Flight Attendant Bails Out

[Thanas]

LONG LIVE SACRED GERMANY

Do you have an opinion on KLM to back mine up?

I've only flown with them once, but they were pretty good.

[Themightytom]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/08/12/fl ... tml?hpt=T2

New York (CNN) -- The flight attendant whose dramatic departure from a JetBlue plane at a New York City airport has transformed him into a folk hero to some wants his job back, his lawyer told reporters Thursday.

"That's his life," Steven Slater's Legal Aid defense attorney Howard Turman told reporters outside his client's home in Queens, near John F. Kennedy International Airport, where Slater's exit via an emergency slide vaulted him to national attention. "His father was a pilot; his mother was a flight attendant. That's in his blood. That's what he likes to do."

Whether Slater can regain his wings was unclear. "We're conducting an internal investigation regarding his status as an employee at JetBlue," said airline spokeswoman Jenny Dervin, who added that Slater has been removed from duty pending the outcome of that internal inquiry.

She described Slater's behavior as unlike that of the New York-based airline's other 2,300 flight attendants. "I would say this is highly unique," she said.

But an internal memo sent Thursday by JetBlue Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Rob Maruster and obtained by CNN describes a company that appears unlikely to forgive. "Intentionally arming and deploying an evacuation slide for anything other than the express purpose of protecting the safety of our crew and customers is unacceptable," it says. "It will not, and can not, be tolerated."

During the defense lawyer's remarks, the 20-year flight attendant stood at his side and smiled occasionally but made only one brief remark: "Thank you all so much," he said. "It's been amazing -- the support and the love and everything that's been brought to me and given to me by my community and my friends and the industry at large. It's been absolutely wonderful."

The incident may not have appeared so wonderful when it began unfolding Monday morning at Pennsylvania's Pittsburgh International Airport where, according to JetBlue spokeswoman Dervin, Slater was one of two flight attendants aboard an Embraer 190 flight that was scheduled to depart at 10:35 a.m. and arrive 84 minutes later at JFK.

Problems began before the flight, carrying a full load of 100 passengers, took off.

"A number of passengers were competing for overhead carry-on luggage areas," Turman, Slater's attorney, said. "With great difficulty, they were shoving the bags around, attempting to get it in. Steven came over to assist and either the bag or the overhead (bin door) hit him in the head and at that point he suffered an injury."

Turman offered a more graphic description of events on Wednesday, when he said a woman "started cursing and -- based on the information -- slammed the overhead luggage bin on his head."

Then the woman said, "F--- you" to Slater, Turman said.

After the flight landed at JFK, Slater approached the woman as she attempted to retrieve her bag from the bin while the plane was still taxiing to the gate, according to a source familiar with the incident. Passengers are required to stay in their seats with their seat belts fastened until the pilot has reached the gate and gives the all-clear sign.

"We hear Slater on the intercom, 'Will people on the aisle please sit down? We're on an active runway,'" recalled passenger Howard Deneroff, an executive with the Westwood One radio network. Then Slater made a second announcement, Deneroff told CNN. "Please sit down and shut the overhead bin. We cannot move this plane while you're standing."

The passenger cursed Slater again, Turman said Wednesday. Her fury grew upon learning she would have to wait at baggage claim to retrieve luggage she had been forced to check at the gate in Pittsburgh, he said.

At that point, Slater got on the plane's public address system. Passenger Phil Catelinet wrote on his blog that Slater said, "To the passenger who just called me a motherf-----: f--- you. I've been in this business 20 years, and I've had it."

The plane was blocked into the gate at 12:07 p.m., eight minutes late.

After making an expletive-filled announcement, Slater had a confrontation with another crew member, according to passenger Gib Mendelson of Cape Elizabeth, Maine.

"We see him grabbing his roller bag that all flight personnel use. He tossed it out the right door of the plane," Mendelson, a semi-retired attorney, told CNN. "He was scuffling with either the pilot or the co-pilot. I noticed a lot of blue; there was a lot of movement in the galley area."

Slater then grabbed some beer from the beverage cart before deploying the emergency slide and leaving.

The flight crew reported the slide deployment at 12:12 p.m., according to Maruster's memo.

Turman sharply denied a JetBlue passenger's assertion published Thursday that the flight attendant instigated the confrontation.

