A Cranky Jackass for the Southwest Not-So-Hotties

You might be surprised to know that it’s not just airlines that can get the Cranky Jackass award. Today, I have the pleasure of awarding it to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, the girls who say that being so hot got them banned from Southwest for life.

Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, it is. But this irresponsible piece of journalism from a Tampa news station proves that it must have been a slow news day when it happened. The girls claim that they were harassed from the moment they got on board, and at the end of the flight they were met by law enforcement and banned for life from flying Southwest. Why? Because they’re “decent looking.” Don’t believe me? Watch the video yourself, complete with camera panning head-to-toe in order to give you a good look.

Click here if video does not appear

Now, last time Southwest had a sex scandal, they ignored it and it blew up to epic proportions. The girl with the short skirt, Kyla Whats-Her-Face, even got herself invited to a Richard Branson party for Virgin America. When they finally did respond, it was a day late and a dollar short. The damage had been done. So you knew Southwest wouldn’t make that mistake again, and it was exactly their response this time that even made me consider writing about this event.

First, they put out a press release with all the facts from the point of view of the crew members involved as well as uninvolved passengers on the flight. Also, I received a quick response from Southwest spokesperson Paula Berg when I asked for more details. She immediately pointed me to an updated story from the same person who filed the original report. This one presented Southwest’s side of the story.

As you might imagine, they have a very different interpretation of events, and one that I find to be far more believable. They say the girls (or at least one of them) got angry that someone was in the bathroom so long. They pounded on the door, and when asked to stop acting that way, they refused. When the person came out, words were exchanged, at the very least. Once they landed, they took them off the plane and canceled the return on their tickets, giving them a refund for that fare. Oh, and Paula added, “the two ladies are not ‘banned’ from ever traveling on Southwest in the future.” Sounds a lot more plausible to me.

But what’s really interesting here is that they fought the YouTube video with a response video of their own from spokesperson Brandy King.

Click here if video does not appear

She may very well be a good spokesperson behind the camera, but she didn’t come off very well in front of it. The content was fine, but she fumbled and stumbled her way through the minute-long video. I still like the proactive effort, but really, the entire time I was watching this video, I kept thinking two things.

Nice strategic placement in front of the picture that says “A beautiful way to fly.” Hah.
If Southwest decided to ban pretty people from flying, Brandy King wouldn’t be able to fly her own airline

Despite the fumbling in the video, I think this was handled pretty well by Southwest. It’s nice to see them learn from their past mistakes. A look at the 900+ comments on that news story shows that most people side with the airline on this one (but definitely not all). My favorite comment? “I didn’t know Paris and Nicole were still friends?!!”

Brett

10 responses to “A Cranky Jackass for the Southwest Not-So-Hotties”

Penny

Feb 27, 2008

I ran across the item on these girls yesterday – I couldn’t agree with you more! They’ve now had their 5 minutes of “fame”, such as it is.

Reply
joe meng

Feb 29, 2008

Having seen these girls, my question is “Where are the pretty ones?”

Reply
Jamie

Mar 4, 2008

OMG! “No one else on the plane looked like us except us.” Perhaps the dumbest quote of all time!
The alternative? “The guy in seat 3A looked just like me!” AAHHHHH!

Reply
John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Mar 7, 2008

A modest bit of research about Southwest Airlines flack Paula Berg tells us this:

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2007/06/15/behind-the-scenes-blog-queen/

Now, never mind “wacky”, and “off-the-wall” – “behind-the-scenes Blog Queen” and “Nuts about Southwest” say it all for me.

So, to Paula Berg of Southwest Airlines, the airline company’s “behind-the-scenes Blog Queen”, who says, regarding the events of March 6-7, 2008, and the now-record US$10,200,000 in fines racked up by Southwest:

“…this situation was never and is not now a safety of flight issue”.
Nonsense, Paula. Cracks in airplanes? Nonsense, Paula.

I’ve been around publicists and other entertainment folk for over 20 years, and I have heard better publicity emanating from self-plugging screenwriters on acid.

And, Paula, as for:

“[t]he FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007”.

Nonsense, Paula.

It’s not “closed”, until WE the PUBLIC say it is closed! Take that back to your superiors for me – and tell them that we are just getting started.

Oh – and, congratulations on staying behind the scenes.

