Helena Guergis Air Rage?

[Guest American Woman]

Please note that those cool looking smilies are really the letter "b" within brackets.

Just to let you know, you can go click on "click to configure post options" at the left bottom of the reply box, and then uncheck "enable emoticons" when the menu appears, and your cool looking smilies will then be a (.

[waldo]

per Kady O'Malley of the CBC: an unsigned (2-page) letter from airport employees - personal names redacted: Harper Conservatives... winning the hearts and minds... one airport employee at a time

[Guest American Woman]

There is no evidence of drug use by her it is a completely unfounded claim. What her Husband did is not a different matter and the conservatives have neither sought or asked for special treatment for her husband. (he needs to pay for the crime alleged if found guilty)

People have been denied boarding simply because they 'appeared to be drunk.' Sometimes one's behavior is all that is needed to question some of these things. In other words, their behavior is "evidence" that they may be drunk or on drugs; their behavior is enough to question it.

You need to stop this child like behaviour suck it up and apologize.

Why should he apologize for his opinion? We're all entitled to our opinions, whether others agree with us or not.

This is not about Jaffer it is about Helena, it is garbage that you attribute his actions to her when their is no evidence.

The "evidence" in DrGreenthumb's mind, is her behavior, and he's made that quite clear. I too wonder if there was some other reason she acted the way she did. She was the one holding up the plane, every other passenger besides her and her aide were onboard, on time. Yet she was the one having a hissy fit, over everything, apparently.

But I would say trying to unlock a security door and banging on the window and yelling obscenities would be enough to question one's behavior, especially when it's someone who most definitely should know better and be acting appropriately. Furthermore, if she's capable of behaving that way in the airport, why would anyone think she wouldn't behave the same way on the airplane? After all, she was acting he way she was because she was unhappy with the way she was being treated. Would she have been pounding on the cockpit door if she were unhappy with the service on the plane? It would be understanable to question that under the circumstances. I can honestly say I wouldn't have wanted her on my flight.

I hope she manages to find this thread and sues your ass for liable.

Comments/threads/blogs like this: Dem Senator Max Baucus Drunk? are all over the internet, and this thread is no different. When one behaves the way she did, their behavior is up for scrutiny, and people can, and will, 'question' to their heart's desire; and there's nothing to stop them. In other words, there is absolutely no grounds for a law suit.

[msj]

per Kady O'Malley of the CBC: an unsigned (2-page) letter from airport employees - personal names redacted: Harper Conservatives... winning the hearts and minds... one airport employee at a time

That's a good read!

It is too bad that one of those employees didn't have enough nerve to disallow her from boarding from the flight.

My favourite line is this one: "...Helena Guergis ...being so difficult and rude to Air Canada representative [redacted] that he almost refused to allow them to board to spite their "V.I.P" status."

So many ways to interpret this line:

1) That her VIP status was sufficient for her to be allowed on board the plane.

2) That her VIP status was enough to bias one against her and to be spiteful to prevent her from boarding the plane.

3) etc....

When I worked in the restaurant biz, I know my bias was towards #2 when it came to serving customers and it was fun!

Since then I focus my "asshatness" towards members of this forum and try to be more polite in person.

Helena definitely is a self-entitled twit who needed something like this incident to bring her down to earth.

To claim that she should have been tested for drugs is still, imo, irrelevant and libelous.

To claim that she must resign over this is also, imo, overkill.

Admittedly, I don't know if I would vote for her after reading the letter but then there are very few Conservatives that I would vote for in the first place as I don't actually have a high opinion of the CPC, our PM, or anyone else in Cabinet (with an especially low opinion of and, perhaps, irrational, hatred of our Finance Minister).

Between some embarrassment from the story getting out and losing a few votes, I really do think that is all the story merits.

Nevertheless, it was interesting to read the information posted by Sir Bandelot and I give him the award for most useful poster for this thread.

Edited February 28, 2010 by msj

[Oleg Bach]

If you are in pubic service then behave yourself and show some dignity..which is impossible when fraud is acceptable after the electoral process is complete..Take the bygone incident where Belinda Stronach crossed the floor..from conservative to liberal or vise versa...If thousands of people elect you to serve as a right handed person and trust that the principles and agenda will be met-- then suddenly for reasons of selfish personal ambition..you jump ship--then you should resign--because you have taken valued public office through fraud and in effect are NOT elected but self appointed.