"It's not so," said Turman.

"Sometimes, some people in our society are not courteous and are impatient," Turman said. "For 20 years, Steven has been very patient, has dealt with the passengers in each of the airlines he worked for in an effective and courteous and polite manner. Sometimes that point can be taken advantage of by others."

He added, "If you think it's easy for flight attendants to get on a plane every day and be concerned for the safety of each and every passenger -- without a tension, without a stress -- you're fooling yourselves."

Slater has pleaded not guilty to charges of reckless endangerment and criminal mischief -- both felonies -- and criminal trespass. If convicted, he could face a maximum of seven years in prison.

But Turman said Thursday he had spoken with the district attorney's office, "and I believe there will be a favorable outcome for my client that should satisfy all parties in this case."

A spokeswoman for the prosecutor did not respond directly to Turman's remarks. "We will prosecute this case in the court," said Meris Campbell of the district attorney's office. "We're not going to respond to every press conference the attorney gives."

Slater has a court appearance scheduled for September 7.

Meanwhile, Slater had amassed more than 191,000 "fans" on a public Facebook page as of Thursday evening.

Yeah right. jetBlue COULD hire him back but definitely shouldn't as a flight attendant. You don't need a plane full of people whispering "Oh my god Thats Him? Is He Going To Flip His Shit Again?"

[Kanastrous]

...or it might instill a bit of discipline in the cabin. But I agree that his odds of getting re-hired look damned long indeed.

[LapsedPacifist]

I used to fly Jetblue fairly frequently from PDX to JFK and thought that their attendants were very good at not taking shit from the customers.

My best anecdote - One time a businesswoman near me gave one of the attendants some attitude about putting her bag in the overhead bin (Traveler was in the front row and didn't have a seat in front of her to put the bag under), and she got talked to by that attendant, the lead attendant, and finally the captain about maintaining order and not getting left at the gate. -point being that there seemed to be a culture in place to handle annoying customers.

Maybe my assumption is wrong or maybe the guy was just having a particularly bad day.

LP

[ShadowDragon8685]

I think it's safe to say if you've been slammed in the head and repeatedly cursed out by an entitlement-complex bearing bitch, you're having a Bad Day. Really, can anyone blame him for wanting to flip them off, grab a couple of cold ones and depart via the most expedient and dramatic means available to you?


Actually doing it was probably over the top. Assuming he doesn't get thrown in the hoosegow (and really, why should he? I can't see that anything he did really deserves more than a fine and a stern lecture by a guy in a wig and a robe,) he probably shouldn't get his old job back. On the other hand, JetBlue might want to hire him on as some kind of employee stress-relief liaison or something; basically put him where it's his job to make sure nobody else flips their shit like he did.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually doing it was probably over the top. Assuming he doesn't get thrown in the hoosegow (and really, why should he? I can't see that anything he did really deserves more than a fine and a stern lecture by a guy in a wig and a robe,)

Because his chosen way of exiting the plane endangered bystanders?

On the other hand, JetBlue might want to hire him on as some kind of employee stress-relief liaison or something; basically put him where it's his job to make sure nobody else flips their shit like he did.

He is very unlikely to be qualified for this...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I think it's safe to say if you've been slammed in the head and repeatedly cursed out by an entitlement-complex bearing bitch, you're having a Bad Day. Really, can anyone blame him for wanting to flip them off, grab a couple of cold ones and depart via the most expedient and dramatic means available to you?

Yes. I can. He's responsible for preserving order and safety aboard what is, essentially, a cattle car with wings. It is in his job description to stay calm and cool . . . not to behave like an outsized two year old and throw a screaming temper tantrum.

Actually doing it was probably over the top. Assuming he doesn't get thrown in the hoosegow (and really, why should he? I can't see that anything he did really deserves more than a fine and a stern lecture by a guy in a wig and a robe,)

As has been pointed out, carelessly deploying that safety slide like he did could've injured someone on the ground. Acting like a monkey on crystal meth and verbally harassing a whole plane full of people whose only crime was to be on the same flight as the woman who offended him certainly doesn't help.

he probably shouldn't get his old job back. On the other hand, JetBlue might want to hire him on as some kind of employee stress-relief liaison or something; basically put him where it's his job to make sure nobody else flips their shit like he did.

