Airline Takes Revenge After Bad Review, Posts Passenger's Passport Online
viewfromthewing.com
viewfromthewing.com
> Recently the country manager for Aero Dili, Acacia Mota, made a post on Facebook about Cahill with some wild claims. He states that Cahill reached out before his flight, asking for a free flight, free accommodation, a food allowance, and $50,000 in cash, in exchange for a positive review.
> Those are some outrageous claims, so what proof did Mota provide? Well, instead of sharing a screenshot of the alleged extortion attempt, he shared a picture of Cahill’s passport, with all the details showing. Cahill isn’t sure how he got that picture, though it may have been from during check-in (given that there were issues), or from his arrival in the country.
0: https://onemileatatime.com/news/airline-revenge-youtuber-pas...
> Well, instead of sharing a screenshot of the alleged extortion attempt, he shared a picture of Cahill’s passport, with all the details showing
Did they share an heavily redacted version, or all the details?
Sharing an email could run afoul of local laws (it's a personal message, and by default private), however a passport is a government document.
If they did redact some important details, I think it may have been the fairest response to an attempt at extortion by a known drama king: they may have just wanted him to avoid trying to take advantage of others. Then it would not be retaliation, but trying to protect others.
I have travelled a bit, and in poor countries (though certainly not as poor as East Timor, but certainly poorer than the US) I've noticed that people care a lot about fairness, and really don't like it when privileged tourist try to take advantage of their position and the advantage their foreign income brings.
I've also noticed than when you play fair, people play very fair with you: on a restaurant when I had taken only one sip of the wine because I was driving, the waiter noticed AFTER I had paid by credit card, and issued a cash refund for the wine because they thought it was unfair to charge me for something I did not consume - and they did not accept tipping.
Then the next day when I returned the rental car and when I explained I had difficulty finding a gas station to do a full refill (the gas gage was 7/8 instead of 8/8), the refueling fee was waived - and when I took the car, the agent explained me that I should take pictures of the car (so I did!) in case there was any issue because it had a tiny scratch on one door.
Maybe I was very lucky and I stopped at a unique restaurant and Europcar agents are more friendly than others, or maybe people treat you the way you treat them: be nice, and they will reciprocate.
It would tie the name to the picture of the known extorter, so that he may be refused service.
The same thing is done is some supermarkets for people caught stealing: their picture is put on a wall of shame for all to see.
If they believe it's defamation, they can try to use the supermarket, which will then release the video evidence.
It helps keeping people honest without filling the courts with shoplifters.
In general though, do you really think the 'name and shame' approach is appropriate across borders? As this Josh Cahill discovered, some countries don't have any laws that would give you any justification to start legal action, and suing an airline from East Timor in Germany is going to be difficult both in showing standing and, if you win, actually managing to extract the damages from the defendant.
Personally, I think naming and shaming is only effective when the community is small enough for people to recognize the names, and, more importantly, only justifiable where there is no existing authority that the community submits to. In this case, the airline voluntary submits to the authority of IATA, so any attempt at naming and shaming is an attempt to bypass that authority.
It could have been a stage name, but they created a proved link between his picture and his real name
> In this case, the airline voluntary submits to the authority of IATA, so any attempt at naming and shaming is an attempt to bypass that authority
And what could have the IATA done? Very likely, nothing, or likely. If it could have done something, it could have been far worse, like putting him on a no fly list maybe?
In the end, the extorter is taught a lesson, but not too harsh of a lesson - just like shoplifters, because I don't think it would be very fair to jail someone who had to steal food to survive.
A punishment may be needed, but a very light one, and ideally to teach person a lesson to try to reform them.
I think what has happened may have been for the best for the supposed extorter: he even got the free drama he likes so much!
Is it possible to believe that a travel influencer with 700,000 subscribers (plus whatever other channel statistics matter to doing these deals with Marketing departments; number of views, watch times, number of click throughs?) would expect a free flight, some accommodation, a food allowance, and some money in return for the time and effort to do the flight, edit a video, post it? Likely yes.
Does that make it okay to post his personal details? No.
But this does seem like the definition of "Fsck around; find out", given the influencer in question has posted lots of stuff *slamming* other businesses, and they've now done it in a country where the airline's response isn't illegal, and the airline isn't covered by IATA's code of conduct, so they have no recourse.
Furthermore the rest of your comment is oddly deferential to these airline companies. One should be able to post a negative review of any corporation’s product or service. You shouldn’t have to worry about retaliation for doing this. A negative review could be in the form of a written review or a YouTube review.
