What are the odds of two extreme cases of PMS meeting and hashing it out on a crowded airplane waiting to take off?? All over a picture of one of the excited ladies being rude??

Perhaps a bit of entertainment value here if it weren't sooo sad.

Oh Yeah, 'rotteneggs', since when is flying a 'civil right'???

What are the rules and regulations of US Airways on taking an employee's picture without their consent?

Although I don't know their policy, a picture of a name tag is not going against any policy or law regarding photos of people. In addition, the laws regarding photos of people only state that they can't be published without permission of the individual (at least in the US). The pictures can still be taken. Now, it's true that there may be some leeway in that if the individual clearly asks that no pictures are taken. But otherwise, you can take a picture, but you can't publish it (putting in in newspapers, TV, etc) without permission of everyone within the picture. There may even be some exemptions to that, such as only counting people whose faces appear in the picture or only applying to professional photographers or something like that. I don't know every detail on these laws as they aren't anything I have to be concerned with. But either way, there isn't any law in the US preventing you from taking a picture of someone with the one exception of anything considered to be classified. The airline may have a policy against it and they have that right, but I think it's unlikely. They'd quickly be attacked for "hiding" things from the public and that would be a very bad PR move with the airlines having as much trouble as they are right now financially and with other bad PR going on.

What are the rules and regulations of US Airways on taking an employee's picture without their consent?

She didn't take a picture of the employee. She took a picture of the name tag. Now personally, I would have just jotted down the name in my notes app on my phone. Would have saved a lot of issues!!

I don't understand the flight attendant's objection to the photo. Was she being rude to the passengers, and she was afraid of being reported with a photo to prove to rude behavior? Any way, once the photo was deleted, that should have been the end of the situation and the flight attendant's concerns. Taking a photo of an employee's name tag can not be classified as disruptive behavior, after all we live in America.... there is more to this story.

First of all, your comment is truly ignorant and racist. Secondly, no where in the article is TSA even mentioned.

Whats her name Godzilla T.

"Lehmacher could not confirm whether or not DeWitt was asked by an employee to delete a photo or whether or not that employee told the captain DeWitt was a threat to security. He also did not know what DeWitt specifically said onboard that led to her removal.

Inquiries to DeWitt have not yet been returned."

Remember when reporters used to collaborate stories? Welcome to the machine I guess.

This is just another example of misleading, sensationalist journalism. Why would you state in the lead that they were thrown off the plane for taking a picture when, from what you wrote, it sounds like the were thrown off for making a scene?

This reporter didn't even bother interviewing any other passengers on the plane before printing this garbage. Did they stop to think that if Ms. DeWitt actually was in the wrong and felt upset because she got reprimanded, that this article is going to hurt US Airways business regardless? No, because people don't care. You have posters like @CGM who call for this airline workers job when they weren't there to see what happened.

How the hell is something like this news anyway? You want to report something, why don't you report on how we give hundred of billions to save countries in the middle east while we have people suffering and dying on the streets of America. Report on why no one asks why there are drug cartels right across our border that murder hundreds of people at a time constantly, as well as go into houses and kill children at birthday parties, but we do noting about that. Why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet not interested in just as much violence and degradation right across our border? There is so much wrong in the world that could be righted, but instead we have reporters focusing on this nonsense.

This article you wrote is not news and we don't need to hear about every Tom, Dick and Harriette that get their feelings hurt. You have the gift of working for an outlet where you could affect positive change in this world, don't waste that gift on more of this.

I agree, this isn't news, it's 'reality journalism', and as such, is also called fiction. How sad.

@lostsoul

The word is "corroborate", not "collaborate". And it looks like they attempted to corroborate, but couldn't get the information.

Ah yes, my bad. It's amazing how many English teachers post on forums.

If the reporter attempted to corroborate the story and could not, the reporter shouldn't have printed it. No matter who is telling the truth in the whole matter, by going forward without the facts, this reporter has already hurt US Airways business. This is completely irresponsible, but it gets internet hits and drives advertising and that really is all that matters.

I do not think we are qualified to make some of the derogatory comments that show up here in this thread. I often take exception to style and accuracy of articles being written about events, but do not in this case. The fact that the official quoted had heard none of the facts of the case against the journalist seems compelling. That included the reason that she was removed from her flight. Thus it does not appear to be justified.

Olden days journalism news took pride in ethical reportage. Presumption of that, based on the news report, it seems to me that the employee should be fired, pure and simple. The journalist has no motive at all for fabricating her charges against this employee as I see it.

It seems the problem started in the "boarding area" with rude behavior by Toniella, the employee observed by the journalist. Boarding areas are on the ground, I would think. Was Toniella a ground-based employee or a stewardess? She has, in my opinion, in either position any right whatsoever to demand a passenger not take a photograph before they even left the ground... even by a camera aimed at herself. It is a tourist type of action... what was supposed to be wrong with it?

Then to carry the issue inside the plane to the pilots with wild accusations after the journalist was seated AND who had deleted the controversial photo, is totally out of line with absolutely no evidence of the passenger's wrong-doing. It seems to me that Toniella is definitely at fault.

And since the reason for the journalist's removal from the flight cannot even be verified by the official of the airlines, it seems something is indeed rotten in the state of... was it Pennsylvania? I side with the journalist.

@second sight

The journalist was not there either. As for siding with the journalist, journalists aren't supposed to take sides. Unfortunately, Toniella is already being convicted by the court of the internet. You say there is no evidence of the passengers wrong-doing. Okay, but the only evidence we have that Toniella did anything wrong is the passengers comments. If this is how society works now, we should all go to our local Walmarts (or other big business with lots of money) and accuse workers of offending us so we can all get paid! Woo hoo!

On a more realistic note, I have a feeling a lot of the opinions on here have less to do with what actually happened and more to do with someone being named Toniella and someone being named Ms DeWitt. If DeWitt was the attendants name and Toneilla was the passenger, I bet a lot of posts on here would look quite different. In 2011 that's pretty freaking sad.

Whenever an employee is rude and disruptive to people that employee should be reprimanded AND made to offer a formal apology to everyone involved. U S Airways is in the process right now trying to discredit this journalist. The journalist complaint should be very easy to validate. ALL passengers for that flight should be interviewed and if need be have a deposition taken. This should prove or disprove the original complaint. IF THE JOURNALIST IS RIGHT THE AIRLINE SHOULD FIRE THE ATTENDANT AND THE CAPTAIN. Even in todays heightened security a rogue employee may be just as disruptive to passenger comfort and thus equally responsible to the law. I am afraid none of this will happen though, much to the determent of U S Airways which as of now I am canceling my flight to Los Angeles and re booking on Delta. So long U S Airways, your handling of this situation is terrible and will cost you business.

I have flown hundreds of thousands of miles on many airlines, and preferred America West before it was eaten by US Air. AWA was a great small airline that became one of the worst airlines I've ever had to endure once it was taken over by US Air. US Air has the rudest, most obnoxious flight attendants I've ever had the misfortune of encountering, and I've flown countless airlines since 1954. They are crude, could not care less about flyers, and more than a few times I've seen them get in other people's faces throwing their authority around when a little politeness would have sufficed. I've seen many flight attendants on US Air get downright nasty to flyers, and throw their weight around in ways that would be obnoxious at best, illegal at worst, if they didn't have the authority of their uniform on an airplane backed by a fascist system that rewards heavy handed behavior on the part of flight attendants. I haven't flown them for years, will fly almost any other airline than them, and have no doubt that the flight attendant is probably in the wrong here. Just too many experiences with US Air flight attendants to doubt the flight attendant was acting like an authoritarian.

"Tonialla"

I think the name says it all. I deal with her type in various city halls throughout the northeast trying to get work permits.

It's all about the power trip.

Then, they get off the clock and go back to their @hitty lives.

@lost soul... Your ongoing diatribes definitely underwrite your intention to say that journalists (plural) stick together, begetting a clear assumption that the passenger was acting as a journalist in cahoots with the writer of the article.

However, I fear you misunderstood; let me clarify. There was a difference in my post of defining the article we read as having a "writer," (a good one btw) and defining the passenger treated so rudely as the "journalist." The passenger's actions led me to think she was a photojournalist and your original choice of words that journalists "collaborate" appeared to emphasize this.

The article identified DeWitt's profession as a photographer. That profession seemed applicable to the incident, but you may disagree.

What I find irrelevant and also unfounded in your posts is your accusing us posters who support DeWitt against Tonialla's actions as some sort of racial bias. You have no idea what the ancestry may be of either of these women, and certainly not ours who comment; it's your pure guesswork (lol unless you yourself are Tonialla??? in that case I think you have a severe paranoid personality disorder).

Accusing people who do make comments here as racist is as bad as the original post rife with name-calling which, whenever used, merely defines the name-caller as an ignoramus who cannot think logically, and evokes a contemptuous laughter often but always discredits any assertions attempted by her as meaningless.

The sooner people can wear glasses that record audio and video 24/7 the sooner we all can get past all this he said / she said, nonsense. That and easily find where we left our keys!

Most of the time I sympathize with the flight attendants. Here, I think the flight attendant was on a power trip and wanted to not just win, but kick the passenger off the plane to really win. I'm glad I don't fly US Airways.

To be honest, I'm not surprised by this incident at all. The US Airways staff at Philadelphia International Airport is by far the rudest and most impolite bunch of people I've ever encountered. If their careers don't work well with US Airways, please allow me to suggest becoming jail wardens. Some may have prior experience, but they all have the perfect personalities to do so!

Why aren't there camera's (as a requirement) on every flight? It's been a few years since I've had to travel, so some of them might, but I'm thinking it should be mandatory.

With today's concerns of "public safety" and"Flying without fear" I get why certain rules are strictly enforced. However, what's keeping a flight attendant, or other similar personal from using this system against people. Especially, if said man or woman, has a knowledge of, or a fear that they are going to be reported for bad behavior. And as a means to punish someone for not taking it sitting down, they do something like this... I don't know who is at fault, or what is what, cause I wasn't there, but it certainly makes me wonder, why isn't there something in force to protect everyone. I know that when I call the cable company the call is recorded as a quality assurance, and as a way to protect myself and the company from certain liabilities.

It's fool hardy indeed to think that just because someone works for the airline that they are above reproach... And in a day and age when you can be put on a no fly list for any number of instances, it seems to me that the guess work should be reomoved, and all party's be truly held accountable. Video recordings of flights would do just this. Flying is a privledge, I agree completely....But when flying, I still do have the RIGHT to be treated fairly, as I am still paying for the service... Just my two cents.

Gloria Fabiaschi....I'm with you on this one.....but I'm not sure which one was "dumb" and which one was "dumber".....the whole story is just silly nonsense and why is this news????

It's against the law to photograph within a security checkpoint at any US airport, no matter what your camera is pointed at.

Ogawa, the federal policy specifically forbids photographs at security checkpoints and none taken of security personnel. That is the only policy that is uniform throughout the USA. It depends on the airport, whether it is public or private, the airlines' policies and many other factors. In general, the airlines have some policy of no photos of their staff. It would be a legal test of many of their rules to know if a name tag is included in the policy since most of the policies are ambiguous, by design.

Most people do not realize that many "public" airports are considered private propery inside, so the general rules on the ability to photograph anywhere in public do not apply on the ones that are privately owned or operated. Its best to ask or research before taking photos. Overseas, beware, at many places your whole kit will be confiscated if you take photos anywhere in or near an airport, even of your family.

Please be specific about this law regarding photos...Its source, and its legal citation so that any of us who want to can check the source and read the actual wording. I would like to do that. More and more I see here in discussion people who make vague references to "laws" without the cites.

And if cites of the "law" to which referred are not given here, in our anonymous opinion pieces which we submit, the allegation cannot be taken seriously.

Posting in a credible discussion quotes sources specifically supporting our opinions; logical conclusions, of course, but the fallacies of logic prevail as well, especially the ad hominem fallacy, which, plainly, is calling people derogatory names. It's proliferating here, and reveals that the people who use it are, almost literally, brain dead.

Gloria, despite your "colorful" language, I do agree with you.

Mark my words, these US Airlines flight attendant flunkies have absolute power and public outrage is growing about their abuses of this power.

Don't fly US Airlines.

Remember ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

JM:

Sometimes even a little bit of power goes to the heads of those who wield it.

You don't have to be an emperor or ruler to abuse others with "authority".

Many of those who wield small levels of authority over others, abuse it on a daily basis.

As has been said, there are many avenues that the news agency can take to validate the occurrences, ie: passenger's manifest would promptly give IDs of witnesses who could verify and validate the actual statements.

Who knows what had transpired with the previous situation the resulted in the airline agent being rude to the original passengers in the first place. They may have been unruly and near being ejected off the plane themselves.

This ladies insistence on taking a picture of the employee's name tag may very well have been accompanied by words or threats, who knows. It's awful easy to claim to have been thrown off for merely taking a picture that you have now claimed to have deleted because it was too dark. Where's the proof.

All in all, with the circumstances, with all the complaints being issued against airlines for increased security, its just another complaint lodged against a giant that has a giant problem to try to take care of and keep everyone happy in the first place, and we know how impossible it is to keep the worthless American public happy when they are never happy with ANYTHING in the first place, even when things are perfect.

With the issue at hand, what would we expect for them to do. An attendant is having problems with one group of people, and maybe she was rude, and then another passenger is possibly adding to the problem and snapping pictures in from of an attendants face?

This seems to fit right in after just a week or so ago, a citizen gained their freedom from prosecution after taking a picture of some cops arresting another person, remember? Awful convenient journalism ain't it?

Besides, who do you think is going to be asked to off-board the plane, the attendant or the transgressor. If the lady was actually innocent of anything else, don't you think other people would have stepped forward and offered their support and protested the captain asking her to disembark or offer their own accounts of the situation? Or rather, just how easy would it be for a news agency to merely say that the passenger hadn't returned any messages to allow sensationalism to mask the whole situation.

All in the name of journalism you know? Just look how many people have jumped on the bandwagon over some twit snappin' a picture of another twit being an unruly mouthy insulting female, nawwwww! For real?

djdrew201:

Perhaps US Airways should have evicted all the passengers from the aircraft, since they are all worthless, as you stated.

MORONS! Wake up. Flying on a commercial airliner is NOT a civil right! Being treated kindly by flight attendants is NOT a civil right. Nor is it a matter of criminal law, so there won't be any juries "convicting" anyone for anything.

The only thing you got right, rotteneggs, is that you do have rights. You have the right to fly a different airline or take a bus or a train or a boat or drive or walk to your destination. And, you have a right to complain if you don't like the service. But, absolutely nowhere in the U.S. Constitution - including any part of the Bill of Rights - are you guaranteed the "right" to fly US Airways or to take photos of their employees.

Incorrect, Miker. The boarding area was a public place. We have a RIGHT to take photos in a public place. We PAY for our airline tickets and by PAYING for them we have the RIGHT to expect to be treated professionally and politely. WE are their customers. It is THEIR job to treat us with respect, just as much as it is ours to treat them and each other with respect. And if I want to take a photo inside the plane, AGAIN, my right... show me where it is LAW that I can't do that. What effect does my taking a photo inside a plane have on national security?

Miker: A little over the top about it, but you are 100% correct.

CyberWolf - No, you are paying to be taken from point a to point b.

While true that flying isn't a civil right, being treated as a criminal for no reason is against our rights. The Fourth Amendment is being walked all over and we're allowing it. Stating that someone is a flight risk with no proof makes Tonialla liable for defamation. As an employee of the airline, it now makes the airline liable as well. Wanna make a bet this ends in someone visiting a lawyer?

@rotteneggs

"Clearly this Toniella G. person is a problem and needs to be addressed. "?

Really? Were you there? I'm inclined to believe the pilot who removed her for being foul mouthed and abrasive. Let me ask you this, do you fly much? Having flown 4000 miles in the last 2 weeks, I have seen more than a couple passengers try pulling shennanagins boarding planes. My guess is that Ms. Dewitt was probably holding up boarding with her carryon bags or some other issue and was pissed when a flight attendant had to address her. People think because they paid for a ticket for a plane that they are entitled to do whatever they want on it, well guess what... she was wrong. Now she's going to cry sour grapes and we're all supposed to feel sorry for her.

Here is a better idea, don't act like a jerk on a plane and you wont get thrown off. She's lucky she didn't get stage 2 TSA checked.

The simple reality for all of us keyboard jockeys commenting on these TSA/airline articles are that we weren't there so we only know the "facts" as reported. As usual this article is a he said/she said bit of fluff that leaves us completely unable to reasonably decide what actually happened. There are probably two hypotethetical extremes of what happened here (and the truth is likely in the grey middle):

1) The passenger's story is true and we have an angry airline representative doing things that does a diservice to all airline staff.

2) The passenger was combative, abusive, etc.

Again the truth is likely in the middle. However, let's say for hypothetical argument that 1) is true. Perhaps you have no constitutional right to fly, but you do have civil rights regarding the impunement of your character. At some point, someone is going to get one of these cases into civil court on Slander/Libel grounds and probably win it. That might finally change the current norm - which appears to be the passenger is always wrong.

Rob: Like many, you completely misunderstand the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights restricts the actions of GOVERNMENT. The passenger may or may not have a civil action against the FA/pilot/airline, on a defamation or slander basis, but that is a completely separate issue.

I really wish that people would actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The documents are notthat long and are fairly easy to comprehend.

Adam, I pretty much agree with you up to the point where you said that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were fairly easy to comprehend. Really? Please tell it to the Supreme Court. lol

Maybe we need to hear the other side of the story? Yes, there are rude flight attendants, but there are even ruder passengers. It is possible Ms Dewitt skipped a few details in her telling of the events? Yet some posters here are ready to have the flight attendant fired, sued, thrown in jail. Aren't her rights being violated with those types of comments?

And for those of you who say taking pictures in a public area is ok -- lets see how you feel if someone runs up to you and snaps your photo without your permission while you may be engaged in any sort of behavior -- parking your car, arguing with someone, ordering a cheeseburger -- you would demand to know why, and possibly request it be deleted too!

Cynic: Understanding it is easy, the tricky part is twisting it to advance you political adjenda. That is when you need to incorporate the personal writings of individuals who were in France or England when it was writen and voted into force.

Actually U.S. Airways is a commercial carrier and passengers do have specific rights. A false accusation of being a flight risk could have consequences and penalties. It should be investigated by U.S. Dept of Commerce, U.S. Dept. of Transportation and the FAA. For the rest of you: Do you feel safer now that you have given up your civil rights???

I hate flying US Airways, In my opinion they have more than one rude employee. Perhaps it is part of their corporate culture.

I can not see how you can randomly make false accusations about a person which involve some type of law enforcement and NOT have a case against the individual or business that made the accusation. That would mean anyone can say anything about anybody and call the Cops and have everyone carted off to jail for no reason what so ever. I think she has a lawsuit in the works and I would to.

Miker-3057253

Incorrect, cyber wolf. You're missing the point. Regardless of where the picture was taken. the flight attendant had the "right" to ask the passenger to delete the photo. I'm not arguing that the F.A. had a good or legitimate reason - just that they f.a. had as much right to ask the passenger to delete the photo as the passenger had to take it. There's no legal authority being abused here. The flight attendant works for the airline and the airline is a private, for-profit business.

Although she had a right to ask the passenger to delete the photo, she did not have the right to enforce it. The phone is the personal property of the passenger. If the flight attendant does not wish her name tag's photo to be taken, then she should care to not display it in a public place.

Navy Patriot is correct -- commercial carriers do have stronger government oversight that other "private businesses". Part of this is, of course, the usage of public facilities (i.e. airports, train stations) by the carrier. It means a partnership with the government. Also, the government oversees such things as safety procedures, etc.

Because of that regulatory relationship, the commercial carrier is, in some ways, a "representative" of the government and thus is held to a higher standard than, say, Sears or Macys.

Byron: You keep referring to the airport as a "public" place. It isn't. Earlier in the comments a photographer (might have been you) posted regarding how a military base operates under a different set of circumstances, so does an airport. It is not a "public place" such as a park. No one has a "right" to be there, additionally the boarding areas are considered "secured" and further operate on different standards than the baggage claim areas, or check in counters.

Bottom line, the crew have the legal right to evict ANYONE from the aircraft for ANY reason. Could the FA have enforced the deletion request, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I don"t think so. However, I am about 99% certain that the airport security personel could. Was the FA being a jerk? Most likely yes. Was the passenger less congenial that the story seems to imply? Probably so.

Lost Soul says in post #2.7 to Rotten Eggs: "Really? Were you there?"

And then Lost Soul proceeds to give the version of events that Lost Soul is convinced happened.

So you know exactly what went down Lost Soul? Really? Were YOU there?

Flying is not a right, but once you have purchased a ticket and been issued a boarding pass, you have a contract with the carrier to deliver you to your destination. It seems a reasonable expectation that unless you act grossly inappropriately, like get loud and drunk on the flight, that you should be able to reasonably express your displeasure with the service without suffering retribution.

I worked for many years investigating employee and customer complaints of wrongful treatment. One thing I found is that in almost every case there is another side to the story, which often at least partly miitgates the circumstances.

Nothing but misleading and sensationalist journalism. No facts other then a one person opinion the journalist sided with. No research or interviewing other passages over what happen. People read anything they are given without even questioning it or doing multiply research.

Adam-1897760 -

Sorry Adam, I made an error in not creating a new paragraph to separate the two issues. Then again, I figured most people would get that they were different things being talked about.

I do understand the the BoR more than most. Being that the TSA is a federal agency, it's domain does fall under the 4th Ad. thus making just about everything it does, from pat-downs to opening luggage, unlawful. Yet here we are allowing it to continue. Do you understand that? If so, why are Americans allowing this to continue? Oh ya...I forgot. It makes us safer. Excuse me while I wait and watch to see what the next civil right is taken away from us in the name of safety.

Rob: By purchasing a ticket, and entering the airport you grant consent. There is no 4th amendment issue. The day you are required by government mandate to enter an airport as a free and unfettered full citizen and board a flight, you can raise a 4th amendment argument against teh search.

'fraid not Adam. Unless the ticket has "small print" on it stating that the purchase of the ticket means you've given up your rights, it's just a ticket. Buying a ticket grants no one the right to search someone.

Adam: Flight Attendants are given specific responsibility to enforce the rules & regulations of the FAA. As such, they are considered agents of the FAA in those duties, and not mere employees of the airline. When Ms. G. reported the passenger as a security risk, she was specifically doing so in her guise as an agent of the FAA (or even possibly TSA?). Therefore, all rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America apply to her actions in this case.

And, from what was reported in this article, based on statements by US Air employees, note that they could not reach the passenger for confirmation, it seems to me that the "security risk" on this flight was the flight attendant.

Nope not in a bad mood.However I'm at my saturation point, when it comes to some of the STUPID things that goes on with these airlines.Like I said everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame and are nothing more than a bunch of POWER MONGERS.The whole situation was just stupid.

From what I've read from your post I think we're on the same wave length when it come to the over blown, whacko, abusive, behavior of the airlines.

They're over the line.

Photography is protected just like free speech. The flight attendant had no right to ask her to delete it. Furthermore, removing her from the flight for "taking a picture" is a violation of the first amendment.

Eric.. that really doesn't apply because constitutional right are not protected when dealing with private companies.

However, gross mis-use of "power". She had that person removed because she could, by being a tattle tale and a passive aggressive bully. And now, they're getting bad press for it. Word of mouth!

Wrong. An employee of a private enterprise asking a customer/passenger to delete a photograph is NOT a violation of the First Amendment.

This may have been really stupid, bad customer service, or any of a number of things. But it is not a civil rights case. It is a simple matter of a company, through one of its agents, doing something that it has every right to do. If you don't like it, you do have the right to fly with a different airline. That's about as far as your rights come into play here.

As a professional photographer part time, I can assure you that as long as you don't use the photo for commercial use or profit, they have NO right to make you delete ANY picture, whether on a commercial flight or private. They can tell you to leave the plane, but they MUST reimburse you for the ticket price and at that time, you will have certain rights to pursue the airlines for other compensation. It the photo was taken in a "Public" area, even though it was on "Private property" such as in a "Public" terminal or in a "Public" park, you may take photo's of anyone or anything you please. If others object, THEY can leave and you have the right to stay and take photographs. Nobody has the right to make you delete anything on a camera, be it a phone or otherwise, unless it is a Military Facility and it is POSTED. If they (other than Military) attempt to remove the camera from you, it is theft and THAT has & will stand up in Court. Example, I can be in a Public park and take a picture of an adjacent persons home or yard and they have no right to stop me. If that picture is sold for profit, and it is obvious it was taken from a public place, they have no right to royalties or compensation.

While (incorrectly) speaking about the passenger's rights to free speech (which has to do with GOVERNMENTAL restrictions), perhaps you should in turn consider the employees pricvacy rights (which relate to not only government but private individuals).

When you CHOOSE to board an aircraft, you also CHOOSE to subject yourself to the requirement of complying with the instructions of the crew of that aircraft. In all reality, the aircraft could require all passengers to stip naked and sing the star spangled banner before boarding, they just wouldn"t have many passengers.

Thanks Wyo Cop for setting the record straight. The Supreme Court has upheld exactly what you just said. This is why Google maps can post pictures of you and your house on the internet.

I would have told the FA to jump back and no I will not delete the photo. I will and am reporting you to the appropiate personnel for being RUDE and Impolite to customers. Then when asked to leave, the plane, I would have and went straight to the Airlines service desk and filed a complaint. And leave my lawyer's card with them.

Wyo. Cop is correct about laws regarding photography. One minor thing regarding what was said, however. The article states that the photographer was *asked* to delete the picture. Everyone has the right to *ask* that a picture be deleted. They cannot make you delete it, but they can ask. And as the photographer, you can choose whether or not to comply. The article doesn't say that the flight attendant tried to force the photographer to delete the picture.

@Adam

Don't be giving the TSA any more ideas, ya here? ;)

Having experienced the rudeness and excessive and vindictive behavior of an US Airways employee, I can speak to the feeling of being victimized and having no recourse on the matter. "Quis custodes, ipsos custodiet?", best describes the situation.

In all reality, the aircraft could require all passengers to stip naked and sing the star spangled banner before boarding, they just wouldn"t have many passengers.

What a ridiculous comment ... and totally untrue. Perhaps it's simply a case of an attempted joke, but it fell flat.

No, an aircraft crew CANNOT require all passengers to do what they want them to do. That's a fallacy. Think of it in a military sense -- an officer cannot issue "illegal orders". The aircraft crew is the same. They can ONLY "order" things that have to do with aircraft safety and order. Whether a photograph falls under that category -- depends. I'd say no, it would not .... unless the passenger got belligerent and threatening. Most likely that would happen because of the way the airline crew approached the situation.

"Eric.. that really doesn't apply because constitutional right are not protected when dealing with private companies."

Specific arguments and allegations in this case aside private companies can not conspire against you to detain you or violate your civil rights as a grudge JUST because they are private. And clearly the airlines have the threat of TSA behind them too. IF this was about the picture (lets just say) then the threat/extortion was clearly that she'd be detained if she didn't comply (and even when she did - allegedly). To amp it up to being a "security risk" and then making it a federal case (literally) by using the power of that job to do so IS arguably a violation of civil rights (the passenger's). This is not just some inconvenience of being on the tarmac for hours and such things beyond any one persons control or that does not single out one person but it was targeting someone as payback by deeming her "a security risk". Of course the pilot is going to back the flight attendant - they pretty much have to...and it would be no surprise if any of us were persecuted this way by some rude flight attendant we might seem rather indignant and have a few choice words at being singled out.....again, just saying 9for sake of discussion and given arguments).

Beth: I was being serious (though a bit extreme). however, I did use the word "aircraft" instead of "airline" by mistake. An individual crew could not, but the airline (by making it a company policy) could.

Miker-3057253:

Does TMZ, who have paparazzi in every airport, have exclusive permission to photograph anyone traveling?

US Airways has a habit of abusing their powers when they decide they don't like what you are wearing or if you take a picture.

Forget "Fly the Friendly Skies". Their new motto, "Shut Up, Sit Down and Don't Mess With Us".

Boycott US Airways.

JM: Well considering the fact that you have to have a boarding pass to get past the security checkpoint in the US, I would say no. I would also hazard a guess that they are not there. If you are referring to the publicly accesible areas of the airport then they might be there. Just because the airport does not want the headache of preventing them, does not necessarily mean they can not.

Adam-1897760:

In an earlier post you stated:

"You keep referring to the airport as a "public" place. It isn't"

I'm confused. So now you are saying that certain areas, within the privately owned airport are within the jurisdiction of our basic civil liberties.

The issue is: Did this passenger pose a security risk by snapping a photo of an obnoxious US Airways FA?

If not, then US Airways is abusing their powers.

Boycott US Airways.

Adam-1897760:

Can US Airways install video cameras within their lavatories? Based on your premise, the answer is YES because the cameras are within private property.

Being within private property does not necessarily allow a business to make their own rules which trump our basic and reasonable civil liberties.

Well if taking a picture of (the name tag) for a rude and ignorant flight attendant is not allowed or that rude a-hole can harrass a passenger then exaggerate a situation calling a passenger with a phone camera a "security risk" and disrupt the flight, inconvenience passengers in the least or terrorize the passengers and divert important airline security resources at most, all for her own personal agenda and sense of personal entitlement ... whether it is caused by PMS as some of the others on this commentary have suggested or because of a power trip by a sad and pathetic airline worker that blatantly takes out her personal frustrations in life on anyone because she can get away with it ....... ... Shouldn't airline workers who knowingly and willfully act this way be dealt with in the strictest way possible or allwable under the law? If a passenger acts to disrupt the "peace" and makes false claims about security risks etc... they will be carted off to jail and charged. But airline workers with neurosis can act out as they wish with impunity? Hey, there are a lot of people looking for work, maybe it is about time the airlines started to clean house and get rid of the losers that harrass passengers, steal from their bags and all sortys of stupid crap that they just get away with!

Give a moron a little "authority" and maybe a cute little badge to go with it, and they become legends in their own mind.

1. You are, by federal law, required to turn off all phones when entering boarding areas. ( reason - phones are frequently used to detonate bombs)

2. The photographer turned her phone on to take a picture.

3. Was the FA being rude? No other passengers have come forward to substantiate the photographer's claim.

4. Taking a picture of a name badge could be used to make a duplicate, thus giving unwanted persons access to sensitive parts of the airport.

5. Name calling only shows a lack of maturity ( ie. nazi, moron, etc.).

"When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to re-consider your position." Mark Twain

No offense, but oldman young eyes needs to reread the report and quit reading all of that government propaganda. Then the paranoia might subside. Never heard of phones off in the boarding area, just on the plane shortly after boarding. Here's why:

DeWitt said she took the photo after observing the employee, Tonialla G., being rude to passengers in the boarding area...

When DeWitt was seated on the plane with her iPhone powered down, Tonialla G. entered the cabin and asked her to delete the photo.

DeWitt was reluctant to comply, but turned the phone back on and deleted the photo.

Obviously the phone being on during any of this was not a problem as a meager FA really doesn't have near as much authority as the captain... Besides, she doesn't need anyone to corroborate her story. Remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty?

As stated in post #8.0:

This is what happens when people become dumb enough to start "policing" each other for Fatherland (in)Security. The PAYING customer is now a 'suspect' rather than a PATRON, and the staff/employees become 'overlords' rather than the HIRED-HELP...

Freedom = Responsibility
Safety & Security = Slavery & Servitude

Phone off limits vary according to airport. In Pittsburgh airport, there are signs in the boarding area stating all cell phones are to be turned off.

The captain had her removed for being disruptive, and swearing profusely.

She does need to corroborate her story, other wise it is a she said/shesaid.

If the headline said passenger removed from plane for being disruptive and profanity, you would not even have posted. If the person who wrote the story had done thier job, other passengers would have been interviewed. Then, if the FA was right, print it. if the photographer was right, print it. Telling half a story is only a half truth.

Planes will soon have cameras on board, with sound. Now we can be watched all the time. Kinda kills the mile high club.

1. You are, by federal law, required to turn off all phones when entering boarding areas. ( reason - phones are frequently used to detonate bombs)

Respectfully, oldman, I have to question the accuracy of this statement. Were this indeed true, I would expect to have heard about it as an all-too-frequent flier. I think you are mistaken.

PDK, federal law states all phones must be turned off on a palne. Some airports have extended thai ti inlclude boarding areas. Some state it at the security area. Their "right".

Ms. Dewitt said photo was too dark to see name tag anyway. But she had no trouble remembering the FA's name. vegas is now laying odds that the FA is a woman of color, and MS. dewitt a white lady, upset that the darkie had the audacity to tell her to do something. Makes as much sense as most of the other posts.

The FA had every right to ask the photo be deleted. MS. d ewitt did so, not the FA, not the captain, not tsa security. But I will bet the photo had already been forwarded to her email or computer.

PDK, federal law states all phones must be turned off on a palne. Some airports have extended thai ti inlclude boarding areas. Some state it at the security area. Their "right".

In other words, you were wrong.

oldman young eyes:

Newer phones can be put into "airplane mode" (which is compliant) and you can still take pictures. I have one.

Do you know what kind of phone she was carrying?

Debbie, she didn't take a picture of the flight attendant, she took a picture of the FA's luggage. How on earth would that be a security risk?

Why would photos taken inside an airplane be a security issue? Seriously? Someone with a perfect memory could recall every detail of the inside of the plane for an artist to sketch. How would you control that? As far as asking permission to take someone's photo? If you're in public view, you're fare game. The only time I ask permission to take a photo is when a child/children are involved. And that's only because I don't want to be accused of being a pervert just for taking a great photo. Any employee, anywhere, that has an issue with their photo being taken is either afraid they're going to be reported for disciplinary action or attempting to hide from the FBI.....either way, tough.... Ms. DeWitt deserves an apology at the VERY least.

Debbie, re-read the article. She took the picture in the boarding area after witnessing the employees rudeness to passengers. She was then approached after getting on the plane by said employee, who told her to delete the picture. And she took the picture of the employees name badge, I'm assuming, to get her name to report her.

New rule. Any flight attendant that causes a disruption through the abuse of power should be removed as a security risk. In other words, call 911 and make a citizens arrest. These people exist to serve us, not the other way around.

To Debbie: Phones and cameras are cleared by TSA before you get to the boarding area. Where's the risk once you are through security check ? (keep in mind you can use phones and other electronics on the plane before take off and after reaching the gate on landing).

Debbie, the picture was not taken on the plane but in the boarding area.

I flew for every trip for years, but after a few flights with tsa I elected to drive or take the train. It's slower, but saves my blood pressure, and my temperment. If flying improves, perhaqps I'll return, but really I'm seeing pretty country, and I don't need the hassle.

While I don't necessarily disagree canyon man, in a free society the "rules", whoever makes them, have to make sense and be proportional to the risk. If any company is allowed to make any rules they want, we as a people cannot be free. It would certainly improve safety on the plane if the FA's would simply gag and handcuff everyone as soon as they get on and take the cuffs off as you get off the plane. If the plane crashes, so what, you're going to die anyway so who cares if your handcuffed when it happens. Sounds like a stupid idea, but its intentionally "out there" to make the point that a line in the sand, protecting our freedom instead of our asses, must be made.

IF I were flying on THEIR planes for FREE....yeah, ok...their rules. But at the rates they charge and then nickel and dime us to death? I doubt it. Still....what is the security risk to taking photos on a plane? The screaming kid sitting behind me kicking my seat that is being ignored by Mommy and Daddy is a bigger security threat than my camera.

It's precisely because you are paying them to fly on THEIR airplane that they get to make these rules. It's a private company - not public transit and not some government-run charity airlift. Therefor, you are FREE to fly with another airline.

You really have nothing to say about the rules US Airways makes or enforces. They are not the government - they are a private airline operating their own equipment and they have every right to do so in pretty much whatever manner they deem appropriate (within very limited constraints). Don't like it? Fly with someone else. Don't like the options? Start your own airline. It's pretty much that simple.

Miker...There are some FAA rules and guidelines that all airlines must adhere to if they want to fly in U S air space. So the airlines don't have ALL the say. Remember the passenger's bill of rights? Break those rules airlines, and you get a hefty fine.

United, Delta, American, and Continental all use that ludicrous hub system too. I think only Southwest operates "point to point" service (they claim to not operate hubs). However, based on the number of flights Southwest has out of certain airports (Midway, Baltimore, Dallas, Phoenix, Orlando), it looks like a hub system to me.

