Inappropriate Flight Attendant

[secks]

As one who has been in combat overseas, I think I'm allowed to weigh in. It's not possible to "support" troops and oppose the war (i.e. the whole reason they're there and need to be supported in the first place). Go ahead and and oppose the war if you want - it's certainly your right to do so. Don't think you're fooling any of the troops by turning around and saying you "support" them. They don't want hollow words of support designed to make you feel better.

How is it you're actually supporting them? Have you made a special trip to an airport with food or something to thank them when they return. Have you mailed letters telling them how much you appreciate their efforts and the sacrifices of their families. How about volunteering at a day-care center on a military base - give the kids missing a parent some extra love while they miss their mom or dad. Do you pray for them? (really pray).

You don't support the war so you don't believe in what they're doing. The daily efforts they make are a mistake our government directed them to make in your eyes.

Believe me, the idiot standing on a street corner, safe and sound in the USA, with a war protest sign over his shoulder telling the camera he supports the troops is fooling no one but himself.

Skyboy & Snakum & aeronautic1:

I think AdlerDriver explained pretty well why you can't really support the troops but not the war. It's a fuzzy bullsh1t position that gives people a nice cop-out for not supporting the war.

Your typical anti-war liberal or conservative "supports" the troops by not wishing them any ill will. That's not really supporting the troops, now is it? No, support is wishing them success over their foes. Now, how is this different from supporting their cause? This whole business of supporting troops but not the cause is just mincing words.

Thus, since supporting the troops is essentially supporting the war (and even if you don't agree with this from a pedantic point of view, from a conventional point of view, the two are identical), supporting the troops is NOT something an airline crew should mention in the cabin. How would you like it if someone stood up and started deriding the war, or praising Kerry, or waving an Iranian flag on board? Well, it's the same thing. People don't want your political opinions forced on them when they are not solicited. I think we can all agree that a cramped cabin is the last place people should be discussing politics, right?

Also, Snakum, I don't see how explaining the two sides of the debate over the war is even relevant here. We're talking about whether it was 1) inappropriate to support the troops and 2) inappropriate to question the military captain regarding the legitimacy of the war. Obviously, I think both actions were totally uncalled for coming from representatives of a business.

To address your points regarding why we should support the troops:

"An all volunteer armed forces deserves all of our respect and gratitude for the sacrifice that they, and their families, have encumbered upon themselves for the safety and security of this country"

Right there, that's up for debate. That position is 100% political. I'm not even going to get into all the assumptions you're making when stating that. That's not to say you're wrong, but it is a highly political statement which has no place coming from an airline.

"The troops are doing what they are being commanded to do, whether they agree wih it or not. And whether we agree with it or not, they still deserve our appeciation for doing the job they have been commanded to do and for doing it well. Its a matter of thanking them for a job well done....whether or not one agrees with the principles of that job is irrelevant."

I don't see the logic in this statement. Why on earth would you thank someone for doing something you don't agree with? "Thanks for nothing?" Again, this is a completely political position. Also, I don't see how the fact that they are commanded makes any difference, because in actuality, they are all volunteers.

Don't get me wrong .. I've no problem with the military and have no position regarding the validity of the war. My point is that supporting the troops is a political position. Once a draft starts, the picture changes, because you basically have guys who are dying who don't want to be there. Then supporting the troops no longer becomes political.

By the way, if you're in the military and do not support the war, what the f*ck are you doing there? Your duty is to obey your commander in chief no matter what. Politics simply cloud the waters and should have no place in your thought process regarding war.

 

[ramswa]

On behalf of my fellow flight attendants, please write in. It doesn't matter who you address the letter to, it will get back to her. Regardless of opinions expressed, it sounds like her entire demeanor was embarrassing and inappropriate. She makes me look bad. Why do we get such a bad rep? Because of tactless loudmouths like her. By law, the airlines have to reply to customer letters within a certain amount of time (whether 2 weeks to 30 days) Letters are routed through Customer Relations Dept and passed on to the appropriate supervisors. It definitely belongs in her file. Bad news, baby.

 

[qmaster3]

Right on IFR, it's good to see someone can see rationally.

Not all of us think it's harrasment when people make conversation with us and take interest in our personal lives as the flight attendent did. I rather have a FA like that then one that ignores me, but I don't complain either way. EternalOptimist better change names or at least put "eternalsarcast" below eternaloptimist.

The reasonable person would think it's rational for the Capt/FO to thank their compadres for their service to our country. No political statement was made. The FA was probably just a little ditzy. Oh well, if it would have been 50 sailors on board all her free booze would have been gone. She probably would have been put in all sorts of compromising positions before the landing gear was down.

 

[Corona]

First off, drop one of those "r's" outta your spelling. My SN is in regards to my attitude, not my a$$, my friend. kthx

Second, you're daamnn right I have my titt!es in a twister over this. I'm in my uniform (on average) 12 hours a day, and, in the course of going/coming (sts) to/from work, I run into all KINDS of wussy liberal sympathizers (yes, even in TX). It seems like the fact I have a uniform on makes me a target for political discussion, while more don't understand the fact that, while in uniform, I'm unable to comment AT ALL politically (lest people take my opinions as the "official" opinions of the USAF...).

