What is Digg?65 Comments
- marksven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I highly doubt that Alaska is making these comments in an official capacity. It's most likely just some guy who works there doing this in his free time, unaware that now he's about to get into trouble for posting this from his work computer.
- km8210, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"After all *any* body whose ever flown in a plane is going to know the difference between aviation gas and jp 2? 4?"
Hermann said in his blog that he was a pilot implying that he was giving us an "expert" opinion of what happened.
In case you missed it, Patrick Smith, an airline pilot (not a weekend Cessna scooter), posted the following:
A Post from Patrick Smith, author of Salon.com’s ASK THE PILOT column:
This is one of those rare instances where the media actually got it right by downplaying the seriousness of the situation.
Hermanns’ account of the incident, which he describes as “horrific,” and “the unthinkable,” is something of a lurid overreaction.
That’s not to say the decompression was a pleasant experience, and I could never blame the majority of passengers for being scared and confused. However, a problem of this nature, from a technical standpoint, isn’t that serious. It was noisy, and no doubt disorienting for many of the plane’s occupants; the need for the crew to initiate a rapid descent was, I’m sure, frightening to those who didn’t understand what was happening. But it was not a life-threatening situation. The plane lost cabin pressure and so the pilots descended as quickly as possible to 10,000 feet. They did nothing heroic or unusual, and will be the first ones to admit it. As professional airline pilots, they did what they’re supposed to do. Any other crew would have done the same thing. The passengers, meanwhile, could breathe using their drop-down masks.
Now, different kinds of in-flight decompressions can result in different situations — some more hazardous than others. Bombs, for example, can cause an entire fuselage to tear apart in fractions of a second. Large-scale structural failure, like the infamous fuselage burst of that Aloha Airlines 737 in 1988, can be similarly disastrous. But those are extremely rare occurrences, and that’s not what happened to Alaska Airlines. The breach was a small one, and once the cabin pressure had escaped, it could be reasonably assumed that the plane was going to stay in one solid piece and fly just fine. Which it did.
Hermanns reminds us that he’s a private pilot, but he also misinterpreted the smell of the activated oxygen canisters as the smell of jet fuel, which he erroneously describes as “Av-gas” and “JP-4≤ (it’s neither), and seems to have been just as needlessly panic-stricken as all those non-pilots around him.
(Not to the guy who doesn’t fly: Approx 17,500 commercial flights arrive and depart safely *each day* in the USA alone. We haven’t had a catastrophic accident since 2001.)
Cheers,
Patrick Smith
www.askthepilot.com - Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The AA employee apparently did a couple mistakes:
- assume he would stay anonymous, and that the blogger he was disagreeing with wouldn't attempt to pierce his anonymity.
- assume this guy's blog was a good forum for a dissenting opinion.
The proper way to handle this is:
- create your own blog, if you don't already have one.
- write your own post in response to his entry.
- feel free to link to his entry, ping back, get it indexed in various blog search
engines, possibly add a neutral-looking comment on original blog pointing to your entry.
- censor negative comments on your own blog mercilessly.
- if original blogger falls for it and tries to comment, mock him for it. If he tries to comment anonymously, mock him harder.
It's really not that hard.
This whole thing is just a case of a guy not understanding well enough the proper structure of the blogosphere. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you work for a company, and are in the building or in uniform and say "Wow, we really ***** *CLIENT* over, haha!" even as a joke and someone hears you, you're an official rep of the company. If you're in your work uniform, and it has the company logo in it, and you wear it to the store and are an ***** to people, you can get in trouble for it.
As an employee, you represent the company you work for. You're what people see, and if you're a dick, they brand the company as being "dicks".
I should know, having some human resource experiance. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2here's a vid from the plane after it happened...
http://www.kirotv.com/video/5697867/detail.html - dontflameme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't understand where half of the people that have commented on this topic are coming from. I better flat out tell you that I work for AS (Alaska Airlines, not AA, btw) because it's apparently wrong to omit that fact and speak your mind as a regular human being. Though I may disagree with the way "Ralph" handled the situation, the fact of the matter is that he is a person just like you and I and happened to make the mistake of commenting at an AS terminal. Honestly, what normal blogger goes through his logs, searching for IP addresses and converts them to domain names? I can only imagine the grin on Jeremy’s face after he struck that gold :|. I suppose that's beside the point. All I'm getting at is that people make such a big deal over the fact that this "came from Alaska Airlines, omg." This statement did not come from Alaska. Ralph was not "representing" my company. Obviously Alaska Airlines isn't about to call a passenger names after an event like this. It came from another person, a person that sits at an airport all day and has no say over what "Alaska Airlines," as a company, wants to portray as public relations image. As for there being lawsuits, I'm not completely sure that you can sue (and win) because of a situation that you were put in that scared you (as nobody really got hurt).
I sympathize for those who had to deal with this as I would have been terrified but when it really comes down to it, nobody got hurt, nobody died. I think it's a shame that AS has this on their plate as it boils down to the mistake of a contracted ramp worker. He was wrong in not reporting what he had done and now AS has to pay the price of it. I think this whole situation has been blow out of proportion considering that the plane landed just fine and all the passengers safely got from point A to B at the end of the day.
