Man Nearly Booted off Southwest Airlines after Posting Negative Tweet

[TheHuckster]

Linky

A passenger and his family on a Southwest Airlines flight was nearly kicked off after he posted a tweet about his experience. He was in a frequent flyer program that gave him some benefits like boarding early, and when he tried to get his family on board with him, the staff told him that because they weren't part of the program, they couldn't take advantage. He gets upset and tweets about how "rude" the staff is. Later, on the plane, he's called off the plane and they threaten to have him and his family off, and the police called, if he doesn't remove the tweet right then and there. He reluctantly agrees, but of course the incident incites some negative PR on Southwest.

On the part of refusing his family the same benefits as him, I totally agree. If he wants his family to take advantage, they have to pay for the family to be on that plan; otherwise everyone would take advantage of their lax policy. The customer is a EW and should be called out on it.

However, I totally disagree with the crew's handling of the incident. Calling his tweet a "threat" is baseless, and calling for him to censor his tweets or else he forfeits the tickets he and his family paid for is completely irrational. I think he should be put in his place, but denying him the tickets he paid for because he ranted about what he believed was poor customer service, regardless of whether they have merit, is not right, and Southwest is getting some bad publicity because of it.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I agree the guy is a total EW, and that Southwest was right for denying his family boarding early with him.

I agree that it was stupid for the crew to threaten him with being booted off the plane if he didn't remove the tweet.

However, I also think it was completely stupid of him to post a negative tweet on plane he was about to fly on. If it were me (though I'd never be an EW and demand what he did) I would've waited until after the flight was over and I was at my destination before posting my negative stuff.

Even if I was in the right... it's kind of the same lines as "don't piss off the person who makes your food."

Don't piss off the crew that you're going to be stuck in a pressurized can with going thousands of miles an hour very very high off the ground.

[HYHYBT]

True... but on the other hand, who in their right mind would think the crew would be checking before takeoff to see if anyone on board had posted such tweets?

[Gravekeeper]

This guy is a total EW, drama queen and asshole by his own account. Also, to clarify, the gate agent felt her safety was at risk because he had tweeted her name and location in the airport. Southwest also released a statement saying, and I quote: "Our decision was not based solely on a customer’s tweet."

So I'm guessing jackass did a lot more than just tweet to get removed from the plane.

[s_stabeler]

It depends on what the tweet WAS. If it was an exhortation for people to do something to the gate agent, then it IS justified in at least kicking him off. If, however, it was "the *expletive* ticket agent at gate X wouldn't let my family on the plane with me- shame on you *name of agent*" or something along those lines, it is a severe overreaction.

[BlaqueKatt]

True... but on the other hand, who in their right mind would think the crew would be checking before takeoff to see if anyone on board had posted such tweets?

It's not the crew, many large companies have a 24/7 position to check for social media mentions(both hashtags and mentions) it's considered good business because they can address problems as they're happening in real time, heck the alphabet soup government agencies have a 24/7 twitter presence now.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

If, however, it was "the *expletive* ticket agent at gate X wouldn't let my family on the plane with me- shame on you *name of agent*" or something along those lines, it is a severe overreaction.

I disagree.

If I was the ticket agent, I would be very concerned if he tweeted my name and location at the air port. I have no idea who his followers are, who is getting that tweet. For all I know, his family/friends (or just random people following him) could have a severe overreaction to said tweet and then target me. Why would he send out such specific information on me (my name and current location?), what could that possibly serve? It would make me fell like a bounty was just put on my head.

