Hawaiian Airlines plane diverted over blanket row

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The article doesn't say what you quoted anywhere in the article.

Is your quote from a different article?

Nothing in the article linked to says the passenger was "enraged".

Enraged is a fair bit different from outraged.

A passenger had asked for the wrap because he was cold, and was outraged when he was asked to pay $12 (£9.80).Police said the man, 66, said he "would like to take someone behind the woodshed for this", which the pilot deemed threatening and then ordered the plane be diverted to Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
Fire the pilot for wasting fuel, time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My first, and last, trip on Hawaiian Airlines was just a touch less than a year ago. While nothing as dramatic as this instance occurred, they did take me and Mrs. Blackwolf for quite the emotional and painfully expensive ride after I learned my father had suffered a fatal heart attack back in California only 18 hours into our Hawaiian vacation. Nearly $4k was taken happily by a supposedly "Family Owned and Passenger Friendly" airline, because they don't have a bereavement policy. The actual staff aboard the plane was fine, but Corporate ranks up there with Enron and Goldman-Sachs in my opinion. Greedy and uncaring.

We fly exclusively on Alaska Air when ever we can now. Much better, and even Corporate seems interested in genuine "Service with a Smile."
 
KmH said:
Fire the pilot for wasting fuel, time.
Click to expand...
That's not even remotely possible under current rules and employment contracts.

Blackwolf said:
My first, and last, trip on Hawaiian Airlines was just a touch less than a year ago. While nothing as dramatic as this instance occurred, they did take me and Mrs. Blackwolf for quite the emotional and painfully expensive ride after I learned my father had suffered a fatal heart attack back in California only 18 hours into our Hawaiian vacation. Nearly $4k was taken happily by a supposedly "Family Owned and Passenger Friendly" airline, because they don't have a bereavement policy. The actual staff aboard the plane was fine, but Corporate ranks up there with Enron and Goldman-Sachs in my opinion. Greedy and uncaring. We fly exclusively on Alaska Air when ever we can now. Much better, and even Corporate seems interested in genuine "Service with a Smile."
Click to expand...
How much does Alaska Airlines charge for bereavement fares from Hawaii?
 
I can't speak to bereavement fares, but from what I can find HA and AS both rarely seem to go over $500 per person (or $1000 for two) one-way on any given day from HNL, OGG, or KOA to the West Coast. I mean, hell...VX First never even seems to wind up much over $1300 pp (the one exception I found was due to some very...interesting routings kicked out by ITA Matrix) or $2600(-ish) for two.

To be fair, I don't know what your origination airport was or other details, but those price levels seem suspect. This doesn't rule out some sort of Murphy's Law scenario (having to travel home at the last minute on a peak holiday weekend and only a premium cabin was available) but I'd really like to know what was behind that.
 
The situation we had with HA was as follows:

Original itenerary was in First round-trip SMF to OGG (with layover in HNL) on a 10 day vacation. The price for two was $2900 and change. When news of my father's death was received, it took three different calls to HA to try and get home, with different prices quoted all three times. The earliest booking home was an additional $400 on top of our already paid reservation, plus a $600 in change fees. And we flew middle-row coach on an ancient 767 home.

HA demanded my birth certificate, marriage license, dad's death certificate and a bunch of other info. They refunded a portion of the change fees, but that's it.

AS has direct flights SMF-OGG with no layover, cheaper fares, better service and their bereavement is lowest available fare minus 15%. No change fees.
 
And FBI determined the guy did nothing wrong. He was cleared, no charges pressed, and on his merry way on another plane.

Hawaiian Airlines on the other hand, oh well, they spent thousands of $$$$ in huge advertising campaigns all over west coast claiming how they are the best way to fly to Hawaii on all-widebody fleet and what not, and what did they get? Worldwide free publicity as "LOL look this cheapskate airline charging $12 for blanket and diverting over it!" Someone send some mai-tai to Hawaiian marketing team, they need it today.
 
KmH said:
The article doesn't say what you quoted anywhere in the article.

Is your quote from a different article?

Nothing in the article linked to says the passenger was "enraged".

Enraged is a fair bit different from outraged.

A passenger had asked for the wrap because he was cold, and was outraged when he was asked to pay $12 (£9.80).

Police said the man, 66, said he "would like to take someone behind the woodshed for this", which the pilot deemed threatening and then ordered the plane be diverted to Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
Fire the pilot for wasting fuel, time.
Click to expand...
That won't happen. The pilot has ultimate authority over his aircraft within the confines of the FAA and his company SOP's. This includes diverting for problem passengers.
 
Not to mention the ridiculousness of some random person on the idiot knowing enough about an event that he wasn't present for to be able to determine that someone should lose their job.

You'd probably feel different if one of us showed up at your workplace and advocated for you to get fired for no good reason.
 
The pilot just managed to create a massive amount of bad publicity for Hawaiian Airlines for no reason at all.

