Midwest airlines to passenger who was screwed over and shouted at: we did nothing wrong and owe you nothing
Then, when Greenbaum complained, he was given a measly $25 voucher. He tried to complain higher up, but was ignored until he sent email to the whole executive of Midwest.
And that's when they took away his voucher and told him they'd done nothing wrong.
When the flight eventually boarded and I noticed it wasn’t the exit row, I politely told a Flight Attendant that there was a misunderstanding at the ticket counter and I asked for an exit row. She took my boarding pass and said she would see what she could do. I assumed it would be if an exit row seat was available, I’d be first to get it.Link (via Consumerist)Instead a very large man named Roger with a booming and aggressive voice, loudly said “I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS SEAT AND WANT OFF THIS FLIGHT".
He held my boarding pass in his hand while saying this and as I reached for it, he pulled it away. I said “No problem officer” and he handed me my boarding pass. I thought I was going to be removed from the flight! The flight appeared to be held while he chatted with the flight staff. I was 100% convinced I was going to be removed from the flight because I complained about my seat. Passengers were visibly shaken, not sure why I was going to be removed from the flight and cause problems later in the travel
the latest
latest episodes
time to stop using airlines
s th pclyps (n, nt THT pclyps...) rpdly pprchs, ths srt f vnts wll hppn mr nd mr.
...You know, this is *really* getting to be pretty pathetic on the part of the hire-a-nazis. Dave needs to sue the airline *and* sue the wannabee pig for damages. He won't get anything from the pig unless he opts for a wage garnish, but this sort of crap from a fucking bimbo stewardess being supported by her employer - makes you wonder who *she* blew to keep her job! - needs to be shoved back down their collective throats.
Yah, sad to watch a whole industry commit suicide by stupidity.
The Airlines will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Trains are more fun.
@ #3: Yes, clearly the problem lies primarily (solely?) with the people at the very bottom of the corporation. Especially females, who apparently have to provide sexual favors in order to keep their jobs.
Good thing you put them both in their places through the magic of dehumanization!
The way I see it, anyone in the service sector (or low-level law enforcement) is "just doing their job." It's really sad when people take the little authority that's granted to a flight attendant and abuse it, but more often than not they're expected to do so by management.
In other words, these people are probably considered overachievers rather than rogue agents who grossly deviated from the corporate script out of their own personal desire to inflict chaos on the status quo.
Midwest airlines needs to take responsibility for allowing this situation to happen, and they need to change what they consider acceptable customer service.
Why would anyone want to save an airline? It's a business. You owe it nothing, and, as this incident shows, it owes you nothing either. If it ran an essential service that wouldn't be replaced by another, then lobby to keep that service. If they treat you like a potential troublemaker, then take your business somewhere else. Simple.
"They didn't even offer me a cookie--just a 'sincere' apology."
t mzs m hw ftn whn ppl hv pd fr smthng, n mttr hw smll th mnt, sm t thnk thy r rylty, nd th wrld ws thm vrythng, nd thn cmpln nd whn whn thy dn't gt vry lttl thng thy wnt ctrd fr.
spclly mrcns nd th Brtsh. thy r s splt
My rdng s tht h ws ffrd vchr BT RFSD T, bcs h wnts FR FLGHT, nd R MLS nstd. nd ll bcs h ddn't t th st h wntd.
Ths stpd whnr dsrvs ll h gts. H csd trbl wth th stff bcs h ddn't th st h wntd, nd h sms t hv prblm wth "Rgr" bcs h ddn't d wht h wntd. Ths mn sms t thnk tht th wrld ws hm. t dsn't. f y dn't gt th st y wnt, gss wht? Dn't ct lk bby, dn't pt xggrtd clms n yr blg, dn't rfs $25 vchr thn cmpln bcs thy wn't gv y fr flght nd r mls, nd dn't thnk tht th cmpny ws y nythng. Thy dn't. Stp whnng.
"Whn h skd t b r-std ftr brdng, th flght ttndnt gt scrty gy wh shtd t hm nd thrtnd t kck hm ff th pln."
nyn ls thnk tht thr ws prbbly lttl mr t ths stry thn wht ws rprtd?
Thnk y gn BB fr pstng pr rprtng n nythng tht mght sm t vlt r rghts....
Unless I misunderstood, the key issue here was poor customer service to the point of intimidating aggressiveness. That being said, I agree with a previous poster who mentioned taking business elsewhere. If this truly is a problem and people show their dislike the company might give a ____ .
sounds like your typical government subsidized industry secured by our happy friends at the DHS
or: In America, the airlines fly YOU
Fv hrs bfr smn sttd th bvs: Crybby cldn't gt n sl st. Cmplns t th ntr ntrnt. Th nd. Srsly, BB, w knw Th Mn s lwys t t gt s, spclly t th rprt, bt myb lttl hlthy skptcsm s n rdr n ccsn.