As has been said, this is a job that he is clearly unqualified for. It'd be like appointing Mel Gibson ambassador to Israel.

[Big Phil]

Actually doing it was probably over the top. Assuming he doesn't get thrown in the hoosegow (and really, why should he? I can't see that anything he did really deserves more than a fine and a stern lecture by a guy in a wig and a robe,)

Because his chosen way of exiting the plane endangered bystanders?

How exactly did he endanger bystanders?

[Omega18]

Actually doing it was probably over the top. Assuming he doesn't get thrown in the hoosegow (and really, why should he? I can't see that anything he did really deserves more than a fine and a stern lecture by a guy in a wig and a robe,) he probably shouldn't get his old job back. On the other hand, JetBlue might want to hire him on as some kind of employee stress-relief liaison or something; basically put him where it's his job to make sure nobody else flips their shit like he did.

What you and several individuals in this thread appear to be missing is how extremely expensive his actions were for JetBlue.

The slide ALONE is probably close to around $25,000 for returning it to operational status.
http://www.gadling.com/2010/08/16/ask-g ... irplane-e/

Its not simply a matter of refilling the pressurized canister and carefully repacking it, but the entire slide has to be taken to a specialized facility, and has to be reinspected with extreme care to make absolutely certain it will function in an emergency, and this is simply costly for Jet Blue.

Assuming they had a spare immediately available, not only did they have to install the new slide, but also carefully inspect the plane itself because its possible for a plane to be damaged by a slide being deployed, so the plane was out of commission for at least several hours.

I also have seen it confirmed from a couple sources that a couple of Jet Blue E190s were already temporarily out of service for other reasons at the time, so this additional one being out of service as well created significant operational issues for Jet Blue. Not only did you have the specific flight which was delayed, (probably including Jet Blue at least giving a voucher for future flights to the passengers) but Jet Blue had issues with not enough E190s for fly all their scheduled flights. This meant that at a minimum, A320s flew a couple flights which had been tasked to the smaller and lighter E190s. (And when it was too late to potentially sell additional tickets on those flights to boot.) The additional costs from the A320 using up more fuel, and FAA rules requiring an additional flight attendant on the A320 flight regardless of the number of actual passengers (and the pilot for the A320 probably being paid significantly more due to how airline pay scales work), would be substancial.

Its also true that the slide expands suddenly when deployed and can be dangerous for anyone below in the wrong place. There was a possibility of an airport employee being below the plane at the time and the flight attendant failing to see the person, so there was an additional safety risk from the slide suddenly being deployed like it was.

[Kanastrous]

I read that he claims to have checked outside the aircraft via a viewing window per instructions before deploying the slide, so perhaps he did take the usual recommended safety precaution.

Although that doesn't affect the costs to the airline that Omega18 points out.

[General Zod]

I read that he claims to have checked outside the aircraft via a viewing window per instructions before deploying the slide, so perhaps he did take the usual recommended safety precaution.

It boils down to he-said she-said though, which is going to be a bitch to prove in court. Wouldn't surprise me if he can plea-bargain the reckless endangerment though.

[aieeegrunt]

Would it have been better or worse if he'd pummeled the passenger instead?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Would it have been better or worse if he'd pummeled the passenger instead?

Then he'd be going to jail for assault and battery. Much worse felony charges than the one he's presently faced with, and much harder to plea-bargain out of.

[General Zod]

Would it have been better or worse if he'd pummeled the passenger instead?

Probably worse, because the facts would be much harder to dispute.

[Kanastrous]

...and I'd be surprised if there isn't at least the possibility of Federal charges tacked on to that assault and battery, if you do it inside a passenger aircraft...

[ShadowDragon8685]

Omega: What-the-fuck-ever.

Those aren't criminal felony charges. "Making an airline's schedule slip" isn't a crime. At most it's a civil matter; and if JetBlue wants to make this guy even more of an heroic underpaid underappreciated underdog sticking it up against the man by sueing him for a ridiculous sum of compensation he'll never be able to pay, they're free to do so. Chances are their beancounters will (correctly) deduce that the resulting lost public goodwill (and hence, lost revenue) will far, far outstrip the original cost of the incident, let alone any likely winnings, which probably won't even pay for the legal team to legal-jutsu the guy into perpetual bankruptcy.