Also the article talks about how this same person was banned by Qatar Airways after he posted a negative review of them.
I’m shocked you say “fuck around and find out” in response to all this in your comment. How the heck is posting a negative review of a corporation’s service considered “fuck around”? How is retaliation by the corporations part of “find out”?
Absurd
I just want to point out the ridiculousness of saying $50k is too rich for a company flying planes which require 10s of millions of dollars as an upfront investment followed by 8-$10k per plane in fuel costs alone.
So basically $50k isn’t even the fuel cost for flying a single plane from NY to LA.
Of course, it’s ridiculous that the airline posted a copy of the passport and not the messages, which is the strongest evidence that they’re lying, not that the $50k demand is too ridiculous.
It is not ridiculous to say that they might not be able to afford $50k for some random YouTuber. They certainly don't have tens of millions of dollars invested in planes. They have one plane, singular, capable of international flight. Probably they could scrape together the cash if they had to, but from a back-of-the-napkin estimate it'd be more than a week of fuel costs for their regular route-and-a-half.
I think it is important to recognize that's a predominantly Western take, and that free speech with consequences for reactions like this isn't close to a universal right today in the world.
In a lot of places, posting criticism and negative takes of things can have pretty serious ramifications, ranging from being doxxed (in this case) by a business, to at the very extreme end, your critical speech can lead to a trial, conviction, a penal colony and your death (Navalny in Russia).
What I meant with "Fsck around; find out" is the threshold for that absolutely varies by the geography. In the US (to pick an example country), as you say, this would be outrageous behavior by the airline with potentially serious consequences in either a civil or even criminal liability sense. Overseas? Potentially not so much, and I think your risk calculus as an influencer on these things (i.e. thinking about flying a small/local airline like this) needs to factor in the local atmosphere?
But devil's advocate on this bit:
> but the airline has posted no evidence whatsoever that he has asked for this. In all likelihood the airline is lying.
Phone call? Not speaking when a nod will do? Intermediary and ambiguity around that?
Why lack of paper trail is plausible: Influencers live and die by their brand, and presumably know that a solid bit of unflattering evidence (e.g., that they're selling good reviews, or running an extortion racket) can go viral, and hurt their brand badly.
Or maybe the company has evidence, but, culturally (I don't know about Qatar, but do know there are places where commerce evolved to be built upon reputations more than law&government), maybe doxxing a person in accusation is an accepted response, with the accusation implicitly backed by one's own reputation. Or the culture respects power, and this is a flex in response to being threatened. Contrast with a culture brought up in judicial process thinking, or with company structures that are designed to defend against the many legal liabilities, which might tend to think more about evidence.
Or maybe it's a mix of everyone being wrong: questionable behavior by influencer, marketing person drops the ball in handling them, negative review, internal butt-covering, communications up the chain get mangled at each step, someone receives bad information and doesn't confirm it, acts out in a way that's not internationally advisable.
I don't know what I could say about likelihoods of this particular situation, based on the info in the article and what we know about the world (even prejudices).
What's your basis for that "in all likelihood"? My gut says P('influencer' asking for free shit) is near 100%. Isn't getting free shit from corps the whole point of being an 'influencer'? They're like mercenary-shills.
Was the employee wrong? Yeah, maybe. The asshole Youtuber is free to sue them for damages. In East Timor.
When the cheesegrater Mac Pro launched in 2019, I was interested in one. I am also interested in photography. So I loved watching at least 6 or 8 videos from my favorite photography YouTubers unboxing and reviewing their launch day Mac Pro and Pro Display XDRs...
All of which they'd "ordered".
I put that in quotation marks because as I watched and rewatched these videos I noticed something: every. single. one. had exactly the same non-baseline spec: 18 core CPU, 384GB memory, Vega II Duo GPU and an 8TB SSD. And every single one had got the Pro Display XDR with the nano coating and the stand.
And it wasn't a case of "maybe that ships faster", or anything, and besides, that's a $25K setup with the screen.
Also, if you're a photographer, even if you're working on medium format digital, and 100MP images, you in no way shape or form need 384GB of memory, or that GPU - the whole thing was massively overspecced. For me, LightRoom / Capture One and Photoshop all did not break a sweat on my 12 core 192GB W5700X variant (which was mainly specced that way for other reasons).
It was pretty obvious that though they may well have ordered one, that Apple had sent them all a launch day setup, all identically specced. They could substitute theirs when it arrived and send back the other unit, or whatever.
But not one single one of them ever said anything about it.
