I know, it’s really annoying when you just want war and someone helps you out to fix it all
that airline agent would have tasted my fist so quick
Wait until some brilliant MBA comes up with the idea to charge an extra baggage fee up to 28 weeks and an extra passenger after
You need to purchase a second seat for two people.
make it a tax only conservatives have to pay.
Conservatives are a tax everyone else has to pay 😞
That whole requiring documentation to say you don’t need documentation is so absolutely drunken with power maliciousness.
Honestly, if I were her I’d be at least a bit miffed at the boyfriend at that point, for undermining my righteous fury.
They’re allowed to arrest you for something they completely made up. Probably not the safest hill to die on.
I think meant agent like flight attendant, not like air marshall, although I would be okay with giving them this authority.
Anyone who works at an airport can call security on you and get you arrested. My ex with anger issues started going off on someone at the front desk and we almost didn’t make a flight.
These aren’t actually cops. They have as much authority as a mall rent-a-cop. They have no authority to make arrests. The most they can do is report you to the FTC (I think this is the right alphabet org.) and get you banned from flying.
I was hoping the story ended with “my usually cheerful unbothered bf told them politely but firmly to eat shit” but he just instantly capitulates to the bureaucracy? Wack
Getting on the airplane is way more important than feeling superior to a bottom-rung worker.
deleted by creator
Nah they can kick you off at the “Captain’s discretion”
That’s absolutely ridiculous. He was doing his part in trying to keep her calm and trying to help defuse the situation. To be mad that he noticed a problem starting to boil over and handled it is insane. A partner helps in exactly these situations. Its not us vs ourselves. The issue can be addressed after. Why risk getting thrown off
Yeah in most places airlines have zero obligation to actually put you on a flight. If you start to raise your voice, act upset, cause a scene, it nearly always results in your ticket(s) getting cancelled and airport security getting called. Don’t let a braindead airline agent ruin your travel plans, it’s not worth it
There’s only so much energy each of us has to fight the bullshit. You aren’t going to win every battle. So you need to pick your battles and spend your energy wisely. The post says they were getting on a plane. Travel in general comes with a lot of bullshit to navigate. If you use all your energy up and you haven’t even gotten on the plane yet, you’re going to be fully exhausted before you reach a safe recharge space and be in meltdown territory.
I think bf properly chose to defuse this situation because the lowly worker making the demands may have zero ability to influence policy and has their job at risk if they don’t follow it. Alternatively, the worker may be on a power trip and has the ability to use their power to fuck up your travel. Yes, you’ll get grounds for a complaint, maybe a refund, but that “justice” will arrive days, weeks or months after the offense. Your travel will have already been screwed, and it was totally avoidable by providing enough benign info to satisfy the worker.
I’m not saying “always capitulate”, but make sure the rage is worth the cost. If the jackboots show up at my front door asking me for information on activities of the gay couple that lives next door for no other reason than that they are gay, I’ll tell the jackboots to pound sand.
All of that is well and good. But I’d still spend a teeny tiny bit of energy to say “Next time let me handle it, or back me up. I need a partner, not a ref.” If mama’s going in, help or get out of the way.
That doesn’t sound like a good relationship to me. It seems like you’re letting your ego get in the way of a better life. My partner helps me do things and i help my partner do things. When my partner helps resolve a situation that was not going well for me, then I’m very happy they did
I’m not sure you’re reading their meaning the way OP intended it. From my read, it sounds like you’re saying that she (assuming she’s a woman because she called herself “mama”) is unable to determine when to pick her own battles, and/or is ill-equipped to fight her own battles alone. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but I don’t know why you assume that a woman who wants to take charge of her own problems is “letting (their) ego get in the way” and must not be in a good relationship? It seems a wild jump. The OP reminds me of my own relationships.
My partners know that when I decide to actually speak up about something, it’s because it’s something important to me. If they were to see me advocating for myself, they would never tell me I was letting my ego get in the way - they would cheer me on. They know that if I need help, I can ask them for it and reliably receive it. They don’t swoop in assuming I’m a damsel in distress that can’t fight my own battles.
I’d be more concerned if my partners didn’t implicitly trust me like that. I’d feel coddled, thinking they see me as a child they need to keep control of.
Each couple’s relationship’s are different. So that sounds like your advice would be compatible with your desired relationship.
