US Airways is at it Again-Things That make you go WTF!

[700UW]

Its not illegal for the government to use security cameras in their facilities, its done all the time and all over the US and the world.

Its not illegal for a business to use cameras in the workplace.

US busted some employees in PHL when we first got Workbrain for other people clocking them in and out with a camera in the smoke detector over the time clock.

 

[john john]

So can a passenger video an agent legally
Can agent legally video a passenger
?

 

[700UW]

It depends on the airport, the airline and the state laws. I posted about what government and a company can do, not the general public, but I would think its against US' policy for a passenger to video agents while working.

And if you so concerned, google it and see what you can find.

 

[WorldTraveler]

note however that airlines don't make or have LAWS and thus it cannot be illegal to do something based on carrier POLICIES.
.
If carriers have policies which are unique and which the government hasn't chosen to codify as a law, it simply makes the airline look more like the out of touch autocrat that the public thinks they are anyway.

 

[signals]

I won't get in the middle of a healthy sparring watch over the name that is applied to the people who buy tickets to ride on commercial aircraft other than to say that the name that was applied was the least of the issues in this case.
Neither are abbreviations. yes, airlines use them but so do lots of other industries. It is NEVER good to use "internal" language when speaking to someone "outside" of the group.... but given the diversity of the world we live in, it is increasingly difficult to know the baseline from which you as a communicator should start at when speaking to people. That said, known internal monikers should be saved for breakroom conversations or outside of the hearing of customers.
.
BTW, other airlines have chosen to refer to their customers as "guests".... as do some retailers. It may attempt to help employees see those who pay their salaries in a different light but that can and should be done regardless of the language that is used. It is up to each employee and manager of an organization to define the perceptions and values they have about customers.
IN this day and age, most people on any airline expect coach to be hassle free basic transportation; names are not expected, ordinary courtesies of humanity are. Airlines are no different from most customer service companies in the US that they fail to deliver even on that point... and most customer service employees see the people who pay their salaries as interruptions and inconveniences; it's not wonder the customer service experience in the US is so bad.
.
Keith Oberman's comments validate exactly what I said would happen... the customer service agent and US Airways might have won the little p78ssing match with the uh - passenger - but they lost the war - big time.
Everyone in the world - at his request - will be looking not only for what's her name's name tag when they pass through PHL on US... and they will be looking at a whole lot of other airline employee nametags as well... suppose the accuracy of names that - passengers use - when writing complaint letters will go up markedly as a result of this incident? I'm betting on it.
.

win the battle, lose the war.

So this explains that annoying Delta agent on the intercom that I want to strangle

 

[signals]

note however that airlines don't make or have LAWS and thus it cannot be illegal to do something based on carrier POLICIES.
.
If carriers have policies which are unique and which the government hasn't chosen to codify as a law, it simply makes the airline look more like the out of touch autocrat that the public thinks they are anyway.

So it all depends on the politicians(government) that you have working for you-got it B)

 

[signals]

We STILL haven't determined that the passenger was photographing the SIDA badge... but rather the name tag.
.
I don't think it is necessary for employees to pack cameras to defend themselves... if they were doing nothing wrong or standing by company policy, then there should have been no problem if they asked the passenger to wait while they contacted someone else - even another agent - to vouch that the agent was in the right.

.
let's remember though that this became an EVENT when the agent went on the aircraft and wouldn't even accept when the passenger deleted the picture... and then elevated it to a cockpit situation that, honestly, the captain had no idea what was going on by that time.
.
I'm not doubting that the passenger was the south end of north bound four legged creature.
.
But it appeared to be the agent that wouldn't let it go... that escalated it... and ultimately will pay the price for it - in the name of USAirways.
.
Sometimes it doesn't matter who is right but rather who is going to hurt by continuing to elevate a volatile situation.
.
Sometimes diffusing a situation is the best thing - and if you do escalate it, you need to make sure you are going to win. Given that there is a reasonable fear among US employees that the company will stand them up, it seems all the more prudent to diffuse the situation rather than let it escalate.
.
I doubt very seriously that the passenger will suffer any harm in all of this - even if that is what should have happened.

Yes, the customer was photographing a name tag -with an US logo and the names Barbie or Ken
I would be the first to jump down US's throat, but this is the 'guest' that is at fault...and I'm looking at it from outside your airline world 'box'

You seem to emphasize the flaws of others...WN will peacefully coexist or blah, blah, blah, infinity!
US should have defused the 'guest situation rather than let it escalate blah, blah, blah, infinity!

