Aeroflot flight attendants kick ass!

[HECTOP]

Talk about air rage!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/21/reverse.air.rage.ap/index.html

--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[AJC]

On 21 Jul 2004 10:50:02 -0400, HECTOP > wrote:

>Talk about air rage!
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/21/reverse.air.rage.ap/index.html


Talk about getting subjects wrong! They weren't Aeroflot flight
attendants.
--==++AJC++==--

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, AJC > said:
>On 21 Jul 2004 10:50:02 -0400, HECTOP > wrote:
>>Talk about air rage!
>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/21/reverse.air.rage.ap/index.html
>
>
>Talk about getting subjects wrong! They weren't Aeroflot flight
>attendants.

They weren't? Then why does the article say "Two crew members on a
domestic Aeroflot flight beat up a passenger who had complained that the
flight attendants were drunk, airline spokeswoman Irina Dannenberg said."?

That one sentence confirms that they were on an Aeroflot flight, and that
the people doing the assault were flight attendants. That makes them
"Aeroflot flight attendants" by any definition of the word. Yes, they
were subcontracted from another airline, but as long as it's an Aeroflot
flight, they're Aeroflot flight attendants.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I use shell scripts at ork. Some cow-orkers refuse to touch them, their
excuse is usually "I don't understand perl". Their fear of perl is such
that all things unknown are also perl. -- Andrew Dalgleish

[devil]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:37:17 +0000, Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, AJC > said:
>>On 21 Jul 2004 10:50:02 -0400, HECTOP > wrote:
>>>Talk about air rage!
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/21/reverse.air.rage.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>>Talk about getting subjects wrong! They weren't Aeroflot flight
>>attendants.
>
> They weren't? Then why does the article say "Two crew members on a
> domestic Aeroflot flight beat up a passenger who had complained that the
> flight attendants were drunk, airline spokeswoman Irina Dannenberg said."?
>
> That one sentence confirms that they were on an Aeroflot flight, and that
> the people doing the assault were flight attendants. That makes them
> "Aeroflot flight attendants" by any definition of the word. Yes, they
> were subcontracted from another airline, but as long as it's an Aeroflot
> flight, they're Aeroflot flight attendants.

Yes and no.

My understanding is that while they were operating a flight for Aeroflot,
they were actually not an Aeroflot crew.

[Ajanta]

HECTOP > wrote:

> Talk about air rage!
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/21/reverse.air.rage.ap/index.html

Hmm, I think Northwest crews could take a pointer from this. :)

[AJC]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:37:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, AJC > said:
>>On 21 Jul 2004 10:50:02 -0400, HECTOP > wrote:
>>>Talk about air rage!
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/21/reverse.air.rage.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>>Talk about getting subjects wrong! They weren't Aeroflot flight
>>attendants.
>
>They weren't? Then why does the article say "Two crew members on a
>domestic Aeroflot flight beat up a passenger who had complained that the
>flight attendants were drunk, airline spokeswoman Irina Dannenberg said."?
>
>That one sentence confirms that they were on an Aeroflot flight, and that
>the people doing the assault were flight attendants. That makes them
>"Aeroflot flight attendants" by any definition of the word. Yes, they
>were subcontracted from another airline, but as long as it's an Aeroflot
>flight, they're Aeroflot flight attendants.

The flight was a TU154 owned and operated and crewed by Aviaenergo. It
just had an Aeroflot flight number. The flight attendants were paid,
trained, and could well be fired by Aviaenergo. They were not Aeroflot
flight attendants, any more than the flight attendants on Northwest
flight NW8651 are Northwest flight attendants.
--==++AJC++==--

[gatt]

"devil" > wrote in message

> My understanding is that while they were operating a flight for Aeroflot,
> they were actually not an Aeroflot crew.

If the PIC was flying the plane, it wouldn't matter if he was an Aeroflot
"pilot." He's part of the crew. Similarly, if the crew aboard the Aeroflot
flight had assumed normal responsibilities of the flight crew, it can
safely be said by anybody who isn't trying to be a pedantic usenet ass that
they were the flight crew for that Aeroflot flight.

Ergo, they were at that time an active Aeroflot crew.

-c

[cj]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> safely be said by anybody who isn't trying to be a pedantic usenet ass
that
>

"pedantic usenet ass". I like that! There's at least one in every group I
read.

PUnA

-cj

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "cj" > said:
>"pedantic usenet ass". I like that! There's at least one in every group I
>read.

And if you don't see one, that means it's you, right?

(Reference to an old poker group - "If you look around the table and can't
spot the patsy, it's you.")

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
" Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. "
- Groucho Marx

[Ulf Kutzner]

AJC schrieb:

> The flight was a TU154 owned and operated and crewed by Aviaenergo. It
> just had an Aeroflot flight number. The flight attendants were paid,
> trained, and could well be fired by Aviaenergo. They were not Aeroflot
> flight attendants

Was it a code share flight or a subcontracted one?

Regards, ULF