I can assure you that what the boyfriend did in this example can be being “a partner”. Part of being a partner in my relationship is offering a “check” on a course of action. We do this for each other. If escalation is called for, we have to generally agree on it. When you escalate, you commit the other person to your cause (and the consequences). If the consequence in the above example would have been to screw up months worth of planning on a vacation before we even left the airport, that affects both people. It has to be worth it. In this situation, I agree with the boyfriend, it wasn’t worth the battle.
Everything that would ultimately be accomplished from escalating with the worker (and possibly facing immediate consequences) could still have been accomplished without escalating, including contacting the company and complaining. In a moment of passion many times that’s not clear. If one partner is thinking more clearly than the other in the moment, then it helps both if the clear headed one provides the “check”. In my relationship I’ve been in both roles, the checker and the checked. I love my partner for both.
I need a partner, not a ref.”
If my partner told me “[don’t be] a ref”, I’d probably nicely communicate “Don’t write a check you might require me to cash without my buy-in.”
None of this says your relationship or approach is wrong. There is no universal objective “right” or “wrong” in this one. You and I have different approaches, so the only way it would be “wrong” is if we are in a relationship together. From our differing opinions here, I think we’re both equally glad we’re not together.
None of this says your relationship or approach is wrong. There is no universal objective “right” or “wrong” in this one. You and I have different approaches, so the only way it would be “wrong” is if we are in a relationship together.
At no point did I suggest that right or wrong was of concern here, and your use of quotes is bizarre. I simply stated what I would do in that situation. I’m honestly not sure what the goal of your straw man is here.
I think we’re both equally glad we’re not together.
What an absolutely weird thing to say. Friend, I’ve never met you, have zero desire to interact with you further, and I have absolutely no idea why you feel the need to evaluate the degree to which you and I want to be together. I think you need a snack and a nap, then maybe go take a walk outside.
At no point did I suggest that right or wrong was of concern here, and your use of quotes is bizarre.
I don’t mean to go grammary-Nazi on you, but I wanted to give you this information to communicate I had no intention of trying to offend you or strawman you here.
I believe you concluded that I used reason #1, when I wasn’t:
“1 To quote a source directly or indirectly - Direct quotes use the exact words from a source and require quotation marks. Indirect quotes restate or paraphrase those words or ideas and don’t require quotation marks.”
In fact, I was using reason #5:
“5 To discuss words - If you want to discuss a word, phrase, or letter in writing without using its intended meaning, set it apart with quotation marks. Depending on the styling format, some writers alternatively use italics without quotation marks.”
I used this because “right” and “wrong” have subjective meanings, and putting them in quotes meant I was intentionally avoiding adding my own subjective values of those words to the discussion. I was recognizing, in text, that different audiences can and will land on either side of an argument, and in this case there isn’t one side that is objective because its subjective to each of us.
What an absolutely weird thing to say. Friend, I’ve never met you, have zero desire to interact with you further, and I have absolutely no idea why you feel the need to evaluate the degree to which you and I want to be together.
I wasn’t evaluating our degree to be together. We are talking about relationship style preferences. The style you communicated is not one that everyone is compatible with. The style I communicated is is also not one that everyone is compatible with. There’s nothing wrong with either of our relationship styles. Should two completely rando people that neither of us know each hold the relationship style we each hold, they would be incompatible with each other, and neither would be wrong. They would just be wrong for the relationship style of each other. That is all I was saying in that text.
I think you need a snack and a nap, then maybe go take a walk outside
Don’t treat others like children just because you don’t like the conversation. It makes you look less mature by comparison, not more.
If you invite conversations in an open forum don’t be surprised if people respond.
I mean, it kinda makes sense? I doubt you can see the difference confidently between 24 and 28 weeks, and what if the person was lying? Idk what their policy is, but if she was lying and something went wrong, it might cause problems for the agent.
No, it does not make sense, if the policy is “paperwork needed after 28 weeks” you should not have to provide paperwork before the 28 weeks. If what you say is a concern the policy should explicitly say “X paperwork after 28 weeks and Y proof of ‘pregnancy time’ if less than 28 weeks”.
You cannot simply expect people to produce documentation on the spot when you have not mentioned upfront that is needed.
It’s easy to be chill when you’re not the one being disrespected.
Some people are non confrontational to a fault. I’ve seen the opposite happen too: the disrespected bending over backwards to acquiesce while their partner/friend doesn’t want to let that slide.
It’s also easy to be chill when you don’t interpret every slightly contentious interaction as being disrespected.
It’s easy to be chill when you don’t consider other people’s experiences to be valid.
pfft, I reserve the right to judge that a person’s interpretation of reality is incorrect in some way, thanks.