[msj]

Just to let you know, you can go click on "click to configure post options" at the left bottom of the reply box, and then uncheck "enable emoticons" when the menu appears, and your cool looking smilies will then be a (.

Thanks for this.

Oops, forgot to do what you told me to do! Arrrggg.

Edited February 28, 2010 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

My favourite line is this one: "...Helena Guergis ...being so difficult and rude to Air Canada representative [redacted] that he almost refused to allow them to board to spite their "V.I.P" status."

So many ways to interpret this line:

1) That her VIP status was sufficient for her to be allowed on board the plane.

2) That her VIP status was enough to bias one against her and to be spiteful to prevent her from boarding the plane.

3) etc....

When I worked in the restaurant biz, I know my bias was towards #2 when it came to serving customers and it was fun!

I think the author of the letter may have meant to say "almost refused to allow them to board in spite of their VIP status" rather than "to spite their VIP status" since that's how the rest of the letter reads; so my guess is they were allowed to board because of their VIP status, just as the person who wrote the letter was afraid to sign it for fear of being fired because of their VIP status.

[Oleg Bach]

HOW about just a tiny little bit of taZINNNG? If the person in question was a large and apparently "threatening" male-- I bet she might have ended up on the floor foaming at the mouth and twitching while some security guy held the unconscious person down with a knee to the throat suffocating what was assumed a dangerous animal.

[kimmy]

Hey msj, she got the "bye" when they let her get on the plane, no more questions asked. Meanwhile your ass would have been slammed on the ground and in the detention centre before you could say "I want my mommy"!

Ok, so now that we've had a chance to read the play-by-play waldo linked to, which part would you say that they should have slammed her on the ground?

-k

[kimmy]

No argument! I guess you missed the end of my post:

"Post Script: This link proves what I had read in the papers about the officers is wrong! Here it is:

http://www.cpc-cpp.g...2-eng.aspx#toc3

The link plainly shows they were regular RCMP officers. Still, that's even more reason they should have known better! "

You're right, Bill, I replied to the earlier messages before I'd read that. Sorry!

Still, doesn't it make you feel safer to know that Konstable Kwesi is patrolling Toronto streets right now?

-k

Edited February 28, 2010 by kimmy

[Sir Bandelot]

Ok, so now that we've had a chance to read the play-by-play waldo linked to, which part would you say that they should have slammed her on the ground?

-k

I'd say it would be the part where she started screaming and hammering on the glass. Clearly this person lost control of herself. As the Transport Canada guidelines state, unruly behavior including shouting profanities, insulting airlines staff, and demonstrating belligerent behavior is reason to block the individual from boarding the plane.

Because, theres a good likelihood that she will also be a problem for the staff while in flight, if for example she doesn't get served her drink fast enough, or the foods not to her liking, or whatever. These people who run the plane have a real important job to do, and anyone who might interfere with their ability to to that job is a threat to the safety of the plane and other passengers. It's that simple, and clearly written on the ministry web site which I provided the links to.

But you folks carry on deluding yourself that its alright, that had it been anyone else they would have been treated the same way she did. Fact is, most people wouldn't have even gotten into the pre-boarding area once they started throwing their shoes around.

[Shakeyhands]

I hope she manages to find this thread and sues your ass for liable.

LOLZ.. funniest post EVER!!!

[Oleg Bach]

Lets get this straight..this was a fairly high ranking public officer correct? This person was female..is it possible that those that are woman in public office should not arrive there until the date that their uterus has turned to stone? Maybe she was just PMS ing? IF not - then this person simply is unfit for the position...provocative enough for yah? OKAY - let the reasonable feminist have a go at this one...just like males have a problem as far as aggression- females are prone also.

[kimmy]

A lot of people seem to look at Ms Guergis' conduct and see a drug freak-out or an outrageous diva tantrum. I see a stressed out traveller who is afraid of missing a flight and angry at all the delays.

I looked through this article that MSJ linked to and rolled my eyes at this:

Despite the apology, the staff member says he and others remain livid about the way they were treated.