He should at least get reprimanded. In a normal industry in the US, he would in fact get fired for that. Airline pilots are unionized so he won't get fired, and that's probably just as well for what *might* have been an honest mistake. But make no mistake, the pilot severely hurt his employer both reputationally and financially by doing something blatantly wrong. In the non-union workplace, that is typically a firing offense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still amazed that people on the internet feel qualified to speak authoritatively about something that they only have knowledge of through a partial set of facts conveyed by the media that demonstrates that they are incapable of getting things right.

Unless somehow you're aware of the conversation that happened between the FA and pilot and know exactly what he was told (which is potentially different from what happened and almost certainly different than what the news says happened) and what other information he based his decision on.
 
To me it seems like the person who played the biggest role in creating the situation wasn't the captain so much as whatever bean counter determined that even basic amenities such as airline blankets needed to be turned into a zero tolerance profit center. If I were in the angry passenger's shoes I probably would have simply asked them to increase the cabin temperature. That usually works well enough to keep from freezing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden said:
The pilot just managed to create a massive amount of bad publicity for Hawaiian Airlines for no reason at all.

He should at least get reprimanded. In a normal industry in the US, he would in fact get fired for that. Airline pilots are unionized so he won't get fired, and that's probably just as well for what *might* have been an honest mistake. But make no mistake, the pilot severely hurt his employer both reputationally and financially by doing something blatantly wrong. In the non-union workplace, that is typically a firing offense.
Click to expand...
Why should he get reprimanded? Did you read my post above. He diverted based on the information he was given at the time. He had to make a decision and stick with it. This has nothing to do with unions protecting his job. Even a non-union airline, he would be backed up by his company.
 
neroden said:
In a normal industry in the US, he would in fact get fired for that. Airline pilots are unionized so he won't get fired, and that's probably just as well for what *might* have been an honest mistake. But make no mistake, the pilot severely hurt his employer both reputationally and financially by doing something blatantly wrong. In the non-union workplace, that is typically a firing offense.
Click to expand...
Good thing I don't work with employers with zero empathy like the "normal industry" you mention. Last month an employee at the multi billion $ company I work with made a mistake that affected several businesses and caused 100s of thousands of $$$ of potential damage. What my employer did was issue a root cause analysis to explain what happened and how to make sure not to do it again, and the employee responsible very much has his job.

Most employers in the US who treat employees like disposable commodity have no real leadership skills. If you fire a person you just ensure he will not make the same mistake again, but he will take his mistake with him. If you use that to educate everyone, you make sure NOBODY makes that mistake again.
 
Yeah, in general the company that I work for would not fire someone for a genuine mistake. They'd use it for educating like Karan suggest. OTOH, if it was done out of malice or some other malafide was involved it would be a different issue.

What the pilot did was pretty standard stuff and he was well within his operational decision making bounds. I would be amazed if anything happened to him even in a non-unionized airline, unless its management were a bunch of total morons, and I'd be worried about using that airline.
 
The last two people who were let go in my department brought it on themselves. One of them was caught snooping where they shouldn't and the other was caught lying about how much work had been completed. It's hard to defend either of those situations and neither of them were missed when gone. That being said, I live in a state that provides almost no practical protection for conventional employees. There are federal protections that apply to every state but those are easily undermined by a hostile executive branch. Most of those regulations are not actionable since the burden of proof is placed on the party with the fewest resources and the highest barrier to success.
 
neroden said:
The pilot just managed to create a massive amount of bad publicity for Hawaiian Airlines for no reason at all.

He should at least get reprimanded. In a normal industry in the US, he would in fact get fired for that. Airline pilots are unionized so he won't get fired, and that's probably just as well for what *might* have been an honest mistake. But make no mistake, the pilot severely hurt his employer both reputationally and financially by doing something blatantly wrong. In the non-union workplace, that is typically a firing offense.
Click to expand...
I am a democratic socialist so i always stand with the unionized workers and not the employers who exploit them for corporate gain. :)
 
saxman said:
neroden said:
The pilot just managed to create a massive amount of bad publicity for Hawaiian Airlines for no reason at all.

He should at least get reprimanded. In a normal industry in the US, he would in fact get fired for that. Airline pilots are unionized so he won't get fired, and that's probably just as well for what *might* have been an honest mistake. But make no mistake, the pilot severely hurt his employer both reputationally and financially by doing something blatantly wrong. In the non-union workplace, that is typically a firing offense.
Click to expand...
Why should he get reprimanded? Did you read my post above. He diverted based on the information he was given at the time. He had to make a decision and stick with it. This has nothing to do with unions protecting his job. Even a non-union airline, he would be backed up by his company.
Click to expand...
Different rules apply to those that sit in cushy armchairs and pontificate after the fact, as opposed to those that are on the front lines and trenches who have to make decisions based on information available and make them stick. :p
 

Latest posts

Back
Top