You have no right to reserve judgement of someone else’s situation and invalidate their experiences. That just makes you a judgmental prick.
Your interpretation of reality is wrong in its entirety.
Being inconvenienced over nonexistent rules is disrespectful
Did you know that sometimes you can choose not to reply to people on the internet?
Pfft then why didn’t you exercise that ability yourself?
deleted by creator
In the US it depends on the airline. We went on a babymoon vacation when my partner was 30-something weeks and didn’t need to provide any documentation (Alaska Airlines). She did run it by her providers first, but that wasn’t an airline/TSA/FAA requirement.
How long was the flight though? Were you staying within say… three hours of travel or was it crossing the Pacific or going to like…Florida…which are both over 7hrs? The flight length and where you’re travelling to can be a factor in whether they ask for documentation or not.
>2000 mile flight. Not crazy long but not short. (The state of Alaska was not involved, just the airline.)
Oooh. Ok. Sorry, when I hear an airline with a specific place name my brain goes to somewhere within that place as one of the ends of the flight. It gives me an anchor point if I’m looking into flight lengths. :)
Regardless, I can see why some airlines have restrictions, especially on certain flight paths. They’re not exactly equipped to handle labour if the pregnancy is high risk or something unexpected goes wrong and there’s an increased chance of early labour later in pregnancy in that situation. (And it’s higher if it’s twins, triplets, etc. You can have multis ‘on time’, but you have a higher chance of going into early labour in that case to begin with.) And if you’re say…halfway across the Pacific or Atlantic you don’t really have a lot of options in any kind of emergency situation. Whereas if the flight is from LA to Toronto you have a lot of places you can land in a situation like that.
It never hurts to discuss and check in with your trusted medical provider(s) at that stage of pregnancy or if you’re in the high risk category (or if you have other non-pregnancy conditions that might put you at an increased risk). Forearmed - with knowledge in this case - is forewarned, right! :)
It’s a health risk to the baby and the mother.
So? That’s what liability wavers are for.
Can liability waivers bring someone back to life?
No, but if a pregnant mother wants to get on the plane despite knowing the risks, then a liability waiver should let them
Can you sign a liability waiver for killing a child that has gone past the time for a legal abortion? Clearly there is a point when you put your child at risk. The liability waiver is for the airline.
If it’s for the airline’s liability then wouldn’t it no longer be their business once passed to the consumer?
So murder is ok, as long as you get it signed off?
They don’t ask you for a document that your cardiologist let you fly. They don’t ask you for a document that you don’t need a document from any other doctor. They only ask a woman that. Because it’s not about health.
How are you supposed to see if someone has a heart condition?
I’m asking since you made a statement making them equal. Can you see if someone is pregnant at 20+ weeks? The answer is yes, therefore you can enforce it.
However, enforcing it like they appeared to have done and asking irrelevant questions are the real issues.
Why the fuck does this matter? Are we only care about health if it’s visible?
Oh, so it is ok to check for pregnant women then? Good. Then thats sorted.
If someone dies of heart attack on plane, nothing happens, they just die. If someone goes to labor, they bring the plane down.
If someone dies of heart attack on plane, nothing happens, they just die.
they absolutely bring the plane down. most declared Maydays are for medical emergencies in flight. until someone’s pronounced dead by an authority, they are a critically ill passenger.
And how do you prove that you’ve signed the liability waivers?
Checkmate, libtard
I have a note from my doctor
You mean the documentation that is the first thing mentioned in the meme?
Why on earth would you get a corporate liability waver from your doctor?
No I mean like the kind printed on the back of the ticket that says “by using this you accept all liabilities and responsibilities therein henceforth and in perpetuity blah blah blah”.
Is that what they’re for? You know this as a fact? You’ve worked in the airline industry?
Or are you just making things up about something you obviously don’t understand.
You get a bit of a dose of cosmic radiation while flying. It won’t turn your baby into the Thing or give them the ability to catch on fire or turn invisible, but it could still damage the baby at a vital stage of their development.
Bullshit. The dose is so minimal as to be inconsequential.
deleted by creator
Multiple people have given you actual answers that are all a part of it.
Do you thing the airline industry has no experience with this type of situation or something?
I don’t buy that explanation. Why would that dose of radiation be more harmful to a more developed fetus?
The crew just doesn’t want to deal with a mother spontaneously giving birth, and the airline doesn’t want to deal with the paperwork of taking off with n passengers and landing with n+1. And no-one wants to find out the nationality of a baby born over the Atlantic.