I think most YouTube channels actually brag when Apple sends them review units. It’s a sign they’ve made it — their channel is influential enough to have been noticed by Apple. Most channels are happy to let their followers in on that.
My guess for what you’re noticing is that there’s also a (in my opinion kinda gross) trend of influencer types buying expensive kit, doing their review, and then returning within the window. In this case, it doesn’t surprise me that someone would spec out a unit well beyond their needs or means, because they don’t intend to actually pay for it.
I'd agree with that, generally. It's also true that in the photography sphere, there's a notable segment who are all about being "self-made", somewhat. That they're so successful. Their videos are "look at my new studio I'm constructing", "look at the six digits of gear I'm casually playing with", etc., to the point that for a few of them, people are quite well aware that photography is almost a sideline or hobby to them, and that their career is "YouTuber" (which is certainly valid)... it's the "when do you actually find time to do shoots?" vibe.
> My guess for what you’re noticing is that there’s also a (in my opinion kinda gross) trend of influencer types buying expensive kit, doing their review, and then returning within the window. In this case, it doesn’t surprise me that someone would spec out a unit well beyond their needs or means, because they don’t intend to actually pay for it.
What are the odds that 8 (that I found!) ordered the exact same CPU/memory/GPU/SSD spec?
If that's the spec you get when you just max out all the dropdowns, pretty high?
Pretty high. What are the odds that 8 devs that bought new MacBook Pros all choose 32GB RAM and 1TB SSD? Both specs are above the baseline config, but they are in stock for same day delivery and worth the extra cost. Upgrading further forces you to either upgrade the CPU too or wait a few more days
In my experience Apple keeps a few different configurations ready for pick up or shipping, and their return policy sounds pretty flexible (though I haven’t personally had to use it for a major purchase).
This is part of the problem. Social media sites are full of niche content that is interesting at first (when encountering it as a new topic) but rapidly devolves into the BEST, the WORST, the CRAZIEST, or way overworked micro-obsessions. I get tired of the sound of my own voice during periods of high social engagement, but most influencers, youtubers etc seem sadly immune to this, preferring instead to wring their subject material dry.
I'm not affiliated with him in any way; I post it here just as a reminder that honest travel journalism still exists if you know where to find it.
This is highly unlikely. Think about what would happen, if XX% of the passengers get food poisoning. Airplane food is probably one of the safest in the world from this perspective.
I indeed got food poisoning once on a plane. I assume (!) it was caused by food from the lounge in the airport in Addis Ababa. But not from food served in the plane.
But for sure would make a funny scene for a movie. 200 people shitting their guts out and competing for 4 toilets.
"Diarrhea, Vomiting" from your link. Trust me. I had it on a plane.
It is simply dishonest to accuse someone of food poisoning in a review unless statistics points to it (like an x amount of passenger of same flight suffering from the same symptoms).
> I indeed got food poisoning once on a plane.
and it sounds like you meant that you experienced the effects of food poisoning on a plane. But most might read that as you saying you contracted it on a plane.
Getting food poisoning and vomiting from said food poisoning are different. Most people refer to where they “got” food poisoning as the food source, not where the effects happen.
Just a wording confusion here.
Yes. Yes we did. You said “Think about what would happen, if XX% of the passengers get food poisoning.” Which kinda implies that you think it would have somehow disastrous consequences on the plane. While in reality symptomps often don’t appear fast enough for that.
You also said “Airplane food is probably one of the safest in the world from this perspective.” for which you provided no source. Is this something you speculate? Or know as a fact?
You also said “it was caused by food from the lounge in the airport in Addis Ababa”. And it is quite right pointing it out that you have almost no way you can be certain about that.
> I never said I got it on a plane.
Nobody says that you said that. We are talking about people who say they got it on the plane because that is what the influencer in question did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_food_poisoning...
"for which you provided no source. Is this something you speculate? Or know as a fact?"
Logic deduction. In the incidence above the United States Public Health Service led the investigation. Also, a plane may have to make an emergency landing. Trust me. If you run an airline. YOU DON'T WANT THAT.
"You also said "
You omitted that "I assume (!)" from my sentence. And regards to food safety I was specific about food served on air planes, not in a lounge.
"influencer in question did."
Yes. And I think this is unlikely.
> I never said I got it on a plane
You literally did say you got food poisoning on a plane.
As amusing as that image may be -- the effects of food poisoning aren't usually felt for about 6 hours. So it would only be a problem on very long international flights, if an earlier meal was to blame...