As for "endangerment," one might suggest anyone stupid enough to stand under a jetliner's door is at least as much responsible as the guy who opened it. Really, that's about as stupid as hiking down the Interstate; they even say no pedestrians allowed. Now, if you clip a guy who's hiking down the interstate, you're definitely in the shit, but does that mean you should be in the same shit for not clipping a guy at 65 Mph because there was no guy there but there could have been?!

That's retarded.

[General Zod]

As for "endangerment," one might suggest anyone stupid enough to stand under a jetliner's door is at least as much responsible as the guy who opened it. Really, that's about as stupid as hiking down the Interstate; they even say no pedestrians allowed. Now, if you clip a guy who's hiking down the interstate, you're definitely in the shit, but does that mean you should be in the same shit for not clipping a guy at 65 Mph because there was no guy there but there could have been?!

That's retarded.

Frankly you're retarded. When was the last time you were at an airport? You know that they have a bunch of flight crew on the tarmac around the airplane right before takeoff, right? How the fuck do you think they make inspections to make sure everything's in good shape, fully fueled or get the baggage loaded? Pixies?

[Kanastrous]

Dragon, it's not that it's a crime, it's about the costs that he inflicted upon his employer by doing what he did. Why would they - or any airline employer - want to roll the dice on a guy who lost his cool, and made his employer deal with that fallout?

And an airport tarmac is a busy place. It's not like we're talking about some slack-jaw standing stationary directly under a hatch (even if it's a hatch that he would have no reason to expect to suddenly open). Fuel handlers, baggage handlers, chockers, ground personnel running around - it's not unrealistic to expect that a hatch opening unexpectedly could clip and injure ground personnel, and if there was no actual emergency to justify opening that hatch, well, the guy opening it has some 'splainin' to do.

[ShadowDragon8685]

As for "endangerment," one might suggest anyone stupid enough to stand under a jetliner's door is at least as much responsible as the guy who opened it. Really, that's about as stupid as hiking down the Interstate; they even say no pedestrians allowed. Now, if you clip a guy who's hiking down the interstate, you're definitely in the shit, but does that mean you should be in the same shit for not clipping a guy at 65 Mph because there was no guy there but there could have been?!

That's retarded.

Frankly you're retarded. When was the last time you were at an airport? You know that they have a bunch of flight crew on the tarmac around the airplane right before takeoff, right? How the fuck do you think they make inspections to make sure everything's in good shape, fully fueled or get the baggage loaded? Pixies?

And this airplane was at the gate when this happened, freshly-fueled and waiting to take off - oh wait, no it wasn't. It had just landed, and most specifically could not taxi to the gate because of the bitch holding everything up.

Trying to lay criminal conduct charges on this, let alone felonies, is retarded. He cost his employer time and money in a dramatic act of bridge-burning, he'll almost certainly never find work again as anything above a warehouse laborer or something to that effect. Anything else is just Tough-On bullshit; let a judge chew him out for behaving irresponsibly and recklessly, hand him a big fine and tell him to GTFO. But throwing him into Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison is just over-the-top.

[Kanastrous]

Dude, if he broke a section of the law in a way that's rated a felony, there's nothing 'retarded' about charging him with a felony.

And the regs are not constituted to be interpreted according to each and every little different permutation of precisely where the plane might be around the tarmac: the rule is simple - do not pop the escape slide unless there is an emergency. The rest is detail.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Is there an actual "Thou shalt not deploy an emergency slide lest there be an actual emergency" law somewhere, or failing that some conditional of a law that describes it as a trigger of another felony?

If not, it sure as shit looks like they're stretching the fucking law to try and get their Tough-On off on him by overcharging him with reckless endangerment when it was just reckless assholishness.

[Simon_Jester]

As for "endangerment," one might suggest anyone stupid enough to stand under a jetliner's door is at least as much responsible as the guy who opened it.

Uh... no?

There are people whose job is to be moving around the airport on the tarmac while planes are operating. Unlike hitchhikers on the interstate, those people belong there. They are not responsible for the actions of some douchebag who decides that he cares more about being a drama queen than about following safety procedures in an industry where the safety procedures are all that stands between thousands of people and horrible fiery deaths.