Correct, has nothing to do with radiation.
And no-one wants to find out the nationality of a baby born over the Atlantic.
That actually sounds incredibly fun, as a law nerd!
Nationality of somebody born on a plane wouldn’t be a big deal as long as at least one of the parents comes from a country where lex sanguis applies. If lex solis applies (as in the USA) then they could in fact be stateless unless their parents have some other nationality.
And, if I remember correctly, the captain has the responsibility to record births and deaths on board an airplane. So you might be on to something with the paperwork.
Correct. As a father of four and who moved across an ocean when one of them was six months in utero it has more to do with concerns that changes in air pressure might induce early labor.
Edit: I realize this post reads like I abandoned my family when one of my kids was six months away from being born. I didn’t. But it’s a funny enough mistake that I’m not changing it.
So how were the cigarettes
Eh. Should’ve got menthols.
That’s not it at all. It’s mostly the acceleration and turbulence that can potentially damage the fetus, the same reason they shouldn’t ride rollercoasters.
Yeah but the cosmic rays tho
I mean have you seen what happened to the fantastic four?
“Oh, hang on, silly me: I forgot I actually just had a massive, massive breakfast. Can I get on the flight now please?”
deleted by creator
I use “are you calling me a liar?” which is probably more effective in the UK than the US.
Ugh I HATE that phrase. I’m American and any time someone says that to me I just want to reply “no, I just think you are ignorant” but I know that would just get me punched.
Someone saying that is looking for a fight. I just say yes and try to block the punch.
I’ve also heard people use it who weren’t lying, they were simply incorrect, and conflating those two concepts.
Sometimes they’re even just mistaken.
Yeah, absolutely. Then they escalate from “innocent mistake” to “accusatory” on a dime.
Also in the “factual but getting punched” category of responses would be: “No, I’m not saying you’re a liar. You don’t need to be a liar to still be in the wrong.”
Yeah no that definitely doesn’t work in the US.
In recent years there’s been an anti-Karen sentiment going around in the country, so these days any sort of pushback from the public usually gets immediately shut down, even if the customer isn’t actually being a Karen. Today’s service industry employees have zero fucks to give.
holy shit i noticed that… every customer service agent just assumes you’re lying and trying to scam them; there’s no benefit of the doubt… prove it or shut up and stop wasting company time
what ever happened to having a reputation for good customer service being a positive business attribute in and of itself?
That seems specific to the west, in Japan and Korea, I had separate incidents where the subway ate my ticket or money and the guy asks how much it was, opens tge machine, and grabs that ticket/bill, and gives it to me, doesn’t check a camera or the machines history or anything.
I think by-and-large it’s easier to get a positive response from someone face-to-face than over the phone, but on the whole people are pretty nice.
It’s less the person and more the company policy. I’ve total sympathy for the person on the phone/behind the counter who’s probably had a long and thankless day; I’m not rude or aggressive to people.
It annoys me no end that often, offers and services are gated behind “new subscriber” conditions - which is basically a tax on being conflict-adverse. You have to go through a cancellation process to get someone who can “look to see if there’s anything they can do” and get the thing that’s plainly available.
But I’ll joke about it on the phone to whoever I’m talking to - the last time this happened (changing mobile phone contract) the chap and I were laughing about “come the revolution” at the end of the call.
Previously I’ve had someone on the phone claim that water being three feet higher at one end of a drain than the other wasn’t due to a blockage; some people will “go the extra mile” for their employer. I think I got as far as “if your company’s position is that basic fluid statics is wrong I’d be happy to take it to court, but you don’t have a leg to stand on, so it’ll be cheaper for everyone involved to just send the drain guy out,” which is about as annoyed as I get.
There’s no reason for someone in a phone zombie role to actually give a shit one way or another, but some kind of human connection helps. Even a sarcastic response can be delivered in a disarming way - attack the blatantly stupid kafkaesque nonsense, not the poor schmuck who’s not paid to care.
what ever happened to having a reputation for good customer service
That doesn’t make line go up. The underpaid worker also doesn’t give a fuck.
I ain’t calling you a truther
Given what passes for a “truther” nowadays, I’d be more than happy to hear that 🙏
Yeah, there’s no need to trade insults!
I’ve never met anyone who used that phrase who wasn’t also clearly a dipshit.
Worked at an airport. The worst part of the job was dealing with the bullshit of TSA. Bunch of useless, self important pricks given unjust authority to harass individuals who are just trying to travel for some performative bullshit designed to soothe the minds of racists.