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Quiet Rockland

Reply
John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Mar 13, 2008

Quiet Rockland of Rockland County, New York is enraged over the callous criminal disregard for safety and human life demonstrated by Southwest Airlines (NYSE: “LUV”) and the FAA. We call for: (1) a nationwide traveler and consumer boycott of Southwest, and (2) a federal criminal investigation of Southwest and “failed regulator” FAA to be spear-headed by the United States Attorney General and a special prosecutor.

The persons that should be flying Southwest at this point, should be only those referred by Doctor Kevorkian. Although the depraved Southwest spin-machine audaciously ‘assures’ us Southwest’s six (6) cracked-fuselage aircraft were “never a safety problem”, Southwest should tell that to the victims of the 1988 Aloha Airlines disaster. There, metal fatigue on an aging Boeing 737 caused 18 feet of fuselage to be ripped off the plane causing grievous injuries and loss of life. House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar in his press conference Saturday, posted on “www.cspan.org”, presented detailed evidence incriminating Southwest and “Bobby” Sturgell’s failed FAA. The incriminating events occurred while “Bobby” Sturgell was Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator of the FAA. On Saturday, Representative Oberstar thereupon rightfully excoriated the aero-perps for their long-standing “tombstone mentality”. Although criminal and morally reprehensible, and now apparent after a many-month detailed Congressional investigation, Southwest and FAA are clearly in the insalubrious business of making those tombstones happen, in addition to simply reacting to those tombstones post facto.

As recently as last year, Southwest Airlines, with the complicity of supposed federal regulator FAA, on at least 47 of Southwest’s Boeing 737 aircraft, on between 1,451 and 60,000 flights, over a period of two-and-one-half years, deliberately put approximately 200,000 or more unsuspecting travelers in harm’s way – making them fly in un-inspected, non-compliant, aged, and in some cases fuselage-cracked commercial aircraft. Southwest knew the names and faces of their potential victims. Southwest gladly took their money, and for that matter at this point Southwest owes each of them at least a rebate in full of their ticket prices. This was not mere negligence. Irrespective of what forensic lesser charge might technically ultimately apply once further Congressional investigation concludes, the acts and omissions of Southwest and collaborator FAA were tantamount to attempted murder, on a massive scale.

This WILL not stand.

Quiet Rockland asks and encourages those Southwest employees tired of subscribing to their company’s tombstone culture, to leave their sinking airship now to find other and better employ at a responsible airline that actually acknowledges the dignity of the individual human traveler. We further ask every American consumer to now act in solidarity – cancel all flights and other business with Southwest – boycott the airline which we today re-name “Air Kevorkian” – and just say “No” to Southwest, to FAA, and to the greed of the aeromercantile complex that continually and habitually puts profits over people’s lives.

And, as to Southwest stockholders? Vote your conscience.

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Quiet Rockland

Reply
Bob

Sep 29, 2008

I just had a trip to and from Phoenix, AZ from Sacramento, CA on Southwest Airlines. I was thoroughly pleased with the handling of my reservations, boarding pass, luggage, carryons, and the in-flight crew that assisted us in flight. The flights were on time and, because no other flyers were as immature or misbehaved as the two girls who were met by authorities in LA, were peaceful and relaxing. I fly Southwest regularly and appreciate the things they do and how they do them Had they not acted as they did in the case of the two girls who, according to them, felt they were prettier than anyone else on the plane, I would question my security and comment on the poor maintenance of discipline on this flight.

Reply
K

Nov 22, 2008

Tormey is obviously unstable. Rather than an ambulance chaser, we have an airline chaser.

In other news, I particular liked the last few seconds of the first video where the girl starts to smirk at the end of her statement “I was discriminated against because of my looks.” Can’t even keep a straight face little missy? I guess the “news” had to cut away so quickly to keep up the “hard hitting storyline” feel of the piece.

Reply
K

Nov 22, 2008

Oh my, Tormey really is a sicko. I popped on over to his blogger profile (http://www.blogger.com/profile/06036321000494725113, through visiting his linked site) and he has 120 blogs, not POSTS, but FULL BLOGS, that he runs against the head of the FAA.

Are you a freaking stalker?
You are obsessed! 120 blogs
What a great life, man.
What did the FAA guy do to you?

Reply
Don Lebo

Nov 23, 2008

HA! HA! HA!

Reply
Adam

Mar 10, 2011

Those girls were “decent” looking, and very ditsy. You were right, there must have been absolutely no news going on the day that this was aired.

Reply