Yeah, I have a very hard time believing the conversation went down as he said. H ws prbbly bng prck r hldng p th ln r bth. When you buy a ticket, you buy the privilege of sitting on that plane until it arrives at the place you're trying to go. If you get the seat you want, you're lucky. If you don't, well, provided the plane doesn't fall out of the sky, you'll probably have many more chances.
I just got done taking two flights over the last couple days. Both times I was seated in the middle seat, when I always ask for an aisle because I hate bothering people when I need to pee, which is often on airplanes for some reason. But do I kick up a fuss? No. I just go, "Oh. That's too bad. Oh well, thanks for checking anyway." Because, believe it or not, I'm a civil person.
Maybe someone got overzealous, but I have a hard time believing they'd call in the mall cops just because a guy didn't like his seat.
Lots of doubters here. What do you think happens when an industry is given the powers of a police state? Every time a customer gives them a hassle instead of trying to make things right they can just act like he / she is a security threat.
Honestly how many stories like this do you all need to read before you believe that the system has gotten out of control?
What's happened here?
BB comments have recently become like youtube comments, filled with vitriol, sexism, and a generally uncivilized tone.
This post is a good example.
Yes, the ticket agent was an idiot (or just didn't understand the guy). Yes, the rent-a-cop overstepped himself (or didn't understand the issue and reacted the way he thought he was supposed to).
But this guy really overstepped himself. His letter outlines the problem in a logical way, conveniently skipping some important details about the situation, and then demands a free flight with not-very-veiled threats against the company: "I don't want to have to post YouTube videos about this," etc.
If I were a Midwest exec, I'd hate this guy and send him a form letter, too.
Dave refused the $25 voucher since "why would [he] want a voucher on an airlines that would threaten to pull [him] off the plane?", but then in the next paragraph demands either "a free voucher for future travel" or "the equivalent miles into my Midwest miles account". He then closes his letter with a threat, "I don’t want to post video on the internet or the blogsophere like others did when a Southwest agent denied boarding. I'm not looking to hurt the company I believe in."
When the executive at Midwest failed to respond to the demands and threats with a muffin basket and a heartfelt personalized letter, Dave makes good on his threat and begins whining online seeking the "cookie" he believes he deserves for not getting everything he wants.
vn s cmpltly n-sdd rcntng f th vnts, Dv's stry dsn't rng tr t m nd rds s chldsh rctn t n f lf's mny chllngs. wndr f h rcts ths wy vry tm h fls t gt wht h wnts r hs sm rn-n wth th clrly ncmptnt >"mltcltrl wrkfrc".
An incident like this I don't chalk up to "system". There are enough idiots in the world on both sides of the line without them needing to be organized to practice idiocy.
Sounds like an asshole, says the guy (me) who works for a small commuter airline. That said, I nearly threatened to put a couple on a no-fly list for giving me some lip after my airline screwed up (cancelled) their flight. Luckily for them, I came to my senses before speaking and just hung up on 'em.
Lot of trolls in here today...
S nw vry tm smn rcvs bd cstmr srvc t's Thrt T r Lbrts nd Frdms?
Ths gy snds nnyng nd slf-rghts, nd vn f y ccpt hs stry t fc vl, ll tht h "sffrd" ws mmnt f mbrrssmnt nd cpl f hrs wth lss lgrm thn h ws hpng fr. n xchng fr ths hrrbl ncnvnnc h's gttn $25 vchr >nd h's nw gttn fr frqnt flyr mls. nd yt stll h fls wrngd, nd dmnds hndrds f dllrs wrth f cmpnstn, fr th "wrng" tht ws dn t hm.
Wy t hlp hm fd hs lrdy vrblwn sns f nttlmnt nd prvlg, BngBng. Cld y t lst dsply >hnt f skptcsm whn y pst n f ths thngs?
For all those who said he deserved what he got, did you read the article or just the synopsis. Having read the article, he asked for and GOT the exit seat. "Ramone" said as much. When he asked Ramone whether it was an exit seat, Ramone said yes. When Narissa (The customer service agent) called Ramone, SH HD DFFCLTY NDRSTNDG HM. Therefore, the obligation to fix this lies with the airline. The fact that he complained at all shouldn't be factored in to what he recieves (which shouldn't be a flight mind you...). If you go to a restaurant and order a steak, and they bring you chicken, you complain right. He ordered the exit seat, and was told he had it, didn't get it because Ramone can't speak the good english, and OMG complained.
Don't get me wrong, his letter wasn't worded well, demands instead of requests...but, overall, the Airline screwed up on this one. They should do the responsible thing, send Roger to training, Ramone to ESL, and follow up on ALL complaints against staff.
A lot of people didn't read the letter.
- An exit row is not an aisle seat, but the row in which the emergency exits are located. These rows have superior leg room compared to other rows. This can be a major comfort issue for someone taller then 5'8" and if someone is able to get this row there is no reason for them not to try.