Don't get me wrong -- what happened wasn't normal and, of course, any sort of aviation incident is newsworthy but it's also damaging to a reputable company.
It's just a shame that AS has to pay the price on this one.
Alaska Airlines is a great airline. I love working for them and I believe we do offer a great service. I’m sorry if you disagree but, like Ralph and Jeremy, I’m entitled to my opinions. :) - canyonblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3marksven is right... i am sure it isn't official even if it is tasteless.
- beezn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2kinda reminds me of the priceritecamera.com story.
- sluggo916, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While all three of the people replying to his blog most likely work for AA, none of them were speaking in any sort of official capacity. Yes Ralph was rude in his posts. But he probably felt that the company he takes pride in was under attack. Their company after all did not do anything wrong. It was a contractor that most of the airlines up there use. The posts from Jet and John sounded more like they wanted some more information. They sounded like engineers and wanted to help alleviate some of everyone's fears. While none of them should have posted anything without permission from the airline, I believe that Jet and John were not doing anything wrong either. They like air travel and don't want people to be afraid of it. This isn't an attack by Alaska Air. No dig, because the blogger is being as big a jerk as anyone in this situation.
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone from AA didn't know his comments could leave an IP trace! Ha! Thanks for the heads up to his blog, also. +dugg
- dmoffitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1note to self: don't fly an airline which pulls stunts like this. dugg
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They simply left comments like everyone else. I don't get what the big deal is. In his examples, I don't see them saying anything close to spam or harassment.
- bash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1kaboom: ya, especially when the low-cost jets have a lower rate of accidents than the major carriers...in fact, saving a few bucks might be a good idea after all...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Alaska appeared to to everyhting right. No one was panicked and the employees wandered up and down the aisles keeping everyone calm. Kudos to AA. Good vid tho.
- Psykus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I guess KoolAidGuy got a job at Alaska Airlines...
- Drood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're me new hero.
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1man, who has enough time to kill to click to story just to say "no digg". its way faster just to not digg, i do it all the time!
- b04155, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@metal_hurlant
that's a whole-latta work to just not be a man about it. who cares if you (not you personally) disagree, be a man and admit it. the AA employee isn't being a man either by trying to hide who he is.
this ***** is annoying as hell, 'oh no, they might know who i am if i don't take 20K steps to hide my identity'
man up nancy - dendrimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, I just spent way too much time reading all those outrageous comments on his original post. It would be completely outrageous if these were just folks bein' pricks. The fact that he has traced it back to "Mawaska Bearlines" just gets my blood roarin'. One of their posts says something along lines of, "I bet you're going to sue, aren't you," I tell you what, now he has some serious fodder for a lawsuit.
GO JEREMY! - gluon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I enjoyed reading AA's rudimentary debating technique of micro-analyzing irrelevent details and presenting that as conclusive debunking of the entire story. If his shoelaces were blue and not red it still doesn't change the fact a major defect occurred on an airplane while in flight.
- XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.htm
Commercial jet fuel, known as Jet-A, is pure kerosene and has a flashpoint of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius). It is a high-quality fuel, however, and if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines. Commercial jet fuel as well as military jet fuel often includes anti-freeze to prevent ice buildup inside the fuel tanks. - hominid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"don't ***** with the bloggers!"
- Matt88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just fly Qantas (and don't blog unless it's nice)
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1AA needs to fire their employee and anyone else involved in it (those who knew about it and encouraged or didn't do anything), release a public appology and offer to make it up to the blogger. That is how it should be handled. Digging it may help that happen.
Other than that, no digg from me...I only digg stories I might want to refer back to later... - louisianna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sluggo916 hit it spot on. I agree with you totally.
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lol, looks like some AA employees are going to be getting their pink slips soon... Companies generally hate it when employees take PR matters into their own hands (especially high-profile ones).
If they're anything like my company, the IT guys log every outgoing connection and can tell who was logged on the computer and what websites they were reading/posting to. While I might occasionally disagree with my employer, I'm never stupid enough to say anything about it from work... - Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dontflameme - Ralph broke a cardinal rule (and, honestly, you are to) - when you comment on issues that affect your employer you are perceived as a representative of your employer and your comments will be interpreted as such.
I've run into the same problem personally, but on a much less volatile issue - I made what I thought was a fairly diplomatic request on a mailing list for info on one of my company's partners and my ass was hauled into a VP's office by the end of the day.
I don't think anyone is denying Ralph the right to speak his mind - but they think he did it in such a way that AS is going come down on him like rolling thunder for creating a PR problem for them. - lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dugg to hear Kevin freak out over this. ^_^
- WizzleFish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Weird - one of the other passengers found Jeremy's blog!
- Chicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nevertheless. We have to get this story out.
- RMuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's just shamefull.....