“Everybody was … trying to get her out, trying to help her. But she took it upon herself to think everyone was trying to block her at every move,” he said. “She was very unprofessional, very unorganized, very rude.”

Anybody who works in any job where they interact with the public is going to have some bad experiences. And especially so when you deal with people in less than ideal circumstances. When I did technical support, I dealt with angry, frustrated customers all the time. When I waitress, I have to deal with rude and aggressive drunks. A collections agent is going to have to deal with people who are trying to kick his ass. And guess what, cupcake, in your line of work, you're going to have to deal with people who are stressed out and angry.

Or this article, where it is claimed that the poor airport workers are still "reeling" from the altercation 6 days later. Are these people so fragile that they are emotionally shaken because somebody yelled at them? Or are they just excited to finally have a sympathetic media to cry to about their job stresses?

I don't fly often, but when I do, I've never been left with the impression that the ground staff, and particularly the security people, are there to help me out or improve my flying experience.

When I went to Toronto last year, I arrived at the check-in line about an hour and 3 minutes before flight time. But because there was only one agent at the desk, and because he was busy assisting confused elderly folks who were ahead of me, I had to stand there waiting for close to 10 minutes, and by the the time I finally got to the check-in desk, it was 55 minutes to flight time. When I finally got to the counter, he gives me a lecture on checking in an hour before the flight, even though he saw me standing there waiting for him for 8 minutes. No acknowledgment of my patience, no apology for being short-staffed, just a lecture about being late. Then I get another 2 minute lecture about how because I missed the recommended check-in time, he could not guarantee that my luggage would travel on the same flight as me, and how if it didn't I would have to go through some process to claim it when I reached my destination. I desperately wanted to tell him that if we were so short of time, he should put my bag on the conveyor belt instead of lecturing me. But I didn't. Because I was afraid that if I said anything to him, I wouldn't be allowed on the flight. Perhaps he was just doing his job to the letter, which is fine I guess, but it certainly wasn't the sort of encounter that left me with the feeling that they were there to help me or give me a better experience. Just the opposite.

The return flight was about as positive. No trouble at the check in, this time. But when I got to the security check in, things went sour. They didn't just scan my pursue, they dumped it out. I was made to remove not just my overcoat and my shoes, but also my sweater. So while other women are going through security in saris and bulky Muslim garb without security staff making any complaint, I had to strip down to my tank top and put my arms in the air while they waved their little scanner over me. I desperately wanted to challenge them over their conduct, but once again I kept my mouth shut because I was afraid I wouldn't be allowed to fly home if I spoke up.

So I actually feel kind of happy to here that the PEI airport people are apparently still "reeling". Good. They've probably earned it. I just wish Ms Guergis had been on hand to scream at the security people the day I went through Lester B Pearson airport.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

You're right, Bill, I replied to the earlier messages before I'd read that. Sorry!

Still, doesn't it make you feel safer to know that Konstable Kwesi is patrolling Toronto streets right now?

Thank you for the confirmation that they were RCMP officers, Wild Bill, (and Smallc) and thank you, Kimmy for the information and links regarding Dziekanski; I had actually participated quite a bit in one of those threads, but it was before all the information was out, so I believed that the officers got there with good intentions and were acting in a way they thought necessary once they encountered him. I had no idea that he was tased at least five times and that they had planned to tase him all along. I did start to question it in my mind as time went on, but never seemed to be able to find an update on it. I was particularly interested in whether or not the officers received any disciplinary action, but evidently not if one of them is on patrol in Toronto. Knowing what I know now, I find that outrageous.

[Smallc]

Well if he's in Toronto, the good news is that he's not on patrol. He'd just be working on federal crimes.

[Oleg Bach]

KIMMY seems to view this stressed out woman in the same light as the stressed out Polish traveler who got zapped and smothered. One is female and seems not to be a threat because of size..the other is male and stero-typically a holy terror in need of execution- I remember a female lawyer state that the woman was terrified of the male because of his sheer size--The judge said "I am a big man also- are you terrified of me?" - that point seems to make it clear why Helena Guergis was not dealt with using force..because we believe that woman are harmless and all males lethal.