On that note, the flight was from NYC to Kansas City, which is a 3+ hour flight. It's no transatlantic, but it's still 3 hours. Whether paying $100 or $400, you deserve to get the best for your dollar, especially if an exit row and a 'normal' row cost the same price and you prefer the exit row.
- The problem is not that he "didn't get what he wanted" but that he didn't get what he was told he was getting. If they didn't want to give him a seat in that row, they could've not given it to him but at least told him at the counter that they couldn't accommodate that request.
- For the $25 voucher, although he mentions a free trip would be ideal, he also points out that the problem with the voucher is it's just a credit. Even a $25 cheque/refund would've been preferred because he would be getting reimbursement on the flight already flown. The voucher requires him to buy another flight. On top of that, if the flight is a $200+, saving $25 is hardly any kind of reimbursement.
It's good to know that so many of your are pleased with the way airlines are handling customers. I don't care if this guy is a dick or if he does not deserve a free ticket.
The point is that the airlines use intimidation to keep customers in line. Intimidation brought on by power given to them they have no buisness having.
If any other buisness acted this way they would be closed in no time.
The main issue here is that a customer service representative thought that he was Dirty Harry and that his job gave him the right to bully and mistreat a customer who dared ask for a seat assignment change.
Little people using a position of minor authority to bully ordinary citizens is not a good thing, and has gotten worse in the post 9/11 world.
Mark @22: Your story is the perfect illustration of how the rule of law is eroded by "security" measures like no-fly lists. That you did the right thing is a credit to you, but that you had the power to arbitrarily prevent those people (jerks though they may be) from ever flying again is appalling.
I am really shocked by this, honestly. I've flown midwest on several occasions and the staff have be much more professional than any other airline I've flown (besides, maybe SAS). They were overly nice, really. It's one of my top airline picks.
The letter he wrote talks about how he spoke with someone who made comments about various staff members at Midwest. I'm skeptical of how this conversation went down as it just doesn't sound like coporate communication - it's usually quite unprofessional to make comments like that and the chances of getting someone who knew the people he was refering to seems pretty slim.
Apparently this "Roger" fellow that Midwest has working at LaGuardia is a real problem for Midwest. On the Consumerist blog comments, several people report having run-ins with him.
If the (relatively compared with total passengers) tiny sample size of Consumerist has several people who know of that guy, it's a sure bet that Midwest CS folks know about him.
Why he hasn't been fired is the real question. Maybe he has a good union or something.
#12 et al: Instead of pulling a "Roger" on you and ripping on you, I will just state that you don't know what you are talking about.
I will also venture many posters (I agree with #23, perhaps they are trolls) who didn't bother to read the linked blog post. The guy's message seemed very reasonable indeed. Heck, he prefaces the letter by saying what a fan he has been of the airline!
A $25 voucher is meaningless, especially after some goon harrasses you on the plane.
I was on a Midwest flight in mid-2006 (my only experience flying Midwest ever). There was some sort of problem with some alarm that would not shut off. They could tell the alarm indication was false but it had to be fixed before takeoff. Midwest has only one gate in Boston IIRC, and so was at the mercy of other airline maintenance people for help. The flight was delayed a long time, but other re-routing through other airlines were all one-stop itineraries which would have resulted in little or no benefit time-wise (this flight was direct to WI). Only a few people transferred flights.
EVERYONE got a $75 voucher without asking for it. We were also allowed to deplane/re-plane as we wanted. I politely asked the gate attendant for a food voucher and got one for $15 with no questions and ate quite well, thanks.
We chatted with the friendly and apologetic flight crew, who rued that Midwest was VERY different before 9/11: Midwest was a "business class for everyone" airline. That explained the leather business class level seats throughout the plane! For $50 or so more at the time, the flight attendant said, everyone got business class level service, meals etc. That evaporated after 9/11. "It's all about cost now," she said.
Despite the very long delay, I think the crew earned many new customers that day. You learn a lot about how a company responds to a problem. Sadly, I guess a LOT has changed since mid-2006 at Midwest Airlines.
I also suspect some of the problem has to do with the local gene pool working at LGA, one of the worst airports to begin with. But it sounds like things have gotten worse also since Midwest has been acquired, given their 'don't give a s***' brush-off to this guy's very reasonable letter.
You know, I will say some of the people here shouting down this guy for daring to complain in a civilized, calm manner strike me as the same kind of people on the BK whopperfreakout.com ads: "GET BACK THERE AN' GIMME A WHOPPER!"
"It was the most embarrassing incident in my life."
To me, this is the whole reason for the crusade to get compensated. This guy's rights weren't violated. He was embarrassed in public. It's funny how mortified some people get when someone calls them out. Even if it wasn't deserved and even if Roger was a jerk, the guy was simply embarrassed and now thinks he deserves all manner of compensation, including having Roger disciplined. I can just imagine this guy stewing about it the whole trip, plotting several revenge fantasies in his head.
You wrote your letter, you made good on your fey threats about posting to the interweb. Guess what? Your feelings aren't worth a free ticket. In fact, they're not even worth a free cookie.
