The Sarah Steeger debacle

Discussion in 'British Airways | Executive Club' started by redtailshark, Aug 29, 2013.  |  Print Topic

  1. redtailshark

    redtailshark Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    875
    Status Points:
    895
    Most amusing! She is unquestionably naive and made a mistake. This is especially surprising for someone who actually works in commercial aviation. 0130 to LGW! Muahaha! I agree that she deserves to pay for another ticket. But hat's not the enlightening point with this case.

    No, the value lies in the responses and commentary on various media boards including her own blog. We see BA's own apologists at war with one another. We see the FT BA lords calling immediately for her to be censored - their classic, reflexive move when anyone dares to denounce BA and its service and product.

    This is what I cannot understand, previously, now, or ever. Her right to expression is absolute. Her right to be considered wise and reasonable is questionable, for the whole world to see and comment on. The howls for her to be censored reflect on the ideology that has long been discussed and how BA's climate of ideological control permeates. Who knows where it begins, but it's most amusing to behold the inevitable consequences.

    To borrow a classic phrase from elsewhere, her ineptitude, her rant, and the rants of those who denounce her and especially of those who desire to abridge her right to expression are all...


    [​IMG]mejor en su clase[​IMG]
     
    newbluesea likes this.
  2. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Status Points:
    2,025
    Background here and here.

    Summary for the TL;DR folks - Sarah, despite being a flight attendant for 16 years, booked a ticket at 01:35 and didn't realize that was an AM flight time. She showed up at the airport at 13:35 and there wasn't a flight for her to take. Bitching and moaning ensues about how she was "tricked" into buying a 1AM ticket because nobody in their right mind would fly at 1AM.

    As OP notes, however, she has the right to point out to the world her dumbassery.
     
    LETTERBOY likes this.
  3. The Saint
    Original Member

    The Saint Silver Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    411
    Status Points:
    520
    But she's asking for all the attacks she has received by suggesting that it was some dastardly trick by BA. It's a worthless rant that could more appropriately accommodated in a Tweet.
     
  4. newbluesea
    Original Member

    newbluesea Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,687
    Likes Received:
    4,739
    Status Points:
    2,570
    Ah yes the good old FT BA upper class snobs.
    A thread started by one of that board's banned members ( well so have I .. though I will freely admit it with absolutely no apologies:) ) who curiously FT hasn't managed to ferret out perhaps since he reflects the mindset of most of them there.

    One cannot help but notice the patent dislike of all things American ( take note we are too stupid to understand the 24 hour clock :rolleyes:) which manages to creep into every thread on that board.
     
    Mike Reed likes this.
  5. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Status Points:
    2,025
    On the 24 hour clock point I absolutely agree with them - by and large the public is unable to understand this concept unless they deal with it in daily practice. Same thing with the metric system, and included gratuity ("oh my god, food prices are HIGH in restaurants!" without realizing it already includes the tip, which isn't included in US restaurants). There are quite a few things we do different from the rest of the world. It will catch up with us at some point.

    In this case, though, there's no reason a flight attendant wouldn't know this.
     
    LETTERBOY and newbluesea like this.
  6. Globaliser
    Original Member

    Globaliser Silver Member

    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    676
    Status Points:
    720
    Exactly - it could actually have been a very helpful post if written along the lines of "I was so stupid - please learn this lesson from me without having to go through it yourself".

    Instead, she's trying to blame other people for the consequences of her own stupidity.
     
  7. redtailshark

    redtailshark Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    875
    Status Points:
    895

    Yes. Another reason this is fascinating. It showcases classic Brit intrasigence on both sides. Now imagine if - when, in fact - she's on the other side of the BA desk, dealing with your irop request... do you think she will say "Yes, Sir/Ma'am, I so well understand your predicament, can happen to anyone in fact it happened to me, a fate known to the entire blogosphere, now let me confirm you at no cost in CE on the next departure..."

    OR

    "I am sorry Ma'am/Sir, the departure time is clearly stated. It is not BA's responsibility to make allowances for customers who cannot read the timetable. You have the choice of another carrier, or of purchasing a one-way walk up in Y to LGW for 1200 GBP. We are unable to assign seats in advance and even if we did, legendary seat shifting will occur. It is your choice, Ma'am/Sir/evil weasel spawn of MOL"

    It can perhaps become a useful mentality in war, very Churchillian in fact. Although the same propensity also fuels national belligerence, making such war more likely in the first case.... It is not so helpful in peacetime however, where the only place this legendary intransigence has utility is in the mind of S. Coe during the home stretch of an 800m world record run. The Finns call this "sisu" and it accounts for the disproprtionate success of UK track athletes over the years. This culturally-rooted mindset is also related to BA/Sticky Beak intransigence and this particular conflict exposes some of these things again. For those who don't know and prefer that such discussion not be censored by Nigels and apologists, I am always more than happy to provide more details.:p

