This sounds outrageous, but one should remain skeptical. Most people, in retrospect, will describe themselves as being "polite" or "calm." "No, I didn't raise my voice at all!" But these sorts of self-reports are prone to all sorts of subjectivity or bias, and I wouldn't simply take them at face value. My "calm and reasoned" could be another's "aggressive and threatening."
Not saying that the stories are necessarily inaccurate, rather, how can we really know for sure without some sort of independent confirmation? I file these under "troubling anecdotes in need of more data."
While that's true, you can equally say that the FA saw any objections as acts of aggression and in the cold light of day, the FA's had panicked for no reason.
It's certainly quite believable that FA's would behave this way: their lives are at risk and they have the power to be "cautious" (read: chuck their aggressors off the plain). They also work long hours and tiredness doesn't help with anxiety. Plus there might even be a little of the Stanford Prison Experiment at play here (they have absolute control so are psychological motivated to enforce it).
But even if you're right and those accounts are hugely biased, one question still remains: just how far are you allowed to push a complaint before you're considered a terrorist? Even in the worst case of scenarios, I couldn't see a father of 2 saying anything along the lines of "I'm going to blow this plane up" in front of his own kids when the whole reason for the disagreement was about wanting to shield them from a violent movie. So even with raised voices, why were they considered a threat.
> So even with raised voices, why were they considered a threat.
They asked to get near the pilot.. and if you think there aren't parents crazy enough to pull that in front of their kids you probably haven't heard of the westboro baptist church
I agree. While I find air travel dehumanizing, I wish people would just convey what happened without all the dramatic language like "...horrific scenes on the movie screens" and "...linger in the terminal for hours with our exhausted and terrified little boys". Going over the top in your description doesn't make the story more believable.
Not saying that the stories are necessarily inaccurate, rather, how can we really know for sure without some sort of independent confirmation? I file these under "troubling anecdotes in need of more data."