One of the interesting things I got from this is the failure of the company's customer service folks to grasp the concept of negotiation. I have actually experienced this a couple of times in the past year or so. I had been used to making some sort of marginally unreasonable demand and then working towards the middle. Lately, I have been greeted with a stunned "Uhhh...." and then no offer at all. It has cost a few businesses my patronage. Though my local bank did negotiate when I had a disputed credit card charge, more incentive to do your business locally.
OK, Dave's a friend of mine (not an internet "friend" but a real live flesh and blood friend), and to his defense, he's not one to exaggerate an experience or complain for no reason. He's certainly not the entitled type by any means. I don't think any of us in the same situation would just say "ho hum, that's the world we live in", sit down and and keep our mouths shut. His complaint was valid.
My wife and my mother and I had a flight booked to New Orleans on Midwest a few days after Hurricane Katrina. The flight was cancelled, of course. Midwest said they would not refund our tickets because we didn't not purchase refundable tickets. I was furious. I've never used their airline since.
Landowner's comment #28 seems especially trenchant: "I don't care if this guy is a dick or if he does not deserve a free ticket. The point is that the airlines use intimidation to keep customers in line. Intimidation brought on by power given to them they have no business having. If any other buisness acted this way they would be closed in no time."
Exactly right. The reason it's important to keep highlighting these stories is that airlines and their employees have been recruited to serve as auxiliary bullyboys for the keep-everyone-intimidated national-security state.
It's entirely possible that some of these anecdotes conceal stories in which, in fact, the airlines are blameless. The solution to this is more transparency and accountability.
Mr. Grnbm, hv dffclt tm blvng tht thngs rlly hppnd s y sy thy dd. Y clm tht y shwd p thr hrs rly s y cld gt th sl st. Yh, rght. Why wld y d tht knwng tht y cn pck yr st nln hd f tm sng Mdwst's nln chck-n tlty? t's tr tht flyng hs bcm bt f nsnc bt t's mnly d t t pssngrs wh gt thr pnts n bnch whn thy'r skd t rmv thr shs t scrty r wh thrw ft whn thy'r std n rw tht sn't thr frst chc. n cs y hvn't ntcd, ll th sts n Mdwst rlns r spcs nd cmfrtbl. Wht's th bg dl? 'm pplld tht thy ffrd y $25 vchr. Tht s wy t mch. Pls d s ll fvr nd g Gryhnd nxt tm.
Damn. It's too bad I entirely agree with Patrick, because that leaves me with very little to say.
But I will add this: even in a strict, authoritarian society, which this isn't supposed to be, consistency and stability are important values. Arbitrary and capricious rules, and enforcement of same, are signs of a society in decline.
The liquids and gels and now batteries (!) are examples of nonsensical rules. They're designed to keep us convinced that we know nothing about the reasoning behind the rules, and that "they" somehow know a way to make a bomb with four ounces of aloe vera gel and a battery.
This i/s/ /g/e/t/t/i/n/g/ has gotten ridiculous. Airline employees should not be ABLE to eject someone from a flight without a good reason (and those good reasons should be very narrowly defined). Airline employees should not be able to add someone to a no-fly list for ANY reason (I don't actually think no-fly lists are worth doing at all, frankly); they should have to apply to the authority that holds the no-fly list, and that authority should be required to investigate before taking any action.
And "Roger" and "Ramone" should both be fired.
Whoever is moderating is on a roll. Can you take out the consonants next time?
I have to do a lot of flying, and flying where I don't get to choose my airlines, or arrange for my own seats.
I've often had to try and get a seat more to my liking at the counter. I've had some misunderstanding (being in front of the bulkhead, instead of behind it).
If I had been treated like this, well I'd be pissed off too. And a voucher? A discount on a chance to repeat the hassle of being threatened with ejection for asking to have what I was told I was paying for?
That's adding insult to injury. I'd certainly send a note to the company telling them such a response was inadequate, and that, absent some more compelling incenitive, I'd not being giving them any more custom.
I don't know that I'd threaten them with a public shaming, but I might, esp. as the customer here (you know, the person whose money is paying for those salaries the CEO is making so much more than; the one who keeps the business afloat) was publicly abused in the incident.
Silence = assent. Allowing an institution to run roughshod over the people whom they serve is to reinforce that sort of, unacceptable, behavior.
So no, I don't think the letter to the management was out of line; because what he was doing in the first place wasn't out of line. What they did in response, most certainly was.
s ndrstnd t Dv Grnbm psts cmplnt bt n rln n hs blg nd t gts lnkd hr, s w r t blv hm. (ls, vryn tht ths gy dlt wth t th rln shld b frd snc thy r ncmptnt nd rd -- ccrdng t BngBng rdrs).
f n dsn't gr wth Grnbm thn y r cnsdrd trll r t s ssmd y ddn't rd hs ntr pst. Myb, by nt tttng th BngBng ln, y r fr-thnkr. LL.