One of the comments said, and I aggree with this. "Even if it wasn't certified by AA, the comment is the same as saying it to sombody in person while in uniform." You're posting from an AA IP address, you become a voice of AA - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i'm no lawyer, but if this guy decided to sue, it would be for neglegence, not his experience on the flight. Due to the fact that a baggage handler hit the plane, and then failed to report it. That does constitute neglegence on behalf of Alaska Airlines.
I admit that if he or any other passengers filed a lawsuit it would pretty unfounded due to the fact it could have been much much worse, and wasn't. I personally don't think he or any other passengers should file a lawsuit because I don't think it would be necessary, and it would be all about financial gain in the face of what could have been a tragedy. Lawsuits should be filed to protect the greater good. I'm sure Alaskan Airlines and the FAA are doing everything they can from having this happen again, because the bottomline is that no one benefits from a disaster... - Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Patrick Smith,
You said "Hermanns’ account of the incident, which he describes as “horrific,” and “the unthinkable,” is something of a lurid overreaction."
Again, the fact that he was there and scared to death is kind of an excuse for not being dispassionate about it, eh?
The other thing is that I went and read his original blog post about the incident and he actually seemed very even handed about it - he went out of his way to compliment the flight crew for the way they handled the problem and he made sure to place the blame where he thought it fell - with a baggage handler who apparently bashed the plane right before take off.
That's the reason I'm defending him - he doesn't seem (to me) to be on some kind of a crusade or campaign to embarrass AA. - dontflameme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0phoenix: responded on his site, read up.
as for being sued for negligence, like you, i'm not lawyer, however, an AS employee didn't hit the plane, an outsourced baggage handling company did. would it still be alaska for negligence? curious. - halophoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Responded to. Also, I don't understand why you keep harping on the lawsuit issue. No one's brought it up save random commenters and AS employees like yourself.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Lets do a pricerightphoto...
- udayan71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Beezn has a point - also reminded me of the camera people threatening to kill the blogger.
Dugg. - Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1wow... ahahaha
- degree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That guy and his girlfriend both seemed to be little bitches
also, in response to this:
"Wow, I just spent way too much time reading all those outrageous comments on his original post. It would be completely outrageous if these were just folks bein' pricks. The fact that he has traced it back to "Mawaska Bearlines" just gets my blood roarin'. One of their posts says something along lines of, "I bet you're going to sue, aren't you," I tell you what, now he has some serious fodder for a lawsuit."
WTF IS HE GOING TO SUE AA OVER??? - halophoenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Wow-that sad Alaska Airlines worker found the digg post and copy/pasted his crap here too hoping that someone will actually think that he's taking the high road instead of being an ass who got caught with his pants down. Sorry buddy, but we won't buy it here. The guy lived through a frightening experience, separated from his fiancee who he didn't know if she was okay or not, no less, and people see fit to flame him, label him a baby, accuse him of being out to make money or file a lawsuit (when he's never said either) and all in all be total jerks when they know full well they'd ***** their pants if a hole got ripped in a plane they were on. I love the internet, it makes idiots that much braver.
So yeah, dontflameme? Go back to his website and re-read the responses your comment generated there, you won't get any sympathy here for trying to look like you're the good guy after being an ass to the guy on his own turf and then calling it "your opinion."
Maybe if more people who had ***** experiences like this blogged and let the rest of us know, we could actually do something about it collectively and force companies like this to treat their customers (and their workers) fairly and ensure their safety when they have to, instead of whining about costs, cutting staff and services, and jacking up prices. - Dummies102, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0am I the only one who didn't find these comments "nasty" and/or "spam"? or for that matter, even suspicious. It seems like AA employees just defending their employer. dig--
- VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0LOL they got caught!
- doit3d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It is obvious that the blogger doesn't know the difference between av gas & Jet A. Made himself look like an idiot, by implying the plane was on fire & fed by an accelerant, which it was not. Obviously he is trying to hype his story, which has provoked some employees of AA.
This is lame, for publicity is what he is after, IMHO. - Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Right, doit3d. After all *any* body whose ever flown in a plane is going to know the difference between aviation gas and jp 2? 4? what is it jets fly these days?
Also it is *obvious* that any intelligent person confronted with a gaping hole in the side of their airplane should be capable of rationally analyzing the situation and not jump to panicky false conclusions.
For example, look at how level headed and fact oriented the early reporting about Katrina was! There's an example of how professionals clearly have an edge over poor saps who just happen to have a camera phone. - mcrosby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"It is obvious that the blogger doesn't know the difference between av gas & Jet A. Made himself look like an idiot..."
doit3d? Looks like you are the idiot - thinking we wouldn't know u were an employee of AA with your totally biased comments. Who gives a ***** what fuel was used? Only you! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Ack!!
- ronmexico, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This is not a big deal at all... no digg
- djhifisi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@billyboob, don't be a dick, don't you think you'd be a little freaked out if the plane you were on 'depressurised' at 26k ft or is that some everyday occurrence for you?
- crpietschmann, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Who cares?...
- hiro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"dontflameme
go suck a dick jesus christ"
Yeah, how can his reasoned opinion hold a candle to your intellect? -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is