As a general principle, the responsibility for deaths in an accident lies on the people who made active decisions that caused harm. If I drop a rock on your head and kill you, I am at fault because I decided to drop a rock on your head; you are not at fault because you decided to stand in the place I was dropping rocks. Not unless I took adequate precautions to keep you away from my rock-dropping operation.

You did not decide to get your head crushed, nor did you make a decision that would predictably lead to your head getting crushed. That decision was all on me... just as it would all be on this flight attendant if someone had been killed or injured when hit by the slide.

And on top of that risk, did you miss the part where it's going to cost the airline 25000 dollars or more to replace the emergency chute? And where the jet is deadlined until they do so, costing them even more money? Even ignoring the safety hazard he created, that's equivalent to an employee getting pissy and deciding to torch one a company truck with a Molotov cocktail, or smash a dozen computers, or something like that.

The company loses money that's probably equivalent to a year or two of this guy's salary because of his little bitch-fit, which is damage enough that I can totally understand why they'd want to press charges.

[Omega18]

Omega: What-the-fuck-ever.

Those aren't criminal felony charges. "Making an airline's schedule slip" isn't a crime. At most it's a civil matter; and if JetBlue wants to make this guy even more of an heroic underpaid underappreciated underdog sticking it up against the man by sueing him for a ridiculous sum of compensation he'll never be able to pay, they're free to do so. Chances are their beancounters will (correctly) deduce that the resulting lost public goodwill (and hence, lost revenue) will far, far outstrip the original cost of the incident, let alone any likely winnings, which probably won't even pay for the legal team to legal-jutsu the guy into perpetual bankruptcy.

As for "endangerment," one might suggest anyone stupid enough to stand under a jetliner's door is at least as much responsible as the guy who opened it. Really, that's about as stupid as hiking down the Interstate; they even say no pedestrians allowed. Now, if you clip a guy who's hiking down the interstate, you're definitely in the shit, but does that mean you should be in the same shit for not clipping a guy at 65 Mph because there was no guy there but there could have been?!

That's retarded.

If someone engages in vandalism which causes 25,000 dollars in property damage when they quit a job, that definitely can result in criminal charges. He also certainly should have known about the other potential economic consequences of his actions, he had spent a long time in the airline industry after all. I personally have never said he should definitely be convicted of a felony, I just don't think he should just get a slap on the wrist. (And if the rumors about him getting a reality show out of this are true, I certainly think that ends up sending the wrong sort of message.)

You're being stupid about the reckless endangerment issue. You absolutely can be charged with reckless driving in situations where you didn't actually hit anyone, and even if it turns out there wasn't actually someone in the path of the car. The reality is slides are otherwise deployed in ACTUAL emergencies such as on landings where there really should never be anyone that close to the plane before the slides are deployed, or in carefully controlled testing conditions. Those testing conditions would include it being performed in an isolated area with ground personal in the area, but not too close to the plane to make sure the area under the plane is clear and no-one enters it. There are perfectly valid reasons for employees to have potentially been in that location. Its also true that we're not talking about the regular plane door but an emergency exit, which under normal conditions means there should not have been any risk at all being under it. Furthermore, while an airport tarmac can be a dangerous place for ground personnel if they are not careful, that certainly does not make it ok to add additional risk to the situation with irresponsible actions. Even if he looked fairly carefully, the flight attendant still could have missed someone who entered the area at the last second (especially given he was clearly under allot of stress at the time). We can debate if the safety violations were serious enough for a felony conviction to be appropriate, but the safety related charges were certainly not meritless.

[Omega18]

Is there an actual "Thou shalt not deploy an emergency slide lest there be an actual emergency" law somewhere, or failing that some conditional of a law that describes it as a trigger of another felony?

If not, it sure as shit looks like they're stretching the fucking law to try and get their Tough-On off on him by overcharging him with reckless endangerment when it was just reckless assholishness.

Generally we don't have to make a specific law for every single possible action, but can let a variety of actions fall under somewhat broader laws.

There is a well established history of charging someone for opening an emergency slide in a non-emergency situation, such as at least a couple times in the past where passengers have pulled this stunt to get off a plane and been charged criminally. We're definitely not talking about a situation where the flight attendant genuinely though there was an emergency, but one where he used it in a situation he knew he was not supposed to do so. As a flight attendant, he absolutely should have known his action was potentially dangerous. The main actual question is if his level of recklessness rises to the point where a felony conviction is appropriate.