Let me try again.
s ndrstnd t Dv Grnbm psts cmplnt bt n rln n hs blg nd t gts lnkd hr, s w r t blv hm. (ls, vryn tht ths gy dlt wth t th rln shld b frd snc thy r ncmptnt nd rd -- ccrdng t Grnbm).
f n dsn't gr wth Grnbm thn y r cnsdrd trll r t s ssmd y ddn't rd hs ntr pst. Myb, by nt tttng th BngBng ln, y r fr-thnkr. LL.
+Ramone: I made cookie [in severely broken English]...
-Roger: But I eated it [in booming, angry voice to passenger]...
Poor service and grouchy staff is one thing, but when their groucheyness ends up with a citizen being harassed by semi-sanctioned security guys who are essentially immune to your protests and repurcussions, that is when it goes over the edge, as it seems in this case.
In part it's our own fault for expecting security to flow out of increased military/police presence instead of through the agency of intelligence which seems to be focused more on pot growers and peaceniks than curbing the legitimate security gaps that a five year old could probably describe.
As much as I consider myself a civic minded stand-up kinda person, when my neighbor has a mean dog and claims it will keep the entire neighborhood crime free, I still don't like it when it looks like that at me and my children. That's not the kind of security that will keep us safe. Motivate and involved neighbors who look out for each other will, but who will do that with the possibility that your help will be held accountable when anything goes wrong the security apparatchic are looking for someone to blame?
Consider Ron Paul as a step towards self reliance and responsible behavior.
Gosh, David. Your post at 44 looks just like your post at 43, only with vowels (wonder how long that'll last)! See how astute I am?
Seriously, are you just going to repeat the same post until the mods get tired of disemvowelling you and ban you outright?
Oh, wait, you said "according to Greenbaum" instead of "according to BoingBoing readers." Well, then, THAT'S different.
Btw, I don't agree with Greenbaum. I'd've publically shamed them from the minute I got off the plane, and I DON'T think they're worth saving.
Anonymous (19):
You're right.It's partly my fault. I was ill over the holidays, and couldn't ride herd on Boing Boing's comments as much as I usually do. When uncivil comments are let stand, it encourages other uncivil commenters to join in.
Also, when we run stories about the misuses and abuses of security, we tend to get a lot of jeering, unpleasant responses which make assertions that are unsupported by the linked-to material. Usually about a quarter to a half of them are posted by people who have a history of making reasonable comments on other subjects. Those get extra latitude -- or if they don't, I at least feel bad about disemvowelling or unpublishing them. I don't feel very bad at all about the ones that have no other history on Boing Boing.
It's dead easy to say that someone had it coming, or that they must be lying, or that they have a bad attitude. That's not an argument; it's just a performance. It doesn't require that the speaker acquire any facts, or do any hard thinking. It doesn't even require that they read and master a short article about what happened. All they have to do is take the attitude that they know more than anyone else present, and now they're gonna set the rest of us straight.
I don't know whether I'm speaking for everyone else here, but I sure get tired of watching the butt-naked wannabe-emperor parade.
From Consumerist, in the comment thread:
I don't understand why my post was censored. I didn't say anything threatening or vulgar. I merely expressed a difference of opinion. Certainly that isn't enough to warrant the erosion of free speech, is it?
What is the deal with taking vowels out of posts? It's really bothering me. As far as I can tell (it's not all that hard to read posts that have the vowels taken out, just harder than it should be) all these posts are doing is looking at it from a different angle, wondering if the guy is exaggerating his side of the issue. Are any posts that disagree with boing-boing's post made unreadable?
Although I realize that the main point is the aggressive security guard, I came to look at these comments specifically to see if anyone had pointed out that flight attendants are allowed to refuse an exit aisle seat to anyone they think may not be able to assist others in the event of an emergency, and therefore most airlines make it clear that an exit seat can not be guaranteed, but I feel like I shouldn't bother to post that.
I'm really very disappointed in Boing Boing over this.
Smoakes, read TNH's post at #48. Also, the point of disemvowelling is that you can read them if you want to, but you don't read them involuntarily just by looking at them. It does make it harder to read, but never without cause. It's censure, not censorship, comments like #50 notwithstanding.
As to your point, the issue with the seat was not that he didn't get the exit row seat he wanted, but that he was told he had it, then didn't get it, and asked to be seated in it if someone else vacated it. (This is, of course, according to Greenbaum's account.)
But you know what? Maybe he was whiny. Maybe he was annoying, and insistent, and kept asking the FA "has anyone vacated it YET?" every 30 seconds. Still: that doesn't remotely justify the behavior of the stupid thug "Roger." If the description of his actual behavior is marginally true, even if he said what he said in a calm, quiet, nonthreatening voice, he had no right to threaten someone with being thrown off the flight just for being annoying -- no matter how annoying.