This is where the F/A screwed the pooch. She's wearing a uniform, which means she represents the organization represented by the uniform. Personal opinions aside, you are OWNED by the company while you're on the clock. While it's valid to mention that the captain expressed an opinion while representing the company, we must realize that the opinion expressed was non-politically based and is really no different than saying "God Bless America" after a speech (as many public speakers do). We MUST see the demarkation between "Thanks, troops" and "hey troops, thanks, but I don't agree with what you've been busting a$$ over and dying over for the last couple years."

Maybe the F/A realized her mistake, as she then offered free liquor and tried to be a little more friendly to the servicemembers. I think we can all agree that she should have just shut her trap. Instead, she dug deeper while trying to climb out of the hole she was in.


Now, back to my personal perspective on talking to servicemembers. EVERY time someone starts wanting to talk war/politics with me while I'm in uniform, I bite my tongue. If you've ever tried to talk politics with a uniformed servicemember, $5 will get you $10 that he/she has been chomping at the bit to tell you what they think, but won't. It's called discipline.

The best thing to do when you encounter a uniformed servicemember:
Thank them and shut the F@CK up.


And yeah, if feeling strongly about something is a "birth control personality," then I guess I'm guilty as charged. In my experience, the hot chicks love a guy with a spine.



...and this reminds me of another joke:

Q: How do you know when you have a fighter pilot at your party?
A: Oh, he'll tell you. haha

Fury220: You've redeemed yourself after your first rant-strewn post in my view; this is a much more rational response.

I was trying to point out that there are idiots everywhere. You have 'em in the AF; I worked for them at my last job. There is nothing you can do about 'em except laugh at them. Unfortunately, there are a few on the left, as well as on the right. I, however, don't appreciate being lumped in with them. I'm liberal, not a bleeding heart, and am able to refrain from idiocy almost every day of the week.

I'm former AF enlisted, so reading about people like this FA idiot irritates me as well. For the most part, though, I think people on all sides have been much more thoughtful this time around when concerning the troops. Then again, I'm not wearing the uniform anymore, so I don't quite have the front-seat view that you have.

Clear skies to ya,
C

PS: Good fighter pilot joke; that's a new one to me.

PPS: I DO appreciate all you in uniform. Always have. Always will.

 

[LearLove]

From the original post

"She decided that she was going to offer, for free, a beer for each of the soldiers. The soldiers told her that they couldn't accept the alcohol as they were in uniform and technically still on duty. They told her they needed to be unimpaired if, for instance, a terrorist tried to take over the flight."

I don't know about the drinking in uniform thing but the part about being prepared or a "terroorist takeover of the plane" is total BS. Soldiers traveling on a civ airline flight are not assigned or assumed to have any form of this type of duty or even trained in this area. A solider on a an airline flight is a passenger like any orther customer wheather they be a private or general.

I think the original poster is full of BS.

 

[Resume Writer]

Someone in a previous post wrote that the non-rev would be causing herself more trouble if she wrote in and the FA told another story. I disagree with this statement.


When I worked in Customer Relations at my old airline, if a statement as strong as this came in, it was not uncommon for some of the passengers to be contacted to verify the story. I know that we had company policy and procedure about discussing things while in uniform because we were representing the company while in that uniform.

 

[air cowboy]

Along with flyifrvfr, you, too, are missing the point.

Define "harassment." Here you go:

n 1: a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented; "so great was his harassment that he wanted to destroy his tormentors" [syn: torment] 2: the act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism [syn: molestation]

Using her airplane and representing the company to advance her political views to these troops fits the definition of harassment in every way, whether or not she realized that the troops, in uniform and ostensibly on duty, cannot respond because of the Hatch Act and military regulations. There is certainly nothing wrong to have political views, but there is very much wrong with using a trip with military on board as a bully pulpit to advance her views and to harass people. If this FA wants to speak against the military and/or the war, fine. It's her First Amendment right, but not under color of authority of her company. She can do it on her own time.

No, my friend, you, too, are not seeing this issue rationally.

Bobbysamd, you are missing the point I was getting at, so I'll be more blunt. You and many others are imagining a situation where this FA was "harrassing the troops" to a very large extent. If you read eternaloptimist's discription carefully, you will realize that this FA did indeed make a mistake. She asked a few questions that took about 10 seconds. She was trying to see if they had a similiar opinion to her own (which many troops do). When she realized that what she had said could have been offensive she tried to make up for it by offering beer, and being over friendly. That is a good trait.

What eternaloptimist called harrassment was the being over friendly part. So I agree with you on your definition of harassment: the act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism, and this FA did not fulfill that definition.

What we have here is 2 people getting bent out of shape over one little mistake, and holding that against the person to the extent that even the corrective and good actions are termed "harassment". What do the 2 have in common? I'll let you figure that out. But here's a hint..the guys were "joking" when they got off the plane... they didn't let it ruin their day!

 

[air cowboy]

. The troops are doing what they are being commanded to do, whether they agree wih it or not. And whether we agree with it or not, they still deserve our appeciation for doing the job they have been commanded to do and for doing it well. Its a matter of thanking them for a job well done....whether or not one agrees with the principles of that job is irrelevant.

I bet that's the type of thinking the German's had.

 

[Fury220]

I bet that's the type of thinking the German's had.

Maybe you'd like to have lunch with this guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/index.html

Cm'on, man...nothing like comparing our servicemembers to the SS to make yourself look like a total a$$.

 

[qmaster3]

With that I would have said "no ma'am... we've spent the last years pounding the ground in Iraq, and we don't have a clue... now please leave us alone."

A gentlemen would smile, and say. Yes ma'am how about that drink.