I hope you'll believe me when I say I was not on the flight.

However, I see no reason to believe random internet dude with brand new account who doesn't state his real life name who tells us what really happened. I just see no reason at all to think he was onboard the flight.

Beats me as to what happened. I do suspect there are real life people with real life names that could shed some light on this.

I hope you'll believe me when I say I was not on the flight.

However, I see no reason to believe random internet dude with brand new account who doesn't state his real life name who tells us what really happened. I just see no reason at all to think he was onboard the flight.

Beats me as to what happened. I do suspect there are real life people with real life names that could shed some light on this.

Posted by: jerry at June 6, 2015 1:52 AM

I wasn't on the flight either, but his or her account sounds quite a bit more plausible than the original story.
And I can understand why someone on the flight would not want to use his or her real name.

It is like being a witness to the Furgeson Mo shooting.

There are enough details that can be checked out, (like the seat number) to determine if this person was a witness or not.

No problem w/the person not giving their name.

There have reports of people wrongly accusing cops of racism (body cams show the real story) so he said/she said at this point.

No reason to believe her or not to believe other than personal bias.

More importantly, people have been threatened with lawsuits over eyewitness reports, ESPECIALLY involving he-said/she-said incidents. It's a variation of the "SLAPP" tactic. .

I think it's a matter of believability.

I cannot imagine a flight attendant claiming that a can of coke could be used as a weapon. If she had actually said something so ridiculous, it's a good bet that the other passengers would be confirming the story.

On the other hand, how many people pull the race card, if they think it will help them get what they want? I certainly know people like that, so I find this version of the story more likely to be true.

True names - look at us, how many of us are sharing our full identity on this blog, or anywhere else on the Internet?

If I were United, I'd put the lying bitch on a no-fly list. They're allowed to deny service to anyone -- especially people who try to ruin the company's reputation.

I'm with a-r-g. The account the Muslim chaplain (wut!) gave doesn't ring true.

Isab: I wasn't on the flight either, but his or her account sounds quite a bit more plausible than the original story.

a_random_guy: I cannot imagine a flight attendant claiming that a can of coke could be used as a weapon.

I agree with Isab & ARG that this guy's story sounds more plausible than the woman's account, however not for the reason ARG mentioned. I can imagine a flight attendant stating that a can of coke could be used as a weapon. And it could be. Hitting a flight attendant on the head with a full can of anything with a lot of force could cause serious injury.

What doesn't seem plausible to me is the flight attendant -- according to what I recall of the original story -- giving a nearby man an unopened can of something (beer?) while refusing to give the Muslim woman a full can of coke.

I certainly wouldn't be my life that random internet dude's story is the correct one. But I would be willing to bet some money on it.

If you want to disbelieve what the "victim" claimed because it sounds like horseshit that's one thing.

Assign the chance the story is bullshit based purely how it sounds like shit a probability of X.

That other people some random some not like those here agree with you should increase X somewhat.

But that one random person who agrees also claims he was on the flight but offers no proof shouldn't increase your belief that what he says happened on the flight happened on the flight.

I think the claim witnesses saw something different occur but are scared to back up the airline and its employee out of fear of reprisal weak at best.

Here are the conflicting statements: "I was sitting close enough to her to hear everything she said" and "The lady then got onto her phone with her credit card..." In order for this person to see her get out her phone AND credit card, they likely would have had to have been sitting right next to her, not just "close enough to hear everything." Everything else in this account makes more sense to be true than the original claim of discrimination.

I doubt any flight attendant would be so stupid as to say such a thing where it could be overheard

"In order for this person to see her get out her phone AND credit card, they likely would have had to have been sitting right next to her,"

Maybe they were, but didn't want to say so for fear of being identified.

There's a complete lack of corroboration for either version. Usually in an incident like this people come out of the woodwork posting video they took of the incident on their phones etc. United hasn't either confirmed or denied that it took place as alleged. The silence on this is weird.

I think when she 'got on her phone' she swiped her credit card on that console thingy in the back of the seat in front of her. Hence 'paying for the internet'. Depending on the plane and which seat she was in anyone within a few rows of her could have seen that. Especially if she was making a big stink.

And if neither account can be corroborated the only rational thing to do is ignore the whole thing. Maybe someone at United acted inappropriately. Without something to back up that account why believe it. Maybe a passenger acted like a lunatic. Were any of us going to do anything to her about it even if she is lying?

I think when she 'got on her phone' she swiped her credit card on that console thingy in the back of the seat in front of her. Hence 'paying for the internet'. Depending on the plane and which seat she was in anyone within a few rows of her could have seen that. Especially if she was making a big stink.

And if neither account can be corroborated the only rational thing to do is ignore the whole thing. Maybe someone at United acted inappropriately. Without something to back up that account why believe it. Maybe a passenger acted like a lunatic. Were any of us going to do anything to her about it even if she is lying?

Posted by: Ben at June 6, 2015 7:18 PM

There is a whole of of potential benefit to be gained by attacking the airlines. United certainly is no paragon of customer service, but this is a airline version of someone putting a dead mouse in their McDonald's coke.

Knowing how the airline beverage cart operates, makes me tend to believe the other passenger rather than the publicity hound making the complaint.

> And if neither account can be corroborated the only rational thing to do is ignore the whole thing. Maybe someone at United acted inappropriately. Without something to back up that account why believe it. Maybe a passenger acted like a lunatic. Were any of us going to do anything to her about it even if she is lying?

Pretty much this. Without corroboration it's a big whatever for me.

Without corroboration, it's poutrage.

Ben, does United still have those old Airphones? Delta has gotten rid of all of theirs and I think American has too.

Damned if I know CD. They might on some of their older planes. But even on the newer ones there is a touch screen and a credit card reader. I know you can pay for internet and I think you can still make calls somehow. Never personally done it though. Seems like a waste of money to me.

I do know if you are in an aisle seat you can see other people's screens for several rows in front of you. If not you can only see the row in front of you through the seat gap. Also, I don't think phone and internet work that well in a moving plane. They sure don't hand out drinks when you are waiting at the gate.

Interesting. Now that you mention it, Delta does have some of those in-the-seat-back touch screens, and they have credit card readers. But I think on theirs, the only thing it's used for is to watch movies. For internet access, they have the Gogo wireless systems; you buy access through the in-flight system's Web site. Delta is gradually getting rid of the seat-back IFE systems; in a few more years, if you want in-flight entertainment, you'll have to bring your own device. This is not necessarily a bad thing; most peoples' laptops and phone/tablet devices work a lot better than the seat-back touch screens, and they save some weight by pulling that stuff out of the airplane. However, Gogo is seriously in need of an upgrade to its air/ground links; the 1998 technology is not getting it done anymore.

A few months ago I flew delta for a family reunion and on the first leg the plane had the old "airline" double mono plug instead of a standard stereo plug.

Depending on what you order you may or may not be offered a full can. Mnt Dew can offered about 75% of the time, Orange Juice - never.