TNH @ #48 - It's dead easy to say that someone had it coming, or that they must be lying, or that they have a bad attitude. That's not an argument; it's just a performance. It doesn't require that the speaker acquire any facts, or do any hard thinking. It doesn't even require that they read and master a short article about what happened. All they have to do is take the attitude that they know more than anyone else present, and now they're gonna set the rest of us straight.
Please explain to me how this description applies to those who have read and then questioned the seriousness of Mr. Greenbaum's complaint, but does NOT apply to those who read his account and immediately chimed in with comments about how this is further incontrovertible proof of the country's slow slide into authoritarianism? Isn't it equally "dead easy" to point at this one-sided anecdote, nod knowingly, and say, "See, there they go again"?
ElGuapo138 50: Actually if you look at your recent comments here: http://dynamic.boingboing.net/profile/ElGuapo138 and compare the ones that were disemvowelled to the ones that were not, a pattern will emerge. The ones that still have their vowels are reasonably civil; the ones that do not contain sentences like "Dn't cll m sssy-pnts r 'll ht y wth my prs" and phrases like "pssngrs wh gt thr pnts n bnch." Some of your posts apparently disagree quite strongly with the prevailing opinions, but since they don't belittle or insult the people you're disagreeing with, they've kept their vowels.
This is my analysis from a brief look through your recent posts, and does not in any way represent the mods, or BoingBoing, or anyone other than me (a humble fellow commenter). But you did ask, and I think the above really is the answer.
El Guapo, I take it you didn't read my previous comments? You didn't "merely express a difference of opinion." You asserted that Greenbaum must be lying, and that the increased difficulty of flying these days is "mainly due to to passengers who get their panties in a bunch" over trivial issues. Your tone was unpleasant. Your arguments were unsupported.
As for your freedom of speech -- i.e., your right to post whatever you want on your own website -- it's wholly unaffected by what's happened here.
Smoakes, if you didn't bother to read my previous explanation, I don't see why I should write another one just for you.
You also didn't bother to read the undisemvowelled parts of the comment thread. If you had, your question -- "Are any posts that disagree with boing-boing's post made unreadable?" -- would have answered itself.
Xopher, I don't think Greenbaum was all that troublesome. I get the sense that he had a prior relationship with Midwest Airlines, which used to have great service and sometimes still does. (The change may have something to do with Midwest being semi-merged with Northwest Airlines in May 2007.) Asking for an exit row is a perfectly normal maneuver, especially if you're tall. Asking whether you can have a specific seat if it becomes available is likewise a perfectly normal maneuver. Flight attendants deal with requests like that all the time.
We don't know whether the Roger whom Greenbaum ran afoul of was the same Roger that AlgorMortis wrote about on Consumerist. If he is the same Roger, he's a menace.
For me, the worst part of this kerfluffle is that I would much rather have spent my time encouraging Mark Temporis to say more.
ElGuapo138 50: Actually if you look at your recent comments here: http://dynamic.boingboing.net/profile/ElGuapo138 and compare the ones that were disemvowelled to the ones that were not, a pattern will emerge.
===========
I checked it out and a pattern does indeed emerge. Every post in which I expressed a contrary opinion was censored, even if nothing objectionable was said. It's a sad day when merely expressing a difference of opinion is grounds for censorship. That's right out of the Karl Rove play book. You may as well disable my account at this point. I'm heading to forums that encourage open expression and free thinking.
TNH, I don't think Greenbaum was likely being troublesome either. I was saying that even if he had been being a right PITA, that wouldn't excuse Roger's treatment of him.
One thing I do think is that he definitely should have refrained from mentioning posting videos on YouTube etc. in his letter to the airline, both for ethical and practical reasons. Ethical because, at least to me, including that type of veiled threat smacks of blackmail; practical because it made it harder for the airline to give him what he wanted, lest they be subjected to more of the same, including by people who had actually suffered no wrongs at all.
ElGuapo138 57: Mind the door to avoid bruising.
You know the rule: anyone's welcome as long as they're behaving. That only ceases to apply if they've screwed up so many times that I can no longer believe they mean well. El Guapo's well short of that point.
Oh, I wasn't saying EG should be kicked out. I was just encouraging hir not to hesitate to stomp off in a huff--with, presumably, hir pnts n bnch.
Theres a common phrase used in such situations, but I decided to encode it slightly. Apologies if it was opaque.
judges in civil courts decide such matters on the basis of pages of testimony and evidence and hours of earnest witness prevaricating - and always get it wrong.
What hope for here with two paragraphs?
TNH - Hi! I posted #21 above (it seems to be a little hard to read now, what with it missing all the vowels. How do you do that, anyways? Is there a diembowel button on your keyboard?) I don't really believe that my post was uncivil, jeering, unpleasant, nor unsupported by the original post, as you suggest above in your explanation. I quoted from Dave's original post, and had already read the Consumerist post and comment thread both there and here before posting. I quoted what I felt was an incongruity in Dave's letter to the Midwest executive, which led me to feel that his letter was disingenuous. I stated in my post that this was my opinion, and did not assert that Dave was lying or exaggerating. I did say that his letter and post read as a childish response, which I don't feel was uncivil, it was my opinion, and was presented as much.
