads for the rest of the flight). And an Orthodox Jewish man was kicked off an Air Canada flight for praying, which attendants claim was making other passengers nervous.
Other passengers have been taken off flights for making jokes, such as asking attendants if they had “checked the crew for sobriety” and “where do you keep the bomb?” Some have been booted for taking onboard hand cream, matches and bottles of water, and for sniffing something in a bag.
And there doesn’t seem to be an age limit for the violators. In 2005, a United Airlines flight out of Chicago was delayed because a small boy said something inappropriate.
Now, there may well have been aggravating circumstances in all those cases. The convicted plane cuddler, for example, was belligerent with the stewardess because he thought she was rude to him.
Still, that an anti-terrorism law is making a federal crime out of being rude to waitresses is patently absurd. And, please, the idea that stewardesses are anything but waitresses 99.999% of the time is a joke. They are not “flight crew” just because they make insipid announcements that nobody actually listens to. (Indeed, on JetBlue, celebrity guests give those safety instructions via videotape.)
Yes, they’re trained to help the passengers to safety in an emergency. When they’re actually acting in that capacity, they should be treated as authority figures. Otherwise, they’re just people who hand out snacks. Let’s quit pretending otherwise.
Being rude to waitresses is boorish. It should not, however, be a crime. Yes, their jobs are hard enough without people being jerks to them. Then again, passengers are paying customers and some of them have bad days. And being crammed into too-small seats and being treated like cattle doesn’t exactly bring out the best in people.
Sean Hackbarth thinks the solution is for better judgment on the part of both the airlines and prosecutors.
The smart airlines better train their attendants to make common sense the rule. All passengers know the story of United 93. U.S. hijackings are a thing of the past. Passengers will fight back. Along with that prosecutors need to use their brains instead of wasting time prosecuting members of the Mile High Club.
Certainly true. Then again, the fact that the law currently makes stewardesses think they’re Authority Figures Who Must Be Obeyed* and gives prosecutors the option to bring trivial cases to court is problematic.
Steven Taylor believes “the bottom line is that at the end of the day innocent citizens are being harassed because the Congress decided to deputize flight attendants.” Quite right. It’s high past time to reverse that.
________
*I’m also less than thrilled with the general trend of police officers who seem to think they are entitled to subservience from the public they’re hired to serve. But that’s a subject for another day.
There is a real simple way to correct all this. Drive!
How often do marshals order everyone on a plane to put their hands on their heads? I’d think we would have heard about that.
“Waitresses.” Ouch. I will be checking this thread periodically for the “flight attendants” to show up in force.
Heh. Actually, I think I’m being generous here, as waitresses tend to be better at their job than airline flight attendants. Even at an inexpensive restaurant, they’re much more proactive.
Then again, they work for tips. Maybe they ought to decrease flight attendant pay and pass word to the passengers that gratuities are appreciated…
… and yet, no one’s mentioned the Replacements:
She don’t wear no pants and she don’t wear no tie
Always on the ball, she’s always on strike
Struttin’ up the aisle, big deal, you get to fly
You ain’t nothin’ but a waitress in the sky
You ain’t nothin’ but a waitress in the sky
Paid my fare, don’t wanna complain
You get to me, you’re always outta champagne
Treat me like a bum, don’t wear no tie
’cause you ain’t nothin’ but a waitress in the sky
You ain’t nothin’ but a waitress in the sky
And the sign says, “Thank you very much for not smoking”
My own sign says, “I’m sorry, I’m smokin'”
Don’t treat me special, don’t kiss my ass
Treat me like the way they treat ’em up in first class
Sanitation expert and a maintenance engineer
Garbage man, a janitor and you my dear
A real union flight attendant, my oh my
You ain’t nothin’ but a waitress in the sky
and in todays news:
granted these folks were probably rude…… but to get ejected from a flight, come on..
I don’t know the details but given that they weren’t arrested and were immediately allowed on another fight, it does strike me as overkill. Especially when they turn the plane around and screw all the other passengers.
Interference with a Flight Crew predates the Patriot Act by a number of years, so that’s a red herring. The two have no relation, which effectively squashes this entire article.
And let’s look at this incident in particular:
That’s threatening at the least, not just “being rude.” Sorry.
Dig a little deeper next time. I found that in two minutes online. Research, please. Due diligence is essential if you want to consider yourself a journalist.
Read the statute you cite from 1999:
That was about safety, not rude behavior.
That word “threat” in the statute? See it? Now look at what Persing said to the FA. Was it? Maybe, maybe not.
That phrase “interferes with the performance of that crew member’s duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties?” Did he? Maybe, maybe not. We can debate it all day, but it still doesn’t address the fact that there is no nexus between the Patriot Act and this statute and incident. None. Zero. Zilch.
there is no nexus between the Patriot Act and this statute and incident. None. Zero. Zilch.
That’s simply untrue. Patriot Act revised and extended several pre-existing policies.
Okay then, slightly. But it has no bearing on this incident as the relevant statute (46504) was only modified by the Patriot Act insofar as “relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon.” It was amended to add “or attempts or conspires to do such an act.” Does this qualify as totalitarian and repressive?
Being “rude” to a FA doesn’t invoke the Patriot Act. Still a red herring. There exists a slight nexus from the Patriot Act to 46504, but certainly nothing substantively repressive. It merely expands assault to also include attempted assault, which is a charge or essential element in every state in the Union.
Also, here is the indictment of the charge:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/crim/uspersing101106ind.html
Notice the verbiage stating “…and did threaten to initiate a violent confrontation with the flight attendant….”
Nope, not being rude. Threatening. There is a substantive difference.