It's really not all that hard to find out information on a person on the internet anymore.

~~~~

I don't find it so unlikely that he could have been doing a bunch of things that he omitted that caused them to threaten said boot to the head. Especially since we already know he's an EW.

How many times have we seen on CS that SC who was a complete and utter asshole to you, and then when the manager comes around "Oh I just asked if they could reach that high bread for me and they proceeded to THROW it all at me!" Never mind the fact that the SC was the one tossing bread everywhere.

Or when they retell the story, "I was just minding my own business, checking out, when they had security remove me FOR NO REASON." (Or, as our lovely Tow Champion Arga would know, "YOU TOWED ME FOR NO REASON!" - never mind he was illegally parked.)

[Rageaholic]

It depends on what the tweet WAS. If it was an exhortation for people to do something to the gate agent, then it IS justified in at least kicking him off. If, however, it was "the *expletive* ticket agent at gate X wouldn't let my family on the plane with me- shame on you *name of agent*" or something along those lines, it is a severe overreaction.

It sounds like the tweet was just him saying the agent was the "rudest in Denver". He's probably full of shit (he came across as a self important D bag), but if that's all he tweeted, I see no reason to basically hold him hostage until he deletes it.

Sounds like there was suck on both sides.

[Peppergirl]

While I'm sure there was douchery on both sides, trust me when I tell you that there is no EW like an airline customer EW.

If this had been 5 years ago, I'd have blindly taken SW's side in it, as they were top of the line in service (at least in dealing with them from a travel agent's perspective). Nowadays, not so much. Still, when compared to the other US based carriers, they're pretty good.

The guy was a petty asshole, but it's clear the SW crew (or whomever gave the orders to the crew to pull him) overreacted.

[Gravekeeper]

It sounds like the tweet was just him saying the agent was the "rudest in Denver".

He tweeted her first name and last initial ( He demanded her last name but she refused ), the airport she was at, who she worked for and what gate she was the boarding agent. Which, to be honest, with how paranoid airport security is these days isn't the bright thing to do. Complain about how SW sucks and how rude you think a rep was sure. But don't publicly name and shame them then tell everyone where to find them.

In one interview he says they removed him because he was a threat. In another, he more correctly states he was removed because the agent felt her safety was threatened. He also describes the exchange as "mild" but in another interview says he was very upset and quotes himself as saying: “Real nice way to treat an A-list. I’ll be sure to tweet about it.’” as a parting shot at the agent when he got on the plane. Which is how they knew to watch twitter in the first place to see if he would persist in being an asshole.

Combine that with Southwest's statement that it wasn't the tweet itself that lead to him being removed and I'm picturing he was much much more of a fuckhole than he thinks. I would love to see the security cam footage from the boarding gate. -.-

[s_stabeler]

really, what gets me is if Southwest really told him to delete the tweet, or get kicked off. If he was acting badly enough to boot off, then boot him off. THAT is what implies it was the tweet alone that got him booted off.

[Anthony K. S.]

A Southwest representative called Watson after the incident, and informed him that A-list members' priority treatment doesn't apply to family members.

"I looked on their website and I didn't find any explicit rule," Watson said.

In my opinion, he has this completely backwards.

He seems to believe that it's wrong for the airline to refuse membership benefits to family members unless the airline specifically states that that's the rule.

Uh-uh.

When you sign up for a rewards program, YOU are the one who gets the benefits of it.

If the company states that the benefits do apply to family members, then fine. If they don't say anything at all about family members, then either you ask if it does, or you presume that it doesn't.

But you can't just assume that your family members will get the benefits, too, if they haven't signed up for the program themselves.

“She told me: ‘You don’t need my last name for anything,’” Watson said. “I told her: ‘Real nice way to treat an A-list member.’”

This reminds me of when I was in line at a post office, and an irate customer demanded to know an employee's last name so that she could make a complaint about her.

The employee replied, "I don't have to tell you my last name," and the customer said, "Yes, you do have to!"

Which actually made some of the customers on the line laugh (a rare sight indeed in a post office line) and one customer said, "No, she doesn't. Come on."

Watson claims that the agent was rude to him, but I honestly didn't see anything in the article that indicated she was.

It seems to me like a classic case of "No = Rude."

He thinks the agent was rude for refusing to extend his priority treatment to his children, and also for refusing to tell him her last name.

Employees should never have to reveal their last names. That's a significant privacy concern. The fact that Watson doesn't understand this is more evidence that he's an SC and an EW.

If I was the ticket agent, I would be very concerned if he tweeted my name and location at the air port.

I agree with this.

In the present day, publicly stating a person's name and location (in the context of a complaint or criticism) in this manner is threatening to the person's safety.

In my opinion, to argue that he never actually told anybody to do anything to the agent is just splitting hairs.

if Southwest really told him to delete the tweet, or get kicked off. If he was acting badly enough to boot off, then boot him off. THAT is what implies it was the tweet alone that got him booted off.

Not quite.

If his removal from the plane was because he was acting belligerently in addition to the tweet, then it's likely that Southwest told him to delete his tweet and stop his belligerent conduct, or else they'd kick him off the flight.

(Meaning that he had to do both in order to stay on the plane.)

But when he was telling his story to the media, if he omitted his belligerent conduct (in order to make himself look more innocent than he was), then presumably, he is also going to omit the fact that Southwest instructed him to stop his conduct in order to stay on the plane.

Hence, he would say that Southwest simply told him to delete the tweet or get off the plane.

Given his overall attitude, I agree with the folks who have suggested that he did a lot more than tweet that message to warrant getting removed from the plane.

[Gravekeeper]

The employee replied, "I don't have to tell you my last name," and the customer said, "Yes, you do have to!"

I have had this "conversation" more times than I care to count with customers at work. If a caller really needs to identify one of us specifically, we give them an ID number. But we do not, under any circumstances, give out our full names for both privacy and safety concerns. But its amazing how many belligerent dickheads seem to think we're legally obligated too or something.

Given his overall attitude, I agree with the folks who have suggested that he did a lot more than tweet that message to warrant getting removed from the plane.

Southwest concurred in their public statement that it was not solely his tweet that led to his removal. I'm betting he's omitting quite a bit, or he simply doesn't realize he's an asshole ( Which is a common EW problem. -.- )

[eltf177]

I have to agree with the "no = rude" explanation.

I also agree there's probably a lot of info from both sides we're not hearing...

[Seshat]

Many people have no idea how threatening they seem.