Do humans work for the airlines? Then NO airline is without flaw. No industry that has humans working is without flaw. To say you would have handled the situation differently without knowing the facts may be a lie, or may have led to a sticky situation...remember the crotch bomber? Maybe Delta handled that situation wrong. Extreme perhaps but nobody is flawless!

I doubt the chain-of-command would have reached the pilot unless there was genuine concern. Sure US is a bit bipolar, but system testers are out there.

 

[LD3]

Its not illegal for a business to use cameras in the workplace.

It depends on where the cameras are installed... h34r:

 

[700UW]

The law states the in "private areas" they cant be used, ie bathrooms, locker rooms.

 

[Art at ISP]

The law states the in "private areas" they cant be used, ie bathrooms, locker rooms.

So the question is, can a crew room be considered a "private area"? If so, it makes information from another thread VERY interesting.

 

[700UW]

No a crew room is a break room, not a private area.

That said, a number of states have now introduced regulations which prohibit the use of a security camera in a "private place" - which means a place where someone may reasonably expect to be safe from any unauthorized surveillance, even if these may be in "public areas": in particular, hidden cameras in locker rooms or restrooms.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Audio recordings are against the law in PA without prior knowledge and consent.

The law does not apply to video recordings.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and what are the laws in PA regarding video surveillance without recording.... or is it possible to note that video surveillance is in use and then have laws that allow the video recording to be used only if a crime has been committed? Seems like a lot of people live w/ that reality all around the world and accept it. And it also serves as a "warning" that if you cross the line, there likely will be evidence.

Signals,
my position is simply one of being willing to step back from the situation and recognize how it will be perceived - and sort out the opinions and the inside (airline view) from the public's particularly in light of the facts that surround the case.
There is no shortage of opinions on this board - and that is fine... but when opinions clearly cannot stand up to the facts around a case or even if it is a case based solely on opinions (such as this one "who was at fault"), then looking at a situation the way the rest of the world sees it is worth while. I noted that it didn't really matter that US might have had rules prohibiting photography of a name tag or employee (which I'm still not sure we have totally verified to be true or the context in which it might occur), the fact is that the situation blew up way beyond what the agent and her supervisor thought would happen - because they were so focused on the rules and protecting their interest that they couldn't realize how absurb their position was..... and her name was splashed all over the news anyway.
.
So, no, it is not about picking out the flaws of others but it is about being able to see beyond a human reaction to know where it will end up.
.
And, yes, I know we are all humans and prone to mistakes - but that doesn't change the fact that the acts of humans still will resolve in repercussions.... and in this case the repercussions were likely worse for the US agent than if (s)he had just let the lady write her name.
I have never said neither was faultless in the situation... the question becomes who gets hurt worse and, if it wasn't clear before, it is very clear now.

 

[signals]

Audio recordings are against the law in PA without prior knowledge and consent.

The law does not apply to video recordings.

There is a loophole in the prior knowledge or consent law...

If it is outside I can record you without your knowledge...an argument in NYS is that I was recording the birds and the conversation just happened to be there :huh:

 

[signals]

and what are the laws in PA regarding video surveillance without recording.... or is it possible to note that video surveillance is in use and then have laws that allow the video recording to be used only if a crime has been committed? Seems like a lot of people live w/ that reality all around the world and accept it. And it also serves as a "warning" that if you cross the line, there likely will be evidence.

Signals,
my position is simply one of being willing to step back from the situation and recognize how it will be perceived - and sort out the opinions and the inside (airline view) from the public's particularly in light of the facts that surround the case.
There is no shortage of opinions on this board - and that is fine... but when opinions clearly cannot stand up to the facts around a case or even if it is a case based solely on opinions (such as this one "who was at fault"), then looking at a situation the way the rest of the world sees it is worth while. I noted that it didn't really matter that US might have had rules prohibiting photography of a name tag or employee (which I'm still not sure we have totally verified to be true or the context in which it might occur), the fact is that the situation blew up way beyond what the agent and her supervisor thought would happen - because they were so focused on the rules and protecting their interest that they couldn't realize how absurb their position was..... and her name was splashed all over the news anyway.
.
So, no, it is not about picking out the flaws of others but it is about being able to see beyond a human reaction to know where it will end up.
.
And, yes, I know we are all humans and prone to mistakes - but that doesn't change the fact that the acts of humans still will resolve in repercussions.... and in this case the repercussions were likely worse for the US agent than if (s)he had just let the lady write her name.
I have never said neither was faultless in the situation... the question becomes who gets hurt worse and, if it wasn't clear before, it is very clear now.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz