Pixiq

Actually, I would go a step further.

The flight attendant made a knowingly false statement about the security status of a passenger, with the intent to punish that passenger for behavior that is not only legal but, so far as we are aware as yet, does not even violate that airline's policy or posted rules. It's one thing for a flight representative to tell someone to stop and then punish them for not following your directives. That, at least, is (somewhat) supported by the FAA, assuming that the flight attendant's directive is legally supported. (We'll ignore that aspect for now.) But to claim that someone is a security risk (again, ignoring the reason why for the moment), *after they've already complied with your order* is a flat-out lie.

Airports have signs posted that "security is not a laughing matter". I can only assume that this means they take this sort of thing seriously. So how will they handle an issue in which a passenger exhibited *no* risky behavior (who did something that, while the flight attendant may not have liked, was still legal), and the flight attendant lied to the pilot and to other flight attendants, thereby causing them to make a security decision they may not have otherwise if made aware of the facts, resulting in punitive action against and cost to the passenger (in adjustments to their schedule, possible missed connections and car/hotel reservations, as well as a possible hotel cost that night), as well as additional cost to the airline itself due to a delay in the airline's schedule, two (her plus husband) lost seat revenue, and the cost of obtaining two seats on another airline - in this case, Southwest.

While this may just be a case of a flight attendant having a bad day or disliking having their picture taken, the fact remains that the flight attendant is in a position of power (that of being able to accuse a passenger of being a security risk and removing that passenger from the plane on such grounds), and this flight attendant seems to have clearly abused that power. In my mind, termination should be a given. What is questionable is whether or not there are grounds for legal charges stemming from making a false report. What happened here is just wrong, and that flight attendant has no business being in charge of passengers.

For what it's worth, the passenger broke no laws, unless there is some kind of local statute against photography on planes, which would surprise me. Taking a photograph in airports (including screening areas, so long as it is not of the X-ray machine screens themselves) is not against TSA regulations. Just google "tsa photography section 2.7" (without the quotes), and you'll find everything you need to know. Now, taking a photo on private property (I suppose a US Airways plan could be considered their private property) is subject to restrictions if signs were posted, but it doesn't sound like any were. Once the passenger is notified of a no-photography policy, they must stop or could be subject to trespassing charges, but the passenger did stop. And, prior to being asked to stop, any photographs taken are the private property of the photographer. Any request to delete them has no legal grounds, and being forced to do so could constitute destruction of property.

Know your rights, kids. ;-)

You are absolutely right. There has to be guidelines to airport personnel on how to identify and report "security" risks or suspicious activity. This Tonialla G. abused the system to intimidate a passenger into not complaining about her workplace behavior. Taking a photograph to document criminal activity isn't wrong per se. It all depends. In some states, taking photos or video of security personnel such as the police (even if they are doing something wrong like beating up someone unjustly) can land a person in jail for obstruction with a police investigation or matter. Taking a photo of an airline employee in the course of their duties "could" be perceived as an intimidation of the employee or to be used in a future stalking campaign against her. So, this was a grey area for the passenger. The best thing to do in this situation was to make a note of the woman's name and the flight she was on and write a letter of complaint to US airways.

And again, people have to be aware of the state laws regarding harassment and stalking with regards to picture taking. In my state, you can take a picture as long as it is being used to provide information to law enforcement or other government officials. It's not harassment in that instance.

This seems like an easy money lawsuit to me. Ms. Tonialla lied to the airline authorities about an issue involving national security. And then the airline acted on this report knowing it was not true and severely inconvenienced the photographer. The photographer should sue both the airline and Ms. Tonialla for about $250K each for defamation of character, misuse of authority, etc., and then make as much noise in the news media about it as possible. She should get about $100K out of the airline fairly soon, because it makes them look like a bunch of a$$holes. Seems like pretty good compensation to me for a day's delay.

Fire her, yes - but fire the pilot, too, for being an idiot. It was his decision that got this passenger kicked off, and surely he must have realized that this woman was no risk.

We do not know the other side of the story. Even a pancake has two sides, and we have not heard from Tonialla G., or US Airways. How does the author qualitatively define "rude?" Moreover, what has been omitted from this story? Unless the canvas is fully painted, we only have half the picture. It is therefore preliminary and unfair for anyone to judge Tonialla G., let alone scream that she should be terminated.

Tonialla?
When her big lips move, the lies start to come out. Not only should she be reprimanded, she should be fired, and she should be prosecuted for interfering with operation of an airline flight by making a false report of a security issue. What a f ing B B!

Tonialla?
When her big lips move, the lies start to come out. Not only should she be reprimanded, she should be fired, and she should be prosecuted for interfering with operation of an airline flight by making a false report of a security issue. What a f ing B B!

Tonialla, another frigging chip on the shoulder idiot who got hired because of her status.

Michael, you are a twit.

What's wrong with Nikon? They make good cameras.

NIKON owner....hmmmmm.... kicked off and arrested! without bail! at least!


Sandy DeWitt , i am of course joking, if you ever land in MIAMI again, and need a ride, 24/7, call me ill come and getcha and drive ya anywhere ya wana go, free! only thing is, this offer is good for only one call, still that aint bad, is it?

Michael, I'm a Canon shooter and have been for 30 years. Your comment concerning DeWitt being a Nikon is completely out of line. If you were trying to be cute, it came out as something quite different and says a lot about you.

I would use a more descriptive word than that used by rockyjon to characterize you; however, given that this might be read by minors, I will refrain from using it.

LOL, you sure are a trouble maker, instigator.... :D but that doesnt bother me, your a canon owner and user is all that matters to me. oh hell, i have been known to stir the pot time and again......its fun.
got to keep things light or the stress will get to ya and do ya in. one needs to vent once in awhile or the pot will blow.
and to anyone that thinks keeping shit in is a good thing to do, i got a way about me that makes people vent and go out of control. I dont let things bother me, and it makes em goes crazy!
and some how i think Michael knows what i mean.

^^^ @mike ^^^^^

Dear Ma'am: This letter is about the treatment of Ms. Sandy DeWitt and her family by the "word" of Ms. Tonialla G in the Philly airport. Ms. DeWitt is a photographer in the Miami area, and observed Ms. G being rude to other customers of US Airways airlines. Now I know the holidays can be stressful, but to have an employee take their complaints out publicly on others is totally unacceptable. Any rationally minded child or adult has this knowledge. Ms. DeWitt photographed, which mind you is NOT illegal by the Constitution, the Patriot Act or Homeland Security up to and including the TSA regulations -- photography section 2.7, this occurence to inform the management of USAW at a later time when she arrived home. It appears Ms. G. not only was rude but retaliatory and abusive in her "authority" as a stewardess and declared an innocent passenger a "security risk" because Ms. G. got caught with her hand in the unsavory customer grouchiness cookie jar. This action in my mind of basically declaring some a felon who is innocent is felonious in and of itself. It is my belief that Ms. G. should not only be reprimanded but terminated from her position immediately an barred from working any further in the airline industry. Photography is not a crime. Anyone in public is subject to be imaged for non-commercial use without permission of said subject by EVERY person on USA soil. Declaring someone a security risk and spreading it to the Captain, crew and management on the ground is surely one. If immediate corrective action is not taken, my future flights on USAW airlines will be changed to accomadate a professional atmosphere and steward/ess crew that I know is looking out for my best interests and everyone on the flight. Not looking out for self serving motives. I will also inform my family and friends who regularly fly around the country to avoid this airlines. Respectfully, Gregory Key

They only know one thing..... $$$$$

I thought she was an Apple fanboi using a iPhone to snap the shot. No wonder it didn't come out.

Sir, I am a Nikon user and I would NEVER lie to a toy camera user, er, Canon user in order to foster jealousy and ambition to outdo this "prank" in their ranks. lol

p.s. The pilot shoots Pentax, and the Co Pilot is a Sony user...I googled it. ;)

Would the actions come under libel?

Color of Law abuse is a huge stretch. US Air is a private entity, which means (at least as far as the law is concerned) they can determine who flies on their planes as long as they aren't discriminatory in regards to race, creed, etc.

As another poster pointed out, the DeWitts may have a case for defamation, but like it or not the only recourse in this incident, for the rest of us, is public shunning and/or boycott.