News and notes from around the interweb:
- Hilary Swank freaks out on family at LAX doing Make-a-Wish trip, because she thought they were tasking her picture and maybe they were?
- My daughter had her first Etihad First Apartment trips at age 4. It had to wait until then because they’d grounded their Airbus A380s during the pandemic. But by that age she was fine in her own enclosed suite (and flying back-to-back long haul, Austin – London Heathrow – Abu Dhabi). At age 3 she would probably have been fine, but I was much more comfortable in more open settings like British Airways club suite and business class on United, Air Canada, Air France, KLM et al.
It took me my whole life to sit in first class. She did it before kindergarten pic.twitter.com/hTARKa0wqM
— nindi (@nindianiq) December 10, 2025
- Hotel doormen:
The Doorman Fallacy
'You have a five-star hotel and it has a doorman, welcoming incoming guests.McKinsey or Accenture will come in and say, “Your doorman currently costs you X thousand dollars a year. We have defined his or her function as opening the door. We’ll replace said… pic.twitter.com/gDYdaXGExK
— Shane Parrish (@shaneparrish) December 10, 2025
- Okey dokey.
✈️ A flight attendant delighted the whole plane with a puppet Christmas performance
During a LOT Polish Airlines flight, passengers witnessed an unexpected show: a flight attendant pulled out a puppet wearing a St. Nicholas hat and performed a Christmas song right in the middle… pic.twitter.com/iBCAni2ICo
— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) December 10, 2025
- Passengers will never not be weird.
- One Flew South would never!
- Sorry. the correct answer is 7. It just is. This is an airplane not a dating site.
I saw this on my feed. So, what’s your answer? pic.twitter.com/ddQkq0Kwdo
— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) December 11, 2025
- Airline actually promotes that they think about the details of economy!
- Ritz-Carlton credit card loses unlimited lounge guests at Priority Pass and Chase lounges, effective January 15, 2026 – and will be limited to two guests like other premium Chase products. Surprised it took so long!
These B list celebrities better be grateful for any PR. It’s the fans that allow these narcissistic rubes to live they do. Get over yourself Swank. You’re not that relevant anymore.
Gary, on picking #7 (aisle), are you sure you wanna get kicked by the former VP all flight? I’d pick #3 window, and get up to use the restroom a lot. Gotta hydrate!
Taking photographs and video of anything that is plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right. Anyone who believes otherwise either wasn’t paying attention to that lesson in school or thinks that they should get special treatment for some reason.
When American Airlines flight crews have a puppet show featuring South Park’s Mr. Hankey, the talking Christmas Poo, similar to LOT Polish Airlines, this would be a stellar improvement over the current in-flight entertainment. Furthermore, more passengers would pay attention to the FAA-mandated pre-departure safety briefing if Mr. Hankey gave this safety demonstration behind a food trolley!
After so many political incursions into aviation stories of late, somehow a return to form of the “Scandals and Animals / WorldstarVftW” format is oddly refreshing.
Why use a fake photo?
Of course you can take pictures in public. But, I certainly understand why celebrities don’t want their kids showing up online (and I am neither a parent nor a celebrity).
Swank is a two time academy award winner. She made it clear she wanted to protect her children’s privacy after giving birth. I believe this was one of those interactions that just went sideways. The other mother didn’t understand initially. Stuff happens, and nobody was at fault. And everyone can move on.
I wouldn’t recognize Hilary Swank if she sat next to me on the plane.
Post wall, faded, former female celebrity wished she was recognized. Remember people, A list fly private.
Lots of people might not like having their or their children’s pictures taken and I’m all for being considerate, but they don’t have the right to insist on it.
The appropriate response is to ask politely not to have one’s picture taken. One hopes the request is honored but if not that needs to be the end of it.
No one has a right to expect privileges to which they are not legally entitled.
If someone doesn’t like being photographed they can stay at home, get the law changed or move to somewhere where photographing in public is restricted, such as Europe. But they don’t get to create rights that don’t exist then use the imagined right to infringe the actual rights of others.
I live in L.A., and always fly FC (im too tall to fit in the tiny child-size coach seats). “Celebrities” on flights are a normal function of life. And they fly commercial, unless someone else is paying for a charter. They are normal humans. They have kids. Homes. Lives. Drive VWs. Shop at Ralph’s. I worked in film/TV for 30 years, owning a post music and sound company. Lunch with Rob Reiner, John Turturro, Clint Eastwood, Tom Morello, David Lynch, Gus Van Sant, was just a normal week. They only fly private if someone else is paying for it. Best seatmate was LAX -ORD with Mr T. Awesome fella. Swank is a multiple Academy Award winning actress. Not a “B-lister,” lol.
Immensely awkward comments that can’t tell the difference between a “Constitutional right” and rude behavior.
Some people should go outside… at all!
@Steve. Nothing in the Constitution mentions photography. More relevant, many states BAN photography of non-familial minors even in a public space. So no, one cannot take photos of anything and everyone.
Of course nothing in the Constitution mentions photography because it hadn’t been invented yet but case law on this is well established. If you would like to understand it then Google “constitutional right to photograph in plain sight.” The article on the site 6x6portraits would be a good place to start.
The difference between a Constitutional right and rude behavior is we are bound to honor the former but can only suffer the latter.
However let’s not forget that Ms. Swank was the one who was rude. She assumed, incorrectly, that someone was trying to take a photograph of her and her children when she was simply incidental to a photograph being taken in a public place.
Indignation combined with expectation and a lack of understanding caused her to think she was being wronged when in fact she was the one wronging someone else.
No states have a blanket ban photography of non-familial members. I’m surprised anyone would suggest otherwise especially given how easy it is to establish this is false.