But in any case, airplane food isn't "one of the safest", it's just "regular safe". They don't have higher food safety standards than restaurants or other institutional food prep, although they probably do adhere to those standards correctly, rather than some cheap independently-owned restaurants trying to cut costs by keeping food past when it should be considered expired.
I mean, make no mistake. Most food served in airlines, as long as you are not flying Turkish Business Class :-), tastes like shit. But it is safe shit.
There are some dishes people may prefer less cooked (steaks, eggs) or uncooked (steak tartare), but airlines don't generally serve those in the first place. But even with those, there isn't any kind of tradeoff between safety and flavor. Steak tartare doesn't get tastier the longer you leave the steak lying around. Nor does sushi get tastier if the fish is starting to turn. It's quite the opposite.
There are some fermented and similar foods that can get tastier with age (cheese), but again there's generally no tradeoff with safety. As cheese ages, it may grow stronger in flavor, but it's not generally getting less safe. Conversely, when it goes bad after it's cut open and left on a warm counter, it wasn't developing flavor beforehand while sitting there.
(There might be some rare exceptions, but they're just that -- exceptions.)
https://news.sky.com/story/man-dies-on-lufthansa-flight-afte...
My first (and of cause wrong) thought would have been: Ebola! Would have been scared to death.
So, no "Snakes on a plane" but "Shitting on a plane"
And only one person getting a problem? Look, I don't know what happened. But his story is suspicious.
EDIT. But possible
“It is exceedingly unlikely for anyone to become ill from consuming a meal served on a flight, especially given the rigorous food safety standards and process controls Gategroup adheres to,” the spokesperson said in an email.
Although food poisoning on planes “absolutely happens,” said Anthony Harris, chief executive and medical director of the occupational medicine practice HFit Health, “it’s not a terribly common issue.”
My takeaway from our conversations: You’re not any more likely to get food poisoning on a flight than anywhere else. https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/tips/airplane-food-poi...
With this in mind, it appears to me even more important to foster a norm of contactless identity verification at border controls. Ideally, you should never have to let your passport leave your person, and there would be international agreements to make custody of a non-citizen's passport illegal.
If the intention is in fact to communicate some fact about the passenger to other parties in the travel sector, it does seem like it might make sense to disambiguate the passenger you’re talking about by specifying their gender and date of birth, and for that matter a stable state-issued identifier.
I am curious about what kind of headaches a passport document number could cause, though. I hear people worry about it a lot, but also I’m accustomed to places of public accommodation routinely scribbling the document number down at check-in, or photocopying the document themselves. Is the threat, like, a false visa application or something? Is it the birthday that people are worried about getting out there?
in Denmark we have had the issue that some companies issues loans solely based on social security numbers. however, the root issue is that lenders did not verify identity, and I am quite sure that companies malpracticing like this are liable themselves.
mean while, AFAIK, in Sweden social security numbers are public info - that it probably what we should aim for.
identity theft
20% of the population of East Timor is unemployed and 52.9% live on less than $1.25 a day. About half of the population is illiterate.
What is being sold as revenge by all of these airline and points websites is more likely a lack of sophistication from the employee(s) in question, and likely having more pressing concerns than this guy.
The first-world, monetised, exaggerated outrage and victim theater is sickening and for none of the reasons stated by this idiot influencer.
So? If they have been wronged they should be free to post the email where the influencer was blackmailing them. What does publishing his passport achieve other than showing that they shouldn’t be trusted with a lemonade stand, let alone with being an airline.
> likely having more pressing concerns than this guy
Probably. In that case they should solve those problems and not engage with him.
Even if it was an accident, which seems unlikely, wouldn't that vindicate the YouTuber's faux drama? See, this airline is so incompetently run that, when they complained about me, they made up shit and posted my passport instead of actual proof!
You also have no more information on the actions or intent of the youtuber than anyone, but you're defending him as the victim here, based solely on his questionable claims in the context of his fabulist videos.
We know he's the victim because his passport got posted by the airline employee. That's inexcusable even if he was extorting them or whatever - he may not be innocent, but the airline is certainly guilty. (Unless you're suggesting he's faked the whole thing and, IDK, bribed someone to post his passport picture?)
Based on the fact that the airline posted his passport on Facebook. I have not seen the videos in question and probably never will.
Let's say the airline is 100% correct and the YouTuber in question was trying to defame them for clout. That is plausible. But that still does not justify doxxing him, regardless of intent.
No, it's a fact of what happened. Intent matters less than results. This is like looking at someone who got shot and saying "maybe this was just friendly banter".