[msj]

I think the author of the letter may have meant to say "almost refused to allow them to board in spite of their VIP status" rather than "to spite their VIP status" since that's how the rest of the letter reads; so my guess is they were allowed to board because of their VIP status, just as the person who wrote the letter was afraid to sign it for fear of being fired because of their VIP status.

I know. That's why I put down the two ways to interpret it with the possibility for more interpretations.

I'm not that stoopid, AW.

[msj]

A lot of people seem to look at Ms Guergis' conduct and see a drug freak-out or an outrageous diva tantrum. I see a stressed out traveller who is afraid of missing a flight and angry at all the delays

Anybody who works in any job where they interact with the public is going to have some bad experiences. And especially so when you deal with people in less than ideal circumstances. When I did technical support, I dealt with angry, frustrated customers all the time. When I waitress, I have to deal with rude and aggressive drunks. A collections agent is going to have to deal with people who are trying to kick his ass. And guess what, cupcake, in your line of work, you're going to have to deal with people who are stressed out and angry.

I wonder to what extent my reaction to this story is more relaxed than others because of my restaurant experience.

I have dealt with some pretty terrible people that confirmed Thomas Hobbes' line about life being "nasty, brutish, and short."

My wife had worse experiences (likely because she's a she). At one place she was the only server who never cried despite serving the golf ladies on a regular basis (golf ladies are from hell and make Helena look like a cupcake - by far the biggest beotchs I have every met in my life).

And yes, if you are a table of ladies going out and you are being served by a female, you are likely being discriminated against because the odds are you and your lady friends are being catty beotchs (and that's paraphrasing my wife in a nice way).

And this mostly from "average" people with the few big fish/small pond type thrown in.

Or this article, where it is claimed that the poor airport workers are still "reeling" from the altercation 6 days later. Are these people so fragile that they are emotionally shaken because somebody yelled at them? Or are they just excited to finally have a sympathetic media to cry to about their job stresses?

Well put me in the fragile category too, then.

I know I had an experience which left me reeling for days.

Being almost two decades ago I can't really recall much of it now so I guess I got better.

[msj]

I'd say it would be the part where she started screaming and hammering on the glass. Clearly this person lost control of herself. As the Transport Canada guidelines state, unruly behavior including shouting profanities, insulting airlines staff, and demonstrating belligerent behavior is reason to block the individual from boarding the plane.

Um, no.

Per your link it goes like this:

In order to implement this article adequately, operators should consider all aspects of a situation to properly evaluate the different conditions under which a passenger may be denied boarding.

There is enough ambiguity in the Advisory Circular to allow one discretion.

Discretion was used and, it appears, it was successful since we haven't heard of any "air rage" occurring on the flight.

Probably not a surprise and, if anything, shows just how good these staff members do their jobs - they successfully identified that Helena's problem was the stress of being late and having a bad day. She just wanted to get home so, perhaps, they thought it best to get her expedited out of there as quickly as possible.

I know that I have taken that approach, albeit in an entirely different industry.

But who knows. Maybe Helena's "VIP" status intimidated them into submission.

[Guest American Woman]

I know. That's why I put down the two ways to interpret it with the possibility for more interpretations.

Ohhhhh. I thought you were putting down two ways to interpret the airport guy's decision to let her on in spite of her behavior. Which didn't really make sense, now that I think of it .....

I'm not that stoopid, AW.

One can never be too sure.*

*just kidding

[Oleg Bach]

Once you start testing all of our officals for dope use-- we might turn into a libertarian society with almost no government...there should be testing for wacko pharma product that are prescribed also--just because a doctor signs off is not real reason to think it's legit.

Lets see who can not make a sad decision while impaired on happy pills..or who can make a joyous decision because they took twice the doze.

[Alta4ever]

LOLZ.. funniest post EVER!!!

The coke accusation is way over the top.

[DrGreenthumb]

The coke accusation is way over the top.

Because YOU say so? Irrational rage is a classic symptom of coke use.

[Alta4ever]

Because YOU say so? Irrational rage is a classic symptom of coke use.

Because any decent person doesn't make unfounded accusations about drug use.

But from your posts on this web site you don't seem to be a decent person, I'm sorry I expected better of you.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Alta4ever