As to why I have no previous post history, it's beyond me. I've posted on BB several times over the past month, and the posts had not been censored or removed, but now they are gone from my profile. Sort of hard to build up a reliable (non jeering and annoying) posting history when the BB database can't maintain that history.
Dave here...the guy this is all about. I posted Midwest's latest response to my letter and my response to them. As stated in the blog, I appreciate all the comments and considered them all.
http://www.davegreenbaum.com/2008_01_01_archive.html#7856835305582056012
Maybe officer Roger has a naturally booming and aggressive voice, and he's paid to be blunt.
Sometimes things change, so passengers should be flexible. It wasn't like they over-booked the plane, or anything worth bitching about.
I don't like this guy. If his e-mail to the airline demanding specific compensation with threats of Internet retribution is any indicator of what he is like in person, then it's pretty clear to me that he is perfectly capable of embarrassing himself in public, even without a "Rude Roger."
In fact, it's people like this who get the hackles up in customer service departments which results in rude and/or unfair treatment for the rest of us.
He purchased a seat on an airplane. Not an exit row seat, but a seat. Perhaps in the past he was able to work out a system where he was able to secure exit row seats by showing up very early. That's great, but not anything the airline is contractually obligated to. Unfortunately, it didn't work this time. He whined about it and annoyed the crew, the crew threw their annoyance back at him. I really wouldn't expect much more than a $25 gift voucher for rude treatment by customer service staff.
But honestly, to e-mail upper management over such a trivial incident and demand a free flight? That is completely ridiculous. It's EECB abuse, and wankers like this who are just looking for a (literal) free ride will screw up the EECB for those of us who actually have legitimate and serious problems.
ps. In his blog post, he played the 9/11 card... YES! HE PLAYED THE 9/11 CARD, PEOPLE. THINK ABOUT THAT!
In the eternal combat between the little people(yes,you too, you non-owner of a private jet)and the grasping, rapacious airline companies, even an obnoxious champion is still our champion.
...Two points of order:
1) @Moderator: I think I speak for quite a few people when I ask that in the future you delete any and all "disemvoweled" postings. These are clearly the work of pedantic trolls, and serve no useful purpose whatsoever.
2) @Adam Weiss: Having worked both sides of the Customer Service fence, I can say with conviction that 99% of "customer service" these days involves pissing off and/or conbefuddling irate customers just enough to make them go away without having to give them anything along with not causing them to go off and tell everyone in the world that they got fucked over. This sort of consumer abuse is exactly why anyone who gets the shaft from a company WRT even the most basic customer service needs to make their displeasure known as widely as possible, in as many forums as possible, and most importantly in a professional manner. Consumers have a *RIGHT* to complain when the complaint is valid. Dave's complaint *IS* a valid one, and your attitude and comments are nothing but pure trolling and/or schilling for whatever Midwest flunkey has been stuck with this mess. Again, he has the *RIGHT* to complain, so deal with it.
[shakes head in utter dismay at some people's idiocies]
Re the disemvowelling:
It's easy. If you criticise the airline or any of their employees, you don't get disemvowelled. But if you criticise Greenbaum, you do.
Agree with 67 and 68. And the LOLCAT/de-voweling crap is so 2007.
Interestingly, no comments on the changed market for flight services in the US. Private/charter/fractional owner flights up significantly, including privatized airports. Reduced seats for poor and middle class. Unions broken and plane service outsourced. If you don't like it, you don't really have any alternatives as consolidation has effectively removed competition. (As intended but that's a different subject). Oh, you can drive your car if you like. For now. Ah yes, the nirvana of free market capitalism.
And not surprisingly, the technoscenti commenting here are not particularly supportive of anyone who speaks out against such anti-consumer behavior.
Will you feel the same when your ISP cuts you off because the government doesn't like what you are reading? Stand up now, because you won't get the opportunity later.
Mr. Greenbaum, if you are reading, your public complaint has succeeded in preventing another customer from using Midwest. Midwest, if you are reading, your corporation's behavior is unacceptable, and I will refrain from using your services (and evengalize others not to) until you publicly apologize and make good on this. End.
El Guapo (57):
"Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history."
Jim (63):
Believe it or not, I really do have a "disemvowel" button. It's a custom feature our guys built into Boing Boing's MT 4.0 user interface. On my own weblog, I use a text editor. When I'm disemvowelling short passages, I sometimes just retype them, and leave out the vowels as I go. 'v hd lt f prctc wrkng wth dsmvwlld txt.A good point. You knew your stuff, and your tone was relatively mild. I've restored the two-thirds of your comment I should never have disemvowelled in the first place, and am willing to negotiate for the rest.I have two main points. The first is that bad things can happen to irritating or disingenuous writers just as easily as they can happen to charming ones. It's the same problem you see when a person who's been mistreated by authorities is dumb, cantankerous, self-pitying, rigid, mildly schizophrenic, or some variety of raving supernaturalist. We aren't naturally inclined to sympathize with them, even though we know intellectually that they're no more immune to injustice or abuse than anyone else.
