"Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need
to explain myself."
Why? The only appropriate response to being informed that you are not permitted to take pictures in a non-public space is "I understand" or simply "Okay". No explanation is necessary as it won't change the rule that the flight attendant is likely obligated to enforce. However, the author feels compelled to justify himself rather than just let it be by saying:
"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you
didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card
[offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an
almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even
aware of my blog."
This is quite ambiguous. The flight attendant is probably thinking "Oh great, here's some critic who is going to scrutinize and complain about everything I do and then write about it publicly. If he's so notorious that the guys in Chicago are aware of him, he must be bad news. Is he telling me this to try and con me into letting him take more pictures? Some disgruntled self-important writer is the last thing I need...". Imagine how the response might have been different had he said:
"Sorry about taking that picture. I just want to say that I love
United and everything you guys do. I'm really excited about being
in BusinessFirst class on this new aircraft and wanted to capture
the moment. Thanks for letting me know about the photography
restriction, though. I respect that and won't take another
picture."
But again, that whole exchange should never have happened. Then later, this gem of a sentence:
"Me: That's a lie, captain."
Ouch. Now the only way to get your way is for both the captain and the flight attendant to lose face and admit that, yes, it was a lie. What was he expecting? That the captain brings the flight attendant over and asks her "Did you lie?" where she responds "Yes, Captain, I lied about this passenger taking additional pictures because I was afraid that he might write about a negative experience with me." I could go on with how the conversation with the captain should have gone, using face-saving phrases like "she may have been mistaken" and such, but at that point the battle was long since lost.
None of this excuses the flight attendant's alleged retaliatory action. However, having the situation escalate to that point could easily have been avoided.
If this guy got kicked off a flight for taking a single picture with his iPhone, and he did not cause any other problems, then he deserves to be able to post what he did, and United deserves to be scolded for its ridiculous policies that its pilot and GS dutifully followed. A service mentality is needed.
It reminds me of an experience I had recently at Best Buy. I bought an item and immediately after paying for it, before picking it up off the sales counter, I noticed that the end of the box had been untaped and opened, so I asked if I could exchange it for another. The cashier said, "I'm sorry but you'll have to exchange it at the service desk." I argued and was able to exchange it, but was flabbergasted.
> "Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself." Why?
Because that's a very natural reaction to being accused, explicitly or implicitly, of being a bad person. (Yes, it would have simplified his life to have suppressed his emotions at this point. But I completely understand why he felt like he did.)
I'm having trouble imagining a thought process that decides that if someone may write a bad review about you, the best course of action is to kick them out.
Under every scenario I can imagine, you have now moved from "may" write bad things to "sure as hell" will write bad things.
If that was her motivation, she came up with the dumbest solution possible.
If someone put themselves between you and something you want via a lie, calling them out is actually the last option you have. While speaking of "lesson"... the captain couldn't make eye contact and the FA hid away; let's hope they learned their lessons; actual ones worth talking about.
You can draw attention to the issue without impugning the character of the person in the way. Even saying "that's not true" is better, since it doesn't unambiguously assign a negative motive.
Of course it would have been better to say it differently; that doesn't make what he said instead a justification for what happened, or that it would have changed anything.
Also, by that point his fate had probably been decided, and he might as well make his point and confront them. Perhaps they'll feel guilty; or perhaps others present will remember to push back more a little earlier.
None of this excuses the flight attendant's alleged retaliatory action. However, having the situation escalate to that point could easily have been avoided.