Well said! Prior to the current insane TSA policies, the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack on an aircraft was 1 in 3 Million, according to information I read from Nate Silver at 538.com...for those who don't know him, he's a very well respected statistician who regularly and accurately predicts election and other things. Remember...that's 1 in 3 MILLION! As I recall, odds of being killed in a crash on the way to the airport or home are 1 in 56,000. As a comparison, read this article on hospital deaths spiking in July (when newly graduated doctors move to hospitals to work) at ()

It says in the article that "...All told, as many as 98,000 deaths occur each year due to all kinds of medical mistakes - the equivalent of a fully packed 747 crashing every other day...." Which begs the question "Are the TSA policies REALLY an attempt to keep us safer? If they are, then why isn't there an HSA...Hospital Safety Authority, with minimum wage "protectors" in every hospital monitoring the doctors?"

Appears to me to be more of an attempt to "Keep 'em scared and keep 'em obedient". Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, indeed! Balderdash! Show some guts and stand up for your right not to be irradiated or groped in a futile attempt to "increase" our safety from what is already significantly less of a threat than driving, being struck by lightning and many other common hazards. Oh, yeah, they want to cut funding for checking for E. Coli on imported food, too...sure are looking out for our health, aren't they?!

There are rude people in Philadelphia??? Say it ain't so! NFL football teams and fans will be shocked, shocked I tell you to hear this... :)

Again...what is the security issue in taking a photo in the boarding area?

I really like that way of thinking. Using their rules to screw them!

It is unacceptable for an unhappy flight attendant to displace her misguided anger onto the passengers. Low wages and long hours makes for a miserable flight attendant. Blame your employer, not your customer.

Really? You would be a flight attendant that wouldn't wear a ID badge because you would be afraid you'd be targeted by a "crime ring"? You walk up to the member of the "crime ring" that took your photo and 'ask the pic to be deleted?' Seriously? Maybe after that encounter with them they decide to have you followed and taken out? An employees ID badge should show only their photo, name, company and possibly a job title. All of that information can be gotten from any one of a hundred listings on the Internet....its called public information. Geez

You really think that the name tags have home address info on them? Really? Have you ever been on a plane? At most, they have first name and the first initial of the last name - and, often only the first name, like any name tag worn by any employee anywhere. This is abuse of authority, pure and simple.

Now I know I shouldn't say this but I'm going to....I have recently been in a situation of reverse prejudice or you could just call it plain old prejudice. I've never treated a person of any color any different than the next person. I've worked with the public in the hospitality business for some years and also many of the people I work with come from all over the world... Back to my main point I would nearly bet that the FA is black and the photographer is white......

Except, Calijim, any other ID badge worn by any other employee in the country will not get you through security without a boarding pass. THAT is the difference and the main point that people don't seem to understand.

Exactly what I have done, I have not flown now in 6 years and NO I have not just been on the couch, I have traveled quite a bit for pleasure and will continue to use other means of transportation.

First of all with flying, is the security, do you think we are gaining ground here.....NOT... look at all of these incidents happening on the planes, many of these are products of our society, go and board an aircraft then proceed to party,getting hammered drunk, then acting a idiot, or think you'll be cute and say the B... word to see if they can get a rise out of someone.

Come on people, we live in a world full of people that are power hungry and morons at the same time........oh well on and on.

As for the pic, as was stated in the ARTICLE, the photographer took the pic in public area.

Another scenario, what if she had taken the pic in remembrance of how great a trip or she liked the name who knows, I think the stewardess is paranoid.

If you fly be prepared for anything, as that probably is what will happen.

If you actually think that an airport terminal is a "public place" then schedule a "public demonstration" at one and see what happens. Afterwards, I can give you the name of a bail bondsman with reasonable rates...

Once you step on the airport's property your "rights" decrease exponentially, once you board an aircraft, they virtually disappear. This fact is not new, and existed pre-911. The only thing that really changed after 911 is the standard procedures (virtually all of which could have been used prior to 911) that were implemented.

The ID badge is a part of the airline's security protocol and could be valuable to terrorist organizations. The phone did not need to be powered down because the cabin door was not closed (since the gate agent was on the aircraft, the cabin door could not have been closed).

Photographing the airline's security protocol renders the passenger to be a potential security threat. We do not know to whom she could have sent the photo prior to deleting it.

Sean: You and I, standing in an airport terminal, are members of the public; however, we are standing in a secured private environment. The stewardess (or any other airline or airport employee) is NOT a member of the public in that same environment. You and I are guests in that environment, with no right to be there (just the permission of the airline via a purchased ticket). The stewardess is an employee of the airline and in his/her/its workplace with certain contrated rights and privledges.

An airport is NOT a "public place". For that matter, neither is a train or bus station.

Adam: You should be a lawyer. An airport stays in business because of the public. It is a public place. Are you trespassing if you are in a terminal to see a friend off? The public are the majority within the airport everyday. It is designed to accommodate the public, who buy tickets to fly.

The public is not any safer when absolute power, mistakenly beknighted to obnoxious US Airways flight attendants, are abused. A company cannot arbitrarily circumvent our laws, because the property is privately owned. If that was the case, there would be cameras in lavatories, no access for people with disabilities, etc. etc. There are limits to the way they can yield their absolute power.

Boycott US Airways.