Second point: the rights or wrongs of Dave Greenbaum's subsequent quest for redress are a separate issue from the incident before the flight. Given that it happened in front of a plane full of witnesses who had nothing better to do than watch and listen, every one of whom is known to the airline's legal counsel, I expect Dave Greenbaum's version is reasonably accurate.
He's got considerable history with this airline. On this flight, he'd asked for the exit row, was told he'd be getting it, realized when he boarded that he hadn't been seated in that row, and asked the flight attendant whether there were any chance he could be seated there anyway. That's not an unusual transaction. Not everyone knows you can do that with airlines, but truly, it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Greenbaum assumed that if an exit row seat was available, he'd get it. If not, not. Again: dead normal. If the flight attendant had come back, said "I'm sorry, we can't give you that seat," and returned Greenbaum's boarding pass, he'd have stayed where he was and the transaction would have been over.
What happened was absolutely not normal: a big aggressive guy named Roger showed up and said "I understand you have a problem with this seat and want off this flight," loudly enough for all the other passengers to hear it.
Roger also refused to return Greenbaum's boarding pass until he agreed to say there was no problem. That was an implicit threat to throw him off the flight. I don't know whether Greenbaum would have been handed off to airport security, but if so, that's a position no one wants to be in. It also demonstrates that there were no security issues lurking behind the incident: if there were, Greenbaum saying "no problem" wouldn't have addressed them.
So, is Greenbaum overreacting? You might say so. But most people who've been publicly bullied and threatened "overreact" once the immediate incident is over. They aren't reacting to trifles like not getting the seat they want. It's being put in a state of helpless fear when they have no power to react or even reply.
I don't think the point of Greenbaum's letters to Midwest Airlines is to get a voucher or some frequent flyer miles. I think he's asking them to demonstrate that they take this seriously enough for him to be able to believe it won't happen again.
I'm having to guess at some of that. He isn't clear. People who've been scared seldom are.
Okay, that's disturbing. I've checked against your user name, e-mail address, and IP address, and none of those other posts show up.You're the first one who's identified this problem, but for all we know there could be scores more like you. This glitch breaks the basic mechanism that lets the rest of us get to know you.
Can you find your missing posts and send us a list of them? Please? This has to be fixed.
Regarding your disemvoweling, I noticed that, while you were indisposed, words like 'fucktard' and 'asshat' were starting to creep into the BB comment lexicon. I'm happy to get back to the standard that you have to at least be clever and funny if you're going to insult someone.
Antinous: damned straight. In a pinch, the rule is that you shouldn't use naughty words unless you use them at least as well as Joel does.
Just chiming in to say I'm not a fan of the disemvoweling.
I'd much prefer if an offending post was replaced with a note explaining why or, ideally, if the comment was just hid from view (like on Slashdot and Digg). Those wanting to read the offensive posts could do so with a click of the mouse, as opposed to having to frustratingly decipher the message (thus giving said offense much more attention than it deserves and possibly souring the reader on the rest of the thread).
Upthread someone made a point about violating rights vs. public shaming. Posting crap on a website obviously isn't a right but making posts almost unintelligible does feel akin to public shaming. Not only are you saying that the poster made an offensive comment, you recreate said comment in a way that makes the poster seem unable to communicate intelligibly.
Scoop, not to people who understand what disemvowelling is and why it's done. I've been on another site that does that for some time, and when a new person comes in and says something like "I want to read your posts, Stpd ssht, but I can't understand them because you left out all the vowels," other members of the community jump in and explain that Stpd ssht didn't post that way, and that this is the form of censure the community uses for posts that are over the line.
The public shaming aspect...well, I suppose. I know that I have sometimes rewritten posts, or even decided not to post something, because I felt that what I had to say would not (or at any rate SHOULD not) keep its vowels. Personally, I view this as a positive thing: it makes me think twice when something's right on that line.
I don't really think that adds up to public shaming. It's more like being told by the host of a party to keep it down, please, or please don't set your drink on the piano. I try to avoid needing such warnings, and I might be embarrassed to get one, but I don't think that's really public shaming.
...Disemvoweling = Censorship. Censorship = Violation of Basic Rights of Expression. Violation of Basic Rights of Expression /= what Boing Boing is all about.
Enough. If someone's post is an obvious trolling, then purge it. But leave the rest of us alone, even if we do prefer to use "colorful metaphors" when we damn well see the need...
OM, you don't know what censorship is.
I'm so glad I live in Canada and like it. Being in Europe would be interesting, I could travel the continent by train, but Canada is diverse enough in its provinces that I don't have to use the airlines, or venture south into Gilead. If I want country, cowboys and steaks, there is Alberta. If I want snow, there is Yukon which have hot springs. If I want a rugged marine climate, there's Newfoundland...