I think she handled this brilliantly. I’d have only changed the last intrraction.
“No. I am only 24 weeks pregnant. Do I need documentation if I’m only 24 weeks pregnant?”
“Can you please point to the policy that says I need a note at 28 weeks? Right there? You’re absolutely correct, that IS what the policy says. Well done! Now point to the policy that says I have to provide a note to you that I’m at less than 28 weeks. Take your time, I’m patient.”
“Take your time, I’m pregnant”
“But don’t take too much time, I’m still trying to stay under the 28 week limit here.”
Also I have a plane to catch.
I know this isn’t relevant to the post, but why do you need a doctor note for ‘any’ amount of weeks?
Fascist country. Controlling women fascistically. Old white guys who take pills to make their decrepit dicks work on their mistresses and aids and probably children are very concerned about “Gods will” when it comes to pregnancy and womens bodily autonomy.
Something something Margret Atwood.
Its a low pressure, low oxygen, cramped environment that can complicate existing issues a lot more than some people realize.
I know of someone who died because a really bad freak ear infection ruptured at altitude and they bled out before the plane could land.
Its not like planes aren’t safe, its just that high risk individuals and situations need extra precautions.
I suppose the airlines want that for liability reasons. But I’m curious of ‘why’ pregnant women need a doctor’s note and not, say, folks with heart conditions then. Are there other groups that require some authority figure to give them medical permission to fly or do we only not trust pregnant women to listen to their doctors?
i would guess it’s less that they don’t trust them, and more that the doctor might do some extra tests to make sure that everything looks okay
heart conditions are typically a long-term thing; pregnancy is relatively short-term so there’s not a lot of time for people to get used to their situation, and there’s a lot to pay attention to
And adding to that: Depending on the flight you might be hours away from a suitable landing location with usually no medical personell or medical supplies beyond some band-aids available.
If something goes wrong, even unrelated to pressure, oxygen or cramped environment, you might be stuck up there for a very long time before you can get to a hospital.
I thought I was going to die on a plane during depressurization once. My head literally felt like it was going to pop from my forehead and the pain was so immense I hunched over as to not cause panic in the aircraft.
It had happened a couple other times before this particular instance where the front of my head felt immense pressure during the planes decent. It also caused major headaches that lasted several days after the incident.
I looked it up after this event and made an immediate appointment with my doctor. Turns out some 10% of men can be affected by this where fluid builds up in your forehead “sinus pouches” I’ll call them, and during the planes decent it will depressurize. During depressurization this fluid will push against your brain. You can see a similar action with a half filled waterbottle during this time. They implode a little bit. That’s what was happening to my head.
My doctor prescribed me a nasal spray I need to take 30 minutes before take off to drain my sinus. It’s worked ever since.
Jesus Christ. 😧
Aw man you could’ve recreated the head exploding scene from scanners on a plane. That would’ve been the best prank ever.
Glad your head is unexploded though.
Fun fact, they did the special effects for that scene by shooting the fake head with an actual shotgun.
I wouldn’t even be mad if someone next to me popped. I’d be like holy shit I can’t believe I get two arm rests.
Phew, I can finally lie down. Too bad it only happened during descent
deleted by creator
For all you know that person could be a teenager.
The real problem would be if they didn’t have any interest in learning something they didn’t know about.
What in the actual fuck does this mean?
For all you know that person could be a teenager.
Oh, alright, it’s a american thing.
Someone doesn’t know something? How dare they!
I’m fairly certain the person I responded to is well versed and aware. I was saying that it is sad that the question need be asked. Here’s a mirror for you to continue this non argument.🪞
Probably because you might end up giving birth prematurely on the flight and they don’t wanna be liable for anything
The liability thing is definitely part of it but it ain’t good news for anyone involved if that thing decides to pop out over the Pacific.
It can literally affect the citizenship of the baby which I find so strange.
Only the Americas have jus soli really. Everywhere else it’s the parents’ citizenships that matters.
If one of your parents are a US citizen, you are one no matter where you are born.
There are a bunch of regulations to make sure that in most cases a US citizen giving birth abroad, will grant their kid US citizenship. Although the law does not “guarantee” it like it does in most countries outside the Americas.
“Interestingly” the US does tend to apply jus sanguinis over jus soli in case of stateless people.
Interesting it lines up with the new world / old world concept.
Jus soli is important for former colonies, especially those with large permanent colonist populations. It’s an easy way to build an immigrant-based citizenship.