    Here's one example, there are many more:

    http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...ate-dilberts-thats-why-company-crumbling.html
     
  8. redtailshark

    redtailshark Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    875
    Status Points:
    895

    Fascinating. I have always wondered why this is such a classic Nigellian trait. Why is up to sticky beaks to tell others how they "should" express themselves or which channels of expression are appropriate (i.e. approved by the Nigels)?
    I will disagree now, as I have for decades. There isn't any other place that is more "appropriate" for her to express her feelings. All venues are appropriate for both praise - and for criticism - of BA. Her blog is good, so is Twitter and so is the BBC news or the columns of the Express if the story gets in there. Stelios' mag, even better.

    I agree that she should expect to take some heat for her views but that is different than being channeled.

    No wonder the Arab populace is so disenchanted with western hypocrisy on these matters of expression.
     
  9. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Status Points:
    2,025

    Well, of course! Twitter or blog doesn't matter when one has had one's head removed for the idea of dissenting opinion. :)
     
    LETTERBOY likes this.
  10. The Saint
    Original Member

    The Saint Silver Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    411
    Status Points:
    520
    Freedom of expression is a great thing. It allows fatuous articles like Sarah's to see the light of day. It also permits your ceaselessly garrulous Dilbert campaign.

    But it also facilitates the confrontation of both. If you can't stand the heat and all that.
     
    David, ukgooner, redtailshark and 3 others like this.
  11. redtailshark

    redtailshark Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    875
    Status Points:
    895
    :) If there's anyone around here who can take the heat and has been consistent in what they do...well.... It's important to promote freedom of speech in deed, not just rhetoric. As an example, after I'd been censored from the BA board, I wrote the mods when they were talking about censoring another poster, with whom I'd disagreed strongly and requested they not do so in the interests of freedom of expression. It's important to me and I live the principle. I stand up even for BA apologists, to voice their apologism. I don't think they - or Sarah Steeger, or I - should be "steered" towards "more appropriate" venues for voicing their views. All public forums are appropriate for voicing views. I think their actions can and should be called Dilbertian.

    I have never, and will never, advocate for censorship of anyone from public fora. I loathe censorship and all it stands for. I welcome my dialog with BA apologists...they evidently don't welcome mine, however, as we see.

    Others don't practice this and don't simply criticize what people say but try to channel their speech, and even secretly advocate for the banning or censorship of those with whom they don't agree. We are all aware that people posting here have done this on other forums. They are most hypocritical and will be called on such hypocrisy whenever it arises. Which in the case of BA apologists, is more frequently than most. Their habits are widely known and demonstrated by their own actions, yet for some reason, pointing this out invariably irritates these people...as you say, if they can't stand the heat then they shouldn't be so hypocritical and can't complain when such hypocrisy is unmasked. The shark has a mission to expose Dilbertian hypocrisy...not so tough to accomplish because it happens so pervasively, but important nonetheless.

    I find it most amusing that postings such as Sarah Steeger's bring the contradictions in the apologist viewpoints into plain view. Yes, it's Dilbertian, indeed. My point that her blog and the responses aren't isolated, that such events connect to larger cultural and corporate practices. Corporations are not independent of the people who staff them, and without Nigels and Nigellas, BA could not be such a Dilbertian entity. Sarah Steeger's posting shows that she is a part of such Dilbertian entity but she isn't alone.
     
  12. ukgooner
    Original Member

    ukgooner Silver Member

    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    114
    Status Points:
    380
    I think your being a little sensitive. Its not that bad.

    The good news is the Shark more than compensates for you! Luckily no one treats him seriously.
     
    Globaliser, LETTERBOY and newbluesea like this.
  13. redtailshark

    redtailshark Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    875
    Status Points:
    895

    I'll use your phrasing. I think you're being a little naive. It's much worse than that.

    As for being taken seriously... ah, you mean like the BA board... censoring me. But then you say such people don't take me seriously. :D

    The hard evidence shows that they - the people who censored me and those who called for this to happen - seem very afraid of what I say. This is to be expected. Classic Dilbertian regime politics. I expose their hypocrisy, true, and that frustrates them and they do take it seriously. View counts for my threads before I was censored indicate great popularity... but then many readers know that BA apologists being contradicted by evidence is a normal daily event. It's always fun when they do it to themselves. Sarah Steeger's posting and the reactions follow this well-worn path.
     
  14. The Saint
    Original Member

    The Saint Silver Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    411
    Status Points:
    520
    Let's move to line 2.
     

Share This Page