"AIRLINE" fans, Jan 3
 

I've seen lots of interest in A&E's "AIRLINE" in the past. Any comments about last night's airing?

I thought the box of fish with the maggets crawling out was pretty disgusting. Can't figure out why that woman didn't think it was a problem!!!

I'm not a regular viewer, jor, but I do watch it when I happen to notice it's on and I saw last night's show. I bet those maggoty fish were only one item on a long list of weird things people try to check or carry on.

I'm a lot more amazed at how many people try to board an airplane in an inebriated condition. I guess I've just been lucky not to have encountered much drunkeness in my gazillion miles of travel.

I have had international flights delayed more than once because a passenger didn't show up and luggage had to be taken off the plane. I always wondered how they managed to be in the airport (they checked their luggage) but miss the flight. Now I think maybe they were passed out in an airport bar somewhere.

I've watched the show off and on. I can relate too much of what I see as I worked for a couple of airlines while in college, People Express and Continental. Fortunately, I never encountered the suitcase full of ants as they did a few episodes ago. I don't know if you've ever dealt with the public in a job capacity Jor, but if you have, I don't think you'd be surprised by the woman who didn't know maggots can't ride coach.

My most vivid memories of my two years includes the day when a Priest a few people in front of me at the security line was hauled off by two policeman for his "maybe I shouldn't have put the bomb in my bag" remark. (Yes, even in 1986 we had some level of security.)

Or the Halloween afternoon when the two guys wearing combat fatigues, camouflage makeup and carrying fake knives and hand-grenades (guess security missed those) couldn't understand why I wouldn't let them on the plane dressed as they were.

My all-time favorite was the time when the flight attendant at my gate realized he'd let the unaccompanied minor get off the plane by herself - and he came to tell me just about the same time as her very loud, very large Brooklyn Italian family was coming to the gate to greet her. Good times.

Last night's was a re-run so I didn't watch it past the first few minutes, but I remembered the original broadcast. The maggots WERE pretty bad -- but the worst were those broads who were flying non-rev (prospective Southwest employees, no less) and threw fits because they got bumped for paying customers!!!!

What nitwits (and to think they actually had to sign a release to have that shown - unbelievable).

Bet they are still on unemployenet insurance . . . . . . .

I agree, Janis. Although I wonder if SW told them that there was a possibility of getting bumped for a paying customer?

Hi, Marilyn. Probably not, but have they EVER flown before? Even full rev folks get bumped all the time. They seemed to think they were owed those seats they were given just to come in for interviews. Definitely don't seem like Southwest material to me . . . . . . .

Any chance that the two women being interviewed were being tested to see how they handle a flying situation which was not going as expected? I think they may have been purposely bumbed and watched. If I was the hiring person I would have tested them like that for sure. I'm sure it happens all over.

Nah, jor, I can't imagine a large company like Southwest going to that much trouble to vet a couple of low level employees. If they had a crappy attitude, it would come out in the first few weeks of employment and they'd be let go.

I agree that the prospective SWA employees were pretty whiny, but I was surprised that SWA told them they would have to get a hotel at their own expense. That part seemed a little out of line. I mean, they wouldn't have been there but for SWA. I've never been to an interview where the prospective employer told me I was responsible for my own lodging expenses.

Marilyn, your point is well taken but I think any employer would rather find out that an employee is crap before they spent two weeks traning, employing, tons of paper work, etc. before they spend a dime more on them as a prospective employee.

Marilyn,
It is significantly cheaper to never hire an employee than to let them go once they are there. For an airline, there is a training cost and an opportunity cost - namely turning someone away who may have been a better candidate because you didn't have that training spot open. You also have the risk of not finding out they have a bad attitude until after they've aggravated some 100,000 mile a year flier.

I have no idea what SW's methods are to test a prospective employee, but in terms of them vetting a prospective employee, I'd be surprised if they didn't have some kind of test.

I read once that Disney (think it was Disney) used to test some prospective employees by making them wait well past their scheduled appointment to gauge their attitude when confronted with a potentially frustrating situation.

Ryan and Jor, yes, of course it is less expensive to NOT hire a poor employee than to hire, then fire, one.

However, surely most of that cost savings would disappear if the company set up such an elaborate test as stranding prospective employees to test their reactions. In addition, it seemed apparent to me that those young women were applying for low level jobs. I just can't imagine SW going to that much trouble to vet entry-level people.

It's one thing to make people wait for an interview; it's another to set things up so they are bumped off a plane while a supervisor, what, writes a report about how they reacted? Sorry, just seems far fetched to me.